The aquatic ape hypothesis is still supported by groups of anti-intellectuals. Professional anthropologists consider it pseudoscience because there is no evidence to support it. We are not, and never have been, aquatic apes.
One of my favourite pieces of "evidence" for AAT is the fact that hominins fossils tend to be found near water; conveniently forgetting - as my childhood dinosaur books pointed out - that watery environments are more likely to preserve animals. Books aimed at children contain enough information to disprove this evidence, yet it's still mentioned in most AAT discussions I've seen.
It was certainly disappointing to see The Guardian give this theory a platform like this. However, the backlash among the anthropological community has been strong. I just had to join in and vent!
I'd forgive him if he said it in his awesome narration voice with a panoramic view of the Serengeti as a backdrop. "Here we see an ancient landscape where our ancestors spent all day wading in rivers, eating fish and punching crocodiles in the face."
Forgive me a reddit moment: Checkmate anthropologists
There is nothing unusual about primates exploiting aquatic resources for food. Wading bipedally in shallow water and even diving underwater for aquatic plants or shellfish in freshwater and in marine environments has been observed in many monkeys and apes and, of course, is common in primitive human populations. So its certainly not a question as to whether such bipedal aquatic feeding behavior in humans and other primates is possible. The question is, is there any evidence that a primate species actually became– specialized– in such aquatic feeding behavior for an extensive period of evolutionary time and whether its possible humans could be descended from such primates. The aquatic ape hypothesis was first conceived by Oxford marine biologist, Sir Alister Hardy, back in the 1920s. But he didn’t reveal his hypothesis to the public until 1960 during a lecture and then in an article in the journal, New Scientist. Elaine Morgan first encountered the hypothesis after she read a synopsis of it in the Desmond Morris book, the Naked Ape. Then she wrote about it in her own book, the Descent of Woman in the early 1970s. Basically, Hardy’s argument was that humans became bipeds and developed a thick subcutaneous fat because they needed to wade into shallow water in order to get access to shellfish. I should note that aquatic wading is also one of the leading hypotheses for the origin of bipedalism in archosaurs (dinosaurs, birds, and crocodilians) I think its pretty obvious that Oreopithecus evolved its bipedalism as a wading adaptation for exploiting aquatic plants during its 2 million years of isolation on the ancient Mediterranean island of Tuscany-Sardinia. The lobulated medulla of the human kidney strongly suggest that humans were once specialized in consuming foods with an extremely high salt content. Since the African continent tends to be deficient in food resources with high levels of salt, human ancestors obviously evolved such kidneys along a marine coastline– probably an island, IMO. Marcel F. Williams
Yes, I understand all that. But it doesn't change the fact that there is no known hominid that has become specialized for aquatic feeding behaviour for an extensive period of evolutionary time. So any adaptive story Hardy or Morgan have proposed is just that, an adaptive story. It has no testable validity. All evidence indicates that we evolved in woodlands and savannas. So that is where theory should focus its attention.
Not true. Oreopithecus was a bipedal hominoid with a precision grip who was adapted to an aquatic setting for at least 2 million years on the isolated island of Tuscany-Sardinia in the Mediterranean. Harrison & Rook, Function, Phylogeny, and Fossils: Miocence Hominoid Evolution and Adaptations. 1997 “The remains of Oreopithecus bambolii are extremely abundant in VI, and this species represents one of the commonest mammals at the site…..Evidence for a primarily aquatic setting and a humid forested environment is provided by the extensive lignite accumulations, the common occurrence of skeletal remains in anatomical connection, the abundance of fossil crocodiles, chelonians, and freshwater mollusks, and the occurrence of otters…..The area was evidently poorly drained, and the forested areas were interspersed with numerous freshwater pools and shallow lakes. pg 335 “Interestingly, there is also a corresponding decline in the abundance of Oreopithecus in V2, which might simply imply a relatively narrow ecological preference by this taxon for swampy, forested habitats.” pg. 336 “Another possibility is that Oreopithecus was exploiting aquatic or wetland plants, such as water lilies, reeds, sedges, cattail, pond weeds, horsetails, and stoneworts, all of which are abundantly represented in the pollen spectrum from Baccinello.” pg. 341,
Let me rephrase myself, no known hominid has become specialized for aquatic feeding behaviour for an extensive period of evolutionary time that has relevance for the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis as it applies to modern humans. As far as we know, all of our ancestors over the past 6-8 million years lived in woodlands, savannas, and maybe rainforests.
You mean hominin. And Hurzeler and others have suggested that Oreopithecus was a hominin. Cranio-dentally, Oreopithecus is extremely similar to Sahelanthropus. And it had a foot that was similar to that of Ardipithecus. The last semiaquatic phase ended approximately 2.6 million years ago, IMO. They are the result of island isolation. I should also note that humans have kidneys like marine mammals. Humans are the only Catarrhine primate that has kidneys with medullary pyramids, a feature that is nearly universal in the kidneys of marine mammals. Marcel F. Williams
I just heard of it today, but the theory is sure pretty seductive: having only one cause for various traits. The Ted talk linked in the guardian article add some nice "explanation":
Thanks for your debunking anyway Pachyderm (animal with no fur) like elephant, and rhinoceros are all proven animals
with aquatic ancestor . Is this right? It 's a contrary argument to yours:human should
revert to "normal" once they leave the water to walk on savanna.
We can speak because of respiration control. No other primate have respiration control, while aquatic bird and such have it.
Elephants and rhinoceros may have aquatic ancestors but that does not prove that humans did. We (presumably) have fossils of aquatic elephants and rhinoceros, but there are no ancient aquatic hominids. If there were ancient aquatic hominids then we could start theorizing about what adaptations we acquired in an aquatic niche (and then a terrestrial niche). But if we make up the adaptations first, assuming that an aquatic ancestor existed, then we are just creating a fictitious evolutionary tale. Furthermore, anthropologists already have well-developed theories for why humans lost their hair, became bipedal, developed large brains, etc. These theories have been tested and match the empirical evidence in the fossil record - unlike the aquatic ape hypothesis.
You've never heard of the swamp ape, Oreopithecus bambolii?????? Marcel F. Williams
Actually, it was probably twice. Approximately-- two million years-- feeding on freshwater aquatic plants and shellfish on the isolated Miocene island of Tuscany-Sardinia. The second phase probably occurred in isolation on an island off the coast of Africa for nearly three million years during the Pliocene, feeding mostly on marine shellfish and what little grew on the island itself. For approximately, the last 2.6 million years, Homo has essentially been a tool using terrestrial hunter-gather with some populations still exploiting coastal marine resources. So for the approximately 8 million years that hominins have probably been bipedal, five million have been spent during two semiaquatic phases-- at least along the line that led to Sahelanthropus, Ardipithecus, and Homo. Marcel F. Williams