Aquatic Apes

Someone calling himself "Scylla" decided to try waterboarding himself on an experimental basis to see if he thought it should qualify as torture:

I'll put it this way. If I had the choice of being waterboarded by a third party or having my fingers smashed one at a time by a sledgehammer, I'd take the fingers, no question.

It's horrible, terrible, inhuman torture. I can hardly imagine worse. I'd prefer permanent damage and disability to experiencing it again. I'd give up anything, say anything, do anything.

Seth Roberts read the account and made some musings about human evolution:

This shows something non-obvious: We are hard-wired to avoid drowning and like all good safety systems, the system kicks in well before damage occurs.

For such a system to evolve, humans must have spent a lot of time in water deep enough to drown in. We don’t now, of course. The sheer fact of Scylla’s post — the fact that waterboarding is torture isn’t obvious — shows this.

All this — Scylla’s initial ignorance, what he experienced and concluded — is consistent with the aquatic ape theory of human evolution and inconsistent with alternatives to that theory (e.g., the savannah theory), which assume no long aquatic phase. Belief that the aquatic ape theory was probably true was one reason I started omega-3 self-experimentation, which led to the discovery of very clear experimental effects.

Well, someone else read that post and used Google Reader's new "share" function to flag it and then I read the post and though I already knew waterboarding was torture, I'd never heard of the Aquatic Ape hypothesis before so I've been looking into that (it seems that most scientists reject it for what sound to me like good reasons) ... all in all an excellent way to waste some time while semi-watching the Giants play the Bills.

Comments

291 yards rushing, and two pick-sixes.

Eli who? ;)

Posted by Thlayli | December 23, 2007 4:38 PM

Well, someone else read that post and used Google Reader's new "share" function to flag it and then I read the post and though I already knew waterboarding was torture, I'd never heard of the Aquatic Ape hypothesis before so I've been looking into that (it seems that most scientists reject it for what sound to me like good reasons) ... all in all an excellent way to waste some time while semi-watching the Giants play the Bills.

...

How drunk are you right now?

Posted by JB | December 23, 2007 5:08 PM

I'm afraid of burning. Maybe the first humans lived next to lava flows.

For a scientist Robert's sure isn't very scientific. "For such a system to evolve, humans must have spent a lot of time in water deep enough to drown in." This is a theory stated as a fact. I could come up with many theories why humans seem to have an innate fear of drowning. For instance most mammals are afraid or wary of water.

Posted by rapier | December 23, 2007 5:11 PM

No credible paleoanthropologist -- none -- buy the aquatic ape theory. Among many other things, it flies in the face of the fossil evidence that shows that hominids evolved on arid African plains.

We are hardwired to avoid drowning because we are a terrestrial vertebrate, and that hardwiring long predates the emergence of primates, because drowning makes us die.

Our earlier primate ancestors WERE arboreal, at a time when Africa was much more forested than it is now. And yet, credibly threatening to throw your suspected terrorist out of the door of an airplane at 10,000 feet will also get him to talk. That ought not to work by the reasoning of the maroon who wrote that post.

Posted by Ba'al | December 23, 2007 5:36 PM

More of this discussion should be grounded in direct evidence. CNN did a segment recently where a former marine had himself waterboarded in a setting similar to a US detentionscenter. It was instantly obnvious watching that this was an evil practice that no decent person would want anything to do with.

The aquatic apre hypotehsis does seem to be rejected by scientists, which is too bad, becasue it realyl ought to be true. I mean look at all the anatomical features we share with (and only with) aquatic and semi-aquatic mammals:

- hairlessness
- subcutaeous fat (think of eating duck vs. chicken)
- conscious control of breathing
- mechanisms (sweat, tears) to get rid of excess salt

And so on. You should check out Elain Morgan's Scars of Evolution; it's a really fascinating hypothesis even if it turns out to be untrue.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | December 23, 2007 5:55 PM

More of this discussion should be grounded in direct evidence. CNN did a segment recently where a former marine had himself waterboarded in a setting similar to a US detentionscenter. It was instantly obnvious watching that this was an evil practice that no decent person would want anything to do with.

The aquatic apre hypotehsis does seem to be rejected by scientists, which is too bad, becasue it realyl ought to be true. I mean look at all the anatomical features we share with (and only with) aquatic and semi-aquatic mammals:

- hairlessness
- subcutaeous fat (think of eating duck vs. chicken)
- conscious control of breathing
- mechanisms (sweat, tears) to get rid of excess salt

And so on. You should check out Elain Morgan's Scars of Evolution; it's a really fascinating hypothesis even if it turns out to be untrue.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | December 23, 2007 5:58 PM

More of this discussion should be grounded in direct evidence. CNN did a segment recently where a former marine had himself waterboarded in a setting similar to a US detentionscenter. It was instantly obnvious watching that this was an evil practice that no decent person would want anything to do with.

The aquatic apre hypotehsis does seem to be rejected by scientists, which is too bad, becasue it realyl ought to be true. I mean look at all the anatomical features we share with (and only with) aquatic and semi-aquatic mammals:

- hairlessness
- subcutaeous fat (think of eating duck vs. chicken)
- conscious control of breathing
- mechanisms (sweat, tears) to get rid of excess salt

And so on. You should check out Elain Morgan's Scars of Evolution; it's a really fascinating hypothesis even if it turns out to be untrue.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | December 23, 2007 5:59 PM

In the spirit of Bill Hicks, the writers' strike affords the opportunity for me to sell my pilot: the working title is 'Let's Kidnap And Waterboard Apologists For Torture'. We can even have a science bit on the autonomic drowning response.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | December 23, 2007 6:46 PM

No credible paleoanthropologist -- none -- buy the aquatic ape theory. Among many other things, it flies in the face of the fossil evidence that shows that hominids evolved on arid African plains.

But how many support the Geocentric Universe Theory?

As an amateur aquatic ape apologist (hairlessness, blubber, water friendly nose, dive reflex, possibility that evolved on land then water, and what have you, for starters), I would have to agree that waterboarding doesn't support (or refute) the AA theory one bit.

Posted by ed | December 23, 2007 7:50 PM

Matt's occasional Atlantic colleague Mark Bowden (look up his great article about the ill-fated Iranian hostage rescue mission) wrote an op/ed in today's Philadelphia Inquirer about waterboarding: "In Defense of Waterboarding". An excerpt:

"It is an ugly business, and it is rightly banned. The interrogators who waterboarded Zubaydah were breaking the law. They knew they were risking their careers and freedom. But if the result of the act itself was a healthy terrorist with a bad memory vs. a terror attack that might kill hundreds or even thousands of people, it is a good outcome. The decision to punish those responsible for producing it is an executive one. Prosecutors and judges are permitted to weigh the circumstances and consider intent.

Which is why I say that waterboarding Zubaydah may have been illegal, but it wasn't wrong."

Posted by Fred | December 23, 2007 8:39 PM

Which is why I say that waterboarding Zubaydah may have been illegal, but it wasn't wrong."

This is the tack the wannabee Jack Bauers want to take. They want to be thought of as "outside the law" to burnish their self-images as rugged, independent badasseses. These are precisely the people who deserve the label "wankers." Fucking wankers.

Posted by ed | December 23, 2007 9:01 PM

"The aquatic apre hypotehsis does seem to be rejected by scientists, which is too bad, becasue it really ought to be true."

If we're going to enjoy bullshit paleoanthropology, I prefer the ancient astronaut theory to the aquatic ape theory. That's a theory that profoundly ought to be true.

In any case, paleoanthropology is a fascinating topic. It's worth remembering from time to time that we're a tribe of chimps who in the blink of an eye got smart and organized enough to fly to the fucking moon.

And tangentially, it's also worth noting just how much we've learned about pre-history in the past couple of centuries. Two hundred years ago, we didn't even know of the existence of dinosaurs. Now we not only know lots about them, but we know exactly when they lost control of the lands of the Earth and were exiled to the skies, how it happened, where the asteroid hit in Mexico, and we can even pinpoint the asteroid in space from which the piece that hit the Yucatan came from.

Posted by Petey | December 23, 2007 9:05 PM

As the song says, it's hard out here for an Australopithecine.

Posted by Petey | December 23, 2007 9:41 PM

Apropos of nothing else, Douglas Adams was very big on the Aquatic Ape Theory. This was a big topic in the late, possible unlamented talk.origins group, amongst others.

Posted by matt | December 23, 2007 9:57 PM

Among many other things, it flies in the face of the fossil evidence that shows that hominids evolved on arid African plains.

Well, plains that are arid *now*, but were swamplike or completely submerged when the animals who left those fossils were actually alive.

It's the Savannah Hypothesis that is laughable: "Humans lost their hair because Africa is really hot. But arid lands get cold at night so to keep warm humans developed a thick layer of blubber--I mean, white fat that adheres to skin, rather than brown fat that adheres to the bodily cavity. But that layer of blubber caused humans to overheat when they ran around so they developed a unique sweating system. But that sweating system caused humans to lose too much salt, so their glands evolved to something completely different than all other land mammals. But thoses glandular changes caused circulatory problems so human legs evolved valve-like constructions in the legs' blood vessels. It's perfect!" Etc. etc.

Posted by Notorious P.A.T. | December 23, 2007 10:00 PM

lemuel:
Pretty much all terrestrial mammals have sweat glands. Furthermore, the purpose that sweat serves in humans is unneeded in any aquatic mammal, which is always cooled by the water environment. Indeed, the function of human sweat glands is offered as evidence against the aquatic ape hypothesis.

Hominid evolution is fairly well understood geographically. Human ancestors clearly lived in Africa: we have the fossil evidence. The aquatic ape hypothesis has no supporting fossil evidence. Any the theory really needs to squish all of this "aquatic phase" in the 4-5 million year period since the divergence date from chimpanzees.

Until some fossils are found, this seems like nothing more than idle speculation. I would hardly call it a theory.

Posted by Whispers | December 23, 2007 10:00 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis

I mean, come on. Look at some of those counter-claims. "Apes swing from their arms, which is the same as bipedalism." Oh, so I suppose that everyone here can swing through trees by their arms about as well as they can walk.

Posted by Notorious P.A.T. | December 23, 2007 10:04 PM

I believe Notorious P.A.T. may well be an Australopithecine.

Posted by Petey | December 23, 2007 10:10 PM

"These are precisely the people who deserve the label "wankers." Fucking wankers."

This is your refutation of a thoughtful op/ed by one of today's best journalists? Stay classy, Petey.

Posted by Fred | December 23, 2007 10:10 PM

You might want to double-check your citations there, Fred. Stay dumby.

Posted by Petey | December 23, 2007 10:12 PM

Human ancestors clearly lived in Africa: we have the fossil evidence.

Aquatic Apers also suggest that humans lived in Africa. Along the east coast of what is now dry land.

And it's not idle speculation, it is a pretty coherent (and non-Faith based!) explanation for some specific human characteristics (i.e., hairlessness, blubber, and a whole bunch of other shit previously noted).

But I agree that fossils would help.

Posted by ed | December 23, 2007 10:12 PM

This is your refutation of a thoughtful op/ed by one of today's best journalists? Stay classy, Petey.

Dude, that was ed, not Petey.

Posted by southpaw | December 23, 2007 10:13 PM

"monkeys kept in captivity and fed a special diet [i.e., one completely different from anything they would ever eat in their natural setting] they become fat like humans are."

Well shoot, so much for that theory!

"Fat distribution in humans corresponds with developing via sexual selection [sic] and as a luxury evolved from having a lack of predators."

As we all know, all humans in all cultures find the same physical qualities attractive, and that has never changed.

Oh, and guess what, all the millions of people who have been murdered throughout human history? Humans have no predators! Isn't that great?

Posted by Notorious P.A.T. | December 23, 2007 10:20 PM

"And (the aquatic ape theory is) not idle speculation, it is a pretty coherent (and non-Faith based!) explanation for some specific human characteristics (i.e., hairlessness, blubber, and a whole bunch of other shit previously noted)."

Indeed. The only problem is that it doesn't seem to be, like, true.

And if we're going to enjoy untrue paleoanthropological theories, I again put forth the ancient astronaut theory as being quite compelling and coherent.

Posted by Petey | December 23, 2007 10:23 PM

the purpose that sweat serves in humans is unneeded in any aquatic mammal, which is always cooled by the water environment

Absolutely right. On the other hand, there are different *kinds* of sweat. The human body is covered from top to bottom with the kind of sweat that other apes have on the palms of their hands. In other words, human beings look like an animal that began to live in a watery environment and lost their ability to sweat, only to find that environment dry up, forcing evolution to jury-rig a new sweat system from the pitiful remnants that remained.

The aquatic ape hypothesis has no supporting fossil evidence.

Other than:

1) The fossils of humanity's earliest ancestors were found in places that were swamppy and/or flooded when the animals that left those fossils were alive

2) The human fossil record forced the discarding of the savannah-only theory of human evolution, since it was once believed that human intelligence and bipedalism evolved in tandem; we now know that not to be the case.

3) The fossils that point directly to humans developing an upright two-legged posture because of a move to the savannah rather than a move to swampland are as follows:

Posted by Notorious P.A.T. | December 23, 2007 10:30 PM

But I agree that fossils would help.

I like fossils as much as anyone, but they are clearly not the only game in town anymore. For instance, comparing the human genome with that of other apes gives us at least as clear a picture of when our species "branched off" as does the study of fossils.

Posted by Notorious P.A.T. | December 23, 2007 10:35 PM

Meet the animal that walks most like a human, the (semi-aquatic) proboscis monkey:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proboscis_monkey

Posted by Notorious P.A.T. | December 23, 2007 10:48 PM

Meet the animal that walks most like a human, the (semi-aquatic) proboscis monkey:

And check out its nose, which opens downward. Only one other primate's schnoz is so directed.

Posted by ed | December 23, 2007 10:53 PM

- hairlessness
- subcutaeous fat (think of eating duck vs. chicken)
- conscious control of breathing
- mechanisms (sweat, tears) to get rid of excess salt

I'm Jim Moore, aka QrazyQat, or anthrosciguy on some forums. I have the web site critiquing the AAT linked to above. (The site has been used as a source for The Straight Dope, the Fortean Times, and lately a fair number of college courses; I've also written the entry on the AAT for the Sage Encyclopedia of Anthropology). It has answers to all your questions, but it's a big site so I'll answer in brief here.

Hair patterns in humans is a sexually selected trait, the opposite of aquatic mammals which have little or no hair (and that trait is very rare among aquatic and semi-aquatic mammals, contrary to the AAT claim). You can see that human hair patterns bear the classic characteristics of sexual selection: they vary between peoples, differ radically between the sexes, and change radically right at puberty. Several other human traits that the AAT claim are due to environment (sebaceous glands and fat patterns for instance) are also classic examples of sexual selection.

The salt tears and sweat info in Morgan's books is dead wrong, and the reason that Elaine Morgan left that out of her last book (with a false claim that it was due to newly discovered info) is that I repeatedly informed her, with references and rather lengthy explanations, that it was wrong in newsgroup coversations in the 1990s. However, all the info that showed it was wrong was actually in the sources she had originally used for her earlier books, which means she did a poor job of getting the facts right. MY iste has a lot of info on salt, sweat, and tears, so let me here merely point out one fact against it. It contradicts well-known and long established principles of physiology (and physics, for that matter). Neither sweat or tears in humans can produce a hypertonic solution, that is, saltier than the solution in plasma. This means both are incapable of being used as an excretory organ in terms of salt (tears are hypertonic to some other substances that do not support the AAT; more on my site).

Fat patterns in humans are sexually selected, classically so: they vary between peoples, differ radically between the sexes, and change radically right at puberty. Our fat patterns are also the same as in non-human primates which are allowed to get fat. Typically, wild animals don't get too fatty because, even though being fatty is great for lean times, it slows down the animal and makes them more subject to predation. So a lot of fat is only seen in animals where it's super necessary or where they have few predator problems. We see this, for instance, in closely related animals where one population lives in a relatively predator-free environment; that population tends to be fatter. Humans have, for many tens or hundreds of thousands of years, lived in a relatively predator-free enviroment, unusual for such enviroments because it's not due to a specific place (like an island) but portable, because it's due to our relatively advanced weaponry -- spears and such -- and use of fire.

Our degree of concious control of breathing is a lucky side effect of bipedalism. In quadrupeds the forelimbs are used for locomotion and this restricts the conscious control of breathing, at least to the extent we have it. Not using our forelimbs for locomotion freed up the muscles around the diaphram and allowed for greater conscious control of breathing, which also led to better speech, which in turn led to feedback for greater control of breathing, because the ability to produce more effective vebalization meant greater selection pressure for this control.

If you have any questions, my site is Aquatic Ape Theory: Sink or Swim? and there's a feedback mailto link at the bottom of each page. Feel free to ask me anything I haven't made clear.

Posted by QrazyQat | December 23, 2007 11:05 PM

"I like fossils as much as anyone, but they are clearly not the only game in town anymore"

But the fossil record actually confirms your thesis.

Posted by Petey | December 23, 2007 11:05 PM

A couple more points, since I see that while I was writing up my commnet, several fallacies were brought in. I know these fallacies aren't the fault of the people who brought them up, it's just that the proponents of the AAT have produced a lot of what Darwin referred to as "false facts" and as he pointed out, these often "endure long".

The nose of the proboscis monkey is a sexually selected feature, radically different in males than in females and youngsters, and is not much like a human nose at all, except in the most superficial way.

There is no "svanna hypothesis" except in the claims of AAT proponents. That is, while the AAT is environmentally deterministic, the ideas within paleoanthropology are not. That is, the AAT attempts to claim that we, the supreme enviromental generalists in the animal kingdom, became that way via adpatation to a spcific, and radical, enviroment. This doesn't make sense. Mainstream ideas about human evolution deal with social interaction and food-getting, and show how this allowed us to live in many different environments, including savannas among many others.

Lastly, the subject of taphony, when, where, and how things get fossilised, is yet more evidence against the AAT. The shorelines and shallows where AAT proponents insist we lived all the time are great places to get fossilised; animals which actually lived there leave huge numbers of fossils. Hominids, OTOH, have left relatively few. If we had been living as AAT proponents insist we'd have warehouses filled with hominid fossils -- they'd sell them on Ebay instead of guard them like diamonds. And we have many hominid fossil sites which are not near water (which AAT proponents studiously ignore).

Posted by QrazyQat | December 23, 2007 11:17 PM

Typically, wild animals don't get too fatty because, even though being fatty is great for lean times, it slows down the animal and makes them more subject to predation.

Well, that and the fact that, unlike humans, they're covered with fur. Is this why whales don't get too fatty?

Posted by ed | December 23, 2007 11:49 PM

The nose of the proboscis monkey is a sexually selected feature, radically different in males than in females and youngsters, and is not much like a human nose at all, except in the most superficial way.

Yes, it points down in a curiously aquatic-friendly direction.

Posted by ed | December 23, 2007 11:55 PM

"Yes, it points down in a curiously aquatic-friendly direction."

Proboscis monkeys have noses that are like divining rods?

Posted by Petey | December 24, 2007 12:55 AM

"Pretty much all terrestrial mammals have sweat glands."

Yes, except for dogs, cattle, cats, pigs, bears, rhinos... shall I go on? Although the mammary glands are modified sweat glands, the only mammals that have eccrine sweat glands (the ones that really sweat) all over their bodies are primates and horses. Others have sweat glands in specific spots (usu. the nose and pads of the feet).

Posted by The Frito Pundito | December 24, 2007 1:43 AM

Two hundred years ago, we didn't even know of the existence of dinosaurs.

Depends on your definition of "know." Humans have been finding weird bones inside rocks for pretty much all of recorded human history -- where do you think all of those myths about unicorns and dragons came from, all of which conveniently died before the teller's lifetime? We've been studying them scientifically since the Enlightenment -- the term "fossil" referring to the geological remains of a plant or animal dates from 1732, which is a bit more than 200 years ago.

Humans have been observing and testing nature for several hundred thousand years -- the fact that we've developed enough technology to determine what those observations are actually showing us is the only recent development.

Posted by Mnemosyne | December 24, 2007 2:30 AM

Mr. Yglesias, you have accidentally wandered into a s**t-storm and I strongly advise you to direct this thread elsewhere. Elaine Morgan (a Welsh screenwriter) discovered an old thesis by Alistair Hardy called 'Was Man More Aquatic In the Past' and used it in a pretty good popular book called The Descent of Woman. Because she was a screenwriter and not a scientist, she made every mistake known to humankind in presenting her information and got crucified for it. She tried to correct her presentation (and some logical) mistakes in 'The Aquatic Ape,' 'The Descent of the Child' and 'The Scars of Evolution' but the political lines had been drawn.

As noted above, there are physical features of humans that gave rise to the theory--the shape of our noses, the type and placement of subcutaneous fat, the diver's reflex (bradycardia), etc. There are behavioural characteristics that at first glance seem a logical outgrowth of a littoral, if not fully aquatic period in our evolution.

There are also alternative explanations for each of those features and characteristics. But the battle is ugly, full of ad hominem attacks etc.

It's the reason for the 100% full on attack on the AAT that is fascinating. At the time it came out, Eric Von Daniken had just been making millions on his Chariots of the Gods series, and some scientists thought Morgan was trying to get rich. But more importantly, the theory of evolution itself was being attacked by Christian fundamentalists and science... just... didn't... need... the distraction while trying to defend itself from the idiot squad. So poor Ms. Morgan's theory basically needed to be squelched, and was.

Last time I looked at it, the issue wasn't 100% settled, but most scientists are agin' it. But you've started a political discussion more than a scientific one--so either read up quickly or be prepared for vitriol--Bjorn Lomborg has gotten off lightly compared to what happened to Morgan.

Posted by Tom Fuller | December 24, 2007 3:59 AM

The concept that a bit of physically harsh interrogation is worthwhile if it can stop massive loss of life fits right in with the moral question I recall from high school: if you knew that killing a little girl would save the lives of millions, would you do it?

Obviously, the moral quandary was baloney, unless we're talking a "28 weeks" scenario, and it artificially restricted one's options.

Scylia's research reminds us why evidence obtained via torture is often useless. Using 20/20 hindsight, you can cherry pick instances where it worked. Before the fact, you might as well flip coins to decide which victim is going to give you reliable intelligence.

This brings us back to the idea that there's no substitute for traditional police detective methods. An example is illustrated by a July 10th, 2006 article (abstract) in the New Yorker, regarding the efforts of FBI agent Ali Soufan as he followed up on the bombing of the USS Cole in Aden Harbor.

Posted by cmholm | December 24, 2007 6:06 AM

I'm pretty sure that if I figured out how to waterboard a cat, the cat would freak the hell out based on the cat's instinctual fear of drowning. Would this support the Aquatic Cat Theory?

Posted by owenz | December 24, 2007 10:19 AM

the only mammals that have eccrine sweat glands (the ones that really sweat) all over their bodies are primates and horses.

This is simply untrue. Horses have apocrine sweat glands, as do most quadrupeds, and some primates have more eccrine sweat glands than other mammals, but humans defintely have the most. The other primates who have a lot of eccrine sweat glands are African apes and some savanna-dweeling monekys, such as baboons and patas monkeys. Animals with apocrine sweat glands sweat just fine, except that apocrine glands have to recharge (refill, essentially) after a while, while eccrine sweat glands can go on and on. This is the reason that humans can engage in persistence hunting, where they run down much faster animals in the heat of day by outlasting the animal and forcing it to keep sweating until it can't anymore and has to slow down from heat exhaustion.

The diving reflex, it should be noted, is found in all animals, and varies in strength from animal to animal depending on the degree to which they have evolved as a diving species. Humans are in the terrestrial end of the scale.

The reason for the "attack" on the AAT (it's always either an attack or ignoring according to AAT fans -- how can one both attack and ignore at the same time?) is that it has always been argued, from its beginnings to the present, with false "facts", altered quotes, stating that researchers said the opposite of what they actually said, and gross misunderstandings of evolutionary theory. Should something like that really be accepted?

Posted by QrazyQat | December 24, 2007 10:51 AM

"In Defense of Waterboarding"

What always kills me (well, not literally) are these types that support torture, Gitmo, etc. but literally cry if their candidate is asked a "qweschun" by a Democrat at a debate. Oh, the malaise!

Q: Without waterboarding, how would you know if you've got a man responsible for the deaths/displacement of hundreds, thousands and maybe even millions of innocents, or a semi-retarded lackey that is barely capable of making travel arrangements for the real mastermind and who will lie impulsively?

A: With Bush, you get both in one!

Posted by Harry R. Sohl | December 24, 2007 11:34 AM

Qrazy,

I'm sure you're right on the science (and I've learned a lot from your posts -- thanks!) But is it really so awful to enjoy talking about AAT as a cool idea that turned out to be wrong?

Posted by lemuel pitkin | December 24, 2007 12:37 PM

It's a nifty story, although it didn't exactly "turn out to be wrong"; rather it was obviously wrong from the first moment it was thought up. It didn't match the facts and depended on mangling data. So, by all means enjoy talking about it as a nifty little fable, like ghost stories or GW Bush's massive budget surpluses washing away debt, but enjoy it as it is -- an untrue story -- rather than pretend it was ever viable.

Posted by QrazyQat | December 25, 2007 10:41 PM

It's obvious that human ancestors have been waterside, in savannas & elsewhere, since the split with chimpanzees: most features in which humans differ from chimpanzees are typically found in waterside mammals. Up-to-date discussions of AAT can be found at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT.

Posted by Marc Verhaegen | December 30, 2007 7:22 PM

Sorry to add a comment so late in the game, but since Marc Verhaegen showed up I feel I should point out that the degree to which Verhaegen's claims can be relied on can be seen at my site's page on him (direct link) and his online style, as I mention on my site:

Online, besides his numerous insults in several languages, he commonly makes comparisons of himself and/or the AAT/H to Wegener (starting with his very first online post, after only a few days online), and he also commonly makes more offhand comparisons of himself and/or the AAT/H to Darwin, Galileo, and Einstein, as well as comparing the AAT/H theory to Copernicus').

Posted by QrazyQat | January 6, 2008 10:41 AM