Customer Reviews

Aquatic Ape Hypothesis (Condor Indep Voices)

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

This is the second book by Elaine Morgan that I have had the pleasure of reading. The other one was "Scars of Evolution," and both books have been an enlightening experience.

Elaine Morgan is that rarity, a scientist who can write so that the layman can understand.

This book deals with the theory--she calls it merely an hypothesis--that early pre-hominids (our ancestors) went through an aquatic period, when they lived in shallow water, which accounts for our relatively hairless bodies, bipedal stance, subcutaneous layer of fat, eccrine sweat gland system, controllable breathing, downward pointing nostrils and other characteristics that make homo sapiens unique.

She discusses other theories put forward by paleoanthropologists and other scientists respectfully, while discussing their flaws, many of which they themselves acknowledge.

I first heard of the Aquatic Ape Theory (AAT) decades ago, when I first read Desmond Morris's book, "The Naked Ape," in which he mentioned the theory briefly. He apparently believed that our pre-human ancestors dropped out of the receding African arboreal environment, hit the savannah running, and shed their fur as they ran in order to cool off. Of course that does not account for the subcutaneous layer of fat which is more characteristic of aquatic animals like the whale, and which functions to provide both warmth and flotation. The AAT made more sense to me, and I have been on the lookout for this book ever since.

Elaine Morgan does not disappoint. Her careful reasoning is welcome and persuasive. I am delighted with both of her books and shall read her latest with interest.

Another valuable insight she shares in this book, which was of great benefit to me, was the diving reflex common to all diving mammals. She said that cold water splashed on the face reflexively causes the heart to slow down, and produces vasoconstriction. When a loved one recently experienced tachycardia, I had the opportunity to use that knowledge. A wet, cold washcloth dropped on her face instantly (within 5 seconds) reduced her 260 per minute heartbeat to a slow, steady, regular beat and saved us an ambulance trip to the hospital.

Thanks, Elaine.

Joseph Pierre

When I heard Elaine speak at Harvard University in the Spring of 1999, she held the audience in the palm of her hand. Her latest book showcases her ability to present exciting scientific material with facts as well as humor, allowing the reader to experience their own insights and come to their own conclusions about the scientific controversy of human origins. Once categorically dismissed by the scientific establishment, today many scientists and the world's leading paleoanthropologist have indicated support for her work. Many of Elaine's theories on the evolution of homo sapiens and other species (such as the elephant) have been found to contain unforeseen truths. There's a reason why her first work was an international best-seller (The Descent of Woman). Wow, can this author write.

A well written science book (a rarity) with an extremely interesting thesis; that the subspecies of ape that humans evolved from were actually in the process of adapting to the sea and that interrupted adaptation is why we are so different from other apes. She presents her theory in easily understood terms and thus allows even the layperson to easily understand her theory. The only problem with the book and the theory is the lack of concrete, physical evidence to back it up. The author's conjecture and reasoning seems sound but then again she is the one presenting it. But that is a very minor complaint, if you're looking for an extremely interesting and well written book on the origin of humanity then I would highly recommend the Aquatic Ape.

A thoroughly documented, dispassionate, and compelling argument that the reason we humans are so different from the other apes is because we led a semi-aquatic existence some millions of years ago. From our lack of fur, to our subcutaneous fat, to our descended larynx, there are just too many clues to ignore the Aquatic Ape hypothesis. If you are interested in human origins, or interested in the sea, read this book. Even if you don't agree with everything within, it'll get your neurons whizzing.

Elaine wrote this book to update the theory with the latest findings, and to answer many of the criticisms levelled at the hypothesis.

I, personally, think she did a good job. It's her most professionally laid out work to date. It's the best book on the topic that I know of. But then, I would say that - I'm her grandson :-)

I was reading her books back when I was eight and younger, and finding them fascinating reading even then. If you don't buy, then I can recommend them as good books to get from a library, too. At the very least, they'll make you think.

Elaine Morgan is a sprightly Welsh gem, that rare scientist who never went to school. She is not a doctor of any philosophy, holds no varsity chair, and I admire her more than the world for her accomplishments.

You see, I was present when Mrs. Morgan was booed by crowds everywhere. My wife and I watched with disgust as science and even the lunatic fringe of pseudo-science tried laughing her off the stage. Even my old friend Dr. Grover Krantz, may he rest in peace, hated Morgan, called her "stupid", and refused to even discuss her theory. Which, by the way, she has been forced by anthropologists to change to "aquatic ape hypothesis". Nice slap on the wrist, guys--I am N O T proud to call you my colleagues!

Morgan is readable, logical, incredibly quizzical with passion, and has given us food for thought to last generations. So far, nothing has contravened her theory in the least, and if you study this amazing book carefully, you, too, may see more light than you ever thought possible. And that is why scientists hate her: she's threatening to show their emperor has no clothes. Also, she's a tad too feminist. In other words, science persists doing to her what the Church did to Galileo...but Morgan's not recanting. THAT is bravery and integrity!

If you think in new, penetrating ways, Mrs. Morgan would be so proud of you, and the world would (eventually) thank you. Mrs. Morgan offers one last caveat to the whole Future: "Get a better idea than mine, and I'll be the first to support it." [Paraphrase, not direct quote.]

People who don't believe in Darwin's theory of evolution have a simple answer to all questions about why humans are markedly different from all other animals - God created everything. To people who believe in Darwin's theory and are interested, the questions pertaining to human evolution are intriguing and controversial. The aquatic ape hypothesis is very controversial within the scientific community but, as the author explains, it deserves serious consideration.

Most of us who believe in Darwin accept that there was once a species of ape living in Africa from which all people are descended as well as all modern apes such as gorillas and chimpanzees. Looking at the modern apes, we can observe some similarities with ourselves but there are also many obvious differences. Those apes are much hairier than us and often spend their time in trees. When they walk on the ground, they generally do so on four legs rather than two. Apes use body language far more than we do, yet our faces are much more expressive than theirs. Our noses are also very different from theirs. There are less obvious but equally important differences such as the location of the larynx. Of course, there are noticeable differences between different species of apes, but they have more in common with each other than any of them do with us.

The author suggests that there may have been a time when our ancestors were forced to adapt to a semi-aquatic lifestyle. On that basis, the likeliest scenario is that we are descended from a group of apes then living in Africa near the Red Sea, maybe around six or seven million years ago. The author doesn't mention the Sahara desert but I know from other sources that it is of more recent origin, maybe three or four million years old, so the region was very different before that. Geological changes, perhaps of a catastrophic nature, isolated these apes from the African mainland for a million years or two. During that period, they became increasingly reliant on fish and other aquatic food to supplement their diet. Initially, they navigated water simply by wading, hence the reason for walking on two legs, but they eventually learned to swim. The unusual noses they evolved, which we still have, enabled them to swim underwater for short periods. In deep water, the ability to use body language is limited (try jumping up and down in a swimming pool) so facial expressions developed.

Ultimately, whether due to further geological changes or the swimming ability that they'd acquired, the ape-men were able to return to the African mainland, eventually migrating down the Rift Valley to southern Africa. By that time, they looked very different from the apes that had been their ancestors although they didn't look exactly like us either, as more evolution of a less dramatic nature has taken place subsequently. Meanwhile, the mainland apes had followed their own evolutionary path and several different species had emerged. In the five million years plus that have elapsed since the ape-men returned to the mainland, our ancestors again adapted to a terrestrial existence but never quite lost the aquatic dimension. We may not spend much time in the water (except the minority who choose to do so) but we still eat fish and other aquatic food when we choose to.

Most of the book is taken up by an analysis of the various features of the human body that differentiate us from apes, looking at other species and noticing similarities with them. Our skin and its comparative lack of hair is more akin to whales, dolphins, elephants and domestic pigs than apes. Whales and dolphins both have terrestrial ancestors while elephants and pigs (like us) may once have had ancestors that adapted to a semi-aquatic life. The position of our larynx is comparable to that in a walrus. Our noses are not like anything found in any other creature but the nearest comparison is with a proboscis monkey, who also developed an unusual nose for use when wading. Sweat, tears and body fat all distinguish us from apes and all are discussed in detail. Walking on two legs draws comparison with some types of dinosaurs. After their mass extinction, no creatures except birds (who themselves evolved from dinosaurs beginning in the Jurassic period) ever walked primarily on two legs until our ancestors started doing so.

If the aquatic ape hypothesis is correct, it seems that our ancestors adapted quite well to a semi-aquatic life, but it must still have been very hard because they took the opportunity to return to terrestrial life when it eventually arose. After that, they must have been at some disadvantage initially compared to those apes that had continued evolving on the mainland. Perhaps those disadvantages (slowness and reduced sense of smell among them) forced them to find other survival strategies that, developed over a few million years, enabled us to become the dominant species on the planet. Those later developments including speech are outside the scope of this book, although the author points out that we could not have developed speech if our larynx position were similar to other apes.

Critics of the aquatic ape hypothesis point to a lack of definitive proof. Most books tell us that our ancestors moved directly from the forests to the open plains but this theory, also unproven, cannot convincingly explain the way we look. I look forward to the emergence of a credible alternative to the aquatic ape hypothesis that explains this, or to proof that the aquatic ape hypothesis is correct. The author provides a strong case for it. Though this book was published in 1997, it is possible to keep track of the latest research findings by surfing the net for aquatic ape.

The Aquatic Ape Theory (or Aquatic Ape Hypothesis) has been "in the air" for decades now. Some ignore it, some ridicule it, some are convinced that it's "the TRUTH" and some have never heard of it.

That's what happens in fields that jelously guard their academic perogatives, (i.e. ALL of Them, these days) It's all too easy to forget that the history of Science has quite a few "outsiders" "intruding" into areas "about which they know nothing" to great effect and advancing the field. This is called "Fresh Perspective."

The differences between Humans and the other Great Apes (And YES, we ARE Apes, deal with it. We are also Mammals,Vertebrates, Animals, and LIVING THINGS!) are morphologically, and culturally significant. They need to be addressed. Elaine Morgan has been trying to do this for years. Fighting a lonely battle against all the ossification of a field that is less than 200 years old.

I find it rather amazing how quickly a "Priesthood" has developed, complete with "Unchallengable" tennants for which there is absolutely NO PROOF, only conjecture.

This book is a summary of the AAT's answers to the problems of Humanity's "unique" distinctions from our cousins. The good, the bad, and the incomplete. This is a "work in progress" and there's a LOT of work to be done. Sadly, no University is going to sponsor it since it would gore too many "sacred cows" and so it will be left to "outsiders" until the evidence is SO overwhelmingly obvious that the Academic Elites will have to resort to the pathetic "Well, that's what WE'VE said all along!"

This is a book that explains a lot about human nature and human physiology. The hypothesis goes into details that cannot be ignored. It truly should be a required reading in anthropology and archaeology classes, and the only reason it's not is probably because the old professors are so stubborn that they won't admit that the human animal is much more unique than other apes, and the younger professors are afraid of ridicule so keep their minds focused on the prevailing theories. Luckily a few well-known scholars have given Elaine Morgan's hypothesis serious consideration, which will hopefully break the ice and allow others to follow.

A great departure from conventional academic 'black box' thinking that most likely will prove to be correct as more evidence mounts over the years. An invitation to expand thinking about human origins and life on Earth and not be confined by the taboos determined by the self-appointed 'elite' of university parasites that rule scientific establishments. To be read and re-read by anyone interested in alternative explanations to unresolved questions on the dawn of humankind.