Customer Reviews

The Scars of Evolution

5 star:		(12)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

I think Elaine Morgan has got it right!

RiverForest Press, in Bainbridge Island, Washington, recently sent me a review copy of the book, "The Passionate Ape," by Craig Hagstrom... In it, he gave a favorable mention to Elaine Morgan's books, "The Aquatic Ape," and "The Descent of Woman." I ordered both from Amazon.com, but also ordered "The Scars of Evolution" since it was most readily available. The reason for my interest was that she apparently advocates the Aquatic Ape Theory (AAT) which I have thought to be the only reasonable theory that adequately explains our relatively hairless bodies, bipedal stance, subcutaneous layer of fat and several other characteristics, since first I heard of it in a very brief mention in Desmond Morris's book, "The Naked Ape," many years ago.

When Morris said, and apparently believed, that our early ancestors dropped from the trees of their receding arboreal African habitat and hit the savannah running, shedding their fur as they ran to cool off, I thought the idea ludicrous. If that were so, why would they keep their layer of subcutaneous fat, the only purpose of which is warmth? And, if speed were their goal, why go bipedal. The fastest animals on earth are quadrupeds, and are covered with fur. Compared to quadrupeds, bipeds are slow and clumsy.

This book is the exposition of the aquatic ape theory for which I have been looking ever since. It is a masterful illumination of the theory, addressing elements that I had not even considered. Morgan, whose educational background and formal training in anthropology are not mentioned in the book, sad to say, is quite obviously highly qualified to comment. Her evident knowledge of anthropology and paleontology is exceeded only by her extensive knowledge of human physiology. She speaks with the easy assurance of a physician on arcane subjects such as the sebaceous glands, the vermiform appendix, sweat glands and the spine and her statements are easily checked for veracity, and obviously highly germane to the subject.

It is rare to find such a slim volume (less than 200 pages) with so much information.

Morgan points out that which should be obvious to any thinking person: evolution does not have any goal, it is rather reactive to the environmental forces brought to bear on the organism. Furthermore, not all evolutionary changes redound to the long-term advantage of the species. The organism, and the species, seeks only survival in the current circumstance. Whatever mechanism for survival works, over time, becomes the favored one for the group. Over hundreds or thousands of generations, the changes in the organism that result are what we call evolutionary.

The Aquatic Ape Theory postulates a re-entry period for that group of primates that became our early ancestors. Probably, it is theorized, they lived in shallow water when their environment was inundated, and after a long time returned to a terrestrial lifestyle. The theory explains much that is inexplicable by the so-called "Savannah Theory" so dear to the hearts of most anthropologists.

This is an exciting book, well written and well-thought-out.

Joseph Pierre

Many years ago I read Elaine Morgan's Descent of Woman and was surprised at its quality and amused at her parody of the speculations by the traditional anthropologists, as found in the best sellers by Morris, Audry, and Lorenz, on the origins of us humans as humans. The anthropologists had seemed unimaginative and not altogether logical in their speculations on the environment and behavior of our immediate predecessors-- in a word, they seemed klutzy. Now I read Scars and realize that Ms. Morgan was not doing a parody but sincerely developing an alternative explanation centered on the Aquatic Ape Theory. This more mature work has facts that will grab you and ideas that will stick with you. Ms. Morgan is a writer and the book is written for all of us, so it reads well. But what makes this an outstanding book are two things: 1.She systematically puts together many facts and ideas, some highly speculative, some inarguably true, some striking, some pedestrian, into a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts and therefore logically dificult and perhaps impossible to refute. 2.She systematically addresses each alternative argument and each argument that has been used to attack her ideas and counters it. Do not be misled; this slight, easy to read book by a non-professional anthropologist is important. The anthropologists in this area have a history of internal strife marked by dogmatism and contentiousness. You can bet they react in this way toward Ms. Morgan, although they prefer to ignore her, a non-professional anthropolgist. But after Scars they may not be successful, and anything you can do-- such as asking questions of anthropologists and questioning the answers you get-- will be a plus. For her ideas deserve full and careful consideration and a scientific search for evidence that will support or abolish them.

Elaine Morgan, the successful Welsh screenwriter, has made a second career out of defending the Aquatic Ape Theory, first proposed by Sir Alister Hardy in the early sixties. Sadly, "The Scars of Evolution/What Our Bodies Tell Us About Human Origins" does not have many of the qualities that made her earlier books, "The Descent Of Woman" and "The Aquatic Ape" so much fun to read.

"The Scars of Evolution" continues the ongoing saga of the Aquatic Ape Theory, which hypothesizes that our proto-human ancestors spent a significant period of time in an aquatic or semi-aquatic environment. The evidence in favor of this theory is mostly indirect, but it is appealing, unless you are a paleontologist with a career invested in more traditional explanations (Danny Yee's interviews are more detailed, and a running debate is on one of the Usenet groups).

Morgan, who is a delightful writer, seems to be devoted to sounding more scientific in this book, and the delight and fire shown in her two previous books on the subject is subdued. It's a shame, and also a mistake. She isn't a scientist (although she's amazingly well-read), and will never attain credibility in the hidebound world of paleoanthropology, so what she loses in readability she is unlikely to recover in advancing her cause. If you haven't been exposed to this semi-obscure controversy over human origins, "The Scars of Evolution" will give you the gist of it--but if you want to enjoy the experience, start with "The Descent of Woman".

Although I knew the basics of E.Morgan ideas, reading the book still was a shock: how obvious it is when you are pointed to it. Being a biologist for last 20 years, I have tried to find possible arguments against the proposed theory, but actually came up with three additional facts supporting strongly the E.M. hypothesis. The book is exceptionally good reading for both academics and general public who likes an intellectual quest.

Elaine Morgan, the successful Welsh screenwriter, has made a second career out of defending the Aquatic Ape Theory, first proposed by Sir Alister Hardy in the early sixties. Sadly, "The Scars of Evolution/What Our Bodies Tell Us About Human Origins" does not have many of the qualities that made her earlier books, "The Descent Of Woman" and "The Aquatic Ape" so much fun to read. "The Scars of Evolution" continues the ongoing saga of the Aquatic Ape Theory, which hypothesizes that our proto-human ancestors spent a significant period of time in an aquatic or semi-aquatic environment. The evidence in favor of this theory is mostly indirect, but it is appealing, unless you are a paleontologist with a career invested in more traditional explanations (Danny Yee's interviews are more detailed, and a running debate is on one of the Usenet groups). Morgan, who is a delightful writer, seems to be devoted to sounding more scientific in this book, and the delight and fire shown in her two previous books on the subject is subdued. It's a shame, and also a mistake. She isn't a scientist (although she's amazingly well-read), and will never attain credibility in the hidebound world of paleoanthropology, so what she loses in readability she is unlikely to recover in advancing her cause. If you haven't been exposed to this semi-obscure controversy over human origins, "The Scars of Evolution" will give you the gist of it--but if you want to enjoy the experience, start with "The Descent of Woman".

A former girlfriend and I once agreed to each read "The Naked Ape" by Desmond Morris and "The Descent of Woman" by Elaine Morgan, and then analyze, discuss and argue about the merits of each author's theories. [I had previously read the Naked Ape, and was a firm believer in Morris's ideas]. After reading both books ("The Naked Ape" again), I was appalled and embarrassed at how I had simply accepted Morris' theories without any analytical questioning or deductive reasoning. Elaine Morgan wins this argument hands down, with well-reasoned arguments and logical hypotheses. The last two chapters are the most eloquent statements and arguments of the feminist movement that I have ever read (and I doubt that Ms. Morgan even considers herself a feminist). Read this book!

Morgan has written several books which champion the idea of the "aquatic ape theory," which basically states that humans went through an aquatic or semi-aquatic period in our evolutionary history. In this book, she outlines several of the main reasons behind this theory. These include bipedalism, loss of body hair, fat storage, and similar physiological features that suggest that the Savannah theory leaves too much unexplained to simply be accepted. This, I think, is the key to the book and to Morgan's other work. She is championing Hardy's idea, and asking us simply not to accept the Savannah theory as unquestionably correct. Her arguments are logical and coherent. The theory is no more "untestable" than any other theory in evolution. It deserves serious consideration, but that may have to wait until this generation of scientists, steeped in their orthodoxy, die or retire. (And I am a professional researcher).

The Aquatic Theory shaves the hair off the naked ape as neatly as Occam's razor. I have never been able to figure out why this has not replaced the far-fetched theories that academia clutches. Bipedalism evolved as a heat reducing mechanism. Oh alleluia I believe I believe! Come on, has theory totally replaced common sense? During the summer now drawing to fall, what did you do to beat the heat? "Hey, I'm hot and sweaty, I think I'll go stand at attention." For me, it was "Last one in's a rotten egg!"

I was already acquainted with the Aquatic Theory when I first read this book several years ago. It seems reasonable to me. I have written polite letters to several physical anthropologists saying that I have rarely seen this theory included in academic discussions, and have never seen a convincing refutation. I have asked them to point out the theory's fatal flaws. To date, nobody has ever replied to my queries.

If you see the Aquatic Theory mentioned in mainstream physical anthropology books, the author usually grabs her few, inconsequential weak points and avoids the weight of her arguments. One book `refuted' the theory by saying that in the water we would be prey to crocodiles. This was his entire refutation. We're safer with lions and leopards? Morgan did make a fatuous statement (not in this book), that women's breasts may have evolved so babies could cling to them. The professional anthropologists love that one! This is their favorite. You can almost hear them giggling as they trot that out, disregarding that this is not a key point in the argument.

I suspect that the main failing of the Aquatic Theory is that Morgan is not a PhD; she is intruding on sacred territory without being a member of the club. What's worse, she is female. Forget the lip service paid to women's rights, where does she get off, trying to tell the men her ideas? (FYR: I am a white heterosexual male,)

If Morgan had gotten a PhD in Comparative Shampooology from Rabbit Hash U, and published her work as E Morgan PhD, the Aquatic Theory would be as mainstream as Continental Drift is now, generations after Wegener wandered off into a snowstorm. Hang in there, Elaine!

Elaine Morgan raises a number of questions about human origins that are extremely difficult to answer. Therefore you won't see very many mainstream paleoanthropolgists seriously considering her hypothesis or even addressing the issues she raises. And while Morgan's conclusions may be incorrect, she at least has the intellect and integrity to address the issues.

"A very high proportion of thinking on these topics is androcentric (male centered) in the same way as pre-Copernican thinking was geocentric. It's just as hard for man to break the habit of thinking of himself as central to the species as it was to break the habit of thinking of himself as central to the universe...

"...I believe these are the 'circumstances special to the point of 'disbelief' which explain how an anthropoid began to turn into a hominid....Many features carelessly described as 'unique' in human beings are unique only in land mammals. For most of them, as we shall see, as soon as we begin to look at AQUATIC mammals, we shall find parallels galore."

Elaine Morgan
THE DESCENT OF WOMAN

Perhaps the most enjoyable thing about Elaine Morgan's work is her serene confidence in the theory she popularizes. If her entire raison d'Etre theory of the Aquatic Ape were disproven tomorrow, you san tell that she, unlike many whose theories are more based in the mythology of socio-political circular reasoning, would be okay with it. You can tell she embraces the transcultural, translogical--transcendant--metaphor that is the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis; the definitve rightness and beauty of it in terms of a profound truth that it points to, above and beyond what it is.

Alice Miller, whom I call the Galileo of Psychoanalysis, writes from her perspective the way Coltrane played a Broadway show tune or Bird played the Blues. She is clearly enjoying her subject; clearly believeing in the healing power of her craft; clearly knowing an other-worldly relevance permeates each book and each elocuted idea within it... and each completed work of hers grows, like the halo over Christ in all the movies made referring to his ascension, with each riff calling to a pre-existing but perhaps uncreated world of the ultimate reality. Like what one of Bach's fugues does to our concept of music, you know these ideas are coming from a source redefining the subject or craft in which they have arrived. Elaine Morgan shares this gift with Alice Miller to such a degree that, like Miller, she redeems her scientific discpline by reinvigorating the quasi-sacred mission statement that gave it meaning: *construct the ultimate mirror of who we are*. In other words, like a great jazz musician or modern artist, she achieves the sacred paradox of both artistic innovators and great scientists: she gracefully bows to the traditions of her predecessors by intellectually leaping beyond them.

The very idea that a paradigm shift in thinking so fundamental could take place in anthropology is still hard to conceive for the general public, who nonetheless finds the watered down mythology of many fundamental anthropological theories often comical. Just the same, the paradigm shift from the Savannah Hypothesis of human evolution to the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis--mankind's most important stage of evolution taking place not by a willful choice to hunt in the dry hot sun, but by an uncontrollable eons-long immersion into the sea--is currently the only one in existence in anthropology that can change our concept of everything to do with being human. Not even sociobiology can say this. It as simply the most logical theory not only reveals the subconscious Judeo-Christian and patriarchal biases inherent in the science of 20th century anthropology with its placing of man-the-hunter over woman as the central paradigm, but allows for a shift away from "androcentric" thinking completely, allowing us to understand humankind tremendously better through the evolution of women and children on an uncontrollable, ever-evolving planet.

The fact that the theories of her heroes have been all but ignored for close to half a century regarding the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis you can tell gives her cause to celebrate them that much more. But in the end you can tell it is its overwhelming logic that obviously inspires her more than anything. She makes this so clear in her writing style that her books become fun to read.

THE SCARS OF EVOLUTION explains many of the things about being human that simply shouldn't exist or do not make any sense regarding the anthropological theory of man evolving out of the hot, dry, hunting ground savannahs of central Africa. The revealing of the degree to which the Savannah hypothesis is modern mythology (by virtue of its often ignored and often defiantly supported scientific and intellectual inconsistencies) is the central mind blower which is enough to buy the book. She does however go further from there, and explains things as innocuous as acne and bad backs as being a clue to the actually unsolved mystery of our origins. Elaine Morgan does it with such confidence and grace in fact that she doesn't need to dress her book up with the kind of academia language that would make reading it impossible for the average person. She knows how to zero in on some key aspects of being human in such a way that they prove her thesis and structure her narrative in a way that is both entertaing and truly enlightening.

Morgan makes it virtually impossible not to believe in the Aquatic origins of the human animal--which gives a whole new meaning to the concept of the human spirit. But even to the degree the Aquatic Ape theory may still be considered open to question, she makes it so clear that truth is not static but growing, self evolving and tranformative that you become awakened to the continued hunt of something that has never been totally caught: self-knowledge.

THE SCARS OF EVOLUTION is a wonderful introduction to her work and thirty years of ideas, and those of her predecessors.