Re: Aquatic ape theory

David L Burkhead (
15 Oct 1995 19:58:57 GMT

In article <45ogjh$> writes:
> (David L Burkhead ) wrote:

[ 8< ]

>I'm personally quite happy with the idea of our ancestors having a
>semi-aquatic existence until even as late as 200,000 years ago or even
>later. The initial marine phase was presumably pre-australopithecine, but

_You_ may be happy with it, but the evidence is otherwise.

>I reckon that later species were swimming and diving in fresh-water lakes
>and rivers further inland. Is there any reason not to believe that this
>is at least possible? If you want to be pedantic anyone who has a bath
>regularly is a semi-aquatic ape!

Yeah, there's lots of reason not to believe it's "at least
possible" (unless you mean "at least possible" to include those gene
labs on 47 Ophiuchi III). The environment where they lived was all

The only way that it could be "at least possible" is if you
define "semi-aquatic ape" as you suggest above. But then, one has to
wonder how _that_ level of aquaticness could lead to the changes that
are claimed here.

This is an example of what has been called AAH's "moving
target"--change what you mean by "aquatic ape" when the going gets
tough. That this change wipes out the justification for the claimed
"evidence" seems to slip by them. For instance, if you use your
definition of "semi-aquatic ape" above, then just about the entire
primate family qualifies. Thus, if an aquatic existence explains
_our_ traits, it must explain why these animals that come from the
same basic group do _not_ share tham. And if humans can be the "odd
man out" of a group of aquatic apes, then why is it not valid for
humans to be the "odd man out" of a _not_aquatic group?

David L. Burkhead

Spacecub - The Artemis Project - Artemis Magazine

Box 831
Akron, OH 44309-0831