Re: Aquatic Ape Theory
Rod Hagen (rodhagen@netspace.net.au)
Fri, 07 Apr 1995 15:31:44 +1000
In article <STEVEW.95Apr6222730@kauri.vuw.ac.nz>,
stevew@news.comp.vuw.ac.nz (Stephen Wray) wrote:
(My original snipped)
>
> Oh no, I don't think so.
> Her arguments abour body-fat distribution in humans as compared with other
> primates seem to point towards at least semi-aquatic primates somewhere in
> our past.
>
> The sorts of subcutaneous fat we see in people are common in wallowing or
> swimming mammals, and are uncommon in primates. In fact, I think we are the
> *only* primate with subcutaneous fat deposits (other primates tend to build
> up fat around the viscera).
>
> This, and other anatomical features Morgan describes, tends to lend at
> least some credibility to her theory as to its origin. Von Daniken -- who
> actively faked evidence -- is in a different category altogether.
>
> Unless you maintain that she *is* faking evidence?
>
I've never said anything about faking.
The sort of argument that I think puts Morgan's stuff on a par with Von
Danicken's are things like her suggestion that male baldness and female
hair maintenance may be a result of baby "aquatic apes" having to have a
good head of hair on their mothers so they could hang on when she went for
a swim!
Her favourite device involves overstating her opponents case (i.e. the
"savannah theorists"), dispensing crudely with this overstated version of
their arguments, and then saying effectively well, if they are wrong then
the aquatic ape theory must be right.
Nobody would suggest that we have a clear , unambiguous picture of early
human origins, but Morgan produces no evidence that seems to me to be of
any real substance whatsoever.
--
Rod Hagen
rodhagen@netspace.net.au
|