BBC Focus Magazine

[The Beige Avenger]

A theory of human evolution that seems to make a lot of sense but is generally not taught...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwPoM7lGYHw

Essentially, what was the cause to go from ape to 'human'?

The favoured theory is the apes in the savanah evolving bipedalism due to those with height (two legged ability) being favoured as they could see over grass, suffer sun damage less and allow them to hold things with their hands.

But, what if it evolved due to lots of time being spent in the water? Apes wade when they go into water...

How about why we are bald? Most of the aquatic mammals are bald (obvious exceptions like beavers, otters...) and land mammals that are bald had aquatic heritage.

Also, the layer of fat we have around our bodies is more like that of an aquatic mammal than that of a land-based one..

Something else I heard was that a diet rich in fish could have been part of the reason why our brains developed...

A quick trip to the beach before the savanah sounds like a reasonable full story...

[Ush]

Clever idea. Be cool if it's true.

Is she a scot?

[worldmaker]

Hardy's Aquatic Ape Theory. A venerable and very plausible proposition and something I'd like to work on when I've the funds for it, but the BBC rejected my proposals many years ago.

Never mind. I'll get it produced eventually.

[worldmaker]

Here are a couple of references if you want to read up on the subject:-

The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis: Most Credible Theory of Human Evolution

The Scars of Evolution/what Our Bodies Tell Us About Human Origins

[Nails]

A theory of human evolution that seems to make a lot of sense but is generally not taught...

Maybe that's because it doesnt make a lot of sense.

Essentially, what was the cause to go from ape to 'human'?

We are still apes.

The favoured theory is the apes in the savanah evolving bipedalism due to those with height (two legged ability) being favoured as they could see over grass, suffer sun damage less and allow them to hold things with their hands.

Maybe bipedalsm evolved because there were fewer trees to climb.
The advantages of being able to run and hold things were far superior to climbing trees that were no longer there....

But, what if it evolved due to lots of time being spent in the water? Apes wade when they go into water...

Then why not webbed hands or feet?
Why not skin that doesn't wrinkle in water?

How about why we are bald? Most of the aquatic mammals are bald (obvious exceptions like beavers, otters...) and land mammals that are bald had aquatic heritage.

Elephants.
Rhinos.

Also, the layer of fat we have around our bodies is more like that of an aquatic mammal than that of a land-based one..

Only an aquatic one that lives in cold water, not in warm African steams and lakes.

Something else I heard was that a diet rich in fish could have been part of the reason why our brains developed...

I'd agree with that one.
But you don't have to live in water to eat fish.
Bears do quite well.
And they still have fur.
And four legs.
Even their aquatic cousins, the pinipeds, stil have four legs.

A quick trip to the beach before the savanah sounds like a reasonable full story...

Sorry, I disagree.
An interesting hypothesis, but that's about it.

[The Beige Avenger]

We are still apes.

I see remarkable differences between us and apes... Like, a domestic dog and a wolf... sure they are still wolves but they aren't really.

Maybe bipedalsm evolved because there were fewer trees to climb.
The advantages of being able to run and hold things were far superior to climbing trees that were no longer there....

Same dif.

Then why not webbed hands or feet?
Why not skin that doesn't wrinkle in water?

Maybe not enough time spent in the water? Like an ape with a tendency to dip his toes in more frequently. Maybe the losing of the fur was step one... who knows where it could have led...

Elephants.
Rhinos.

The argument being that their heritages are aquatic also.

Only an aquatic one that lives in cold water, not in warm African steams and lakes.

I have no idea what it was like then. Only that primates do not have a layer of fat all around them as we do... as do other animals like monkeys, badgers.

I'd agree with that one.

Thanks, but I'm not looking for agreement... it's not my theory, just an interesting alternative that seems quite viable and one that shouldn't be so quickly dismissed.

But you don't have to live in water to eat fish.
Bears do quite well.
And they still have fur.
And four legs.
Even their aquatic cousins, the pinipeds, stil have four legs.

That's not the point, what is the point is that bald mammals typically show an aquatic heritage. It is not to say that all aquatic or semi-aquatic mammals lose their hair (seals, otters, beavers...)... Also, bears are not primates Primate hair is different, it doesn't need to hold in as much heat as say a bear or an otter who live in cold conditions.

An interesting hypothesis, but that's about it.

Theories is theories and we should never get attached to them regardless of their history.

[Ush]

We are still apes.

I see remarkable differences between us and apes... Like, a domestic dog and a wolf... sure they are still wolves but they aren't really.

I do see your point but don't see the point in getting worked up about names.

[Nails]

I see remarkable differences between us and apes... Like, a domestic dog and a wolf... sure they are still wolves but they aren't really.

Dogs are wolves and humans are apes. Dogs and wolves are both classified as Canis lupus. The ape family consists of Orangutan, (Pongo pygmaeus) Gorilla, (Gorilla gorilla) Common Chimpanzee, (Pan troglodytes), Bonobo (Pan paniscus) and us, Homo sapiens.

Same dif.

Not really. There is supposed to have been much more savannah than watering hole in Africa at that time, our evolution from a more ape-like ancestor was driven by a lack of trees due to a warmer, dryer climate.

Maybe not enough time spent in the water? Like an ape with a tendency to dip his toes in more frequently. Maybe the losing of the fur was step one... who knows where it could have led...

I was attempting to be sardonic here.
It is of course entirely possible that our ancestors waded through water or boggy marsh land.
I'm not quite sure where the evidence comes from, but Australopithecus are typically depicted as being hairy, and were already bipedal.

The argument being that their heritages are aquatic also.

err... you got me on that one.

I have no idea what it was like then. Only that primates do not have a layer of fat all around them as we do... as do other animals like monkeys, badgers.

It is intersting though.

Thanks, but I'm not looking for agreement... it's not my theory, just an interesting alternative that seems quite viable and one that shouldn't be so quickly dismissed.

It is entirely plausible that water played a large part in pour evolution, but I don't think it was a major factor. It seems far more likely that fully bipedal creatures (if you could actually consider us fully bipedal, given all the problems it causes us in later life) should evolve from semi-bipedal ones (like other apes) when there are no trees to climb.

That's not the point, what is the point is that bald mammals typically show an aquatic heritage. It is not to say that all aquatic or semi-aquatic mammals lose their hair (seals, otters, beavers...)... Also, bears are not primates Primate hair is different, it doesn't need to hold in as much heat as say a bear or an otter who live in cold conditions.

And we sweat more than any other mammal.
Does that mean something?

Actually, sweating may be a pre-adaption to complex speech, because if we had to pant to regulate our body temp then we wouldn't have been able to develop the complex control of our breathing that we use when we talk.
It is an interesting pattern, but we are not completely bald.

Theories is theories and we should never get attached to them regardless of their history.

I would argue that it is still a hypothesis.
Gravity is a theory.
Evolution is a theory.
These are explanations which are not in doubt because they are backed up by mountains of evidence and have predictive power.
I havn't dismissed the idea, because new evidence may turn up which completely vindicates the argument.
Until then, I will consider it as a possible factor - but not the whole story.

[Ush]

I see remarkable differences between us and apes... Like, a domestic dog and a wolf... sure they are still wolves but they aren't really.

Dogs are wolves and humans are apes. Dogs and wolves are both classified as Canis lupus. The ape family consists of Orangutan, (Pongo pygmaeus) Gorilla, (Gorilla gorilla) Common Chimpanzee, (Pan troglodytes), Bonobo (Pan paniscus) and us, Homo sapiens.

I think you're missing his point. There are marked differences between us and other apes, so much so that he sees us in a different category to the other apes. I think you are focusing too much on the names - they aren't relevant to his point. Of course the evolutionary tree stays the same regardless of the names we choose, he isn't suggesting it be changed or anything. All he's doing is noting the very evident distinction between the human ape and non-human apes - what he's calling both those categories isn't important.

[Nails]

I see remarkable differences between us and apes... Like, a domestic dog and a wolf... sure they are still wolves but they aren't really.

Dogs are wolves and humans are apes. Dogs and wolves are both classified as Canis lupus. The ape family consists of Orangutan, (Pongo pygmaeus) Gorilla, (Gorilla gorilla) Common Chimpanzee, (Pan troglodytes), Bonobo (Pan paniscus) and us, Homo sapiens.

I think you're missing his point. There are marked differences between us and other apes, so much so that he sees us in a different category to the other apes. I think you are focusing too much on the names - they aren't relevant to his point. Of course the evolutionary tree stays the same regardless of the names we choose, he isn't suggesting it be changed or anything. All he's doing is noting the very evident distinction between the human ape and non-human apes - what he's calling both those categories isn't important.

There are marked differences between most species - that's normally why they are seperate species!!
The reasons that we are classified as apes is because we share so many features with them.
we just happen to walk better on two legs and have bigger brains (especially the frontal lobes, Brocca and Wernicke's areas).

[Ush]

There are marked differences between most species - that's normally why they are seperate species!!

Pfft. Ye know what I mean.

The reasons that we are classified as apes is because we share so many features with them.
we just happen to walk better on two legs and have bigger brains (especially the frontal lobes, Brocca and Wernicke's areas).

And we build sky-scrappers, write, walk on the Moon, build robots, philosophise, bring people back from the dead, clone animals, have the power to annihilate a substantial proportion of all earthly life with technological ease, have the technical capacity to colonise the solar system, can deliberately direct our own evolution etc. We are the only organism which can do these things. We are unique.

I do know what you are saying though.

This issue is just a matter of what we call things and it doesn't change any facts. I don't think we should get too worked up about it. I don't personally care whether we all Hominidae apes or only some of them. It really doesn't matter to me. But if I absolutely had to vote I would vote for different names.

[The Beige Avenger]

The discussion is not about taxonomy... i prefer to leave that to the people who care for such things.. I do find it interesting but in very small doses as I find pigeon-holing things can be a bit of a step backwards.

Other points of evidence...

The fact that we have conscious control over our breathing which gorillas don't have but aquatic mammals do (and diving birds also). This could also have helped us develop speech as you need to control your breathing in order to do so.

Oh, and how come babies can hold their breath whilst under water and swim?

[Nails]

The discussion is not about taxonomy... i prefer to leave that to the people who care for such things.. I do find it interesting but in very small doses as I find pigeon-holing things can be a bit of a step backwards.

Taxonomy only works as we see things now - the vast majority of organisms are not going to evolve in our lifetime. It seriously falls apart when you look backwards in time, as there is no clear boundary between an ancestor species and its modern descendants.
It is however, the least worst system we have.
In my humble opinion at least.

Other points of evidence...

The fact that we have conscious control over our breathing which gorillas don't have but aquatic mammals do (and diving birds also). This could also have helped us develop speech as you need to control your breathing in order to do so.

A good point, but the effect could be convergent - the same perceived effect arrived at under different evolutionary pressures.
As far as I am aware, the concensus is on breathing control evolving as we lost our fur and developed sweat glands - we no longer need to pant to reduce our body temp, which is a prerequsite for speech.
It is interesting however that dolphins also have advanced language skills, so I wonder if they have also made further use of their ability to control breathing.
Sweat glands are not, in my opinion, evidence for an aquatic lifestyle as they provide a route in as well as out for moisture - and increase the risk of infection by reducing the ability of the skin to provide a barrier to the outside world.

Oh, and how come babies can hold their breath whilst under water and swim?

That is a really good point, and one I had not considered.
They do however spend there first 9 months living in a fluid filled sack, so if other mammals show a similar ability then it could be more likely to be due to our placental beginnings.


Don't get me wrong here, I find it an interesting idea and there is an argument to support it.
It could well be part of the story, but I do not find it to be conclusive.

[Nails]

And we build sky-scrappers, write, walk on the Moon, build robots, philosophise, bring people back from the dead, clone animals, have the power to annihilate a substantial proportion of all earthly life with technological ease, have the technical capacity to colonise the solar system, can deliberately direct our own evolution etc. We are the only organism which can do these things. We are unique.

I do know what you are saying though.
[/quote]

Apes kept in captivity have shown a great ability to learn and copy humans, even learn language - Bonobos being a great example - maybe they just havn't maximised their potential for whatever reason.
It is not impossible to view us as having relied on streching our mental capacities to the limit sometime around 5/6 million years ago, and the survival advantage this has provided has been passed down in our genes for increased brain size and even our ability to form culture.
So I think that memes have played a very important role in our history, but as you need language first this must be quite recent.

[The Beige Avenger]

Nails, right on.
It's a great thing to discuss and I've enjoyed the points going back and forth.

The point about the sweat glands seems a pretty good one!

A lot of the now land based animals with aquatic heritage appear to walow in mud to cool or have alternative cooling systems like elephants with their ears.
I'm coming up conflicting evidence on sweat glands regarding beasts like pigs, dogs and even chimps but there seems to be a general trend of fur = no sweat, no fur = sweat....
a little help...

[Ush]

The discussion is not about taxonomy... i prefer to leave that to the people who care for such things.. I do find it interesting but in very small doses as I find pigeon-holing things can be a bit of a step backwards.

Taxonomy only works as we see things now - the vast majority of organisms are not going to evolve in our lifetime. It seriously falls apart when you look backwards in time, as there is no clear boundary between an ancestor species and its modern descendants.
It is however, the least worst system we have.
In my humble opinion at least.

Yeah, species are contemporaneous populations. That part is always left out.

[Nails]

Nails, right on.
It's a great thing to discuss and I've enjoyed the points going back and forth.

As have I!

The point about the sweat glands seems a pretty good one!

Thanks, it was a pesonal bug-bear in my former army (TA) days actually, my commanding officer told us we would be fine up to our necks in water (with 25Kg + on your back) as our skin was waterproof - it cost me 50 for arguing, but eventually I proved to him that our skin is not waterproof.

But to be honest, as I was nearly dead and buried by the babies swimming underwater...

A lot of the now land based animals with aquatic heritage appear to walow in mud to cool or have alternative cooling systems like elephants with their ears.
I'm coming up conflicting evidence on sweat glands regarding beasts like pigs, dogs and even chimps but there seems to be a general trend of fur = no sweat, no fur = sweat....
a little help...

But isn't it remarkable how a tooth, a feather and a hair; a mammary gland a sweat gland (also temporal glands in elephants) are just variations on the same design?

[The Beige Avenger]

and there it is... mammary glands are modified sweat glands...

But one thing... we kinda are waterproof... what were you meaning exactly? Is it the "absolute" statement i.e. we are not 100% waterproof?

[Nails]

and there it is... mammary glands are modified sweat glands...

But one thing... we kinda are waterproof... what were you meaning exactly? Is it the "absolute" statement i.e. we are not 100% waterproof?

Bizzarely enough, the army is well aware of the dangers posed by our skin not being 100% waterproof:

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

As are we, as we watch our hands and feet wrinkle in a hot bath as our skin absorbs water.
Not a lot, granted - but it does.

This piece is pretty heavy reading, but the 2nd page spells it out - our skin is semi-permeable, and we use moisturisers to reduce water loss to counter this.

http://www.nature.com/jid/journal/v121/n2/pdf/5601872a.pdf

By the way, I would like to point out that I do not consider this as evidence against an aquatic phase of early humanity; as it was supposedly 3/4/5 or 6 million years ago we could easily have lost this ability in that time.

[The Beige Avenger]

i thought that was what you were getting at...