Aquatic ape hypothesis

The aquatic ape hypothesis (AAH), often also referred to as aquatic ape theory (AAT), is the idea that the evolutionary ancestors of modern humans spent a period of time adapting to a semiaquatic existence.[1][2] The hypothesis was first proposed by German pathologist Max Westenhöfer in 1942 and then independently by English marine biologist Alister Hardy in 1960; however, the arguments of both men failed to achieve significant popular notice. After Hardy, the theory's most prominent proponent was former television documentary writer Elaine Morgan, who wrote a series of books on the topic, and increased public awareness of the theory after her first work appeared in 1972. However, the scientific reception of her ideas remained mixed to negative, subject to several specific criticisms such as the lack of physical evidence offered.[3]

The extant scientific consensus is that humans first evolved during a period of rapid climate fluctuations between wet and dry periods, with a complex set of conditions existing that humans adapted to by intermingled male and female parenting efforts.[3] Also, the mainstream view states that most of the adaptations that distinguish humans from the other great apes are adaptations to a terrestrial situation, as opposed to an earlier, arboreal environment. Rejected by anthropologists broadly, few of them have explicitly evaluated AAH in scientific journals, and those that have reviewed the idea in depth have been largely critical.[4] General analysis by non-specialists, such as by the news-magazine Discover, have also broadly rejected the theory.[5]

The AAH is one of many hypotheses attempting to explain human evolution through one single causal mechanism, but the evolutionary fossil record does not support any such proposal.[3][4] The notion itself has been criticized by experts as being internally inconsistent, having less explanatory power than its proponents claim, and suffering from the feature that alternative terrestrial hypotheses are much better supported. The attractiveness of believing in simplistic single-cause explanations over the much more complex, but better-supported models with multiple causality has been cited as a primary reason for the popularity of the idea with non-experts.[4] Advocacy for the AAH has been labeled by commentators such as science writer Brian Regal as being more ideological and political rather than scientific and hence, pseudoscientific.[3]

History

The German pathologist Max Westenhöfer (1871–1957) can be said to have worded an early version of AAH, which he labeled "the aquatile man" (German: aquatiler Mensch), which he described in several publications during the 1930s and 1940s. Westenhöfer also disputed Charles Darwin's theory on the kinship between modern man and the great apes. As part of a complex and unique version of human evolution, he argued that a number of traits in modern humans derived from a fully aquatic existence in the open seas, and that humans only in recent times returned to land. In 1942, he stated: "The postulation of an aquatic mode of life during an early stage of human evolution is a tenable hypothesis, for which further inquiry may produce additional supporting evidence."[6] Westenhöfer's aquatic thesis suffered from a number of inconsistencies and contradictions, and consequently he abandoned the concept in his writings on human evolution around the end of the Second World War.[7]

Independently and ignorant of Westenhöfer's writings, marine biologist Sir Alister Hardy (1896–1985) had since 1930 also hypothesized that humans may have had ancestors more aquatic than previously imagined, although his work, unlike Westenhöfer's, was rooted in the Darwinian consensus. As a young academic with a hypothesis belonging to a topic outside his field, and warned by colleagues that he could jeopardize his career if he published such a controversial idea, Hardy delayed reporting his idea for some thirty years.[8] After he had become a respected academic and knighted for contributions to marine biology, Hardy finally voiced his thoughts in a speech to the British Sub-Aqua Club in Brighton on 5 March 1960. Several national newspapers reported distorted presentations of Hardy's ideas, which he countered by explaining them more fully in an article in New Scientist on 17 March 1960.[9] Hardy defined his idea:

My thesis is that a branch of this primitive ape-stock {hominoids} was forced by competition from life in the trees to feed on the sea-shores and to hunt for food, shell fish, sea-urchins etc., in the shallow waters off the coast. I suppose that they were forced into the water just as we have seen happen in so many other groups of terrestrial animals. I am imagining this happening in the warmer parts of the world, in the tropical seas where Man could stand being in the water for relatively long periods, that is, several hours at a stretch.[10]

The idea received some interest after the article was published,[11] but was generally ignored by the scientific community thereafter. In 1967, the hypothesis was briefly mentioned in The Naked Ape, a book by Desmond Morris (1928–) in which can be found the first use of the term "aquatic ape".[12]

While doing research for her book The Descent of Woman published in 1972, a book inspired by reading Morris' The Naked Ape, TV-writer Elaine Morgan (1920–2013) was struck by the potential explanatory power of Hardy's hypothesis. While elaborating on Hardy's suggestion, in the book Morgan primarily sought to challenge what she considered a masculine domination of the debate on human evolution, and the satirical book became an international bestseller, making Morgan a popular figure in feminist movements and on various TV talk shows in, for example, the United States. On the other hand, her scientific contributions, including her elaboration on Hardy's aquatic humans, were effectively ignored by anthropology. Consequently, Morgan became the leading proponent of Hardy's original idea, which after a number of publications culminated in 1997 with the book The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis, which, with its factual language and proper referencing, was aimed primarily at the academic community.[1][13]

In 1987 a symposium was held in Valkenburg, the Netherlands, to debate the pros and cons of AAH. The proceedings of the symposium were published in 1991 with the title Aquatic Ape: Fact or Fiction?.[14] The chief editor summarized the results of the symposium as failing to support the idea that human ancestors were aquatic, but there is also some evidence that they may have swum and fed in inland lakes and rivers, with the result that modern humans can enjoy brief periods of time spent in the water.[15]

Weaker versions of the hypothesis suggesting littoral feeding and wading rather than strong aquatic adaptation have since been proposed.[2] These weaker versions of the hypothesis have not yet been scientifically explored.[16]

Proposals

Proponents of AAH suggest that many features that distinguish humans from their nearest evolutionary relatives emerged because the ancestors of humans underwent a period when they were adapting to a semiaquatic existence, but returned to terrestrial life before having become fully adapted to the aquatic environment. Variations within the hypothesis suggests these protohumans to have spent time either wading, swimming or diving on the shores of fresh, brackish, alkaline or saline waters, and feeding on littoral resources.[17][18]

Key arguments, based on the original suggestion of Alister Hardy, were developed and presented from 1972 by Elaine Morgan.[1] In later years, other contributors have further developed the aquatic ideas, some of which substantially differ from the original "aquatic ape" of Hardy et Morgan. The term "waterside hypotheses of human evolution" has been coined by AAH-proponent Algis Kuliukas to collectively represent this diversity, of which AAH is only one such hypothesis. Most traits perceived as aquatic are physiological and biochemical, while few are behavioral (ethological). The time frame for the origin and possible termination of such an aquatic existence also differs between proponents, although the same time frame as anthropological consensus is generally followed. In most cases, this aquaticism is perceived as having been instigated by selective pressure around the split of the last common ancestor between humans and chimpanzees.[19]

Anatomical parallels have been drawn with those of the modern primate species that swim, wade, dive, or use aquatic environments for thermoregulation, display behavior, range, diet, or predation, though other non-AAH proponents have argued that the behavioral parallels, e.g., between humans and the proboscis monkey, could be facilitated by anatomical adaptations without having been the basis for them.[4][20][21]

The argued degree of human aquaticism varies amongst proponents; however the vast majority, including Morgan, argue a semiaquatic ape on par with e.g. hippos and sea otters, as opposed to a fully aquatic stage on par with e.g. whales or pinnipeds. Some pseudoscientific and cryptozoologic speculations have made use of parts of the AAH argumentation, e.g. the claimed existence of mermaids,[22][23] but this is rejected by AAH proponents, including Morgan.[19]

While most proto-human fossil sites are associated with wet conditions upon the death of the hominins, this is not seen as unequivocal evidence for the AAH since being buried in waterside sediment is one of the rare situations in which fossilization is likely to occur; paleontologists are aware of this preservation bias and expect fossils to be located near such sediments.[20][24]

Several theoretical problems have been found with the AAH, and some of the features cited as evidence by the AAH have been challenged as having explanations aside from a period of aquatic adaptation.[4] Review of the individual claims used as evidence for the AAH generally does not support the hypothesis overall, and most of these traits have an explanation within conventional theories of human evolution.[4] Other authors have suggested that wading, food gathering and other interactions with watery environments may have provided a less extreme but still present role in human evolution.[16][25][26]

Physiological and biochemical claims

In addition, the elongated lower limbs of humans, which is explained by AAH proponents as improving swimming speeds, appears only after the evolution of the genus Homo [4] and biomechanical analysis indicates humans are far too poor swimmers to have derived from an ape ancestor that swam,[29] and pre-human apes would face similar problems.[30] There is no single accepted explanation for human bipedalism but freedom of the hands for tool use, carrying of infants, feeding adaptations, improved energy expenditure or some combination of these are suggested, with considerable diversity in pre-human skeletal adaptations that would assist in bipedalism.[31]
Though a variety of explanations have been proposed for human hairlessness, the best-supported hypothesis involves improved cooling through perspiration; while fur helps cool inactive animals, hairless skin that sweats vigorously is much better at cooling humans who generate body heat through activity.[30] Langdon, in his 1997 critique of the hypothesis, stated that the streamlining features attributed to hair follicle distribution and direction would be more reasonably achieved through changes in the shape of the skeleton and soft tissues.[4]
Critics have argued that considerable human encephalization began quite late in the development of the genus Homo, particularly with Homo erectus, long after the development of bipedalism. Bipedalism had occurred already in the australopithecines (4.2–3.9 mya) and Ardipithecus (4.4 mya), and perhaps as early as in the species Sahelanthropus tchadensis (approx. 7 mya). On the other hand, increase in cranial capacity occurs quite late in the fossil record: Homo habilis (approx. 2 mya) for example, while fully bipedal, had a brain size within the range of modern day gorillas. Counter to this, Cunnane et al. have argued that a transition of semiaquatic Hominina-forms from fresh water habitats in the hinterland of Africa to more alkaline and saline habitats in Eastern Africa, e.g., in the then sea-flooded Afar-depression in modern Ethiopia, could have supported the increase in human brain size through an increased access to, e.g., DHA and iodine rich foods. It is argued that molluscs, e.g. clams and oysters, as found along the shores of East Africa and in alkaline lakes along the Great Rift Valley, have an optimal composition to support the extant human brain's nutritional needs.[47][48]
Proponents point to archaeological finds of shellfish kitchen middens as far back as in middle pleistocene some 164,000 years ago, during the earliest days of archaic Homo sapiens.[49] Conversely, critics argue that landlocked humans without access to seafood develop normal brains[4] and that these nutritional requirements can be met with a specific terrestrial diet.[50][51] The encephalization of early Homo species is also argued as having been possibly driven by the consumption of hunted or scavenged animal brains supplying large amounts of scarce nutrients including DHA.[51][52]
Morgan also pointed to unique features of both men and women's genitals, and the woman's protruding, fat-filled bosom as possible aquatic adaptations, with alleged convergence observed in sirenia. Presented criticism to these claims include the infant's increased risk of drowning if parting from its mother, coupled with observations of both young children as well as adults developing aquaphobia, while baby swimming and water birth are being rejected as fads.[54]

Ethological claims

Other claims

Finger and toe wrinkling is controlled by the sympathetic nervous system in response to water immersion.

Rarely presented AAH arguments point to the human tendency to produce watery psychic tears, and the production of sweat as a cooling mechanism. Morgan withdrew previous arguments along this line, given that horses also sweat profusely.[58] It is occasionally argued that humans compared to other apes have reduced olfaction, with claimed convergences observed in other aquatics, e.g. whales; that the protuding human nose would be adapted to keep splashes out of nasal cavities, arguing the semiaquatic proboscis monkey or semiaquatic tapirs as possible convergences; the tendency of partial to full baldness in men; the tendency for human obesity;[48] and that human kidneys are better suited for excretion of salt than other apes.[59] Such arguments are generally considered more speculative and are often heavily criticized.

Theoretical considerations

The AAH has been criticized for containing multiple inconsistencies and lacking evidence from the fossil record to support its claims.[4][24][60] Morgan, for instance, failed to discuss any fossils found after 1960 and much of her analysis was by comparing soft tissues between humans and aquatic species.[4] It is also described as lacking parsimony, despite purporting to be a simple theory uniting many of the unique anatomical features of humans.[4] Anthropologist John D. Hawks expresses the view that rather than explaining human traits simply and parsimoniously, it actually requires two explanations for each trait - first that proximity to water drove human evolution enough to significantly change the human phenotype and second that there was significant evolutionary pressure beyond mere phylogenetic inertia to maintain these traits (which would not be adaptive on dry land) and points out that exaptation is not an adequate reply. Hawks concludes by saying:

In other words, the Aquatic Ape Theory explains all of these features, but it explains them all twice (overdetermination). All of the features encompassed by the theory still requires a reason for it to be maintained after hominids left the aquatic environment. Every one of these reasons probably would be sufficient to explain the evolution of the traits in the absence of the aquatic environment. This is more than unparsimonious. It leaves the Aquatic Ape Theory explaining nothing whatsoever about the evolution of the hominids. This is why professional anthropologists reject the theory, even if they haven't fully thought through the logic.[61]

Ellen White describes Morgan's work as failing to be empirical, not addressing evidence that contradicts the hypothesis, relying on comparative anatomy rather than selection pressure, not predicting any new evidence and failing to address its own shortcomings. White stated that while the hypothesis had the scientific characteristics of explanatory power and public debate, the only reason it has received any actual scholarly attention is due to its public appeal, ultimately concluding the AAH was unscientific.[62] Others have similarly noted the AAH "is more an exercise in comparative anatomy than a theory supported by data."[5]

Though describing the hypothesis as plausible, Henry Gee went on to criticize it for being untestable, as most of the evolutionary adaptations described by Morgan would not have fossilized. Gee also stated that, while purely aquatic mammals such as whales show strong skeletal evidence of adaptation to water, humans and human fossils lack such adaptations (a comment made by others as well[24]); that there are many hypothetical and equally plausible scenarios explaining the unique characteristics of human adaptation without involving an aquatic phase of evolution; and that proponents are basing arguments about past adaptations on present physiology, when humans are not significantly aquatic.[63] There is ultimately only circumstantial evidence to suggest, and no solid evidence to support the AAH.[64][65] ScienceBlogs author Greg Laden has described the AAH as a "human evolution theory of everything" that attempts to explain all anatomical and physiological features of humans and is correct in some areas only by chance. Laden also states that the AAH was proposed when knowledge of human evolutionary history was unclear, while more recent research has found that many human traits have emerged at different times over millions of years, rather than simultaneously due to a single evolutionary pressure.[34]

Evolutionary biologist Carsten Niemitz states that he believes the AAH as expressed by Morgan did not fulfill the criteria of a theory or a hypothesis, merely "[listing] analogies of features of savannah type mammals on the one hand and of aquatic mammals and man on the other, asking the scientific community for explanations other than a common aquatic ancestor of extant man."[16]

Marc Verhaegen has also challenged the AAH as expressed by Morgan, believing the ancestors of apes as well as humans may have had their evolutionary history influenced by exposure to flooded forest environments,[25] and that based on the hominin fossil record, regular part-time underwater foraging began in the Pleistocene rather than the early Pliocene as Morgan’s model proposes.[26]

In 2012, John Langdon reviewed an e-book published by Bentham Science Publishers collecting 50 years of theorizing about the AAH.[2] In his review,[66] Langdon noted there is no longer a single "aquatic ape hypothesis", but rather multiple hypotheses with a common theme of evolutionary pressure due to dependence on an aquatic habitat. While original versions attempted to explain an apparently substantial gap between humans and closely related common ancestors, more recent variants of these hypotheses have had to adjust to the fact that the gap was more apparent than real and the significant commonalities found between humans and other African apes. Three main strands of thought now exist regarding the AAH, varying according to when the theorized aquatic phase occurred: from the Middle Miocene to approximately three million years ago (Hardy's original model, which was based on a large gap in the fossil record that has since been filled in), from the Early Miocene when ancestral hominids were thought to wade in coastal swamps and from which Homo species were thought to split off and adapt to swimming and diving (associated with the work of Marc Verhaegen), and from 200,000 years ago when exploitation of coastal resources led humans out of Africa and resulted in the evolution of modern humans (associated with the work of Algis Kuliukas). Langdon notes the strong associations of humans with water, as well as the adaptability of the species to incredibly diverse ecological niches (including coastal and wetland regions), both within and across lifetimes. Whether these associations define humans as "semiaquatic" or not "represents a fundamental point of departure between anthropologists and the [aquatic hypothesis] community." Langdon describes the three lines of evidence cited to support the AAH: comparative anatomy between humans and other semiaquatic species, hypothetical situations in which evolutionary pressure might have produced convergent evolution between humans and semiaquatic species, and the ability for humans to perform various activities in the water. He rejects these as unproven:[66]

These rhetorical strategies create long lists of claims, but until each hypothesis is independently established, it does not constitute evidence for an aquatic scenario. At best it shows consistency with a prior assumption. Evolutionary convergence – structural similarity – by itself is a metaphor for functional similarity. Metaphors are useful, but they demand that we examine points of resemblance closely in order to learn whether they are meaningful. Like metaphors, evolutionary convergences have their limits: eventually differences will emerge. Dolphins and humans are similar in the loss of body hair, relatively large brains, and complex vocal capacities; but these similarities do not make us dolphins. Nor is it clear which, if any of these similarities are related to water. Each trait must be investigated and resolved as a separate functional and evolutionary question. Unproven suppositions cannot serve as evidence for other hypotheses.

Langdon criticizes AAH for generating hypotheses about human adaptation without testing them. He writes that the AAH is, like many just so stories in anthropology, ignored because it is almost impossible to falsify, because it engages only with supporting evidence in the relevant scientific literature while ignoring the larger body of unsupporting evidence, and because its hypotheses are portrayed as "compatible with" more accepted hypotheses and thus unable to distinguish between or provide explicit evidence for the AAH. Langdon concludes his review:[66]

It is now incumbent upon both authors and critics to clarify the assumptions with which they are working and, where possible, to make empirically testable predictions. Similarly, the many gloating references in this book to the collapse of the Savannah Hypothesis should not suggest that all terrestrial models have been challenged. Possibly the time has come to bring the “paradigms” together; to step out of the “us vs. them” mentality held by both sides of this debate; and simply to recognize that dozens of speculative hypotheses for human evolution exist in the literature that may or may not discuss a relationship with water.

The authors of the volume published a reply.[67]

Reception

The AAH has received little attention from mainstream paleoanthropologists and is not accepted as empirically supported by the scholarly community,[20][68][69][70] has been met with significant skepticism[70][71] and is not considered a strong scientific hypothesis.[5][20] The AAH does not appear to have passed the peer review process, and despite Morgan being praised by various scholars, none of her work has appeared in any academic journals of anthropology or related disciplines.[62] The AAH is thought by some anthropologists to be accepted readily by popular audiences, students and non-specialist scholars because of its simplicity.[4] In 1987 a symposium was held in Valkenburg, the Netherlands, titled "Aquatic Ape: Fact or fiction?", which published its proceedings in 1991.[14][72] A review of Morgan's book The Scars of Evolution stated that it did not address the central questions of anthropology – how the human and chimpanzee gene lines diverged – which was why it was ignored by the scholarly community. The review also stated that Morgan ignored the fossil record and skirted the absence of evidence that australopithecine underwent any adaptations to water, making the hypothesis impossible to validate from fossils.[60]

Morgan has claimed the AAH was rejected for a variety of reasons unrelated to its explanatory power: old academics were protecting their careers, sexism on the part of male researchers, and her status as a non-academic intruding on academic debates. Despite modifications to the hypothesis and occasional forays into scientific conferences, the AAH has neither been accepted as a mainstream theory nor managed to venture a genuine challenge to orthodox theories of human evolution.[72]

Morgan's critics have claimed that the appeal of AAH can be explained in several ways:[4]

  1. The hypothesis appears to offer absolute answers, which appeals more to students and the public than the qualified and reserved explanations offered by mainstream science.
  2. Unusual ideas challenge the authority of science and scientists, which appeals to anti-establishment sentiments.
  3. The AAH as developed by Morgan has a strong feminist component, which particularly appeals to a specific, feminist audience.
  4. The AAH can be explained simply and easily, lacking the myriad details and complicated theorizing involved in dealing with primary sources and materials.
  5. The AAH uses negative arguments, pointing to the flaws and gaps in conventional theories; though the criticisms of mainstream science and theories can be legitimate, the flaws in one theory do not automatically prove a proposed alternative.
  6. The consensus views of conventional anthropology are complicated, require specialized knowledge and qualified answers, and the investment of considerable time to understand.

John D. Hawks, along with PZ Myers and fellow ScienceBlogs paleontologist Greg Laden recommend the website "Aquatic Ape Theory: Sink or Swim?" by Jim Moore as a resource on the topic.[34][73] Conversely, both Morgan and Algis Kuliukas have accused Moore of distorting Morgan and other AAH-proponents presentations from the debate, using only little referencing.[74][75]

Anthropologist Colin Groves has stated that Morgan's theories are sophisticated enough that they should be taken seriously as a possible explanation for hominin divergence[76] and Carsten Niemitz has found more recent, weaker versions of the hypothesis more acceptable, approaching some of his own theories on human evolution.[16] The anthropologist Philip Tobias, having previously reportedly "given grudging respect" to certain aspects of the hypothesis "that seem more difficult to reason away",[77] noted in a 2012 paper that rejection of the AAH led to stigmatization of a spectrum of topics related to the evolution of humans and their interaction with water. The result of this bias, in his and co-authors' opinions, was an incomplete reconstruction of human evolution within varied landscapes.[18]

See also

Footnotes

  1. 1 2 3 Select writings of Elaine Morgan on AAH:
  2. 1 2 3 Vaneechoutte M; Kuliukas A; Verhaegen M (2011). Was Man More Aquatic In The Past? Fifty Years After Alister Hardy - Waterside Hypotheses Of Human Evolution. Bentham Science Publishers. ISBN 978-1-60805-244-8.
  3. 1 2 3 4 Brian Regal (2009). Pseudoscience: A Critical Encyclopedia: A Critical Encyclopedia. pp. 25–27. ISBN 9780313355080.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Langdon JH (1997). "Umbrella hypotheses and parsimony in human evolution: a critique of the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis". J. Hum. Evol. 33 (4): 479–94. doi:10.1006/jhev.1997.0146. PMID 9361254.
  5. 1 2 3 Ornes, S (2007). "Whatever Happened To... the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis?". Discover. Retrieved 2012-03-07.
  6. ↑ Westenhöfer Max (1942) Der Eigenweg des Menschen. Dargestellt auf Grund von vergleichend morphologischen Untersuchungen über die Artbildung und Menschwerdung. Verlag der Medizinischen Welt, W. Mannstaedt & Co., Berlin. ASIN B004M99K6A
  7. ↑ Westenhöfer Max (1948) Die Grundlagen meiner Theorie vom Eigenweg des Menschen: Entwicklung, Menschwerdung, Weltanschauung. Carl Winter Heidelberg. ISBN 978-3533019695.
  8. ↑ Reeve, Eric. Book review: "The Aquatic Ape: Fact or Fiction?" (PDF). Genetical Research (Cambridge University Press), Volume 59 Issue 01 (February 1992): p. 64.
  9. ↑ Hardy, Alister Clavering (1977). "Was there a Homo aquaticus?". Zenith 15 (1): 4–6.
  10. ↑ Hardy, A. (1960). "Was man more aquatic in the past" (PDF). New Scientist 7: 642–645. Archived from the original (PDF) on 26 March 2009.. More legible version at PDF
  11. ↑ Sauer, Carl O. (1960). "Seashore–Primitive home of man?". Proceedings of the American Philosopical Society 106 (1): 41–7. JSTOR 985209.
  12. ↑ Morris, Desmond (1967). The Naked Ape. McGraw-Hill. p. 29. ISBN 0-09-948201-0.
  13. ↑ Morgan, E. "Hardy's question". Retrieved 2013-01-07.
  14. 1 2 Roede, Machteld (1991). Aquatic Ape: Fact of Fiction: Proceedings from the Valkenburg Conference. Souvenir Press. ISBN 0-285-63033-4.
  15. ↑ Reynolds, Vernon (1991). Cold and Watery? Hot and Dusty? Our Ancestral Environment and Our Ancestors Themselves: an Overview (in Roede et al. 1991). Souvenir Press. p. 340. ISBN 0-285-63033-4.
  16. 1 2 3 4 5 Niemitz, C. (2010). "The evolution of the upright posture and gait--a review and a new synthesis.". Die Naturwissenschaften 97 (3): 241–263. Bibcode:2010NW.....97..241N. doi:10.1007/s00114-009-0637-3. PMC 2819487. PMID 20127307.
  17. ↑ Ellis D (1993). "Wetlands or Aquatic Ape? Availability of food resources". Nutrition & Health 9 (3): 205–217. doi:10.1177/026010609300900306.
  18. 1 2 Bender, R.; Tobias, P. V.; Bender, N. (2012). "The Savannah hypotheses: Origin, reception and impact on paleoanthropology". History and philosophy of the life sciences 34 (1–2): 147–184. PMID 23272598.
  19. 1 2 Kuliukas, Algis V.; Morgan, Elaine (2011). "Aquatic Scenarios in the Thinking on Human Evolution: What are they and How do they Compare?". In Vaneechoutte, Mario; Kuliukas, Algis; Verhaegen, Marc. Was Man More Aquatic in the Past? Fifty Years After Alister Hardy. Bentham Science Publishers. pp. 106–19. ISBN 978-1-60805-355-1.
  20. 1 2 3 4 Dunsworth HM (2007). Human Origins 101. ABC-CLIO. pp. 121. ISBN 978-0-313-33673-7.
  21. ↑ Kempf, E. . (2009). "Patterns of water use in primates". Folia Primatologica 80 (4): 275–294. doi:10.1159/000252586. PMID 19864919.
  22. ↑ Didymus, John Thomas. "Mermaids don't exist, NOAA says after Animal Planet show mix-up". Retrieved 2013-04-06.
  23. ↑ Inglis-Arkell, Esther. "Could Humans Have Evolved From Dolphins?". Retrieved 2013-04-06.
  24. 1 2 3 Rantala, M. J. (2007). "Evolution of nakedness in Homo sapiens". Journal of Zoology 273: 1–7. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7998.2007.00295.x.
  25. 1 2 Verhaegen, Marc; Puech, Pierre-François; Munro, Stephen (2002). "Aquarboreal ancestors?". Trends in Ecology & Evolution 17 (5): 212–7. doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(02)02490-4.
  26. 1 2 Verhaegen, M.; Munro, S. (2011). "Pachyosteosclerosis suggests archaic Homo frequently collected sessile littoral foods". HOMO: Journal of Comparative Human Biology 62 (4): 237–247. doi:10.1016/j.jchb.2011.06.002.
  27. 1 2 Niemitz C (2002). "A Theory on the Evolution of the Habitual Orthograde Human Bipedalism – The "Amphibische Generalistentheorie"". Anthropologischer Anzeiger 60: 3–66.
  28. ↑ Verhaegen M (1987). "Origin of hominid bipedalism". Nature 325 (6102): 305–6. Bibcode:1987Natur.325..305V. doi:10.1038/325305d0.
  29. ↑ Preuschoft H, Preuschoft S (1991). "The aquatic ape theory, seen from epistemological and palaeoanthropological viewpoints". In Roede M, Wind J, Patrick JM, Reynolds V. The aquatic ape: fact or fiction? The first scientific evaluation of a controversial theory of human evolution. London: Souvenir Press. pp. 142–173.
  30. 1 2 3 4 5 Jablonski NG (2008). "Sweat". Skin a natural history. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 39–55. ISBN 0-520-25624-7.
  31. ↑ McHenry HM (2012). "Origin and diversity of early hominin bipedalism". In Reynolds SC; Gallagher A. African Genesis: Perspectives on Hominin Evolution. Cambridge University Press. pp. 205–222. ISBN 978-1-107-01995-9.
  32. ↑ Morgan, E (1982). The Aquatic Ape. Stein & Day Pub. ISBN 0-285-62509-8.
  33. 1 2 3 4 Morgan, Elaine (1997). The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis. Souvenir Press. ISBN 0-285-63518-2.
  34. 1 2 3 Laden, G (4 August 2009). "Musings on the Aquatic Ape Theory". ScienceBlogs. Retrieved 2009-09-02.
  35. ↑ Vanstrum GS (2003). The saltwater wilderness. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. pp. 95. ISBN 0-19-515937-3.
  36. ↑ Fitch, W. Tecumseh; Reby D. (2001). "The descended larynx is not uniquely human". Proc. R. Soc. B. 268 (1477): 1669–1675. doi:10.1098/rspb.2001.1704. PMC 1088793. PMID 11506679.
  37. ↑ MacLarnon, A.M.; Hewitt, G.P. (1999). "The evolution of human speech: The role of enhanced breathing control". American Journal of Physical Anthropology 109 (3): 341–363. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1096-8644(199907)109:3<341::AID-AJPA5>3.0.CO;2-2. PMID 10407464.
  38. ↑ G.Rieke. "Natural Sciences 102: Lecture Notes: Emergence of Intelligence". Retrieved 2011-02-12.
  39. ↑ Venturi, S.; Donati, F.M.; Venturi, A.; Venturi, M. (2000). "Environmental Iodine Deficiency: A Challenge to the Evolution of Terrestrial Life?". Thyroid 10 (8): 727–9. doi:10.1089/10507250050137851. PMID 11014322.
  40. ↑ Crawford, Michael A. (2005). Interviewed in BBC Radio 4's radio special "Scars of Evolution".
  41. ↑ Crawford, M. A.; Bloom, M.; Broadhurst, C. L.; Schmidt, W. F.; Cunnane, S. C.; Galli, C.; Gehbremeskel, K.; Linseisen, F.; Lloyd-Smith, J.; Parkington, J. (1999). "Evidence for the unique function of docosahexaenoic acid during the evolution of the modern hominid brain". Lipids. 34 Suppl: S39–S47. doi:10.1007/BF02562227. PMID 10419087.
  42. ↑ Venturi, S; Bégin ME (2010). "Thyroid Hormone, Iodine and Human Brain Evolution". In Cunnane S; Stewart K. Environmental Influences on Human Brain Evolution. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 105–124. ISBN 978-0-470-45268-4.
  43. ↑ Crawford MA (2010). "Long-Chain Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids in Human Brain Evolution". In Cunnane S; Stewart K. Environmental Influences on Human Brain Evolution. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 13–32. ISBN 978-0-470-45268-4.
  44. ↑ Broadhurst, C. Leigh; Crawford, Michael A.; Munro, Stephen (2011). "Chapter 2: Littoral Man and Waterside Woman: The Crucial Role of Marine and Lacustrine Foods and Environmental Resources in the Origin, Migration and Dominance of Homo sapiens". Was Man More Aquatic in the Past? Fifty Years After Alister Hardy. Bentham Science Publishers. ISBN 978-1-60805-355-1.
  45. ↑ Cunnane, Stephen C. (2005). Survival of the Fattest - The Key to Human Brain Evolution. World Scientific Publishing Co Pte Ltd. ISBN 978-9-81256-191-6.
  46. ↑ Venturi, Sebastiano (2014). "Iodine, PUFAs and Iodolipids in Health and Disease: An Evolutionary Perspective". Human Evolution-. 29 (1-3): 185–205. ISSN 0393-9375.
  47. ↑ Broadhurst, Broadhurst CL, Cunnane SC, Crawford MA; Cunnane, SC; Crawford, MA (January 1998). "Rift Valley lake fish and shellfish provided brain-specific nutrition for early Homo" (PDF). British Journal of Nutrition 79 (1): 3–21. doi:10.1079/BJN19980004. PMID 9505798. Retrieved 2013-04-06.
  48. 1 2 3 4 Morgan, Elaine (1997). "Chapter 13: Infrequently Asked Questions". The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis. Penguin. ISBN 0-285-63518-2.
  49. ↑ Marean, Curtis W.; Bar-Matthews, Miryam; Bernatchez, Jocelyn; Fisher, Erich; Goldberg, Paul; Herries, Andy I. R.; Jacobs, Zenobia; Jerardino, Antonieta; Karkanas, Panagiotis; Minichillo, Tom; Nilssen, Peter J.; Thompson, Erin; Watts, Ian; Williams, Hope M. (2007). "Early human use of marine resources and pigment in South Africa during the Middle Pleistocene". Nature 449 (7164): 905–8. Bibcode:2007Natur.449..905M. doi:10.1038/nature06204. PMID 17943129.
  50. ↑ Carlson BA, Kingston JD (2007). "Docosahexaenoic acid biosynthesis and dietary contingency: Encephalization without aquatic constraint". Am. J. Hum. Biol. 19 (4): 585–588. doi:10.1002/ajhb.20683. PMID 17546613.
  51. 1 2 Milton, K (2000). "Reply to S.C. Cunnane". The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 72 (6): 1586–1588.
  52. ↑ Kuzawa, C (2007). "Book Reviews: Survival of the Fattest". American Journal of Physical Anthropology 132: 158–9. doi:10.1002/ajpa.20484.
  53. ↑ Don Bowen, Bedford Institute of Oceanography, Nova Scotia (2005). Interviewed in BBC Radio 4's radio special "Scars of Evolution".
  54. 1 2 3 Morgan, Elaine (1997). "Chapter 9: The Fat Primate". The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis. Penguin. ISBN 0-285-63518-2.
  55. ↑ Odent, M (1983). "Birth under water". The Lancet 2 (8365): 1476–7. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(83)90816-4. PMID 6140561.
  56. ↑ Johnson, Jessica; Odent, Michel (1995). We Are All Water Babies. Celestial Arts. ISBN 978-0890877586.
  57. ↑ Morgan, Elaine (1997). "Chapter 8: The Other Naked Mammals". The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis. Penguin. ISBN 0-285-63518-2.
  58. ↑ Morgan, Elaine (1997). "Chapter 10: Sweat and Tears". The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis. Penguin. ISBN 0-285-63518-2.
  59. ↑ Williams, Marcel F. (2011). "Chapter 8: Marine Adaptations in Human Kidneys". Was Man More Aquatic in the Past? Fifty Years After Alister Hardy. Bentham Science Publishers. ISBN 978-1-60805-355-1.
  60. 1 2 Zihlman, A (19 January 1991). "Review: Evolution, a suitable case for treatment". New Scientist. Archived from the original on 30 December 2008. Retrieved 2009-05-03.
  61. ↑ Hawks, JD (25 January 2005). "Why anthropologists don't accept the Aquatic Ape Theory". Retrieved 2012-02-25.
  62. 1 2 White, E (2005). "The Peer Review Process: Benefit or Detriment to Quality Scholarly Journal Publication" (PDF). Totem: the University of Western Ontario Journal of Anthropology 13 (1): 52–60.
  63. ↑ Gee, H (2001). In search of deep time: beyond the fossil record to a new history of life. Cornell University Press. pp. 100–101. ISBN 0-8014-8713-7.
  64. ↑ Meier, R (2003). The complete idiot's guide to human prehistory. Alpha Books. pp. 57–59. ISBN 0-02-864421-2.
  65. ↑ Bridgeman, B (2003). Psychology & evolution: the origins of mind. SAGE Publications. pp. 64. ISBN 0-7619-2479-5.
  66. 1 2 3 Langdon, J. H. (2012). "Book review". HOMO - Journal of Comparative Human Biology 63 (4): 315–318. doi:10.1016/j.jchb.2012.06.001.
  67. ↑ Vaneechoutte, M.; Munro, S.; Verhaegen, M. (2012). "Book review (Reply to Langdon's review)" (PDF). HOMO - Journal of Comparative Human Biology 63 (6): 496–503. doi:10.1016/j.jchb.2012.09.003. Archived from the original (pdf) on 16 June 2013.
  68. ↑ McNeill, D (2000). The Face: A Natural History. Back Bay. pp. 36–37. ISBN 0-316-58812-1.
  69. ↑ Medler MJ (2011). "Speculations About the Effects of Fire and Lava Flows on Human Evolution" (pdf). Fire Ecology 7: 13–23. doi:10.4996/fireecology.0701013.
  70. 1 2 Trauth, M. H.; Maslin, M. A.; Deino, A. L.; Junginger, A.; Lesoloyia, M.; Odada, E. O.; Olago, D. O.; Olaka, L. A.; Strecker, M. R.; Tiedemann, R. (2010). "Human evolution in a variable environment: The amplifier lakes of Eastern Africa" (pdf). Quaternary Science Reviews 29 (23–24): 2981–2988. Bibcode:2010QSRv...29.2981T. doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2010.07.007.
  71. ↑ Graham, JM; Scadding GK; Bull PD (2008). Pediatric ENT. Springer. pp. 27. ISBN 3-540-69930-9.
  72. 1 2 Regal, B (2004). Human evolution: a guide to the debates. ABC-CLIO. pp. 208–212. ISBN 1-85109-418-0.
  73. ↑ Myers, PZ (4 August 2009). "Oh, no, not the Aquatic Ape hypothesis!". ScienceBlogs. Retrieved 2012-02-25.
  74. ↑ Morgan, Elaine. "Comment on Jim Moore". Retrieved 2013-04-04.
  75. ↑ Kuliukas, Algis. "Comment on Jim Moore's "AAT Sink or Swim?" Web Site". Retrieved 2013-04-05.
  76. ↑ Groves, Colin (with David W.Cameron) (2004). Bones, Stones and Molecules. Elsevier Academic Press. pp. 68. ISBN 0-12-156933-0.
  77. ↑ Regal, B (2004). Human evolution: a guide to the debates. ABC-CLIO. pp. 211. ISBN 1-85109-418-0.

External links

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Sunday, April 17, 2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.