Aquatic Ape Hypothesis

[Savonarola]

The following discussion has been split from here.

Previously, Barbara Fitzpatrick had written:

Tony - according to the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis, which I find much more logical than anything else I've read - Occam's Razor and all that - the "big brain" was developed during a more or less aquatic phase that also gave us subcutaneous fat instead of fur as the "insulation" to help regulate our body temperature and the ability to voluntarily control our breathing that permitted the development of speech (marine adaptations you also see in marine mammals such as dolphins). The abundant protein in question was from readily available fish/shellfish trapped in littoral pools by receding tides - and explains why our cells, brain cells especially, need the "omega6/omega3" balance of essential fatty acids that are normally found in fish - and not in terrestrial animal flesh. (And why, even with the mercury contamination, health experts still recommend keeping fish in the diet. Just eat a species that has less mercury contamination. That will mostly be Pacific Ocean fish, since the prevailing winds move the mercury from our coal-fired power plants east into the Atlantic.)

I responded with the following:

Not to derail this thread, but:

- according to the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis, which I find much more logical than anything else I've read -

Then read this site.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Sav - Also not to derail the thread, but that site (anti-AAH) reads an awfully lot like one of Hogeye's tirades. Much study needs to be done on AAH, of course. It wasn't taken "seriously" until about 20 years ago. (As in, people with scientific credentials started actually looking at it instead of dismissing it out of hand, and it shows up as one of many possibilities in some anthropology classes.) The only thing I will say about it is there has to be something simple (Occam's Razor) but rather drastic to change a generalized myocene ape species and turn it into a species with a subcutaneous layer of fat instead of hair/fur, unlike any of the other generalized myocene ape species that didn't become extinct in the next "age". Species that start with fur, under "normal" circumstances keep their fur (remember the chimpanzee & gorilla are still hairy - and there are savannah chimps - this being the science section, I won't mention the one in the White House). Have you read the books? I really don't count the first one because it was as much a slam at the male-superiority-based-on-pop-anthropology as it was a pop anthropology book (fun to read, but mostly putting out ideas that needed decades of research) - although Morgan did point out a problem with mindsets that unconsciously picture "Man" as an adult male.

Whether you "believe" the AAH or not, there has to be some reason - and hunting on the savannah isn't it - as to why human brains are made up of so much DHA (fatty acids predominant in fish, but not in terrestrial animals) compared to other primates. We need those fatty acids in our diet. Terrestrially the best sources are flaxseeds and a weed I can't think of the name of right now (it grows in my yard and tastes pretty good in salad, but you don't find it in American grocery stores). If fish are off your diet (vegan, the "2.5" of the original article), our modern farming, refining, and marketing methods guarantee you can still get what you need.

[Dardedar]

DAR
I hadn't even heard of the AAT. So I did a little reading. Of what wiki had on it I found the following interesting:

***
Vagueness

Since the 1960s, the theory hasn't improved; it has simply become more vague in time period(s), degree and water source (Ellis 1993, Verhaegen et al. 2002, Morgan 1982, Hardy 1960). Rather than suggesting an aquatic stage of evolution, some are reduced to suggesting some general association with water (which is true of all animals). This vagueness makes such a theory impossible to evaluate scientifically. Furthermore, there is much to suggest that hominids were still covered with hair long after they began to walk bipedally full-time [5]. There is no suggestion that humans had more fat than other species before modern civilization enabled a sedentary lifestyle. Many humans without exposure to plentiful food do not have more fat than other animals.

Recent fossil finds

Since the 1960s, more fossils have been found to fill in the gaps in human evolution. It can be argued that these fossils support the terrestrial theories of human evolution. Orrorin tugenensis for example appears to show bipedalism and tree-climbing skills, which could cut the time for an aquatic stage completely out of the picture.

Attacks on proponents

Although it has very little to do with the theory itself, many skeptics of the aquatic ape hypothesis attack the proponents of the hypothesis, rather than address the hypothesis itself. Ad hominem attacks have been repeatedly launched against supporters of the theory. Much has been made of the fact that Alister Hardy pondered the role of telepathy on evolution[6]. Also subject to ridicule have been lesser claims made by some proponents in non-scholarly works, such as a suggestion the mermaids are some kind of race memory of an aquatic stage[7]. Others have gone so far as to parody the theory, such as with the Pliocene Pussy Cat Theory, which suggests that early humans used cats to hunt for them.

The AAT Debate

The aquatic ape hypothesis provokes fierce and often acrimonious contention. Skeptics criticise the lack of direct fossil evidence; the sometimes amateurish way in which the theory is presented; and the occasional over-emphasis of tenuous arguments.

Proponents complain about a dismissive and superior attitude; attacks on methods and personalities rather than substance; an exaggeration of the degree of aquaticism being assumed; and the failure to provide land-based alternative hypotheses that survive the very criticisms levelled at AAT.
***

From what I read there and elsewhere it seems, as the wiki article says: "The theory, often referred to simply as AAT, has been poorly received in mainstream paleoanthropology."

The Straight Dope fellow is especially hard on it.

[Savonarola]

... that site (anti-AAH) reads an awfully lot like one of Hogeye's tirades.

If you're looking for parallels, look at Morgan's claims and compare them to creationist bilge, namely how pissy they both get when they get told that their assertions have no connection to reality. One has to be haughty when dealing with such tripe. Do you have any counters to the actual points, or is your only objection that it sounds like Hogeye?

Much study needs to be done on AAH, of course.

Well, much study needs to be done if anyone expects to come up with any kind of convincing evidence. There's certainly none now.

The only thing I will say about it is there has to be something simple (Occam's Razor) but rather drastic to change a generalized myocene ape species and turn it into a species with a subcutaneous layer of fat instead of hair/fur, unlike any of the other generalized myocene ape species that didn't become extinct in the next "age".

First, that's not how Occam's Razor works. Occam's Razor doesn't say, "For some unexplained phenomenon, there must be some simple explanation." This is ludicrous.
Furthermore, humans aren't the only terrestrial organisms (or even mammals) that have subcutaneous fat. Monkeys (for one) do too; does that mean that they had an aquatic phase? If so, why didn't they lose their hair?

I really don't count the first one because it was as much a slam at the male-superiority-based-on-pop-anthropology as it was a pop anthropology book (fun to read, but mostly putting out ideas that needed decades of research) - although Morgan did point out a problem with mindsets that unconsciously picture "Man" as an adult male.

Actually, Morgan's original objection was that the prevailing theory was too male-centered. She didn't understand why females would lose hair, too, if hair loss was being selected for in males and not females. This simply exposes Morgan's ignorance of biology; because females have hair, the genes for hair and hair expression can't be solely on the Y chromosome. That means that they must be on either the X chromosome or an autosome, which both sexes have. (I could probably look up where these genes are located, but the fact that I don't even have to in order to undercut her entire premise should be indicative of how far she is out of her element.) Each of these chromosomes is heritable for either sex, therefore both sexes are affected.
When you're done contemplating that, consider that we could propose any number of reasons for hair loss in females, a very popular one being sexual selection.

... there has to be some reason - and hunting on the savannah isn't it - as to why human brains are made up of so much DHA (fatty acids predominant in fish, but not in terrestrial animals) compared to other primates.

Quite simply: no, there doesn't. I could say the same thing about the cytochrome c sequence in humans and rhesus monkeys. "There must be some reason they differ by one amino acid!" Again, this is ludicrous. They differ by one amino acid, but to demand that there must be some causal explanation is a giant leap. Evolution simply happened to go that way.
More importantly, the site that you apparently didn't read well enough explains the fallacy behind your reasoning. And it does so explicitly:

The argument, in short, is as follows (and contains a classic logical flaw):

DHA is a requirement for normal human brain development
DHA is abundant in fish
hominids needed to eat fish for normal brain development

The first two statements are true -- definitely true, absolutely no question about it. But the third statement is false. The reason the third statement can be false even though the first two statements are true is that the argument is missing information (Fallacy of Exclusion) which makes it seem as though the only place where enough DHA is present is at the shore. And in fact Crawford at least has explicitly (and quite falsely) claimed that "the only place you can do that is at the seashore". This claim just isn't true.

If fish are off your diet (vegan, the "2.5" of the original article), our modern farming, refining, and marketing methods guarantee you can still get what you need.

If you don't get DHA directly from your diet, your body synthesizes it from LNA, which you can get from (*gasp*) game meat and vegetables. Hard to find those in the savanna, huh?

Morgan has stolen her idea from someone else (Hardy, for one), dressed it up with a lot of pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo that has no evidential support, and is now crying like a baby that the scientific community isn't welcoming her with open arms. Sound like anybody we've read a lot about?

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

As long as the response to a logical concept is ridicule, nobody researches it. All animals have some fat - terrestrial animals don't have the subcutaneous layer of fat that humans do. (If you've ever given shots to terrestrial animals v. people, or dealt with gashes in terrestrial animal skins v. human skins, you know what I mean.) All mammals have hair follicles, some have dense hair that protects from sun in hot climates as well as cold/rain in other climates. Humans do not. The AAH suggests a reason/mechanism to account for the change from fur to fat AND bipedalism - and at more or less the same "time".

The AAH has put forth a time range and a location - and an explanation that is at least viable as to how it occured (rising seas trapping a generalized ape species in on an island/marshland). Evolutionary processes indicate, under those circumstance, rapid changes from other similar species could be expected. Morgan/the AAH cover a few very significant changes during the "aquatic phase". Fur/fat, bipedalism, voluntary control of breathing/physical changes required for vocal language are some of the ones I find most logical to have an aquatic explanation. (Occam's Razor doesn't say there's a simple explanation for every issue, just that the most simple is probably right.) The AAH does not quarrel with terrestrial life effecting the change to emphasize/enlarge/strengthen/whatever. For example, running would strengthen a bipedal tendency - but not make the change from quadriped to biped in the first place, etc.

Part of the issue comes down to everybody talking about these changes as if they occurred in one generation - and that is partly due to the "pop" style of writing Morgain, among others, uses. It's amusing, but not literally defensible. I've noticed both sides getting "pissy" in this discussion. I don't like "pissy".

The DHA "classical logic flaw" is definitely one of the "strawman" arguments - both sides presenting the other in the wrong. If the argument had been presented the way the citation showed, the "anti" group would be correct. However, it wasn't. Pointing out similarities and drawing logical conclusions that need to be researched on the relative ease of gathering high-protein, high DHA food from littoral pools v. getting it from catching things that run faster than you do does not equal an "if A and B, then C" statement. The "if A..." statement also misses the point. Why do humans have a larger brain, and that most recent part of the brain require DHA, when our closest relatives (chimps) do not? Most of the AAH works that way - poses questions and gives logical answers that need research, not ridicule, to prove one way or another. It is still in the "hypothesis" stage and has a long way to go to make "theory" if it ever does, but before I discard it, I want to see a more logical answer to the drastic changes from other primates. Since other primate species have "come down from the trees" without making the very basic, very drastic changes, I'll give the AAH some more running room to do that research.

[Savonarola]

As long as the response to a logical concept is ridicule, nobody researches it.

Come up with some points that aren't literally "ridiculous," and perhaps they'll be less likely to be ridiculed.

From later in the post:

Most of the AAH works that way - poses questions and gives logical answers that need research, not ridicule, to prove one way or another.

Oh really? Let's put that to the test.

Also from later in the post:

Fur/fat, bipedalism, voluntary control of breathing/physical changes required for vocal language are some of the ones I find most logical to have an aquatic explanation.

Good, we'll start with those.

All animals have some fat - terrestrial animals don't have the subcutaneous layer of fat that humans do.

As I said above, monkeys do. If AAH is the explanation for humans' subcutaneous fat, why do monkeys have it too?
Hypothesis: Humans' subcutanenous fat layer arose during an aquatic phase for the purposes of insulation.
Test: Compare characteristics of other terrestrial and aquatic mammals.
Data: Monkeys -- non-aquatic mammals -- also have the subcutaneous fat layer. This is contrary to the AAH explanation unless AAH also proposes that monkeys went through an aquatic phase or unless the monkey line split from humans after the aquatic phase of a common ancestor. As the AAH purports to explain differences between humans and monkeys (and common chimps and bonobos), the findings are inconsistent with the proposals of AAH.
Conclusion: AAH is contradicted.
In fact, there are better explanations: Subcutaneous fat greatly affects body shape, and in apes like us, body shape is an essential component of sexual selection. In support of this, the onset of puberty triggers the development of fat deposits in certain places -- especially in females -- that make them more attractive to the opposite sex.

All mammals have hair follicles, some have dense hair that protects from sun in hot climates as well as cold/rain in other climates. Humans do not. The AAH suggests a reason/mechanism to account for the change from fur to fat...

Did naked mole rats have an aquatic phase, too? Elephants have relatively little hair; did elephants have an aquatic phase, too? Worse, many aquatic mammals have hair and use it to store air as an insulator.
Hypothesis: Hair loss is best explained by an aquatic phase.
Test: Compare characteristics of other terrestrial and aquatic mammals.
Data: Not only are some terrestrial (and never aquatic) mammals relatively hairless, but many aquatic mammals are hairy.
Conclusion: AAH is contradicted or -- at best -- unsupported.
In fact, humans on average technically have more body hair than chimps, but it is finer, lighter, and sparser and therefore harder to see.

AND bipedalism

Morgan has two "reasons" for making this claim. She reneged on one of them (the stronger of the two, coincidentally, though that's not saying much) eleven and a half years ago, and the other one is not only unsupported but actually contradicted by research.
Do read up on this, please.

You didn't make any actual claims about breath control and physical changes for vocalization; nevertheless, the refutations exist.
To say that humans' breath control came from an aquatic phase is asinine. All vertebrates dive, and some monkeys hold their breaths. So do dogs. Did dogs/wolves have an aquatic phase in their evolution? As any dog owner will tell you, not only do dogs still have fur, but they've got pretty good control of the vocal noises they make.
Additionally, some chimps have descended larynges. So do deer. Many, many mammals' larynges descend while vocalizing, especially loudly; do all of these animals have aquatic histories?
At this point, I'm just repeating myself... just like I said I would be. I'll cut to the chase: Conclusion: AAH is unsupported.

(Occam's Razor doesn't say there's a simple explanation for every issue, just that the most simple is probably right.)

No, it says that given two explanations which both explain the phenomena equally well, the simpler one is probably correct. AAH not only doesn't accurately explain the phenomena, it throws more [pun alert] monkey wrenches into the picture than problems it "explains."

Part of the issue comes down to everybody talking about these changes as if they occurred in one generation - and that is partly due to the "pop" style of writing Morgain, among others, uses. It's amusing, but not literally defensible.

I've seen nobody on either side presenting the arguments as if the changes took place in a single generation, or even only a small handful of generations. However, when we do ask questions about "Why don't we see [insert general aquatic trait that humans don't have] in humans?", the answer is always "There wasn't enough time." We can get radical changes like a large increase in brain size and complete relocation of fat cells in this unknown period of time, but our ears don't get any smaller at all and our skin doesn't become any more resistant to waterlogging?

I've noticed both sides getting "pissy" in this discussion.

Both sides get pissy in the creation/evolution debate too; this is yet another similarity. One side makes shit up and promotes it with no evidence -- either experimental or observational -- and whines while the other side rips them a new one; meanwhile, the other side provides plenty of ammo to counter the bullshit and has to complain because the first side is too willfully ignorant to bother reading the points being presented.

Pointing out similarities and drawing logical conclusions that need to be researched on the relative ease of gathering high-protein, high DHA food from littoral pools v. getting it from catching things that run faster than you do does not equal an "if A and B, then C" statement.

And you wonder why people get pissy. It tends to be because we have to say the same thing over and over and over. We manufacture DHA from LNA, which we can get from vegetables. Did veggies run away from animals millions of years ago? Do you really think that we were essentially incapable of hunting game many hundred thousand years ago?

Why do humans have a larger brain, and that most recent part of the brain require DHA, when our closest relatives (chimps) do not?

Once again, why is this a problem? There is no shortage of DHA/LNA in a savanna diet. If one were to accept the logic that "high" need for DHA means need for "high" DHA food, then the (then unused) LNA pathway likely would have been broken by mutation, just like dozens of our amino-acid manufacturing genes and our vitamin C synthesis gene.

Here are the big questions you can answer for me. You said that AAH provides a time and a location:
When did this aquatic phase take place?
How long did this phase last?
How does this conform to our knowledge of braincase volumes derived from fossil finds?

[Dardedar]

...the onset of puberty triggers the development of fat deposits in certain places -- especially in females -- that make them more attractive to males.

DAR
This might be a good time to use an illustration or graphic to support your argument. Any picture of Dolly Parton will do.

As any dog owner will tell you, not only do dogs still have fur, but they've got pretty good control of the vocal noises they make.
Additionally, some chimps have descended larynges. So do deer. Many, many mammals' larynges descend while vocalizing, especially loudly; do all of these animals have aquatic histories?

DAR
Goats are somewhat closely related to deer I am told. When I feed my goats, as they fight over who gets the grain, they talk to each other. Very interesting sounds. I should record it some time.

D.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Sav - please note the difference between subcutaneous fat and body fat. All animals have fat. It protects the internal organs, amongst other things. But all animals do not have subcutaneous layers of fat (a layer of fat is under the skin and connected to the skin). Marine animals - seals, whales, etc. do. Land animals don't. Have you every had to deal with a gash to a cat that's been fighting? Compare that to the gash a human child takes falling off a bicycle. Look at a picture of the limbs of an ape compared to the limbs of a human. (And Morgain did point out physical characteristics of elephants that suggested they, too, had an aquatic stage.) As to the marine animals that also have hair/fur, they are animals that also spend a large portion of their lives on land in COLD climates. The pig is more to the point. It is relatively hairless and has a subcutaneous layer of fat but, as Morgain also pointed out, put apparently had a "wallowing" rather than "aquatic" stage.

As to the "onset of puberty" triggering "development of fat deposits in certain places - especially in females - that make them more attractive to males" - you've just demonstrated the adult-male bias that Morgan addressed in the first book. That emotionally unweaned adult males are attracted to infant food containers is a problem for psychology and not evidence for anthropology (how's that for "pissy"). "Mother Nature" doesn't give a damn about male perversions - other primates didn't need to be bribed with a baby bottle to mate. If this species needed that kind of bribery, it would have become extinct, not have the baby bottle augmented.

I'm not going to "point by point" - I didn't really want to get this started anyway - and I don't like "pissing contests". Another poster asked a question and I gave a response. You, he, and anybody else are welcome to read the book(s). If you want to consider you've "won" - go ahead. I will continue to cite the AAH whenever the topic or a response warrants it.

[Doug]

That emotionally unweaned adult males are attracted to infant food containers is a problem for psychology and not evidence for anthropology (how's that for "pissy").

DOUG
I don't see a problem here. (Except availability.)

"Mother Nature" doesn't give a damn about male perversions - other primates didn't need to be bribed with a baby bottle to mate. If this species needed that kind of bribery, it would have become extinct, not have the baby bottle augmented.

DOUG
Breasts understood as sexual objects is certainly not an innate reaction. It is learned in a social context. Cultures that don't see breasts as sex objects don't have men ogling over their routinely topless women. No doubt men of such tribes would be puzzled over many of the websites on the Internet.

[Savonarola]

Sav - please note the difference between subcutaneous fat and body fat.

Quick question: do you really, honestly, seriously think that I don't know the difference? Yeesh.

Land animals don't [have subcutaneous fat layers].

Okay Barbara, repeat after me: "Monkeys also have subcutaneous fat."
How many times do I have to say this? We are seeing, folks, willful ignorance at its finest. AAH claims to explain why humans have subcutaneous fat and other land animals (like monkeys) don't.... but -- GASP -- monkeys do have subcutaneous fat. This contradicts the AAH.

As to the marine animals that also have hair/fur, they are animals that also spend a large portion of their lives on land in COLD climates.

So we're like the ones with no fur and the waterproof skin? Ever taken a long bath and looked at your fingers afterward?
Did you forget that I mentioned in my last post that I mentioned that humans have more hair than chimps (even though human hair is a less effective insulator)? AAH could posit that we lost our hair and gained waterproof skin or that we developed a thick coat of fur for insulation. How well does AAH fit the observations? Neither is the case. Humans don't fit into any group of aquatic or even semi-aquatic mammals.

Look at a picture of the limbs of an ape compared to the limbs of a human.

... What about them?

(And Morgain did point out physical characteristics of elephants that suggested they, too, had an aquatic stage.)

Name them and support the reasoning. I wouldn't take her word for anything, and you'd know why if you'd actually read the site.

As to the "onset of puberty" triggering "development of fat deposits in certain places - especially in females - that make them more attractive to males" - you've just demonstrated the adult-male bias that Morgan addressed in the first book.

First, this is analogous to the "evolution is racist" argument. Creationists claim that evolution promotes racism, and because racism is bad, evolution must be false. (Gravity causes falling deaths; falling deaths are bad, therefore there is no gravity.) This is stupid. So is saying that the alleged "male bias" makes the position inherently questionable. (See also below regarding sexual selection.) Second, and more importantly, the observation I made is true. (See also below regarding fat distribution.) It is no more sexist than the hair "problem" that Morgan is too scientifically illiterate to understand.

That emotionally unweaned adult males are attracted to infant food containers is a problem for psychology and not evidence for anthropology (how's that for "pissy").

While breasts do contain significant amounts of fat and are affected by puberty, the real emphasis is on the pelvic region, not the breasts. During adolescence, the hips widen, and fat smooths the curve of the hip and the buttocks. Doug points out,

Breasts understood as sexual objects is certainly not an innate reaction. It is learned in a social context.

and this is quite true. However, studies show that wide hips are preferred worldwide, even in the remotest of tribes. (See waist-hip ratio.)

"Mother Nature" doesn't give a damn about male perversions

In case anybody didn't notice, this is where Barbara pooh-poohed away about a century and a half of research on sexual selection. Her claim, unlike sexual selection, is absolute bullshit. The original objections to the concept of sexual selection (in the mid-to-late 1800s) were based upon the wishful thinking of male-dominated society that denied that the "inferior, passive" female could have such a profound effect on mating and -- consequently -- gene distribution. This is opposite what Morgan claims! Instead of being upset that women have the power, she's saying that the effect of the female body is the males' arrogance! Object to sexual selection, and you're a male chauvinist; accept sexual selection, and you're a male chauvinist...

If this species needed that kind of bribery, it would have become extinct, not have the baby bottle augmented.

Nothing was "needed;" this talk just shows ignorance of sexual selection. All that sexual selection requires to get started is some sort of positive feedback, which could happen via happenstance, heritable tendencies, or even assimilated fetish. However, in this case, there does seem to be an actual correlation between waist-hip ratio and both fertility and health.

I'm not going to "point by point"...

No one does when they have no leg to stand on.

In my last post, I presented three very important questions. I note that not a single one even was attempted to be answered. For a theory that "gives logical answers," where are the answers?

I will continue to cite the AAH whenever the topic or a response warrants it.

I'll consider each such citation an invitation to rip that balderdash a new one all over again.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Well Sav, you claim I didn't read the site, which I did. Now I'm going to claim you haven't read the books, just the "balderdash" sites. If I'm wrong, then it comes down to trying to explain color to the blind - and I'm sure you see my stance the same from your point of view. I re-read the first book last night, and I still find it a viable concept and that Morgain did a very good job of pointing out potential ramifications apparently overlooked by Morris and the few others who even commented on the original, very brief article (which I have) and presentation (sorry, I don't have that) by Dr. Hardy, who while not an anthropologist, might as a marine biologist be expected to know the difference between terrestrial and marine characteristics.

[Savonarola]

Well Sav, you claim I didn't read the site, which I did.

Well, Barb, no one would have guessed, considering the site refutes the claims you were making.

Now I'm going to claim you haven't read the books, just the "balderdash" sites.

I can't tell exactly what you mean: are you saying that the information presented on that site is balderdash? Are any of the claims I've made above false?
You would be correct that I haven't read any of her books. Just as I haven't read Icons of Evolution, I can know it's balderdash by reading up on what it says. It is possible that Morgan is an excellent logician and presents a great argument... but if it's based on falsehoods, it's worthless. For example, you claim that land mammals (except humans) don't have subcutaneous fat. I presume you get this "fact" from Morgan, but it isn't a fact at all. In fact, I had to tell you multiple times that it's not a fact. If you care to look it up with an impartial resource, be my guest.

I re-read the first book last night, and I still find it a viable concept ...

You're entitled to your opinion, but -- frankly -- I prefer holding opinions that are logical. Earlier, you wrote

Fur/fat, bipedalism, voluntary control of breathing/physical changes required for vocal language are some of the ones I find most logical to have an aquatic explanation.

whereupon I proceeded to critique each point and show why none of these characteristics support AAH. (Given an opportunity to rebut, your only response was to make a point about furry semi-aquatic mammals in cold climates. Guess what? That's misleading (or plain wrong, depending on how inclusive you were trying to be): monk seals are mostly aquatic, live in the nice, warm waters of Hawaii and the Mediterranean area, and have lots of fur. The giant otter from the Amazon region has very thick fur. Depending on exactly how much time was spent in the water according to whichever version of AAH gets used this particular hour (which is why I asked the three questions that you didn't answer), we could also point to the otter civet and some tapirs.) If those are the best, and they're that lousy...

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Sav - it is obvious from your language and tone in even starting this thread that the odds are better for Hogeye postings something in favor of the U.S. government than for you to read even "Scars of Evolution" (198 pages including references and index). And the odds of Jesus coming back next Tuesday are better than you reading "Scars of Evolution" and coming back saying, "My reading of the evidence is different from Morgan's but she points out some interesting things that need more research". Therefore, I really don't see any point to continuing this and rather regret that I even responded in the first place.

Doug - (quote "Breasts understood as sexual objects is certainly not an innate reaction.") Absolutely true. That's why I have little time for hypotheses of sexual attraction supposedly explaining why female hominids developed them, and pay a great deal of attention to hypotheses whose reasoning indicates infant's needs as the significant factor.

[Dardedar]

DAR
That Morgon is a non-expert with an honorary degree, defending a novel "out there" and rather complex hypothesis is one thing... but I was reading the wiki entry on Morgan and found this rather damning exposition of her blatantly and repeatedly doctoring and misrepresenting quotes and context while making her case (a branch from the site Sav has referenced above). That's a big no no and a big red flag. I am sure Barbara wouldn't want to defend that sort of thing.

And I agree with Sav's point regarding reading "Icon's of Evolution." I haven't read it either but I can know it is terrible junk without reading it. Some good scientists at the National Center for Science Education took the time to go through it and give it an extensive and comprehensive chapter by chapter roast. Having read that, Icon's can be completely dismissed as unredeemable, worthless, dishonest junk. I wouldn't waste the time putting the poo in my head only to go to the trouble of removing it. I don't have time to read much about the AAH but the bit about her messing with quotes means I would probably take the shortcut of reading the careful debunks of her rather read her material.

D.

[Savonarola]

Sav - it is obvious from your language and tone in even starting this thread that the odds are better for Hogeye postings something in favor of the U.S. government than for you to read even "Scars of Evolution" (198 pages including references and index).

First, let's get something straight. I "start[ed] this thread" because the AAH discussion resulted in a derailment of the original thread. If you're going to attack me for disagreeing with you, at least do it for the right reasons. If you dislike my moderation practices, you can post a complaint in the appropriate forum and a different moderator will review the situation.
What should be obvious from my language is that I loathe crackpots. Morgan is one. Read the site: she lies, quote mines and misquotes, ignores facts, and thumbs her nose at actual evidence while simultaneously insisting that her (stolen) idea should be treated as a fully scientific theory despite no evidence that stands up to critique.
Worse, she -- exactly like Hovind -- is very good at presenting her facts, such that she is able to convince even reasonable people with her bullshit. You bought it, didn't you? Unless you're generally unreasonable (and I really don't think you are), this point should hit home. You said twice that humans are the only land animals with subcutaneous fat. That claim is blatantly false. I have invited you to check any claims that either the site or I make using an independent source, and you haven't come up with any errors; even your single response about cold-weather, furry, semi-aquatic mammals was wrong.

And the odds of Jesus coming back next Tuesday are better than you reading "Scars of Evolution" and coming back saying, "My reading of the evidence is different from Morgan's but she points out some interesting things that need more research".

"More research?" She's done no research. As I said earlier, she's doing exactly what the IDiot crackpots are doing: "I have this idea; I have no evidence for it, but it sounds good, so everyone should consider it true science while we see if there's anything out there that actually supports it." No, you find the evidence before you start making demands of the scientific community, and because Morgan is damn near as unscientific as they come, she doesn't know this. She and Behe should talk, so they can co-author a book about the evil, conspiratorial scientific community...
As to your literal statement, I agree: the chances that I'll read the book and come back saying anything besides "that woman needs to get her facts straight" really are incredibly low.

Therefore, I really don't see any point to continuing this and rather regret that I even responded in the first place.

There's nothing wrong with presenting ideas, but you're in for a rough ride when you have no support. Remember, you listed the four "most logical" reasons for believing AAH, and each one had been eviscerated long before you made the post.
If I were you, I'd find swallowing the canards much more regrettable than bringing it up. (After all, that's what a discussion board is for.) I tried at length to explain to you that her assertions were not based in reality, that her approach to science was laughable at best, that she regularly ignores pertinent facts, and that her feminism apparently gets the better of her at times. I showed you that your best reasons for believing were nonsense. I asked several questions that you were unable to answer even after re-reading her book. Perhaps it is just as well that you're done, because I don't think there's any more that really needs to be said.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Sav - I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with me. My comment was about the tone of the post when you started this thread, not that you'd started it at all. I expected you to. I do have a problem with the fact that you are doing exactly what you accuse others of doing. You don't know what Morgan's said or written. You only know what other people have said she's said or written. You don't know who she's quoted and you don't know that she's actually misquoted anyone, except that someone else said she did. (I even know of an instance where one person who doesn't believe/like/whatever the AAH saying she'd been misquoted and when I read her complaint and then re-read Morgan - the complainer hadn't been misquoted, but she was misquoting Morgan's quote of her - C. Pond, if you're interested.) A political example would be if you'd just read the swiftboaters' site and based your opinion of Kerry on that instead of ready Kerry's site/books/speeches.

As to the subcutaneous fat issue - there may be a word for the difference between the thin layer of fat attached to the muscle but not to the skin of terrestrial mammals such as cats and chimps and the thick layer of fat bonded to the skin of marine mammals like seals and whales (and people) but I haven't been able to find it. A response of "so" when I say look at the difference between the limbs of apes and people does not incline me to take the time and energy to print your post, take it home, look up and record all the responses, bring them back to work, and use up my lunch time posting them.

[Savonarola]

You don't know what Morgan's said or written. You only know what other people have said she's said or written.

This is a fair observation. It would be one thing if I based my critique only on what her detractors have claimed that she's said. However, you are not a detractor, and you have made claims. I refuted these claims. Some are just blatantly false. Unless you are misrepresenting Morgan's claims, you of all people should understand that her actual claims are being addressed.

... the thick layer of fat bonded to the skin of marine mammals like seals and whales (and people) ...

and some monkeys... (and hedgehogs, and badgers...)

A response of "so" when I say look at the difference between the limbs of apes and people does not incline me to take the time and energy to print your post, take it home, look up and record all the responses, bring them back to work, and use up my lunch time posting them.

All you said was to look at the limbs. You didn't explain what I should notice or how that difference supports the AAH. Here is the mention in question in its context, including the two sentences both before and after it:

Have you every had to deal with a gash to a cat that's been fighting? Compare that to the gash a human child takes falling off a bicycle. Look at a picture of the limbs of an ape compared to the limbs of a human. (And Morgain did point out physical characteristics of elephants that suggested they, too, had an aquatic stage.) As to the marine animals that also have hair/fur, they are animals that also spend a large portion of their lives on land in COLD climates.

I didn't address anything because there was nothing to address.

[Betsy]

Sav, I'm sure Barbara must be offended by your tone, because I am and I'm not even involved in this discussion. It's insulting and demeaning. It's unpleasant to read. You owe Barbara an apology.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Thanks Betsy. I knew Sav didn't agree with the AAH, but I thought I would be getting a presentation of one or more alternate hypotheses - probably with links to articles in peer-reviewed journals, since he's much better at compter/network stuff than I am - dealing with the very obvious differences between humans and apes/terrestrial mammals in general - not a link to a "swiftboat" style site and an empassioned diatribe denying the differences.