I think that this hypothesis -in spite of being constantly rubbished and denounced as “pseudoscience”(when it’s not)- deserves to be taken seriously. For example, why do humans have very little hair on our bodies, while other mammals are covered in it?
Because as we’ve evolved we’ve developed thicker skin and thus no longer needed fur? what do others think since this is only a guess?
We have? Thicker skin wouldn’t keep us warmer. Ask any thermal physicist; trapped air is what keeps us warm.
By thicker skin I meant skin that is 5-7 (depending on location) layers thick. Then again I’m no scientist
metavoid,
hair on bodies can be explained through evolution. the economist recently ran a great article about it, here’s the link: http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2281888 (re: pubic hair is thoroughly discussed).
i think evolution seems more plauisible. the aquatic theory is sooo old, it began with xenophanes a presocratic. intersting that it’s still alive.
But why hasn’t this happened to all mammals?
hahahaha
oh mustoches! and they didn’t even get to gotee (goatees? whatever, you know what i’m talking about…)
it has happened to other mammals (i.e. elephants, rhinos, pigs, etc). the article links it with temperature – the warmer, less hair.
trix, here’s a good site on AAT.
Slightly irrelevant but related trivia (sorry!):
In the Jewish tradition, during the Havdalah ceremony which brings in the new week, a twisted candle is lit during the ceremony and is extinguished at the end. During one of the prayers that is said, it is traditional to hold your hands up to flame and look at your fingernails. There is a commentary that says the reason we does this is to remind ourselves of where we (humans) came from. Our fingernails, supposedly,are the remaining scales that used to cover our bodies when we were aquatic mammals. Ok, so it’s not science, but quaint all the same? And perhaps interesting from an anthropological perspective.
- ben
oh good god, i can’t believe the website cites a student paper who goes to carleton!!! carleton is like a community college down the street that probably holds woodworking classes next to a physics class.
not the most reliable metavoid, although it seems like i’m ragging on you tonight. it’s a hyphoesis, i suppose, but it does not refute evolution because evloution is able to account for the existence of man as well as provide proof cough 
interesting bit about the religion ben, this with the bit about the presocratics make does make the apt a very interesting anthrological point.
Just read Elaine Morgan’s Scars of Evolution. Loads of evidence for AAT.
I am admittedly not the most well-read person in AAT, I was trained in the more widely accepted models of human evolution (dogma, if you will).
Some off-the-cuff remarks, regardless:
Neither our fingers nor toes are truly webbed.
Other semi-aquatic mammals (otters, beavers, seals, nutria, etc.) have full coats of hair.
Humans cannot go long without a breath of air.
We cannot close our nostrils like most aquatic mammals.
Humans are not great swimmers. Nor are we great waders.
Many more aspects of our morphology point to an ancestoral arboreal existence.
Hairlessness is explained sufficiently without an aquatic stage.
It seems to me that humans spending large amounts of time rivers and lakes in Africa would be easy pickings for crocodiles. We are ill-suited to deal with such a threat. The dangers of the land are much easier to avert, given our abilities with vision, tree-climbing, and weapon-brandishing. A lion will flee from a gaggle of skrieking homonids wielding improvised clubs. Not so a croc, especially when said homonids can neither strike nor see below the water line.
Just my impressions.
Sigh There goes my long-held mermaid fantasies.
Howdee Folks !! ( I is a noob ).
I am also a keen swimmer and an aspiring free-diver (only as a hobby).
As such, I am very optimistic about AAT and believe everyone else should also be.
Mr. Metavoid ( who appears to have left ILP [last post April 2004]) linked to a page of links, the best of which ( for those
unfamiliar with Aquatic Ape Theory ) is this HTML LEAFLET
Below is a table (from that leaflet) which nicely condenses the essentials :
Ray said:
Umm… aren’t all of these mammals from northern regions… the aquatic ape evolved in Africa.
We are not ‘fully aquatic’… we never were… we are a monkey/marine hybrid.
Question : [ to those more learned than I ] Where does AAT currently stand within the scientific community of 2006 ?
P.S. - Ray also seems to have left ILP, perhaps someone ‘new’ would like to make a contribution.
.
Maybe it’s not evolution at all. Maybe God designed humans with less hair as a distinction. Maybe this is God’s way of setting humans apart from the animal kingdom among other things. Maybe…
There’s something about a subcutaneous layer of fat that no other primate has that’s also suggestive of an aquatic past. It would have had to have been at least 1 1/2 or 2 million years ago. I would guess somewhere between the coast of southeast african all the way to the kerala province of india.
ps. just noticed the leaflet 
pps. just noticed the chronology of posts. Sorry SirEbrum, i finished school long before the thread started.
not to mention we’ve been using clothes to keep warm for 10.000 years now ?
Yet people shave more and more. Which would appear to be the opposite sort of behaviour to the one you’d expect, if evolution were governing it.
Diary:
16:53. Jul 6th 2006.
Evolved a bit.
16:54. Jul 6th 2006.
Evolved a bit more.
16:55. Jul 6th 2006.
Noticed my fingers were webbed all of a sudden.
16:56. Jul 6th 2006.
Started breathing through the back of my neck.
Whoo-Boy, this evolution business just blurs by, doesn’t it.
Love the comparison table. Not biased in any way at all, completely all-encompassing in comparison criteria. [size=67]My Arse[/size].