Elaine Morgan - The way it was, or wishful thinking?
Back in the good ol' days , when I was young, a woman called Elaine Morgan wrote a book challenging the scientific establishment of the day. She suggested that rather than being driven by the male's hunting behaviour, it was an existence on the sea shore that shaped our anatomy and behaviour as humans, and that female needs and drives had as much to do with it as what males were up to.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/interview/story/0,12982,946539,00.html
So far as I recall, no one ever came out and challenged this radical theory, it was simply ignored by the scientific establishment. I mentioned it here recently in a post, and someone suggested that the presence of crocodiles off the African coast would render the whole thing impossible.
hmm, I thought that salties lived off the coast of Australia, but sharks would do I suppose. even so, the theory points to homo sapiens having a lot of sub cutaneous fat (sp?), a diving response and nostrils pointing down. these are just some of the things about us that suggest an aquatic phase in our evolution.
So, what do members in this community make of the 'Aquatic Ape' theory? has any accredited member of the scientific community offered a critique of it, or is it still ignored?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/interview/story/0,12982,946539,00.html
So far as I recall, no one ever came out and challenged this radical theory, it was simply ignored by the scientific establishment. I mentioned it here recently in a post, and someone suggested that the presence of crocodiles off the African coast would render the whole thing impossible.
hmm, I thought that salties lived off the coast of Australia, but sharks would do I suppose. even so, the theory points to homo sapiens having a lot of sub cutaneous fat (sp?), a diving response and nostrils pointing down. these are just some of the things about us that suggest an aquatic phase in our evolution.
So, what do members in this community make of the 'Aquatic Ape' theory? has any accredited member of the scientific community offered a critique of it, or is it still ignored?