Oh no. Aquatic ape. …
The ATT “theory” is not accepted in any professional circles. It did not provide a successful framework of analysis.
In any case, human feet work just fine for walking about without shoes, if you do it all the time. No problems.
Andros:
Beecher’s Evolution and Religion was his response to Darwin’s Descent of Man. Beecher believed that God’s dual revelations (scriptural and physical) were inseparable. And in his mind, the idea of evolution was not only applicable to man’s relation with God, but was a definitive model for it. He saw that relation evolving over time from what he saw as the harsh God of the Old Testament to what he called “The Gospel of Love”. Without this evolution, in his mind, there would have been no Jesus.
So controversial were his views that he attempted to assuage the inevitable cries of heresy. He wrote:
Thus, without evolution, God’s temple is buried in the sand. Evolution is necessary, and so it is a cornerstone of his beliefs.
To get a real feel for what Beecher was up against, consider William Jennings Bryan’s comment about evolution, and about Christians like Beecher, whom he (WJB) called theistic evolutionists:
Hmm. Is the OP positing that, at the same time God created Man, he also created Shoes? Missed that part of Genesis the last time through.
When Adam “supposedly” ate the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, his eyes became opened and he knew that he was naked. If this really happened, why are there so many ignorant creationists? Didn’t the fruit give people knowledge?
Just the knowledge of Good and Evil.
Amedeus wrote:
Interesting you should mention that. According to The Bible and the Ancient Near East, the phrase “Good and Evil” was a merism in ancient Hebrew, signifying not just “good and evil” but rather everything.
Or sexual selection? Or gene flow? Or recombination? Or mutation? Or genetic drift?
And on a related note, ancient humans would walk on surfaces that were good enough for their feet. i.e., they would avoid walking through thorn bushes, over sharp rocks, etc.
Or, they would make a path. That is, after all, our primary evolutionary skill…using our brains to change the world around us.
I think it might have been a drive-by.
Fair enough, Libertarian. It still strikes me that Beecher was an early and seminal voice for the idea that evolution strengthens Christianity rather than weakening it. Having cruised several of his sermins over the weekend, I am still left with the feeling that he simply accepted evolutionary theory as accurate, and embraced it as showing all the more clearly the beauty of God’s creation. Nowhere did I see him claim that Christianity requires Darwin.
I think Libertarian is right. Why would you post such a question and not check in to see how the debate is going? What’s the fun in that?
Because, silly, Evilution is a house of cards. By simply asking a question that none of us stupid Evilutionists ever thought about, the Virtuous Creationist has BLOWN OUR MINDS! Our secular humanist worldview is revealed to be an empty shell of a lie, and we are reduced to quivering wretches. We have no choice now but to accept JEEEEsus into our hearts, and embrace the Truth: that the world is seven thousand years old and the Grand Canyon was carved by Noah’s flood.
IF IT HURTS TO STEP ON SHARP ROCKS, THE SON OF GOD IS THE SAVIOR! [sub]I think that’s in Matthew, somewhere.[/sub]
Originally posted by **Collounsbury **
Oh so dismissive. The aquatic ape theory has been derided as a “theory”. It’s not a theory, it’s a “theory”! Which means it should probably be abbreviated AA"T" (or perhaps AT"T" in some circles).
The sole substantive criticism you have offered can be falsified by the acceptance of AAT in a single professional circle.
This
oughtta
do
it.
Fixed links:
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/5052/aat/aat_jhr1.html
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5168/aat/elaine.html
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5168/aat/refs_papers.html
http://members.telocity.com/~hydra9/marcaatpublications.html
Boris, lists of pulished papers do not in and of themselves demonstrate that the theory is accepted in professional circles. Published != accepted.
Actually, the links in my post appeared exactly as I wanted them to.
I guess we stand at the brink of an argument over the definitions of “accepted” and “circle”. I mean, maybe the feelings of the pro-AAT writers do not constitute “acceptance”, and maybe the group of them together does not constitute a “circle”. Collounsbury did not deign to define his terms any more than he explained what his quotation marks around theory meant. What I’m trying to see is that random dismissive putdown != any other particular term until aforementioned dismisser admits it =s it.
I’m sure they appeared precisely as you intended. But they are all broken.
Boris B, the aquatic ape hypothesis has its charms (I really like the notion that some primates once were on a cetacean-like path), but it fails the test of Occam’s Razor. What we know of the fossil record implies that our distant ancestors lived in trees, then moved to the savannas.
The common phenotype of h. sapiens supports this history. Bipedalism, opposable thumbs, large brains…these are all advantageous adaptations for living on savannas. That they’d also be useful on or near the ocean is irrelevant; the fossil record doesn’t support the contention that hominids lived on the sea in the time before we became h. sapiens.
In fact, the only human adaptation explained by the aquatic ape hypothesis is our hairlessness. But it’s not necessary there, either; hair loss is consistent with savanna evolution, since the savannas had fewer shade trees. Hair makes you hot.
We kept the hair on our heads because we were bipedal, so the head (and pretty much just the head) needed protection from sunburn.
QED. No aquatic ape required.
Thank you, Fiver. That is the first critique of aquatic ape that I’ve heard that isn’t crippled by a sneering contempt. One question I still have is, would aquatic ape’s points be more readily accepted if there weren’t a false dichotomy of aquatic vs. savannah? I guess I’m not sure why the two are mutually exclusive. Savannahs and marshes could be part of the same species’ territory, particularly if that species had good cross-country walking abilities like proto-humans.
Some more questions (and these are honest questions, not rhetorical jabs with a ? on the end):
Does hair really make you hot? It just seems like most savannah mammals have hair.
Is a ton of subcutaneous fat a good idea for a savannah creature? The really tubby mammals all seem to have fairly watery environments.
Are humans really good swimmers? Are there any other tailless primates that are as good at swimming as people?
Two comments on Aquatic Ape Theory, from someone who’s in way over his head:
First
Is it really likely that there would be a fossil record from the sea coasts, where the aquatic ape would have been? My understanding is that fossils tend to survive in areas that are relatively stable, so the carcass isn’t disturbed. But the coasts are one of the most active areas - wave action, wind action, general water activity, tides, lots of aquatic scavengers - would it be likely that there would be an extensive fossil record there? and has anyone looked for it?
Second,
When the Aquatic Ape Theory first came out, it was suggested that it might explain human speech - if you’re swimming or in deep water a lot, you can’t communicate easily with signs or gestures, so it might have encouraged the development of speech.
As I said, this is way removed from the stuff I know anything about, so please be gentle with the inevitable rebuttals.
Fiver wrote:
I’m not endorsing the aquatic ape hypothesis by any means, but I’m not sure that’s accurate, Fiver.
If I’m not mistaken, humans are the only primates (or at least one of the few primates) which have downward-directed nostrils. In other primates, the nostrils face forward. According to the aquatic ape hypothesis as I understand it, this could have been an adaptation to prevent water from being forced into the nasal cavity during a dive into the water.
Also, as I understand it, the hypothesis supposes a semi-aquatic lifestyle.
Again, I’m not endorsing the hypothesis; I just don’t want to sell it short.