Octogenarian scientific theorist and television writer Elaine Morgan recently gave a speech at the Ted conference in support of her aquatic ape evolution theory (yes, this is my second post, and both have had TED references; don't worry: I will branch out soon enough).
She self-admittedly takes a very Darwinistic approach by placing emphasis on means of observation. I've always found this much more interesting than molecular and forensic approaches. Perhaps, because I work in a lab that takes a genotypic rather than phenotype analysis of microscopic organisms, I find Morgan's approach to be more romantic.
She summarizes the original thought that our Homo sapien distinction came from a split with our ancestors: they took to the trees, and we became more erect in our posture to better see across the savannah or to better throw weapons. However, the challenge to said hypothesis arises from several points assembled by Morgan, beginning with the discovery of fossilized pollen. This pollen is allegedly associated with herbivores theorized to have lived with hominid ancestors much earlier than the emergence of the savannah biosphere. If the dating mechanisms are correct, some of the earliest hominids wouldn't have had access to the plains and assumed style of life.
This is the logic that really drew me into her proposition: reasons for bipedalism. Humans are the only non-extant permanent bipeds (with reference to walking; hopping kangaroos and other non-primates are excluded from consideration). Chimps can't walk on two legs, except for short periods of time; however, they always walk on two legs in water.
_05.jpg)
Additionally, the construction of fat deposits seen in man that allow for obesity are not analogous to those of other primates. Such obesity could not be supported by other primates. On this point, I question whether or not a tolerance for obesity is an evolutionary characteristic that is not widely conserved in humans. For example, take certain regions in Africa. There are people groups whose anatomy has not been pushed to retain such fat storage as those of their Western and Eastern counterparts. I guess the question that needs addressing is, "can the primate tolerance for obesity be developed over several generations?" Experimentation on the subject would really be gratuitous, however. Interested scientists will have to wait until desperate housewives replace miniature chihuahuas with a super chubby chimpanzees.
The ability to speak comes from the ability to control our breath. Our primate relatives are not able to do this, only water-dwelling mammals and some water-diving birds.
Morgan's main point, which I find to be almost equally fascinating, is her branding of the evolutionist pool of thought as a priesthood. Theistic evolutionists should find this dryly ironic. Morgan states that certain bodies of thought circulate in different circles, with some ideas being more favored or condemned than others. She concludes with the witty, but unsettling joke that, at least, "Richard Dawkins has told us how to treat a priesthood."
Aside from her final analogy, which seemed to be slightly hypocritical, having followed a rant focused on discrediting beliefs that come from running with circles of thought, Morgan put together a well-supported case for the aquatic ape theory.
