Our aquatic origins

Octogenarian Elaine Morgan has been fighting for most of her adult life to gain acceptance for her aquatic ape theory that humans evolved in an estuarine environment rather than the Savannah.

There are big difference between us and other primates. We live on the ground. They live in the trees. We are naked. They are hairy. We walk on two legs. They walk on four, although they wade through water on two. The fossilized pollens found with ancient human remains are not found on the Savannah.

Most other naked mammals such as the dugong, walrus, dolphin and hippopotamus live in water. Even the ancestors of elephants and rhinoceros



Humans are one of a group of creatures with control over our breathing which is a precursor to the development of language. The other primates can't talk. We have a layer of fat just under the skin which would insulate us better in water. They have hair which works best in air. We are streamlined and built for diving into and swimming in water. They are not.

So why has it taken so long for this idea to take hold?

Elaine Morgan cites Thomas Kuhn whose theory of scientific revolutions contends that when a theory gets into strife scientists just carry on as normal. They pretend nothing has happened. Worse still, this "head in the sand" approach is far from rare. It happens all the time.

Why then do scientists ignore the mounting evidence and stick with the Savannah hypothesis? Why do the academic journals refuse to touch the theory, even with a "barge pole?" And why does the theory get lumped in with UFOs, astrology, extra sensory perception and poltergeists? Or is the theory fundamentally or just a little bit flawed?

Here's a series of workshop questions to explore why scientists are sometimes slow to change their minds:

1. Brainstorm a list of DISPUTED theories (and what they claim) for which there is little or no scientific support/proof. e.g. phrenology, phlogiston
2. Brainstorm a list of SUPERB theories (and what they claim) for which there is substantial scientific evidence/support/proof.
3. How would you explain the reluctance of scientists to consider the aquatic ape theory?
4. When Rupert Sheldrake's book "A New Science of Life" - in which he described his theory of "morphic fields" to explain patterns of biological development was first published - some of the establishment said it was "a book fit for burning"? Why might some scientists react like this?
5. What does it take to shake off an old scientific view and adopt a new theory?
6. What explanation can you give for the widely held belief (48% of Americans, 2007 Newsweek poll) that the world was created during the last 10,000 years?
7. Why do you think some scientists continue to support old theories rather than new theories which offer a better explanation of the phenomena?
8. What explanation can you offer for other great schisms in science e.g. instructionist vs. constructivist models of learning, behaviorism vs. socially mediated psychology, big bang vs steady state theories of astrophysics, animal cognition vs animal instincts?
9. Explain why you agree/disagree with the following statement: "Fundamentalism is a belief in an outmoded point of view no matter what."
10. What parallels, if any, might there be between the evolution of ideas and biological evolution?
11. Describe an experiment to more thoroughly explore the aquatic theory of human development. What should be the key elements of the research?
12. If you were given the task to "market" the aquatic ape theory to the world, what would you do to help spread and gain acceptance for the idea?