Were there ape pirates?

September 20, 2005 7:07 AM

The Aquatic Ape Theory (often referred to as the AAT or AAH) says humans went through an aquatic or semi-aquatic stage in our evolution and that this accounts for many features seen in human anatomy and physiology. Using the principle of convergent evolution, it says that life in an aquatic environment explains these features, and that a transition from ape to hominid in a non-aquatic environment cannot. See also: BBC (excellent), Wikipedia, Google.
posted by grumblebee (48 comments total)

It's also, arguably, the biggest laughingstock of contemporary physical anthropology. The Straight Dope has a fairly effective rebuttal.
posted by jefgodesky at 7:31 AM on September 20, 2005

For my money, there is nothing better than watching non-scientists argue with pseudo-scientists about literally fantastic science fiction theories.
posted by illovich at 7:33 AM on September 20, 2005

Why aren't there any aquatic apes now? I think this would be very cool, aquatic apes...
posted by scheptech at 7:38 AM on September 20, 2005

I think there are some orangutans that swim. But I can't find a reference.
posted by GuyZero at 7:41 AM on September 20, 2005

Not apes. Clams!
posted by brownpau at 7:42 AM on September 20, 2005

There are monkeys that dive!!! I saw them at the Monkey Jungle in Florida swiming underwater for eggs.
posted by evilelvis at 7:42 AM on September 20, 2005

Japanese macaques live in all-natural hot tubs.
posted by sciurus at 7:43 AM on September 20, 2005

Nobody wants to welcome our new Aquatic Ape Overlords?
I, for one...
posted by spicynuts at 7:49 AM on September 20, 2005

Is this making a comeback? I read about this over a decade ago... an entire theory based on primates that live in hot springs in Japan, IIRC.
posted by Billegible at 7:58 AM on September 20, 2005

It all makes sense now (with two correction): it was not during our evolution, but during our creation by the FSM, and it was not water but spaghetti souse.
posted by sylwester at 8:05 AM on September 20, 2005

I am certainly willing to accept the notion that this is all pseudo science, but I would like some answers to issues raised in the Wikipedia article and the BBC radio documentary. Specifically:

Nutrition: Human brain tissue requires comparatively large amounts of omega-3 fatty acids, which are uncommon in the land food chain but prevalent in the marine food chain. Indeed, most animals which move to plains life tend to develop smaller brains, while aquatic animals tend to evolve larger ones, quite possibly because of access to Omega 3.

The "Straight Dope" article doesn't go into this.

Also, according to the BBC program, humans alone (among primates) are covered at birth in a slick, waxy substance. Seals are also born with a waxy covering. But some seals are born with more of it than others. Specifically, the seals that venture into the water shortly after birth have more of the waxy substance than the seals that venture into the water days after birth. Human infants are covered in the substance.

I am aware that a couple of oddities -- if they are true -- do not prove anything. But they are interesting claims and I'd like to know more about them.

Finally, the BBC program claims that it's only been VERY recently -- starting in the 1990s -- that this theory has been taken seriously in scientific circles. Since them, it has been gaining momentum. Is this true? If so, why?
posted by grumblebee at 8:06 AM on September 20, 2005

One of the most interesting features of the human primate is our hair...that is, the way our hair goes from top to bottom, unlike any other primate...which is exactly what you want when you go swimming. Just something I remember from this a long time ago, but it makes sense if you watch someone swimming, all our hair flows with the water.
posted by gren at 8:16 AM on September 20, 2005

The human brain also has a much higher ratio in terms of size and energy requirements, relative to the rest of the body, compared to other mammals. That requires a level of efficiency in your fats that is a little harder to come by.
posted by jefgodesky at 8:17 AM on September 20, 2005

I make no claims to it's veracity, but I love Aquatic Ape Theory. Love it.
posted by rafter at 8:17 AM on September 20, 2005

Finally, the BBC program claims that it's only been VERY recently -- starting in the 1990s -- that this theory has been taken seriously in scientific circles. Since them, it has been gaining momentum. Is this true? If so, why?

It's not true. Since the 1990s, an increasing number of people have been raising more noise about it, but it's still pseudoscience.
posted by jefgodesky at 8:18 AM on September 20, 2005

"Of the hundreds of primate species, humans are the only species in which hair does not cover almost the entire body"

That rules me out right there. It slows me down in the pool, but I enjoy the 'dry lubricant' aspect of body hair.
On the other hand I love the water. I could live under water (um...with breathing apparatus).

I'm no biolo..gitic..um...ianist , but couldn't our evolution be tempered by living near costal areas?
Most of these are just simple traits like epicanthal folds or melanosomes, but perhaps they are far back enough that they come from common ancestry.
I remember reading modern humans all come from a small group of ancestors from way back. Lots of us got wiped out there for a bit. Perhaps those who survived lived near the coast.
posted by Smedleyman at 8:27 AM on September 20, 2005

"Seals rapidly gain fat while very young, and at a very early age they are essentially like their parents in their fat distribution and quantity. We, on the other hand, start off fairly fat as babies, drop within a few years to the leanest condition of our lives as children, and then rapidly build up fat at puberty"

Our family has season passes to Sesame Place and I've got to tell you, judging by the unbelievable amount of pudgy and just downright obese kids, maybe we're headed back to the sea sooner than later.
posted by j.p. Hung at 8:31 AM on September 20, 2005

It would be an absolutely bulletproof theory, but for the utter lack of hominid bones in the aquatic fossil record.
posted by ToasT at 8:32 AM on September 20, 2005

Metafilter: It would be an absolutely bulletproof theory, but for the...
posted by OmieWise at 8:38 AM on September 20, 2005

Any species that has to be warned about its offspring drowning in "as little as two inches of water" didn't come from the ocean. Sorry.
posted by ToasT at 8:48 AM on September 20, 2005

ToasT wins.
posted by TricksterGoddess at 9:02 AM on September 20, 2005

I like the idea that we became mostly hairless for thermal regulation as we left the forests and began standing around upright under the sun.
posted by sonofsamiam at 9:15 AM on September 20, 2005

Human brain tissue requires comparatively large amounts of omega-3 fatty acids, which are uncommon in the land food chain but prevalent in the marine food chain.

When human brains were evolving to larger size, we were coastal scavangers eating fish, shellfish and other things in southern Africa. This is why people need to eat more seafood, aka Brainfood, to ward of depression and other mental illnesses.
posted by stbalbach at 9:42 AM on September 20, 2005

Apparently, in a prison study, felony-level violent offenses were reduced by 40% in prisoners taking omega-3 supplements compared to the placebo.
posted by sonofsamiam at 9:46 AM on September 20, 2005

Pseudo-science often falls into the trap of correlation vs. causation.

Hair: Just because humans are mostly hairless and dolphins are hairless doesn't mean there is a causation between those two observations. Our hairlessness is more likely caused by generations of humans finding less hair to be more attractive and breeding accordingly. We most likely had more hair further back in time.

Omega-3 "Dependency": Not really a dependency, Omega-3 is a recent nutritional observation of what foods are good for us and what is bad for us, and as you know that story is always changing. We eat fish but so do grizzly bears and many birds. Humans have a very diverse diet.

Breathing control: "Humans are the only mammal that can consciously control their breathing". Simply not true.

Overall you have to question any theory that says we are more related to fish than monkeys but this could be a useful as an absurdist rebuttal to Intellignet Design.
posted by StarForce5 at 10:01 AM on September 20, 2005

According to another study, letting the inmates swim around in a pool of saltwater also relieved them of their violent tendencies.

Brackish water for all!

p.s. The Acquatic Ape theory has been around since the 1960s, and even fewer scientists take it seriously now as they did then. I can't think of a single intelligent scientist who would defend the theory, or even waste their breath debunking it.
posted by mowglisambo at 10:10 AM on September 20, 2005

the BBC program claims that it's only been VERY recently -- starting in the 1990s -- that this theory has been taken seriously in scientific circles.

I first read it in The Naked Ape, which (not surprisingly) begins with the question of why humans are the only naked ape.

Morris dismissed the theory as well, with lots of good reasons that I can't remember.

I do think there's something to it, however. For goodness sake, it doesn't necessary mean humans *lived* in the water. It means that the successful ones (i.e. us) might have been best suited for getting food and traveling in water.

If anyone were to read that actual Aquatic Ape site, they could see that it's devoted to *debunking* the theory. Duh.

Overall you have to question any theory that says we are more related to fish than monkeys

It says no such thing. You need to read more.
posted by mrgrimm at 10:17 AM on September 20, 2005

Why aren't there any aquatic apes now?

I refer you to the West Seattle YMCA Open Swim at 6:30am on Mondays and Wednesdays.
posted by tkchrist at 10:18 AM on September 20, 2005

Btw, humans *aren't* very close to monkeys. We're very close to apes. Monkeys are actually much different. A popular misconception, I suppose.
posted by mrgrimm at 10:19 AM on September 20, 2005

Why aren't there any aquatic apes now?

I suspect it happened when all the farmers killed all the hunter/gatherers. Way back when.
posted by mrgrimm at 10:19 AM on September 20, 2005

I've never understood the less hair=more attractive theory though. Why would we consider body hair more or less attractive and breed accordingly, if we were all somewhat hairy at the time? Seems more like it either served some other purpose, or no purpose at all. (/derail)

And as for being covered in vernix, most full-term newborns only have a little of it on them; preemies have more. And it seems to serve a very obvious lubrication function for a species that has offspring with such large heads and brains compared to hip size. Don't other primates have it relatively easier birth-wise with a larger hip spread and smaller heads on the babies? Maybe they just don't need the grease. Makes more sense than aquatic ape-babies...
posted by emjaybee at 10:40 AM on September 20, 2005

emjaybee: More hair was probably essential in the eons before we knew how to control fire, shelter, and clothing. But since then it has been a gradual process in which grooming = cleanliness = better health = more attractive.
posted by StarForce5 at 10:58 AM on September 20, 2005

How does more hair necessarily mean less grooming? Seems a bit like begging the question. As hairless animals, we've evolved to consider hair to be less clean--so naturally, we must have evolved to be hairless animals to be cleaner.

I think regulating temperature on the savanna is a much stronger case.
posted by jefgodesky at 11:04 AM on September 20, 2005

Naked Ape. Heh. That's where Morris provides a cheeky explanation for human breasts.

Yes, it was intended.
posted by linux at 11:37 AM on September 20, 2005

Losing body hair might have had something to do with reducing parasite loads, actually. Less body hair means fewer parasites which means you're healthier which means you're an attractive mate. That's the line of logic I would follow.

Tangentially, there's been some interesting research into the genetics of human lice trying to pinpoint the point in history where we developed clothing, based on when head lice and body lice became different species. The date is about 75,000 years ago, considerably later than when we lost our body hair. (I believe body lice are adapted to cling to clothing).

So yeah, in my opinion, it's all about the parasites.
posted by JeremyT at 11:47 AM on September 20, 2005

I guess that explains this.
posted by StickyCarpet at 12:01 PM on September 20, 2005

ToasT: Any species that has to be warned about its offspring drowning in "as little as two inches of water" didn't come from the ocean. Sorry.

FWIW, in addition to the swimming motion that is mentioned in the straight dope article, new born babies will automatically hold their breath under water. Of course, it could as likely mean we were decended from aquatic apes as likely as it would mean that prehistoric mother's were clumsy and dropped their babies in water. In which case, I propose the Clumsy Mother Ape Theory.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 1:19 PM on September 20, 2005

I always thought the lack of bodyhair could be caused when we started to wear clothes. We tend to be hairier on the forearms, legs and head. Where clothes traditionally dont really cover.
just my theory...
posted by phyle at 5:00 PM on September 20, 2005

I always thought the lack of bodyhair could be caused when we started to wear clothes. We tend to be hairier on the forearms, legs and head. Where clothes traditionally dont really cover.

But where's the evolutionary advantage to not having hair under your clothes? You still have to fall back on climate or attractiveness, and if clothes are covering the hairless part, there goes No. 2.
posted by mrgrimm at 5:32 PM on September 20, 2005

I can see what you mean, but there doesnt have to be an advantage. Hair is just not as vital as before, so hairy genes dont get passed on quite as often..
There are probably many other factors that come into play also.
posted by phyle at 6:13 PM on September 20, 2005

im not an anthropologist, but a partially aquatic life style seems to explain our differences from other apes better than simply climbing down from the trees (which other apes did as well).
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 12:11 AM on September 21, 2005

Nutrition: Human brain tissue requires comparatively large amounts of omega-3 fatty acids, which are uncommon in the land food chain but prevalent in the marine food chain. Indeed, most animals which move to plains life tend to develop smaller brains, while aquatic animals tend to evolve larger ones, quite possibly because of access to Omega 3.

Nuts!

No, really, Omega-3 fatty acids are present in a wide variety of nuts, which are a fairly common food resources for a wide variety of primates.


As for the whole body hair(lessness) topic, I really don't think it has anything to do with clothes. Clothes are much more likely to be a response to our relative lack of hair when humans migrated from the tropics to more temperate areas, than the event that spurred our body balding. I have two good reasons to back this up.

The first is that, by the time we started wearing clothes, hominids had been losing hair for a long long time, and we'd also been growing progressively larger. There is a good correlation between primate hair density and body mass; humans and gorillas, for instance, are much less hairy than a bonobo or baboon. With a greater body mass to skin area ratio it becomes harder to disappate heat quickly.

The temperature control angle is also supported by when we lost our body hair (assuming that we are talking about 7 mya, hair does not fossilize well). Immediately after the gap in the hominid fossil records that the AAT exploits is when paleoanthropologists have evidence of a move by our hominid ancestors out from more arboreal habitats into savannahs, as well as a straightening of posture. Body hair then becomes maladaptive, sweating becomes essential, a vertical stance keeps us out of the sun, and the hair on the top of our head stays as kind of a natural sun-hat.

Second, while losing body hair may have helped our ancestors resists parasites like fleas and lice initially, we really screwed that up when we started wearing clothes. Body lice, for example, are really amazing because they are adapted to live and lay their eggs, not on our bodies, but on our clothes. The quickest way to rid yourself of an infestation of body lice is to go naked for a few days. Washing your clothes is a good idea as well, but not as fun.
posted by TheSpook at 12:13 AM on September 21, 2005

I think the Aquatic Ape Theory is just an excuse to justify an attraction to dolphins. I mean c'mon, they're just sexy am I right?

*dead silence*
posted by Smedleyman at 12:18 AM on September 21, 2005

Yes grumblebee, there nearly had to be ape pirates.

The FSM loves pirates therefore ape pirates were a near certainty.

And remember Waterworld, where Costner had gills? Isn't that proof enough? :-)
posted by nofundy at 7:43 AM on September 21, 2005

TheSpook, you talk that much about heat dissapation and don't talk about human body design?

Here's a data point for y'all: There are very few animals, predatory or otherwise, with the running endurance of a human. In good physical condition, we can run for incredible distances.

Morris, as I recall (along with his "hunting hypothesis" fellow-travellers) felt that the most likely explanation for hairlessness was a combination of heat dissipation with display augmentation, as TheSpook and someone else before alluded. The idea at the time was that we spent a lot of time moving fast across hot country, and needed to get rid of heat efficiently. At the same time, with selection pressure against hairyness, we evolved secondary display characteristics like large breasts (well, "we" being relative, of course) and buttocks.

Note: Evolutionary theory has no problem with multiple "causation" for a trait. So there's no inconsistency in saying that large buttocks are good for storing fat as a reserve, or saying that hairlessness is selected for on the basis of its display characteristics and its advantages in heat dissipation.

As for the Aquatic Ape theory, I think it's instructive and educational to look back to the context of the time, and remember that the strongest movement at the time was in favor of seeing the proto-human hominids as highly efficient social predators, much like Cape Hunting Dogs -- what playwright and erstwhile science writer Robert (Richard?) Ardrey dubbed "the Hunting Hypothesis." "Aquatic Ape" theory can be seen as a direct polemical reaction against that. Early versions had us functining purely as scavengers and "farmers/harvesters of the sea". They were all about us NOT being predators, as it were.

I haven't read much in detail about this in the intervening years since my youth, but the last overview I did read suggested that Dart et al's "hunting hypothesis" has been discredited/revised in favor of a "scavenging hypothesis": That is, we were more like Hyaenas (who get a substantial portion of their diet from carrion) than Cape Dogs. That's OK; Hyaenas are still big nasty ass mofos and I sure as hell wouldn't want to face one alone.
posted by lodurr at 10:03 AM on September 21, 2005

I'm sorry, but this theory is inconsistent with my theory that we descended from aliens.
posted by maxsparber at 10:05 AM on September 21, 2005

Not necessarily. What if the aliens misceginated with aquatic apes?
posted by lodurr at 10:38 AM on September 21, 2005

phyle:

We tend to be hairier on the forearms, legs and head. Where clothes traditionally dont really cover.

Hey buddy, I don't know where you grew up but around my way we don't wear gymnastics outfits year round. Are you from the future?

Anyway this is all a bunch of bushwah, we didn't descend from aquatic apes, we evolved in parallel with them, you can still see them, you just have to go to Newfoundland.
posted by Divine_Wino at 1:13 PM on September 21, 2005