Upgrade your browser!

Skip to Content

TED Talks: We Evolved from Aquatic Apes ...

Elaine Morgan is a tenacious proponent of the aquatic ape hypothesis: the idea that humans evolved from primate ancestors who dwelt in watery habitats. Hear her spirited defense of the idea -- and her theory on why mainstream science doesn't take it seriously.

  • Views: 4249
  • All Ages
  • All Ages

Related Media

  • Video:Explaining Ida
  • Explaining Ida
  • AaronRa explains the newly found fossil Ida. Trumpeted. . .
  • Votes 4.26/5 - Views 495 - Comments 10
  • Video:Lucky Ape
  • Lucky Ape
  • He gets away with anything.
  • Votes 4.61/5 - Views 2867 - Comments 5

View All



Trouble playing the media? Click here to manually download it.

Rate This Video:
Rate it 0.5 Rate it 1.0 Rate it 1.5 Rate it 2.0 Rate it 2.5 Rate it 3.0 Rate it 3.5 Rate it 4.0 Rate it 4.5 Rate it 5.0

4.56 out of 5 based on 516 votes

Rating Results:
Earn XP by sharing this video!
learn more

Video URL:

Embedded Link:

Send This Video To A Cell Phone! Digg

15 Comments

Current View: 15 / Show all Comments

Venomousvole : LVL 38: VP 4.6: said:

Venomousvole

13 votes NegativePositive

112 days 18 hours ago...

class dismissed! that makes perfect sense to me. Perhaps becoming at least semi-aquatic, was pivotal in the development of intelligence?

BerserkGatsu : LVL 35: VP 4.3: said:

BerserkGatsu

14 votes NegativePositive

112 days 12 hours ago...

Sir David Attenborough supports this theory. Give it a chance and you might change your mind.

Ted Crilly : LVL 35: VP 4.3: said:

Ted Crilly

6 votes NegativePositive

112 days 12 hours ago...

Yea Venom it`s interesting. In a prgramme I watched about evolution it suggested that, because our brains were so large and generated so much heat, we had to become hairless in order to cool down. Perhaps if we were more aquatic we lost hair and could cool down more. Giving the oppurtunity for our brains to grow. Who knows.

Gotta wonder if it`s credible, what stopped us becoming more aquatic. It`s not like there are sea monkeys we are related to, unfortunetly.

found this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFsgtLxALac

napalm4sd : LVL 30: VP 3.9: said:

napalm4sd

Hidden (Show Comment) -42 votes

112 days 6 hours ago...

8000 Years in the future.. Will the subject really MATTER? I think not. Lets keep progressing, the more we regress, the less we progress....

exploder : LVL 49: VP 5: said:

exploder

22 votes NegativePositive

112 days 5 hours ago...

^ our real understanding of our past is EXACTLY what enables our progress. 8000 years in the future we won`t even be human anymore, we will be merged with machines, possibly fully virtualized, or we will be extinct.

exploder : LVL 49: VP 5: said:

exploder

3 votes NegativePositive

112 days 4 hours ago...

^^ Ted Crilly, thanks for pointing out that excellent BBC docu.

Venomousvole : LVL 38: VP 4.6: said:

Venomousvole

7 votes NegativePositive

112 days 1 hour ago...

"It`s not like there are sea monkeys we are related to, unfortunetly."

Or was there Ted? Or is there? gone a bit star trek now heheee

Exploder, once nanobots get out you are probly right. as long as we don`t painfully analy fuck ourselves with Genetics first. I just hope things like music, art and other sexy human things are retained.

Uzo : LVL 41: VP 4.9: said:

Uzo

13 votes NegativePositive

111 days 23 hours ago...

Well I for one don`t buy it. To hell with Sir David.

If in the space of a few mere millions of years we evolved to become aquatic, and then re-evolved to become land mammals again, then we would surely display more vestigial traits. It took *hundreds* of millions of years for life to get out of the water, and then *hundreds* of millions more to move back in. And for us it takes, what, 3 million? We`re pretty remarkable animals, but we aren`t that great.

Here`s a few points that I think you`d do well to note, as these traits would definitely be affected by means of vestigial traits:

* What good is a breathing hole on the front of your face, on a tiny little nose?
* Our eyes are not much better than being blind underwater. Take off your goggles next time if you don`t believe me.
* Practically zero webbing/fusing of fingers, nor any clear `streamlining` of the body. We can swim better than most land mammals because we *learn* to, not because we have any talent at it. You throw a man into water who has never learnt to swim, and you`re looking at a manslaughter charge (at best).
* Sure, we lost hair. And your best argument is that we were aquatic? Are you telling me that pigs are descended from floating swine? Pfft. Pigs might swim, to coin a phrase.
* The similarities between us and other aquatic mammals are almost nil (we share relatively sophisticated communication, apparent team work, apparent `sense of humour/fun`). In the grand scheme of things, it`s chalk and cheese.

This old bird cracks me up with her grand comparison - humans and chimps are nothing alike because one is predominantly bipedal and hairless. I`ve rarely heard such abysmal proof for an opinion. It`s like saying Paris Hilton is smarter than Britney Spears because she hasn`t gotten pregnant yet (that we know of). The simple fact is they`re both dumb whores.

Christ .. do you really think any species could evolve fast enough to go from tree-dwelling primate to aquatic primate, swimming about the place and cavorting like Ariel, and then mystically develop the ability to walk bipedally upon stepping from the ocean? I call crap.

Evolution does involve all sorts of random events, sure, but this is requiring suspension of disbelief. Science doesn`t allow for that.

Sorry for the long post. I always get buried when I write an essay in the comments. If you`re going to bury me, please write a comment explaining why. Thank you, Spikers.

EDIT: Thanks for the replies below fellas. Good to see people think about this stuff instead of just vote up or down arbitrarily.

anoniem : LVL 34: VP 4.2: said:

anoniem

9 votes NegativePositive

111 days 20 hours ago...

i thought her points on mainstream science were RIGHT on!
i never thought i would hear applause after statements criticizing the application of science.
some scientists are terribly close-minded and refuse to accept the possibility that they have some things bass-ackwards.

"in an evolving world, who stands still moves backward."

TeflonMonkey : LVL 26: VP 3.5: said:

TeflonMonkey

0 votes NegativePositive

111 days 19 hours ago...

I like a nice Epsom salt bath or my buddies Jacuzzi nothing better.... almost.. so..

JimCarrSavannah : LVL 38: VP 4.6: said:

JimCarrSavannah

11 votes NegativePositive

111 days 18 hours ago...

Blah...Blah....Blah......
We control our breath cause God want`s us to control our breath.
We have a layer of fat cause God wants us to have a layer of fat.
Don`t you people see how much EASIER that is!

jarnomiedema : LVL 33: VP 4.2: said:

jarnomiedema

12 votes NegativePositive

111 days 16 hours ago...

Wow.. This is amazing.. I looked her up on Wikipedia. It says there she was born in 1920, which makes her 89 in this video!

All I can say about that is: I hope I`ll be at least half as intelligent and funny as she is when I reach that age!

Rappa : LVL 42: VP 5: said:

Rappa

-6 votes NegativePositive

111 days 16 hours ago...

Well...i can`t swim, so either this theory is wrong or i failed my ancestors...

scanjet : LVL 42: VP 5: said:

scanjet

14 votes NegativePositive

111 days 15 hours ago...

Sea Monkeys?

Wrykilx : LVL 15: VP 2.4: said:

Wrykilx

9 votes NegativePositive

111 days 13 hours ago...

As with all claims, we should always ask ourselves, where is the evidence to support this hypothesis and how credible is it? The evidence for this hypothesis is very very weak. Most notably, it completely fails to explain the evidence within the fossil record.

Post a Comment:

Avatar


The Spikedhumor Drawing!Drawing Coming Soon!
Prize
Entry Dates: 9/8/2007-9/14/2009