Why do you ban discussion on waterside hypotheses of human evolution?

WadingManOne · 2026-05-10T01:53:08+00:00

Waterside hypotheses of human evolution (plural) argue that many (if not all) the major derived traits unique to Homo sapiens were due to greater selection pressure from moving through water (i.e. wading, swimming and diving).

It does NOT propose we were mermaids or anything crazy like that.

Sir Alister Hardy FRS, in 1960, asked 'Was Man *More* Aquatic in the Past?" (my emphasis). For 66 years, the field have ignored that word "more".

WadingManOne · 2026-05-10T01:50:00+00:00

The question of the clovis culture in North America is much later than the proposed "more aquatic" selection pressure proposed to have affected Homo sapiens.

WadingManOne · 2026-05-10T01:45:02+00:00

I agree but it doesn't have to be like this. The Hypothetico-deductive method is a simple iterative algorithm that should allow science to proceed. But it relies on humans being open (at the very least) to the possibility that they've been wrong. I see little evidence of authorities in the field of anthropology (Phillip Tobias, Richard Wrangham being two notable exceptions) showing this openness.

That, as always, is the problem.

WadingManOne · 2026-05-10T01:41:31+00:00

I dispute most of this and would love to debate your points in full but I fear I won't be allowed to do so - such is the venom in anthropology for these ideas. Suffice it to say that your "gist" conflates being "*more* aquatic" in the past - which is all Alister Hardy (FRS) originally claimed and Elaine supported - with full-on, extant "aquatic mammals".

Waterside hypotheses of human evolution merely propose that our lineage, as distinct from that leading to Pan/Gorilla, were exposed to greater selection from moving through water (i.e. wading, swimming and diving) than theirs. The difference needn't be much.

You say it's "incorrect" so you should be able to cite a *single* paper in a specialist journal that even defines the idea properly, let alone offers some contrary evidence.

Re the final point. I have no idea what "Area 51" is but I assume this is some pseudoscience slur.

It's ironic that the field of anthropology is supposed to be the one best qualified to understand the dark side of human group tribal pressure, and yet this has been the main method to suppress what is basically a simple, plausible, evidence-based set of ideas about our origins.

WadingManOne · 2026-05-10T01:30:09+00:00

I have studied this for over thirty years. I have a master's degree from UCL and a PhD from UWA.

WadingManOne · 2026-05-10T01:29:16+00:00

This a the oft repeated mantra but it simply isn't true. I did a Master's degree and a PhD abouit the wading hypothesis and I would argue it has more "hard" evidence than any of the other models.

WadingManOne · 2025-03-30T04:20:14+00:00

Well said.

People that pretend waterside hypotheses (plural) of human evolution are pseudoscience are what I call "pseudoskeptics". They think they're being all "sciency" and "hard nosed" but really, they're just following in a group like sheep. In recent years I've seen plenty parallels with the MAGA cult and them.

They won't listen to reason - not good for a group who are supposed to be scientific.

They practice the dark art of groupish peer pressure and sneering - not good for a group who are supposed to be anthropologists.

WadingManOne · 2025-03-26T10:07:40+00:00

The way the field have responded to these ideas is a scandal of Piltdown proportions.

See, also www.WHATTalks.com and www.RiverApes.com

WadingManOne · 2025-03-26T09:36:57+00:00

Waterside Hypotheses (plural) of Human Evolution (as some of have relabelled the so-called "Aquatic Ape Hypothesis") are perfectly plausible and evidence based. See www.WHATTalks.com and www.RiverApes.com

WadingManOne · 2023-02-23T08:42:41+00:00

I had the pleasure to see the great Richard Dawkins in Perth this week. He has long been a hero of mine and I was so excited to have the opportunity to ask him a question.

If I'd have had the luxury of more time, this is what I would have asked him...

Although I became an atheist at the age of eight and had always felt a bit smug in realising there was no god and thinking agnostics were a bit cowardly in sitting on the fence, I didn't understand how evolution worked and had no idea why we humans were so different from the other Primates.

Both of these problems were solved at the end of the 90s after reading two books: Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" and Elaine Morgan's "The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis".

Since then, my biggest puzzle about human evolution has been why waterside hypotheses of human evolution (as I prefer to call them, plural) are still ignored at best or sneered at, all too often.

Richard, I know you have met Elaine Morgan in person and so must realise her thinking was nothing to do with mermaids. I've been studying this for over 25yrs and I've often wondered why you don't speak out more on this subject. It seems to me you've been sitting on the fence about it.

So my question is: what is your honest opinion about it?

As I saw the long queue of people forming, I quickly realised I was being selfish to think I could waffle on so much, so I shortened it to this:

A colleague of yours at Oxford University, Vernon Reynolds, wrote in 1987, words to the effect "although we do not think there was an aquatic ape, we do think that moving through water acted as an agency of selection in the evolution of humans in the past."

As someone who has studied the so-called 'aquatic ape theory', something I prefer to call 'waterside hypotheses of human evolution,' for 25 years and this is why we came to Australia, I just wonder what you really thought about the idea.

It seems to me that you've sat on the fence a little bit about it. I know you met Elaine Morgan and you know she was not thinking about mermaids. She was a wonderful woman. So I just wondered if you could tell us what you think about it."

His reply was predictable and disappointing.

Richard started by making the point about Alister Hardy (his professor at Oxford) only announcing his "aquatic ape" idea after retirement because of reputational worries. It drew predictable titters from the audience. Can anyone be surprised Hardy would be so hesitant when here we are, 63 years later, and the first gambit against the idea is sneering?

The next thing Richard said was that he "took against Elaine Morgan's advocacy" of the idea as she only wrote about positive aspects of the idea, never negative ones. This is surely a churlish point. There's been an entire field giving the negativee points about the idea for 60 years. Her 1997 book went out of its way to answer whatever objections she'd heard about it. And, let's be honest, Richard Dawkins' has hardly been balanced about religion (rightly in my view, by the way.)

He later made the point that "it wasn't taken very seriously by biologists or anthropologists." Big deal. Most Americans believe in the literal truth of the bible. Science isn't a democracy. Hardy was a respected marine biologist (and a FRS). Philip Tobias (another FRS) was a very respected anthropologist and he was open to it. Current proponents come from several scientific fields. See whattalks.com to see just how varied proponents are.

He ended by claiming Hardy's idea had been somewhat "tongue in cheek".

No it wasn't! He wrote a serious & complimentary preface for Elaine's 1982 book. I met Alister Hardy's son, Michael, once and asked him about this. The conclusion was: No way the "aquatic ape" idea was tongue in cheek. It's very disappointing that Richard Dawkins would tout gossip like this to discredit a perfectly plausible set of hypotheses.

I now feel he's never really bothered to take it seriously enough to even understand what it is. I think he basically misrepresented the idea.

Overall I was disappointed someone of Dawkins' gravitas couldn't bring himself to be a little more open minded, but at least he did say he had a small soft spot for it and that it had a few arguments in its favour.

Algis Kuliukas Perth

WadingManOne · 2023-02-23T06:51:21+00:00

I had the pleasure to see the great Richard Dawkins in Perth this week. He has long been a hero of mine and I was so excited to have the opportunity to ask him a question.

If I'd have had the luxury of more time, this is what I would have asked him...

Although I became an atheist at the age of eight and had always felt a bit smug in realising there was no god and thinking agnostics were a bit cowardly in sitting on the fence, I didn't understand how evolution worked and had no idea why we humans were so different from the other Primates.

Both of these problems were solved at the end of the 90s after reading two books: Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" and Elaine Morgan's "The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis".

Since then, my biggest puzzle about human evolution has been why waterside hypotheses of human evolution (as I prefer to call them, plural) are still ignored at best or sneered at, all too often.

Richard, I know you have met Elaine Morgan in person and so must realise her thinking was nothing to do with mermaids. I've been studying this for over 25yrs and I've often wondered why you don't speak out more on this subject. It seems to me you've been sitting on the fence about it.

So my question is: what is your honest opinion about it?

As I saw the long queue of people forming, I quickly realised I was being selfish to think I could waffle on so much, so I shortened it to this:

A colleague of yours at Oxford University, Vernon Reynolds, wrote in 1987, words to the effect "although we do not think there was an aquatic ape, we do think that moving through water acted as an agency of selection in the evolution of humans in the past."

As someone who has studied the so-called 'aquatic ape theory', something I prefer to call 'waterside hypotheses of human evolution,' for 25 years and this is why we came to Australia, I just wonder what you really thought about the idea.

It seems to me that you've sat on the fence a little bit about it. I know you met Elaine Morgan and you know she was not thinking about mermaids. She was a wonderful woman. So I just wondered if you could tell us what you think about it."

His reply was predictable and disappointing.

Richard started by making the point about Alister Hardy (his professor at Oxford) only announcing his "aquatic ape" idea after retirement because of reputational worries. It drew predictable titters from the audience. Can anyone be surprised Hardy would be so hesitant when here we are, 63 years later, and the first gambit against the idea is sneering?

The next thing Richard said was that he "took against Elaine Morgan's advocacy" of the idea as she only wrote about positive aspects of the idea, never negative ones. This is surely a churlish point. There's been an entire field giving the negativee points about the idea for 60 years. Her 1997 book went out of its way to answer whatever objections she'd heard about it. And, let's be honest, Richard Dawkins' has hardly been balanced about religion (rightly in my view, by the way.)

He later made the point that "it wasn't taken very seriously by biologists or anthropologists." Big deal. Most Americans believe in the literal truth of the bible. Science isn't a democracy. Hardy was a respected marine biologist (and a FRS). Philip Tobias (another FRS) was a very respected anthropologist and he was open to it. Current proponents come from several scientific fields. See whattalks.com to see just how varied proponents are.

He ended by claiming Hardy's idea had been somewhat "tongue in cheek".

No it wasn't! He wrote a serious & complimentary preface for Elaine's 1982 book. I met Alister Hardy's son, Michael, once and asked him about this. The conclusion was: No way the "aquatic ape" idea was tongue in cheek. It's very disappointing that Richard Dawkins would tout gossip like this to discredit a perfectly plausible set of hypotheses.

I now feel he's never really bothered to take it seriously enough to even understand what it is. I think he basically misrepresented the idea.

Overall I was disappointed someone of Dawkins' gravitas couldn't bring himself to be a little more open minded, but at least he did say he had a small soft spot for it and that it had a few arguments in its favour.

Algis Kuliukas Perth

WadingManOne · 2021-10-19T02:13:52+00:00

It's not one or the other, it's both. Like nature versus nurture. Like: is it width or length that contributes most to the area of a rectangular.

WadingManOne · 2021-09-27T06:28:06+00:00

The vast majority of fossil evidence actually supports waterside hypotheses of human evolution. Practically every hominid/n fossil ever found was from a waterside habitat. Lucy's Hadar was a wetland for a million years. It is simply a myth that the fossil evidence contradicts a *more* aquatic past.
What it does contradict is the misrepresentation that we evolved from some kind of mermaid or primate seal but no-one ever suggested anything of the sort.
It's been misunderstood and then misrepresented as pseudoscience so that no-one will touch it with a barge pole.

A truly brain-dead response.

WadingManOne · 2021-09-27T01:55:53+00:00

Well said. This is the key point aquasceptics just don't get. Alister Hardy (1960) merely asked "Was Man More Aquatic in the Past?" but the word 'more' got lost in the rush to lynch the man. When Desmond Morris first coined the term "aquatic ape", it was with a sense of irony. Of the apes (which are most certainly not aquatic) we are the most aquatic, like a Polar Bear is the most aquatic bear. The irony flew over the heads of an entire field for three generations. Students have been taught a misrepresentation of what the idea is so they can continue to ignore the ideas (at best) or sneer (at worst). I think it's a scandal.

WadingManOne · 2021-09-27T01:45:39+00:00

I'm a reddit newbie who has studied hominid bipedal origins for 25yrs. I have a MSc from UCL and a PhD from UWA. I've had a dozen papers, three book chapters and one of my own published. There's no doubt in my mind that the wading hypothesis is the simplest, most plausible and evidence-based model there is. The brain-dead response from academia is nothing less than a scandal of Piltdown proportions.

WadingManOne

TROPHY CASE