The Scars of Evolution

The Aquatic Theory shaves the hair off the naked ape as neatly as Occam's razor. I have never been able to figure out why this has not replaced the far-fetched theories that academia clutches. Bipedalism evolved as a heat reducing mechanism. Oh alleluia I believe I believe! Come on, has theory totally replaced common sense? During the summer now drawing to fall, what did you do to beat the heat? "Hey, I'm hot and sweaty, I think I'll go stand at attention." For me, it was "Last one in's a rotten egg!" I was already acquainted with the Aquatic Theory when I first read this book several years ago. It seems reasonable to me. I have written polite letters to several physical anthropologists saying that I have rarely seen this theory included in academic discussions, and have never seen a convincing refutation. I have asked them to point out the theory's fatal flaws. To date, nobody has ever replied to my queries. If you see the Aquatic Theory mentioned in mainstream physical anthropology books, the author usually grabs her few, inconsequential weak points and avoids the weight of her arguments. One book `refuted' the theory by saying that in the water we would be prey to crocodiles. This was his entire refutation. We're safer with lions and leopards? Morgan did make a fatuous statement (not in this book), that women's breasts may have evolved so babies could cling to them. The professional anthropologists love that one! This is their favorite. You can almost hear them giggling as they trot that out, disregarding that this is not a key point in the argument. I suspect that the main failing of the Aquatic Theory is that Morgan is not a PhD; she is intruding on sacred territory without being a member of the club. What's worse, she is female. Forget the lip service paid to women's rights, where does she get off, trying to tell the men her ideas? (FYR: I am a white heterosexual male,) If Morgan had gotten a PhD in Comparative Shampooology from Rabbit Hash U, and published her work as E Morgan PhD, the Aquatic Theory would be as mainstream as Continental Drift is now, generations after Wegener wandered off into a snowstorm. Hang in there, Elaine!

Although I knew the basics of E.Morgan ideas, reading the book still was a shock: how obvious it is when you are pointed to it. Being a biologist for last 20 years, I have tried to find possible arguments against the proposed theory, but actually came up with three additional facts supporting strongly the E.M. hypothesis. The book is exceptionally good reading for both academics and general public who likes an intellectual quest.

Many years ago I read Elaine Morgan's Descent of Woman and was surprised at its quality and amused at her parody of the speculations by the traditional anthropologists, as found in the best sellers by Morris, Audry, and Lorenz, on the origins of us humans as humans. The anthropologists had seemed unimaginative and not altogether logical in their speculations on the environment and behavior of our immediate predecessors-- in a word, they seemed klutzy. Now I read Scars and realize that Ms. Morgan was not doing a parody but sincerely developing an alternative explanation centered on the Aquatic Ape Theory. This more mature work has facts that will grab you and ideas that will stick with you. Ms. Morgan is a writer and the book is written for all of us, so it reads well. But what makes this an outstanding book are two things: 1.She systematically puts together many facts and ideas, some highly speculative, some inarguably true, some striking, some pedestrian, into a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts and therefore logically dificult and perhaps impossible to refute. 2.She systematically addresses each alternative argument and each argument that has been used to attack her ideas and counters it. Do not be misled; this slight, easy to read book by a non-professional anthropologist is important. The anthropologists in this area have a history of internal strife marked by dogmatism and contentiousness. You can bet they react in this way toward Ms. Morgan, although they prefer to ignore her, a non-professional anthropolgist. But after Scars they may not be successful, and anything you can do-- such as asking questions of anthropologists and questioning the answers you get-- will be a plus. For her ideas deserve full and careful consideration and a scientific search for evidence that will support or abolish them.

Elaine Morgan raises a number of questions about human origins that are extremely difficult to answer. Therefore you won't see very many mainstream paleoanthropolgists seriously considering her hypothesis or even addressing the issues she raises. And while Morgan's conclusions may be incorrect, she at least has the intellect and integrity to address the issues.