Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ho95b.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!houxm!ho95b!ran
From: ran@ho95b.UUCP (ran)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re:RE: aquatic origins
Message-ID: <257@ho95b.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 27-Nov-84 10:01:28 EST
Article-I.D.: ho95b.257
Posted: Tue Nov 27 10:01:28 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 28-Nov-84 03:12:48 EST
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 93


!>Check out the book "The Descent of Woman", by Elaine Morgan (circa early
!>1970s?).  She gives a nice summary (and a few new ideas) of somebody
!>else's (sure can't remember who) presentation of this thesis.  Some of
!>the high points (i.e., those I can remember without looking for my copy
!>of the book):
!>
!>     * Aquatic animals are the ones that lose their hair, like the
!>       whale, walrus, seal, manatee, hippo, elephant (not really
!>       aquatic, but damn good swimmers).
!
!Note that humans, on the other hand, are NOT particularly good
!swimmers. In fact a human is one of the few large land animals that
!can easly drown in calm water. Most large animals swim instinctively.
!Some humans do too BUT NOT ALL! The only other example I can think of
!is the girafe. Does this mean that humans stand up to reach brances of
!trees?
!
!>     * Face-to-face copulation makes a lot more sense in the water
!>       than the rear approach favored by most land animals.
!
!And most marine animals as well. Do you mean to say that an animal that
!lives in shallow water can't go to shore for 10 minutes? If not, where
!did they sleep? Marine mammals don't realy sleep at all. Humans do.
!
!>     * Breasts.  What good is a breast (aside from the obvious
!>       aesthetic value :-))?  Other mammals manage without such
!>       a globular protrusion.  Morgan claims that the globular
!>       shape makes for an easier grab (for baby) in water.
!!
!Or on land also. Morgan has already discovered that humans have no fur!
!
!Use some common sense, PLEASE!
!
!				Ralph Hartley
!				rlh@cvl
!				seismo!rlgvax!cvl!rlh


I must admit to being a bit distressed that commentary on this net
seems to generate so many insults.  I was summarizing some of the points
in Elaine Morgan's book.  How would common sense help that?  If you
wish to take issue with some of her arguments, by all means do so,
but there is no need to imply some mental failing in an attempt
to present some of the ideas in Morgan's thesis.  I agree that some
of her points are not particularly rigorous.

Most of what I've seen about babies swimming is that they do it
pretty much instinctively, and pretty well, if you start them
young enough.  They then grow up to be pretty good swimmers.
I also can't think of too many other non-aquatic mammals that
make a point of playing as much in water as man does (though I
concede that this could be purely cultural--in humans it's
notoriously difficult to separate the cultural from the instinctive).

Regarding copulation, the animals that do copulate face-to-face
(humans excluded) are aquatic (manatee, otter?).  However, I agree
that going to shore sure does seem like a more reasonable way of
doing it, yet that gives no explanation of how copulation moved
from back to front (mostly) in a land environnment.

Regarding breasts, ask any female you know how she'd like to have
a baby hanging from a breast without the buoyancy of water to help.
I realize that nowadays the female just holds the infant, but it's
hard to see how a large breast got started if the female always
just held the infant.  With fur, the baby just hangs on to the fur.
If the fur just disappeared in a non-aquatic environment, I would
expect the mother to do more carrying without necessarily developing
the large breast.  I'm not really comfortable with this explanation,
but don't see a better one for either environment.  Morgan brought
this one up to counter the explanation in Desmond Morris' "The
Naked Ape", that breasts were "created" to simulate rounded
buttocks in front to increase sexual attraction.  This ignores
the natural shape of breasts in a bra-less world.

Do I believe in aquatic origins?  I'd really like to see more evidence
of a less coincidental nature.  I certainly found Morgan's book
to be food for thought, and maybe a starting point for more detailed
research.  I would consider the thesis at about the point that
continental drift was when first presented by Wegener: intriguing,
but without more evidence, not ready for scientific acceptance.
I also don't think that Morgan's presentation is flawless.  In
particular, she has the apes evolving in an almost Lamarkian way,
"Gee, this fur is uncomfortable in the water.  I think I'll shed it."
However, the many similarities between humans and aquatic mammals
pointed out by her do seem worthy of at least some attention.


-- 

". . . and shun the frumious Bandersnatch."
       Robert Neinast (ihnp4!ho95b!ran)
       AT&T-Bell Labs