Elaine Morgan says we evolved from aquatic apes


Well, this is 2009. And it’s the Bicentenary of Charles Darwin. And all over the world, eminent evolutionists are anxious to celebrate this. And what they’re planning to do is to enlighten us on almost every aspect of Darwin and his life, and how he changed our thinking. I say almost every aspect, because there is one aspect of this story which they have thrown no light on. And they seem anxious to skirt around it and step over it and to talk about something else. So I’m going to talk about it. It’s the question of, why are we so different from the chimpanzees? We get the geneticists keeping on telling us how extremely closely we are related — hardly any genes of difference, very, very closely related. And yet, when you look at the phenotypes, there’s a chimp, there’s a man; they’re astoundingly different, no resemblance at all. I’m not talking about airy-fairy stuff about culture or psychology, or behavior. I’m talking about ground-base, nitty-gritty, measurable physical differences. They, that one, is hairy and walking on four legs. That one is a naked biped. Why? I mean — (Laughter) if I’m a good Darwinist, I’ve got to believe there’s a reason for that. If we changed so much, something must have happened. What happened? Now 50 years ago, that was a laughably simple question. Everybody knew the answer. They knew what happened. The ancestor of the apes stayed in the trees; our ancestors went out onto the plain. That explained everything. We had to get up on our legs to peer over the tall grass, or to chase after animals, or to free our hands for weapons. And we got so overheated in the chase that we had to take off that fur coat and throw it away. Everybody knew that, for generations. But then, in the ’90s, something began to unravel. The paleontologists themselves looked a bit more closely at the accompanying microfauna that lived in the same time and place as the hominids. And they weren’t savanna species. And they looked at the herbivores. And they weren’t savanna herbivores. And then they were so clever, they found a way to analyze fossilized pollen. Shock, horror. The fossilized pollen was not of savanna vegetation. Some of it even came from lianas, those things that dangle in the middle of the jungle. So we’re left with a situation where we know that our earliest ancestors were moving around on four legs in the trees, before the savanna ecosystem even came into existence. This is not something I’ve made up. It’s not a minority theory. Everybody agrees with it. Professor Tobias came over from South Africa and spoke to University College London. He said, “Everything I’ve been telling you for the last 20 years, forget about it. It was wrong. We’ve got to go back to square one and start again.” It made him very unpopular. They didn’t want to go back to square one. I mean, it’s a terrible thing to happen. You’ve got this beautiful paradigm. You’ve believed it through generations. Nobody has questioned it. You’ve been constructing fanciful things on top of it, relying on it to be as solid as a rock. And now it’s whipped away from under you. What do you do? What does a scientist do in that case? Well, we know the answer because Thomas S. Kuhn wrote a seminal treatise about this back in 1962. He said what scientists do when a paradigm fails is, guess what — they carry on as if nothing had happened. (Laughter) If they haven’t got a paradigm they can’t ask the question. So they say, “Yes it’s wrong, but supposing it was right …” (Laughter) And the only other option open to them is to stop asking the questions. So that is what they have done now. That’s why you don’t hear them talking about it. It’s yesterday’s question. Some of them have even elevated it into a principle. It’s what we ought to be doing. Aaron Filler from Harvard said, “Isn’t it time we stopped talking about selective pressures? I mean, why don’t we talk about, well, there’s chromosomes, and there’s genes. And we just record what we see.” Charles Darwin must be spinning in his grave! He knew all about that kind of science. And he called it hypothesis-free science. And he despised it from the bottom of his heart. And if you’re going to say, “I’m going to stop talking about selective pressures,” you can take “The Origin of Species” and throw it out of the window, for it’s about nothing else but selective pressures. And the irony of it is, that this is one occasion of a paradigm collapse where we didn’t have to wait for a new paradigm to come up. There was one waiting in the wings. It had been waiting there since 1960 when Alister Hardy, a marine biologist, said, “I think what happened, perhaps our ancestors had a more aquatic existence for some of the time.” He kept it to himself for 30 years. But then the press got hold of it and all hell broke loose. All his colleagues said, “This is outrageous. You’ve exposed us to public ridicule! You must never do that again.” And at that time, it became set in stone: the aquatic theory should be dumped with the UFOs and the yetis, as part of the lunatic fringe of science. Well I don’t think that. I think that Hardy had a lot going for him. I’d like to talk about just a handful of what have been called the hallmarks of mankind, the things that made us different from everybody else, and all our relatives. Let’s look at our naked skin. It’s obvious that most of the things we think about that have lost their body hair, mammals without body hair, are aquatic ones, like the dugong, the walrus, the dolphin, the hippopotamus, the manatee. And a couple of wallowers-in-mud like the babirusa. And you’re tempted to think, well perhaps, could that be why we are naked? I suggested it and people said, “No no no. I mean, look at the elephant. You’ve forgotten all about the elephant haven’t you?” So back in 1982 I said, “Well perhaps the elephant had an aquatic ancestor.” Peals of merry laughter! “That crazy woman. She’s off again. She’ll say anything won’t she?” But by now, everybody agrees that the elephant had an aquatic ancestor. This has come ’round to be that all those naked pachyderms have aquatic ancestors. The last exception was supposed to be the rhinoceros. Last year in Florida they found extinct ancestor of a rhinoceros and said, “Seems to have spent most of its time in the water.” So this is a close connection between nakedness and water. As an absolute connection, it only works one way. You can’t say all aquatic animals are naked, because look at the sea otter. But you can say that every animal that has become naked has been conditioned by water, in its own lifetime, or the lifetime of its ancestors. I think this is significant. The only exception is the naked Somalian mole-rat, which never puts its nose above the surface of the ground. And take bipedality. Here you can’t find anybody to compare it with, because we’re the only animal that walks upright on two legs. But you can say this: all the apes and all the monkeys are capable of walking on two legs, if they want to, for a short time. There is only one circumstance in which they always, all of them, walk on two legs, and that is when they are wading through water. Do you think that’s significant? David Attenborough thinks it’s significant, as the possible beginning of our bipedalism. Look at the fat layer. We have got, under our skin, a layer of fat, all over: nothing in the least like that in any other primate. Why should it be there? Well they do know, that if you look at other aquatic mammals, the fat that in most land mammals is deposited inside the body wall, around the kidneys and the intestines and so on, has started to migrate to the outside, and spread out in a layer inside the skin. In the whale it’s complete: no fat inside at all, all in blubber outside. We cannot avoid the suspicion that in our case it’s started to happen. We have got skin lined with this layer. It’s the only possible explanation of why humans, if they’re very unlucky, can become grossly obese, in a way that would be totally impossible for any other primate, physically impossible. Something very odd, matter-of-factly, never explained. The question of why we can speak. We can speak. And the gorilla can’t speak. Why? Nothing to do with his teeth or his tongue or his lungs or anything like that — purely has to do with its conscious control of its breath. You can’t even train a gorilla to say “Ah” on request. The only creatures that have got conscious control of their breath are the diving animals and the diving birds. It was an absolute precondition for our being able to speak. And then again, there is the fact that we are streamlined. Trying to imagine a diver diving into water — hardly makes a splash. Try to imagine a gorilla performing the same maneuver, and you can see that, compared with gorilla, we are halfway to being shaped like a fish. I am trying to suggest that, for 40-odd years, this aquatic idea has been miscategorized as lunatic fringe, and it is not lunatic fringe. And the ironic thing about it is that they are not staving off the aquatic theory to protect a theory of their own, which they’ve all agreed on, and they love. There is nothing there. They are staving off the aquatic theory to protect a vacuum. (Laughter) (Applause) How do they react when I say these things? One very common reaction I’ve heard about 20 times is, “But it was investigated. They conducted a serious investigation of this at the beginning, when Hardy put forward his article.” I don’t believe it. For 35 years I’ve been looking for any evidence of any incident of that kind, and I’ve concluded that that’s one of the urban myths. It’s never been done. I ask people sometimes, and they say, “I like the aquatic theory! Everybody likes the aquatic theory. Of course they don’t believe it, but they like it.” Well I say, “Why do you think it’s rubbish?” They say “Well … everybody I talk to says it’s rubbish. And they can’t all be wrong, can they?” The answer to that, loud and clear, is, “Yes! They can all be wrong.” History is strewn with the cases when they’ve all got it wrong. (Applause) And if you’ve got a scientific problem like that, you can’t solve it by holding a head count, and saying, “More of us say yes than say no.” (Laughter) Apart from that, some of the heads count more than others. Some of them have come over. There was Professor Tobias. He’s come over. Daniel Dennett, he’s come over. Sir David Attenborough, he’s come over. Anybody else out there? Come on in. The water is lovely. (Applause) And now we’ve got to look to the future. Ultimately one of three things is going to happen. Either they will go on for the next 40 years, 50 years, 60 years. “Yeah well we don’t talk about that. Let’s talk about something interesting.” That would be very sad. The second thing that could happen is that some young genius will arrive, and say, “I’ve found it. It was not the savanna, it was not the water, it was this!” No sign of that happening either. I don’t think there is a third option. So the third thing that might happen is a very beautiful thing. If you look back at the early years of the last century, there was a stand-off, a lot of bickering and bad feeling between the believers in Mendel, and the believers in Darwin. It ended with a new synthesis: Darwin’s ideas and Mendel’s ideas blending together. And I think the same thing will happen here. You’ll get a new synthesis. Hardy’s ideas and Darwin’s ideas will be blended together. And we can move forward from there, and really get somewhere. That would be a beautiful thing. It would be very nice for me if it happened soon. (Laughter) Because I’m older now than George Burns was when he said, “At my age, I don’t even buy green bananas.” (Laughter) So if it’s going to come and it’s going to happen, what’s holding it up? I can tell you that in three words. Academia says no. They decided in 1960, “That belongs with the UFOs and the yetis.” And it’s not easy to change their minds. The professional journals won’t touch it with a barge pole. The textbooks don’t mention it. The syllabus doesn’t mention even the fact that we’re naked, let alone look for a reason to it. “Horizon,” which takes its cue from the academics, won’t touch it with a barge pole. So we never hear the case put for it, except in jocular references to people on the lunatic fringe. I don’t know quite where this diktat comes from. Somebody up there is issuing the commandment, “Thou shalt not believe in the aquatic theory. And if you hope to make progress in this profession, and you do believe it, you’d better keep it to yourself, because it will get in your way.” So I get the impression that some parts of the scientific establishment are morphing into a kind of priesthood. But you know, that makes me feel good, because Richard Dawkins has told us how to treat a priesthood. (Laughter) He says, “Firstly, you’ve got to refuse to give it all the excessive awe and reverence it’s been trained to receive.” Right. I’ll go ahead with that. And secondly, he says, “You must never be afraid to rock the boat.” I’ll go along with that too. Thank you very much. (Applause)

Comments 100

  • Some silly person is eating next to the microphone, otherwise, I loved this.

  • Elein you are a fucking crazy old woman

  • At the time that Ted talk was recorded in 2009 I’d say that lady was in her 70’s if not older well today it’s 2019 so if she is still alive ( and she could very well be ) but for a person of her advanced age and eating, sleeping, and breathing darwinism for many years I don’t think she ever changed her mind or most importantly her heart about this indoctrination she has been cursed with and if she didn’t well scripture says ones who deny him are doomed and lost eternally … because folks we didn’t come from apes and or aquatic apes ok , THE TRUTH IS folks we came from our one and only creator and were made in his image , in Lord Gods image and academia wants to hide GOD from us because once we find him and the love he has for us all then they know they have no control over us as a whole … Religion was created to call Christians wack jobs , it’s called the long con and we are falling for it more and more everyday but remember religion was made by man but GODS WORD IS TRUE and as we know all that people are liars so why believe man instead of believing your own heart … I love you all , thanks to all … GOD BLESS US ALL !!!

  • So much bullshit in so short time.

  • Lovely lady, but talking absolute crap.

  • Mmm hmmm

  • SHE'S SO RIGHT BUT TO ADD SOMETHING SHE DIDN'T MENTION … LOOK AT THE TOPS OF YOUR HANDS THEN SPREAD OUT YOUR FINGERS WE HAVE WEBS BETWEEN OUR FINGERS AND TOES … APES DO NOT !

  • I'm always wary when the explanation begins with "every scientist knows this but no one wants to talk about it."

  • Horses have a subcutaneous fat layer too.

  • Fascinating, I was mesmerized. Do you think the first fish were named adam and eve ? Seriously this needs to be proven or disproved, publically and quickly.

  • Somebody has been watching "The Little Mermaid" too often.

  • Lol someone watched the body found the night before she was set for a talk she'd not prepared for. Lol

  • Isn't scientism so self-affirming as self-aggrandizing. Anything goes for these folks. A little computer animation and haeckels embryos is relived ad nauseum ad infinitum with little hope of dissuading the brittle mind raised on popular imaginations… Delightful.

  • Evolution ? I thought that theory had finally died after the world leading geneticist Craig Venter declared the "tree of life" to be false. He followed up revealing his company had sampled some 60 million organisms throughout the world, and found no more than 12 had some sort of relatedness. I have found since that time the evolutionists arguments seem to have "dried up", shame really, it was good banter while it lasted.

  • I'll BUY that for a DOLLAR!Now I have to get back to my Gender Studies class!When I'm done filling my head with USELESS Nonsense I'll be Smarter than YOU!IF Your IDEAS conflict with mine,I'll scream for a SAFE Space and call you RACIST!Yap,College Educated!VOTE DEM,I don't wanna be stuck with this Bill!YOU pay for IT white Privilege DUDES!SMARTER than YOU!

  • Aquatic apes ? Unbelievable !

  • This old lady is smoking some strange crack!!!!!🐂💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩👌😱

  • To the people in the comment section calling this a theory… This isn't even close to a theory. At most it reaches to the level of hypothesis. At most and that is being generous.
    This wasn't a "spirited defense" unless you call "They don't wanna" a defense. It was humorous.

    TED, you disappoint me.

  • Clearly, this theory hold water. 😁

  • cuckoo! Cuckoo!.Where is the evidence?

  • ≈This is the essence of a TED talk. SO many TED speakers are there through celebrity, weirdness (shoe size, body painting, plant feelings) to the out and out wacky. Although I don't agree with her thesis, I appreciate her reasoning, research and imagination. And the reaction of scientists – from silence to denunciations to savage berating – is exactly what one would expect when an accepted theory is challenged.

    The reason it sound so strange is that the only theory we've ever known is the trees to savannah idea for bipedalism. tc) could possibly have aquatic origins. The reason it's so seductive is that it explains how we became bipedal and developed all the oddly human characteristics mentioned (fat layer, loss of hair, obesity, ability to speak, etc)

  • I could see how an aquatic phase would help us escape predators. Those better adapted to water and swimming would survive to pass on their genes.

  • Interesting to listen to. Too bad nothing concrete to support her theory. Died at age 92, 7/12/13. Her talk makes you wonder if anything is noted in the future. But an entertaining way of giving her view. Originally it came from German scientist Max Westenhofer in 1942 and Alister Hardy a marine biologist is what I read. RIP

  • We are the result of 2 fish frogs having buttsex with a monkey

  • Why the webbed toes and feet?

  • ive never heard such utter tripe in all my life.. and trust me, ive heard some.. where is the evidence? just another theory, don't make it true..

  • Granny lost her mind

  • Im as hairy as a bear

  • That's why I like to swing wet.

  • Sadly, it was feminism that caused her to promote this hypothesis. From Wikipedia: "This proposal was built upon by Elaine Morgan in her 1972 book The Descent of Woman, which drew attention to what she saw as the sexism inherent in the then prevalent savannah-based “man the hunter” theories of human evolution"…"Morgan removed the feminist content in several later books and her ideas were discussed at a 1987 conference devoted to the idea."

  • IF MAN EVOLVED FROM AQUDIC APES THEN WHY ARE THERE STILL APES?
    SHE LOOKS LIKE AN ELOY FROM THE MOVIE THE TIME MACHINE.

  • R.I.P Thank you for rocking the boat! You were an amazing descendant of the aquatic apes!

  • I’m curious how she says we were aquatic, not from the savannah. Does it have to be just one or the other? Does anyone combine the ideas that maybe we began to travel more (on a planet with a variety of terrains and environments) and had to adapt to all terrains, going from savannah to water, so we have traits evolved from both? Or the two different types interbred very early on to evolve into the multitalented modern human?
    I see traits from both environments; sweating while running to hunt, standing to see above grasses, and our noses turned downwards, hands and feet webbed for swimming, blubber, lung control etc. Maybe apes became aquatic first for a while then crawled back onto land because of something environmental like temperature change?
    Great talk. Funny lady.

  • Look to the bible it’s right

  • Wow ! What a bunch of morons , so stupid the humans are , the higher "so called intelligent ones are the dumbest by far .. it's not suprising that ya'll will be destroyed…

  • Come on over, the water is lovely ! That was sweet.

  • https://youtu.be/tok3fReYLsw
    Challenges to Evolution easily readable, here is a taster:
    Try this. For a complex creature to exist a male and female are required (yes sometimes within the same body). Their reproductive systems must match exactly from the physical (which includes the hard-wired species information) to the nerve centre in their brains which has the "software" that drives the mating habits and controls the hardware and nurturing habits. It surely must be agreed that this "kit" cannot evolve over Millenia as it is only viable when 100% complete. So, in the very first instance that a new "kit" appears, say the mammalian "kit", it has to be in a perfectly matched male/female pair in order for procreation to begin. So where does the first pair come from?
    Is it not noticeable how many millions of species of creature have graced this planet and how few basic reproductive "kits" there have been, a mere handful by comparison? This is engineering best practice, a standardisation which can be scaled and programmed to suit many creatures. I am curious as to how such obvious standardisation can appear in the apparent "randomness" of evolution which, it is claimed, has no design, no development, no controlled roll out and no planned end (as these elements would require an outside force) and yet, the final product is always strangely synergistic with whatever situation it finds itself in on land, sea or in the air. Evolutionists will tell you that this amazing feat is accomplished by "bad" mutations not surviving, only "good" mutations survive but never tell you how the mutating genes know the difference or why "bad" mutations are produced in the first place.
    Us humans now use in-vitro fertilisation to good effect and can even combine three donors to remove "unwanted inherited traits" which I don't think evolution can claim to do; synthetic biological engineering progression which has no foreseeable limits, indeed, a form of creation.
    Dictionary: "Creation": noun
    1.
    the act of producing or causing to exist; the act of creating; engendering.

  • Aquatic apes? Nah….I believe that all the evidence points to lunar barnacles.

  • They used to call it the 'aquatic ape hypothesis' because that was more honest. Crackpots always spend more time taking about paradigm shifts than evidence for their assertions because they never have evidence for their assertions. She's making arguments from ignorance and authority and she's provided not one shred of evidence. People have extended the spinal length of chickens and added teeth by playing with genes. A strong argument that birds evolved from dinosaurs comes ferrin the fact that we can manipulate bird genes to make them look like dinosaurs. This woman has no evidence at all.

  • Oh the power of speculation. Make a case for an evolutionary branch and you may become rich and famous. Give it a shot; no one can test you. Reminds me of what Mark Twain's Life on the Mississippi: "In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. That is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upwards of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-rod. And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined their streets together, and be plodding comfortably along under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen. There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact."

  • Soo stupid. Chickens are closely related to the T-Rex, its all only material.

  • Mama wie że ćpiesz?

  • Mama wie że ćpiesz?

  • Everyone wants a home as close to water as possible and you can't keep children out of the water.

  • We evolved from aquatic apes. . . .and then we created Taco Bell. . . .Great. What an achievement.

  • Evolution is a Theory not a Fact

  • To dismiss an hypothesis without proof is NOT scientific. To treat current theories as an orthodoxy converts science into religion.
    To me, the "Savannah Theory" was never more than an hypothesis. There was not enough evidence to elevate it to even being half-proved.
    The "Aquatic Theory" attempts to explain aspects of our anatomy. It is reasonable, but more importantly, there is no evidence that disproves it.
    It should be accepted as a possibility, needing more proof.

  • Darwin did not promote or teach evolution. He promoted the very explainable idea of adaptation. We actually do not know why or how we came here on this planet and neither can there be actual knowledge of the tens of thousands of different species and plants which differ from each other in subtle and significant ways. Scientists biologists and others are simply guessing.

  • In the lower Amazon basin the natives of that region has a legend that said the same story that we came from dolphins, we even have a movie made in Brazil about that fact, it say that when its time for love the dolphin comes out of the river looking for the beloved one to mate.

  • Regarding the "Savannah Theory". The tall grass prairie of the American mid-west was very difficult to walk in, the grass being very dense in many areas.
    Meanwhile, a mature forest is very walkable. In a mature forest, even a tropical forest, the canopy shade keeps the forest floor devoid of leafy plants. It is very easy to walk in.
    The virgin forests of America and Europe are all gone, so people cannot experience how walkable they are. Walking would have been a great asset for early hominids for getting around the forest floor.
    Chimps and gorillas use the forest floor to go short distances to new trees. But, hominids could cover great distances of many miles in a single day. To me, that seems a great advantage.
    So, besides the "Aquatic Theory", I think a "Forest Theory" should also not be easily dismissed.
    Modern cultures are very anti-forest. We cut down forests, even when we don't need to. It is as if we have some unconscious war with forests.
    Yet, pre-Columbian Indians prospered living in forests. Pygmies and South American Indians rely on forests.
    To me, the idea the early hominids also relied on forests is very possible, even likely.
    Could hominids have been BOTH aquatic and forest??
    Possible, their are some animals that are both – pygmy hippos are one. Tapirs are another.

  • You’re right, they just do not want to rewrite the books.
    We have been fed all this nonsense from religion to Gods, evolution; Well we all know are genetics were manipulated to a great degree. It wasn’t Gods or evolution. We were purposely engineered and introduced to the planet from the outer world.

  • Interesting, as far as I know human babys have an anti-drowning reflex for the first 6 month of their life. Would make sense if human ancestors spend so much time in water. I don't know if other primates have this reflex though.

  • Trotting out 60+ year old theories is not revolutionary. Especially when one is doing it with the support of the institutions that suppressed them. Pretending to be an iconoclast while firmly in the embrace of the establishments "money for nothing, and chicks for free" ride to fame on the tax payer dime is so chronically uncool it's painful. The whole hip science book and speaking tour has become a silly joke.

  • "Academia Says No!" – Nailed it! She couldn't be anymore accurate with that observation than what she already is. They refuse, deny and lie about factual reality. In order to accept, promote and once again lie, about politically motivated fantasy.

  • well I'm a layperson just stumbling upon this 10 years later, but it's most certainly compelling! 10 years ago I was a young earth creationist : ( I think the scientific process must sacrifice its own sacred cows for the pursuit of truth, just like the fundies they are calling out.

  • Well , the australopithecines are supposed to be the First stage of Man evolution and forward progression , so are you saying the He/ She was infact an ADAPA , PLANET of the APES , AQUATIC APES or in other words BLACK PEOPLE , because No Orangutan Gibbons and Lars has the interllectual compacity or capability to evolve and achieve what Man has done , they are not capable of building Empires and Civilizations …………. Smile

  • On one hand my heart believes in Jesus. On the other my common sense looking at sea life. Insects plant biology solar system .I can't help but think that we are but another form of alien

  • There’s such a thing as a good Darwinist?

  • Elaine Morgan is clearly retarded…

  • Sounds like it makes sense, very interesting thought, falls very well into place.

    One thing I would like to mention tho is that science specifically is not about finding the absolute truth, it is about developing models that capture the phenomena we discover in out world. When you have a working model, that allows for predictions potentially leading to new discoveries.
    A standing theory has to work, it only needs to be good _enough_. When it stops working, because newly discovered phenomena don't fit the model, or straight up disprove it, that's when a new theory will replace the old one, or stand next to it (like we can see with Quantum vs Newtonian Physics).

    Even when us having aquatic apes as ancestors may be the actual truth (again, makes a lot of sense from what she lays out), our ancestry is simply a byproduct of the theory of evolution and it gives us a place in the development of species on planet earth. Its good enough for what it does, which is why it likely wont be changed in the near future.
    The only thing that would probably lead to a shift in paradigms is when someone (defending the theory makes) an important discovery that could not stand without the assumption of aquatic ancestors.

  • People from India have been saying this for at least 2000 years I wonder how they knew it

  • We also live a very long time, compared to a lot of other species.

  • "Scientists" are just as dogmatic as any religion. One thing I've seen, scientists will believe anything as long as it doesn't include God.

  • Look at today's Olympic swimmers, not a hair on their body except head hair and they cover that with a bald cap….this doesn't include the Russian woman…different species

  • This is quite the stretch. May as well call it a fairy tale. The science isn't there.

  • Although I agree with the overall point of the talk, I wanted to comment on the "absence of evidence" against the aquatic ape hypothesis.
    There are quite a lot of biological/chemical/bacterial markers that suggest we did not have a similar aquatic origin as say elephants.
    1) chemical – most aquatic diving animals (including elephants) have a molecule called Myoglobin in their blood that's actively there and is used to store large amounts of oxygen. this is how whales/dolphins and even otters can hold their breath so long. Humans don't generally have this, except for rare cases on muscle damage. Doctors usually use the presence of this molecule in our blood in detecting muscle damage as it's not supposed to be there.
    2) There are plenty of monkeys can can dive for prolonged periods of time and have evolved to live on the water side. One great example is from Attenborough – he has a video on Crab-Eating Macaque that spends up to a minute underwater. The monkey is in no way evolved to be bipedal and has plenty of fur.
    3) Bacterial culture on our skin has a very specific ratio of very specific bacteria that's "safe" for us. There have been cases that a human that spent too much time in the water had acquired a completely misbalanced bacterial culture which would result in serious skin problems or even infection. The 2019 paper "Ocean swimming alters skin microbiome, increasing vulnerability to infection" goes in a lot of detail about this idea of microbiome that we all need for survival. So staying in the water for too long is not something our body is used to either.

    There are many many more reasons one could provide against this hypothesis, which is why most major scientists today still do not accept it, as most of the evidence is explainable in other ways or is not particularly strong.

    Nevertheless, the idea of "going against" the paradigm is something that we all need to do and I still agree with Elaine Morgan in most of what she said.

  • Hmm that makes sense. And I guess we grew hair on our head to protect us from the sun.

  • This is really gonna piss off the creationists.

  • IT does look like Elaine Morgan did evolve from aquatic apes, but I was created in the image of God Almighty.

  • I feel bad for evolutionists… and the sad thing is they are considered to be intellectual… poor old lady so foolish and all these people who support this nonsense. So sad

  • Never heard of aquatic apes or seen any fossilized evidence of them. Where is the evidence. It sounds like a theory which is a guess, an "educated" guess but a guess none the less.

  • at 9:40 , I'm puzzled by her contention that humans are unique among primates in their capacity to become morbidly obese. We don't see MO in wild primates but we certainly see it in captive ones. <<Several animal models have been used to study overweight body condition and include dogs, pigs, hamsters, rats, mice, and nonhuman primates, such as macaques and baboons. Obesity can be induced experimentally in these species by using high-fat diets or surgical force-feeding and through genetic modification. In captive nonhuman primates, particularly rhesus and cynomolgus macaques, obesity occurs spontaneously, making these species excellent models for the condition in humans.>>
    The subcutaneous fat layer does seem to be thicker in humans at birth though, whereas obesity is a variable condition relating to lifestyle, so (because that conditionality makes obesity an evolutionary red herring) I don't think it detracts from her core point. It does damage her scientific credibility in my eyes however, as do extravagant and unsupportable claims like "the only possible explanation" at 09:41

  • Is she suggesting that coconuts migrate?

  • Women shouldnt even allowed to talk in public at all

  • Mumble, jumble, stumble, fumble.
    Sure sounded like she was attempting to speak with a mouth full of marbles!! Left with only guesses at certain words she couldn't clearly pronounce. Therefore, the message lost its way during moments in presenting. YIKES!!

  • ➡️When I was young my brother said we evolved from monkeys.
    ➡️Another video few minutes back said we evolved from Dimetrodon.
    ➡️A religious person in India said that we grew like an embryo in soil and we had a tree like growth in our navel which worked like umbilical cord.
    ➡️My father once said we the multi cellular organisms were born from unicellular organisms like amoeba and bacteria.
    ➡️An archeologist from South India says that our ancestors were Aliens and they propogated humans here.
    ➡️If I am right David Attenborough one said that we are decendents of a fossil fish called coelacanth.
    ➡️This lady says we evolved from aquatic apes.
    Enough is enough.
    I can not tolerate this anymore.

  • my webbed fingers and my webbed toes and my webbed penis are evidence of this

  • Is she on some drugs?…

  • Bunch of malarkey. Hogwash i say

  • I think we came from squids that screwed aquaapes .

  • The fat thing has been proposed as a result of the metabolic processes being less efficient to feed the larger brain of humans. Gene studies support a finite metabolic limit.

  • All this is bullshit. I watched anyways.

  • … and if Elaine Morgan says it happened that way…it happened that way.

  • Dont forget our facial oil which naturally secretes .

  • She came from aquatic apes… commonly called a " Sea Hag"

  • Take it from a Breeder, it's all about the Pheno… lol

  • I think what she is trying to say is that she is an aquatic ape and everyone evolved from her. Ha ha. Incredible how people can be so dumb after spending all their life. Sorry for the remark. Appeal to all sane "scientists" out there: please have a careful read of some Vedic Literature like the Puranas and Upanishads, especially the Bhagavat Purana and Gitopanishad, commented by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami. Skip all the so-called objective commentaries, they are mostly based on big bang theory, which remains up to today just a THEORY. So read from people who have actually studied Vedic knowledge. Rest assured, you will find information on many things, which scientists are cracking their heads on since centuries. You could become the new Einstein if you disclose all those so-called new discoveries…

  • Darwin most certainly did not change my thinking. I still firmly believe that Darwin was a complete idiot. Nothing evolves. Only adaptations can happen and they never ever change the creature into something else. Evolution is pure fantasy.

  • She forgot about our webbed hands and feet and also our nose which keeps water from pouring in when we go underwater

  • You can tell a dummy anything!

  • i think we are aliens, or hybrids, easily

  • Trump is an aqautc baboon

  • …And I say we devolved from intergalactic ninja pterodactyl space lemurs from plant Zgbanctyx.

    Prove me wrong.

  • but the third did happened the annuki race created us theory.

  • I was sure she would bring up our diet. I tried to look it up only to have Google direct me to fad diet garbage, but I was told we had a more aquatic diet at one point.

  • What a treasure

  • I'm no where near being a scientist, but commonsense tells you to look at land mammals and you notice paws or huffs,for high level mobility. Commonsense also tells you examine aquatic creatures you see fins. With that said,this nice lady should explain to us,did her aquatic apes have fins.

  • Just stumbled across this wonderful lady… what a great talk… we need more free-thinkers, those that question the orthodox paradigm no matter how strange the idea might first seem… RIP Elaine Morgan

  • Let it be known to the gods that one stood against many! ☀️👍🏻

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *