marc verhaegen - Academia.edu (original) (raw)

Papers by marc verhaegen

Medical Hypotheses, 1995

Humans and apes show clear differences in brain anatomy. In the human cerebral cortex, for instan... more Humans and apes show clear differences in brain anatomy. In the human cerebral cortex, for instance, the areas that control the fine movements of the hand, the areas that control the breathing and speech musculature, and the association areas have strongly expanded. It will be argued that these differences are best explained by the aquatic ape theory of human evolution (AAT) and originated in our semi-aquatic past, notably in the adaptations necessary for diving and shellfish collection at sea coasts.

Medical Hypotheses, 1987

The Aquatic Ape Theory claims that human ancestors once lived in a semiaquatic habitat. Some huma... more The Aquatic Ape Theory claims that human ancestors once lived in a semiaquatic habitat. Some human diseases might be explained by our aquatic past. Such problems include hyperventilation, periodic breathing, laryngo-and bronchospasm, vasomotor rhinopathy., seborrhea, dandruff, male pattern alopecia, rhinophyma, osteoarthriti,s, inguinal hernias, varicose veins, common obesity, myopia, and earwax .

Drones and autonomous vehicles/Drones and Autonomous Vehicles, 2024

Nature Anthropology, Dec 31, 2023

The dominant paradigm regarding human evolution since the split with Pan considers australopithec... more The dominant paradigm regarding human evolution since the split with Pan considers australopithecines as hominins, i.e., the closest relatives and/or direct ancestors of Homo. Historically, this paradigm started from the assumption that the Homo/Pan/Gorilla last common ancestor was a knuckle-walking ape that evolved into the fully upright (orthograde), obligate bipedal genus Homo, whereas Pan and Gorilla remained knuckle-walkers. Obligate terrestrial upright bipedalism, unique for our species, is an odd locomotor behaviour for a primate. Therefore, it had become generally accepted that a cooler and drier African climate had caused deforestation, which had forced our ancestors to develop upright bipedalism as an adaptation to living on open grassland savannah. This view, already held by Lamarck and Darwin, appeared most parsimonious in the almost complete absence of fossils. The discovery in the 20th century of australopithecine fossils, bipedal apes with small brains, in open country in southern and eastern Africa corroborated the savannah paradigm. Therefore, australopithecines are considered hominins. However, it is now recognized that most australopithecines instead lived in a mosaic of forests, grasslands and wetlands, and better knowledge of their fossils clearly indicates that they possessed several climbing adaptations. Moreover, none of the extinct ape species older than Australopithecus and Paranthropus for which postcranial remains have been described (e.g., Morotopithecus, Sahelanthropus, Orrorin, Ardipithecus) were knuckle-walking. On the other hand, upright posture/gait is already present to different degrees even in Miocene apes. Moreover, the notion that hominoid orthogrady is a primitive characteristic is corroborated by the growing consensus that knuckle-walking is not a primitive trait but has evolved in parallel, independently in both Pan and Gorilla. Consequently, it is possible that australopithecines are not transitional between a semi-erect ancestor and upright bipedal humans, but to the contrary, are intermediate between a more upright ancestor and extant semi-erect African apes. In summary, hypotheses that attempt to explain how a semi-erect Homo/Pan last common ancestor transitioned into the bipedal australopithecines as an adaptation to life on the savannah appear to be ill-conceived and moreover seem to have been superfluous from the very start. We review the numerous similarities between australopithecines and extant African apes, suggesting that they are possibly not hominins and therefore not our direct ancestors. We suggest that we may have been barking up the wrong ancestral tree, for almost a century.

Anthropologischer Anzeiger, 1997

We are convinced that human bipedalism is better accounted for by the Aquatic Ape Theory than by ... more We are convinced that human bipedalism is better accounted for by the Aquatic Ape Theory than by the hypotheses, now commonly accepted, that the vertical gait is part of an adaptation for life in the savannahs. The advantages of the upright gait are easily understood by the versatility of this locomotion in a semi-aquatic mode of life. Early hominid bipedalism cannot be described as an ideal adaptation for one isolated form of locomotion, since human bipedalism covers a wide range of locomoter behaviours such as diving, swimming, wading, climbing trees and rocks, and moving on land. This locomotor versatility, however, should not be confused with theories that consider humans and their ancestors as "primitive" or "unspecialized" creatures. The pronounced swimming and diving abilities of humans--and the features that make these abilities possible--represents the most striking element of our species locomotor spectrum in comparison with highly specialized "savannah primates". On the one hand baboons and geladas are clearly better-adapted to savannah conditions than humans are, if the acquisitions of modern technology are not taken into consideration. To these adaptations belongs quadrupedalism, which is the most common and successful form of locomotion among terrestrial tetrapods. On the other hand, humans are in most respects much better swimmers and divers than nonhuman primates even without technological help. The only satisfying explanation for these different adaptations of humans and nonhuman primates is provided by the Aquatic Ape Theory. It is the only model of humans evolution that accounts for the numerous examples of convergent features between people and other vertebrates and the only model that explains these convergences in connection with a well-defined ecological niche.

Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 2014

Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2002

Trends in Ecology & Evolution 17:212-217, 2002 Aquarboreal ancestors? Marc Verhaegen, Pierre-Fr... more Trends in Ecology & Evolution 17:212-217, 2002
Aquarboreal ancestors?
Marc Verhaegen, Pierre-François Puech & Stephen Munro
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(02)02490-4

According to biomolecular data, the great apes split into Asian pongids (orang-utan) and African hominids (gorillas, chimpanzees and humans) 18–12 million years ago (Mya) and hominids split into gorillas and humans–chimpanzees 10–6 Mya.
Fossils with pongid features appear in Eurasia after c 15 Mya, and fossils with hominid fossils appear in Africa after c 10 Mya.
Instead of the traditional savannah-dwelling hypothesis, we argue that a combination of fossil (including the newly discovered Orrorin, Ardipithecus and Kenyanthropus hominids) and comparative data now provides evidence showing that
(1) the earliest hominids waded and climbed in swampy or coastal forests in Africa–Arabia and fed partly on hard-shelled fruits and molluscs;
(2) their australopith descendants in Africa had a comparable locomotion but generally preferred a diet including wetland plants;
(3) the Homo descendants migrated to or remained near the Indian Ocean coasts, lost most climbing abilities, and exploited waterside resources.

Speculations in Science and Technology, 1988

The question of speech origins is discussed in the light of the theory that humans had semi-aquat... more The question of speech origins is discussed in the light of the theory that humans had semi-aquatic hominid ancestors. Diving requires a special anatomy of the airway entrances and a very refined control of breathing. The brain structures that “voluntarily” controlled the airway entrances’ closure and breathing could also be used for elaborating the older (early hominid, perhaps gibbon-like) sound production. Later, the evolution of association areas in the brain greatly enhanced human ability for attaching a particular meaning to a conventional sound combination.

_____

For an update of our view on speech origins, google our paper
"Seafood, diving, song and speech"
M Vaneechoutte, S Munro, M Verhaegen 2011 ,pp.181-9 in
M Vaneechoutte, A Kuliukas, M Verhaegen eds 2011 ebook Bentham Sci Publ
"Was Man More Aquatic in the Past? Fifty Years after Alister Hardy:
Waterside Hypotheses of Human Evolution"

Comparative data suggest that various preadaptations to human speech evolved at different times f... more Comparative data suggest that various preadaptations to human speech evolved at different times for different functions, especially adaptations to (a) an aquarboreal lifestyle in Mio-Pliocene hominoids, (b) a littoral lifestyle in Pleistocene Homo (early-Pleistocene coastal dispersal model), e.g. (1) descent of the larynx relative to the hyoid bone (Miocene adaptation for loud and varied territorial duets), (2) descent of the hyoid relative to the palate, smooth and globular tongue, small mouth, parabolic closed tooth-row with incisiform canines, vaulted and smooth palate with reduction of palatal ridges, MYH16 loss and reduced biting-chewing musculature (Pleistocene suction and swallowing of aquatic foods), (3) voluntary control of breathing musculature (Pleistocene littoral diving during coastal dispersal of Homo), (4) cerebral expansion (aquatic foods rich in brain-specific nutrients such as DHA, iodine, taurine and oligo-elements), (5) vocal learning (arguably facilitating localization of offspring).

Since chimpanzee and bonobo ancestors were evolutionarily closer to the Homo/Pan last common ance... more Since chimpanzee and bonobo ancestors were evolutionarily closer to the Homo/Pan last common ancestor than extant members of Pan, they probably had more humanlike traits than extant chimps or bonobos. This implies that the presence of humanlike traits in australopithecines (such as a vertical spine, low ilia, smaller canines, thick enamel etc.) does not necessarily indicate human ancestry. Most paleo-anthropologists conventionally assume that the australopithecines were ancestors of humans (but not of Pan or Gorilla) because they were bipedal. Different lines of evidence (e.g. centrally-placed spines in hominoids, versus dorsally-placed spines in monkeys), however, suggest that not only humans, gibbons and siamangs (who still have habitually vertical spines) had more bipedal ancestors, but all hominoids. This implies that the presence of "bipedal traits" in fossil hominoids does not define human ancestry. There are a lot of fossil apes in Europe (dryopithecines) as well as in Asia (fossil pongids), but it is traditionally assumed that virtually all fossil hominid fossils in Africa are closer relatives of humans than of gorillas, chimps or bonobos. This is statistically impossible: why should there be plenty of fossil apes in Europe as well as in Asia, but virtually no fossil apes in Africa? Why are all hominid fossils in Africa traditionally assumed to be closer relatives of Homo than of Pan or Gorilla? This presentation shows that the traditional views that australopithecines are human relatives to the exclusion of Pan and Gorilla, and that human ancestors became bipedal when they moved from the forest to the open plane, are exclusively based on anthropocentric preassumptions, and are contradicted by the comparative anatomy and all other available evidence. We propose alternative hypotheses, fully supported by comparative biology.

Recent approaches to human evolution consider not only arboreal and terrestrial but also watersid... more Recent approaches to human evolution consider not only arboreal and terrestrial but also waterside paleo-environments, and not only the fossil record, but also anatomical and physiological comparisons with other animals.

radicalanthropologygroup.org

Asian pongids (orangutans) and African hominids (gorillas, chimpanzees and humans) split 14-10 mi... more Asian pongids (orangutans) and African hominids (gorillas, chimpanzees and humans) split 14-10 million years ago, possibly in the Middle East, or elsewhere in Eurasia, where the great ape fossils of 12-8 million years ago display pongid and/or hominid features. In any case, it is likely that the ancestors of the African apes, australopithecines and humans, lived on the Arabian-African continent 8-6 million years ago, when they split into gorillas and humans-chimpanzees. They could have frequently waded bipedally, like mangrove proboscis monkeys, in the mangrove forests between Eurasia and Africa, and partly fed on hard-shelled fruits and oysters like mangrove capuchin monkeys: thick enamel plus stone tool use is typically seen in capuchins, hominids and sea otters.
The australopithecines might have entered the African inland along rivers and lakes. Their dentition suggests they ate mostly fruits, hard grass-like plants, and aquatic herbaceous vegetation (AHV). The fossil data indicates that the early australopithecines of 4-3 million years ago lived in waterside forests or woodlands; and their larger, robust relatives of 2-1 million years ago in generally more open milieus near marshes and reedbeds, where they could have waded bipedally. Some anthropologists believe the present-day African apes evolved from australopithecine-like ancestors, which would imply that knuckle-walking gorillas and chimpanzees evolved in parallel from wading-climbing ‘aquarborealists’.
After the human-chimp split some 6-4 million years ago, our ancestors could have stayed at, or returned to the Indian Ocean shores, where they elaborated their shellfish-eating, tool-using, beach-combing and wading-diving skills. From here the different Homo species could have colonized Africa and Eurasia by following the rivers as bipedal omnivores. Homo erectus crossed Wallace’s Line and reached Flores before 0.8 million years ago, and the earliest erectus fossils are found in beaches and swamps from Java to Georgia and Kenya 1.8-1.6 million years ago. Voluntary breath-holding, an essential requirement for diving, probably facilitated the evolution of human speech.

According to biomolecular data, the great apes split into

That humans evolved as a result of a move from forests to more open plains is still the prevailin... more That humans evolved as a result of a move from forests to more open plains is still the prevailing paradigm in anthropology, and researchers often assume that this transition influenced the origins of human bipedalism, omnivory, tool use, large brains, and even speech. Here, we argue that there are no scientific grounds on which to base such a hypothesis. While we agree that Homo may have evolved in more open (tree-poor) habitats than other apes (which could account for our relatively poor climbing skills), the suggestion that humans shifted to drier habitats away from water is, according to our research, unproven. We propose instead a more parsimonious model compatible with all known data and corroborated by a number of independent sources of evidence. Comparisons of the locomotor styles and nutritional requirements of extant species and anatomical comparisons of fossil and extant species including Homo sapiens, especially in combination with palaeoecological data, strongly suggest...

Anthropology, a specific subfield of ethology, because it deals specifically with our own species... more Anthropology, a specific subfield of ethology, because it deals specifically with our own species, tends to be characterized by a more emotional approach than is common in other ethological fields. This may explain why standard methods that are commonly used in ethology, such as comparative biology, are remarkably rare in anthropology and especially palaeoanthropology. Anthropologists tend to view humans as unique, and therefore fail to apply comparative methods on humans and their fossil and living relatives, as would be done as a matter of practice in a number of other fields. As long as this anthropocentric attitude continues, it will remain impossible to reconstruct human evolution in an objective manner. It is now more than half a century ago that Max Westenhöfer (1942), and later Sir Alister Hardy (1960), proposed on the basis of comparisons with other animals that humans were more aquatic than had generally been accepted. They had noticed (independently) that humans differ fr...

Medical hypotheses, 1985

Much more than other primates, man has several features that are seen more often in aquatic than ... more Much more than other primates, man has several features that are seen more often in aquatic than terrestrial mammals: nakedness, thick subcutaneous fat-layer, stretched hindlimbs, voluntary respiration, dilute urine etc. The Aquatic Ape Theory states that our ancestors once spent a significant part of their life in water. Presumably, early apes were plant and fruit eaters in tropical forests. Early hominids also ate aquatic food; at first mainly weeds and tubers, later sea shore animals, especially shellfish. With the Pleistocene cooling, our ancestors returned to land and became bipedal omnivores and scavengers and later hunters of coastal and riverside animals.

Human Evolution, 2013

While some paleo-anthropologists remain skeptical, data from diverse biological and anthropologic... more While some paleo-anthropologists remain skeptical, data from diverse biological and anthropological disciplines leave little doubt that human ancestors were at some point in our past semi-aquatic: wading, swimming and/or diving in shallow waters in search of waterside or aquatic foods. However, the exact scenario — how, where and when these semi-aquatic adaptations happened, how profound they were, and how they fit into the hominid fossil record — is still disputed, even among anthropologists who assume some semi-aquatic adaptations. Here, I argue that the most intense phase(s) of semi-aquatic adaptation in human ancestry occurred when populations belonging to the genus Homo adapted to slow and shallow littoral diving for sessile foods such as shellfish during part(s) of the Pleistocene epoch (Ice Ages), possibly along African or South-Asian coasts.

Medical Hypotheses, 1995

Humans and apes show clear differences in brain anatomy. In the human cerebral cortex, for instan... more Humans and apes show clear differences in brain anatomy. In the human cerebral cortex, for instance, the areas that control the fine movements of the hand, the areas that control the breathing and speech musculature, and the association areas have strongly expanded. It will be argued that these differences are best explained by the aquatic ape theory of human evolution (AAT) and originated in our semi-aquatic past, notably in the adaptations necessary for diving and shellfish collection at sea coasts.

Medical Hypotheses, 1987

The Aquatic Ape Theory claims that human ancestors once lived in a semiaquatic habitat. Some huma... more The Aquatic Ape Theory claims that human ancestors once lived in a semiaquatic habitat. Some human diseases might be explained by our aquatic past. Such problems include hyperventilation, periodic breathing, laryngo-and bronchospasm, vasomotor rhinopathy., seborrhea, dandruff, male pattern alopecia, rhinophyma, osteoarthriti,s, inguinal hernias, varicose veins, common obesity, myopia, and earwax .

Drones and autonomous vehicles/Drones and Autonomous Vehicles, 2024

Nature Anthropology, Dec 31, 2023

The dominant paradigm regarding human evolution since the split with Pan considers australopithec... more The dominant paradigm regarding human evolution since the split with Pan considers australopithecines as hominins, i.e., the closest relatives and/or direct ancestors of Homo. Historically, this paradigm started from the assumption that the Homo/Pan/Gorilla last common ancestor was a knuckle-walking ape that evolved into the fully upright (orthograde), obligate bipedal genus Homo, whereas Pan and Gorilla remained knuckle-walkers. Obligate terrestrial upright bipedalism, unique for our species, is an odd locomotor behaviour for a primate. Therefore, it had become generally accepted that a cooler and drier African climate had caused deforestation, which had forced our ancestors to develop upright bipedalism as an adaptation to living on open grassland savannah. This view, already held by Lamarck and Darwin, appeared most parsimonious in the almost complete absence of fossils. The discovery in the 20th century of australopithecine fossils, bipedal apes with small brains, in open country in southern and eastern Africa corroborated the savannah paradigm. Therefore, australopithecines are considered hominins. However, it is now recognized that most australopithecines instead lived in a mosaic of forests, grasslands and wetlands, and better knowledge of their fossils clearly indicates that they possessed several climbing adaptations. Moreover, none of the extinct ape species older than Australopithecus and Paranthropus for which postcranial remains have been described (e.g., Morotopithecus, Sahelanthropus, Orrorin, Ardipithecus) were knuckle-walking. On the other hand, upright posture/gait is already present to different degrees even in Miocene apes. Moreover, the notion that hominoid orthogrady is a primitive characteristic is corroborated by the growing consensus that knuckle-walking is not a primitive trait but has evolved in parallel, independently in both Pan and Gorilla. Consequently, it is possible that australopithecines are not transitional between a semi-erect ancestor and upright bipedal humans, but to the contrary, are intermediate between a more upright ancestor and extant semi-erect African apes. In summary, hypotheses that attempt to explain how a semi-erect Homo/Pan last common ancestor transitioned into the bipedal australopithecines as an adaptation to life on the savannah appear to be ill-conceived and moreover seem to have been superfluous from the very start. We review the numerous similarities between australopithecines and extant African apes, suggesting that they are possibly not hominins and therefore not our direct ancestors. We suggest that we may have been barking up the wrong ancestral tree, for almost a century.

Anthropologischer Anzeiger, 1997

We are convinced that human bipedalism is better accounted for by the Aquatic Ape Theory than by ... more We are convinced that human bipedalism is better accounted for by the Aquatic Ape Theory than by the hypotheses, now commonly accepted, that the vertical gait is part of an adaptation for life in the savannahs. The advantages of the upright gait are easily understood by the versatility of this locomotion in a semi-aquatic mode of life. Early hominid bipedalism cannot be described as an ideal adaptation for one isolated form of locomotion, since human bipedalism covers a wide range of locomoter behaviours such as diving, swimming, wading, climbing trees and rocks, and moving on land. This locomotor versatility, however, should not be confused with theories that consider humans and their ancestors as "primitive" or "unspecialized" creatures. The pronounced swimming and diving abilities of humans--and the features that make these abilities possible--represents the most striking element of our species locomotor spectrum in comparison with highly specialized "savannah primates". On the one hand baboons and geladas are clearly better-adapted to savannah conditions than humans are, if the acquisitions of modern technology are not taken into consideration. To these adaptations belongs quadrupedalism, which is the most common and successful form of locomotion among terrestrial tetrapods. On the other hand, humans are in most respects much better swimmers and divers than nonhuman primates even without technological help. The only satisfying explanation for these different adaptations of humans and nonhuman primates is provided by the Aquatic Ape Theory. It is the only model of humans evolution that accounts for the numerous examples of convergent features between people and other vertebrates and the only model that explains these convergences in connection with a well-defined ecological niche.

Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 2014

Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2002

Trends in Ecology & Evolution 17:212-217, 2002 Aquarboreal ancestors? Marc Verhaegen, Pierre-Fr... more Trends in Ecology & Evolution 17:212-217, 2002
Aquarboreal ancestors?
Marc Verhaegen, Pierre-François Puech & Stephen Munro
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(02)02490-4

According to biomolecular data, the great apes split into Asian pongids (orang-utan) and African hominids (gorillas, chimpanzees and humans) 18–12 million years ago (Mya) and hominids split into gorillas and humans–chimpanzees 10–6 Mya.
Fossils with pongid features appear in Eurasia after c 15 Mya, and fossils with hominid fossils appear in Africa after c 10 Mya.
Instead of the traditional savannah-dwelling hypothesis, we argue that a combination of fossil (including the newly discovered Orrorin, Ardipithecus and Kenyanthropus hominids) and comparative data now provides evidence showing that
(1) the earliest hominids waded and climbed in swampy or coastal forests in Africa–Arabia and fed partly on hard-shelled fruits and molluscs;
(2) their australopith descendants in Africa had a comparable locomotion but generally preferred a diet including wetland plants;
(3) the Homo descendants migrated to or remained near the Indian Ocean coasts, lost most climbing abilities, and exploited waterside resources.

Speculations in Science and Technology, 1988

The question of speech origins is discussed in the light of the theory that humans had semi-aquat... more The question of speech origins is discussed in the light of the theory that humans had semi-aquatic hominid ancestors. Diving requires a special anatomy of the airway entrances and a very refined control of breathing. The brain structures that “voluntarily” controlled the airway entrances’ closure and breathing could also be used for elaborating the older (early hominid, perhaps gibbon-like) sound production. Later, the evolution of association areas in the brain greatly enhanced human ability for attaching a particular meaning to a conventional sound combination.

_____

For an update of our view on speech origins, google our paper
"Seafood, diving, song and speech"
M Vaneechoutte, S Munro, M Verhaegen 2011 ,pp.181-9 in
M Vaneechoutte, A Kuliukas, M Verhaegen eds 2011 ebook Bentham Sci Publ
"Was Man More Aquatic in the Past? Fifty Years after Alister Hardy:
Waterside Hypotheses of Human Evolution"

Comparative data suggest that various preadaptations to human speech evolved at different times f... more Comparative data suggest that various preadaptations to human speech evolved at different times for different functions, especially adaptations to (a) an aquarboreal lifestyle in Mio-Pliocene hominoids, (b) a littoral lifestyle in Pleistocene Homo (early-Pleistocene coastal dispersal model), e.g. (1) descent of the larynx relative to the hyoid bone (Miocene adaptation for loud and varied territorial duets), (2) descent of the hyoid relative to the palate, smooth and globular tongue, small mouth, parabolic closed tooth-row with incisiform canines, vaulted and smooth palate with reduction of palatal ridges, MYH16 loss and reduced biting-chewing musculature (Pleistocene suction and swallowing of aquatic foods), (3) voluntary control of breathing musculature (Pleistocene littoral diving during coastal dispersal of Homo), (4) cerebral expansion (aquatic foods rich in brain-specific nutrients such as DHA, iodine, taurine and oligo-elements), (5) vocal learning (arguably facilitating localization of offspring).

Since chimpanzee and bonobo ancestors were evolutionarily closer to the Homo/Pan last common ance... more Since chimpanzee and bonobo ancestors were evolutionarily closer to the Homo/Pan last common ancestor than extant members of Pan, they probably had more humanlike traits than extant chimps or bonobos. This implies that the presence of humanlike traits in australopithecines (such as a vertical spine, low ilia, smaller canines, thick enamel etc.) does not necessarily indicate human ancestry. Most paleo-anthropologists conventionally assume that the australopithecines were ancestors of humans (but not of Pan or Gorilla) because they were bipedal. Different lines of evidence (e.g. centrally-placed spines in hominoids, versus dorsally-placed spines in monkeys), however, suggest that not only humans, gibbons and siamangs (who still have habitually vertical spines) had more bipedal ancestors, but all hominoids. This implies that the presence of "bipedal traits" in fossil hominoids does not define human ancestry. There are a lot of fossil apes in Europe (dryopithecines) as well as in Asia (fossil pongids), but it is traditionally assumed that virtually all fossil hominid fossils in Africa are closer relatives of humans than of gorillas, chimps or bonobos. This is statistically impossible: why should there be plenty of fossil apes in Europe as well as in Asia, but virtually no fossil apes in Africa? Why are all hominid fossils in Africa traditionally assumed to be closer relatives of Homo than of Pan or Gorilla? This presentation shows that the traditional views that australopithecines are human relatives to the exclusion of Pan and Gorilla, and that human ancestors became bipedal when they moved from the forest to the open plane, are exclusively based on anthropocentric preassumptions, and are contradicted by the comparative anatomy and all other available evidence. We propose alternative hypotheses, fully supported by comparative biology.

Recent approaches to human evolution consider not only arboreal and terrestrial but also watersid... more Recent approaches to human evolution consider not only arboreal and terrestrial but also waterside paleo-environments, and not only the fossil record, but also anatomical and physiological comparisons with other animals.

radicalanthropologygroup.org

Asian pongids (orangutans) and African hominids (gorillas, chimpanzees and humans) split 14-10 mi... more Asian pongids (orangutans) and African hominids (gorillas, chimpanzees and humans) split 14-10 million years ago, possibly in the Middle East, or elsewhere in Eurasia, where the great ape fossils of 12-8 million years ago display pongid and/or hominid features. In any case, it is likely that the ancestors of the African apes, australopithecines and humans, lived on the Arabian-African continent 8-6 million years ago, when they split into gorillas and humans-chimpanzees. They could have frequently waded bipedally, like mangrove proboscis monkeys, in the mangrove forests between Eurasia and Africa, and partly fed on hard-shelled fruits and oysters like mangrove capuchin monkeys: thick enamel plus stone tool use is typically seen in capuchins, hominids and sea otters.
The australopithecines might have entered the African inland along rivers and lakes. Their dentition suggests they ate mostly fruits, hard grass-like plants, and aquatic herbaceous vegetation (AHV). The fossil data indicates that the early australopithecines of 4-3 million years ago lived in waterside forests or woodlands; and their larger, robust relatives of 2-1 million years ago in generally more open milieus near marshes and reedbeds, where they could have waded bipedally. Some anthropologists believe the present-day African apes evolved from australopithecine-like ancestors, which would imply that knuckle-walking gorillas and chimpanzees evolved in parallel from wading-climbing ‘aquarborealists’.
After the human-chimp split some 6-4 million years ago, our ancestors could have stayed at, or returned to the Indian Ocean shores, where they elaborated their shellfish-eating, tool-using, beach-combing and wading-diving skills. From here the different Homo species could have colonized Africa and Eurasia by following the rivers as bipedal omnivores. Homo erectus crossed Wallace’s Line and reached Flores before 0.8 million years ago, and the earliest erectus fossils are found in beaches and swamps from Java to Georgia and Kenya 1.8-1.6 million years ago. Voluntary breath-holding, an essential requirement for diving, probably facilitated the evolution of human speech.

According to biomolecular data, the great apes split into

That humans evolved as a result of a move from forests to more open plains is still the prevailin... more That humans evolved as a result of a move from forests to more open plains is still the prevailing paradigm in anthropology, and researchers often assume that this transition influenced the origins of human bipedalism, omnivory, tool use, large brains, and even speech. Here, we argue that there are no scientific grounds on which to base such a hypothesis. While we agree that Homo may have evolved in more open (tree-poor) habitats than other apes (which could account for our relatively poor climbing skills), the suggestion that humans shifted to drier habitats away from water is, according to our research, unproven. We propose instead a more parsimonious model compatible with all known data and corroborated by a number of independent sources of evidence. Comparisons of the locomotor styles and nutritional requirements of extant species and anatomical comparisons of fossil and extant species including Homo sapiens, especially in combination with palaeoecological data, strongly suggest...

Anthropology, a specific subfield of ethology, because it deals specifically with our own species... more Anthropology, a specific subfield of ethology, because it deals specifically with our own species, tends to be characterized by a more emotional approach than is common in other ethological fields. This may explain why standard methods that are commonly used in ethology, such as comparative biology, are remarkably rare in anthropology and especially palaeoanthropology. Anthropologists tend to view humans as unique, and therefore fail to apply comparative methods on humans and their fossil and living relatives, as would be done as a matter of practice in a number of other fields. As long as this anthropocentric attitude continues, it will remain impossible to reconstruct human evolution in an objective manner. It is now more than half a century ago that Max Westenhöfer (1942), and later Sir Alister Hardy (1960), proposed on the basis of comparisons with other animals that humans were more aquatic than had generally been accepted. They had noticed (independently) that humans differ fr...

Medical hypotheses, 1985

Much more than other primates, man has several features that are seen more often in aquatic than ... more Much more than other primates, man has several features that are seen more often in aquatic than terrestrial mammals: nakedness, thick subcutaneous fat-layer, stretched hindlimbs, voluntary respiration, dilute urine etc. The Aquatic Ape Theory states that our ancestors once spent a significant part of their life in water. Presumably, early apes were plant and fruit eaters in tropical forests. Early hominids also ate aquatic food; at first mainly weeds and tubers, later sea shore animals, especially shellfish. With the Pleistocene cooling, our ancestors returned to land and became bipedal omnivores and scavengers and later hunters of coastal and riverside animals.

Human Evolution, 2013

While some paleo-anthropologists remain skeptical, data from diverse biological and anthropologic... more While some paleo-anthropologists remain skeptical, data from diverse biological and anthropological disciplines leave little doubt that human ancestors were at some point in our past semi-aquatic: wading, swimming and/or diving in shallow waters in search of waterside or aquatic foods. However, the exact scenario — how, where and when these semi-aquatic adaptations happened, how profound they were, and how they fit into the hominid fossil record — is still disputed, even among anthropologists who assume some semi-aquatic adaptations. Here, I argue that the most intense phase(s) of semi-aquatic adaptation in human ancestry occurred when populations belonging to the genus Homo adapted to slow and shallow littoral diving for sessile foods such as shellfish during part(s) of the Pleistocene epoch (Ice Ages), possibly along African or South-Asian coasts.

Naledi fossilized in mudstone, which forms in stagnant water. The curved phalanges suggest vertic... more Naledi fossilized in mudstone, which forms in stagnant water.
The curved phalanges suggest vertical climbing.
The flat feet (as in Homo & prematal Pan) suggest wading or swimming (flamingo, penguin), but contradicts running (ostrich).
The primitive hands (as in humans & monkeys) are no argument pro tool-making.
The small brain contradicts deliberate burial.
Naledi had primitive-hominid (australopithecine), but no derived-human (Homo) features.
Most likely, they collected wetland foods, like bonobos & lowland gorillas still do sometimes, google "bonobo wading" or "gorilla bai".

Since chimpanzee and bonobo ancestors were evolutionarily closer to the Homo/Pan last common ance... more Since chimpanzee and bonobo ancestors were evolutionarily closer to the Homo/Pan last common ancestor than extant members of Pan, they probably had more humanlike traits than extant chimps or bonobos. This implies that the presence of humanlike traits in australopithecines (such as a vertical spine, low ilia, smaller canines, thick enamel etc.) does not necessarily indicate human ancestry.

Most paleo-anthropologists conventionally assume that the australopithecines were ancestors of humans (but not of Pan or Gorilla) because they were bipedal. Different lines of evidence (e.g. centrally-placed spines in hominoids, versus dorsally-placed spines in monkeys), however, suggest that not only humans, gibbons and siamangs (who still have habitually vertical spines) had more bipedal ancestors, but all hominoids. This implies that the presence of "bipedal traits" in fossil hominoids does not define human ancestry.

There are a lot of fossil apes in Europe (dryopithecines) as well as in Asia (fossil pongids), but it is traditionally assumed that virtually all fossil hominid fossils in Africa are closer relatives of humans than of gorillas, chimps or bonobos. This is statistically impossible: why should there be plenty of fossil apes in Europe as well as in Asia, but virtually no fossil apes in Africa? Why are all hominid fossils in Africa traditionally assumed to be closer relatives of Homo than of Pan or Gorilla?

This presentation shows that the traditional views that australopithecines are human relatives to the exclusion of Pan and Gorilla, and that human ancestors became bipedal when they moved from the forest to the open plane, are exclusively based on anthropocentric preassumptions, and are contradicted by the comparative anatomy and all other available evidence. We propose alternative hypotheses, fully supported by comparative biology.

Human ancestors were no top carnivores, no endurance runners, no savanna dwellers, no exclusive m... more Human ancestors were no top carnivores, no endurance runners, no savanna dwellers, no exclusive meat eaters ...
they were waterside omnivores.

Comparative biology and other approaches independently suggest: (1) Most Mio-Pliocene hominoids i... more Comparative biology and other approaches independently suggest: (1) Most Mio-Pliocene hominoids including australopithecines were orthograde aquarboreals, dwelling and feeding in coastal, flooded or swamp forests. (2) Early-Pleistocene archaic Homo were littoral omnivores, following African and Eurasian coasts and rivers, feeding on waterside and shallow-aquatic foods including shellfish. (3) European neandertals were predominantly wetland omnivores, who probably seasonally followed the river to the Mediterranean or Atlantic coast. (4) Early Homo sapiens were bipedal waders, who collected waterside and shallow-aquatic foods.

Comparative and other data independently suggest: (1) Most Mio-Pliocene hominoids including austr... more Comparative and other data independently suggest: (1) Most Mio-Pliocene hominoids including australopithecines were orthograde aquarboreals, dwelling in swamp, flooded or coastal forests. (2) Early-Pleistocene archaic Homo were littoral, dispersing intercontinentally along African and Eurasian coasts and rivers, feeding on waterside and shallow-aquatic foods, including shellfish. (3) European neandertals were no tundra hunters, but wetland omnivores, who probably seasonally followed the river to the Mediterranean or Atlantic coast. (4) Early Homo sapiens were bipedal waders, who predominanly collected shallow-water and waterside foods.

Biological reconstruction of ape and human (hominoid) evolution, mostly based on comparative, fos... more Biological reconstruction of ape and human (hominoid) evolution, mostly based on comparative, fossil, paleo-environmental and DNA evidence.

Schematically:

(I) arboreal to aquarboreal:
The evolution from monkey to ape body-plan is best explained by a transition from tree-dwelling to living in flooded forests (Mio-Pliocene).

(II) aquarboreal to littoral:
The evolution from ape/australopith to Homo body-plan can mostly be explained by a transition to a coastal and waterside lifestyle during the Ice Ages (early-Pleistocene dispersal along African and Eurasian coasts).

Explaining in simple terms the so-called aquatic ape theory. Human ancestors during the Ice Ages ... more Explaining in simple terms the so-called aquatic ape theory.
Human ancestors during the Ice Ages (Pleistocene Homo after +-2 mill.yrs ago) did not disperse intercontinentally running over open plains as popularly assumed, but followed African & Eurasian coasts & rivers, where their diet included shallow-aquatic & waterside foods, which are rich in brain-specific nutrients, e.g. DHA, iodine, taurine, oligo-elements.

Most human-like features in australopiths (thick tooth enamel, smaller canine teeth, not-elongate... more Most human-like features in australopiths (thick tooth enamel, smaller canine teeth, not-elongated arms-hands-fingers, not-elongated iliac blades, flat & short-toed feet, long & strong big-toes etc.) are not human-derived, but are hominid-primitive ("hominid" sensu African hominoids, versus "pongid" sensu Asian great apes), or even hominoid-primitive (Verhaegen 1993, 1995). This means that there are no scientific arguments to exclude the australopiths from being closer relatives of Gorilla or Pan than of Homo. This explains the remarkable paradox that most paleo-anthropologists believe that the African apes have few or no fossils, whereas they generally agree that the Asian great apes do have a lot of fossils (e.g. Siva-, Lufeng-, Khorat-, Giganto-pithecus).

Comparative data suggest that various preadaptations to human speech evolved at different times f... more Comparative data suggest that various preadaptations to human speech evolved at different times for different functions, especially adaptations to
(a) an aquarboreal lifestyle in Mio-Pliocene hominoids,
(b) a littoral lifestyle in Pleistocene Homo (early-Pleistocene coastal dispersal model), e.g.
(1) descent of the larynx relative to the hyoid bone (Miocene adaptation for loud and varied territorial duets),
(2) descent of the hyoid relative to the palate, smooth and globular tongue, small mouth, parabolic closed tooth-row with incisiform canines, vaulted and smooth palate with reduction of palatal ridges, MYH16 loss and reduced biting-chewing musculature (Pleistocene suction and swallowing of aquatic foods),
(3) voluntary control of breathing musculature (Pleistocene littoral diving during coastal dispersal of Homo),
(4) cerebral expansion (aquatic foods rich in brain-specific nutrients such as DHA, iodine, taurine and oligo-elements),
(5) vocal learning (arguably facilitating localization of offspring).

Discoverers of the hominid naledi fossils (300-250 ka, Gauteng, southern Africa, first described ... more Discoverers of the hominid naledi fossils (300-250 ka, Gauteng, southern Africa, first described in 2015) anthropocentrically assume that naledi (1) belonged to the genus Homo, (2) buried their dead in caves, (3) were tool makers, (4) ran over African plains. Comparative anatomy shows these assumptions to be wrong, and suggests that naledi (1) generally resembled bonobos and belonged to the genus Pan or Australopithecus, (2) fossilized in a natural way, (3) were no better tool makers than extant chimpanzees are, (4) spent an important part of their day wading bipedally in forest swamps or wetlands, in search for wetland foods, possibly waterlilies or other aquatic herbaceous vegetation (AHV, possibly containing small snails), like bonobos and lowland gorillas still do but more frequently.

Discoverers of the naledi fossils (Gauteng, southern Africa, first described in 2015) assume that... more Discoverers of the naledi fossils (Gauteng, southern Africa, first described in 2015) assume that naledi
(1) belonged to the genus Homo,
(2) buried their dead in caves,
(3) were tool makers,
(4) ran over African plains.
Comparative anatomy, however, suggests that naledi
(1) belonged to the genus Pan, or possibly to Australopithecus,
(2) fossilized in a natural way,
(3) were no better tool makers than extant chimpanzees are,
(4) spent an important part of their day wading bipedally in forest swamps or wetlands, in search for wetland foods, probably aquatic herbaceous vegetation (AHV) e.g. waterlilies or papyrus, like bonobos and lowland gorillas still do but more frequently.

25 March 2018 update of the Coastal Dispersal Model or Littoral Theory. (1) Homo erectus = Homo... more 25 March 2018 update of the Coastal Dispersal Model or Littoral Theory.
(1) Homo erectus = Homo litoralis: intercontinental dispersal of early-Pleistocene archaic Homo along African and Eurasian coasts and rivers.
(2) Homo neanderthalensis: European neandertals as wetland omnivores, who possibly seasonally followed the river to the sea.
(3) Homo sapiens: late-Pleistocene evolution from bipedal wading to walking.