Literature review hypothesis Videos

Great criticism of the peer review process! No wonder I could not find anything in the journals. Waterside hypothesis definitely has merit! However, I'm concerned about how it contributed to bipedalism, my one problem with this hypothesis is that it assumes early hominins were terrestrial quadrupeds to begin with (an unknown variable). Gibbons for example are bipedal terrestrially (obviously not primary form of locomotion), so who knows! It seems water definitely had a large part to play overall

Great talk Algis. I think your version of the hypothesis was explained more clearly than the whole BBC documentary on the subject and it makes more sense. The one question I had was even though walking upright in water makes sense wouldn't spending large amounts of time in water cause the ape's skeletal structure to weaken thus it wouldn't actually help them walk upright on land. Perhaps spending time in water created other musculo/skeletal adaptations that along with another environmental

I guess my confusion is that the original hypothesis in the documentary went on to say that a semi-aquatic lifestyle explains a whole host of traits that we have that other apes don't such as lack of body hair, a protruding nose etc. Based on what you're saying about apes moving bipedally through waste deep water in a seasonally flooded habitat totally makes sense as a precursor to bipedalism. My argument was with all the other traits because to my understanding they would have required

This waterside hypothesis should prove itself in time. It makes a lot of intuitive sense. I don't think we can ignore aquatic association - subcutaneous fats, omega-3 preferences, naked skin, etc. Under-skin fatty tissue regulates our temperature. This is the aquatic role of Omega-3 in nature. Swimming a bit certainly takes the weight off our spine and helps keep us agile and mobile. Good work! I hope to see more of this in the future!

... the creature to spend a significant amount of time in water like semi-aquatic creatures that we see today like otters, or seals etc. In my experience learning about how paradigm changing traits seem to develop, they rarely seem to evolve directly for the uses that we see them having today. Example feathers didn't evolve directly for flight, lungs in fish didn't develop directly for life on land etc...

Thanks, Algis! I liked your videos very much, though I think you could have gone much more into detail about "Waterside Theory". I also think that there is nothing wrong with the word "aquatic" - if our babies can swim before they can walk, if we are built to handle cold in water but not on land - we are aquatic. Also, there is a conspiracy to prevent changes to scientific dogmas - politically motivated.

It takes a generation for realistic theories to come to light,we have already moved forward from Elaine's original theory(more than a generation now)remember Darwin had to fight the red tape of the controlling masses i.e the church for what we now know as a plausible THEORY at the moment science is no better how ironic that scientists seem to be devolving in time ...

Also, seashells are very useful tools! You can use a large scallop shell to cut, clean, or even open a coconut. They are very easily utilized. An excellent advantage in the development of a faculative diet, as humans have. I have thought perhaps these natural items, being so versatile, might have inspired the actual fashioning of tools from stone.

Scientific community is corrupt. Debating with scientists is like debating with priests. No point in wasting time. The correct approach is to merely inform those who are interested in the human evolution. The corrupt scientific community will eventually lose its credibility, like the church has been losing its.

When I first read Elaine Morgans book, The Aquatic Ape, I felt like I had suddenly lost my sunglasses. The light dawned and it felt right. I have no doubts that eventually as the old has-been conservatives die, that this theory will come into its own and your work will be cited respectfully. Keep your chin up!

Enjoyed the talks very much. Beautifully succinct. Very good ideas for changing the peer-review methods! I hope you and Mrs. Morgan -and the Riverside/Coastline theory- get the deserved attention and ultimately recognition. C.B.

It's a fair point but you see I don't think they spent all that long in water. Seasonally-flooded galery forests are not flooded all that much. Remember the point about tiny amounts of selection.

very interesting video, the hypothesis makes sense a lot of sense to me. there is a TED talk right now on this subject, so that must give it a nice boost in the public eye

Algis, I found your take on the hypothesis very compelling. You made some excellent points. I only hope you don't give up trying to publish your paper.

Hi Prospect4186, There are many things which take our focus away from the Lord.  One of those being how we can get to Heaven.  Heaven is a choice we make for the here and now and is not really about after we die.  One of my childhood friends commited suicide and I do not believe that the Lord banished him.  The Bible says many things but it does not state specificaly that suicide is unforgivable.  All sins are forgivable.  It is not the Lord Who banishes his children, it is us who make a daily choice to run from the Lord's Presence. No one can judge the heart of another except for the Lord.  This is why I believe that there will be many atheists, and agnostics who after they die will fully recognize the Lord, for they will say to themselves that they always knew that the true Lord was not the god protrayed by most religions.  On the flip side, they will be those who chose to reject the Lord. As unbelievable as this seems, there will be some people who reject the Lord even after they die!  Who will these people be? That knowledge is not ours.  All said, I believe that Jesus is the Lord and He and the Father are one.  Some may not believe this in the here and now, but in the afterlife will accept the Father for who He is, while others will not.  Peace be with you.

Hi Sir thanks for the last reply, I have never read the Bible only bits of it. Its very interesting, however we do know that there is fact in it. But there is nothing to much about life after death, yes if you believe in Jesus you will never day as on your passing you will be in the Kingdom.But friend is very suicidal, and i have said this if you do this your committing a sin. Is this true.   T hats not in the Bible or is it?, or have you read it elsewhere?

Yes. I have heard of the Shroud, but have never had time to research the whole matter.  Probably never will as I am more textually focused.  Thank you for your comment.  Peace be with  you. :-)

calling attention to what was understood as the law of Moses doesn't mean he wrote the entire Torah.any more than Jeffersonian Democracy means Jefferson wrote the Constitution. Which is still being written. I believe the Torah and all scripture was in fact continually edited as new revelations of God were understood. The Koran was supposedly Written by Mohammad the book of Mormon by angles and translated by Joseph Smith The Bible is not like that.To me it raises it up above superstition when  we allow it to have come about by the actual  factors within the society it was composed.