Aquatic ape hypothesis

The aquatic ape hypothesis (AAH), often also referred to as aquatic ape theory (AAT), is a proposal that the evolutionary ancestors of modern humans spent a period of time adapting to a semiaquatic existence. The hypothesis was first proposed by German pathologist Max Westenhöfer in 1942 and then independently by English marine biologist Alister Hardy in 1960; however, the arguments of both men failed to achieve significant popular notice. After Hardy, the theory's most prominent proponent was former television documentary writer Elaine Morgan, who wrote a series of books on the topic, and she achieved a larger awareness of the theory after her first work appeared in 1972. However, the scientific reception of her ideas remained mixed to negative, subject to several specific criticisms such as the lack of physical evidence offered.AAH arguments made by Morgan have asserted that female behavior was the most compelling driver of human evolution and that peaceful co-operation among early humans were due to largely feminine influences, Morgan being heavily influenced by the feminist movement. However, the extant scientific consensus is that humans first evolved during a period of rapid climate fluctuations between wet and dry periods, with a complex set of conditions existing that humans adapted to by intermingled male and female parenting efforts. Also, the mainstream view states that most of the adaptations that distinguish humans from the great apes are adaptations to a terrestrial situation, as opposed to an earlier, arboreal environment. Rejected by anthropologists broadly, few of them have explicitly evaluated AAH in scientific journals, and those that have reviewed the idea in depth have been largely critical. General analysis by non-specialists, such as by the news-magazine Discover, have also broadly rejected the theory.The AAH is one of many hypotheses attempting to explain human evolution through one single causal mechanism, but the evolutionary fossil record does not support any such proposal. The notion itself has been criticized by experts as being internally inconsistent, having less explanatory power than its proponents claim, and suffering from the feature that alternative terrestrial hypotheses are much better supported. The attractiveness of believing in simplistic single-cause explanations over the much more complex, but better-supported models with multiple causality has been cited as a primary reason for the popularity of the idea with non-experts. Advocacy for the AAH has been labeled by commentators such as science writer Brian Regal as being more ideological and political rather than scientific and hence, pseudoscientific.