Watching Horizon last night about whether humans could unlearn their naked shame, I found myself amazed at exactly how complicated some of the theories have got that explain why we are a naked, bipedal, big-brained ape when the much ridiculed aquatic ape theory is a lot more elegant at explaining so much of humanities features. Having read the Descent of Woman, the aquatic ape theory explains:
a) that we became hairless to help us move through water
b) why humans and human babies in particular have a natural propensity to swim and dive
c) why we have a subcutaneous layer of fat (namely to replace the primary function of fur: to keep us warm)
d) why we walk on two legs (to keep our head above water stupid)
e) the origins of Ophidiophobia (humans often think of snakes as 'slimy' but in fact their skin is dry. Are we confusing them with far more poisonous eels?)
f) the origins of the hymen (to keep out water)
and possibly many more. Given how many hoops the scientific community have to jump through to justify the 'sweat-cooling theory' for example, I really cannot understand why the aquatic ape theory has not been gained more traction. Can it really be because it has mainly appeared hitherto in a treatise on feminist evolutionary theory?
One problem with evolutionary theories is that they can explain much but predict little. As a result, a lot of nonsensical theories can be proposed by so-called serious scientists. Is Elaine Morgan the misunderstood Darwin of our time?