Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read.

Start by marking “The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis” as Want to Read:

Other editions

Enlarge cover

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Open Preview

The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis

Elaine Morgan

3.96 · Rating details · 304 ratings · 33 reviews

Elaine Morgan gives a revolutionary hypothesis that explains our anatomic anomalies in The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis - why we walk on two legs, why we are covered in fat, why we can control our rate of breathing? The answers point to one conclusion: millions of years ago our ancestors were trapped in a semi-aquatic environment. In presenting her case, Elaine Morgan forces sci ...more

Get A Copy

Paperback, 208 pages

Published September 9th 1999 by Souvenir Press (first published November 1st 1982)

More Details... Edit Details

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Reader Q&A

To ask other readers questions about The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis, please sign up.

Be the first to ask a question about The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis

Lists with This Book

The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis by Elaine Morgan

The Descent of the Child by Elaine Morgan

The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis

6 books — 3 voters

The Clan of the Cave Bear by Jean M. Auel

Neanderthals and Other Nonhuman Hominids

121 books — 39 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

Showing 1-30

Average rating 3.96 ·

Rating details

· 304 ratings · 33 reviews

More filters

Sort order

Start your review of The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis

Nov 09, 2018 Jan-Maat added it

Shelves: science, non-fiction, prehistory, 20th-century, east-africa

A clever and interesting book. Elaine Morgan worked in television professionally, at some point she became interested in a hypothesis called 'the Aquatic Ape Theory' and became involved in promoting it to a wider public. And indeed you get the sense of a gifted amateur throughout the book as she attacks on all fronts with any weapon, the big guns and handfuls of dried peas, there is no sense of discrimination or a hierarchy of evidence; that people like to sit on a beach and look out to sea seem A clever and interesting book. Elaine Morgan worked in television professionally, at some point she became interested in a hypothesis called 'the Aquatic Ape Theory' and became involved in promoting it to a wider public. And indeed you get the sense of a gifted amateur throughout the book as she attacks on all fronts with any weapon, the big guns and handfuls of dried peas, there is no sense of discrimination or a hierarchy of evidence; that people like to sit on a beach and look out to sea seems to carry equal weight with evidence of ear exostoses (view spoiler).

Morgan had a big idea, or a big conception that many of the weird features of the human being, relative hairlessness, walking upright on two legs, speech, sweating and tears, human reproductive habits, the ability to speak, brain size, and our blubber could all be explained by a prolonged period of several million years in which our distant ancestors became separate from the ancestors of the other great apes because our ancestors adapted to living in watery environments, like the seashore (ocean shore in this case). The hypothesis was not regarded, I believe, very seriously among students of human evolution. The problem I feel is that it is too all embracing and maybe too exciting. In the end all we have to know about our distant ancestors are such skeletal remains that have been found, to that one can add with some caution what we understand about the environment in which those ancestors lived, I say with caution because of the challenges in dating. You can also compare and contrast modern humans and modern apes. The basic point that Morgan makes is that we look and are in not so obvious ways fairly different to the other great apes, the problem is we don't and possibly may never know when those differences occurred.

All of which reminds me of Tyrannosaurus Rex. People get very excited about Tyrannosaurus Rex, experts can get very heated on the subject of whether it was a slow moving scavenger or a fast moving, agile hunter, but I heard once that there are only seven complete fossil Tyrannosaurs, which isn't much of a sample. But the idea of them is charismatic, so people study them. Likewise how we came to be the way we currently are and how we diverged from our evolutionary close relatives is interesting, Morgan caters to that interest, she has a big picture story, everything significant, or at least lots of significant things happened, she said during a few million years as adaptations that allowed our ancestors to thrive in flooded or marshy environments, beachcombing and feasting on seafood. If that is so is easier to claim than to prove as neither soft tissues nor behaviours get preserved in fossils, the evidence which did impress me was a map showing that five find spots in the Turkana basin (Kenya/Ethiopia) four million years ago would all have been within the area of a lake, if those individuals died in those spots when the lake was there, or were deposited there postmortum or if they died at a time when the lake wasn't there is the question I suppose, still an entertaining and provocative read. ...more

flag 24 likes · Like · see review

Sep 11, 2016 Mari Biella rated it really liked it

Shelves: non-fiction, science, popular-science, evolution

For a long time, the version of evolutionary theory I was exposed to was, (very) roughly, as follows: at some point, an ape came down from the trees and ventured out onto open grassland, where it learned to walk bipedally and gradually lost its fur and learned to speak. All well and good, but this left certain nagging questions: wouldn't such an ape need to keep its fur on the sun-scorched African savannah? Wouldn't the loss of speed caused by bipedalism far outweigh its possible advantages? Why For a long time, the version of evolutionary theory I was exposed to was, (very) roughly, as follows: at some point, an ape came down from the trees and ventured out onto open grassland, where it learned to walk bipedally and gradually lost its fur and learned to speak. All well and good, but this left certain nagging questions: wouldn't such an ape need to keep its fur on the sun-scorched African savannah? Wouldn't the loss of speed caused by bipedalism far outweigh its possible advantages? Why, if our ancestors lived in a hot, dry climate, are we so thirsty and so sweaty? Isn't sweating about the most wasteful and inefficient means of thermoregulation possible, for a land animal?

Elaine Morgan's aquatic ape hypothesis offers at least some potential answers to these questions. If our ancestors had, at some point in their development, spent at least some time as semi-aquatic creatures, a lot of these developments would begin to make a certain amount of sense. Our thirstiness, combined with the profligacy with which we get through fluids, would be more logical if our ancestors had lived in an area where water was abundant. Our bipedalism would be very useful if we had to occasionally stand upright to wade through water. The loss of fur would make sense in an aquatic environment, as would our levels of body fat, which are much higher than in any other primate.

Morgan presents her theory as a series of questions rather than answers, and there are of course many possible (and contradictory) future developments in evolutionary theory (just as there are scientists who steadfastly reject the aquatic ape hypothesis). But it presents a plausible alternative explanation for those of us who always found ourselves wondering how on earth our ancestors could in any way be suited to life on the open savannah. The book is also written in clear, jargon-free language, so you don't have to be a palaeontologist or evolutionary biologist to appreciate it.

As to whether it's true or not ... well, not having any specific scientific knowledge, I wouldn't like to make a guess. It sounds plausible, from my non-scientific point of view, but I'm happy to defer to the experts in this case... ...more

flag 8 likes · Like · see review

Oct 05, 2013 Christina rated it liked it

Shelves: library, 2013

This is a tough book to review. I first heard about the aquatic ape hypothesis from Sharon Moalem's Survival of the Sickest, and for years I intended to read more about it but never got around to it. A few months ago I read an NPR article in which the writer made a brief dismissive comment about the theory, which I recalled feeling positive about from its portrayal in Moalem's book. That dismissive comment finally motivated me to request the book through my university's interlibrary loan.

I read This is a tough book to review. I first heard about the aquatic ape hypothesis from Sharon Moalem's Survival of the Sickest, and for years I intended to read more about it but never got around to it. A few months ago I read an NPR article in which the writer made a brief dismissive comment about the theory, which I recalled feeling positive about from its portrayal in Moalem's book. That dismissive comment finally motivated me to request the book through my university's interlibrary loan.

I read it in nearly one sitting... It was a Friday evening and I was exhausted from work, but I cracked open the book and then was COMPLETELY absorbed. I had woken up at 6am and was ready to sleep by 10pm, but it wasn't until 1am when I realized I had to put the damn book down before I passed out.

This book caused an intellectual crisis in me. And I mean CRISIS. Whenever I took a break I would find my husband and just unload all my thoughts and emotions on him ("It all makes so much sense! This changes everything! But if it makes sense, why is it dismissed by modern physical anthropologists? What am I missing? Is there something completely obvious that I'm missing?"). As a result of reading this book I even developed my own theory about the evolution of the human brain in light of the aquatic ape hypothesis... a theory which I've completely forgotten everything about now (all I remember is that I excitingly rattled it off to my husband and thought maybe it was publishable in Science... it's hilarious that I can't even remember it now).

On its own, everything presented in this book is incredibly persuasive. Elaine Morgan was a strong writer. She was simple and straightforward. The writing did not convey a sense of exaggeration or a desperate desire to convince the reader of her viewpoint. Instead, evidence was presented matter-of-factly. And wow was that evidence compelling! The complete dismissal of every theory of the evolution of bipedalism affected me the most. What I see as the biggest weakness of those theories (which Morgan pointed out) is that they can't explain the "in between" stage. A little bit of bipedalism wouldn't have increased fitness enough for the reasons those other theories outlined; only complete bipedalism would perhaps make a real difference for fitness. But wading through occasionally flooded terrain? A little bit of bipedalism would result in a meaningful increase in fitness in that environment, which would be enough to result in gradual change until full bipedalism was achieved (which could then be useful for all the other reasons that have been proposed to explain the benefit of bipedalism).

Morgan's proposals started to get a little "out there" toward the end of the book. I could totally buy that human ancestors lived in an "occasionally flooded" environment where wading would have been important. But in the last few chapters she started to write about diving and breathing under water, which is a whole different ballpark than wading as a result of occasional flooding.

In complete crisis mode, the next day--I finished the book shortly after waking up--I searched the internet for criticisms of the aquatic ape hypothesis to find what I was missing. All the evidence she presented was just SO COMPELLING, yet the hypothesis is completely rejected by the field, so what was I missing?!?! Well, my internet search revealed that the thing I was missing was the quality of the "evidence." It appears the evidence presented in this book is selective, incomplete, and occasionally even misrepresented. If you only know what she presents, then of course it makes sense. But she wasn't presenting everything, according to the criticisms that I read.

After reading that, I was completely discouraged and depressed, and I basically just gave up. I will trust the anthropological community: If they say the evidence doesn't support this theory, then that must be true. (But at the same time, as a researcher I know how often the people in my own field--myself included--get it wrong. This includes sticking with a false idea for years. It's hard to abandon my own ideas even when data I've collected suggest they're wrong. It's called "belief perseverance." Psychologists may have the same biases as other scientists, but at least we know about the biases.) I could have delved further into the debate, but I didn't... To be honest, I was emotionally exhausted. This book had caused such a crisis in me. It took me from one end of the emotional pendulum ("This all makes so much sense! I look at everything differently now!! How could we be missing this?! This is incredible!!") to the other ("This was all a lie? Or was it not?! I don't know what to believe! I've been betrayed!"), and I am not joking when I say the crisis was a disruption in my daily activities. Eventually, I just had to give up, put it aside, and move on with my life. Yes, I am a strange person, for this to have caused such drama in my life. Those were a crazy two and half days.

P.S. This book was 5-stars in terms of reading enjoyment. It was completely and utterly engaging, as well as easy to read. But because it seems Morgan misrepresented (so other people say... I don't know who to believe! Argh! Wait, no, I fear the crisis is going to begin again! I need to end this review), I am lowering my rating to 3 stars.

P.P.S. This book rekindled my desire to be a physical anthropologist, specifically, a paleoanthropologist. In another life, maybe I could have pursued that... But I am so done with schooling. I'll stick with my current career. Besides, I have way too much back pain to be bent over fossil sites, and I bet grad students have to do all the digging. ...more

flag 7 likes · Like · see review

May 10, 2013 Joel Nichols rated it it was amazing

Morgan is my new hero and should be yours. Radical, simple, insightful and brilliant. One day they will find this proof and we will know her name like we know the Leakeys or Darwin.

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Nov 13, 2013 No rated it it was amazing

I HIGHLY recommend this book. I wish there was more literature on this subject. You can also check out a really good TED speech on YouTube with Elaine Morgan. She talks about Aquatic Ape Theory and receives a standing ovation for her speech.

Notes:

•Why do we walk on two legs? Why should we have adopted a posture that slows us down and leaves us open to back problems?
•Why, unlike other primates, are we naked and well covered with fat? Whales, seals and pachyderms are the only other mammals with t ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Mar 30, 2012 Nicholas Griffith rated it liked it

An exploration of the raison d'etre for hairlessness among apes (that is, among human beings), this book delivers a swift kick to the collective nuts of evolutionary anthropologists. Sadly, after years of fighting scientific pedagogy her arguments come off as defensive in the extreme. We shouldn't hold this against her though. She is a rebellious thinker possessing the acerbic wit that leaves a scar. We likewise shouldn't be surprised if her theories are whole heartedly, even if posthumously, as ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Dec 30, 2008 Ginna rated it really liked it

Shelves: science

If you've ever wondered why humans have little hair, subcutaneous fat layer, and generally have sex facing front, this book is for you... ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Sep 27, 2010 aloveiz rated it really liked it

AAT is right up there with holographic mind theory when it comes to speculative conjectures that are detested by the scientific community and adored by me. There is a lot to write about this topic and Elaine Morgan’s postulates. Let’s try just a quick summary.

In consideration of the driving forces that transformed simian to sapiens it is generally supposed that apes were driven out of their arboreal habitat to a savannah environment and the new conditions of savannah life drove the evolution of AAT is right up there with holographic mind theory when it comes to speculative conjectures that are detested by the scientific community and adored by me. There is a lot to write about this topic and Elaine Morgan’s postulates. Let’s try just a quick summary.

In consideration of the driving forces that transformed simian to sapiens it is generally supposed that apes were driven out of their arboreal habitat to a savannah environment and the new conditions of savannah life drove the evolution of man. In 1960, marine biologist Alister Hardy, published a thesis containing tenets that stood to challenge that supposition with an elementally different model. In Hardy’s conjecture he presented the potential that human-precursor apes lived for a time in a semi-aquatic habitat and it was this environment that prompted the bulk of human evolution. His concept, now known as “The Aquatic Ape Theory”, (alternately, and more rightly by popperian standards, “aquatic ape hypothesis”) has persisted over the last 50 years through the efforts of several figures in the scientific community who have expanded upon it and fought to champion its relevance and rationale. Let’s agree that hypotheses like the aquatic ape theory should not attempt to prove one thing or another based solely on their plausibility or perceived logic. To do so would go against the concept of critical rationalism that forms the basis of modern scientific method. However, controversial concepts like the AAT are of great use to the scientific community because they have the power to alter and broaden the bias held by researchers and theorists working in the field of anthropology.

In support of the AAT, a myriad of postulates have been devised to explain the anomalies of the human form. The most significant of those correspond to what the average person would likely consider the greatest disparities between chimp and human. A scant introduction to AAT would probably include reasoning relating to spoken language, bipedalism and hairlessness.

☻Humans are unique among primates in their ability to consciously control their breathing rate (a trait shared with aquatic mammals) and their descended larynx, which is responsible for the increased range of sounds humans are capable of creating. Together these characteristics are instrumental to the system of human vocalization and are theorized to have been adapted to serve a diving simian that needed to be able to gulp large quantities of air when rising to the surface.

☻Man’s upright posture distinguishes him among most mammals and its weaknesses are explored by anyone who suffers chronic lower back or knee stress. It is possible that advantages gained through the ability to comfortably reach and gather things high above his quadrapedal height encouraged this drastic change in morphology. A proponent of AAT would note the observation that primates who reside in areas prone to flooding (including the proboscis monkey and the bonobo ) walk on two legs when wading through water, an adaptation that serves the important purpose of allowing then to keep their chattel, babes and breathing apparatuses well out of water while traversing waters over three feet high.

☻In regards to hairlessness we observe that a degree of hirsuteness persists in h. sapiens yet any ape is far hairier. Aquatic theory asks us to consider that all other known hairless mammals, (including elephants, whales, and hippopotamuses) with the exception of naked mole rats who live entirely underground, have been found to have had an aquatic developmental phase, during which the hair that covered their ancestors would have likely been cumbersome and hindering. These ideas form a very incomplete summary of the lexicon of ideas that have been imagined to support AAT but I would hope that their novelty might start to encourage the curiosity of the lettered community.

Morgan has been compiling work about AAT for decades. Critical reception has led her to more conservative guesses and a more laymen vernacular. If conservatism and brevity are of little consequence I recommend looking to her 1972 work, “The Descent of Woman.” This book is a sophomoric version of it.
...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

May 07, 2008 Bob rated it it was amazing

Recommends it for: People who like tangential thinking

If this is the first of Morgan's books that you read, you may find the defensive tone a bit off-putting. It's something that she's been forced to by the rabid attacks on her ideas mounted by people who claim to be serious scientists.
Morgan's previous books were much more readable, though less 'scientific', which she got slated for.
Essentially, she has expanded on the hypothesis that humans went through a semi-aquatic phase, which very neatly explains a host of features: hairlessness, upright st ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Mar 10, 2016 Linda R. Thompson rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

A brilliant hypothesis of human evolution

I read Elaine Morgan's book 'The Descent of Woman' in the late 1970s, shortly after it's publication in 1976. I was drawn to her very different theory of human origins at the time and have thought about it from time to time since then. Recently I have again been drawn to the issues of our human origins and have returned to her writings for additional understanding of the more recent discoveries and hypotheses. This book contains even more information abo ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Oct 25, 2009 ActionScientist rated it it was amazing

What hypothesis? The conventional wisdom handed by the Fathers of science that we first started walking on the savannah is missing something fundamental, imo, and this book helps fill in the gap. Written by a WOMAN scientist, it brings a different perspective to thinking about our genetic roots. To me it's so basically obvious that we've been at home in lakes, rivers and coasts for probably millions of years.

I'm an aqautic ape, and feel proud to say that. My Mom swam for the national team in bu ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Sep 17, 2016 Bev rated it it was amazing

I read this back in 2009 and was struck by the beautiful logic of it. While I was not 100% convinced, being well educated in The Savannah Theory of human evolution like most of my generation, I found it compelling enough to follow the developments which have been made in the years since Morgan's death.
Today I listened to Sir David Attenborough talking about the influence of a marine/fresh water habitat in the descent of our species and how it has now become accepted as a fact, although there is ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Sep 14, 2007 Samantha Cira rated it really liked it

Shelves: nonfiction

Even though Elaine's facts/data may be widely criticized by the scientific community, I enjoyed it and it brings up some interesting ideas about the evolution of man.

This book is an UPDATE to her 1960's book the Aquatic Ape Theory which is now sorely out-of-date, so if you're going to read it, read the 1990's version called Aquatic Ape Hypothesis.

In a nutshell, it's a book written for the non-academic masses, so don't expect it to be written in a scholarly manner. It's short, you could get throu ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

May 27, 2014 Ariana rated it liked it

While I thoroughly enjoyed reading "The Descent of Woman" by Morgan, "The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis" was more of an overview of the progress of the hypothesis since the seminal book written so many years ago. It was concise, but not meant to be entertaining. It was certainly interesting, suffice it to say, but it was also a bit too rambling, as if the author was trying to make an academic treatise more readable for the general public. Nonetheless, I certainly found it fascinating and worth the read ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Jul 10, 2016 Helena Eflerova rated it liked it

A good book to read for someone who is interested in a revolutionary ideas around aquatic stage and minority of anthropologists thoughts on human evolution subjects of bipedalism, nakedness, body fat in aquatic mammals, menstruation lunar cycle, babies are born as swimmers. Sport and professional Apnea divers would benefit from reading about diving reflex, breath hold, heartbeat, buoyancy and body heat, inventions around water lifestyle at the end of this book. You have to be comfortable reading ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Mar 11, 2009 Kirstin rated it really liked it

Perhaps not as scientifically written as, well, a scientist, Elaine Morgan manages to concisely argue alternatives to other evolutionary theories that still intrigue me years later. This is the foundation hypothesis, but her other books on the subject are equally worthwhile.

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jul 06, 2009 rose kala rated it really liked it

A very popular suggestion as to explain the key differences from fellow apes like Gorilla and Chimpanzees by asserting that homosapien had become an aquatic dweller..
She writes it in such simple and easy terms that its enjoyable to read, wether you want to belief or not

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Apr 04, 2012 E.j. Kay rated it it was amazing

An absolutely life-changing read for me! Whilst I'm not completely convinced that we had a totally aquatic past at any stage, the questions this hypothesis raises and the intelligence and bravery of Elaine Morgan's work make this a seminal read. Wonderful! ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

May 15, 2012 Zrinka rated it liked it

Shelves: science, biology, evolution, human-evo, anthropology, gender

Of all her books that I've read, this one has the best and most updated arguments. You should read it even if you think AAH is bollocks, there's some funny stuff too. She always makes me chuckle :) ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Sep 24, 2007 Whiskeyb rated it really liked it

I don't care if it is true or not, its a great story. ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Feb 26, 2008 Erik rated it it was amazing

As beautiful a theory of evolution as i've ever read. Makes for great dreams. ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Dec 09, 2019 Samantha Rizzo rated it it was amazing

Shelves: faves, science

As with all of Morgan’s work, I am impressed.

This book builds on and corrects on many of the theories outlined in the 1982 Aquatic Ape. This one is much better.

Although Morgan has no formal science education, she should not be written off. In her writing it is evidence that she has done her research: she is reasonable, intelligent, and has a curiosity that shines.

Too many lingering questions not answered by the savannah theory are answered neatly by the AAT. Maybe not all, maybe not thoroughly ...more

flag Like · see review

May 10, 2018 Simon Dobson rated it did not like it

Shelves: bonanza

Discussions of human origins invariably rest on rather shaky foundations. The fossil record – such as it is – has huge gaps, isn't a random sample of the fauna, and only preserves the gross features of anatomy evident in bones. So it's hardly surprising that a range of theories have been proposed to explain the division between apes and humans.

The aquatic ape hypothesis is one such. It has some supporting evidence – or, rather, it isn't definitively contradicted by the evidence that there is. In ...more

flag Like · see review

Mar 26, 2020 esztereszterdora rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: non-fic

disclaimer: I am not a biologist and I don't want to act like I am an expert

but I found the reasoning in this book quite persuasive. I also found the historical and theoretical battle behind the whole aquatic ape hypothesis fascinating (and quite typical in fields of natural scienses). For me, (a psychologist, who had a short adventure in evolutionary psychology and seen some highs and lows) it was ridiculous to see the resistance to even think about and consider the validity of AAT.

As an inter ...more

flag Like · see review

Nov 22, 2017 Francesca Roffe rated it really liked it

The aquatic ape hypothesis is the idea that our ancestors went through an aquatic mammal evolutionary stage.

Morgan’s study considers characteristics of the human development and form that lend themselves to the water; the placement and size of body fat in Homo sapiens compared to that of primates, the lay of our body hair following the flow of water, the breasts of women being for buoyancy and rather than to attract a mate/ the pleasure of men.

Hooray for buoyant breasts!

flag Like · see review

Mar 12, 2017 Duane rated it really liked it · review of another edition

I read this book twenty years ago and it still resonates. Although it isn't categorized as main stream science the individual pieces of logic that are the foundation of her argument still stand up to the buffeting of the naysayers. The thesis is that humans were once primarily aquatic, which goes against the current orthodoxy. The one argument that swung it for me was the concept of fur. All terrestrial mammals have a covering of fur. When I was in school the professors said that humans lost our ...more

flag Like · see review

Jun 21, 2014 Friedrich Mencken rated it liked it

Recommended to Friedrich by: No Remorse

Shelves: socio-biology

I found a very convincing explanation for the loss of body hair and acquirement of subcutaneous fat on land that is also unique to humans in Ernst Mayrs book What evolution is.

"This shift to exclusively terrestrial life must have been a very difficult period in human history. What happened during the transition period involved both infant and mother, for both had to become adapted to the new situation, to the new selection pressures. If the infant had too big a head (brain), it would die owing t ...more

flag Like · see review

Mar 14, 2013 Rachel rated it liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: anthropology, enjoyment

Entertaining hypothesis but possible? No, not at all. One thing that bothers me about this book is that the author isn't a scientist (like a lot of people assume she is). She's not an anthropologist. She received her degree in literature. So right off the bat Morgan is writing about a subject, in a field that she doesn't understand. Sure she's done a lot of research in it. But she only references the papers that helps support her claim. And most of these papers are from the early 1900s.

Most of ...more

flag Like · see review

Jun 14, 2008 Nathan Nifong rated it really liked it

Its nice to have an alternative theory of our evolution to consider, it helps me maintain a neutral perspective.

with that said though i do really like the aquatic ape hypothesis. On top of the many good points she makes for the theory, (which you should read it to find out) you can get two other wonderful things from this book.

One, her perspective on evolution is of the most productive and accurate kind one can have. we are certainly not perfect, as no animal would be that has gone though drasti ...more

flag Like · see review

May 17, 2012 Alexey rated it really liked it

Shelves: reviewed, science, non-fiction

We all have been taught in school that according to Darwin humans are related to apes ( actually, we share 98% of dna with chimpanzee ) but why are we so different? The regular evolution theory does try to answer this question but there's not a full explanation as of yet.

This book is an alternative theory which in a nutshell a proposition that what changed our predecessors was a different habiat - a marine habitat.Do you know for example that the only mammals with as much fat as humans are mari ...more

flag Like · see review

« previous 1 2 next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Be the first to start one »

Recommend It | Stats | Recent Status Updates

Readers also enjoyed

See similar books…

Videos About This Book

Elaine Morgan says we evolved from aquatic apes

Add a comment

Add a comment

About Elaine Morgan

Elaine Morgan

32 followers

Welsh feminist and proponent of the aquatic ape evolution theory, which claims that mankind evolved from sea-based apes.

Morgan was appointed Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE) in the 2009 Birthday Honours for services to literature and to education.

Books by Elaine Morgan

The Descent of the Child: Human Evolution from a New Perspective

The Naked Darwinist: Questions About Human Evolution

More…

News & Interviews

The Most Anticipated YA Books of March

As dedicated readers already know, some of the best and most innovative stories on the shelves come from the constantly evolving realm of...

Trivia About The Aquatic Ape H...

No trivia or quizzes yet. Add some now »

Quotes from The Aquatic Ape H...

“It would make it that much harder to delude ourselves that humanity's ancestors, alone in the animal kingdom, lost their hair by wandering out into the sunshine.” — 5 likes

“In short, the fossil record is perfectly compatible with the supposition that at some time between eight and six million years ago, at the north end of the Rift Valley where the most ancient hominid remains have been found, one section of the l. c. a. population found itself living in a watery environment and—whether by choice or under duress—began to adapt to a semi-aquatic existence.” — 3 likes

More quotes…