[Boogieman]

Well, you’re still arguing based on misconceptions from that theory. Primates have the same fat layers that we do. Primates have the same slight webbing between their fingers that we do. We do have “fur” on our bodies, though obviously not as much of it as most other mammals. Primates can walk upright, and some of them do so just as easily as they walk on all fours. So what are you left with? That we have bigger brains? That’s not evidence of an aquatic origin at all.

Personally, I think all the Darwinian evolutionists are wrong, but the “aquatic ape” theory isn’t just wrong, it’s based on “facts” that are not really facts.

[katana]

Thanks. That's a thorough a rebuttal to the "facts" I recall reading, I think in Desmond Morris' The Naked Ape. I'm still not at all convinced that the extrapolations anthropologists draw from a very few scattered bones make an airtight case for their concept of human evolution. But I appreciate learning that some things I'd read many years ago aren't necessarily so.

Some of the points made, though, do seem to be straw man arguments. The word "hairless" is used as if it implies completely bare skinned. Even the skin of dolphins and whales, which are universally accepted as mammals fully adapted to an aquatic environment, contains hair follicles. But it did blow holes through a number of things I assumed were true.