But juxtaposed to the alternative and accepted evolutionist theory that a primate living on the dry savannahs of Africa for no apparent reason grew a huge brain, lost its fur, started developing webs twixt its digits, and a layer of fat under its skin, this one has always seemed to me more logical and reasonable. But hey, it's just a theory.
If you're going at it from a creationist viewpoint then that's a different argument entirely. Personally, I have more respect for that idea than I do for what passes for accepted wisdom among afro-centric paleo-anthropologists. The latter simply refuse to debate or look at evidence which doesn't fit what they wrote in their last paper.
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.