[Sabertooth]

BTW, are you just opposed to the Aquatic Ape theory because you favor the kind of Savannah Ape theory espoused by Desmond Morris, or because you oppose the idea of evolution altogether? Do you prefer the creation story of Genesis?

As for Genesis, I believe it is a divinely inspired allegory for the origins of man, of which I believe evolution is an important facet.

I believe in evolution because I believe in the standard biological interpretation of the fossil evidence. As for anthropology, we have a long way to go before we've got the whole story figured out...

But we've got fossil evidence for savannah apes, and none for aquatic ones.

And it's a heck of a lot easier to make a fossil in water than on a savannah.

Further, our closest relative, the chimpanzee, is a lot closer to being a savannah ape than an aquatic one. In fact when you look at living primates, you don't find an aquatic one in the bunch.

[Maceman]

But we've got fossil evidence for savannah apes, and none for aquatic ones.

If I may re-direct your attention to some comments from Dr. Odent's article, which I recently posted for your benefit:

It appears that the emergence of the savannah occurred after the origin of the human family. Furthermore, we must bear in mind that the bones of our ancestor, the famous Lucy (Australopithecus Afarensis) were found eroding from the sand, lying among turtle and crocodile eggs and crab claws. And the bones of an older Australopithecus, found near Lake Rudolph in Kenya in 1995 were surrounded by many fossil vertebrates including fish and aquatic reptiles.

We must also keep in mind that even though the human family emerged several million years ago, Homo Sapiens - the modern human being - is a young species. It is worth noticing that the oldest known footprints of a modern human being - dating back 117,000 years ago - have been found on the shore of a South African lagoon.