questions of how we became the way we are. However, our understanding of human evolution is hindered when pseudoscientific ideas refuses to yield to legitimate theories. One such idea is the aquatic ape hypothesis (AAH) which attempts to explain a number of human adaptations with the single explanation of a semi-aquatic ancestor. Proponents use incorrect “facts” and logical fallacies such as straw men, appeals to authority, and false comparison in their arguments. The idea appears intuitive and is easily
The Aquatic Ape theory surfaced in the 1930s when biologist Alister Hardy began to pay attention to how similar humans are to aquatic mammals. While the theory is believed by a large group of people, it also received a great amount of criticism. When researching arguments from both sides of the hypothesis, I came to the conclusion that there are multiple valid points to the concept, but I am neutral to it because of the arguments from the opposing side According to Brian Dunning’s podcast, humans
Introduction Many people in today’s society are aware and familiar with the historical account of Noah’s Ark and the great deluge. However, there are many stances taken on the story of Noah. Some people believe the great flood occurred, but it only effected a relatively local area. While others simply do not believe the Biblical account whatsoever. And still, there are others who believe the account at face-basis. So, who is correct? In order to prove that a global flood occurred, these points must
species at some point – whether past or present – for survival or increased ability to reproduce. Lastly, the wide, extensive discussion presented in the novel demonstrates to me how important evolution is to biology. In every single idea, theory, or hypothesis explained, evolution connected the concepts together.