posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 11:55 PM
reply to post by Superhans
Not really, it's a plausible theory, and is completely compatible to run alongside the standard migratory model (there are several) the only problem
is, no supporting evidence in terms of the fossil record has been found.
The evidence is outlined in Hardy's New Scientist release, he goes in to detail about each human adaptation such as subcutaneous fat, the way hair is
arranged all over the body and head, the use of tools, lung capacity, bipedalism and how each of them could be caused by partial aquatic life. He
explains the lack of fossil evidence by stating that aquatic fossils are hard to detect.
Edit: I completely understand your viewpoint if you're basing your opinion on Morgan's work.
It's a handy, simple explanation that is actually a very sound theory, without any supporting or contradictory evidence. It may or may not be correct,
but in the scheme of things it doesn't actually matter. It just tells us the how of certain selection mechanisms, not the when or the why. The most
important thing we can take away from it is the implication of a common ancestor for humans and mer people if it is correct.
What added effects are you talking about?
edit on 26-2-2013 by Dispo because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-2-2013 by Dispo
because: (no reason given)