What do you think?
Rate this book
The Scars of Evolution: What Our Bodies Tell Us About Human Origins
208pages. 19x12x1cm. Broché.
208 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1990
14 people are currently reading
610 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
March 15, 2010
Aha: a book about Evolution that makes sense. It's no wonder why right-wingers despise the story of evolution: the bit about standing up on the savanna to peek over grasses is a dumb, nonsensical, and inaccurate story. Scars of Evolution takes into our bodies and explores what really happened, why we developed the way we are, and where it must have happened.
Thanks Elaine Morgan: what a relief... and a great story.
Thanks Elaine Morgan: what a relief... and a great story.
October 20, 2008
An excellent book that tells the story of evolution from the perspective of the human body itself. Brilliant.
June 13, 2012
A must read for anyone interested in human evolution.
October 25, 2025
Nonfiction book arguing that human ancestors lost their fur by swimming a lot, and that this also explains several other quirks of human anatomy that differs wildly from other primates. (bipedal gait, fewer sweat glands, subcutaneous fat and so on) Which the author points out are advantages in an aquatic environment or when adapting to an amphibious lifestyle, but major drawbacks in other ways. She draws attention to how the only other primates who walk on two legs anywhere as often as humans do are the proboscis monkey in South East Asia, the only other mammals who have lost as much body hair and have as much subcutaneous fat are seals and whales, et cetera.
I also learned quite a bit about the history behind major palaeontological discoveries regarding human history, for example how many of the important discoveries were made in one area in Ethiopia that is desert now but used to be much wetter as a result of a landlocked sea that later dried out, and the gaps in scientific knowledge at the time it was written. (i. e. the late 1980's/early 1990's)
Nonetheless I wonder how much of the science found in this book is dated and how many of the author's theories have since been falsified by new research considering the book is almost 40 years old, as well as the fact that the "aquatic ape hypothesis" never caught on.
I also learned quite a bit about the history behind major palaeontological discoveries regarding human history, for example how many of the important discoveries were made in one area in Ethiopia that is desert now but used to be much wetter as a result of a landlocked sea that later dried out, and the gaps in scientific knowledge at the time it was written. (i. e. the late 1980's/early 1990's)
Nonetheless I wonder how much of the science found in this book is dated and how many of the author's theories have since been falsified by new research considering the book is almost 40 years old, as well as the fact that the "aquatic ape hypothesis" never caught on.
March 10, 2010
this is just a book of hypothesis. i loved it thought. it was an explanation of so many things that sets us apart from every other mammal.
January 3, 2011
Wonderful!
December 29, 2019
The Aquatic ape hypothesis is this idea according to which we would have evolved not from apes having conquered the land, but an aquatic environment - or, at least, semi-aquatic. A few decades ago the idea had a few ears among the general public. It was then defended vigorously by Elaine Morgan, author of a few scientific books despite not being a scientific herself (she had a degree in English).
Well... It certainly did echo among the general public, but what about the scientific community? Bluntly: they never took it seriously. Out of disdain? Nope. Out of a lack of evidence.
No evidence? Oh dear! Elaine Morgan, therefore, put it then into her stubborn head to line up some in this book, insisting that many of our anatomical features have more in common with aquatic mammal than anything else.
Now, I get that similarities can be striking; but similarities are just that: close enough... But no. Her own interpretations to explain various features of our anatomy can be seductive in themselves; yet others have proved as seductive as hers, and, with one crucial and key difference: these other interpretations are actually backed by evidences. Evidence are indeed by the plenty when it comes to establish our lineage with 'land' apes; there is still none linking us to any aquatic specie if they ever existed. It's all here very simplistic, and, as with everything way too simple to be true, it all come down in her narrow logic to only one and only cause (that's a red flag in itself!): an aquatic environment. Would that qualify as reductionism?
No need to debate. Her final attitude says it all: she doesn't end the book by challenging and counter-arguing her opponents on each of their claims, but, on the contrary, digs herself in by portraying herself as a victim of the scientific community - that she accuses of being arrogant and scornful. Well... Beware of people locked up in echo chambers.
Here's a nice read to know why some would believe in such a fancy idea. Apart from that, here's yet another 'just so' story, leading nowhere, and so not worth much in terms of scientific credibility.
Well... It certainly did echo among the general public, but what about the scientific community? Bluntly: they never took it seriously. Out of disdain? Nope. Out of a lack of evidence.
No evidence? Oh dear! Elaine Morgan, therefore, put it then into her stubborn head to line up some in this book, insisting that many of our anatomical features have more in common with aquatic mammal than anything else.
Now, I get that similarities can be striking; but similarities are just that: close enough... But no. Her own interpretations to explain various features of our anatomy can be seductive in themselves; yet others have proved as seductive as hers, and, with one crucial and key difference: these other interpretations are actually backed by evidences. Evidence are indeed by the plenty when it comes to establish our lineage with 'land' apes; there is still none linking us to any aquatic specie if they ever existed. It's all here very simplistic, and, as with everything way too simple to be true, it all come down in her narrow logic to only one and only cause (that's a red flag in itself!): an aquatic environment. Would that qualify as reductionism?
No need to debate. Her final attitude says it all: she doesn't end the book by challenging and counter-arguing her opponents on each of their claims, but, on the contrary, digs herself in by portraying herself as a victim of the scientific community - that she accuses of being arrogant and scornful. Well... Beware of people locked up in echo chambers.
Here's a nice read to know why some would believe in such a fancy idea. Apart from that, here's yet another 'just so' story, leading nowhere, and so not worth much in terms of scientific credibility.
August 7, 2014
I love the idea of the Aqautic Ape Hypothesis, even if I don't quite buy it yet. But true or not, this is a well-written book that certainly encouraged me to think about things from a new perspective. The arguments are persuasive, at least while you're reading the book. It also reminds the reader how our bodies are a patchwork, even a bodge-job of adaptations rather than some kind of perfect end result built to a design.
November 14, 2023
The third and last of the books by this author in my collection. Before reading it, I had a look at the debunking site discovered on the internet which pours cold water on the aquatic ape theory, as it is known, which originated with a scientist called Alistair Hardy, mentioned in this volume. The site is able to debunk the AAT, as it refers to it, but not always so successful in providing alternative more convincing explanations.
The book shows no sign of the quirky style of the author's first and most famous ('The Descent of Woman') but instead is written in a very 'straight', bordering on academic style, perhaps chosen because she wanted to be taken seriously. The author develops some information from a previous work, regarding isolation of a particular area of Africa cut off by water ingress for millions of years which would have led to adaptations by species trapped there. This, she argues, led to various humanoid characteristics developing which led eventually to our own species which inherited them.
The author had abandoned her speculations about large brains and an aquatic origin by the time she wrote this, probably because evidence from the 'Lucy' skeleton revealed that bipedalism (walking on two legs) predated the development of a large brain or tool use by millions of years. But her speculations about loss of hair, development of particular types of fat deposit, retention of child features (neoteny) and other factors pertaining to humans and humanoid ancestors are interesting. As she says, attributing these to a move to the savannah doesn't convince when primates such as baboons did not develop them. So I remain open minded about this book until more compelling evidence is presented from the other viewpoint. Hence a middle of the road 3 star rating.
The book shows no sign of the quirky style of the author's first and most famous ('The Descent of Woman') but instead is written in a very 'straight', bordering on academic style, perhaps chosen because she wanted to be taken seriously. The author develops some information from a previous work, regarding isolation of a particular area of Africa cut off by water ingress for millions of years which would have led to adaptations by species trapped there. This, she argues, led to various humanoid characteristics developing which led eventually to our own species which inherited them.
The author had abandoned her speculations about large brains and an aquatic origin by the time she wrote this, probably because evidence from the 'Lucy' skeleton revealed that bipedalism (walking on two legs) predated the development of a large brain or tool use by millions of years. But her speculations about loss of hair, development of particular types of fat deposit, retention of child features (neoteny) and other factors pertaining to humans and humanoid ancestors are interesting. As she says, attributing these to a move to the savannah doesn't convince when primates such as baboons did not develop them. So I remain open minded about this book until more compelling evidence is presented from the other viewpoint. Hence a middle of the road 3 star rating.
December 13, 2020
This was a well written book and an interesting foray into the study of human evolutionary biology. However, a brief internet search will reveal that its conclusions are almost certainly wrong: the aquatic ape hypothesis that Morgan popularized doesn’t hold water, because the traits it seeks to explain probably evolved at very different times and can also be explained by the much less complicated woodland/savannah hypothesis. After 50 years of research and public debate, it’s possible to call continuing support for this idea pseudoscience (though Morgan didn’t know this when she wrote it).
A thorough explanation of the inconsistencies exists here:
https://www.aquaticape.org/summary.html
Two books that might scratch the same itch, with better scientific grounding, are “The Art of Tracking” and “Lone Survivors.”
A thorough explanation of the inconsistencies exists here:
https://www.aquaticape.org/summary.html
Two books that might scratch the same itch, with better scientific grounding, are “The Art of Tracking” and “Lone Survivors.”
November 30, 2018
An interesting book and one that will definitely give you more to think about.
July 9, 2019
Good science reader
November 12, 2019
So fascinating!!! Will read again, because I love talking about this stuff.
July 7, 2021
indispensable!
March 29, 2025
It was very interesting but I just got bored of reading this (probably not the books fault but still)
October 15, 2025
Concise but thorough, compulsively readable, answers the questions others ignore.
September 4, 2014
This book is about the aquatic ape theory, that says that when humans left the forest and split from chimpanzees, we went to live in a swamp/lake environment rather than on the savannah which is the more common theory. The author says that the similarity between many of our features and aquatic mammals such as dolphins, dugongs and seals proves this. That includes our hairlessness, the fat beneath our skin, our ability to hold our breath, our internal vaginas and hymens - all things that most other primates lack. I found her discussion of fat most interesting and wasn't aware that apart from hibernating animals and sea animals, we're about the only mammal that can get fat.
An interesting book but there were two problems with the theory that weren't addressed or well answered: the development of our flat, running style feet and legs, and why women have more fat than men.
Our legs are our biggest difference with chimpanzees, a standing chimp or bonobo looks so much like a person - an ugly, hairy one, but still a person. So our legs are what makes us most different, and it seems to indicate a savannah origin.
The fat on women seems to indicate a sexual attractiveness origin of subcutaneous fat. For a while I was going to the zoo every day and looked at the chimpanzees a lot. They're very much like people, except they don't stand up. They're on all fours, which means their heads are at the same level as everyone else's butt. Chimpanzee's bottoms are very elaborate and must tell them a lot about sex. When we stood up, we lost that information and probably replaced it with women's breasts - they're closer to eye height. Once we started getting fat for our breasts, we probably found it was useful for a lot of other things too and so it spread, or to make it sound more like Elaine Morgan's way of writing, "those whose gene for subcutaneous fat encouraged it to spread throughout the body had an increased chance of survival and passed it into the gene pool at an increased rate than our more skinny ancestors".
I would have preferred it if she had answered these problems because, since she didn't I kept thinking about them as I read her work. This book was also interesting because it showed how much progress had been made in the field of human history in the 25 years since she wrote it. We are truly living in an age of great scientific progress.
An interesting book but there were two problems with the theory that weren't addressed or well answered: the development of our flat, running style feet and legs, and why women have more fat than men.
Our legs are our biggest difference with chimpanzees, a standing chimp or bonobo looks so much like a person - an ugly, hairy one, but still a person. So our legs are what makes us most different, and it seems to indicate a savannah origin.
The fat on women seems to indicate a sexual attractiveness origin of subcutaneous fat. For a while I was going to the zoo every day and looked at the chimpanzees a lot. They're very much like people, except they don't stand up. They're on all fours, which means their heads are at the same level as everyone else's butt. Chimpanzee's bottoms are very elaborate and must tell them a lot about sex. When we stood up, we lost that information and probably replaced it with women's breasts - they're closer to eye height. Once we started getting fat for our breasts, we probably found it was useful for a lot of other things too and so it spread, or to make it sound more like Elaine Morgan's way of writing, "those whose gene for subcutaneous fat encouraged it to spread throughout the body had an increased chance of survival and passed it into the gene pool at an increased rate than our more skinny ancestors".
I would have preferred it if she had answered these problems because, since she didn't I kept thinking about them as I read her work. This book was also interesting because it showed how much progress had been made in the field of human history in the 25 years since she wrote it. We are truly living in an age of great scientific progress.
September 9, 2020
I like her books.
In 1979 I read, 'Descent of Woman' that she wrote in 1972. I was almost enthralled by it, so much that she wrote made sense.
I know that she seems to have no doctorate to her name, yet she has won awards; I guess that means something.
This book asks questions: why do we walk on large hind legs? It is not an advantage, nor is it obvious, although she pointed to it in her earlier book, as mentioned above. This clarifies it further.. Also, why are we naked, also clarified, also not an advantage. Indeed our sweating is very inefficient; read about it. To be continued..
Actually I finished this book months ago, just realized I did not finish commenting on it.
I think it's as good as her earlier book, The Descent of Woman, if not better in some ways. Ms Morgan goes more deeply into the reasons for our stance, hairlessness, internal problems, speech, why we choke(?), talking, etc. Really interesting and written in a style that is both easy to read and succinct enough that it doesn't take forever to finish the book!
I really recommend it, indeed I use it as a reference.
In 1979 I read, 'Descent of Woman' that she wrote in 1972. I was almost enthralled by it, so much that she wrote made sense.
I know that she seems to have no doctorate to her name, yet she has won awards; I guess that means something.
This book asks questions: why do we walk on large hind legs? It is not an advantage, nor is it obvious, although she pointed to it in her earlier book, as mentioned above. This clarifies it further.. Also, why are we naked, also clarified, also not an advantage. Indeed our sweating is very inefficient; read about it. To be continued..
Actually I finished this book months ago, just realized I did not finish commenting on it.
I think it's as good as her earlier book, The Descent of Woman, if not better in some ways. Ms Morgan goes more deeply into the reasons for our stance, hairlessness, internal problems, speech, why we choke(?), talking, etc. Really interesting and written in a style that is both easy to read and succinct enough that it doesn't take forever to finish the book!
I really recommend it, indeed I use it as a reference.
November 12, 2009
This book is definitely one of the more compelling perspectives on evolutionary theory. Elaine Morgan isn't actually a scientist, she's a journalist I believe, but she manages to put forth her arguments in a pretty persuasive manner.
I'm a little wary of taking her views too seriously though, seeing as she's just a layman, and she does think with a pretty obvious feminist slant (not that that's bad in general, but science is supposed to be impartial).
I give it a 3 because I really think there is something fishy (pun intended) about our evolution from apes that sets us apart from most other land mammals. Some biologists have conceded that we may have had some period of partially aquatic living that could have affected our physiology (though probably not to the extent Ms Morgan purports).
I'm a little wary of taking her views too seriously though, seeing as she's just a layman, and she does think with a pretty obvious feminist slant (not that that's bad in general, but science is supposed to be impartial).
I give it a 3 because I really think there is something fishy (pun intended) about our evolution from apes that sets us apart from most other land mammals. Some biologists have conceded that we may have had some period of partially aquatic living that could have affected our physiology (though probably not to the extent Ms Morgan purports).
December 5, 2008
I loved this book!! Not a novel, but a discussion of the theroy that humans spawned from aquatic monkeys!! Once you read it, you will believe!!
May 4, 2014
Brilliant and bloody interesting. Nicely written, lots of science and differentiation between what is fact, speculation and just accepted conjecture.
September 22, 2016
Morgan goes into a little more details about the drawbacks of being a transitional life-form, half-landlubber and half-aquatic.
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews