Asks if Homo sapiens' forebears' diet and behavior was, at least in part, caused by the evolution of Australopithecus' moving away from being a hunter gather, which the diet contains few proteins and necessitates much of the waking hours in search of food.
There are so many negative aspects as to the validity of this line of inquiry;
There are NO fossils that have been found at or very near the ocean;
Does not apply Occam's razor; ("
Occam's) Razor states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power. The simplest available theory need not be most accurate. Philosophers also point out that the exact meaning of simplest may be nuanced.";
AAH claims that bipedelism is the result of being bouyed by the salt water yet there is evidence of a 7 million year old fossil that shows the beginnings of this trait: If this theory is correct, why leave the proximity of the ocean (it would take a million years for Homo sapiens to grow enough of a civilization to have the ability to grow and maintain settlements/towns/cities that would allow for the AAH to prove true;
And so many more.
(AAH) relies on MANY assumptions while the accepted model of human evolution is straight forward and contains relatively few twists of logic.
AAH is another example of an answer in search of questions (cue Alec Trabec).
Is this pseudo-science or, as the OP asks, a theory so far out there that it just MIGHT have enough merit to warrant a lot of money and research devoted to finding the questions?
BTW, my niece's Phd thesis was AAH.
She got all the way to the writing part when something happened: my conjecture is her advisor and possibly other professors in Anthropology got on her about the wastefulness of her research and she got burned out and quit academia.
She now owns a yarn shop and is actually doing very well, thank you very much.
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read