For an extended critique of the Aquatic Ape Theory, look here.

Fat chance - am in Tampa - doubt any others near here..... and as my love in Germany can attest, am anything but num...

Robert D.: I have the same response to that site, a lack of brevity... ad homonym attacks on Morgan...

Many species once formed never undergo any further change.... and the periods, during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured by years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form.

-Origin of Species

Robert W:
My PhD supervisor had several mottos. One of them was: "assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups."

Further sub-hypotheses will be added as time permits.

It is postulated that the most plausible scenario that could have resulted in a sufficient number of viable individuals with this new chromosomal arrangement is a hybridisation of two populations of hominids at the most 3.7 million years ago but possibly as recent as 200,000 years before present.

Num,

Much of what has been said here is nonsense, we agree.  But, every so often something meaningful appears: 

A few mammals, such as the anteater and some rodents, have evolved special limbs for digging and teeth for a diet feasting on just a few types of abundant social insects. Established theory tells us these mammals appeared in the Paleocene, about 30 to 40 million years ago.

  

A fossil has now been found of a similarly specialized mammal that appeared about 150 million years ago and appears to

represent a new, but now extinct, line of basal mammals. The fossil, Fruitafossor windscheffelia, has large forelimbs, specialized for digging, and hollow teeth, probably used for feeding on termites.  This Week in Science 308 (5718)

This ought to put, at least, a tiny crimp in someone's theory, busy or not, don't you think?

You wrote:

If you have to gripe that the 'scientific community' is not paying your ideas sufficient attention, they may be off doing their own work. Their work could be more relevant than your idea. Do your own work

which is reasonable.   

What is not reasonable is for 'science' to dismiss new theory out of hand.  If they don't have the time or interest in pursuing the issue, they should withhold opinion.

Anyone with even cursory knowledge of the history of science has laughed at the actics of one of the most influencial and famous scientists of his day Lavosier.  A political and social liberal, Lavoisier took an active part in the events leading to the French Revolution.  In reaction to reports of meteors and meteorites, he quipped to  the Academie des Sciences, 'Gentlemen, stones cannot fall from the sky, because there are no stones in the sky.', and for at least a century they did not.  It is ironic that the same revolution he supported separated him from his head. As Pericles said, “Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you”! 

The institution called Science has a scary, nefarious side.  In 2001, PBS aired a seven-part series, titled "Evolution". the program was presented as objective, but was merely a perpetuation of the view that the theory of evolution is  science fact accepted by all the reputable scientists in the world, not a theory that has weaknesses and strong scientific critics. In response, a group of 100 dissenting scientists issued a press release, "A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism", on the day the first program was scheduled to air.

http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/pressRelease_100Scientists.php

"The numbers of scientists who question Darwinism is a minority, but it is growing fast," said Stephen Meyer, a Cambridge-educated philosopher of science who directs the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture at Discovery Institute. "This is happening in the face of fierce attempts to intimidate and suppress legitimate dissent. Young scientists are threatened with deprivation of tenure. Others have seen a consistent pattern of answering scientific arguments with ad hominem attacks. In particular, the series' attempt to stigmatize all critics--including scientists--as religious 'creationists' is an excellent example of viewpoint discrimination."

Jed Macosko, a young research molecular biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, and a statement signer, said, "It is time for defenders of Darwin to engage in serious dialogue and debate with their scientific critics. Science can't grow where institutional gatekeepers try to prevent new challengers from being heard."

Nobel nominee Henry "Fritz" Schaefer was among the dissenters. He says,  “ Some defenders of Darwinism embrace standards of evidence for evolution that as scientists they would never accept in other circumstances.”  We have seen this same "unscientific" approach applied to archaeology and anthropology, where "scientists" simply refuse to prove their theories yet appoint themselves as the final arbiters of "the facts".