The "savannah" approach is not really the "other" approach.
I'm unfortunately not knowledgable in primates ethology but I can't believe that aquatic was a safe place to live in the context of he is exposed. The Savannah was also under the rule of large predators but the space was wide open. You can't reach the same conclusion near or in a pool. Never heard about crocodiles, thirsty felidae?
This isn't a very hard task to study. Paleosol specialists are able to tell us if there was trees or smaller vegetation on various locations. I still can't swallow the aquatic pill. There is too much contradictions. I guess these have never paddled in a swamp with mud above the knees. Try that once and enjoy it!
Yes, you fully well understood my idea. Fresh water neighborhood is a very dangerous place. Inacceptable to be a cradle of some terrestrial evolutive trend. You can't coexist where an other top of the foodchain use to swim (crocs). This is also concerning sharks.
Yes indeed. Water spots were such scarce as in our days. It's not speculative to consider they were attractive for primitive human forms. For drinking, playing and fishing? But all these activities implicate an immediate use of them. I mean that they were unable to transport water unlikely as the food.