Throughout history, there are stories of mermaids; seductive yet dangerous,
flesh-and-bone, and yet just out of reach. But, what if mermaids were actually real?
How close does Hollywood get to what a realistic mer-organism would be,
one that is subject to natural selection and evolutionary forces?
For the sake of pacing, most movie mermaids are portrayed as either
already knowing a human language, as in "The Little Mermaid", or learning one within hours,
as in "Splash". Neither scenario would be likely in the real world.
Firstly, mermaids would be so isolated from land that they would never have learned any
human language. Moreover "native" mer-speech,
and the organs involved with producing and articulating it, would have evolved in water.
And, the Smithsonian reminds us that water has a density greater than air.
This would put mermaids on par with all other sound-producing sea creatures, none of whom
exhibit the wide variety of sounds humans can produce. Dolphins "click" and "whistle",
whales sing, and some fish species grunt. Splash is probably closest to the truth when the mermaid
Madison, played by Daryl Hannah, gave her native name in a series of glass-shattering squeaks.
But Madison learning functional English in less than a day is pure movie magic.
EF Education First estimates English would take upwards of 1,120 hours of
a round-the-clock study to be fluent, or around 46 solid days. So either Madison
is the mermaid equivalent of a Star Trek-level supercomputer,
or the writers had to figure out a way to get her talking as fast as possible and be funny doing it.
Hollywood mermaids are extreme; they are either virginal or bloodthirsty wackadoos. A definitive
statement on how the species propagates is missing from the narrative, leading to much inconsistency.
The German coming-of-age flick, "Blue My Mind," depicts females born from mermaids.
Although they were born human, they become mermaids upon puberty,
suggesting that mermaids and human men are biologically compatible.
While two creatures so radically different in body type producing viable offspring is improbable,
the scenario actually mirrors the mythology. Tales of mermaids seducing and kidnapping
men are common, although the legends never quite get into sexy-time details.
"Would it be too much information?”
“It might."
Alternatively, "Mermaid Isle" puts forward that mermaids infect human women with a transformative
virus. None of this jives scientifically; fully-formed and fertile mermen must be out there.
A study by researcher Sarah Otto states sex emerged a whopping two billion years ago,
when life was still single-celled. Otto notes that for 99.9% of creatures whose
cells are enclosed and include a nucleus, like mermaids' cells, it takes two to tango.
Ironically, by adding mermen in its submarine franchise, painfully chaste Disney is spot on.
Two mockumentaries, "Mermaids: The New Evidence" and "Mermaids: The Body Found."
These were entirely fictional but done so well
that some viewers thought the mermaids portrayed onscreen were actually real.
The mockumentaries extrapolate on the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis,
which suggests why humans are so hairless compared to other mammals. At one point,
our ancestors temporarily took to water long enough for natural selection to favor sleek skin.
Mermaids are, therefore, humans that never went back to land.
And that means mermaids have lungs and would have to come up to breathe on the regular.
If they did this, it would be reasonable to think that
sightings would have been very common, from the time records began to now. So,
the existence of mermaids would be a scientific fact, even if a specimen was never caught.
What about lungs combined with gills? Such a physical adaptation is depicted in "Waterworld,"
where Kevin Costner's protagonist sports a set of gills behind his ears.
This isn't entirely Hollywood folly; after all, ears evolved from gills. However, in reality,
only the lungfish has fully functional lungs and gills, though it still has to return to the
water to stay hydrated. No human-sized creature has two mutually exclusive respiratory systems.
Like humans, mermaid skin color would depend on where they evolved. If mermaids settled where
sunlight readily penetrates the sea, then Hollywood gets it right by giving mermaids
the pigmentations of humans. Simply put, the more UV light people get, the more their skin
darkens to compensate. Things get interesting, however, the deeper one goes into the sea.
If mermaids are creatures of the lightless deep ocean, something to which the "Mermaids"
mock-docs propose, they would have no pigment at all and be a ghastly shade of white.
Alternatively, if mermaids dwell in the "twilight zone," they would be a
startling shade of red which is a sort of camouflage at that depth.
Blending in may, in fact, be a vital evolutionary tactic. Unlike humans,
mermaids would have to worry about predators, like sharks, coming from any direction.
Consequently, like orcas, mermaids could be dark on one side and white on the other. From above,
they would blend into the depths; from below, they blend into the sunbeams filtering down.
In "Splash," "Siren," and "H2O: Just Add Water," a mermaid naturally transforms her
lower half into legs once out of salt water and back to fins again in salt water. This seems
to be some sort of reflex and not something the mermaid can control, and it takes just seconds.
No real-life creature can alter its body plan so profoundly, and so quickly.
In nature, animals can change shape to the point where the beginning and final forms are
unrecognizable from the other, but it is not a swift process. It can take anywhere from a
few weeks to several months for a tadpole to become a fully formed frog. Likewise,
a caterpillar takes anywhere from 8 to 12 days to transform into a monarch butterfly.
Beyond these examples, radical physical change has to rely on evolution,
a process that can take vast amounts of time. The Smithsonian Museum of Natural History estimates it
took 6 million years for Sahelanthropus, an early human ancestor, to even begin to walk on two legs.
For its part, Disney's Ariel relies on magic spells to become bipedal.
In an OurSpace article exploring the idea of intelligence evolving underwater,
one of the more profound observations is this:
"Once an intelligent species had evolved underwater, it would desire to better
itself [...] by inventing things to make life easier. To achieve this,
said species would require a form of opposable digits (or
tentacles!) in order to manipulate the materials around it to use as tools."
The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis easily accounts for a land-based mermaid
ancestor taking to the sea with fully articulated human hands.
Most depictions of Hollywood mermaids keep such an anatomical feature static and unchanged,
along with the rest of the human torso. However, like any other creature, mermaids would,
over time, be forced to adapt to the challenges of their environment thanks to natural selection.
According to Biography, swimmers get most of their power from their upper torsos. Therefore,
aquatic apes would have depended on their arms and hands for forward thrust,
as much as they did for catching food. Natural selection would have maximized
the upper limbs of these primitive mermaids for underwater locomotion.
So, webbed hands or flippers would likely appear, if not just outright fins.
"Siren" and the "Mermaids" mockumentaries take pains to show this evolutionary advantage.
Long hair is one of the most enduring tropes of femininity. Certainly, one of
the most alluring images of the mermaid is that of her combing her long, lustrous hair. Alfred,
Lord Tennyson wrote about it, and painter John William Waterhouse immortalized it.
Even terrifically tressed Ariel of "The Little Mermaid" gets in on the act with a dinglehopper.
The mermaids of "Splash," "Siren," "Blue My Mind," and "Aquamarine," likewise, all sport epic manes.
Assuming the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis holds water, mermaids would indeed have the hair that is a
defining trait of all mammals. But, they would not have the kind of hair Rapunzel would kill for.
Aquatic mammals are practically hairless. Dolphins and whales are both born with hair,
but it falls out soon after birth. Another sea mammal, the walrus, has also lost the majority
of its fur save for a thin, sparse coat and whiskers. Mermaids would likely be just as smooth.
If mermaids actually descend from fish, they would have no hair at all at any stage of their lives.
The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis makes it impossible for mermaids to have the lower torso of a fish,
with scales and webbing. Rather, their lower bodies would resemble something more along
the lines of marine mammals like dolphins and whales. This is called convergent evolution.
Basically, this theory states that if two entirely different species live in the same environment,
evolutionary pressure will eventually make those species look very similar. It explains
why fish and whales look alike, even though they are from completely different lineages.
But for argument's sake, let's assume mermaids are indeed an advanced evolutionary form of fish.
If this is the case, it would mean the mermaid lineage struck out on its own
after fish had already developed "lobed," fins but before they first walked on land.
That would explain the tail, but then the human upper torso needs explaining.
Here, convergent evolution falls flat. Dry land and the ocean are two very different environments,
and fish lineages that remained in the sea would have remained fishlike.
Land animals ultimately descend from lobed-finned fish, but those stubby, rudimentary limbs would
remain fins if their owners remained oceanic, as seen with the coelacanth.
All this is to say that fish-descendent mermaids would never have evolved out of the "mer" stage.
In the end-scene of "Splash," the camera pans to a brightly-lit underwater city,
connoting artificial illumination at the very least.
And, in "The Little Mermaid," the city of Atlantica is composed of massive
coral towers of a set design that suggest biotechnology.
It would seem that mermaids have some pretty sweet tech, all which leads to the simple question:
"How did you do that?"
The quick answer is that they didn't.
Any present-day technology is the end-result of a long process of innovation. Humans could not
have reached the Space Age or even a steam engine had fire not been discovered first.
Many terrestrial forms of energy would not be available to a submarine species.
Electricity would be lethal, fire impossible, and hydrothermal power
sources would boil a mermaid alive before she could get close enough to harness it.
Combustion would not be entirely out of the question. Thermite,
a highly reactive mix of iron oxide and aluminum, can burn underwater,
but even it needs an open flame to get going and requires a thorough knowledge of modern chemistry.
Mermaids would be Stone Age people,
armed with spears and clubs. Only "Siren" scores in this regard.
Modesty is a uniquely human trait. An article at the Huffington Post states
that humans began wearing clothes around 83,000 to 170,000 years ago.
At the time, the practice came about not because our ancestors were bashful,
but because they were pushing into environments that were uncomfortably cold.
It was only after clothing was invented that the concept of modesty began.
Before then, people let it all hang out. Even today,
some isolated tribes in particularly warm climates still remain skimpily clad.
Oceans, like land, vary widely in temperature, of course, but Hollywood is scattershot when
it comes to mer-fashion. In "The Little Mermaid," family-friendly Disney was quick
to adorn the women with some sort of top. The same goes for "H2O: Just Add Water."
More mature films like "Splash" have their
mermaids topless but rely on hair to cover the breasts.
In "Siren" and the "Mermaid" mockumentaries, mermaids go topless but don't have nipples.
In a fight with his rebellious daughter Ariel, King Triton of "The Little Mermaid"
disparages humans for being "fish-eaters." This suggests that Disney merfolk do not eat fish.
Crabs also seem to be off the menu, a point reinforced in the famously psychotic "Les
Poisson" scene. This is where Sebastian the crab is horrified that his brethren are sushi'ed,
and when he himself is marked for death.
Conversely, in "Splash," Madison rips into a lobster with guilt-free gusto.
The mermaids of "Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides" up the ante and delight
in the occasional snack of humans. Likewise, Ryn, the sharp-toothed heroine of "Siren" has
a mouthful of razor-sharp fangs akin to those of flesh-eating sharks or piranhas.
All creatures eat something. And, mermaids have always been depicted as having human
characteristics including mouths with cutting teeth in front and grinding teeth behind.
So, mermaids, like humans, have all the physical traits of an omnivorous apex predator. Provided
that mermaids do not solely subsist upon sailors, they would probably be fish hunters and herders.
By and large, even if mermaids are supposed to stay clear of humanity,
most individual mermaids are shown as either benevolent towards humanity or playfully curious.
If mermaids existed, they, like Ryn and her people in "Siren," would likely be
antagonistic towards human beings for no other reason than how people have treated their native
habitat. Humans have caused pollution, overfished, and created radioactive waste.
On land, humans have gone to war for far less.
Moreover, as suggested in "Siren," merfolk would probably have some notion of territory
and trespass, and the trespasser being a different species wouldn't necessarily be a saving grace.
In fact, the idea of mermaids being unilaterally kind is fairly new.
Merfolk and similar marine creatures were originally viewed as malevolent beings,
or unfriendly and suspicious at the very least. It was not until the Enlightenment,
in the late 1600s, that the mermaids had a cultural glow-up and became "nice."
Check out one of our newest videos right here! Plus, even more Grunge
videos about Hollywood vs Science are coming soon.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel and hit the bell so you don't miss a single one.