The Aquatic Ape Theory~Very Interesting.

page: 1
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 07:52 AM
link   
The Aquatic Ape Theory is an interesting hypothesis,it speculates that man was,at one point in the past,semi aquatic and learned to stand in an upright posture due to being half submerged in water.
It also speculates that man being ´semi aquatic´ in nature could well be responsible for our evolution of speech (holding breath-descended larynx);the development of our brain in the form of eating shellfish and seafood (long chained fatty acids);our unusual follicle arrangement on our backs which appear to be curved (not straight) due to diving underwater;our unique layer of subcutanous fat and our unprecedented simian hair loss.
Here is a link explaining such topics as human/ape differences,human nakedness,fat storage,man´s bipdel nature and breathing in this context.
It also speculates about how the Savannah theory may be wrong and archeological aspects of the concept.

www.primitivism.com...

Quotes:

"An aquatic Ape is a likely ancestor of humans in terms of primate behaviour, marine ecosystems and geophysical timing."
- Prof. Derek Ellis, Dept. of Biology, Uni. of Victoria, Canada

"All other theories about the origin of our species have reached an impasse."
- Dr. Michel Odent, author of 'Water and sexuality'

"An aquatic hypothesis offers far simpler explanations."
- Dr. Chris Knight, author of 'Blood Relations'

"It is difficult to see how all the points assembled to back the Aquatic Theory can be explained away."
- Dr. Desmond Morris, author of 'The Naked Ape'

"The aquatic hypothesis... cannot be eliminated yet."
- Prof. Glyn Isaac

"We believe that this proposal [AAT] should be taken seriously."
- Prof Michael Crawford, author of 'The Driving Force'

"[AAT] conforms to current theories of speciation better than the savannah origins model, and accounts for a number of diverse phenomena hitherto not seen as connected."
- Prof. Graham Richards, author of 'Human Evolution'

Wiki:
en.wikipedia.org...

Cheers Karl



[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]




posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Interesting read, I heard someone mention this theory a few years ago, thought it sounded interesting but never got round to looking it up, so cheers


It seems the Greek philosopher, Anaximander sometime during 500BC's shared a similar belief, he claimed that animals sprang up from out of the sea



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 08:24 AM
link   
I've known about this theory for some time now. It also explains the missing link, as any evidence of this evolution would be affected by the water involved. It just makes the changes juring that time more sencible.



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Graber
 


Thanks for the replies ,the concept certainly sounds intruiging and could explain many the discrepencies and ´questionable assumptions´ of the Savannah theory.
I found this paragraph very interesting regarding our descended larynx:

" A few months after birth the human larynx descends into the throat, right down below the back of the tongue. Darwin found that very puzzling because it means that the opening to the lungs lies side by side with the opening to the stomach. That is why in our species food and drink may sometimes go "down the wrong way". If we had not evolved an elaborate swallowing mechanism it would happen every time.

This arrangement means that we can breathe through our mouths as easily as through our noses. It is probable that this is an aquatic adaptation, because a swimmer needing to gulp air quickly can inhale more of it through the mouth than through the nostrils. And we do know that the only birds which are obligatory mouth breathers are diving birds like penguins, pelicans and gannets. As for mammals, the only ones with a descended larynx, apart from ourselves, are aquatic ones - the sea lion and the dugong".


Also this point about how our subcutanous fat deposits differ from other primates:

"The other difference is that in our case the subcutaneous fat is bonded to the skin. When an anatomist skins a cat or rabbit or chimpanzee, any superficial fat deposits remain attached to the underlying tissues. In the case of humans, the fat comes away with the skin, just as it does in aquatic species like dolphins, seals, hippos and manatees".

I think the hypothesis certainly deserves serious,objective,impartial,dispassionate,analytical,scientific investigation.

Who knows,we could all be sea monkeys!

Cheers Karl

P.S. Love that quote:
"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." - Sir Winston Churchill





[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 

Lex Luthor: [The crystal]'s like a seed, and all it needs is water.
Kitty Kowalski: Like... uhh... Sea Monkeys?
Lex Luthor: [sighs] Exactly, Kitty. Like Sea Monkeys.





posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by reject
reply to post by karl 12
 

Lex Luthor: [The crystal]'s like a seed, and all it needs is water.
Kitty Kowalski: Like... uhh... Sea Monkeys?
Lex Luthor: [sighs] Exactly, Kitty. Like Sea Monkeys.




Good old Lex Luther may have had it right after all

(Kitty was quite a foxy maiden too!)

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 09:05 AM
link   
Wow!

Thanks for this fascinating read! I find the concept of evolution and the sheer abundance of life on our planet truly amazing. I often get into discussions with a friend of mine who doesn't 'believe' ie. understand, the concept of evolution, and one particular aspect which is tricky to argue well is that of human evolution. Hairlessness, and our general unique position in the tree of life makes it hard to understand how we also fit into this theory of abundance.

I find this theory quite plausible, especially the omega-3 and brain size bit!




posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 09:15 AM
link   
I forgot where I learned this information, but I was once told to believe that we also had webbed hands at one point in time. The evidence for that is best seen between thumb and indexfinger. Primates do not have that piece of webbing between their fingers.

I could be all wrong, just telling what I remember being told.



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 09:34 AM
link   
Excellent read, very intriguing.
I couldn't help thinking about a video I saw recently about a woman somewhere in Europe giving birth under water. Even though she had normal painful contractions, the actual birth appeared to be a very smooth process being in the submerged situation.
I am also reminded of videos a few years ago of how newborns or very young children take to swimming with an almost uncanny ease and naturalness.
I think there is a lot to this theory. I look forward to seeing more research in this area as well.

[edit on 22-10-2008 by wayno]



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by wayno
Excellent read, very intriguing.
I couldn't help thinking about a video I saw recently about a woman somewhere in Europe giving birth under water. Even though she had normal painful contractions, the actual birth appeared to be a very smooth process being in the submerged situation.
I am also reminded of videos a few years ago of how newborns or very young children take to swimming with an almost uncanny ease and naturalness.
I think there is a lot to this theory. I look forward to seeing more research in this area as well.
[edit on 22-10-2008 by wayno]


Wayno-this link shows essays on the subject by Sir Alastair Hardy and contains some very interesting points:
www.megaessays.com...

"This is known as the diving reflex, it involves breath holding, slowing of heartrate, decrease of blood supply to extremities and gradual rise in mean arterial blood pressure. This increased meat diet decreased the size of the digestive tract as plant matter takes longer to digest than meat, thus meaning the body had extra energy to use on another system. It puts across the idea of a more aquatic primate that lived near water, using it more readily than modern humans do today. In this environment the human like primates thrived as their new adaptations helped them survive, then when Africa rejoined Europe the new Homo type primates moved to colonise other regions. The type of food in the aquatic environment contained two nutrients essential for growth of the brain"

Cheers Karl

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by enduser
Interesting read, I heard someone mention this theory a few years ago, thought it sounded interesting but never got round to looking it up, so cheers

It seems the Greek philosopher Anaximander,
sometime during 500BC's, shared a similar belief, he claimed that animals sprang up from out of the sea


Enduser,appreciate the reply.

It seems the the Greek philosopher Anaximander was quite an enlightened fellow for his time-apart from humans hiding in the mouths of other fishes,he appears he could of been on the right track.
filosofiacc.blogspot.com...
Quote:

”The worlds were not created, as in Jewish or Christian theology, but evolved. There was evolution also in the animal kingdom..."

From article:

"The examination of fossil evidence persuaded Anaximander that living beings develop from simpler to more complex forms over time and that animals sprang out of the sea long ago as the early humidity evaporated, dry land emerged and, in time, humankind had to adapt.
He deduces living beings, in a gradual development, from moisture under the influence of warmth, and suggests the view that men originated from animals of another sort, since if they had come into existence as human beings, needing fostering care for a long time, they would not have been able to maintain their existence. With this idea he gives the theory that humans had to spend part of this transition inside the mouths of big fish to protect themselves from the Earth's climate until they could come out in open air and lose their scales."

Cheers Karl



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 08:18 AM
link   
"Produced by Richard Chambers, narrated by Andrew Sachs. This excellent documentary gives pros and cons of the so-called aquatic ape theory. Includes some wonderful interview clips. Basically argues that it really should be considered seriously".

Part two:

Part Three:



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Now all we need is evidence for this hypothesis, and we're cookin'!



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
Now all we need is evidence for this hypothesis, and we're cookin'!


Thanks for the reply,thats a fair comment although I suspect the Aquatic Ape theory as an ´anthropological speculative hypothesis´ holds a lot more water (and goes on to simply explain a great many aspects of the science) than the existing Savannah theory.
Many anthropologists also accept that the theory,although may not being the wholly correct answer,reads as a lot more plausible,feasible model to explain fat deposits,brain growth,bipedalism,folicle direction,hair loss and the descended larynx than any other current explanations or viable alternatives.
If you look at the current Savannah model it does a very fuzzy,vague job of answering these intruiging questions about our physiology.
Lets hope the theory gets the serious scienitfic attention and deliberation it deserves.

Cheers Karl



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 


It's all there in the Bible. The Spirit of God passed over the waters, and non plant life was recorded as being first in the water before the transition to life on the land and humanity. It's obviously why Baptism is so important, a return to the pre-Fall aquatic life. It's even more obvious in Revelations where it concludes with repeated references to a return to the "waters of life."



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 10:37 AM
link   
The aquatic ape theory!!! I thought monkeys and apes hated water?
What next? Tree dwelling killer whales!



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
The aquatic ape theory!!! I thought monkeys and apes hated water?
What next? Tree dwelling killer whales!


Say what now?



Water would also provide protection from land based predators and running water cannot get below 0 degrees C (32F). We also swim pretty well. We are better adapted to swim then horses. I haven't ever looked into this theory for some reason. Underwater archaeolgy is where it's at. Perfectly preserved relics.



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Supercertari
 


No, the bible is just a book. It says all kinds of contradictory stuff, so clearly it is not a definitive source of evidence.

I'm talking about actual, real evidence. Evidence that can be quantified. Not some bronze-age guesswork.



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Supercertari
 


S.C. With respect,I think,given enough inventive context and subjective interpretation,you can use abrahamic lore to say or indicate just about anything.
It is interesting to speculate that the bible is telling us we are all sea-monkeys though.
Cheers Karl



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
The aquatic ape theory!!! I thought monkeys and apes hated water?



MWAH Thanks for the reply,I heard that one too but this cheeky monkey seems to be enjoying it:
lh6.ggpht.com...
Interestingly,there are accounts of chimpanzees falling into rivers and just ´sinking like a stone´ with no thrashing or flailing about observed.
Perhaps why we do not suffer the same fate is due to our (evolved?) descended larynx and also our unique layer of subcutanous fat.
These and other unique traits like brain pan size and the ability to stand in an erect posture could well be indicitive of our semi aquatic heritage.
Cheers Karl


[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]





new topics

top topics



 
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join