Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Aquatic Ape Theory~Very Interesting.

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 



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

hey bro! Pour yourself a nice hot bath and take a good long soak. Your "lizard" brain will be very, very contented.
no further proof needed.
...............


[edit on 23-10-2008 by wayno]




posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


I'll confess I was being a cheeky chimp - I would not have been so tempted to without the references to Anaximander - familiarity with the scriptures robs them of that exotic air which gives other ancinet classics the "wow-factor." I guess too it pre-empts the "lets see some Christians explain this one".

Anyhoo, it is all very thought provoking and shows many aspects of a particular theory have blank spaces which might make its elevation to "fact" more reserved - not to say it isn't the best guess so far.

You may like this picture I've just scanned from my Attenborough's "The Life of Mammals" book where the good man discusses the very theory of this topic.




posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Supercertari
reply to post by karl 12
 


I'll confess I was being a cheeky chimp - I would not have been so tempted to without the references to Anaximander - familiarity with the scriptures robs them of that exotic air which gives other ancinet classics the "wow-factor." I guess too it pre-empts the "lets see some Christians explain this one".

Anyhoo, it is all very thought provoking and shows many aspects of a particular theory have blank spaces which might make its elevation to "fact" more reserved - not to say it isn't the best guess so far.

You may like this picture I've just scanned from my Attenborough's "The Life of Mammals" book where the good man discusses the very theory of this topic.




Ha ha I do like the picture of that cheeky monkey.
I think we need a caption contest.

That was also an interesting read by David Attenborough-great chap that he is.
It seems you may be quite correct about the ´curved´ follicle arrangement on our backs (instead of going ´straight down´ like other primates),the Savannah theory just conveniently ignores this aspect of our physiology and its interesting to speculate that this was caused by us constantly diving beneath the waves
for prolonged periods of time (I think its the only plausible explanation model we currently have).
Theres also some other ´blank spaces´ of the Savannah theory that the Aquatic ape theory quite simply and efficiently explains including brain development due to ingestion of vast quantities of shellfish and crustaceans (long chained fatty acids);the unique development of our speech due to the ability to hold our breathe underwater (descended larynx) and our unprecedented primate hairloss.
The existence of our subcutanous fat layer is also another reason this theory should be looked at in depth.
Cheers Karl
P.S.This monkey should win an award for bravery:

uk.youtube.com...



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



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Aren't the bones of chimps and other great apes much denser than that of humans? Could that also be another reason why they're bad swimmers? They would sink like rocks, no?

EDIT: I wish mainstream science would put more attention to this theory.

[edit on 27-10-2008 by Striker122]



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Striker122
 


Striker~Thanks for the reply,it seems the more you read about the Aquatic ape theory,the more reasonable and straightfoward it sounds (and the more presumptive and vague the Savannah theory seems to be).
The ´aquatic diet´aspect of this theory is very interesting as,it appears in anthropological circles,the average human size brain is about three times the size it ´should´ theoretically be (factoring in body weight ratio).

Chimps don´t eat fish but one third of our brains are made up of key long chain fatty acids (ethyl-eicosapentaenoate) and these are found in the aquatic food chain in animals such as shellfish (middims)-our brain facility that converted these fatty acids into intelligence is thought to be the same genetic mechanism as that of the disease Schizophrenia which is prevalent in the same levels of all humans irrespective of their origin (thus indicating that the disease was present ´before´ the races divided 100,000 years ago).
Some of the earliest intelligent ´human´ remains have been found from around this time surrounded by thousands of empty shellfish middim husks so the connection appears valid.

Its also interesting to note that the World Health Organisation has done studies proving that people who do not eat fish are more prone to depression (so therefore eating fish has a ´direct effect on the brain´) and that many very intelligent people,including Einstein,Bertrand Russell,James Joyce and many Nobel prize winners have schizophrenic siblings.

Who knows, it could be the case that 100,000 years ago our ancestors ate lots of long chain fatty acid
rich foods which caused our brains to convert ethyl-eicosapentaenoate to the faculties of ´intelligence´ or ´conscious awareness´ via the genetic mechanism of schizophrenia thereby making us all ´uniquely human´-all truly interesting stuff.

Cheers Karl




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



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 



"Data that suggests schizophrenia may be a side effect of a surge in evolution as humans adapted over hundreds of thousands of years to their environment - linked with creativity, language and artistic skills, problem solving and our ability to work together ".
The Royal Society Biological Sciences.


www.guardian.co.uk...
From Article:

"Tiny mutations in our ancestors' brain cells triggered mankind's takeover of the world 100,000 years ago. But these changes also cursed our species to suffer from schizophrenia and depression.

This is the controversial claim by biochemist David Horrobin in a new book, The Madness of Adam & Eve: How schizophrenia shaped humanity, to be published by Bantam Press next month.

Horrobin - who is medical adviser to the Schizophrenia Association of Great Britain - argues that the changes which propelled humanity to its current global ascendancy were the same as those which have left us vulnerable to mental disease.

'We became human because of small genetic changes in the chemistry of the fat in our skulls,' he says. 'These changes injected into our ancestors both the seeds of the illness of schizophrenia and the extraordinary minds which made us human.'

Horrobin's theory also provides support for observations that have linked the most intelligent, imaginative members of our species with mental disease, in particular schizophrenia - an association supported by studies in Iceland, Finland, New York and London. These show that 'families with schizophrenic members seem to have a greater variety of skills and abilities, and a greater likelihood of producing high achievers,' he states. As examples, Horrobin points out that Einstein had a son who was schizophrenic, as was James Joyce's daughter and Carl Jung's mother.

In addition, Horrobin points to a long list of geniuses whose personalities and temperaments have be-trayed schizoid tendencies or signs of mental instability. These include Schumann, Strindberg, Poe, Kafka, Wittgenstein and Newton. Controversially, Horrobin also includes individuals such as Darwin and Faraday, generally thought to have displayed mental stability.

According to Horrobin, schizophrenia and human genius began to manifest themselves as a result of evolutionary pressures that triggered genetic changes in our brain cells, allowing us to make unexpected links with different events, an ability that lifted our species to a new intellectual plane. Early manifestations of this creative change include the 30,000-year-old cave paintings found in France and Spain.

The mutation Horrobin proposes involves changes to the fat content of brain cells. 'Sixty per cent of the non-aqueous material of the brain is fat. Humans have bigger heads than chimpanzees because their heads are full of fat.' By adding fat to our brain cells, we were able to control the flow of electrical signals more carefully and make more complex connections within our cortexes.

Our 'schizophrenia inheritance' was 'the single most important event in human history' and marked the break 'between our large-brained, possibly pleasant but unimaginative ancestors, and the restless, creative creatures we are today,' he adds.

This idea was last week described as 'a reasonable hypothesis' by palaeontologist Professor Chris Stringer, of the Natural History Museum, London. 'It is well known there have been key brain cell mutations in our species in our recent past. It is also likely there would have been undesirable side-effects.'

These supplied our brain with the chemicals needed to maintain proper mental operation. With the invention of agriculture our diets changed and the fat content of our food altered - making us more vulnerable to mental diseases, says Horrobin. "
End.



So,not god,not intelligent design,not benevolent aliens but ´sea monkeys with schizophrenia´ may be responsible for homo sapien´s unique heritage,nature,attributes and behaviour.
Any thoughts or opinions on this explanation out there?



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



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by karl 12
reply to post by karl 12
 

So,not god,not intelligent design,not benevolent aliens but ´sea monkeys with schizophrenia´ may be responsible for homo sapien´s unique heritage,nature,attributes and behaviour.
Any thoughts or opinions on this explanation out there?


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


If I may, I don't think any one option completely excludes others. Benevolent aliens = Intelligent design = god. Sea monkeys with schizophrenia is just the potential product and not wholly indicative of the process by which they came to be.

The idea of a semi-aquatic ape has made sense to me since I first heard it from Desmond Morris. And it has been apparent, if misunderstood, for a long time that there is a thin line between genius and madness. In fact, many of genius intelligence can be viewed as socially inept which is the ultimate issue with mental illness. It doesn't matter so much if what is believed is real or not, but how it is acted upon or how meaningfully it is viewed by our peers. This is evidenced by those who suffer some form of mental illness, yet still manage to maintain some level of social functionality.

Now, how diet factors into this I believe to be far too overstated. If this were completely true than it would make sense that anyone subsisting on a diet largely composed of fish would be a genius or close to it. The fact is, diet plays a role, but so do factors we don't understand.

So, again, I don't believe the conclusion completely explains the means.

[edit on 28-10-2008 by TravelerintheDark]



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by TravelerintheDark

If I may, I don't think any one option completely excludes others. Benevolent aliens = Intelligent design = god. Sea monkeys with schizophrenia is just the potential product and not wholly indicative of the process by which they came to be.


TITD Thanks for the reply- ,I think this concept does do a good job of challenging many assumptions about institutionalized anthropology-of course your right that it may not be the definitive answer but it looks like it is on the right track to explaining many unique aspects of our physiology (that other theories just wilfully ignore).
Regarding the ´intelligent design´ aspect of homo sapiens,I also agree the theory does not detract from the idea of an all encompassing deity but it at least may put to rest some of the more outlandish speculation out there as to how and why we are sentient,speaking,talking,intelligent,bipedal mammals.
It´s interesting that a Roper Poll as late as 1999 said that 47 per cent of Americans beleived that god created human beings pretty much in their present form within the last 10,000 years- so if this theory and its implications can at least expose and expunge some of these painfully naive opinions then all the better.
I think the AAT is definitely deserving of further study and is probably the best scientific current model we have for completely explaining all aspects of homo sapien heritage-much more simple and comprehensive than the Savannah theory anyway.
Cheers Karl


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



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 10:08 AM
link   
this is pure un-adulterated science fiction. after all the bleating evolutionists have done about apes being our nearest relatives, now they try and say we came from the sea? Surely then we would have a closer relative in the sea than on land? If I am not mistaken, this theory does not claim that apes came from the sea. the standard evolutionist jargon says we evolved from land dwelling animals. this theory seems to contradict the usual evolution line.
having said that though, there is as much evidence for this theory as the standard one. both rely on science fiction as thier base as science fact can not come close to backing any of them up.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
this is pure un-adulterated science fiction. after all the bleating evolutionists have done about apes being our nearest relatives, now they try and say we came from the sea? Surely then we would have a closer relative in the sea than on land? If I am not mistaken, this theory does not claim that apes came from the sea. the standard evolutionist jargon says we evolved from land dwelling animals. this theory seems to contradict the usual evolution line.
having said that though, there is as much evidence for this theory as the standard one. both rely on science fiction as thier base as science fact can not come close to backing any of them up.


Thats a hilarious post-thanks for the good laugh



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


Clearly you have no idea what the theory of evolution states. That is obvious to anyone who read that ridiculously ignorant diatribe.

Please know what the theory of evolution is before trying to rail against it - that way you won't look quite so foolish, and we actually might be able to have a decent discussion. This is a good start, right here.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 07:17 PM
link   
To add more science fiction stuff to this thread - what if schizophrenia had actually evolved as emotional/ideological aggregate and thus sickened once healthy species, pretending to be a normal, healthy state instead of a disease?

Emotional intelligence, is there such a thing?.
Ideological intelligence?

Schizophrenia means "split mind" and: (from Wiki) "describes a mental disorder characterized by abnormalities in the perception or expression of reality".

Emotions contribute to this disorder a lot, and ideological indoctrination even more.

Just my two cents...



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 02:20 AM
link   
The way I see it, the religious side of how we all got here, which is of course backed by the incredibly reliable story of Noah, and his amazing ark, seems outlandish to begin with, not to mention completely absurd.

So I eliminate it as a possible way the world has its species.

The next thing is Alien seeding, which until all links can be made in the evolution of our species, is likely, but unless aliens show their faces soon, not probable.

Then this AAT thing appears and by the way, great thread, very fascinating and it seems to close off some of the mysteries of our evolution and thats amazing. I think this may be it.

Another thing that always bothered me was when creationists would say "Well if were all monkeys, why is there still monkeys!"

But that's the whole point of evolution, changes to the life of a species that affect its survival must be adapted to, if they aren't the species will cease to exist. So as a portion of a species are seperated from it's brethren and forced to adapt to a different enviroment for its survival, it must evolve or be eliminated. I guess people fail to realize that evolution isn't over night, it takes thousands if not millions of years in some cases.

Then you have this exact same thing happening to thousands (if not millions) of species all at the same time over millions of years as environments change, prey changes, in essence their entire way of survival changes so they adept, or "evolve".

When you have this occuring as it does, some species will remain relatively similar today as they were millions of years ago, as the Croc demonstrates. While other species have changed several times, and have branched out from their original species over time. Some survive, some dont.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 03:12 AM
link   
Thanks,

This is absolutely real, there is no way we weren't a partly aquatic species at some point.

Much not mentioned and not to be funny, our sphincters are water tight,

Our ears,

the level we excrete oils from our body to transport smells in water I assume

Back pain, if we had walked upright on land why wouldn't our spines and cartilage have made more adaptations by now

Our need to shower as often as possible

Our affinity to live by coasts and lakes is explained only by trade?

Schizophrenia? Hrrrrm lack of fatty acids from fish... Ever notice how religious extremism grows in deserts and plains?



I believe this 100%


Starred and Flagged



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 


I looked at that link and it is clear that you do not know what evolution is. I am sorry but anybody who claims (as does that link) that the experimentation on fruit flies proves evolution is blind,ignorant and desperate.
lets just step back for a minute and look what those experiments on fruit flies have shown. firstly about 60 odd years ago there abouts they started experimenting on fruit flies and then after 60 odd years of experimentation they were left with.......fruit flies! not only did they not evolve into something other than a fly but they did not even evolve into a different species of fly! they were still fruit flies. how can you claim to understand evolution and accept that as evidence on a par with gravity (like it compares to on that site).

I repeat. Pure unadulterated science fiction. I will not swallow Bull S#'t because a clever scientist is doing the shoveling. I don't care how many scientists stand up and say something is true. I will only believe it if they can demonstrate it. They have not. if anything they have already proven evolution to be false by the fruit fly experiment alone. They have shown that with thier best efforts in the lab they cannot evolve a species with natural environmental conditions. the only way for them to succeed in evolving a creature would be to manipulate its DNA and that wold not fit with natural biological evolution would it? Surely you would have the honesty to admit to that?
I must admit i doubt you will. I am waiting for the same old "you clearly don't understand, You are clearly not very bright, you clearly don't understand science..etc, etc.."



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 05:51 AM
link   
Heres a video that shows the phenomenon that babies exhibit when submerged in water, they instinctively know to hold their breath as soon as they're submerged.

Why would have that sense built in at birth when we began on land makes no sense.

[yvid]
submerged. [/yvid]



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by king9072
 


Thanks for the reply,your right about this theory being truly interesting (and scientificaly plausible).
As the late(truly great) British anthropologist Desmond Morris once said:

"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'

I think this is the only specific anthropological speculative theory that attempts to encompass ´all´ the hitherto unexplained differences between us and other primates and it does a very efficient,straightfoward job of it.

Homo-sapien primate anomalies:

#Upright posture~bipedalism due to being semi submerged in water for prolonged periods .

#Speech + unique primate ability to hold breathe underwater ~ descended larynx due to evolved diving reflex.

#The folllicle arrangements on our backs are curved not straight like other primates~caused by constantly diving beneath the waves and being semi aquatic in nature.

#Our unique Subcutanous fat layer~this fat layer does not exist in other primates and is usualy found in aquatic mammals such as seals and dolphins.

#Unique homo sapien hair loss~due to being submerged in water for prolonged periods (not,as the Savannah theory speculates, just because it got hot).

#Water consumption~The human animal needs an unprecedented amount of fresh water for his/her uniquely enlarged brain to survive.

#Brain size and unique primate intelligence~ingesting long chain fatty acids from aquatic food chain converted by our schizophrenic genetic mechanism may have caused creative intelligence and sentient consciousness~also may be why our brains are three times the size they should theoretically be.

Sea-monkeytastic!

The only question is....why don´t I like prawns?



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



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
this is pure un-adulterated science fiction. after all the bleating evolutionists have done about apes being our nearest relatives, now they try and say we came from the sea?






posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 04:00 PM
link   
[edit on 31-10-2008 by whitewave]



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by whitewave
 


Whitewave-thanks for the reply.

(Like the sig!)

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





new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join