The Aquatic Ape Theory~Very Interesting.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]