The Aquatic Ape Theory~Very Interesting.

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by mopusvindictus
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



Mopusvindictus-appreciate the reply.
You make some very astute points (especially the water tight bum hole observation)-I concur.
As for those religious extremists that live in the desert and on the plains perhaps we should send them some Marmite as it appears the lack of Zinc in their diet (due to only eating unlevened bread) may make them irritable and belligerent.
www.independent.co.uk...

Edward de Bono, the guru of creative thinking, has been called in by the Foreign Office to help sort out the Arab-Israeli conflict. Ever willing to help, he has conjured up a solution straight from a jar - Marmite.

The celebrated master of lateral thinking is promoting supplies of the yeast extract spread as the means to resolve the region's seemingly intractable problems.

The logic, briefly, is this. A lack of zinc makes men irritable and belligerent. You get zinc in yeast, which is fine for your average lover of Mother's Pride. But in the Middle East, the bread is unleavened. Ergo, the great man says, Marmite is the answer to easing the way to peace.

Dr de Bono gave two lectures to the Foreign Office last week. The first was open to several hundred officials at all levels and was packed out. For the second, the Middle East team won a bid for a special dedicated session.


Lets flood the Middle East with Marmite after which we can then tactfully inform all the religious extremists and radical imans that they may all in fact be ´schizophrenic seamonkeys´-its crazy but it just might work

Cheers Karl



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




posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 08:32 AM
link   

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


I agree,the idea that some time in human evolution we spent a lot of time by (and in) the water and that influenced he way our brains work,our behaviour and our psychological functioning is looking more and more difficult to refute.

Six million year ago our earliest ancestors stood up and began to walk on two legs-why?

Out of all the primates,one stock was forced by competition to the water´s edge ,we then became semi aquatic in nature and adapted to water-this facilitated our bipedalism,our layer of fat,our hair loss,our ability to hold our breathe underwater,our increase in body and brain size,our taller more linear physique and even our ability to speak-we became the first conscious animal on the planet with far more benefits in an open equatorial paleo-environment.
Humans are more closely realted to chimps than any other animal yet humans have some unprecedented and unique attributes that chimps do not-these can all be quite simply and efficiently explained by the aquatic ape hypothesis.
The Savannah theory on the other hand is looking very tired indeed (and should be thrown out of the window
) .




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



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 09:39 AM
link   
I've been thinking more about this and wondered about human noses? They do seem to be a unique shape among mammals (can't think of any others myself anyway and certainly not among primates) They also seem to be suited to a semi-aquatic life. Do any of the theories mention this?



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Supercertari
I've been thinking more about this and wondered about human noses? They do seem to be a unique shape among mammals (can't think of any others myself anyway and certainly not among primates) They also seem to be suited to a semi-aquatic life. Do any of the theories mention this?


Supercertari,thanks for the reply,you make a very good point.
According to Stephen Fry on QI we actualy have four nostrils,two you can see;two you can't. The two you can't are inside the back of the head to become internal nostrils. These connect to the throat and are what allow us to breathe through the noses.
As for the design of our noses and the aquatic ape theory,it fits in quite nicely

en.wikipedia.org...

The visible part of the human nose is the protruding part of the face that bears the nostrils. The shape of the nose is determined by the ethmoid bone and the nasal septum, which consists mostly of cartilage and which separates the nostrils.

A similar protuberance to the human nose is not present in the apes. Despite its size the human nose is less able to smell than an ape's nose, so another purpose has been proposed in the aquatic ape hypothesis.

This theory provides a potential explanation for the hooded nose and philtrum[1]. The hooded nose in the human species is seen as an adaptation that prevents water from entering the nasal passage while swimming. Several people have also reported an ability to block their nostrils completely with the philtrum. This would have been a further useful adaptation for a diving species, though millennia of living on dry land means that this adaptation has not been retained by all people. The time of the appearance of the nose in human evolution is not known. The nasal spine bone is a late adaptation and may have reinforced pre-existing cartilage which does not fossilize.


The aquatic ape hypothesis provides a potential explanation for the philtrum:

en.wikipedia.org...


The philtrum (Greek philtron (φιλτρον), from philein (φιλειν), "to love; to kiss"), also known as the infranasal depression, or Bruce's Fossa is the vertical groove in the upper lip, formed where the nasomedial and maxillary processes meet during embryonic development.

Cheers Karl



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Ty I really believe the theory, in the end, nothing else would account for my personal affinity to water.

I belong in it, when I surfed, i felt zero fear ever, entirely at home

The very nature of some of us, our draw to the sea, some sailors can't live any other life

we did at some point spend allot more time in the water



posted on Nov, 10 2008 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by mopusvindictus
 


I think it would be more prudent to try to establish the facts and not shoe-horn them into a desired outcome. I'm sure you do have an affinity with water, but then I'm sure many farmers will have an affinity with land, so obviously both of you can't be right.

Let's just wait for the evidence, ok? We can't deny ignorance if we don't know the facts



posted on Nov, 11 2008 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by mopusvindictus
 


I think it would be more prudent to try to establish the facts and not shoe-horn them into a desired outcome.


Dave,I do like that phrase and science should never be about shoehorning preconceptions onto anything;ignoring conflicting evidence;twisting fictions into truth or bending facts to fit a premeditated opinion.

Here is a refutation of the Aquatic Ape hypothesis by Jim Moore:
www.aquaticape.org...

He does make some astute points,although it is also fair to say he ignores some of the more pertinent questions like why we have curved back hair follicles (when all the other primates have verticle ones) and why are brains are three times the size they should theoretically be .
But,in fairness,he does make some interesting comments about misconceptions regarding our descended larynx and our skin and sweat glands.
Its definitely a good site if you want a balanced,informed view of the credibility of either side of both the Savannah and Aquatic ape theory.
Cheers Karl



posted on Nov, 11 2008 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 


I would say, the actual in your face evidence is exceptionally large.

What I think is, at a glance it sounds fantastic, and... it seems as if your taking a simple reply comment as my whole stance on the subject and lol, certainly the extent of my knowledge on the subject goes further.

But without a vast rehash of the thread and info from tapes and all the rest.

The theory is simply, much more plausible than the current explanation...

Everything from humans born able to swim, the nature of our skin, the size of our brains (as shared only by aquatic mammals) makes allot more sense if, as simple a thing as, our original environment was more watery, than plains like

The term

"aquatic ape" sounds like something that screams to be debunked ruthlessly perhaps?

It sort of does I suppose...

But... then I simply look in the mirror and think about it...

and what I see looking back, despite what current theory tells me... is a creature with an oily skin and a nose that's adapted... very well for swimming, that is hairless (or mostly so) for no other reason I can explain

That Farmer you refer to... he still showers every day like me, drinks allot of water and loves a dip in the pool...

A very simple part of reality is, Most Mammals spend time in or have an attraction to water, beyond just drinking the stuff...

By the numbers, aquatic and semi aquatic animals are far from rare... creatures that have lived at one point and are born with webbing, including us... are also not rare even if currently living on Rare

It would perhaps be fair to suggest, that MOST Mammals indeed spend part of their lives or have strains adapted to water...

it's not like we would anyway be unique...

a Brain our size, on land ... pretty unique

Sensitive hairless skin on land, pretty uncommon

A mammal that spent allot of time in the water? So common place dozens of species live in it exclusively


It's just... aside from the name, "Aquatic Ape" which sounds like a weird Mer Monkey... It's not a big leap of imagination to look at oneself and ask... which theory is far more probable

Of the plains ape down from the trees, or the ape from tress down to water... one of those makes allot more sense?

A simple look around... there are no plains apes, aside from perhaps Baboons which cluster by the Hundreds, nothing like early human populations we know of...

It makes much more sense that, we were still sheltered among the trees and water for a time, than that... small groups of us walked out boldly with our sun protected Black skin that was hardly noticeable against the golden grasses... By Giant Lions


From Rodents (water rats) to Polar Bears to Dolphins, Mammalian tendency to adapt to water environments is a constant

To look at us, it's just obvious we spent some real time in the water


Is a water tight anus, proper skin and oils, hairlessness, ears and nose equipped for the job, control of respiration, brain case size, swimming from birth, a not so rare tendency to be born webbed of the hand, hair growth that differs from other apes as suited for water...

Are these things anecdotal evidence...

When, the other theory is one that... offers nothing, other than some foot prints in the sand... and a long accepted theory, that actually makes no sense

Because our main predator for a large ape...would be large Cats...

and we did NOT go up against Lions with 2 Guys a spear and a few kids in tow...

Walking Erect? Across the open Plain? head Held High... from crouching cats laying in the grass?

Or

In the water, under tress, water.... where large Cats, don't eat your babies.


More than even try to debunk this theory, which to look at a mirror and examine the predators of the time..makes at the least, some face value sense...

I would first completely dispel...

That barely tool using apes in a transitional state... Navigated through lion country heads held high and lived to become mankind

More than feel a need to with utter scientific evidence which would be as hard to come by as...proving modern man went to the beach...

I'd like to know whee this inane theory about Monkies waltzing Over Lions Turf, long before they had the ability to coordinate anything beyond very small groups or advanced hunting skills could have been perfected...

How they did this...straight out of the tree...

That's the theory I have trouble with...



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by mopusvindictus
 


MV-great post-you make some very good points.

It appears the scientific verdict is out on the AAT-many anthropologists don´t want to introduce the hypothesis because the existing explanations for certain aspects of our physiology are too well defined and established.
There does exist exceptions though and an objective look at the Savannah theory does leave one with the impression that it is a bit sketchy and presumptive in parts-also some of the AAT´s attributes have been conveniently ignored or not even been addressed at all.
Its all a bit frustrating for the layman as there seems to be conflicting facts even within the scientific field of anthropology.
Cheers Karl

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



posted on Nov, 20 2008 @ 05:44 AM
link   
I've subscribed to the AAT for quite some time now, because of the sheer number of glaring problems with the Savannah Theory.

I didn't see a comprehensive list on the thread, but I just scanned it, but some points are:

Hairloss, especially on the back - no other primate has lost the hair on their back. This is the part of the body that has the most exposure to the sun, so it would be a silly thing to evolve. Notice gorillas have hair loss on the chest, because they move quadrepedally. All other primates have a heavy hair covering to protect their skin from UV rays. Humans don't have that, so we cannot have evolved under a harsh, glaring sun.

Bipedialism - if you've ever watched a chimp walk on it's hind legs, you'll notice it is slow, ungainly, and definitely not capable of outrunning a lion. This is because of the shape of it's hips. It would not even try to run upright as it would be far more easily chased down. Add to this, there's no reason why it would try. Creatures only do things when they have to. Breathing is something you have to do, so if you are standing in water, bipedialism is a massive advantage...

Subcutaneous fat - This would be another fundamentally ridiculous evolutionary trait on a savannah. Fat is heavier than hair, and humans have far more of it than other mammals that actually evolved on the African savannahs. Not only is it a greater insulator, but it is the main trait we share with aquatic mammals, such as walruses and seals. All other primates have fat distributed around their internal organs.

Human babies cannot walk...but they can swim - Drop a baby into water, and it will try to swim. Drop a human baby onto a savannah, and it will lay there helplessly. Drop a chimpanzee infant into water, and it will drown. Drop a chimpazee infant onto a savannah and it'll wander off in search of shelter. Strange thing to evolve on the open plains, no?

You can hold your breath - most animals can't. You are privy to something called the mammalian diving reflex. Since almost all other mammals who have this are aquatic to a certain degree, it would be a strange trait to evolve in a place where water was in dire shortage.

You sweat, and you piss like a racehorse - These are silly traits to evolve in an environment where water is at a premium. Most savannah animals have highly-developed functions within the kidney that remove water from urine, making it extremely concentrated. Humans have a far inferior form of this. And naturally, none of these comparative animals sweat. In addition, you need more water in a day than would be reasonable for an animal your size, because of the body's inefficiency in managing it.

And the myriad of minor evolutionary traits that simply keep pointing towards an aquatic existence - Vernix caseosa, water-flow lines, a hooded nose, greasy skin, and webbed digits.



posted on Nov, 20 2008 @ 05:52 AM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 

Its an old theory... I was heavily reading Anthropology and Archeology as a teen in the early 70's (I was a strange kid
) and that is when I first came across the theory and it makes as much sense as any other I've heard... and in some ways far more than the needing to stand to look out for danger on the savannah theory. After all modern apes who live on or near the savannah will its true stand and look around but they continue to walk on their knuckles.



posted on Nov, 20 2008 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Last Man on Earth
You sweat, and you piss like a racehorse - These are silly traits to evolve in an environment where water is at a premium. Most savannah animals have highly-developed functions within the kidney that remove water from urine, making it extremely concentrated. Humans have a far inferior form of this. And naturally, none of these comparative animals sweat. In addition, you need more water in a day than would be reasonable for an animal your size, because of the body's inefficiency in managing it.


TLMOE Thanks for the reply,I've never looked at this aspect before...and I do piss like a racehorse.
Its been said that, if we did live semi-aquaticaly, then any defining evidence would not be found where anthropologists are currently looking.
As Desmond Morris speculates

Its known that sea level and rainfall patterns change relatively rapidly over time - the most recent ice age is a perfect example with sea level hundreds of feet lower and the Sahara a verdant grassland.
If we ever did live semi-aquatically, the evidence could be on the continental shelf hundreds of miles offshore, or in a place no one would ever think to look

Cheers Karl



posted on Nov, 20 2008 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
reply to post by karl 12
 

Its an old theory... I was heavily reading Anthropology and Archeology as a teen in the early 70's (I was a strange kid
) and that is when I first came across the theory and it makes as much sense as any other I've heard... and in some ways far more than the needing to stand to look out for danger on the savannah theory. After all modern apes who live on or near the savannah will its true stand and look around but they continue to walk on their knuckles.


Grover thaks for the reply I agree that the Savannah theory does sound a bit sketchy-especially when it speculates about our hair loss 'just because it got too hot' and our bipedalism 'to watch out for danger'.
As for walking on knuckles-I know a few friends who do that after lots of booze on a Friday night.

Cheers Karl



posted on Nov, 20 2008 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by karl 12
TLMOE Thanks for the reply,I've never looked at this aspect before...and I do piss like a racehorse.
Its been said that, if we did live semi-aquaticaly, then any defining evidence would not be found where anthropologists are currently looking.


A pleasure. I'm always amazed at the resistance to the theory from academia, especially in the face of the collective facets of human beings that simply seem to show a once-aquatic existence.



posted on Nov, 20 2008 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


No offense to apes but knuckle walkers has always been my phrase for the ignorant and rednecky.... as in the knuckle walkers who live next to me got drunk again last night and showed their arses.
And they did.


[edit on 20-11-2008 by grover]



posted on Nov, 20 2008 @ 09:44 AM
link   
The argument against the aquatic ape theory is to point out that the Japanese Macque are quite aquatic in their behaviour and still don't walk upright... but then again perhaps they haven't been at it as long.



posted on Nov, 20 2008 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
The argument against the aquatic ape theory is to point out that the Japanese Macque are quite aquatic in their behaviour and still don't walk upright... but then again perhaps they haven't been at it as long.


Grover-interesting stuff,according to this anthropologist the Japanese macaques do appear very intelligent.
Most primates are clever,playfull and have inherhent learning abilities which they pass on to other members of the troupe but these macaques,it seems,are the most inventive and creative:


In 1979, during a 14-month stay at the Arashiyama macaque study site, Michael Huffman, a primatologist at the Primate Research Institute (PRI) at Kyoto University, noticed one female monkey playing with stones. "I had never seen, or heard about, anything like it. It was like a child playing with building blocks."

When Huffman returned to the site a few years later in 1983 he was astounded by what he saw. "Half the group was playing with stones, banging them on nearby roofs and making a total racquet," said Huffman. "I couldn't understand why a behavior that seemed to have no adaptive significance—it didn't provide an edge for survival or reproduction—could spread through a group and be maintained in a society for so long."

The great innovator within the Koshima troop was a one-and-a-half year old infant female named Imo. In 1953, Imo was the first to begin washing the sweet potatoes. She passed the behavior to her mother and it slowly began to spread. A decade later, potato washing had become a fixed behavior in the troop. Most newborns picked up the skill quickly. By 1962, about three quarters of Koshima monkeys over two years old washed their food.

Imo's second feat of genius was to develop a method for sorting wheat from sand. Imo discovered that rather than eat the wheat handouts grain by grain, a mixture of wheat and sand could be dropped in water allowing the wheat to float and the sand to sink. Within several years many of the younger monkeys practiced this behavior.

When behaviors or innovations are adopted by other members of the group, passing from parent to offspring, infant to parent, or adult-to-adult, a "culture" or tradition is born, said Satoshi Hirata, a primatologist and a colleague of Huffmans at PRI.

"Culture and innovation are often ways of adapting to environmental changes, or a response to a change in lifestyle," said Huffman, who studies both chimpanzee and macaque behavior.


It seems they go in the water to keep warm due to low temperatures but maybe,given a few more years,we could see them walking around.



Japanese macaques are the most northerly-living non-human primate, living in mountainous areas of Honshu, Japan. They survive winter temperatures below -15 degrees Centigrade, and keep warm in naturally heated volcanic springs.

www.bbc.co.uk...
Cheers Karl



posted on Jan, 2 2009 @ 03:06 AM
link   
Hi

Perhaps you will be interested to know that I (Renato Bender, Switzerland)wrote a dissertation on this topic 1999. My wife (Nicole Bender-Oser) wrote a medical dissertation on the historical roots of the aquatic hypothesis 2004. The first author of this hypothesis was Max Westenhöfer (1871-1957), who published his first arguments already 1923.

At the moment I am writing a PhD at the University of Witwatersrand (South Africa) on the arguments and methodology used to corroborate the aquatic hypothesis.

Kind regards,
Renato



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 06:35 AM
link   
I've always found the Aquatic Ape theory very interesting, I dont have time to read the thread at the moment but i'll be having a read later


S&F for putting this thread together!



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 07:21 AM
link   
I think we also lack an immunity to a disease that all other apes from the savannah have (I'll have to try to remember what it is and post it for you) this missing immunity also points to us being isolated from the savannah at some point and the isolation could of been at the time the sea levels were higher which also supports the aquatic ape theory whilst hindering the 'out of the savannah' theory.





new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join