The Aquatic Ape Theory.

The Aquatic Ape theory hypothesis is that a common ancestors of modern humans spent a period of time adapting to life in a partially aquatic environment.



There are many clues, like babies being able to swim and the way we have a layer of blubber like other water based mammals, but unlike any land based mammal.. 7% of the worlds population also has webbed feet. Its an interesting theory and one well worth taking a look at.



en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by woodwardjnr


I've never heard of this theory before, very interesting

I have to admit that some of science's more 'alternative theories' really do appeal to me, especially anything to do with our origins. I suppose it's all fair game until anything conclusive comes to light.

Could this also be evidence for the ancient sunken city of Atlantis?

Very intriguing indeed.

Wow. It does make sense. We were at one time fish monkeys. I can dig it.

-SES

reply to post by LiveForever8


The funny thing is my brother has webbed toes, so it kind of piqued my interest, Whether it gives more credence to Atlantis, I dont know. I know very little about Atlantis.

Hi,

As I remember (and it was a long time ago when I read about this), the theory is more of a semi-aquatic ape thing.

Those societies that lived along the coastlines found themselves needing to gather food and materials from the sea for survival, and so had to develop the skills to do so.

It's not a fully aquatic ape, more of one that is able to swim and dive, hunt and fish and generally be able to provide for the group when faced with a marine environment. Those that were not able to do this usually died (lets say by drowning), or lacked the social status to re-produce as much as the one's that could. Let evolution take over, and you see the dominant skill set being spread thru the group.

Sorry, no gills or other ways of breathing underwater

Good thread OP, nice idea and one that deserves more research.

Cheers
Shane

I don't know if it is just my weirdness but when I was a kid I was an absolute fish. I wanted to be in the water constantly and I have always felt more peaceful and comfortable underwater... Also I was an excellent swimmer and loved seeing how long I could hold my breath underwater. My hands are also unusually webbed. The webbing seems much larger than other people's hands.

Maybe we were part mer-people.

I actually just found out about this just the other day - what a coincidence. The idea of loosing our body hair over time because of time spent in the water makes a lot of sense as well as other points made in this talk by Elaine Morgan

Nice post. I've always thought this theory made perfect sense. I always felt it was a shame that this theory was ridiculed by the mainstream for "lack of evidence". There seems to be as much circumstantial evidence as in many other accepted theories on early humans, but I'm not the expert. I just think it would be cool to have a wading ape in my family tree.

I first heard this theory in High school. My history teacher brought this theory to our attention. He very subtly also stated that different races of people evolved from these apes as did other peoples evolve from land apes. THere's a lot of proof in the pudding so to speak, such as hip structure and the way body hair grows.

Savanna theory is ridiculous. I don't necessarily think this theory is 100% bang on, but it does point out that Savanna theorists are suffering from confirmation bias. You have to IGNORE the salient points of this theory which are based on real thing which are fact. That is absolutely confirmation bias.

Most of the finds of pre-humans and humans are in areas that at the time they were living, were ocean front. Not savanna. Even if those places are now far from the nearest shores, then those were the shore's line.

Absurd, I don't think babies can swim, I didn't learn to swim until I was about 3 or 4. Furthermore there are a lot of people who go their entire lives not knowing how to swim.

Furthermore, I think that any animal can learn to swim and that just about any animal can have the webbed feet mutation as well (since, according to evolutionary theory, most land animals evolved from the sea).

reply to post by quantum_flux


Babies can swim out of the womb, they lose it after a short while, hence your inability to swim at 3 years of age. You are not that fresh out of the womb at 3 years of age. This is a fascinating theory though. Look at the position of the nostrils and the shape of the nose on land apes than compare it to humans... just sayin.

Originally posted by quantum_flux
Absurd, I don't think babies can swim, I didn't learn to swim until I was about 3 or 4. Furthermore there are a lot of people who go their entire lives not knowing how to swim.

Furthermore, I think that any animal can learn to swim and that just about any animal can have the webbed feet mutation as well (since, according to evolutionary theory, most land animals evolved from the sea).

edit on 25-9-2010 by quantum_flux because: (no reason given)

You don't think babies can swim? Its a base reflex people are born with.

www.mesacc.edu...

You can lose it - and many people do and have to relearn it. But you are indeed born with it.

Rhesus monkeys also swim at birth.

Infant Rhesus Monkey Swimming Experiment

The problem with focusing on this particular reflex is that many land animals have this reflex at birth.

Isn't it merely a case of all mammals being able to swim at birth having spent the previous x months developing fully submerged in amniotic fluid?

We spend our first 9 months 'breathing' this fluid which is predominantly water, so it makes sense to me that we're going to feel at home underwater immediately after we're born.

an amazing theory, i would like to see a dicussion based on scientific method and not belief. what do the people that refute this idea have to say.

The problem with both ideas is that they are precieived as competing.

Sometimes something isn't just one thing or another.

There is overlap.

It is almost like many scientist are lacking some teaching about a grade four Venn diagram.

You don't get to the right answer by vilifying or ignoring.

Like many other theories I've seen, accepted in whole or rejected completely, the failing is that usually there isn't just 2 mutually exclusive answers to a problem - particularly when you don't even know the whole question yet.

To those that don't believe in the hypothesis, here are some questions to think about -

Do other apes have webbed fingers and toes?

Are there any cases where noticeably easer or relaxing pregnancies been reported while in water? Less pain during contractions etc. Babies can breath underwater but other ape babies can't, what kind of evolutionary adaptation would have required this if not for a large amount of time during our evolution spent in the water?

Apparently the saharan desert theory that explained how we gained our current ability to stand upright has been proven wrong, so now it's something about moving from tree to tree. Also apparently most bones found in our evolutionary lineage are on the cost line of africa, so to what evidence is there that we didn't spend some adequate time in the shores slowly gaining the ability to stand upright?

Millions of years ago we had virtually no differences from other apes - had full body hair like the others. So it doesn't make sense to loose hair and then gain blubber to deal with the heat. Why not just keep the hair? I don't see any evolutionary advantages in this stage or even a slight mutation would make up for this. There must have been a necessary need to loose the hair - what are the scientifically preposed explanations? Also, is there any found examples of evolution where blubber has come about that wasn't directly because of time spent in the water?

I can't imagine we evolved our current ability to control our breathing underwater only during out late emergence as homo sapiens. I would think it must have taken longer. Is there any evidence that suggests when we gained this ability?

I was thinking more about this theory today.

It was really hot, so I took the day off work and went down to the beach.

I walked along a reef that was submerged in about 1 metre of water. Crystal clear, but with a 2m swell coming in, which broke bout 10m out and came rushing towards me. Each time the waves hit, my leg muscles reacted and let me keep my balance and keep on walking. My eyes adjusted for the water and let my brain know what to avoid. I followed this reef for abut a kilometre, until I found a nice, deep pool (where I could see fish swimming as well).

I dived into this pool, and swam to a corner, and sat there with my spear gun. I was about 4m under. I speared a fish, swam to the surface, and pulled myself out of the water. After gutting and cleaning the fish, I walked back down the reef, all the while letting my body react to the incoming water, while still keeping balance and making progress.

After that, I went for a swim among the breakers, and realised that my body was once again reacting and modifying my actions to remain afloat. I could dive under the waves and still explore and make progress thru the surf.

I guess I am a semi-amphibious ape, and that is why I think this theory is valid. Plus, I get to have fish for dinner

Cheers
Shane

reply to post by woodwardjnr


Damn you for keeping me up the rest of the night with this incredibly fascinating theory!!!! hahaha. this is an amazing find. I'm checking out the wiki too, it says the main criticism is a lack of fossile evidence. Its like...uh, well if we're only looking in wide open plains for the fossiles how do you expect to prove that we were once aquatic? hahaha.

start and flag. i'd give 2 if i could. time to keep watching this thing.