The naked Aquatic Ape which could be an ancestor of all of us...

The first time I heard this theory had to have been in the 60s and since then I have heard nothing else about the Aquatic Ape until I came across this TED talk by the very woman I believe I saw on T.V. long ago..

She (Elaine Morgan) covers many of the other hairless animals who are land dwellers now but had ancestors who were one aquatic... She makes a very interesting comparison to humans with our almost hairless bodies. Do not scoff until you hear what she has to say which makes sense especially after some of the latest findings which put into doubt the savanna high grass and body heat which has always been used to help explain out two legged walk....

Not saying this theory is the real deal but I am saying it is interesting to contemplate as some of the points she makes are hard to ignore.. youtu.be...

a reply to: 727Sky

I dont really believe we came from monkeys or apes. Sometimes I wonder if maybe monkeys and apes are maybe some genetic mutation caused from some ancient nuclear war. To me that's easier to buy than evolution as taught in school.

a reply to: 727Sky

Show me the fossil evidence and I will be interested.

That we have hair at all would mean we aren't purely aquatic. I think we may have had ancestors who split their time between lakes and land.

With predators, weather, and lack of fresh water living in the sea would be a dangerous idea for any primate.

Thinking a little more, living a semi-aquatic life would have an advantage when it comes to predation. A sabre tooth tiger isn't going to follow you underwater to try and eat you.

originally posted by: cognizant420
a reply to: 727Sky

I dont really believe we came from monkeys or apes. Sometimes I wonder if maybe monkeys and apes are maybe some genetic mutation caused from some ancient nuclear war. To me that's easier to buy than evolution as taught in school.

Where did the first nukes come from?

Desmond Morris wrote " The Naked Ape : A Zoologist Study of the Human Animal" in 1967.

a reply to: NarcolepticBuddha

Heck idk, but until someone can change my mind on evolution I believe my idea is just as good. Maybe ancient India had bombs. I read stuff supporting and disproving the India nukes theory. Both make great arguments.

a reply to: NarcolepticBuddha

From the Hindi Vedas.

www.gaia.com...

originally posted by: cognizant420
a reply to: NarcolepticBuddha

Heck idk, but until someone can change my mind on evolution I believe my idea is just as good. Maybe ancient India had bombs. I read stuff supporting and disproving the India nukes theory. Both make great arguments.

...but that would be humans in India with their nukes. Kinda makes it hard for the resulting nuke fallout/etc. to cause ape-like creatures to evolve into the people who made and used the nukes.

Just thought we should get that clarified before chasing that line of thought too far..

a reply to: 727Sky

The first time I heard this theory had to have been in the 60s and since then I have heard nothing else about the Aquatic Ape until I came across this TED talk by the very woman I believe I saw on T.V. long ago

Same with me so ty for this thread.
I read about this long ago and then nothing.

It's an intriguing theory when you realize that most of human civilization has lived on the coasts.

originally posted by: NarcolepticBuddha

Where did the first nukes come from?

a reply to: underwerks

Being in the ocean doesn't mean we wouldn't have hair.

www.whalefacts.org...

A high school history teacher i had said he subscribed to the aquatic ape theory. He wouldn't elaborate any further. That's the first time I had heard of it.

Evolution is a scientific theory, not scientific law.
Theory is just that, unproven and unable to be duplicated.

Personally, to me the theory, of evolution is garbage. There's no evidence what's so ever to even sustain it's continued to theoretical proposition.

Random sudden mutations are more plausible, than a slow adaptation to environment.

Theories are just that theories, they aren't law don't confuse the two.

a reply to: ADVISOR

Couldn't the mutations be the cause of evolution?

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: underwerks

Being in the ocean doesn't mean we wouldn't have hair.

www.whalefacts.org...

Whales at one time were land animals.

evolution.berkeley.edu...

a reply to: underwerks

What about the other marine mammals that have hair? Were they all on land first too?

a reply to: 727Sky

They're trying whatever it takes now to keep people away from the Bible /God. It's hilarious. Any one that studies the Bible and it's evidence knows we did not come from no dang apes. There's so many prophecies coming true as well , like the recent one of fish in the dead sea (Ezekiel 47) it's amazing really.
Study up on them Bibles ppl we are truly in the end times /season now.

a reply to: underwerks

You seriously believe that?! Wow..

originally posted by: underwerks
That we have hair at all would mean we aren't purely aquatic. I think we may have had ancestors who split their time between lakes and land.

With predators, weather, and lack of fresh water living in the sea would be a dangerous idea for any primate.

Thinking a little more, living a semi-aquatic life would have an advantage when it comes to predation. A sabre tooth tiger isn't going to follow you underwater to try and eat you.

We don't know that for sure. Modern tigers love water. They're the only big cat that we know of who goes into the water voluntarily. Domestic cats aren't generally fond of water, so I'll concede that.

As for the remainder of the theory, it may be that we were in the process of either leaving the water or returning to it. That might explain why we're mostly, but not completely hairless.

Also consider the phenomenon, often experienced by children, of drowning in cold water. There is a vestigial system or neurological programming that shuts things down in that situation. The victims are often revived with no ill effects.