Aquatic Ape Theory

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by LIGHTBEING, Aug 22, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. p_ete2001 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    355
    If i had to agree with one og these theories then it would be that we all evolved from fish and therefore came from the sea. However. Proof of this will not be found as someone has said. This is becuase it is not the truth. i actually know how we came into being and where we came from.The truth is this:
    LOL

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Adam §Þ@ç€ MØnk€¥ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,415
    Aquatic ape theory? SEA-MONKEYS!!!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Sorry...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. sinecure71 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    92
    >>>>>>Aquatic ape theory? SEA-MONKEYS!!!

    LOL!!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. daq42 Registered Member

    Messages:
    1
    2 issues of this theory or any other...

    So, there are no fossil records of the "aquatic ape".
    Ever wonder why?
    Coastal mammals.
    How many fossils of coastal mammals have fossils?
    Waves do wonderful things to surfaces of bones. Like wears them down and deforms them and eventually removes them from the fossil record because the sea board shifts constantly.
    Then you talk about the fossils we have of whale ancestors. Found in deserts. In deserts that used to be oceans. Thousands and thousands of years ago. Actually more like millions but my prehistory is a little fuzzy right now. So the places where the fossils would be are in one of 2 places, the ocean floor (when was the last archeological dig you saw in the trenches of the ocean?), or under the current shifting coastal sand bars. Do you know how hard it is to dig there? You get wet sand in your shoes. It sucks. Last time I tried it I found a sea shell. It was neat. Anyway. Go dig. You'll see what I mean. Of course you could also look at the coastal ape behavior studies (sorry, saw it on Discovery channel and I'm too lazy to look up an href). But these monkeys that were trapped in a coastal area adapted to catching and eating fish. Known attribute of fish. Causes advanced development of the brain. Eat a fish sandwich, read a book. You'll remember it better (okay, you can flame that one, it's weak, but there are studies on it). But anyway. So I like the theory. It makes sense to me since it fills in the blanks for a lot of things. And I studied the chaos theory as it applies to evolution. Pick you random variables and watch the fun. Works out pretty well.
    But anyway.
    Later I'll actually think about coming up with better answers. It makes sense, and even jives with a lot of Darwins theories. Don't bash it unless you study it more. I will admit that the Discovery show was very crappy. It doesn't make things very concrete as far as evidence and they got very side tracked with a lot of things. Anyway. Brain tired. Go sleep now.
     
  8. paulsamuel Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    882
    reply to daq42

    you said "So, there are no fossil records of the "aquatic ape".
    Ever wonder why?"

    I know why, there are none.

    then you said, "How many fossils of coastal mammals have fossils?"

    I presume you meant species of coastal mammals as fossils don't make fossils. There are tons of examples of fossil evidence of coastal mammals. In fact, all marine and aquatic mammalian species have a fossil geologic history. A good example; on the coast of North Carolina thousands of phocid fossils have been found and have been used to reconstruct phocid evolutionary history.

    Next:
    A study of coastal extant monkeys is not evidence of an aquatic ape.

    Next:
    You call it a theory, but I don't think it is, in a scientific sense. Read Popper, Kuhn and Mayr and you'll see what I mean.

    Finally:
    It makes NO sense, fills in NO blanks and does not "jive" with evolutionary theory.

    You might want to read some evolutionary biology texts, may I suggest Futuyma.

    good luck
     
  9. Frencheneesz Amazing Member Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    739
    "Then you talk about the fossils we have of whale ancestors. Found in deserts. In deserts that used to be oceans."

    Well, ya. Wheres the monkeys in that picture?

    "Do you know how hard it is to dig there?Do you know how hard it is to dig there?"

    Most scientists don't do it for the glammer (damn spelling). Theyll find a way around the mud.

    "And I studied the chaos theory as it applies to evolution."

    Where did you go to school? Chaos theory is not actually a theory. Chaos theory is the scientific equivelant of God. There isn't really any evidence for it is there? I actually don't know much about the chaos "theory", but that it says that things are chaotic and noone can explain it. Its the theory the greeks had, much better than religion; whoever thought of THAT was a bad planner.

    Considering you actually studied chaos theory, it doesn't surprise me that you belive this theory. The way you write makes it seem as if your open minded though, weeiiirrdd.
     
  10. Clockwood You Forgot Poland Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,467
    If we ever came from the sea while mammals it was before we were little tree-shrews. Our evolutionary line is reasonably well mapped after that.
     
  11. bracrazed Registered Member

    Messages:
    4
    there is reason to beleive that this theory could be valid because when babys are born underwater they can stay there for quite some time and also because the placenta in wich they live as unborn life forms is filled with ambiotic liquid.
     
  12. Frencheneesz Amazing Member Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    739
    "there is reason to beleive that this theory could be valid because when babys are born underwater they can stay there for quite some time and also because the placenta in wich they live as unborn life forms is filled with ambiotic liquid."

    No no no. Do we have gills? no. Can we survive underwater? no. Do we have any inable biological machinery that could have possibly been used to breath underwater? no.

    Feti do not breath the ambiotic liquid. They get their oxygen through the umbilical cord. How long does a baby last when born under water?

    A baby born underwater may drown. Every air-breathing creature that can, gives birth or lays eggs ON LAND.

    The prime fact is that we cannot breathe underwater, and monkeys cannot either. Ambiotic fluid contains no free oxygen and, in any case, is not breathed.

    I am appalled that anyone can actually look seriously into this theory. Get an education.
     
  13. Merlijn curious cat Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,014
    I can't take the theory serious, but now I have to defend it.

    Whales (and dolphines, in a sense seals, etc) are born in the water, and live most of their lives underwater.
    Still they have lungs, not gills. The aquatic ape theory does not necessarily require gills.

    I must add that this :"there is reason to beleive that this theory could be valid because when babys are born underwater they can stay there for quite some time and also because the placenta in wich they live as unborn life forms is filled with ambiotic liquid." is nonsense.
     
  14. Frencheneesz Amazing Member Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    739
    "The aquatic ape theory does not necessarily require gills."

    Ok thats true. BUT it does not make the fact that babys grow in a fluid applicable to the theories support. What does develpment have to do with after birth life anyway? Do things seek areas that are like their birthal environment? I think not.
     
  15. Merlijn curious cat Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,014

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    " Do things seek areas that are like their birthal environment?"
    polar bears do...
    and maybe eagles.
     
  16. Frencheneesz Amazing Member Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    739
    "polar bears do... "

    In what way?

    If you look at it from an evolutionary standpoint, it is simply impossible for that to be the case. Noone remembers that they were growing in a liquid, we now know that only through reasoning, which animals simply do not have enough of. Not only that, there is no advantage to seeking a lifestyle in that of the way they were grown. It simply has no affect on evolution.
     
  17. Merlijn curious cat Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,014
    in that the average temperature of the polar bear womb -20 degrees C is.
    And eagles have large eggs, so that the unborn chicks can fly arounbd a bit. Just to practise.
     
  18. Frencheneesz Amazing Member Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    739
    "in that the average temperature of the polar bear womb -20 degrees C is.
    And eagles have large eggs, so that the unborn chicks can fly arounbd a bit. Just to practise."

    Polar bears do not HAVE to seek an environment that is -20 degrees, they live in it. It is pure coincidence (from an evolutionary standpoint) that their womb is the same or close to the same as the outside air. And unborn eagles can't fly in their eggs, period.

    Evolution HAS to happen based on natural selection. How would an animal searching for an environment like it growed in help them survive? And how would they KNOW what the womb was like? Can you remember what the womb was like when YOU were in it? Do you suddenly have the urge to live in a swamp or something because you know that your original residence was watery? I doubt it.
     
  19. Merlijn curious cat Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,014
    I always thought that Polar bears are born in Nigeria and migrate to the arctic area. Hmm maybe I was wrong

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    and their wombs are actually something like 37 degc. C

    I already do live in a swamp: the Netherlands
     
  20. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    it's amazing how many outcries there were against the aquatic ape theory in this topic. I actually how many of these people were actually scientists.

    The interesting thing about the aquatic ape theory is that it explains several morphological features of the human species that are difficult to explain otherwise. That is the scientific merit of the idea.

    It would be very plausible (in the sense that it is logical) that the human species spend a relative large amount of time near water during specific stages of the evolution of the human species. While fouraging in the water (maybe in coastal regions) it could have been an advantage to have several adaptations to the water environment. Hence there might have been a selective pressure at some period during human evolution for water adapted structural changes.
    There might be no conclusive proof and the scientific community might have been extraordinary sceptical about the idea when it came out, but that doesn't mean the idea didn't have any merit to it, or that it was just plain silly.

    people..there is no right or wrong in science, unless the majority thinks it is wrong, but it still could be right.

    and we might end up adapting some parts of the aquatic theory in the end when the dust clouds have settled.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    The proponents of the Aquatic Ape Theory (AAT) have classically argued this theory based on Lamarckian reasoning. Unfortunately for them, it has been proven unequivocally false due to the advent of molecular biology.
     
  22. Frencheneesz Amazing Member Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    739
    "it's amazing how many outcries there were against the aquatic ape theory in this topic."

    Its amazing how many people thought it mades sense....

    "The interesting thing about the aquatic ape theory is that it explains several morphological features of the human species that are difficult to explain otherwise. "

    THIS i doubt. What morphology features?

    "It would be very plausible (in the sense that it is logical) that the human species spend a relative large amount of time near water during specific stages of the evolution of the human species."

    Animals always stay near water. Why? Well, its because we need H20 to survive. We don't need to live in water to drink it you know. The reason why have water impermiable (mostly) skin is so that we can keep that water inside us that we would have gotten redily IF we lived in the water.

    "There might be no conclusive proof and the scientific community might have been extraordinary sceptical about the idea when it came out, but that doesn't mean the idea didn't have any merit to it"

    Not only that, but it simply doesn't make sence. And an idea that doesn't make sense doesn't have any merit.

    "people..there is no right or wrong in science"

    What science are you talking about? Opinions? Science is all about right and wrong (as in correct and incorrect).

    The aquatic ape hypothesis is completely perposterous and would never have happened. Once again, WHAT ADVANTAGE FOR SURVIAL WOULD IT BE FOR APES TO LIVE IN WATER???
     
  23. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    +++The aquatic ape hypothesis is completely perposterous and would never have happened. Once again, WHAT ADVANTAGE FOR SURVIAL WOULD IT BE FOR APES TO LIVE IN WATER???+++


    easily accessible, reliable food source (coastal region)...


    i'm not going to respond to everything in your previous post, but i shall just concentrate on a few things.

    By aquatic we shouldn't immediately assume totally aquatic. We also might think about it in terms of semi-aquatic. Even though the original idea might have been lamarckian we can still take this notion and contemplate the merits. There is nothing unscientific about that.

    One thing we could think about is the upright posture of humans. One can wonder how this feature has arisen. One postulation is that by living a semi-aquatic it might have been advantaguous to stand upright instead of standing on four feet. The obvious advantage here is height. By standing upright you can traverse deeper water by still walking, decreasing the risk of drowning. Furthermore, the uplift effect of water would have facilitated the transformation to a bipedal posture. Nobody says here that this is the way it happened, but it would be unscientific not to examine these notions or not think about them.

    and the features that the aquatic ape theory tries to explain:

    Lack of Hair
    fat
    bipedalism
    Voluntary Breath Control
    Descended Larynx
    crying of babies...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page