Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

The Aquatic Ape thoery


The Roswell Man

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • marduk

    16

  • The Roswell Man

    16

  • aquatus1

    4

  • Stixxman

    4

Top Posters In This Topic

A quick gander of the thoery in question.....

http://www.planetpuna.com/siriusa/AQApe.htm

and if u dont like this website.... then choose a betta one

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/result...uwdwABAA%40%40=

631119[/snapback]

This theory has a lot going for it

it explains pretty much all the odd things about how we evolved from homo erectus to homo sapiens archaic

so maybe it should be called the aquatic homo theory

w00t.gifw00t.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

for once, a thoery ur not debunking thumbsup.gifw00t.gifw00t.gifcool.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

for once, a thoery ur not debunking thumbsup.gif  w00t.gif  w00t.gif  cool.gif

631129[/snapback]

oh i can totally debunk it if you like

i don't personally believe anything in this area thats unproven

thats the problem with the aquatic ape theory

if it was true we'd never find any evidence of it at all

it would have washed away

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the dolphin one was a little funny tho

unless we communicate with them somehow,

how will we eva know? huh.gif

did we even communicate with them in the past

a bit of a stab in the dark to me disgust.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing that directly prohibits it, although there is evidence that it did not occur in this manner. The evidence supporting it is a bit of a stretch, but still within the realm of probability.

Personally, I think it is possible, but not what happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so got better thoeries aquatus per chance? huh.gifdontgetit.gifw00t.gifw00t.giftongue.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I like the conventional evolutionary theory of man. It makes the most sense to me. Ultimately, I can't help but think the only reason to think of man as aquatic is because we have bare skin, and that just isn't something I could confidently base and entire seperate theory on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The AAT certainly has aspects worthy of consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I like the conventional evolutionary theory of man.  It makes the most sense to me.  Ultimately, I can't help but think the only reason to think of man as aquatic is because we have bare skin, and that just isn't something I could confidently base and entire seperate theory on.

631197[/snapback]

Bare skin

sex face to face

no penile bone

newborns swimming

the list does go on and on in this theory

Makes sense to me to think that the big advantage we lost when coming down from the tree, i.e. safety we recouped by running into the water whenever we were threatened.

then we discovered fish

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like a whale of a theory to me. What's the porpise? It doen't meet with my seal of approval.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like a whale of a theory to me. What's the porpise? It doen't meet with my seal of approval.

631283[/snapback]

no sarcasm plse

this is a serious disscussion on a validative thoery yes.gifthumbsup.gif

btw nice try but no cigar happy.gifcool.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like a whale of a theory to me. What's the porpise? It doen't meet with my seal of approval.

631283[/snapback]

no sarcasm plse

this is a serious disscussion on a validative thoery yes.gifthumbsup.gif

btw nice try but no cigar happy.gifcool.gif

631406[/snapback]

you got a new dictionary ?

validative thoery ?

wtf ?

w00t.gifw00t.gif

Edited by marduk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

replace that word with 'fascinating'

631423[/snapback]

why

whats wrong with "valid"

w00t.gifw00t.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Erm...

I would not yet be able to say it was valid...

Remember, prior to being considered a valid scientific theory, any idea must meet the five pre-requisites of scientific methodology. AAT is falling a bit short, and contains some logical fallacies. Perhaps they can be explained, however I have not seen evidence that they have been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i hear there is a new scientific approach to thoeries and such

it seems most u of think its reasonable and agreeable to degree

but falls done on scientific evidence

surely body comparison with other apes and aquatic mammals

with give us a big clue? huh.gif

Edited by The Roswell Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i hear there is a new scientific approach to thoeries and such

it seems most of think its reasonable and agreeable to degree

but falls done on scientific evidence

surely body comparison with other apes and aquatic mammals

with give us a big clue? huh.gif

631536[/snapback]

nope

It could be true it could not be true

like i said if it is true we'll never know because there won't ever be any evidence

Of course a lack of evidence in this case could be telling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is there no chance of evidence, Marduk? (don't know much about this)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*takes marduks place 4 a while* tongue.gif

most of the evidence is circumstantial at best

u can only speculate and point to similarities to other mammals

as far the body fat, bare skin etc....

plus the theory has some 'bugs' to speak of

plus traditional theories culd still account some of these anomalies to some extent

Edited by The Roswell Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in theory, if I married a dolphin, copulated face to face with it, and had offspring, the hybrid would be able to reproduce since we are from the same species....?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in theory, if I married a dolphin, copulated face to face with it, and had offspring, the hybrid would be able to reproduce since we are from the same species....?

631807[/snapback]

The article wasnt saying we were the same species, it was saying that there was cohabitation and cooperation. Think something along the lines of dogs only without the domestication I assume.

Anyway, my two cents:

The theory seems to make sense, and probably has some merit and deserves looking into, but like was said above chances are it will just remain speculation for quite some time if anything comes of it at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a hypothesis:

The first thing to change after the split with the line leading to chimps was loss of fur. Maybe it was a mutation that wasn't bad enough to make the new creatures die out. Babies of apes cling to their mothers' fur after a few days but babies of the new creatures couldn't cling to their mothers. The mothers would have to carry them. That's very hard when she needs all four limbs to walk, but standing upright would make carrying a baby much easier.

The second link of the AA theory says human babies have much more fat than ape and monkey babies and are too heavy to hang onto fur even if fur was present. If the babies couldn't hang onto the furless mother, evolving to be much fatter makes sense as long as there's an advantage to it, such as storing energy for times when the mother's too hungry or sick to make milk. The disadvantage of being too heavy to hang onto fur would make no difference if there was no fur.

Change 1: lose fur.

Change 2: walk upright to keep babies alive.

Change 3: subcutaneous fat increases, lowering body density and making swimming possible (some monkeys can swim and a few enjoy it but few apes have been seen swimming).

Change 4 (much, much later): increase brain size, possibly because having subcutaneous fat allows the creatures to exploit shoreline habitats and obtain the brain-nourishing fats from water creatures.

Ape fur does little to insulate the ape when it's immersed in water. Subcutaneous fat is excellent insulation in cold water.

Perhaps the naked-hominid pattern evolved first and then the creatures became partially aquatic, as humans are to this day, instead of the AA theory, which says hominids became aquatic first and then evolved the naked pattern.

The AA phase is supposed to have happened around 7 million years ago. That's long, long before Lucy. We don't have any fossils from that long ago other than a few handfuls of bones from ardipithecus species. The AA phase requires loss of fur so all upright hominids would have been naked according to AA. The usual portrayals of hominids show them furry before homo habilis and naked after homo erectus. AA theory requires all of them to have been naked. Ardipithecus - a naked, sweaty, upright chimp... not a pretty picture.

Much of the AA theory makes some sense but as said earlier in this thread, there's too little evidence to give the theory any weight. It's not even a true scientific theory because it has lots of explanations for observations but none of those can't be explained by other theories. There's no direct evidence for AA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.