Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

The Aquatic Ape theory


  • Please log in to reply
64 replies to this topic

#1    your_dark_passenger

your_dark_passenger

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 113 posts
  • Joined:14 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

Posted 24 September 2012 - 06:17 AM

In the two-hour CGI Special “Mermaids: The Body Found,” Animal Planet dives deep into the idea that mermaids may have been real, and, even better -- related to humans!
“It’s a very radical theory on human evolution, but we have approached an age-old myth and really chased its origins,” Animal Planet honcho Charlie Foley told FOX411’s Pop Tarts column. “It has been compiled in a way that is very compelling, making us think that mermaids might not just be mythical creatures.”
The show unravels mysterious underwater sound recordings and presents a bone-chilling argument for the Aquatic Ape Theory, which suggests that during the transition from apes to hominid, some humans went through an aquatic stage. This stage is argued to have resulted in “aquatic ape-like” creatures.
“There are striking differences between us and other primates, yet [there are] many features we share with marine mammals, like the webbing between our fingers, which other primates don’t have, a layer of subcutaneous fat, and a loss of body hair,” Foley explained. “We also have an instinctive ability to swim, and control over breath. Humans can hold breath up to 20 minutes, longer than any other terrestrial animal.”


Read more: http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz27MiyxFlE





What do you guys think?http://en.wikipedia...._ape_hypothesis




#2    Anonymous User

Anonymous User

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 408 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 24 September 2012 - 06:24 AM

Not even American, but trust Fox News to severely distort the hypothesis from explaining aquatic tendencies in humans to being related to 'mermaids'. That's quite the jump..

I don't know that much about it to be honest, but I remember hearing somewhere that it's rejected by most biologists. From what I've heard, it's interesting.


#3    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 24 September 2012 - 06:55 AM

Evolution can account for every creature you can dream of under the sun.All you have to do is say 'billions of years' and 'random beneficial mutation' and the trick is done.In another forum i got a evolutionist to agree that man could give rise to a unicorn after billions of years.


#4    Clobhair-cean

Clobhair-cean

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,145 posts
  • Joined:02 Nov 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Budapest

Posted 24 September 2012 - 07:06 AM

The Aquatic Ape Theory has been thoroughly falsified. It's pure pseudoscientific rubbish.

I recommend this article on the topic:
http://laelaps.wordp...ape-hypothesis/


#5    Anonymous User

Anonymous User

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 408 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 24 September 2012 - 07:27 AM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 24 September 2012 - 06:55 AM, said:

Evolution can account for every creature you can dream of under the sun.All you have to do is say 'billions of years' and 'random beneficial mutation' and the trick is done.In another forum i got a evolutionist to agree that man could give rise to a unicorn after billions of years.


Duh. All creatures contain DNA, all creatures reproduce.. evolution is the descriptive for all the processes which cause animals to evolve.

"Billions of years.."

There is no specific time frame that evolution takes to occur, it's dependant among a number of variables. Environmental conditions, the animals life-span.. Ect.    

"Random genetic mutation"

And? That's just one of the many components of evolution. The environment selects the most beneficial of the mutations, therefore making them more likely to pass on.

This "evolutionist" you speak of sounds like they don't understand evolution much past the very basics. Anyone with a more advanced understanding can see the absurdity.


..You're "critiquing" something you don't understand.


#6    Imaginarynumber1

Imaginarynumber1

    I am not an irrational number

  • Member
  • 4,667 posts
  • Joined:22 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 24 September 2012 - 08:06 AM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 24 September 2012 - 06:55 AM, said:

.In another forum i got a evolutionist to agree that man could give rise to a unicorn after billions of years.
I am assuming that you are referring to this thread:http://www.unexplain...c=232559&st=270
Nobody EVER agreed to that, or almost anything else that you said.

You do not understand evolution.

"A cat has nine lives. For three he plays, for three he strays, and for the last three he stays."


July 17th, 2008 (Full moon the next night)

RAPTORS! http://www.unexplain...pic=233151&st=0


#7    The Puzzler

The Puzzler

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,649 posts
  • Joined:23 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Australia

  • I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious. ~ Einstein

Posted 24 September 2012 - 08:07 AM

Personally, I do know a fair bit about it and on the surface it seems to be really logical imo, I'm unsure how they can so thoroughly disprove it.

Anthropologist Colin Groves has stated that Morgan's theories are sophisticated enough that they should be taken seriously as a possible explanation for hominin divergence[48] and Carsten Niemitz has found more recent, weaker versions of the hypothesis more acceptable, approaching some of his own theories on human evolution
http://en.wikipedia...._ape_hypothesis

Edited by The Puzzler, 24 September 2012 - 08:16 AM.

In an mmm bop it's gone...

#8    Imaginarynumber1

Imaginarynumber1

    I am not an irrational number

  • Member
  • 4,667 posts
  • Joined:22 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 24 September 2012 - 08:09 AM

View Postyour_dark_passenger, on 24 September 2012 - 06:17 AM, said:

In the two-hour CGI Special “Mermaids: The Body Found,” Animal Planet dives deep into the idea that mermaids may have been real, and, even better -- related to humans!
“It’s a very radical theory on human evolution, but we have approached an age-old myth and really chased its origins,” Animal Planet honcho Charlie Foley told FOX411’s Pop Tarts column. “It has been compiled in a way that is very compelling, making us think that mermaids might not just be mythical creatures.”
The show unravels mysterious underwater sound recordings and presents a bone-chilling argument for the Aquatic Ape Theory, which suggests that during the transition from apes to hominid, some humans went through an aquatic stage. This stage is argued to have resulted in “aquatic ape-like” creatures.
“There are striking differences between us and other primates, yet [there are] many features we share with marine mammals, like the webbing between our fingers, which other primates don’t have, a layer of subcutaneous fat, and a loss of body hair,” Foley explained. “We also have an instinctive ability to swim, and control over breath. Humans can hold breath up to 20 minutes, longer than any other terrestrial animal.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz27MiyxFlE




What do you guys think?http://en.wikipedia...._ape_hypothesis



The aquatic ape theory has been completely refuted.

This was also a mockumentray like the same one Animal Planet did about dragons a few years ago. None of it is factual, it is just for entertainment purposes.

"A cat has nine lives. For three he plays, for three he strays, and for the last three he stays."


July 17th, 2008 (Full moon the next night)

RAPTORS! http://www.unexplain...pic=233151&st=0


#9    Imaginarynumber1

Imaginarynumber1

    I am not an irrational number

  • Member
  • 4,667 posts
  • Joined:22 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 24 September 2012 - 08:16 AM

View PostThe Puzzler, on 24 September 2012 - 08:07 AM, said:

Personally, I do know a fair bit about it and on the surface it seems to be really logical imo, I'm unsure how they can so thoroughly disprove it.

Here is a pretty much a complete refutation of the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis and what is wrong with it. http://www.aquaticape.org/

There is a ton of information here and it is worth a look.

Edited by Imaginarynumber1, 24 September 2012 - 08:16 AM.

"A cat has nine lives. For three he plays, for three he strays, and for the last three he stays."


July 17th, 2008 (Full moon the next night)

RAPTORS! http://www.unexplain...pic=233151&st=0


#10    The Puzzler

The Puzzler

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,649 posts
  • Joined:23 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Australia

  • I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious. ~ Einstein

Posted 24 September 2012 - 08:27 AM

View PostImaginarynumber1, on 24 September 2012 - 08:16 AM, said:

Here is a pretty much a complete refutation of the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis and what is wrong with it. http://www.aquaticape.org/

There is a ton of information here and it is worth a look.
Right, so I'm expected to just believe this guy?

I don't have any formal credentials in evolutionary science....

So I guess I'd say my qualifications for this work are 1) a knack for library detective work, 2) an ability to learn basic scientific precepts (anyone should be able to do this one), and 3) being just a little bit nutty, cause those examples I just gave show you've got to be a little crazy to do it.
http://www.aquaticape.org/

Thanks anyway.

Edited by The Puzzler, 24 September 2012 - 08:28 AM.

In an mmm bop it's gone...

#11    Imaginarynumber1

Imaginarynumber1

    I am not an irrational number

  • Member
  • 4,667 posts
  • Joined:22 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 24 September 2012 - 08:32 AM

View PostThe Puzzler, on 24 September 2012 - 08:27 AM, said:

Right, so I'm expected to just believe this guy?

I don't have any formal credentials in evolutionary science....

So I guess I'd say my qualifications for this work are 1) a knack for library detective work, 2) an ability to learn basic scientific precepts (anyone should be able to do this one), and 3) being just a little bit nutty, cause those examples I just gave show you've got to be a little crazy to do it.
http://www.aquaticape.org/

Thanks anyway.

Well, unlike the creator of the AAH, this gentleman uses things such as "facts" and "evidence" as opposed to wild speculation.

Here is a professional anthropologist and his thoughts on why the hypothesis is bunk: http://johnhawks.net...ape_theory.html

Edited by Imaginarynumber1, 24 September 2012 - 08:35 AM.

"A cat has nine lives. For three he plays, for three he strays, and for the last three he stays."


July 17th, 2008 (Full moon the next night)

RAPTORS! http://www.unexplain...pic=233151&st=0


#12    The Puzzler

The Puzzler

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,649 posts
  • Joined:23 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Australia

  • I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious. ~ Einstein

Posted 24 September 2012 - 08:50 AM

View PostImaginarynumber1, on 24 September 2012 - 08:32 AM, said:

Well, unlike the creator of the AAH, this gentleman uses things such as "facts" and "evidence" as opposed to wild speculation.

Here is a professional anthropologist and his thoughts on why the hypothesis is bunk: http://johnhawks.net...ape_theory.html

Thanks again but it seems he's used alot of sentences to say nothing quite frankly.

In other words, the Aquatic Ape Theory explains all of these features, but it explains them all twice. Every one of the features encompassed by the theory still requires a reason for it to be maintained after hominids left the aquatic environment. Every one of these reasons probably would be sufficient to explain the evolution of the traits in the absence of the aquatic environment. This is more than unparsimonious. It leaves the Aquatic Ape Theory explaining nothing whatsoever about the evolution of the hominids. This is why professional anthropologists reject the theory, even if they haven't fully thought through the logic.
http://johnhawks.net...ape_theory.html

The reason it would be maintained is we simply never fully left the Aquatic environment. What evidence is there that hominids never swam but stayed on the savanna plains after this apparent time that we supposedly left the aquatic environment?

In an mmm bop it's gone...

#13    Imaginarynumber1

Imaginarynumber1

    I am not an irrational number

  • Member
  • 4,667 posts
  • Joined:22 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 24 September 2012 - 08:57 AM

Quote

Say AAH. That stands for the "Aquatic Ape Hypothesis." Now turn your head and cough. Just checking to make sure you were paying attention. The AAH is a fascinating, thought-provoking, and attractive idea. The only problem is that it's JPW ("Just Plain Wrong").

Alister Hardy--wasn't he the guy who wondered about the role of telepathy in evolution? As a matter of fact he was. Hardy was a respected marine zoologist for about as long as Fred Hoyle was a respected astronomer: that is, for as long as he didn't advocate insupportable speculations. Hardy wrote three short pieces on the aquatic ape, but they didn't exactly light a fire under the feet of paleoanthropologists. Elaine Morgan, a television writer, then took up the cause. She didn't simply write a book about aquatic apes, she made a second career out of them. There are at least five popular books by her on the subject (of which I have read two). They haven't taken the discipline by storm either. Why don't most paleoanthropologists take the AAH seriously enough to refute it? How would you feel if the anthropology department at the local state U. spent your tax dollars studying, say, the idea that humans are descended from extraterrestrial reptiles? (Some people actually believe that one.) It turns out that the AAH--sometimes known as the AAT, for Aquatic Ape Theory--has only slightly more evidence in its favor.

The burden of proof for a new hypothesis is always on its supporters, but there are two ways skeptics can shoot it down. They can either refute the assumptions it is based on, or they can show that known facts are inconsistent with it. The AAH fails on both counts. Let's look point-by-point at the facts that suggested the hypothesis, as Hardy first published it in April 1960 (quotations are from his article "Was Man More Aquatic in the Past?" inNew Scientist, volume 7, reprinted in Morgan's The Aquatic Ape):

". . . [T]he exceptional ability of Man to swim . . ." Not very exceptional. Hardy admits "many" animals can swim on the surface. In fact, almost all terrestrial mammals can. With very few exceptions, adult mammals, when introduced to the water for the first time, can swim without any previous training. This is largely because they tend to float horizontally and are able to keep their nostrils above water. Apes and humans, on the other hand, tend to float vertically with their nostrils submerged. Humans (and at least some apes) can learn to swim, but it doesn't come naturally. Based on this point alone, hominoids would appear to be among the least likely mammals to return to the water.

". . . I have been told that babies put into water before they have learnt to walk will, in fact, go through the motions of swimming at once . . . " Partly true, but misleading. Babies, placed face down in the water, can hold their breath and rather inefficiently propel themselves through the water. Their motions are as much like crawling as they are like swimming. Babies cannot, however, lift their nostrils above water unassisted to breathe, which would seem to make their much-vaunted "swimming" ability worthless. Nor are human infants unique in being able to propel themselves through the water; the young of many, probably most, terrestrial mammal species can do the same.

"Does the idea perhaps explain the satisfaction that so many people feel in going to the seaside, in bathing, and in indulging in various forms of aquatic sport?" Uncertain, probably unverifiable, and more than a little silly. One of my neighbors had a trampoline in his back yard instead of a pool. Was he trying to recapture the days when our ancestors' bottoms were made out of springs? Are we Tiggers or are we men?

"Whilst not invariably so, the loss of hair is a characteristic of a number of aquatic mammals . . ." True, if you take "a number" to mean "a small number." Fur or hair is no great hindrance underwater. Fur seals, otters, beavers, and polar bears haven't lost theirs and they swim better than we do. Only some aquatic mammals have lost all or most of their hair, and they are almost invariably very large species weighing a ton or more, whose ancestors have been living in the water for tens of millions of years. Contrary to popular thought, fur remains an effective insulator even in water, because it traps a layer of stagnant water (or in the case of the sea otter, air) next to the skin. Further, our ape relatives generally have sparse hair, though not quite as sparse as ours. What do AAH supporters make of relatively hairless terrestrial species, such as the elephant, rhinoceros, and pig? They postulate an aquatic past for them as well. It just goes to show that you can explain away any inconvenient fact if you try hard enough. The real reason these species, including humans, lost their hair was to dissipate heat faster. If anything, we lose heat too fast when we're in the water (even tropical water), which should have made us retain our fur if we were really aquatic.

"All the curves of the human body have the beauty of a well-designed boat. Man is indeed streamlined." There's a big brown stain on this page of my copy of Morgan's book because when I first read this, I laughed out loud with a mouth full of coffee. Truly aquatic animals are shaped a lot like torpedoes. Let me know the next time you see a torpedo with long flowing hair, a slender neck, rounded shoulders, and enormous knockers. See if you can get her number for me first.

"The presence of . . . subcutaneous fat is a characteristic that distinguishes Man from the other primates."  It is true that many aquatic animals have a thick layer of subcutaneous fat, but not, as Hardy supposed, for insulation. Their subcutaneous fat is mostly for streamlining and energy storage. Fat is a much poorer insulator than it is popularly thought to be, and poorer than fur even underwater. Of course sedentary western humans tend to be fat, but they are not a fair representation of humans. Even so, it must be admitted that the human species, even hunter-gatherers, are probably quite fat compared to most other terrestrial species. Most likely this is due to self-domestication. Animals who no longer need to fear predators, including man and his domestic animals, have become much fatter than their wild relatives. The same is true of hedgehogs, whose natural protection renders running away unnecessary. Is the distribution of subcutaneous fat in humans somehow exceptional? Not at all. Sedentary zoo apes on a high-calorie diet accumulate subcutaneous fat stores in exactly the same places we do. What is exceptional is the difference between human and aquatic subcutaneous fat. Truly aquatic animals have thicker layers of fat surrounding the whole body. In humans, the fat layer is thinner and, on parts of the body, non-existent.

"It seems likely to me that Man first learnt to stand erect in the water . . ." The idea here is that a primate tends to stand erect when wading in water, if it's deep enough. That's true, but it's not the whole story. Gorillas, bonobos, and chimpanzees all stand and walk on two legs occasionally when on dry ground. Their normal means of locomotion is knuckle-walking (i.e., walking on all fours with the knuckles of the hands on the ground rather than the palms). But the interesting part is the other apes: the orangutans and gibbons. Their normal means of locomotion is brachiating (swinging from branches). On those rare occasions when brachiators come down to the ground, they usually walk on two legs, like humans. There is a growing school of thought that the last common ancestor of humans and chimps was a brachiator and not a knuckle-walker as had been previously believed. This would require that knuckle-walking evolved twice (in gorillas and chimps) rather than once, an idea that not all experts accept. A fossil species called Oreopithecus ("swamp ape," not "creme-filled chocolate cookie ape") is cited by AAH supporters as an example of a primate that learned to walk upright by first wading in swamps. It is much more likely that Oreopithecus was a brachiator than a wader. It's worth noting that no aquatic species regularly walks on two legs when on land.

"Where are the fossil remains that linked the Hominidae with their more ape-like ancestors? . . . It is in the gap of some ten million years, or more, between Proconsul and Australopithecus that I suppose Man to have been cradled in the sea." It wasn't until recently that we knew how wrong Hardy was on this point. Since he wrote it in 1960, the gaps have been progressively filled in, most famously by Lucy in the 1970s. In late 2000 a specimen dubbed Millennium Man (Orriorin tugenensis) was discovered in Africa. It must have lived very close to the time when humans and chimpanzees diverged and fills in another important gap. It appears to have already developed upright walking, but also retained some climbing adaptations. The fossil gaps up to the last common ancestor of chimps and humans are now measured in hundreds of thousands of years rather than Hardy's tens of millions. Oddly enough, Morgan has used this point as an argument in favor of the AAH. She suggests that the gaps are so short that only something as revolutionary as an aquatic stage could account for the changes. OK, but when two contrary facts are both used in support of a hypothesis, alarms go off. Besides, the evolution of human features displayed by the fossils appears to be reasonably gradual, not abrupt. None of the fossils suggest an aquatic lifestyle. For more on the fossil record, seeThe Human Family Tree.

So much for Hardy's original hypothesis. Has there been anything new since 1960 that would support the AAH?

Morgan and other supporters have come up with a few new speculations, none very convincing. The presence of interdigital webbing in some people (syndactylism) is supposed to be an adaptation for swimming. In fact it is not an adaptation at all, but a birth defect, found in both humans and other apes. No one suggests that some people are born with two extra fingers as an adaptation to the base-twelve counting of our past. While doing research I came across a condition called "webbed penis," (or "penis palmatus") in which the penis is enclosed in the scrotum. God only knows what the AAH supporters would argue that is supposed to be an "adaptation" for.

Morgan makes much of face-to-face mating in humans. Dolphins, for example, do mate this way, but many aquatic species, like seals, do not. Among terrestrial mammals, our close relatives the orangutans usually mate this way, and bonobos and gorillas sometimes do.

The diving reflex (so-called) is found in all mammals to some degree, terrestrial and aquatic. It consists of a slowing of the heart rate and reduced blood flow to the extremities when the forehead is immersed in cold water. More than likely this is a protection against hypothermia, not drowning, since warm water doesn't have the same effect. At any rate, man is a poor diver even when compared to other terrestrial mammals. Untrained dogs, for example, can hold their breath and survive underwater for three minutes, compared to only about one minute for untrained humans.

Morgan claims sweat and tears may have evolved in man as a means of excreting excess salt. Even discounting the fact that excess sodium doesn't make us sweat or cry, it would be impossible, since these fluids are less salty than our inter-cellular plasma. The kidneys are the only means of removing excess sodium in aquatic and terrestrial mammals alike. Truly aquatic mammals have large and specialized kidneys that can excrete urine that is saltier than sea water. They can therefore safely drink sea water, but in practice they often get their water requirements from their food, which may be less salty than sea water. Human kidneys are of the terrestrial salt-conserving type and we die if we drink too much sea water.

Ignoring the evidence about kidneys is just one example of a common AAH tactic: Much is made of human characteristics that are supposedly aquatic, yet no mention is made of truly aquatic features we patently do not possess, such as small ears and short limbs.

There is no convincing evidence that any modern human trait evolved as a result of an aquatic past. I'm not suggesting that our ancestors never went near the water. They may have entered the water occasionally, as do many terrestrial animals. Reindeer swim across rivers, but that doesn't make them aquatic. Speaking of that, some supporters of the AAH (but not Hardy or Morgan as far as I know) suggest that tales of mermaids may constitute some sort of race memory of the time when we lived in the water. Yeah, right. And Comet and Cupid hearken back to the time when reindeer really knew how to fly.

The AAH has attracted a number of competitors, the most famous of which is the slightly less scientific Pliocene *****-Cat Theory (PPCT). But this and other such rejoinders leave me unsatisfied. I'm no great fan of cats, and unlike Hardy, I don't like beach holidays. I prefer to spend my vacations in the mountains, so I developed the MAH (Montane Ape Hypothesis), which is far superior to all competitors. For example, my hypothesis explains why human females have relatively large breasts. They obviously evolved as an adaptation for climbing. I dream of a return to the mountains. I dream of prehensile breasts.

FURTHER READING

The Aquatic Ape: Fact or Fiction, edited by Machteld Roede, et al.http://www.straightd...om-aquatic-apes


But if you want to go a head and keep believing an outdated and factually inaccurate hypothesis, have fun. I'm sure the Earth will still be just as flat tomorrow.

Edited by Imaginarynumber1, 24 September 2012 - 09:00 AM.

"A cat has nine lives. For three he plays, for three he strays, and for the last three he stays."


July 17th, 2008 (Full moon the next night)

RAPTORS! http://www.unexplain...pic=233151&st=0


#14    The Puzzler

The Puzzler

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,649 posts
  • Joined:23 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Australia

  • I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious. ~ Einstein

Posted 24 September 2012 - 09:06 AM

I have alot of trouble with 'professional' people who seem to make a joke out of something they are trying to disprove...in an effort to ridicule it more than it seems to need, bringing in a sense of doubt of what they are saying.

"All the curves of the human body have the beauty of a well-designed boat. Man is indeed streamlined." There's a big brown stain on this page of my copy of Morgan's book because when I first read this, I laughed out loud with a mouth full of coffee. Truly aquatic animals are shaped a lot like torpedoes. Let me know the next time you see a torpedo with long flowing hair, a slender neck, rounded shoulders, and enormous knockers. See if you can get her number for me first.

Africans do not have long flowing hair and many have small breasts that are not 'enormous knockers'. Humans do have a torpedo shape overall. Maybe he's had too much coffee....

Edited by The Puzzler, 24 September 2012 - 09:10 AM.

In an mmm bop it's gone...

#15    Wickian

Wickian

    Doppelganger

  • Member
  • 3,872 posts
  • Joined:11 May 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

  • Save it for Queen Doppelpoppellus!

Posted 24 September 2012 - 09:07 AM

Kind of an off-topic question, but would creatures with longer life-spans be at a evolutionary disadvantage to those with shorter ones?





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users