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 Theories of Evolution


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

Poll: Which Theory of Human Evolution do you Accept (14 member(s) have cast votes)

Which Theory Makes the Most Sense to You?

  1. The Aquatic Ape theory (3 votes [21.43%])

    Percentage of vote: 21.43%

  2. The Neoteny Theory (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  3. Savannah Theory (9 votes [64.29%])

    Percentage of vote: 64.29%

  4. Other Theory (Please elaborate) (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  5. None of the above (2 votes [14.29%])

    Percentage of vote: 14.29%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1    thewrathofvoight

thewrathofvoight

    Alien Embryo

  • Closed
  • Pip
  • 47 posts
  • Joined:20 Nov 2008

Posted 20 November 2008 - 09:48 PM

Thank you for particpating in my survey.  I am writing a paper for school and noticed that most people tend not to really comprehend the different theories regarding human evolution.  So if you all wouldn't mind assisting. I know there are several well read scientists on here and would very much appreciate the feedback.

As for me I was suprised to find that Stephen J Gould was a promoter of Neoteny which is something I had never heard of.  I was under the impression that there was one uniform view but obviously not.  The book dissects some of the other theories in trying to promote its own theory that at some point during evolution man went into the water.  Its a fascinating read.


Another theory is the savannah theory which explores the idea that humans evolved the way we did by having to survive on the savannah.



Some information about the book

http://www.primitivism.com/aquatic-ape.htm

I also want to say that the addendum to the book read very unscientifically to me.  I know this book is older however if this is an acceptable way to discuss theory I am shocked.  However the woman who wrote the book didn't seem like a scientist to me so maybe that explains it.


This is posted in the Science forum and so I'd appreciate no religious or superstition theories being discussed here.  Also no Alien seeding theories.   Thanks again,  my deadline is looming.

Edited by thewrathofvoight, 20 November 2008 - 09:50 PM.


#2    ravergirl

ravergirl

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,850 posts
  • Joined:05 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:texas

  • OPEN your EYES

Posted 25 November 2008 - 06:20 PM

I am just going to be honest and say that the only one I recognize by name is the Aquatic Ape Theory, and I believe that all evidence of us having decended from apes (of any kind) is a lie, and I think the data saying otherwise is falsified and has been tampered with.

I believe people feel it is much simpler to believe ape decendant stories.

Picked none of the above, because I hold to a creationist-esque type of beginning....I don't think we are remotely close to a true answer.

I am theNON-SEQUITUR-ER

#3    thewrathofvoight

thewrathofvoight

    Alien Embryo

  • Closed
  • Pip
  • 47 posts
  • Joined:20 Nov 2008

Posted 26 November 2008 - 06:00 AM

That's funny.  The only comment in the thread in the science section after a few days is by a creationist!   Tragic!  LOL  Thanks for the honest answer ravergirl.  I realise it should say Aquatic Ape Hypothesis.   I think Ape is slang,  because no one is saying we decended from Apes but that we share a common ancestor.


I'm still waitng for all these really active science people to come in here and to discuss which theory they support and why.  Its sort of backing my claim up that no one knows what most of these theories are about. Curious.


#4    Torgo

Torgo

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,239 posts
  • Joined:26 Oct 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Graduate School

  • I aM tOrGo... I tAkE cArE oF tHe PlAcE wHiLe ThE mAsTeR iS aWaY...

Posted 26 November 2008 - 06:08 AM

Well, the evidence does suggest that hominids originated  in Africa and proceeded to spread out from there.  There is some disagreement as to how much contribution other populations made to our gene pool.

As for theories of human origins, the area hominids can be traced back to certainly has a lot of savahnas.  However, it is certainly true that we exhibit a good deal of neoteny compared to the other great apes :our skulls are shaped remarkably like baby chimp skulls, our relative hairlessness, and facial shape, as well as the way our females do not show outwardly when they are fertile come to mind.  Neoteny could play into any specific reason for human speciation, as it is a common method of adaptation.

The aquatic ape hypothesis is very fascinating and I have looked into it in the past.  It would explain several features of our species - however thus far there is little direct evidence for it.  As such I do not think it holds much weight.

Quote

I believe that all evidence of us having decended from apes (of any kind) is a lie, and I think the data saying otherwise is falsified and has been tampered with.

I'm sorry to hear that.  I honestly can't think of why you would say that.  There have been fraudulent claims in the past but they have been caught, usually immediately or at least as soon as the scientists in question had their data or specimens scrutinized by others.  I am a bit wary of how quickly people are clamoring to call the tiny people of the island of Flores a new species - we just dont know enough there to know how they fit in.  What makes you think data is "tampered with"???


#5    thewrathofvoight

thewrathofvoight

    Alien Embryo

  • Closed
  • Pip
  • 47 posts
  • Joined:20 Nov 2008

Posted 26 November 2008 - 06:46 AM

The thing that made it seem possible for the aquatic ape to me the most,  is the bipedal explanation.  That walking into the water made it necessary for the animal to rise up on their hind legs.   I think that makes logical sense.

Some pictures for fun.

Some skulls for comparison

linked-image


linked-image

Baby chimpanzee skull cast

linked-image


Interesting blog,  not sciencey!


http://beccasbabyblog.blogspot.com/2008/03...screwed-us.html



Edited by thewrathofvoight, 26 November 2008 - 06:57 AM.


#6    Mattshark

Mattshark

    stuff

  • Member
  • 16,985 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK

  • Sea Shepherd, making conservation harder.

    If you care about wildlife, do not support these pirates.......

Posted 26 November 2008 - 10:05 PM

ravergirl on Nov 25 2008, 06:20 PM, said:

I am just going to be honest and say that the only one I recognize by name is the Aquatic Ape Theory, and I believe that all evidence of us having decended from apes (of any kind) is a lie, and I think the data saying otherwise is falsified and has been tampered with.

I believe people feel it is much simpler to believe ape decendant stories.

Picked none of the above, because I hold to a creationist-esque type of beginning....I don't think we are remotely close to a true answer.

Sorry but that is just outright ignorant and ill-thought out. WE ARE apes, we form a separate monophyletic clade with the chimpanzees to the exclusion of the other apes. Calling it a lie when you know feck all about it is ignorant and very insulting to the people have spent so much time on it.

Believing we evolved from a common ancestor to other apes that has overwhelming evidence is still more complex than believing we were just created which is baseless.

Edited by Mattshark, 26 November 2008 - 10:06 PM.

Algae : Protists not Plants!

YNWA

#7    ravergirl

ravergirl

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,850 posts
  • Joined:05 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:texas

  • OPEN your EYES

Posted 26 November 2008 - 11:35 PM

Mattshark on Nov 26 2008, 05:05 PM, said:

Sorry but that is just outright ignorant and ill-thought out. WE ARE apes, we form a separate monophyletic clade with the chimpanzees to the exclusion of the other apes. Calling it a lie when you know feck all about it is ignorant and very insulting to the people have spent so much time on it.

Believing we evolved from a common ancestor to other apes that has overwhelming evidence is still more complex than believing we were just created which is baseless.


**stomp** **stomp** **stomp** RAWR.

Have some coffee, dear.

i know we are apes in the 'hominoidea' usage of ape.
And by whose standards does evidence become 'overwhelming' anyway?

The whole reasoning behind apes being in the water in the first place is just as good evidence for 'aquatic apes' evolving into mermaids not land dwelling humans, IMO. imagine my surprise when curiosity and cheekyness grabbed me at the same time and I goggled(<---heehee) "aquatic ape and merpeople" and it yielded a bunch of theories on how merpeople evolved into aquatic apes evolved into humans. Which yields probably similar amounts of fossilized evidence .

I do not recend my before statement, but I do not want to upset you. i do believe there are lies and manipulation in the scientific community. I believe that money and power are quite influential in certain (although I doubt all) fields of science. Money and power are corrupt my line of work all of the time.

I'm not accusing, i am just saying that the motives of scientists aren't JUST in search of the truth. Pure science doesn't lie, I know that and respect that....but people do lie, and cheat, and steal, and manipulate, and corrupt, and can be forced into things, and threatened into things.
I think the origins of man is a big issue, HUGE, and I think scientists (who ARE people) are not above those things to get ahead in their business.

I am not saying that I believe that of scientists on this site.

Edited by ravergirl, 26 November 2008 - 11:41 PM.

I am theNON-SEQUITUR-ER

#8    Mattshark

Mattshark

    stuff

  • Member
  • 16,985 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK

  • Sea Shepherd, making conservation harder.

    If you care about wildlife, do not support these pirates.......

Posted 27 November 2008 - 02:00 PM

ravergirl on Nov 26 2008, 11:35 PM, said:

**stomp** **stomp** **stomp** RAWR.

Have some coffee, dear.

i know we are apes in the 'hominoidea' usage of ape.
And by whose standards does evidence become 'overwhelming' anyway?

The whole reasoning behind apes being in the water in the first place is just as good evidence for 'aquatic apes' evolving into mermaids not land dwelling humans, IMO. imagine my surprise when curiosity and cheekyness grabbed me at the same time and I goggled(<---heehee) "aquatic ape and merpeople" and it yielded a bunch of theories on how merpeople evolved into aquatic apes evolved into humans. Which yields probably similar amounts of fossilized evidence .

I do not recend my before statement, but I do not want to upset you. i do believe there are lies and manipulation in the scientific community. I believe that money and power are quite influential in certain (although I doubt all) fields of science. Money and power are corrupt my line of work all of the time.

I'm not accusing, i am just saying that the motives of scientists aren't JUST in search of the truth. Pure science doesn't lie, I know that and respect that....but people do lie, and cheat, and steal, and manipulate, and corrupt, and can be forced into things, and threatened into things.
I think the origins of man is a big issue, HUGE, and I think scientists (who ARE people) are not above those things to get ahead in their business.

I am not saying that I believe that of scientists on this site.
I never said a thing about Aquatic ape theory, it is interesting, but it holds no ground in terms of evidence
Yeah, those two things, pretty much none existent in zoological science.
There is excellent physical, genetic, behavioural and fossil evidence. The evidence is overwhelming. You not believing is your choice but saying it is lies is just out right ignorance.

Algae : Protists not Plants!

YNWA

#9    AlexG

AlexG

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,403 posts
  • Joined:20 May 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Hampshire

Posted 27 November 2008 - 06:08 PM

Mattshark on Nov 27 2008, 09:00 AM, said:

I never said a thing about Aquatic ape theory, it is interesting, but it holds no ground in terms of evidence
Yeah, those two things, pretty much none existent in zoological science.
There is excellent physical, genetic, behavioural and fossil evidence. The evidence is overwhelming. You not believing is your choice but saying it is lies is just out right ignorance.


I'm shocked!.  You mean there's no money or power in zoology?  Aren't zoologists the puppetmasters, pulling society's strings?

Reading something they can understand, that seems to make sense, that presents itself as technically competent, non-scientists are easily gulled by fake science. --Henry H. Bauer

The X-Files is NOT a documentary.

Four million years of evolution was not enough.

#10    Torgo

Torgo

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,239 posts
  • Joined:26 Oct 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Graduate School

  • I aM tOrGo... I tAkE cArE oF tHe PlAcE wHiLe ThE mAsTeR iS aWaY...

Posted 27 November 2008 - 08:43 PM

yes the aquatic ape hypothesis is an interesting one but there is no hard evidence to support it.  It would explain a lot - IF it were true, and as of right now there is no evidence to say that it is.  Contrast THAT with the mountains of hard evidence, paleontological and genetic, tying humans and the other great apes to a common ancestor a few million years ago (and all life to a common ancestor billions of years ago).


#11    Shaftsbury

Shaftsbury

    Transitional Fossil

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,099 posts
  • Joined:13 Jul 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Alberta, Canada

Posted 27 November 2008 - 10:00 PM

ravergirl on Nov 26 2008, 05:35 PM, said:

I'm not accusing, i am just saying that the motives of scientists aren't JUST in search of the truth. Pure science doesn't lie, I know that and respect that....but people do lie, and cheat, and steal, and manipulate, and corrupt, and can be forced into things, and threatened into things.
I think the origins of man is a big issue, HUGE, and I think scientists (who ARE people) are not above those things to get ahead in their business.

I am not saying that I believe that of scientists on this site.


Just out of curiosity, what other motives are you talking about?

What possible financial benefit can there be for a scientist pushing one theory of human origins, over another? increased book sales?

If that was the case then the most rewarding theories would certainly be the ones splashed across the tabloid covers, not the ones written in text books IMO.





"He hath need of his wits who wanders wide,
aught simple will serve at home;
but a gazing-stock is the fool who sits
mid the wise, and nothing knows."

from the Elder or Poetic Edda

The Isles of Aledeon - Roleplay World

#12    HKCavalier

HKCavalier

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 531 posts
  • Joined:24 Oct 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Wilds of America

Posted 27 November 2008 - 10:31 PM

Torgo on Nov 25 2008, 10:08 PM, said:

It would explain several features of our species - however thus far there is little direct evidence for it.  As such I do not think it holds much weight.

What kind of direcet evidence are you talking about?  The tidal margin, where the aquatic ape theory would place us, is the worst place to find fossil evidence of much of anything.  The evidence for the theory relies mainly on morphology: bipedalism, deemphasis of hair on the body, subcutanious fat, placement of the uterus, length of the birth canal, the fleshy platform of the mamary glands, the fleshy bulb of the nose, our peculiar hominid squint.  Also, the ability and instinct to hold our breath under water from birth and our tears, our ability to vocalize at will.  None of these characteristics can be accounted for by the savannah theory.  Human development represents a radical departure from that of other apes, but merely wandering out onto the savannah isn't really all that radical to account for all the radical changes, is it?


#13    OilFight

OilFight

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 313 posts
  • Joined:28 Apr 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Earth

Posted 28 November 2008 - 02:20 AM

HKCavalier on Nov 27 2008, 02:31 PM, said:

What kind of direcet evidence are you talking about?  The tidal margin, where the aquatic ape theory would place us, is the worst place to find fossil evidence of much of anything.  The evidence for the theory relies mainly on morphology: bipedalism, deemphasis of hair on the body, subcutanious fat, placement of the uterus, length of the birth canal, the fleshy platform of the mamary glands, the fleshy bulb of the nose, our peculiar hominid squint.  Also, the ability and instinct to hold our breath under water from birth and our tears, our ability to vocalize at will.  None of these characteristics can be accounted for by the savannah theory.  Human development represents a radical departure from that of other apes, but merely wandering out onto the savannah isn't really all that radical to account for all the radical changes, is it?


thumbsup.gif Agreed, which is why I voted for Aquatic Ape. It also explains our brain power (fish = brain food).


#14    HKCavalier

HKCavalier

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 531 posts
  • Joined:24 Oct 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Wilds of America

Posted 28 November 2008 - 02:54 AM

OilFight on Nov 27 2008, 06:20 PM, said:

thumbsup.gif Agreed, which is why I voted for Aquatic Ape. It also explains our brain power (fish = brain food).

Oh, and my favorite:  vestigial webbing between our fingers!   alien.gif


#15    Mattshark

Mattshark

    stuff

  • Member
  • 16,985 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK

  • Sea Shepherd, making conservation harder.

    If you care about wildlife, do not support these pirates.......

Posted 29 November 2008 - 01:24 PM

OilFight on Nov 28 2008, 02:20 AM, said:

thumbsup.gif Agreed, which is why I voted for Aquatic Ape. It also explains our brain power (fish = brain food).

No it doesn't eating all meat is important in the development of the brain.
Also, even in tropical water, we die quickly of hypothermia how is that supportive of AAH?




Algae : Protists not Plants!

YNWA




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users