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.


- - - - -

Early human ancestors were ‘aquatic apes’


  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#16    johnny blue eyes

johnny blue eyes

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 79 posts
  • Joined:08 Dec 2010

Posted 29 April 2013 - 04:54 PM

View PostHawkin, on 29 April 2013 - 11:34 AM, said:

I've watched a documentary on NATGEO about mermaids and that theory was incorperated that aquatic apes and mermaids are one in the same. Sounds like a bigfoot of the sea.
Hehe! Watched that one my self. You do know it was a "faux" documentary.


#17    Zero Fox FK

Zero Fox FK

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 31 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 29 April 2013 - 06:00 PM

Sea Monkeys!


#18    moonshadow60

moonshadow60

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 677 posts
  • Joined:17 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Maine

  • There is no better church than the woods of Maine.

Posted 29 April 2013 - 07:04 PM

Somehow aquatic apes makes about as much sense to me as flying guppies, but what do I know.  Most likely if humans did emerge from the sea they weren't wearing fur at the time. Logically that would have developed after those hypoethetical creatures were exposed to the elements on land.


#19    Starseed hybrid 1111

Starseed hybrid 1111

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Joined:28 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:salinas,ca

  • "Take the Red Matrix pill" be your own authentic self neo

Posted 29 April 2013 - 07:29 PM

i don't buy into the whole crap we came from monkey,apes or etc.although we did do look on the surface in some ways and with some similarities in appearance and etc we did not evolve from we are not animals we are spiritual beings having a physical experience and with souls not the other way around people.


#20    shaddow134

shaddow134

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,360 posts
  • Joined:25 Apr 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northern Ontario

  • "I have often regretted my speech, never my silence." - Xenocrates

Posted 29 April 2013 - 08:46 PM

View PostAndromedan Starseed 333, on 29 April 2013 - 07:29 PM, said:

i don't buy into the whole crap we came from monkey,apes or etc.although we did do look on the surface in some ways and with some similarities in appearance and etc we did not evolve from we are not animals we are spiritual beings having a physical experience and with souls not the other way around people.

What about the 98% DNA the Chimpanzee's and Gorilla's match with ours ?

"Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia." - Charles Schulz

#21    Copasetic

Copasetic

    438579088 what am I?

  • Member
  • 4,221 posts
  • Joined:12 Apr 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 April 2013 - 09:34 PM

The aquatic ape is a hypothesis, not a theory. They are two vastly different things. Not only is it a hypothesis, its a crappy one at that--that has been falsified.

Aquaticape.org will give you a through deconstruction of said hypothesis and why it is rejected in biology and evolutionary anthropology.  Follow the link and spend a few minutes informing yourself!

This topic has also been done here before, a quick use of the search function will find you :

Aquatic ape

Elaine Morgan's Aquatic Ape


#22    Majin1

Majin1

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2011

Posted 29 April 2013 - 09:59 PM

I love when people say we share 98% of our dna with chimps lol what a joke. We also share 98% of our dna with mice, rats, dogs, horses and just about all mammals. here's a kicker for you we share 50% of our dna with bananas. .2% of DNA is a huge thing a full 2% is not even close.


#23    GreenmansGod

GreenmansGod

    Bio-Electric sentient being.

  • Member
  • 9,012 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Hurricane State

  • May the laughter ye give today return to thee 3 fold.

Posted 30 April 2013 - 12:24 AM

We don't come from chimps or ape we come from a common ancestor. Some branched of to become monkeys and Lemurs, some apes and chimps and some hominids which is the line we come from.

"The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible." Salman Rushdie

#24    lightly

lightly

    metaphysical therapist

  • Member
  • 5,065 posts
  • Joined:01 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan U.S.A.

  • "The future ain't what it used to be"
    Yogi Berra

Posted 30 April 2013 - 12:38 AM

View PostTaun, on 29 April 2013 - 02:38 PM, said:

I saw one as well (don't know if it was the same one) I believe it took place in Russia (though I can't be sure) and sometime in the 70's or early 80's...  Babies were introduced to water and in very short time were swimming about quite well, actually before a normal child would learn to walk...

     Ya,  maybe "gestating" in fluid helps them with the RE acclimation to water?     I just thought it was fascinating  that when they tossed them in , from substantial heights! ,  the underwater cameras captured their bubbly descents  in which they would instantly and  Instinctively ?  hold their little breaths  and start contentedly paddling around .. eyes wide open!    
  Then they would float to the surface and orient themselves so they were on their backs  and able to breath just fine.     lol.. it was funny !   Put them in warm water and i'm sure they would have nodded offffff.

Darkwind said:
You throw a cat in the water and it will swim better than a human.

  Ya?   ..      but i'd still rather see a girls at the beach than wet cats ...  ya know?      I'm not supporting the aquatic ape notion ..   but then again..  at one time there were fish that .. eventually became land animals..  that eventually became whales !

Important:  The above may contain errors, inaccuracies, omissions, and other limitations.

#25    Copasetic

Copasetic

    438579088 what am I?

  • Member
  • 4,221 posts
  • Joined:12 Apr 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 April 2013 - 01:21 AM

View PostMajin1, on 29 April 2013 - 09:59 PM, said:

I love when people say we share 98% of our dna with chimps lol what a joke. We also share 98% of our dna with mice, rats, dogs, horses and just about all mammals. here's a kicker for you we share 50% of our dna with bananas. .2% of DNA is a huge thing a full 2% is not even close.


Ignorance is bliss?

We actually don't share "98% of our DNA" with all those animals you named. And can you cite something that says we share "50% of our DNA with bananas"? I'm guessing not.

Here's some free education for the ignorant then:

That we do share a large chunk of DNA in common with bananas shouldn’t be particularly surprising, because going back far enough we (humans and all other living things) share a common ancestor. The basic mechanisms of things like the Krebs cycle, cellular respiration, transcription/translation, protein catabolism and anabolism, etc were all ironed out long before our species or bananas were even a twinkle in the tree of life’s eye.

Further, this often quoted creationist line is a little disingenuous without context. Think about the genome like a book. Suppose we wanted to compare two books to see how similar they are--what we call homology. We could look at homologues between specific letters, between words, between chapters, between acts etc. Depending on the resolution we are comparing them at, we will get different answers. So are we talking single-nucleotide bases? Coding or non-coding DNA? Gene sequences? Chromosomes? Genomes? Tandem repeats?

Picking any two species at random you'll find, based solely on the statistics of chance they share about 25% "DNA in common". Without context these examples are meaningless. For example the often quoted "we share 98% of our DNA with chimps" has a specific context--Here we are talking coding sequences. Which comprise only about 10-15% of the genome. Noncoding DNA is much less conserved because there is no or little selective pressure to keep it conserved. So without saying what is being compared any "we share blah blah with blah blah blah" type quotes don't mean anything.

What's more it isn't surprising we share 98% of our coding DNA with chimpanzees. We share a more recent common ancestor with chimpanzees (and actually bonobos) than we share with any other living organism. Much the same way, you would have a greater amount of shared coding DNA with your cousin, than with me. As both you and your cousin share a more recent common ancestor than you and I. Likewise, you would probably share more coding DNA in common with me, than say an Alaskan Inuit. As you and I more likely to share a more recent common ancestor. No different again, than you and a chimpanzee share more coding DNA in common than say; you and a dog. Even though you and a dog share more genes in common than you and fish; and you the fish more in common than you and a sea star. Following now?

That is what we observe when we look at the molecular biology of life. We see life, seated in hierarchical nested sets. Those sets are explained by evolutionary theory, very well. What doesn't explain them is creation (aka; special creation) or intelligent design. We would expect to see violations to nested hierarchies were all life created after distinct "kinds"--We don't however. And in science, we follow the evidence to where it may lead which in this case is evolution.

Edited by Copasetic, 30 April 2013 - 01:22 AM.


#26    The Id3al Experience

The Id3al Experience

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 684 posts
  • Joined:20 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Zealand

  • Before enlightenment peel the potatoes, after enlightenment, peel the potatoes.

Posted 30 April 2013 - 03:42 AM

View PostAndromedan Starseed 333, on 29 April 2013 - 07:29 PM, said:

i don't buy into the whole crap we came from monkey,apes or etc.although we did do look on the surface in some ways and with some similarities in appearance and etc we did not evolve from we are not animals we are spiritual beings having a physical experience and with souls not the other way around people.

Could we not be both?

Posted Image

#27    coolguy

coolguy

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,478 posts
  • Joined:06 Feb 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:east islip , new york

  • Star trek rules

Posted 30 April 2013 - 03:44 AM

We did not come out of the water, my friends brother believed this 15 years ago lol. Its all bull.never happend


#28    shaddow134

shaddow134

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,360 posts
  • Joined:25 Apr 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northern Ontario

  • "I have often regretted my speech, never my silence." - Xenocrates

Posted 30 April 2013 - 04:00 AM

View PostMajin1, on 29 April 2013 - 09:59 PM, said:

I love when people say we share 98% of our dna with chimps lol what a joke. We also share 98% of our dna with mice, rats, dogs, horses and just about all mammals. here's a kicker for you we share 50% of our dna with bananas. .2% of DNA is a huge thing a full 2% is not even close.


"On the whole, only 25% of the DNA sequence in the dog genome exactly matches the human sequence. When the tiny changes in the other 75% of the DNA are piled up across 25,000 genes and across trillions of cells in the body, the results are two very different organisms."

Widya Mulyasasmita, Stanford University.

"Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia." - Charles Schulz

#29    Majin1

Majin1

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2011

Posted 30 April 2013 - 04:00 AM

actually we share almost 100% with dogs its the structure of the genome that is different http://www.ornl.gov/...en.shtml#stubbs

Edited by Majin1, 30 April 2013 - 04:20 AM.


#30    Majin1

Majin1

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2011

Posted 30 April 2013 - 04:30 AM

Fact is the smallest change in the genome makes a whole different creature .2% is how close neanderthal was. Shared 99.8 % of our dna structure and it made a big difference. Also im on the evolution side im just still on the fence about the time scale. Still missing some key pieces to the puzzle.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users