Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Roiberto

Early human ancestors were ‘aquatic apes’

66 posts in this topic

Sounds Strange what do you guys think of this theory ?

I dont belive it

source

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds Strange what do you guys think of this theory ?

I dont belive it

source

It could provide answers to some hard questions of human evolution, but it is not a favoured scientific theory.

I like it myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Hmmmmm very interesting, May have to look into it more....

Don't know where I stand, but it does link certain things which is interesting. But also opens up a few questions.

Edited by The Id3al Experience

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did these apes live near water and occasionally went for a dip, or did they actually live in water swimming about? I didn't know apes could swim. I may be on the wrong track here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

they lived close to the water and went diving for fish and all that stuff.....Desmond Morris talks about that in "the naked ape", you can find that as a documentary on youtube......

Edit: DANG! I just checked, it's not on youtube anymore. Go get the book, must be cheap, as it was written in 1967 already.....

Edited by Jacques Terreur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen films of babies being tossed in the water... they just floated up to the surface where they floated with their faces above water!

Some were placed in the water face down... they INSTINCTIVELY wriggled around to right themselves so their faces / NOSE would be above the water line. It was fascinating!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THE theory seems to make sense. Humans love to go to the beach and be in the water for just fun. It amy also explain why dolphins love us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not overly convinced by this one, but it is hard to go against what you have 'known' since childhood. That same teaching also told me all land dwelling life came from the water in the first place.

I think the word 'aquatic' is hard to get your head around, living in/near water (even though thats what aquatic means) is much more palatable, like these guys...

Snow-Monkey-2_zps78735d7a.jpg

Aquatic makes me think if amphibious and green skinned animals!!

I feel for David Attenborough having his name dropped into this. With this and his Yeti comments I worry for his state of mind in his later years, such a great man I do hope his life does not end in a realm of fantasy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that D.A. is just in a stage of his life where public scrutiny is of no concern to him.

A lot of famous people were ridiculed for their beliefs while living but once passed on the

following generation praises those people for there risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen films of babies being tossed in the water... they just floated up to the surface where they floated with their faces above water!

Some were placed in the water face down... they INSTINCTIVELY wriggled around to right themselves so their faces / NOSE would be above the water line. It was fascinating!!

You throw a cat in the water and it will swim better than a human. I think humans like water, but aquitic apes is a little off the deepend. Tigers like swimming, but I wouldn't call them an aquatic cat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's really no reason for this theory. Looking at already established evolutionary evidence, apes would have had to evolve to become aquatic, like marine mammals, then evolved back to living on land again. By then you would have a completely different animal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen films of babies being tossed in the water... they just floated up to the surface where they floated with their faces above water!

Some were placed in the water face down... they INSTINCTIVELY wriggled around to right themselves so their faces / NOSE would be above the water line. It was fascinating!!

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some flaws in this theory,for instance some say that our hairless bodies are due to an aquatic phase in our past but mammals such as Beavers swim just as well with hair and are very well adapted to water.

http://www.aquaticape.org/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This theory was taken up in the Descent of Woman and the Aquatic Apes books series both written by women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sea Monkeys!

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.