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

The above link is totally useless as should have been noticed by the following:

paleontological evidence for an aquatic phase of human existence has proven elusive

Which means that there is no evidence to substantiate this claim. Also you seem to not know that there is a difference between a member of the genus "Homo" in general and the specific species "Homo sapiens" and are now relying on an article about ancestors that existed before the Australopithecines, which themselves were likely hairy, c.4,000,000 BP.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The above link is totally useless as should have been noticed by the following:

Which means that there is no evidence to substantiate this claim. Also you seem to not know that there is a difference between a member of the genus "Homo" in general and the specific species "Homo sapiens" and are now relying on an article about ancestors that existed before the Australopithecines, which themselves were likely hairy, c.4,000,000 BP.

cormac

I don`nt know cormac, but it seems homo sapians in losing the hair had something to do with water making the gene go dorment ,perhaps salt water. Salt is a natural abrasive. If salt is left in the hair for too long then it can rub away at the cuticles and also the scalp causing damage and hair loss. Salt also draws out water. It is dehydrating when used excessively. So again salt in the hair can cause dryness. It also strips hair of oil and can take off the outer keratin coating of the hair, as it can break down protein bonds, leading to excessive dryness

Edited by docyabut2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don`nt know cormac, but it seems homo sapians in losing the hair had something to do with water making the gene go dorment ,perhaps salt water. Salt is a natural abrasive. If salt is left in the hair for too long then it can rub away at the cuticles and also the scalp causing damage and hair loss. Salt also draws out water. It is dehydrating when used excessively. So again salt in the hair can cause dryness. It also strips hair of oil and can take off the outer keratin coating of the hair, as it can break down protein bonds, leading to excessive dryness

Homo sapiens didn't lose hair as it would have been an earlier member of the genus, possibly Homo erectus or H. heidelbergensis. None of which shows evidence of having spent all/nearly all of their time in water.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Homo sapiens didn't lose hair as it would have been an earlier member of the genus, possibly Homo erectus or H. heidelbergensis. None of which shows evidence of having spent all/nearly all of their time in water.

cormac

Ok a question we don`nt really know if the earlier homo sapiens were hairless as they are today by discovery of the bones , because hair decomposes, so how can they guess when we did start to lose our hair a million years ago from a hommid or when?

Edited by docyabut2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok a question we don`nt really know if the earlier homo sapiens were hairless as they are today by discovery of the bones , because hair decomposes, so how can they guess when we did start to lose our hair a million years ago from a hommid or when?

We can tell by the expression of the genes responsible for the presence or lack of hair. And as posted earlier said genes date to c. 1.2 million years ago. And the 'earlier homo sapiens' only date to c.200,000 years ago, so well within the timeframe for the overall loss of body hair. All of which makes the 'aquatic ape theory' about as useless as a leg-less man at a butt kicking contest.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can tell by the expression of the genes responsible for the presence or lack of hair. And as posted earlier said genes date to c. 1.2 million years ago. And the 'earlier homo sapiens' only date to c.200,000 years ago, so well within the timeframe for the overall loss of body hair. All of which makes the 'aquatic ape theory' about as useless as a leg-less man at a butt kicking contest.

cormac

How can they judge the gene of hairlessness went dorment 1,2million years ago.? by other mammels, hommids or what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the faux educational channels did a mock-u-mentary about this, Mermaids!!! Most of the people i know that brought it up believed it was the honest to god truth because the saw it on T.V. I call it A.A. syndrome. Any ways who's to say we didn't lose our body hair(some of us did, not me lol), because we started makeshifting animal skins and furs to clothes our bodies as we slowly migrated to cooler climates? I didn't see that anywhere but just my couple cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can they judge the gene of hairlessness went dorment 1,2million years ago.? by other mammels, hommids or what?

They compare the expression and differences between the gene from looking at same within 1) humans versus chimpanzees; 2) Africans versus Europeans and 3) include a comparison of Hss (us) and Neanderthal genes. All together of which points to a timeframe of c.1.2 million years BP.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They compare the expression and differences between the gene from looking at same within 1) humans versus chimpanzees; 2) Africans versus Europeans and 3) include a comparison of Hss (us) and Neanderthal genes. All together of which points to a timeframe of c.1.2 million years BP.

cormac

Cormac gee maybe I don`t understand:),but how can they compare a hair growing gene that supposely went dorment in parts of our bodies to the chimpanzees and in the Neaderthals to 1,2million years ago when hair still grows. The Neaderthals were only about 40,000 years ago, how do we know they were as hairless as us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cormac gee maybe I don`t understand:),but how can they compare a hair growing gene that supposely went dorment in parts of our bodies to the chimpanzees and in the Neaderthals to 1,2million years ago when hair still grows. The Neaderthals were only about 40,000 years ago, how do we know they were as hairless as us?

It's the same gene expressed in different ways over the timeframe of the groups I mentioned previously. Meaning that it didn't just magically appear one day, it's always been there. And while Neanderthals went extinct c.40,000 BP, they and Homo sapiens diverged from their common ancestor some 500,000+ years ago. And we have the entire Neanderthal Genome to compare ours to, on top of the genome for chimpanzees since they are the closest extant primate to us. Again, the gene was there in all groups and worked the same way for much of our line. Being dormant doesn't mean being non-existant. It's also based in part on the estimated African population (since all lines ultimately originate from Africa) at the time which further explains when, how long ago and to what degree the gene is expressed.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I first heard this theory in high school in the 80s and I think it's very plausible. Look at your nose. Unlike other 'apes' our nostrils point down, not out front. Theorists state this is so they don't fill with water when swimming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I still don`nt get it, I think we were all a bunch of hairy beings just like the apes, until we went swimming in the ocean waters.:):)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I still don`nt get it, I think we were all a bunch of hairy beings just like the apes, until we went swimming in the ocean waters. :) :)

You're entitled to believe what you want. The evidence however suggests otherwise.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aquatics were thought to be extinct , until pods were spotted on the Florida coast.

Pod of female aquatics performing a courting ritual to attract male aquatics > post-86645-0-97699200-1369011239_thumb.j

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Humans didn’t descend from aquatic apes, of course, although our ancestors were too slow & heavy for regular running over open plains as some anthropologists still believe.

Instead, Pleistocene Homo populations simply followed the coasts & rivers in Africa & Eurasia. 800,000 years ago, they even reached Flores more than 18 km overseas.

- google “econiche Homo”

- eBook “Was Man more aquatic in the past?” introd.Phillip Tobias

http://www.benthamscience.com/ebooks/9781608052448/index.htm

- guest post at Greg Laden’s blog

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/01/30/common-misconceptions-and-unproven-assumptions-about-the-aquatic-ape-theory

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.