[seeing.double]

i'm a firm believer in science and a definite believer in
evolution, but most biological anthropology classes seem
to ignore a crucial theory in our evolutionary process -
the aquatic ape theory.
Elaine Morgan has done alot of writing supporting this
theory and can explain it way better than i can.
so here's a couple links:

http://www.primitivism.com/aquatic-ape.htm
good info here.

http://www.ted.com/talks/elaine_morg...atic_apes.html
Elaine Morgan talks about AAT


feedback. what do you think? possible?

[superface13]

This brings up a lot of excellent points I didn't know we were the only land animals to have the layer of fat right under the skin. Can I blame my fat ass on my aquatic ancestors?

[Greenbud]

Still no excuse for what you did to that poor dolphin...

GB

[seeing.double]

Originally Posted by superface13

This brings up a lot of excellent points I didn't know we were the only land animals to have the layer of fat right under the skin. Can I blame my fat ass on my aquatic ancestors?

hahahaha!!
so is micheal phelps the closest link to the aquatic apes?

[contract.dude]

the link is that the apes ate the legs off the fish... fish legs ... Darwins fish legs ..cough..

[dpla]

Lets see now, (Read slowly, I'm head injured)
Our eyes must be continuously moistened with sea water (aka Saline) if we are to see on land. When we get overly emotional, in sorrow and in happiness, we secrete great gushes of seawater from our eye's ducts. Our bodies' skin continuously secretes seawater in order for us to survive on the land. From two single celled germs we develop in utero into this our earthly vehicle for our soul, for nine months, in a bag of seawater. We are capable of swimming, seeing, hearing and holding our breaths under water from birth instinctively (ma will save us.) Seawater is often dripped into our veins to save our lives.
I think we are like a fish out of water, only a air breathing, live bearing, breast feeding, humpin'an'agrindin, pot smokin' mammalian type.
I believe we evolved from the sea and migrated out all over the world by sea and by land looking for great Cannabis to reap for all it's potential and that prohibition of Cannabis is a sacrilege to that which is naturally good and supportive of "basic quality human existence."
Seafood is really good for our being and the sea can provide all our nutritional needs, as long as we don't kill the sea first. You have to go swimming naked in the sea to know home (tidal pools are best). I just don't see any Sea Cannabis. All vertebrates share in having the receptors in their brains and reproductive organs for THC and other cannabinoids. Cannabis is non-toxic to all vertebrates. I believe everything living came from the sea. I love science, it just keeps going on and on. Cannabis is toxic to nematodes, certain flatworms and schizophrenics. Oh yes, in order to leave the sea and go out amongst the land you must take two things to survive, fresh water and salt. Amen

[bossplaya]

i will pray for all as Jesus asked GOd to forgive all that did not believe for they did not know!

[superface13]

Originally Posted by bossplaya

i will pray for all as Jesus asked GOd to forgive all that did not believe for they did not know!

Thanks Bosspalya

The more people praying for my sorry ass the better

Originally Posted by bossplaya

i will pray for all as Jesus asked GOd to forgive all that did not believe for they did not know!

Can you PLEASE stop hijacking every thread? Just let this thread be about what it's about! You don't have to participate.

It's kind of interesting, even though I don't know much about the subject myself.

[SpirituallyEnlightened]

Originally Posted by Cannabliss

Can you PLEASE stop hijacking every thread? Just let this thread be about what it's about! You don't have to participate.

It's kind of interesting, even though I don't know much about the subject myself.

i enjoyed that post

[bossplaya]

Originally Posted by Cannabliss

Can you PLEASE stop hijacking every thread? Just let this thread be about what it's about! You don't have to participate.

It's kind of interesting, even though I don't know much about the subject myself.

LMAO...Always telling me what to do. Get a life cannabliss. Your the one on every thread. I commented first and here you come just hating like a bitter old man!

[BabyBoomer]

I didn't see anything about DNA. Which surprised me. Interesting theory that I had never heard of.

It has been proven by mitochondrial dna testing that we all came from one woman and every human is traced back to this real "Eve" out of Africa.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve


The Discovery Channel = The Real "EVE" (Part one of three)


So I wonder why they didn't do any dna studies on this???? Or did I miss that part?

Interesting theories (a concept that is not yet verified) and like opinions, everyone has one.

Thought provoking. And I am still trying to figure it all out.

Originally Posted by bossplaya

LMAO...Always telling me what to do. Get a life cannabliss. Your the one on every thread. I commented first and here you come just hating like a bitter old man!

First of all, I tried being nice to you but you insist on persisting with your tough guy act. Get over it.

Second, you posted before me, yep, so? Your post was ONCE AGAIN off the fuckin' topic, as usual, and you know you're just trying to derail another thread with your BULLSHIT. This thread isn't about evangelism.

Third, from what I've heard, you're older than me. Bitter old man? You're on your way there, that's for sure...

Now leave this thread alone. God damn.

[budluva]

interesting theory for sure! never heard of this. upon reading and listening to those links i remembered something from a science class i took recently about the ear and that is that our main organ for hearing (the cochlea) is filled with fluid, SALTY fluid, which was passed on to us by our aquatic ancestors... chalk another bit of evidence up for this? maybe, maybe not but very interesting read on this sleepless night for me, thank you

[dpla]

Originally Posted by BabyBoomer

I didn't see anything about DNA. Which surprised me. Interesting theory that I had never heard of.

It has been proven by mitochondrial dna testing that we all came from one woman and every human is traced back to this real "Eve" out of Africa.

So I wonder why they didn't do any dna studies on this???? Or did I miss that part?

I believe Out of Africa's Eve was the first of the modern humans but, her parents were protohumans.

[BabyBoomer]

Originally Posted by dpla

I believe Out of Africa's Eve was the first of the modern humans but, her parents were protohumans.

Thank you.

Wonder if the missing link may have come from the oceans then?

[dpla]

A lot of missing links. Trying to find all the pieces between the first vertebrate as in the Burgess Shale to all present vertebrates is a monumental task.

[superface13]

I really want to study this idea more!

It reminds me of when they first accepted that dinosaurs were the ancestors of birds....It took a while, but it made too much sense not to be accepted as a valid theory.

Our ancestors were mermonkeys!

[contract.dude]

Originally Posted by superface13

I really want to study this idea more!

It reminds me of when they first accepted that dinosaurs were the ancestors of birds....It took a while, but it made too much sense not to be accepted as a valid theory.

Our ancestors were mermonkeys!

dude you make me laugh, thanks for your posts.

[LemonHerb]

Originally Posted by BabyBoomer

Thank you.

Wonder if the missing link may have come from the oceans then?

The concept of a missing link is a false one, there are several hundred or even thousand of species that occupy the space on the evolutionary chart where many believe a missing link should be. Evolution happens in very small gradual steps.


Also, I am pretty sure it's the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis as there is not enough evidence supporting it to call a theory.

[dpla]

Ardipithecus ramidus:
The View From Afar
Ann Gibbons for AAAS/Science

The Middle Awash project, which includes 70 scientists from 18 nations, is best known for its discovery of the 4.4-million-year-old partial skeleton of Ardipithecus ramidus at Aramis, about 34 kilometers north of here. That skeleton is now dramatically revising ideas of how upright walking evolved and how our earliest ancestors differed from chimpanzees. But Aramis is just one of 300 localities in the Middle Awash, which is the only place in the world to yield fossils that span the entire saga of hominid evolution. At last count, this team had gathered 19,000 vertebrate fossils over the past 19 years. These include about 300 specimens from seven species of hominins, from some of the first members of the human family, such as 5.8-million-year-old Ar. ramidus kadabba, to the earliest members of our own species, Homo sapiens, which lived here about 160,000 years ago.

[polluted]

Originally Posted by bossplaya

i will pray for all as Jesus asked GOd to forgive all that did not believe for they did not know!

A gangbanger for god?Southern killa kali and there asses?and i hope they dont like it

[HappaGuy]

The Wiki on the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis:

Criticisms

Several theoretical problems have been found with the AAH, and some claims made by the AAH have been challenged as having explanations aside from a period of aquatic adaptation.
[edit] Theoretical considerations

The AAH has been criticized for containing multiple inconsistencies, and lacking evidence from the fossil record to support its claims.[26][27] It is also described as lacking parsimony despite purporting to be a simple theory uniting many of the unique anatomical features of humans.[26]

Though describing the theory as plausible, Henry Gee went on to criticize it for being untestable, as most of the evolutionary adaptations described by Morgan would not have fossilized. Gee also stated that while purely aquatic mammals such as whales show strong skeletal evidence of adaptation to water, humans and human fossils lack such adaptations; that there are many hypothetical and equally plausible scenarios explaining the unique characteristics of human adaptation without involving an aquatic phase of evolution; and that proponents are basing arguments about past adaptations on present physiology, when humans are not significantly aquatic.[28] There is ultimately only circumstantial evidence to suggest, and no solid evidence to support the AAH.[29][30] ScienceBlogs author Greg Laden has described the AAH as a "human evolution theory of everything" that attempts to explain all anatomical and physiological features of humans, and is correct in some areas only by chance. Laden also states that the AAH was proposed when knowledge of human evolutionary history was unclear, while more recent research has found that many human traits have emerged at different times over millions of years, rather than simultaneously due to a single evolutionary pressure.[8]
[edit] Habitat

Morgan has presented the AAH as an alternative to the "savanna model", which portrays protohumans as moving out from forested environments and into a hot dry savanna. However, this idea has been called a caricature of the actual environments in which protohumans are thought to have evolved, and presents a false dichotomy as more recent theories propose a tree or forest-based habitat providing the driving forces for adaptation.[29]

The belief that wading into shallow water would help proto-humans avoid dry-land predation discounts the risks presented by aquatic animals such as crocodiles and hippopotami that present a current risk to Africans living near bodies of water,[31] and that protohumans lacked the fangs, claws or size to defend themselves from these threats.[32]
[edit] Anatomical and physiological claims

* Hairlessness – Most aquatic mammals that are comparably sized to humans are not hairless, but have dense, insulating fur and swim very well, with fatty layers beneath the skin.[31] Aquatic mammals do not vary greatly in their body hair, while humans do.[8] Hairless skin is also only an advantage for fully-aquatic mammals that dive, swim quickly or migrate long distances such as whales and dolphins,[32] and only appears and is an advantage for extremely large aquatic mammals who would overheat with large amounts of body hair, who are fully-aquatic and have evolved as an aquatic species for millions of years. Both the body hair that is present in humans and the total removal of body hair have a negligible effect on swimming speed, and do not recreate the ridged, hairless skin used by fully aquatic mammals such as dolphins, or the thick hair found in partially aquatic animals such as seals.[33] The loss of body hair is also explainable through a lower parasite load, and maintenance through sexual selection.[34]
* Breath control – The position, evolutionary timing of changes, and size of the nerve openings in the vertebra suggest that breath control in humans improved because of the increased complexity and use of speech rather than an aquatic phase of evolution.[35]
* Diving reflex – the mammalian diving reflex is more easily explained as a reaction to hypothermia than underwater swimming.[36]
* Diet – a broad terrestrial diet would ensure sufficient access to required essential fatty acids without a high consumption of seafood[37] and the "best" fats found in fish are from cold water fish that did not occupy the same costal environments as humans. In addition, the requirements of these fats are very minimal, with no evidence that extra fats would result in an evolutionary pressure towards a larger brain. Humans without access to shoreline foods also develop normal brains.[38]
* Body fat – the subcutaneous fat distribution in humans is more similar to a domesticated animal than an aquatic one, and is nearly identical to that of other primates.[39][40] The subcutaneous fat of aquatic mammals and humans also seems to serve different uses - it forms the streamlined shape of seals, while in humans it is used for sexual selection. Humans display considerable sexual dimorphism in their fat distribution, which is not explained by the AAH.[41][8]
* Swimming – humans are inefficient swimmers, with shapes that are not well suited to rapid travel through water.[33] Swimming is also a learned trait, and though babies are able to propel themselves inefficiently through water, they are unable to lift their faces to breathe.[40] Human eyes do not see well underwater, and human skin is not waterproof (as demonstrated by the "pruning" of the fingertips when submerged for long periods).[36]
* Bipedalism – brachiating apes are more commonly bipedal than are ground-dwelling ones, and no aquatic species travel bipedally on land (except penguins). Also, the human fossil record demonstrates a gradual adaptation from tree-dwelling to bipedalism rather than an abrupt transition to an aquatic environment.[40]
* Immunity – Humans lack immune system defences to protect against waterborne parasites.[32]
* Descended larynx – the human larynx is not shaped like the larynxes of aquatic animals; it forms and descends as an infant begins to speak, making it easier to aspirate water and drown. In addition, numerous non-aquatic animals have descended or partially descended larynxes, including the chimpanzee.[42]
* Sebaceous glands – many aquatic animals have rudimentary or no sebaceous glands. In humans, sebaceous glands become active during puberty with men having far more than women while women have much better scent receptors. This suggests the glands are sexually dimorphic for sexual selection rather than waterproofing. In seals that use sebaceous glands for waterproofing, the glands are active from birth and are secreted by hard, keratinized skin that is very different from human skin.[43]
* Vestigial webbing – vestigial webbing between fingers is a birth defect, not an evolutionary adaptation;[40] it is extremely rare, and found in numerous other non-aquatic primates.[44]

Source: Aquatic ape hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The AAH points up some mysterious human physiological traits that want explaining, but they don't seem to add up to an aquatic human phase, especially in the absence of evidence and the presence of alternative explanations. Moreover, the AAH posits some false facts such as the idea subcutaneous body fat in humans is distinctive from land mammals - if you trust the Wiki.

If our ancestors were mermonkeys, presumably there would still be species similar to mermonkeys with genomes closely related to the human still swimming around as there are chimps and monkeys in the forests of the world (absent some extinction event that somehow killed all mermonkeys and left the ancestral human line alone). Seal, whale, dolphin, and manatee genomes show no close relation to the human apart from being mammals, if I am not mistaken.

Anomalies point the way out of our present ignorance toward the truth. What we don't understand we follow to understanding.

Someone mentioned that evolution occurs gradually. My understanding is that that has been the presumption of evolutionary biologists until recently when punctuated evolution has been recognized along with genetic drift and natural selection as driving evolution -- change over time in the genome of a given species. Punctuated evolution - sudden change - may occur due to disasters wiping out some genetically divergent populations and not others of a species, as well as other mechanisms not presently understood. Think huge meteors and titanic volcanic eruptions and such.

This AAH has intensified my curiosity about human origins. They never mentioned it during my anthropology training. Thanks for the post.

[superface13]

Damn....I liked the idea of mermonkeys!

[HappaGuy]

Originally Posted by superface13

Damn....I liked the idea of mermonkeys!

There is hope for mermonkeys superface13! Don't despair!

Maybe the mermonkeys are just hiding, y'know, like Yeti. Maybe after splitting off from us they went cryptozoological.

(It's just a very very small hope.)