Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Aquatic Ape

Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 9:37:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 9:33:39 PM, Pink1234 wrote:
Your thoughts on the " Aquatic Ape Theory".

I've never heard of it, and am reading up on it now.

It's very interesting.

Have any information or sources of information to share?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 9:40:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 9:37:29 PM, Ren wrote:
At 6/3/2012 9:33:39 PM, Pink1234 wrote:
Your thoughts on the " Aquatic Ape Theory".

I've never heard of it, and am reading up on it now.

It's very interesting.

Have any information or sources of information to share?

It's pure bunk.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 9:41:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
These arguments are quite interesting.

To help prevent those who are also unfamiliar from simply rejecting the idea outright:

1. It does not deny or contradict evolution.

2. It does not deny or contradict a common ancestor.

3. It does not suggest we are related to any other organism other than primates.

4. It has no ties to conspiracy theory.

5. It has some authoritative support.

6. It does not indicate that we are from the ocean.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 9:41:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 9:40:58 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/3/2012 9:37:29 PM, Ren wrote:
At 6/3/2012 9:33:39 PM, Pink1234 wrote:
Your thoughts on the " Aquatic Ape Theory".

I've never heard of it, and am reading up on it now.

It's very interesting.

Have any information or sources of information to share?

It's pure bunk.

Whywhy?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 9:59:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 9:41:38 PM, Ren wrote:
At 6/3/2012 9:40:58 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/3/2012 9:37:29 PM, Ren wrote:
At 6/3/2012 9:33:39 PM, Pink1234 wrote:
Your thoughts on the " Aquatic Ape Theory".

I've never heard of it, and am reading up on it now.

It's very interesting.

Have any information or sources of information to share?

It's pure bunk.

Whywhy?

Well, let's start simple.

The Theory claims to explain human hairlessness by saying it is primarily influenced by the amount of aquatic interaction leading to convergent evolution.

One big problem is that hairlessness for mammals in the aquatic world is the exception, not the rule. It mainly occurs when the size of the animal is such that fur would lead to too little heat dissipation. The only times size is not involved and there is hairless, the mammal has been aquatic for millions of years. Some have variations like kerantized cells instead of hair, but that's for seals.

Second, in order to argue that our hair placement is relevant to streamlining for swimming, then you'd have to swim with the crown of your head straight forward and your arms at your sides.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 10:11:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 9:59:26 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/3/2012 9:41:38 PM, Ren wrote:
At 6/3/2012 9:40:58 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/3/2012 9:37:29 PM, Ren wrote:
At 6/3/2012 9:33:39 PM, Pink1234 wrote:
Your thoughts on the " Aquatic Ape Theory".

I've never heard of it, and am reading up on it now.

It's very interesting.

Have any information or sources of information to share?

It's pure bunk.

Whywhy?

Well, let's start simple.

The Theory claims to explain human hairlessness by saying it is primarily influenced by the amount of aquatic interaction leading to convergent evolution.

One big problem is that hairlessness for mammals in the aquatic world is the exception, not the rule. It mainly occurs when the size of the animal is such that fur would lead to too little heat dissipation. The only times size is not involved and there is hairless, the mammal has been aquatic for millions of years. Some have variations like kerantized cells instead of hair, but that's for seals.

Are you sure?

The orders that are in the water the most (cetaceans, odontocetis, and sirenia) have the least hair, while those who are in the water often (pinnipedia) only have some hair or at some point during their lives, while those who are in the water the least (carnivora) seem to have the most hair or most consistently. Even penguins have evolved smooth plumage that almost feels like skin in one direction (much like scales). There certainly seems to be some relationship between an aquatic lifestyle and hair growth.

Second, in order to argue that our hair placement is relevant to streamlining for swimming, then you'd have to swim with the crown of your head straight forward and your arms at your sides.

...why?

Because we have hair on our heads and under our arms?

That's pretty localized, though, don't you think? Wouldn't it be more important to forgo hair on our chests, backs, etc.?

Moreover, this hair issue seems to be the case in phenotypic variation, as well. Take Asians and Pacific Islanders, for example, that lived highly "aquatic" lifestyles throughout history -- they have the least hair. Those who seem more inclined to live entirely on land or in dry areas, such as Europeans, Africans, and Middle Easterners, seem hairiest.

I mean, I'm not saying that it's cut-and-dry, but I don't see any reason to simply cast it off as rubbish quite yet.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2012 12:30:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 10:11:18 PM, Ren wrote:
At 6/3/2012 9:59:26 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/3/2012 9:41:38 PM, Ren wrote:
At 6/3/2012 9:40:58 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/3/2012 9:37:29 PM, Ren wrote:
At 6/3/2012 9:33:39 PM, Pink1234 wrote:
Your thoughts on the " Aquatic Ape Theory".

I've never heard of it, and am reading up on it now.

It's very interesting.

Have any information or sources of information to share?

It's pure bunk.

Whywhy?

Well, let's start simple.

The Theory claims to explain human hairlessness by saying it is primarily influenced by the amount of aquatic interaction leading to convergent evolution.

One big problem is that hairlessness for mammals in the aquatic world is the exception, not the rule. It mainly occurs when the size of the animal is such that fur would lead to too little heat dissipation. The only times size is not involved and there is hairless, the mammal has been aquatic for millions of years. Some have variations like kerantized cells instead of hair, but that's for seals.

Are you sure?

The orders that are in the water the most (cetaceans, odontocetis, and sirenia) have the least hair, while those who are in the water often (pinnipedia) only have some hair or at some point during their lives, while those who are in the water the least (carnivora) seem to have the most hair or most consistently. Even penguins have evolved smooth plumage that almost feels like skin in one direction (much like scales). There certainly seems to be some relationship between an aquatic lifestyle and hair growth.

Second, in order to argue that our hair placement is relevant to streamlining for swimming, then you'd have to swim with the crown of your head straight forward and your arms at your sides.

...why?

Because we have hair on our heads and under our arms?

That's pretty localized, though, don't you think? Wouldn't it be more important to forgo hair on our chests, backs, etc.?

Moreover, this hair issue seems to be the case in phenotypic variation, as well. Take Asians and Pacific Islanders, for example, that lived highly "aquatic" lifestyles throughout history -- they have the least hair. Those who seem more inclined to live entirely on land or in dry areas, such as Europeans, Africans, and Middle Easterners, seem hairiest.

I mean, I'm not saying that it's cut-and-dry, but I don't see any reason to simply cast it off as rubbish quite yet.

Exactly what version of Aquatic Ape are you proposing?

The type I refer to is that there is an aquatically-based ancestor of homo sapiens sapiens whose traits arose from convergent evolution with other aquatic mammals.

The other is that homo sapiens sapiens have a wide variety of phenotypes as it relates to body hair/length/etc. Those living around areas of water had less body hair than homo sapiens sapiens in low-water areas. This is due to tens of thousands of years of regional selection, not hundreds of thousands.

My problem is with the former.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2012 12:34:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/4/2012 12:30:43 AM, Wnope wrote:
Exactly what version of Aquatic Ape are you proposing?

The type I refer to is that there is an aquatically-based ancestor of homo sapiens sapiens whose traits arose from convergent evolution with other aquatic mammals.

The other is that homo sapiens sapiens have a wide variety of phenotypes as it relates to body hair/length/etc. Those living around areas of water had less body hair than homo sapiens sapiens in low-water areas. This is due to tens of thousands of years of regional selection, not hundreds of thousands.

My problem is with the former.

Hang on, so there is a theory that we were aquatic mammals? How long ago is this supposed to be?
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2012 12:38:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/4/2012 12:34:08 AM, Oryus wrote:
At 6/4/2012 12:30:43 AM, Wnope wrote:
Exactly what version of Aquatic Ape are you proposing?

The type I refer to is that there is an aquatically-based ancestor of homo sapiens sapiens whose traits arose from convergent evolution with other aquatic mammals.

The other is that homo sapiens sapiens have a wide variety of phenotypes as it relates to body hair/length/etc. Those living around areas of water had less body hair than homo sapiens sapiens in low-water areas. This is due to tens of thousands of years of regional selection, not hundreds of thousands.

My problem is with the former.


Hang on, so there is a theory that we were aquatic mammals? How long ago is this supposed to be?

Ask the proponents.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2012 12:47:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/4/2012 12:30:43 AM, Wnope wrote:

The type I refer to is that there is an aquatically-based ancestor of homo sapiens sapiens whose traits arose from convergent evolution with other aquatic mammals.

The other is that homo sapiens sapiens have a wide variety of phenotypes as it relates to body hair/length/etc. Those living around areas of water had less body hair than homo sapiens sapiens in low-water areas. This is due to tens of thousands of years of regional selection, not hundreds of thousands.

My problem is with the former.

Well, from what I'm reading, it seems the general proposition is something like, the reason why humans diverged from chimps evolutionarily is because whereas other chimps remained in highly forrested areas, humans instead lived in a partially aquatic environment as opposed to a dry one, as is typically accepted.

Not like, in the sea or even entirely within water, but, in some sort of swampy area or something like that, requiring regular travel through water as well as land. This would be as opposed to almost entirely in trees, like chimpanzees, or on land amidst foliage, like gorillas.

Like:

"The most widely held theory, still taught in schools and universities, is that we are descended from apes which moved out of the forests onto the grasslands of the open savannah. The distinctly human features are thus supposed to be adaptations to a savannah environment.

In that case, we would expect to find at least some of these adaptations to be paralleled in other savannah mammals. But there is not a single instance of this, not even among species like baboons and vervets, which are descended from forest- dwelling ancestors.

...

The Aquatic Ape Theory (AAT) offers an alternative scenario. It suggests that when our ancestors moved onto the savannah they were already different from the apes; that nakedness, bipedalism, and other modifications had begun to evolve much earlier, when the ape and human lines first diverged.

AAT points out that most of the "enigmatic" features of human physiology, though rare or even unique among land mammals, are common in aquatic ones. If we postulate that our earliest ancestors had found themselves living for a prolonged period in a flooded, semi-aquatic habitat, most of the unsolved problems become much easier to unravel."

http://www.primitivism.com...
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2012 12:47:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/4/2012 12:34:08 AM, Oryus wrote:
At 6/4/2012 12:30:43 AM, Wnope wrote:
Exactly what version of Aquatic Ape are you proposing?

The type I refer to is that there is an aquatically-based ancestor of homo sapiens sapiens whose traits arose from convergent evolution with other aquatic mammals.

The other is that homo sapiens sapiens have a wide variety of phenotypes as it relates to body hair/length/etc. Those living around areas of water had less body hair than homo sapiens sapiens in low-water areas. This is due to tens of thousands of years of regional selection, not hundreds of thousands.

My problem is with the former.


Hang on, so there is a theory that we were aquatic mammals? How long ago is this supposed to be?

Apparently, hundreds of thousands of years ago, when we first began evolving away from our common ancestors with chimps.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2012 12:56:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
"AAT points out that most of the "enigmatic" features of human physiology, though rare or even unique among land mammals, are common in aquatic ones."

This seems like a bit of a correlation=/=causation issue.

Of course, I'm new to this information. Never heard of the aquatic ape theory.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2012 1:06:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/4/2012 12:56:27 AM, Oryus wrote:
"AAT points out that most of the "enigmatic" features of human physiology, though rare or even unique among land mammals, are common in aquatic ones."

This seems like a bit of a correlation=/=causation issue.

Yeah, I was thinking that, about that argument by itself. But, I think that was just an error in wording.

I think a better way to put it is that they've identified markedly aquatic characteristics. Take bipedalism, for example:

"t is not surprising bipedalism is so rare. Compared with running or walking on four legs it has many disadvantages. It is slower; it is relatively unstable; it is a skill that takes many years to learn, and it exposes vulnerable organs to attack.

We have been doing it for five million years and in that time our bodies have been drastically remoulded to make it easier, but it is still the direct cause of many discomforts and ailments such as back pains, varicose veins, haemorrhoids, hernias and problems in childbirth. It would have been far more difficult and laborious for our ape-like ancestors; only some powerful pressure could have induced them to adopt a way of walking for which they were initially so ill suited.

...

However, if their habitat had become flooded, they would have been forced to walk on their hind legs whenever they came down to the ground in order to keep their heads above water. The only animal which has ever evolved a pelvis like ours, suitable for bipedalism, was the long-extinct _Oreopithecus_, known as the swamp ape."

Orly? The swamp ape? What say you this is?!

http://en.wikipedia.org...

This is actually a surprisingly comprehensive and enlightening wiki article. Lol, damn.

Moreover, it's beginning to paint a picture that is not outrageous.

They're not saying "humans were once mermaids," which is what I totally expected to see for half a second.

But, the more you read, the more it's like, "hmmm... tell me more..."
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2012 1:12:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/4/2012 1:06:17 AM, Ren wrote:
At 6/4/2012 12:56:27 AM, Oryus wrote:
"AAT points out that most of the "enigmatic" features of human physiology, though rare or even unique among land mammals, are common in aquatic ones."

This seems like a bit of a correlation=/=causation issue.

Yeah, I was thinking that, about that argument by itself. But, I think that was just an error in wording.

I think a better way to put it is that they've identified markedly aquatic characteristics. Take bipedalism, for example:

"t is not surprising bipedalism is so rare. Compared with running or walking on four legs it has many disadvantages. It is slower; it is relatively unstable; it is a skill that takes many years to learn, and it exposes vulnerable organs to attack.

We have been doing it for five million years and in that time our bodies have been drastically remoulded to make it easier, but it is still the direct cause of many discomforts and ailments such as back pains, varicose veins, haemorrhoids, hernias and problems in childbirth. It would have been far more difficult and laborious for our ape-like ancestors; only some powerful pressure could have induced them to adopt a way of walking for which they were initially so ill suited.

...

However, if their habitat had become flooded, they would have been forced to walk on their hind legs whenever they came down to the ground in order to keep their heads above water. The only animal which has ever evolved a pelvis like ours, suitable for bipedalism, was the long-extinct _Oreopithecus_, known as the swamp ape."

Orly? The swamp ape? What say you this is?!

http://en.wikipedia.org...

This is actually a surprisingly comprehensive and enlightening wiki article. Lol, damn.

Moreover, it's beginning to paint a picture that is not outrageous.

They're not saying "humans were once mermaids," which is what I totally expected to see for half a second.

But, the more you read, the more it's like, "hmmm... tell me more..."

It's very interesting. But the fact that this is what I like to study in my free time and at school and I've never heard of this makes me feel like the evidence probably isn't so compelling. I'll definitely be reading up though :)
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2012 1:28:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I heard about this a while ago. It seems like a fringe theory as far as mainstream science is concerned so it probably is bunk. However, there is something appealing about it. It would seem to explain, for example, why we like swimming so much. I don't think most mammals, were they to become sapient, would have swimming pools in their backyards or go to beaches for their vacations. Most mammal hate being in the water yet we are natural swimmers.

Plus, fish is the only meat that isn't really that bad for you. In fact, diets that include fish and exclude all other meats tend to result in the greatest longevity (see the Okinawan diet www.wellnessletter.com/ucberkeley/feature/eat-like-an-okinawan/). An aquatic ape would have surly subsisted on a diet high in fish.

This may seem an even bigger stretch but I've always thought of Gollum as arising out of the aquatic ape portion of Tolkien's brain. Anyway...
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2012 1:30:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/4/2012 1:28:36 AM, vbaculum wrote:
I heard about this a while ago. It seems like a fringe theory as far as mainstream science is concerned so it probably is bunk. However, there is something appealing about it. It would seem to explain, for example, why we like swimming so much. I don't think most mammals, were they to become sapient, would have swimming pools in their backyards or go to beaches for their vacations. Most mammal hate being in the water yet we are natural swimmers.

Yeah, that's what I thought too.
Plus, fish is the only meat that isn't really that bad for you. In fact, diets that include fish and exclude all other meats tend to result in the greatest longevity (see the Okinawan diet www.wellnessletter.com/ucberkeley/feature/eat-like-an-okinawan/). An aquatic ape would have surly subsisted on a diet high in fish.

Yay! That's my diet ^_^
This may seem an even bigger stretch but I've always thought of Gollum as arising out of the aquatic ape portion of Tolkien's brain. Anyway...
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2012 1:35:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Sigh.

Well, of course, we could just look at it and say, "well, I've never heard of it, so it must be stupid."

I thought we could just talk about it. It seems interesting, and really, it's simply not that outrageous.

There is even paleontological evidence of chimps as well as current manifestations of chimps that have similar morphologies, and live in aquatic environments.

I mean, aren't we purported to be most closely related to bonobos? Well, they live in aquatic areas!

I know, I know. It's not cut-and-dry. But, it's worth exploration and conversation among people who know a little about biology, right?

We can even start with evidence against it: http://www.aquaticape.org...

I mean, what do you think? Completely, 100% agree with this guy, or what?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2012 1:38:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/4/2012 1:06:17 AM, Ren wrote:
At 6/4/2012 12:56:27 AM, Oryus wrote:
"AAT points out that most of the "enigmatic" features of human physiology, though rare or even unique among land mammals, are common in aquatic ones."

This seems like a bit of a correlation=/=causation issue.

Yeah, I was thinking that, about that argument by itself. But, I think that was just an error in wording.

I think a better way to put it is that they've identified markedly aquatic characteristics. Take bipedalism, for example:

"t is not surprising bipedalism is so rare. Compared with running or walking on four legs it has many disadvantages. It is slower; it is relatively unstable; it is a skill that takes many years to learn, and it exposes vulnerable organs to attack.

We have been doing it for five million years and in that time our bodies have been drastically remoulded to make it easier, but it is still the direct cause of many discomforts and ailments such as back pains, varicose veins, haemorrhoids, hernias and problems in childbirth. It would have been far more difficult and laborious for our ape-like ancestors; only some powerful pressure could have induced them to adopt a way of walking for which they were initially so ill suited.

...

However, if their habitat had become flooded, they would have been forced to walk on their hind legs whenever they came down to the ground in order to keep their heads above water. The only animal which has ever evolved a pelvis like ours, suitable for bipedalism, was the long-extinct _Oreopithecus_, known as the swamp ape."

Orly? The swamp ape? What say you this is?!

http://en.wikipedia.org...

This is actually a surprisingly comprehensive and enlightening wiki article. Lol, damn.

Moreover, it's beginning to paint a picture that is not outrageous.

They're not saying "humans were once mermaids," which is what I totally expected to see for half a second.

But, the more you read, the more it's like, "hmmm... tell me more..."

Thing is homo erectus was already bipedal before they migrated out of Africa.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2012 1:40:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/4/2012 1:38:22 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/4/2012 1:06:17 AM, Ren wrote:
At 6/4/2012 12:56:27 AM, Oryus wrote:
"AAT points out that most of the "enigmatic" features of human physiology, though rare or even unique among land mammals, are common in aquatic ones."

This seems like a bit of a correlation=/=causation issue.

Yeah, I was thinking that, about that argument by itself. But, I think that was just an error in wording.

I think a better way to put it is that they've identified markedly aquatic characteristics. Take bipedalism, for example:

"t is not surprising bipedalism is so rare. Compared with running or walking on four legs it has many disadvantages. It is slower; it is relatively unstable; it is a skill that takes many years to learn, and it exposes vulnerable organs to attack.

We have been doing it for five million years and in that time our bodies have been drastically remoulded to make it easier, but it is still the direct cause of many discomforts and ailments such as back pains, varicose veins, haemorrhoids, hernias and problems in childbirth. It would have been far more difficult and laborious for our ape-like ancestors; only some powerful pressure could have induced them to adopt a way of walking for which they were initially so ill suited.

...

However, if their habitat had become flooded, they would have been forced to walk on their hind legs whenever they came down to the ground in order to keep their heads above water. The only animal which has ever evolved a pelvis like ours, suitable for bipedalism, was the long-extinct _Oreopithecus_, known as the swamp ape."

Orly? The swamp ape? What say you this is?!

http://en.wikipedia.org...

This is actually a surprisingly comprehensive and enlightening wiki article. Lol, damn.

Moreover, it's beginning to paint a picture that is not outrageous.

They're not saying "humans were once mermaids," which is what I totally expected to see for half a second.

But, the more you read, the more it's like, "hmmm... tell me more..."

Thing is homo erectus was already bipedal before they migrated out of Africa.

Homo erectus lived about 2 mill years ago.

This thing they're talking about, Oreopithecus, lived almost 10 mill years ago.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2012 1:52:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/4/2012 1:40:10 AM, Ren wrote:
At 6/4/2012 1:38:22 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/4/2012 1:06:17 AM, Ren wrote:
At 6/4/2012 12:56:27 AM, Oryus wrote:
"AAT points out that most of the "enigmatic" features of human physiology, though rare or even unique among land mammals, are common in aquatic ones."

This seems like a bit of a correlation=/=causation issue.

Yeah, I was thinking that, about that argument by itself. But, I think that was just an error in wording.

I think a better way to put it is that they've identified markedly aquatic characteristics. Take bipedalism, for example:

"t is not surprising bipedalism is so rare. Compared with running or walking on four legs it has many disadvantages. It is slower; it is relatively unstable; it is a skill that takes many years to learn, and it exposes vulnerable organs to attack.

We have been doing it for five million years and in that time our bodies have been drastically remoulded to make it easier, but it is still the direct cause of many discomforts and ailments such as back pains, varicose veins, haemorrhoids, hernias and problems in childbirth. It would have been far more difficult and laborious for our ape-like ancestors; only some powerful pressure could have induced them to adopt a way of walking for which they were initially so ill suited.

...

However, if their habitat had become flooded, they would have been forced to walk on their hind legs whenever they came down to the ground in order to keep their heads above water. The only animal which has ever evolved a pelvis like ours, suitable for bipedalism, was the long-extinct _Oreopithecus_, known as the swamp ape."

Orly? The swamp ape? What say you this is?!

http://en.wikipedia.org...

This is actually a surprisingly comprehensive and enlightening wiki article. Lol, damn.

Moreover, it's beginning to paint a picture that is not outrageous.

They're not saying "humans were once mermaids," which is what I totally expected to see for half a second.

But, the more you read, the more it's like, "hmmm... tell me more..."

Thing is homo erectus was already bipedal before they migrated out of Africa.

Homo erectus lived about 2 mill years ago.

This thing they're talking about, Oreopithecus, lived almost 10 mill years ago.

Right, and the argument is the selection pressures in swamps would lead to bipedalism in humans because convergent evolution is just that cool.

Oreopithecus lived on small islands in Sardinia completely surrounded with water. The moment a land bridge was created to Europe, they went extinct. That's not exactly "swamp crossing." Also, their hallux's angle relative to the toes did not enable fast bipedal locomotion (wiki).

Even if the swamp selection pressures were relevant, bipedalism was already being selected for in Homo Erectus before they entered the "swamp" phase. Heck, there were signs of bipedalism in australopithecus.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2012 1:59:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/4/2012 1:52:18 AM, Wnope wrote:

Right, and the argument is the selection pressures in swamps would lead to bipedalism in humans because convergent evolution is just that cool.

?

Oreopithecus lived on small islands in Sardinia completely surrounded with water. The moment a land bridge was created to Europe, they went extinct. That's not exactly "swamp crossing." Also, their hallux's angle relative to the toes did not enable fast bipedal locomotion (wiki).

Yeah, I've come across that. Their toes were widely spaced, like tripods. I'm not convinced that species is in our ancestry, either, but I will concede that it does present another example of a species that resorted to walking directly upright, and that species lived among water.

Even if the swamp selection pressures were relevant, bipedalism was already being selected for in Homo Erectus before they entered the "swamp" phase. Heck, there were signs of bipedalism in australopithecus.

Well... as far as I understood it, australopithecus was like, the first hominid -- the first bipedal. Wasn't Lucy an australopithecus?

But, Lucy was from the Savannah. I'm pretty sure this theory raises the question as to whether there was a species that predates australopithecus that was aquatic.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2012 8:06:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/4/2012 1:35:42 AM, Ren wrote:
Sigh.

Well, of course, we could just look at it and say, "well, I've never heard of it, so it must be stupid."

I thought we could just talk about it. It seems interesting, and really, it's simply not that outrageous.

There is even paleontological evidence of chimps as well as current manifestations of chimps that have similar morphologies, and live in aquatic environments.

I mean, aren't we purported to be most closely related to bonobos? Well, they live in aquatic areas!

I know, I know. It's not cut-and-dry. But, it's worth exploration and conversation among people who know a little about biology, right?

We can even start with evidence against it: http://www.aquaticape.org...

I mean, what do you think? Completely, 100% agree with this guy, or what?

I can't really talk about it until I read up on it more. But I'd definitely say it's likely that it's bunk.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2012 8:25:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 9:41:25 PM, Ren wrote:
These arguments are quite interesting.

To help prevent those who are also unfamiliar from simply rejecting the idea outright:

1. It does not deny or contradict evolution.

2. It does not deny or contradict a common ancestor.

3. It does not suggest we are related to any other organism other than primates.

4. It has no ties to conspiracy theory.

5. It has some authoritative support.

Having authority is irrelevant, this is why:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org...

6. It does not indicate that we are from the ocean.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
marcverhaegen
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2013 10:12:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I can't really talk about it until I read up on it more. But I'd definitely say it's likely that it's bunk.
These 2 sentences contradict each other: "definitely"?
Of course, better terms than 'aquatic ape' are Littoral Theory, or Coastal Dispersal Model.
For recent scientific info (not the outdated Wiki page!), please google
-Greg Laden blog Verhaegen,
-econiche Homo.
Rather than running over open plains, Homo populations during the Ice Ages followed coasts & rivers, collecting different waterside & shallow water plant & animal foods.
Human Evolution publishes the proceedings of the symposium with David Attenborough on human waterside evolution "Human Evolution: Past, Present & Future" in London 8-10 May 2013:
SPECIAL EDITION PART 1 (end 2013)
Introduction - Peter Rhys-Evans
1. Human's Association with Water Bodies: the "Exaggerated Diving Reflex" and its Relationship with the Evolutionary Allometry of Human Pelvic and Brain Sizes - Stephen Oppenheimer
2. Human Ecological Breadth: Why Neither Savanna nor Aquatic Hypotheses can Hold Water - JH Langdon
3. Endurance Running versus Underwater Foraging: an Anatomical and Palaeoecological Perspective - Stephen Munro
4. Wading Hypotheses of the Origin of Human Bipedalism - Algis Kuliukas
5. The Aquatic Ape Evolves: Common Misconceptions and Unproven Assumptions about the So-Called Aquatic Ape Hypothesis - Marc Verhaegen
6. The Epigenetic Emergence of Culture at the Coastline: Interaction of Genes, Nutrition, Environment and Demography - CL Broadhurst & Michael Crawford
SPECIAL EDITION PART 2 (begin 2014) with 12 contributions
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2013 4:49:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Interesting, I'm positive I posted in this thread back when it first showed up, wonder were it went?

Was there a "Naked Ape" thread around the same time maybe?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater