|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9204 total) |
| |
azlesmiles | |
Total: 919,287 Year: 6,544/9,624 Month: 122/270 Week: 35/83 Day: 9/12 Hour: 1/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Aquatic Ape theory? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Denesha Inactive Member |
Dear Sylas,
Yes, you fully well understood my idea. Fresh water neighborhood is a very dangerous place. Inacceptable to be a cradle of some terrestrial evolutive trend. You can't coexist where an other top of the foodchain use to swim (crocs). This is also concerning sharks. Denesha
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sylas Member (Idle past 5490 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
Cynic1 writes: I was operating off of her original book, and her theory sounded interesting. I just wanted to fill in the rest of the tenets of the theory that were missed. I apologize for posting falsified data, I haven't read it for a while. Hey, no problem. It's good to post questions and comments, and on a web forum it is fine to post material off the cuff. References are good if you have them, but there is nothing wrong with posting ideas from not quite remembered old sources and throwing them into the mix. I'm a bit brusque with the theory; but that does not carry over to people who bring them up for discussion! I'll welcome engagement with anyone who would like to defend the model in more detail; it might be illuminating. I won't pull punches on ideas; but they'll be aimed at ideas, not at people who bring them up for us to discuss.
I'll do some research on that oil thing, independent of Morgan, but I doubt I'll find anything. The penguin comparison was hers, by the way, and I almost left it out. I didn't really think the comparison between a human and a bird was relevant, but she seemed to think it was important. Most (all?) of the aquatic ape stuff appears to have this character; odd and usually strained parallels with aquatic animals. If they were better founded this could be a legitimate basis for a real scientific model; parallels are okay. But the penguin one was amusing... by all means see if you can find something on oil glands. Best wishes -- Sylas
(Edit to add the first quote. Don't know how it got left off.) [This message has been edited by Sylas, 04-07-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
I took a semester of Physical Anthropology and read one of Mogans books. It was interesting but unfounded. The Savannah theory from what I remember was that the drastic climatic changes caused the Jungles to recede which in turn opened up enormous grasslands and a new niche to exploit. Early arboreal apes began to frequent these grassland and through the process of mutation and natural selection and tremendous amounts of time, evolved into bipedal apes. I just compressed this theory into a paragraph but thats the jist of it as far as I can remember, Forum members feel free to correct me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TechnoCore Inactive Member |
I saw a documentary on a swedish channel about a year ago about exactly that.
I thought there was one striking thing speaking for it.Humans must eat several essential organic compounds since our body can't produce them. (Dont remember which now) The apes didn't need to eat those compounds since their bodies did make them. Those compounds were found in aquatic living animals (food). Also that apes cannot eat crayfish, shrimps and so on. Something in it that their digestion can't handle, but humans have no problem with it. My few thoughts on it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member (Idle past 105 days) Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: |
IIRC, most early homanid finds are on shore-lines (at the time of deposit, not ness. now), and nearly all early human settlements are on either rivers or shorelines. However, shore-dwelling is a whole whack away from being aquatic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Denesha Inactive Member |
Dear Jack,
Yes indeed. Water spots were such scarce as in our days. It's not speculative to consider they were attractive for primitive human forms. For drinking, playing and fishing? But all these activities implicate an immediate use of them. I mean that they were unable to transport water unlikely as the food. Denesha
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Inactive Administrator |
Thread moved here from the Biological Evolution forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TechnoCore Inactive Member |
So whats the definition of aquatic ? Is that living in water all the time ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Denesha Inactive Member |
Vital dependance of water (fresh or marine), at least at one ontogenic stage.
I'm just out of the shower. I'm not aquatic. Consider aquatic mammalia as Cetacean and other Pinnipedes.I'm not specialist but I see a brand off-topic discussion rising soon. Have a nice day, Denesha
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TechnoCore Inactive Member |
Ok thanks for the clarification
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
redwolf Member (Idle past 6021 days) Posts: 185 From: alexandria va usa Joined: |
>I have to agree that the Aquatic Ape theory seems to make more sense
>than the savannah theory. A lot more sense. The savannah theory is basically idiotic. Moreover, one does not need to believe in evolution(ism) in order to comprehend that Morgan is almost certainly correct in thinking that humans originally lived in water; the question of evolution vs creation does not figure into her theory. One could as easily start off assuming that humans originally were created with the adaptations she describes. But back to the savahhan theory. What's the most major difference between human infants and the young of most prey animals? That's right: the baby deer and wildebeast have the sense to keep quiet. What's gonna happen the first time some group of "protohumans" comes down from the trees and starts trooping across the savannahs, and some human infant starts screaming his head off because something displeased him? I mean, how are all the 400 - 1000 lb predators roaming across the savannah going to INTERPRET that?? As a dinner bell maybe?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1635 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
yeppers
we gots them webbed feet and hands to show for it too, just like lil froggums, oh yes. move much faster in water than on land too ... an the hootin an hollerin will be unnoticed in the water along with the splashin around, ummmmm yeah. babies in aboriginal tribes are quiet ... what would change that? enjoy we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5263 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Change NACl for Calicium.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
redwolf writes: LOL, thats must mean it should be replaced with the aquatic ape theory then huh? Since the aquatic ape theory has so much more evidence to give credence to it. Perhaps you could share. The savannah theory is basically idiotic.And as Abby indicated Humans are just slow meat puppets in the water...link "One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1635 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
to say nothing about killer whales:
we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024