Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9204 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: azlesmiles
Post Volume: Total: 919,287 Year: 6,544/9,624 Month: 122/270 Week: 35/83 Day: 9/12 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Aquatic Ape theory?
Denesha
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 138 (98389)
04-07-2004 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Sylas
04-07-2004 6:24 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Sylas, posted 04-07-2004 6:24 AM Sylas has not replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5490 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 17 of 138 (98394)
04-07-2004 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Cynic1
04-07-2004 8:02 AM


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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Cynic1, posted 04-07-2004 8:02 AM Cynic1 has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1734 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 18 of 138 (98441)
04-07-2004 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by SweeneyTodd
04-07-2004 1:58 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by SweeneyTodd, posted 04-07-2004 1:58 AM SweeneyTodd has not replied

  
TechnoCore
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 138 (98445)
04-07-2004 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by SweeneyTodd
04-07-2004 2:45 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by SweeneyTodd, posted 04-07-2004 2:45 AM SweeneyTodd has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Dr Jack, posted 04-08-2004 6:35 AM TechnoCore has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 105 days)
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 20 of 138 (98640)
04-08-2004 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by TechnoCore
04-07-2004 3:02 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by TechnoCore, posted 04-07-2004 3:02 PM TechnoCore has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Denesha, posted 04-08-2004 7:03 AM Dr Jack has not replied
 Message 23 by TechnoCore, posted 04-11-2004 12:15 PM Dr Jack has not replied
 Message 61 by artturi, posted 06-10-2005 2:53 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Denesha
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 138 (98644)
04-08-2004 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Dr Jack
04-08-2004 6:35 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Dr Jack, posted 04-08-2004 6:35 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Inactive Administrator


Message 22 of 138 (98756)
04-08-2004 6:14 PM


Thread moved here from the Biological Evolution forum.

  
TechnoCore
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 138 (99227)
04-11-2004 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Dr Jack
04-08-2004 6:35 AM


So whats the definition of aquatic ? Is that living in water all the time ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Dr Jack, posted 04-08-2004 6:35 AM Dr Jack has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Denesha, posted 04-11-2004 2:08 PM TechnoCore has replied

  
Denesha
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 138 (99254)
04-11-2004 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by TechnoCore
04-11-2004 12:15 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by TechnoCore, posted 04-11-2004 12:15 PM TechnoCore has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by TechnoCore, posted 04-12-2004 9:45 AM Denesha has not replied
 Message 62 by artturi, posted 06-10-2005 3:46 AM Denesha has not replied

  
TechnoCore
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 138 (99382)
04-12-2004 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Denesha
04-11-2004 2:08 PM


Ok thanks for the clarification

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Denesha, posted 04-11-2004 2:08 PM Denesha has not replied

  
redwolf
Member (Idle past 6021 days)
Posts: 185
From: alexandria va usa
Joined: 04-13-2004


Message 26 of 138 (100217)
04-15-2004 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Mike Holland
04-07-2004 3:39 AM


>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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Mike Holland, posted 04-07-2004 3:39 AM Mike Holland has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by RAZD, posted 04-15-2004 1:18 PM redwolf has not replied
 Message 29 by 1.61803, posted 04-15-2004 1:53 PM redwolf has replied
 Message 59 by Brad McFall, posted 03-14-2005 12:46 PM redwolf has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1635 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 27 of 138 (100241)
04-15-2004 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by redwolf
04-15-2004 12:13 PM


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}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by redwolf, posted 04-15-2004 12:13 PM redwolf has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Brad McFall, posted 04-15-2004 1:21 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5263 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 28 of 138 (100242)
04-15-2004 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by RAZD
04-15-2004 1:18 PM


Change NACl for Calicium.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by RAZD, posted 04-15-2004 1:18 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1734 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 29 of 138 (100245)
04-15-2004 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by redwolf
04-15-2004 12:13 PM


redwolf writes:
The savannah theory is basically idiotic.
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.
And as Abby indicated Humans are just slow meat puppets in the water...link

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by redwolf, posted 04-15-2004 12:13 PM redwolf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 04-15-2004 2:53 PM 1.61803 has replied
 Message 32 by redwolf, posted 04-16-2004 1:13 AM 1.61803 has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1635 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 30 of 138 (100247)
04-15-2004 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by 1.61803
04-15-2004 1:53 PM


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}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by 1.61803, posted 04-15-2004 1:53 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by 1.61803, posted 04-15-2004 6:23 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024