Aquatic Ape theory?

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.

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

And just a brief walk into google land I found this Which seems puts the aquatic ape were he belongs: in the toilet.

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

Redwolf, was this a rebuttal or retraction from your aquatic ape banner waving? Sharks have been on this planet longer than humans, so how could they be absent? Or are you proposing early aquatic apes had shark deterrent nets? I think your aquatic ape theory was a better guess than extra terrestrial. But feel free to continue astounding the forum with your command of the subject of anthropology for dumb asses.

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

Hi,
have you read Morgan's book? She implys human morphology is the direct result of an aquatic environment. Not a beach environment and not a semi aquatic existance.It is not debated that humans are aquatic or semi aquatic that is simply a matter of semantics. When the word aquatic is used in biology it is assumed from the start that one is talking about a creature who's principal niche is in the water and not just a beach dweller. .Humans have exploited and adapted to many niches and environments on the planet. But Morgans book contends that humans evolved from a aquatic existance, not that humans lived near and on beaches and eventually learned to swim and make use of the sea as a source of food.The fact that humans inhabit the beaches of a planet that is almost entirely composed of water is pretty much a no brainer. By that logic every creature on an aquatic planet is aquatic in orgin. The argument is did humans evolve from a unknown, unseen ape that was aquatic as opposed to the savanna theory? The answer to that question is at this time from anthropologist is no. To assume all of Homo sapiens morphology and traits can be traced from one arboreal ape that adapted to living in the water and over time adapted back to a terrestrial existance is asking to assume a great deal. Considering there is no fossil record.
Rather than a ape that adapted from an arboreal existance to a terrestrial one . Which does show a variety of early bipedal hominids that fit the latter description. But that is just my own opinion. If people care to believe we desended from an aquatic ape then the onus is on them to produce some evidence other than conjecture and speculation. IMO.

Well that is a nice theory. The Lake ape. We have those in Texas too, complete with fishing tackle, beer, boat and sunscreen. They are still extant.

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche