Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9045 total)
340 online now:
kjsimons, PaulK (2 members, 338 visitors)
Newest Member: Dade
Post Volume: Total: 887,360 Year: 5,006/14,102 Month: 604/707 Week: 2/157 Day: 2/22 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Aquatic Ape theory?
1.61803
Member (Idle past 499 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 yet responded

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 499 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 responded

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

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 499 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 31 of 138 (100279)
04-15-2004 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by RAZD
04-15-2004 2:53 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 04-15-2004 2:53 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 499 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 33 of 138 (100322)
04-16-2004 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by redwolf
04-16-2004 1:13 AM


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?
redwolf writes:

there is no real way to know whether modern man arose on this planet or somewhere else.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by redwolf, posted 04-16-2004 1:13 AM redwolf has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by redwolf, posted 04-23-2004 12:07 PM 1.61803 has not yet responded

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 499 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 64 of 138 (215881)
06-10-2005 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by artturi
06-10-2005 8:20 AM


Re: Why anthropologists don't accept the Aquatic Ape Theory
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by artturi, posted 06-10-2005 8:20 AM artturi has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by artturi, posted 06-11-2005 2:10 AM 1.61803 has not yet responded
 Message 66 by artturi, posted 06-11-2005 3:19 AM 1.61803 has responded
 Message 75 by artturi, posted 06-16-2005 3:56 AM 1.61803 has not yet responded

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 499 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 67 of 138 (216403)
06-12-2005 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by artturi
06-11-2005 3:19 AM


Re: Why anthropologists don't accept the Aquatic Ape Theory
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. :D


"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by artturi, posted 06-11-2005 3:19 AM artturi has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021