Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 58 (9126 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: GenomeOfEden
Post Volume: Total: 909,659 Year: 6,540/14,231 Month: 87/368 Week: 48/93 Day: 1/10 Hour: 0/1

Thread  Details

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

Message 114 of 138 (554428)
04-08-2010 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by SweeneyTodd
04-07-2004 2:45 AM

Weak theory based on anecdote
AA theory claims that relatively hairless bodies (like aquatic and semi-aquatic mammals such as walruses, hippos, dolphins, etc) are evidence for life in water.
This seems like a very weak theory for the simple fact that we should see corresponding droves of aquatic apes today, which we don't find. Sure, most primates can swim, but so can dogs, so can cats, so can most mammals when push comes to shove. More importantly there is not a single primate that spends the majority of its time in water. Of those that are most active in aquatic environments are all very, very hairy.
I don't see a connection.
Hair, I believe, became less relevant when neanderthals were wearing the hides of other animals because their hair alone was insufficient to warm them during the last ice age. I would say that is a stronger connection than aquatic apes.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

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 115 by Huntard, posted 04-08-2010 9:11 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Inactive Member

Message 119 of 138 (554449)
04-08-2010 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Huntard
04-08-2010 9:11 AM

Re: Weak theory based on anecdote
There's one problem with this though. Neanderthals aren't our ancestors.
They share a common ancestor that would have been aquatic if the premise of the OP is correct. Obviously if one goes far back in lineage, you would able to trace which "ape" went aquatic. We don't see anything like that.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Huntard, posted 04-08-2010 9:11 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Huntard, posted 04-09-2010 3:24 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Inactive Member

Message 120 of 138 (554453)
04-08-2010 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by arrogantape
10-08-2009 8:53 PM

H floresiensis has been found thousands of miles from Africa. This creature had long wide flat feet. It couldn't walk or run well, but could most likely swim like a champ.
Is it remarkable that it would swim well being that it was island-bound?
H floresiensis's trash showed a varied diet including water born food.
Again, is that remarkable? That would be like marveling over the inhabitants of Easter Islander's diet being mainly seafood.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by arrogantape, posted 10-08-2009 8:53 PM arrogantape has not replied

Inactive Member

Message 121 of 138 (554456)
04-08-2010 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by arrogantape
04-05-2010 2:05 AM

If you ask me, Floresiensis is the smoking gun for how we evolved.
I disagree when you say "we." H. Floresiensis is a prime example of what you get when you isolate a gene pool. It evolves unique characteristics, like a diminutive stature or physical characteristics adapted to its environment. Those characteristics are specific to that particular cousin in the evolutionary tree, not the default. Besides that, H. Floresiensis isn't even our direct ancestor at all, rather we share a common ancestor with her [them].
I will never believe a bare bod could be gene pooled without some other impetus other than through sexual preference.
There is no known species of primates, alive or extinct, that spend the majority of its life in the water. Of those that do spend more time in watery environments are just as hairy as their cousins. How do you reconcile that?
Secondly, if we are directly related to H. Floresiensis, and it is the smoking gun that we are the products of aquatic apes, then why were huge paddle feet, small stature, and not spending a great amount of time in the water, etc, deselected if it was as large of a selective factor as you suggest?
As well as humans swim when properly taught, they still have to be taught nonetheless. They are still slow and clumsy in the water, relatively speaking to other aquatic mammals. Why is swimming not innate or intrinsic if it was such a huge selective factor?
What compelling evidence actually exists that would even begin to allude to water being the dominant factor in why the Homo genus began to lose its hair? This is all very theoretical and I am not seeing a connection.
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by arrogantape, posted 04-05-2010 2:05 AM arrogantape has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by arrogantape, posted 04-08-2010 10:52 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2023