[Merged] Did we evolve from aquatic apes? - Page 4

recursive prophet · 1st November 2010, 07:34 PM

Originally Posted by Bikewer

As I recall, Desmond Morris was rather fond of this hypothesis. He seemed to be concerned with our lack of hair...
However, the hypothesis of an adaptation to long-distance running (in pursuit of prey) on the plains of Africa is just as sensible.

While Morris seemed to dismiss the AAH in The Naked Ape, he apparently changed his mind as I saw a video not to far back where he endorsed it. Of course his professional background is as a zoologist. If anyone knows of any professional environmental scientists that endorse this conjecture, I would really appreciate you posting the names.

Some interesting posts here. Athon as usual makes several good points. For those interested in learning more about this topic, I would recommend checking out the discussion at TalkRational also. The major protagonist, Algis Kuliukas, has been going at it with Jim Moore for nearly a decade now I believe, and there are over 500 pages of replies on the TR thread. (Now on Part 7.) It racked up close to that at RDF. Algis calls it the Waterside Hypothesis of Human Evolution, (WHHE) and he has attracted a cadre of doubters who have made some very convincing arguments against it. Always good to get some new perspectives, so take a look. Here is a link to one of Algis' recent retorts. http://talkrational.org/showthread.p...62#post1161862

arrogantape · 1st November 2010, 09:30 PM

Crocs can move fast, but here you can apply your own observation. H afarensis were communal. They no doubt set up sentries.

I don't believe any hominid lived in the water. They used it, though. H floresiensis appears to be a specialized H habilis to me. Their skull is virtually the same. Their size is too. They have wrist bones that do date back to the Handy Man. The difference is, the Hobbit has really big flat feet. Their clavicle is curved, their arms powerful. Besides the famous elephant baby bones in the caves, there were bivalves and fish bones too.

The chosen 600 fully human ancestors appear to have been living in caves just above the tidal line. The length of time that cave was occupied was near a hundred thousand years. Loads of bivalves are found in the caves. A lot of specialized evolving could have gone on then.

Soapy Sam · 2nd November 2010, 02:25 AM

Originally Posted by arrogantape

Crocs can move fast, but here you can apply your own observation. H afarensis were communal. They no doubt set up sentries.

Absolutely. They used the same tactic we do- avoidance and danger reports.

Quote:

I don't believe any hominid lived in the water. They used it, though.

I agree absolutely. I see nothing controversial in that. They used everything they could- and like modern crows, they seem to have been better at that than most other creatures like them at the time.

Quote:

H floresiensis appears to be a specialized H habilis to me. Their skull is virtually the same. Their size is too. They have wrist bones that do date back to the Handy Man. The difference is, the Hobbit has really big flat feet. Their clavicle is curved, their arms powerful. Besides the famous elephant baby bones in the caves, there were bivalves and fish bones too.

The chosen 600 fully human ancestors appear to have been living in caves just above the tidal line. The length of time that cave was occupied was near a hundred thousand years. Loads of bivalves are found in the caves. A lot of specialized evolving could have gone on then.

I don't feel we have nearly enough data on H.f to make authoritative assessments. As for exploiting the coastal strip, there's 100% certainty modern humans did so right up to historic times- and indeed still do. Holocene shell mounds are everywhere. You can date Scottish raised beaches by them with your eyes shut. That's all very different territory from the "Aquatic Ape" notion though.

bit_pattern · 2nd November 2010, 03:28 AM

Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle

I just listened to the first part of the Attenborough doc, linked to above. Fascinating story so far.

Ta. That'll do nicely for the train ride into work tomorrow

Damien Evans · 2nd November 2010, 03:31 AM

Originally Posted by arrogantape

Human evaporating cooling sheds precious water and salts. It doesn't work well in high humidity. As long as we can readily replace the water and salts we are good to go. The example savannah defenders give, Bushmen wearing out a gazelle in the noon days sun neglect to also show us the footage of the same folks filling ostrich eggs with water and stashing them in strategic places. We have the intelligence to manage in adverse conditions that chimp brained A afarensis certainly did not. They left no tools.

Surely you aren't comparing our planning intelligence with that of a chimp, are you?

If that is the case, then how come we have found the oldest olduwan tools with Australopithecus garhi, which has almost exactly the same brain size?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_garhi

EHocking · 2nd November 2010, 05:24 AM

Originally Posted by Damien Evans

If that is the case, then how come we have found the oldest olduwan tools with Australopithecus garhi, which has almost exactly the same brain size?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_garhi

And there seems to be evidence for tool use even further back - older than 3.3 million years.

Right in the A.afarensis window.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture09248.html

arrogantape · 9th November 2010, 08:24 PM

"Tools found at these two sites are not surprising. Chimps use rocks on rocks. We can't loose sight of the fact the climate was a lot wetter than now 3.3 million years ago. Funny, but that is where the people studying our body lice dates our nakedness.

bit_pattern · 10th November 2010, 02:04 AM

Originally Posted by arrogantape

"Tools found at these two sites are not surprising. Chimps use rocks on rocks. We can't loose sight of the fact the climate was a lot wetter than now 3.3 million years ago. Funny, but that is where the people studying our body lice dates our nakedness.

According to that Attenborough link posted on page 1, the lice-chronology dates the divergence at 70,000 years, the same time art is suspected to have first developed.

EHocking · 10th November 2010, 05:52 AM

Originally Posted by arrogantape

"Tools found at these two sites are not surprising. Chimps use rocks on rocks.

You would have a better argument against the evidence if you had actually read the article.

The article is not about tools found at a site, but "bones [that] show unambiguous stone-tool cut marks for flesh removal and percussion marks for marrow access."

Quote:

We can't loose sight of the fact the climate was a lot wetter than now 3.3 million years ago. Funny, but that is where the people studying our body lice dates our nakedness.

I don't find relative hairlessness as an argument for aquatic human ancestry to be very compelling.

arrogantape · 20th March 2011, 09:32 AM

Our ancestors occupied South Africa coastal caves. There, we find shell jewelry, ochre, and lots of shellfish. These were the survivors of obviously very tough times as only some 2000 humans made it through. There is an accepted theory the ready protein source found in the water enabled the final push in our intelligence. The first emigration from Africa followed a southerly route following the continental coasts, eventually all the way to Australia.

jimtron · 5th July 2012, 09:37 AM

From today's Christian Science Monitor:

Mermaids don't exist, says US government
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has attempted to put an end to the mermaid myth by denying the existence of the fabled aquatic creature.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/201...-US-government

Vortigern99 · 5th July 2012, 10:36 AM

... which has nothing to do with the aquatic ape theory.

jimtron · 5th July 2012, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

... which has nothing to do with the aquatic ape theory.

From the linked article:

Quote:

Not so, says the National Ocean Service (part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA). "No evidence of aquatic humanoids has ever been found," part of the post reads. Nevertheless, a NOAA spokesperson would not confirm that the post was in direct response to the show, which was presented in documentary format.

The reference to "aquatic humanoids" alludes to a controversial theory called the aquatic ape theory, which suggests humans had an aquatic stage in our evolutionary past. Called "pseudoscience" by anthropologist John Hawks on his blog, this theory is not supported by most scientists.

Vortigern99 · 5th July 2012, 11:39 AM

Okay, it mentions the theory in passing. And...?

Professor Yaffle · 5th July 2012, 11:52 AM

Aquatic zombie mermaid apes!

Halfcentaur · 5th July 2012, 12:10 PM

Something about this theory has it on my mind a lot over the years. Compared to the way I see other apes swim, we just seem so much more fluid and in control, but I can't decide if that's just because of our awareness of how to move in water due to intelligence or if we really are more adapted for it.

I don't think there's really any evidence for this theory, but I find it fun and intriguing. When it comes down to it I subscribe to the steady jogging theory of tracking prey and chasing it to exhaustion for being bare skinned and upright, our bodies great at sweating and staying cool and our legs great for long periods of maintained jogging. But I still have this nagging intuitive sense that there's something to this idea when I see people swimming, we're no dolphin or otter but we are pretty sleek and aerodynamic compared to chimps and gorillas.

Vortigern99 · 5th July 2012, 01:15 PM

HalfCentaur, I tend to agree, though I give more credence to what evidence there is in support of this hypothesis. Yesterday I was reading about chimpanzee strength compared to human strength (this in relation to the recent chimp attack on UT student Andrew Oberle), and in discussing the way chimpanzee muscles are longer and denser than comparable human muscles, the article mentioned that because of this difference, chimpanzees cannot swim.

I think all the evidence taken together -- not only near-nakedness and long legs, but also the differences in musculature and, most compellingly, the laryngeal differences that we share with marine mammals and which make speech possible -- is at least sufficient to make this a viable hypothesis.

It isn't "pseudoscience", as at least one scientist has called it; it's an unpopular hypothesis which does have a good deal of evidence behind it.

jasonpatterson · 5th July 2012, 03:54 PM

One point that the aquatic ape hypothesis supporters make that is just completely wrong is that only aquatic animals are able to control their breathing, and that humans are unusual among land animals in doing so. It's just completely wrong.

For your viewing pleasure, cute, tree dwelling monkeys foraging on a river bottom (underwater video showing them clearly not breathing underwater, as well as taking deep breaths in preparation for diving starts at about 0:40):

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Could this have evolved independently? Sure. But the basic assumption that this feature is uniquely human among land animals (as is stated on the pro-aquatic page linked earlier) is just silly.

Here's a dog diving for toys on the bottom of a pool. It is not breathing as it does so (no masses of bubbles leaving its nose or coughing up water when it surfaces 20-30 seconds later.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

An article about a species of deer that submerges for minutes at a time to escape predators.

Maybe we're unique among the apes? Nope. Here's an article about an orangutan that enjoys swimming underwater, complete with pictures. A video of the same orangutan.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

This part of the theory, at least, was clearly just made up. Yet it continues to be stated as fact in spite of having been shown to be wrong again and again.

quarky · 6th July 2012, 06:42 AM

The most successful humans want waterfront property.

Halfcentaur · 6th July 2012, 07:59 AM

I could see a brief window of evolutionary time where we started selecting for swimming, and then someone got stung by jellyfish and coincidentally an emergent property of our swimming made us better sprinters, this fellow was stung and he sprinted far away and never stopped, ending up on the Savannah once again, where he laid an egg that gave rise to naked sprinters everywhere.

Mark6 · 6th July 2012, 08:46 AM

Originally Posted by jasonpatterson

One point that the aquatic ape hypothesis supporters make that is just completely wrong is that only aquatic animals are able to control their breathing, and that humans are unusual among land animals in doing so. It's just completely wrong.

For your viewing pleasure, cute, tree dwelling monkeys foraging on a river bottom (underwater video showing them clearly not breathing underwater, as well as taking deep breaths in preparation for diving starts at about 0:40):

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

My understanding of that particular "point" is that humans, seals and cetaceans are the only mammals capable of voluntary breath-holding. Almost all mammals have breath-holding reflex -- they stop inhaling (and exhaling for that matter) when submerged, which is what your videos show. The claim (I am not vouching for its veracity) is that only humans, seals and cetaceans can hold breath when NOT underwater.

leon_heller · 6th July 2012, 09:20 AM

When I was at school I remember reading somewhere that a biologist called Hardy had a similar theory. I found this Wikipedia entry about him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alister_Hardy

He seems to have some weird ideas.

jasonpatterson · 6th July 2012, 11:26 AM

Originally Posted by Mark6

My understanding of that particular "point" is that humans, seals and cetaceans are the only mammals capable of voluntary breath-holding. Almost all mammals have breath-holding reflex -- they stop inhaling (and exhaling for that matter) when submerged, which is what your videos show. The claim (I am not vouching for its veracity) is that only humans, seals and cetaceans can hold breath when NOT underwater.

One of the monkeys in the video takes deep breaths then submerges to forage on the bottom. That is the claim that the pro-aquatic ape page says don't happen, specifically.

From that page:

Quote:

Voluntary breath control appears to be an aquatic adaptation because, apart from ourselves, it is found only in aquatic mammals like seals and dolphins. When they decide how deep they are going to dive, they can estimate how much air they need to inhale. Without voluntary breath control it is very unlikely that we could have learned to speak.

How on earth do we know whether animals can hold their breath out of the water or not? We can't ask them to do it. Additionally, the breath control required for vocalizing, by any animal, is more than reflexive.

CapelDodger · 6th July 2012, 07:29 PM

Originally Posted by Halfcentaur

I could see a brief window of evolutionary time where we started selecting for swimming, and then someone got stung by jellyfish and coincidentally an emergent property of our swimming made us better sprinters, this fellow was stung and he sprinted far away and never stopped, ending up on the Savannah once again, where he laid an egg that gave rise to naked sprinters everywhere.

And discovered alcohol, after which the world was our oyster.

Halfcentaur · 6th July 2012, 09:40 PM

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

And discovered alcohol, after which the world was our oyster.

Incidentally it was a pack of drunken wolves the man lived next store to which he would observe rutting in their revelry as there was no pornography then, eventually after befriending them they lived together for centuries, and this is how we got dogs and alcohol.

Mister Agenda · 16th July 2012, 04:16 PM

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

Okay, it mentions the theory in passing. And...?

The (section of) body found is supposed to have indications of bipedal ancestry. The theory to explain the 'mermaid' is that is is the descendant of a species of aquatic ape with common ancestry to humans that went entirely aquatic, like dolphins.The scientists are actors, the NOAA Fisheries Dept. There's not NOAA Fisheries Department that I could find, but there is a NOAA Fisheries Service, so I'll say that part stands.

The 'documentary' is fictionalized, only parts of it are based on things that really happened, as it states at the end. I enjoyed watching it though.

1st November 2010, 09:30 PM	#122
arrogantape New Blood Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 8	Crocs can move fast, but here you can apply your own observation. H afarensis were communal. They no doubt set up sentries. I don't believe any hominid lived in the water. They used it, though. H floresiensis appears to be a specialized H habilis to me. Their skull is virtually the same. Their size is too. They have wrist bones that do date back to the Handy Man. The difference is, the Hobbit has really big flat feet. Their clavicle is curved, their arms powerful. Besides the famous elephant baby bones in the caves, there were bivalves and fish bones too. The chosen 600 fully human ancestors appear to have been living in caves just above the tidal line. The length of time that cave was occupied was near a hundred thousand years. Loads of bivalves are found in the caves. A lot of specialized evolving could have gone on then.
arrogantape New Blood Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 8

2nd November 2010, 02:25 AM	#123
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,885	Originally Posted by arrogantape Crocs can move fast, but here you can apply your own observation. H afarensis were communal. They no doubt set up sentries. Absolutely. They used the same tactic we do- avoidance and danger reports. Quote: I don't believe any hominid lived in the water. They used it, though. I agree absolutely. I see nothing controversial in that. They used everything they could- and like modern crows, they seem to have been better at that than most other creatures like them at the time. Quote: H floresiensis appears to be a specialized H habilis to me. Their skull is virtually the same. Their size is too. They have wrist bones that do date back to the Handy Man. The difference is, the Hobbit has really big flat feet. Their clavicle is curved, their arms powerful. Besides the famous elephant baby bones in the caves, there were bivalves and fish bones too. The chosen 600 fully human ancestors appear to have been living in caves just above the tidal line. The length of time that cave was occupied was near a hundred thousand years. Loads of bivalves are found in the caves. A lot of specialized evolving could have gone on then. I don't feel we have nearly enough data on H.f to make authoritative assessments. As for exploiting the coastal strip, there's 100% certainty modern humans did so right up to historic times- and indeed still do. Holocene shell mounds are everywhere. You can date Scottish raised beaches by them with your eyes shut. That's all very different territory from the "Aquatic Ape" notion though.
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,885

2nd November 2010, 03:28 AM	#124
bit_pattern Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 4,349	Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle I just listened to the first part of the Attenborough doc, linked to above. Fascinating story so far. Ta. That'll do nicely for the train ride into work tomorrow
bit_pattern Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 4,349

2nd November 2010, 03:31 AM	#125
Damien Evans Up The Irons Tagger Join Date: May 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 25,268	Originally Posted by arrogantape Human evaporating cooling sheds precious water and salts. It doesn't work well in high humidity. As long as we can readily replace the water and salts we are good to go. The example savannah defenders give, Bushmen wearing out a gazelle in the noon days sun neglect to also show us the footage of the same folks filling ostrich eggs with water and stashing them in strategic places. We have the intelligence to manage in adverse conditions that chimp brained A afarensis certainly did not. They left no tools. Surely you aren't comparing our planning intelligence with that of a chimp, are you? If that is the case, then how come we have found the oldest olduwan tools with Australopithecus garhi, which has almost exactly the same brain size? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_garhi
	__________________ WHAT CAN THE HARVEST HOPE FOR, IF NOT THE CARE OF THE REAPER MAN? - Death "Racism is a disease in society. We're all equal. I don't care what their colour is, or religion. Just as long as they're human beings they're my buddies." - Mandawuy Yunupingu, lead singer of Yothu Yindi

2nd November 2010, 05:24 AM	#126
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,409	Originally Posted by Damien Evans If that is the case, then how come we have found the oldest olduwan tools with Australopithecus garhi, which has almost exactly the same brain size? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_garhi And there seems to be evidence for tool use even further back - older than 3.3 million years. Right in the A.afarensis window. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture09248.html
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,409	__________________ "A closed mouth gathers no feet" "Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett "It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite Forum Birdwatching Webpage

1st November 2010, 07:34 PM	#121
recursive prophet Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2008 Location: Escondido, CA Posts: 1,135	Originally Posted by Bikewer As I recall, Desmond Morris was rather fond of this hypothesis. He seemed to be concerned with our lack of hair... However, the hypothesis of an adaptation to long-distance running (in pursuit of prey) on the plains of Africa is just as sensible. While Morris seemed to dismiss the AAH in The Naked Ape, he apparently changed his mind as I saw a video not to far back where he endorsed it. Of course his professional background is as a zoologist. If anyone knows of any professional environmental scientists that endorse this conjecture, I would really appreciate you posting the names. Some interesting posts here. Athon as usual makes several good points. For those interested in learning more about this topic, I would recommend checking out the discussion at TalkRational also. The major protagonist, Algis Kuliukas, has been going at it with Jim Moore for nearly a decade now I believe, and there are over 500 pages of replies on the TR thread. (Now on Part 7.) It racked up close to that at RDF. Algis calls it the Waterside Hypothesis of Human Evolution, (WHHE) and he has attracted a cadre of doubters who have made some very convincing arguments against it. Always good to get some new perspectives, so take a look. Here is a link to one of Algis' recent retorts. http://talkrational.org/showthread.p...62#post1161862

9th November 2010, 08:24 PM	#127
arrogantape New Blood Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 8	"Tools found at these two sites are not surprising. Chimps use rocks on rocks. We can't loose sight of the fact the climate was a lot wetter than now 3.3 million years ago. Funny, but that is where the people studying our body lice dates our nakedness.
arrogantape New Blood Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 8

10th November 2010, 02:04 AM	#128
bit_pattern Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 4,349	Originally Posted by arrogantape "Tools found at these two sites are not surprising. Chimps use rocks on rocks. We can't loose sight of the fact the climate was a lot wetter than now 3.3 million years ago. Funny, but that is where the people studying our body lice dates our nakedness. According to that Attenborough link posted on page 1, the lice-chronology dates the divergence at 70,000 years, the same time art is suspected to have first developed.
bit_pattern Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 4,349	__________________ "You are the epitome of the 'pigeon playing chess'. No matter how good I am at chess, you are just going to knock the pieces over, **** on the board and strut around like you've won something" "In this political climate, all of science is vulnerable to ideological attack when reality disagrees with political beliefs." Last edited by bit_pattern; 10th November 2010 at 02:05 AM.

10th November 2010, 05:52 AM	#129
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,409	Originally Posted by arrogantape "Tools found at these two sites are not surprising. Chimps use rocks on rocks. You would have a better argument against the evidence if you had actually read the article. The article is not about tools found at a site, but "bones [that] show unambiguous stone-tool cut marks for flesh removal and percussion marks for marrow access." Quote: We can't loose sight of the fact the climate was a lot wetter than now 3.3 million years ago. Funny, but that is where the people studying our body lice dates our nakedness. I don't find relative hairlessness as an argument for aquatic human ancestry to be very compelling.
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,409	__________________ "A closed mouth gathers no feet" "Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett "It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite Forum Birdwatching Webpage

20th March 2011, 09:32 AM	#130
arrogantape New Blood Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 8	Our ancestors occupied South Africa coastal caves. There, we find shell jewelry, ochre, and lots of shellfish. These were the survivors of obviously very tough times as only some 2000 humans made it through. There is an accepted theory the ready protein source found in the water enabled the final push in our intelligence. The first emigration from Africa followed a southerly route following the continental coasts, eventually all the way to Australia.
arrogantape New Blood Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 8

5th July 2012, 09:37 AM	#131
jimtron Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Chicago Posts: 2,965	From today's Christian Science Monitor: Mermaids don't exist, says US government The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has attempted to put an end to the mermaid myth by denying the existence of the fabled aquatic creature. http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/201...-US-government
	__________________

5th July 2012, 10:36 AM	#132
Vortigern99 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 5,010	... which has nothing to do with the aquatic ape theory.
	__________________ "I'm 'willing to admit' any fact that can be shown to be evidential and certain." -- Vortigern99 / Noah D. Henson "One thing we've learned (and the Internet confirms this) is that humans will screw just about anything." -- Theagenes

5th July 2012, 10:45 AM	#133
jimtron Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Chicago Posts: 2,965	Originally Posted by Vortigern99 ... which has nothing to do with the aquatic ape theory. From the linked article: Quote: Not so, says the National Ocean Service (part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA). "No evidence of aquatic humanoids has ever been found," part of the post reads. Nevertheless, a NOAA spokesperson would not confirm that the post was in direct response to the show, which was presented in documentary format. The reference to "aquatic humanoids" alludes to a controversial theory called the aquatic ape theory, which suggests humans had an aquatic stage in our evolutionary past. Called "pseudoscience" by anthropologist John Hawks on his blog, this theory is not supported by most scientists.
	__________________

5th July 2012, 11:39 AM	#134
Vortigern99 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 5,010	Okay, it mentions the theory in passing. And...?
	__________________ "I'm 'willing to admit' any fact that can be shown to be evidential and certain." -- Vortigern99 / Noah D. Henson "One thing we've learned (and the Internet confirms this) is that humans will screw just about anything." -- Theagenes

5th July 2012, 11:52 AM	#135
Professor Yaffle Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Emily's shop Posts: 15,326	Aquatic zombie mermaid apes!
	__________________ I think you'll find it's a little bit more complicated than that. My blog "Well I think I've made it abundantly clear in this thread I have no idea what I'm talking about..." - truethat

5th July 2012, 12:10 PM	#136
Halfcentaur Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 5,935	Something about this theory has it on my mind a lot over the years. Compared to the way I see other apes swim, we just seem so much more fluid and in control, but I can't decide if that's just because of our awareness of how to move in water due to intelligence or if we really are more adapted for it. I don't think there's really any evidence for this theory, but I find it fun and intriguing. When it comes down to it I subscribe to the steady jogging theory of tracking prey and chasing it to exhaustion for being bare skinned and upright, our bodies great at sweating and staying cool and our legs great for long periods of maintained jogging. But I still have this nagging intuitive sense that there's something to this idea when I see people swimming, we're no dolphin or otter but we are pretty sleek and aerodynamic compared to chimps and gorillas.
Halfcentaur Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 5,935

5th July 2012, 01:15 PM	#137
Vortigern99 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 5,010	HalfCentaur, I tend to agree, though I give more credence to what evidence there is in support of this hypothesis. Yesterday I was reading about chimpanzee strength compared to human strength (this in relation to the recent chimp attack on UT student Andrew Oberle), and in discussing the way chimpanzee muscles are longer and denser than comparable human muscles, the article mentioned that because of this difference, chimpanzees cannot swim. I think all the evidence taken together -- not only near-nakedness and long legs, but also the differences in musculature and, most compellingly, the laryngeal differences that we share with marine mammals and which make speech possible -- is at least sufficient to make this a viable hypothesis. It isn't "pseudoscience", as at least one scientist has called it; it's an unpopular hypothesis which does have a good deal of evidence behind it.
	__________________ "I'm 'willing to admit' any fact that can be shown to be evidential and certain." -- Vortigern99 / Noah D. Henson "One thing we've learned (and the Internet confirms this) is that humans will screw just about anything." -- Theagenes

6th July 2012, 06:42 AM	#139
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454	The most successful humans want waterfront property.
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454

6th July 2012, 07:59 AM	#140
Halfcentaur Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 5,935	I could see a brief window of evolutionary time where we started selecting for swimming, and then someone got stung by jellyfish and coincidentally an emergent property of our swimming made us better sprinters, this fellow was stung and he sprinted far away and never stopped, ending up on the Savannah once again, where he laid an egg that gave rise to naked sprinters everywhere.
Halfcentaur Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 5,935

6th July 2012, 09:20 AM	#142
leon_heller Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: St. Leonards-on-Sea, E. Sussex, UK. Posts: 1,090	When I was at school I remember reading somewhere that a biologist called Hardy had a similar theory. I found this Wikipedia entry about him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alister_Hardy He seems to have some weird ideas.
	__________________ Leon Heller G1HSM Last edited by leon_heller; 6th July 2012 at 09:25 AM.

6th July 2012, 11:26 AM	#143
jasonpatterson Philanthropic Misanthrope Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Space, The Final Frontier Posts: 2,180	Originally Posted by Mark6 My understanding of that particular "point" is that humans, seals and cetaceans are the only mammals capable of voluntary breath-holding. Almost all mammals have breath-holding reflex -- they stop inhaling (and exhaling for that matter) when submerged, which is what your videos show. The claim (I am not vouching for its veracity) is that only humans, seals and cetaceans can hold breath when NOT underwater. One of the monkeys in the video takes deep breaths then submerges to forage on the bottom. That is the claim that the pro-aquatic ape page says don't happen, specifically. From that page: Quote: Voluntary breath control appears to be an aquatic adaptation because, apart from ourselves, it is found only in aquatic mammals like seals and dolphins. When they decide how deep they are going to dive, they can estimate how much air they need to inhale. Without voluntary breath control it is very unlikely that we could have learned to speak. How on earth do we know whether animals can hold their breath out of the water or not? We can't ask them to do it. Additionally, the breath control required for vocalizing, by any animal, is more than reflexive.
	__________________ Sandra's seen a leprechaun, Eddie touched a troll, Laurie danced with witches once, Charlie found some goblins' gold. Donald heard a mermaid sing, Susie spied an elf, But all the magic I have known I've had to make myself. - Shel Silverstein

6th July 2012, 07:29 PM	#144
CapelDodger Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Cardiff, South Wales Posts: 16,740	Originally Posted by Halfcentaur I could see a brief window of evolutionary time where we started selecting for swimming, and then someone got stung by jellyfish and coincidentally an emergent property of our swimming made us better sprinters, this fellow was stung and he sprinted far away and never stopped, ending up on the Savannah once again, where he laid an egg that gave rise to naked sprinters everywhere. And discovered alcohol, after which the world was our oyster.
	__________________ It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898) God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150

6th July 2012, 09:40 PM	#145
Halfcentaur Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 5,935	Originally Posted by CapelDodger And discovered alcohol, after which the world was our oyster. Incidentally it was a pack of drunken wolves the man lived next store to which he would observe rutting in their revelry as there was no pornography then, eventually after befriending them they lived together for centuries, and this is how we got dogs and alcohol.
Halfcentaur Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 5,935

16th July 2012, 04:16 PM	#146
Mister Agenda Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Columbia, SC Posts: 2,619	Originally Posted by Vortigern99 Okay, it mentions the theory in passing. And...? The (section of) body found is supposed to have indications of bipedal ancestry. The theory to explain the 'mermaid' is that is is the descendant of a species of aquatic ape with common ancestry to humans that went entirely aquatic, like dolphins.The scientists are actors, the NOAA Fisheries Dept. There's not NOAA Fisheries Department that I could find, but there is a NOAA Fisheries Service, so I'll say that part stands. The 'documentary' is fictionalized, only parts of it are based on things that really happened, as it states at the end. I enjoyed watching it though.