5 votes

The aquatic ape theory, weekend watching

Elaine Morgan theorizes that humans had a aquatic adaption unlike the other primates. Interesting and informative.
http://www.ted.com/talks/elaine_morgan_says_we_evolved_from_...




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Well she is Charming

But completely foolish. She offers no fossil evidence, she offers no DNA evidence. It is clear that the same observable trait can evolve from different sources, in different ways. Her approach is old fashioned, and is not used in biology much anymore.

She reminds me of this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAYDiPizDIs

ConstitutionHugger's picture

Did not want another weird theory in my life...

but watched the video anyway. Thanks to Morgan, I now think the Savannah theory is wrong and she's much closer to the truth.
I believe in God and believe that if you take science far enough, and religion far enough, they meet together on the far side of our perceivable world. Don't be afraid to embrace science and religion at the same time.
To illustrate my point; here's an engineer who has a scientific theory on how all things are possible to him that believeth. Gregg Braden: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rp-P031C4Vg
I really want to know the truth!

I'm with you

Another weird theory, does it stop? lol
Actually, I hope not. Let the thinking begin. ;)
This one does seem to fill some serious holes in Savannah theory, and is very thought provoking.

I also agree that science and God aren't exclusive of each other.
I see the science as what God left lying around for us to find. I'd hate to disappoint him by not finding it. :)

I would like to point out one small flaw with the Gregg Braden video though. He gets quantum entanglement a bit off. They don’t split a photon into two photons; they take two and entangle them, on a quantum level. "photon jane, meet photon bob"

Also, he mentions that they know everything there is to know about that photon, before they separate them.

Schrodinger, you know, the guy whose cat I am?, he says you can't do that, sorry. :)
It doesn’t detract from some of his points; just do try not to make Schrodinger mad. He’s got this thing about some box. ;)

Just open the box and see

ConstitutionHugger's picture

I hope 2013 is the year that some weird ideas go mainstream

Thanks for pointing out the mistake in Braden's presentation. I don't know much about that stuff, so I always take what "experts" say with a grain of salt. Whether the info is perfect or not, it's exciting to me to learn about these new areas of science. I'm an out of the box thinker, so all these theories are right up my alley. Just like most of the people on the DP, I'll bet. Happy New Year kitty.

Hayek

Even Hayek said evolution came from the social sciences and not biology.

LOL

donvino

Yes

Hayek also said that pulled pork sandwiches are disgusting and didn't think snowboarding should be in the Olympics.

I'm failing to see how your point is relevant.

Eric Hoffer

Hayek said what?!

Was snowboarding even popular yet while he was still alive?
Got any proof he said this?
And what's RP's opinion on this?

If you can't answer these, it's obvious the paid disinfo cointelpro trolls are out in force this year, sheesh.

Humans are an aquatic mammal

A physiologist details the differences humans have that land mammals don't, a three part documentary. Aquatic evolution or creation? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QokbVnZsN9I

In the beginning...

There absolutely nothing. Which then drew together and exploded.

In the beginning...

God spoke, and it was good. :)

They that give up liberty for security deserve neither.

Evolution

...theory is around so professors can have full-time jobs along with university revenues. And they cut up the Churches and their organization for doing the same thing lol

Biology professors are so politically and spiritually biased and lacking dbecause they will teach any anti-creationist theory for the money for their faculty imo.

Biology should be part of the social sciences. It has little to do with the contemporary natural sciences.

To me there is much in common between geography and biology professors. Duh...lets get grants and tag and chip animals and track them and pretend we are smart lol

At least it is better than psychology and political science or sociology or south west Asian traditional cultural womens' studies :)

donvino

In other news

donvino believes canning should be an olympic event.

Summing his argument, "biologists believe things I don't. Because they don't all agree with each other, they must all be wrong and I must be right. Doing things like tracking species movement patterns and turning it to data to be analyzed is useless."

Eric Hoffer

This is incredibly off the mark

"Biology should be a part of the social sciences."

WTF are you talking about? Biology is not the study of human behavior. You must not understand biology at all if you think it should be in the same category as political science. It doesn't even make sense to politicize evolution. There is no government control in the name of evolution. There is no "evolution cap and trade."

Biology is the core of natural science. Evolution is a small part of the big puzzle. In college I took 40 credit hours of biology. 2 credits out of 40 was evolution. Certain aspects of biology directly build off the theory of evolution, just as some aspects of physics build off of the theory of gravitation, but a lot of biological theories are mostly independent of evolution.

The goal of biologists is not to undermine religion. They aren't getting paid to teach "any anti-creationist theory." They are trying to explain and discover the workings of life on Earth and they are doing it far more methodically and scientifically than any religion. If religious dogma is getting debunked through the scientific method, well then so be it. This is not the goal, but a consequence.

Many religions have adapted to evolution and incorporated it into the teachings, but for some reason many fundamentalist Christians refuse accept anything other than the word of the Book of Genesis. This is probably unfortunate for the movement, as I can only imagine that a religion that actively denies reality and the fundamentals of science will not survive.

Greek mythology is extinct.
Roman mythology is extinct.
Egyptian mythology is extinct.
American Christian mythology is not far behind.

Religions are created and destroyed. Science keeps progressing.

If every single Bible was wiped off of the face of the Earth, the stories of Genesis would be gone forever. They would not be replicated. Different stories might arise as people struggle to explain observations, but the original stories as believed now (such as the age of the Earth being 5,000 years or whatever) would be gone.

If every biology textbook was destroyed, a new wave of scientists would observe and explain evolution. The scientific process would start all over again.

Funny how

even though the Bible is not extinct, we still have new authors teaching morality and common sense.

being anti-god gets you no further than 6 feet under.

They that give up liberty for security deserve neither.

Good One

Its funny to mention that a biology course I took once had a viewing of 'An Inconvenient Truth' on the first day of class in University.

It was my first and last class. :)

p.s. The professor even told us at the end of that first class that we were free to challenge his views in a certain Starbucks but of course not in class but at specified hours. Not to mention the first assignment assigned right after the movie was to write a review on what our viewpoints were on making a better world. hint...hint...lol

donvino

In my Molecular Neurobiology course we researched journals

as they were published. There was no textbook because it covered the forefront of research in the field.

In my Biodiversity course we took 6 laboratory practicals (plus other exams) identifying organisms in the entire biological world. It was thousands of specimens. The evolutionary relationships were not only apparent, but undeniable. My professor was a big fan of Lynn Margulis and we covered the endosymbiotic theory quite a bit.

I have similar stories for all of them.

You're anecdote about taking a joke 'biology' class is irrelevant.

Why would you laugh about your ignorance in a field and brag about passing on an opportunity to study it?

Donvino I challenge you to go take some biology courses. Real biology courses designed for pre-meds and future PH.Ds. Go find out for yourself. Take courses like Biodiversity, Comparative Anatomy, Neurobiology, Developmental Biology, Genetics, Molecular Biology, Animal Physiology, and Microbiology. (Also some chemistry and physics so you can truly appreciate how everything ties together).

Must have been

one of those science for dummies classes that liberal arts colleges make you take.

Try taking a course in Molecular genetics - but I'll bet you can't get through the prerequisite Biology and Chemistry courses.

Of course it is much easier to just ridicule, like the fox that couldn't reach the grapes.

ok hold on this deserves a second look

I'm not saying I believe the Aquatic Ape Theory however this sweet old lady deserves a listen. She speaks a lot of truth about the science community and academia.

Firstly she explains some of the holes in the theory of evolution from chimpanzees. She talks about how different we are and that the environment we lived in wouldn't have facilitated evolution to what we are.

Secondly she talks about how academia and the science community at large are resistant to facts that don't support their theory so much so that they just pretend those facts don't exist. Global Warming theory could be a text book case in point on this issue.

Thirdly, the Aquatic Ape theory makes more sense than the land ape theory simply do to our existing biology. Like for instance (she doesn't mention this but...) our noses. Ape nostrils all are exposed to water flowing into them if they swim through water. While on the other hand, human noses point downward and allow for sealing off intrusive water and facilitating breath control. So, if you are going to believe in evolution then you aught not automatically dismiss the water ape theory.

Lastly, I grew up believing fully in evolution. But now as I've gotten older and have begun to think critically, I'm not so sure. I won't go into all the flaws of the theory right now but if you are a creationist or at the very least doubtful of the current science then you should appreciate what this woman has to say. I'm still not sold on the theory but I wanted to give this video a bump and qualify my smart-alic remarks below.

Thinking Points

The manatee swims relatively slowly for a sea creature, isn’t very large, and survived quite nicely till man started killing them.

Not saying we come from manatee, just an example of a creature that lives with the restraints in your first comment.

Also, man, if evolved on land or sea, he lived for a long time among animals much more powerful than himself.

As far as diet, I would assume fish, personally.

Plus:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUdPzZnOJGo

I'm not saying aquatic ape is right, just points to ponder.

Just open the box and see

That really is an awesome video!

Thank you so much for posting! I took a class with my infant son, and got to swim with him and a handful of other babies. It was surreal.

This is the article that got my posting privileges revoked:
http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2013/05/12/18212165-dr-stan-...

That was an incredible video

New born babies swimming, completely comfortable in an under water environment, amazing! Add in the fact that human babies are born with extra layers of body fat below the skin, which is essential for buoyancy and insulation in a water environment, that is unlike land mammals and very much like the water mammals.

Putting aside the evolution or creation debate, ask how does the design follow function? Elaine Morgan has simply pointed out scientific observations, that are pretty hard to argue against. Because her theory conflicts with the establishments "savanna" theory, her research was rejected by paleo-anthropologists.

The scientific community can be wed to the same belief dogmas that they are so quick to criticize others for. This little lady without a PHD from an ivy league university has dis proven their savanna theory, which was their basic theory of early human evolution. Oopsies, time to rewrite the text books!

Why?

Why, as a creationist, should I appreciate what she has to say? Evolution of any kind has never happened. Man was created on Day 6 out of the dust of the ground, and we were never apes.

No King but Jesus, no President but Ron Paul

because she helps your argument scientifically

by pointing out the flaws in current land ape theory she inadvertently helps creationists. And, but pointing out the narrow mindedness of scientific academia and their society of scholars at large, she also shows that they are fallible. The simple fact that they probably got it wrong helps a creationists argument.

Listen to all sides. You are strong enough to sort out the truth of the matter and use the necessary bits without compromising your beliefs.

very good response,

What is also supportive of your point of view is that the scientific community is unwilling to change their long held view point, even in light of opposing and obviously proven facts. Many of the anthropologists were known to agree with Elaine Morgan but because of the pier pressure of fellow academics, they were unwilling to come forward to endorse or even co-author her books.

This treatment of a person, knowing they are right, staying in the debate against odds, taking the name calling of the opposing majority view and only many years later turning out to be proven correct, reminds me of Ron Paul.

At age 90 Elaine Morgan finally is recognized by the scientific community. She has honorary PHDs received from 2 distinguished universities, an OBE, Order of the British Empire from the Queen of England and from Sweden, their highest scientific award... I admire that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f270tQYk-n0

Just something to consider

Note the order in which life was "created." It is the same order as life "evolved." Many people believe that a "day" to God is 1000 years. Note that God created the animals "according to their kindS. PLURAL. "Kinds" - like branches of the fauna "tree of life?" Maybe God used evolution?

"And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good."

Science and religion must agree, or else one or both is wrong. Choosing which one to believe without the facts is not "adult" behavior. Here is the hard, cold fact: None of us can ever KNOW. So if we are all relegated to choosing what we believe, can we all at least admit we are operating on BELIEF due to absence of fact?

This is the article that got my posting privileges revoked:
http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2013/05/12/18212165-dr-stan-...

Thanks for taking a second look

and the time to think this through. If you look at the human body, how is it adapted to survive without tools and clothing? Its much like looking at an antique or ancient tool and wondering how was this used? The fact is a naked human would not last more than a few days on a hot savanna, limited food, water and wall to wall predators. With a shore line existence, it's a different story. Plenty of water, diving ability that gave access to shell fish with omega 3 acids, helping brain growth, and the ability to dodge land predators by swimming out beyond their reach. Most land predators will not follow their prey into the water beyond their ability to walk. Once a predator starts to swim, its helpless, much like a dog chasing a raccoon into the water. The raccoon will swim right up on the dogs back and either blind it or force it to drown.
Plus where do you see humans (partially) unclothed now? At a warm water beach, most land mammals don't like to swim, people instinctively do.

I posted a BBC documentary below that went into more on this, check it out, I thought it was interesting.

swim

Land mammals swim when they need to ie keep cool, crossing rivers, predators, food. They are not tourists lol

Plus with all that hair it must weigh them down.

donvino

This theory doesn't hold any water!

Why do we have flat teeth, long hair on our heads, finger nails that are not very durable. Just to name the flaws that are apparent to me right off.
It seem that we were designed to exist in almost any environment. Almost like we were chosen to have dominion over the air , land , and water. We have even built cities underground. No water monkey theory , or any evolutionary theory can explain this trait of humans.
I almost bought the Idea, but I couldn't picture humans living on shorelines diving into the water to catch food , then bringing it back to shore to cook it, in order to feed his/her naked family.

Uhh...

This might be me getting caught by Poe's Law, but yeah that's pretty common. Tons of evidence of early human settlements along coastlines that used to freedive for shellfish and other types of food. Heck, there are still cultures that do that to this day. Of course, a number of fish and shellfish type critters can be eaten raw. Fish, clams, mussels, etc.

Eric Hoffer

I am not a sea monkey

As much as it would be cool to be a swimming ape and to entertain all that romantic imagery of mermaids and the lost city of Atlantis conjure up, I just think there are too many holes in this theory. First off the top of my head is what would we have eaten? Plankton? Sea grass chewing our cud like a sea cow. Maybe we swam fast with our webbed fingers grabbed a fish and sank our flat teeth into a raw and wriggling bass. Honestly, we haven't the defensive tools to survive in the water. How would w fight off predators? With a trident?

Cool theory but I ain't buying it.