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_...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Erm...

I'm really hoping I'm getting caught by Poe's Law here, but have you done any research into what the aquatic ape theory is?

I'm kinda curious if you've ever eaten clams, lobster, or mussels or anything along those lines. It sounds gross, but there are many healthy kinds of seaweed out there as well.

Might serve you to do a bit more research on the theory itself before dismissing the straw man so quickly.

Eric Hoffer

The fastest swimmer is no threat to see preditors.

We are extremely slow in the water compared to other sea creatures, which would make thriving in water difficult. Its a fun thought though. I mean you might see the sharks coming for you. Might!

Reminded me of Keynesian Economics

Even when their theories have failed on every level they cling to the nothing they are left with.

Anthropologists like economists spend a lifetime developing a theory that is patently in error have two choices. The can deny their errors or repudiate their life's work. Bernanke and Krugman haven't the courage to admit their error.

Miss Morgan's arguments are thought provoking. I took my daughter for a swim in the St. Joseph River when she was 1 1/2 yo. The river was shallow but I had a beach ball in one arm and my little girl in the other so I could keep my feet off the bottom where the bloodsuckers lived. The beach ball escaped, we both went under. I stood up and my daughter was totally unconcerned and unafraid. Although I was concerned about the bloodsuckers.

Thanks for posting truxtonc.

Free includes debt-free!

Babies at about 1 or 2 years old

naturally can pick up swimming. They just start a paddlin'.

My son started swimming at about 6 months old.

They had this awesome class where they taught us to blow in their faces, and it made the baby grab a breath. Then you dunk them, and they hold the breath. Let them go, and they start a-paddlin'. It was just so awesome - there were about 6 babies in the class, all swimming around long before they could walk.
I will say, the boy never developed a proper respect for water, though. We had to watch him like a hawk his entire childhood, because he would just start swimming off - like when we stop for lunch on a whitewater river!

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

Fishy, check out S Cats video above!

When my son was about 6 months old I had him in my pool, I had seen the babies swimming on TV and how it was done, so I tried it. I was in the pool holding him, blew in his face and dropped him in the water, he went down and just started swimming, instinctively. No fear, no trauma, he didn't cry, just popped up like a cork and never did gulp or breath water. My wife and father in law were right there and OMG they freaked out! At the time they thought I was the worst dad in the world, we still laugh about it.

thanks for the heads up!

Yep! I got to watch my son do that - it was AWESOME!

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

Awww.

Great stories guys!

Totally bogus

Evolution has never occurred, been observed, or repeated. The human fetus never develops gill slits. That bogus argument was disproved decades ago. It's simply another urban legend that just won't die as men look for any reason to not be held accountable to their Creator.

If you want to find truth, common sense, and real, observational science, instead of speculation about the past by people that weren't there with preconceived ideas about how to explain our origins, spend some time at answersingenesis.org

Here's a great video that demolishes the phony arguments about ape men:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/store/product/ape-men-grand-...

I'm sure it will eventually show up on their free video on demand section.

No King but Jesus, no President but Ron Paul

LMAO!!!

Yeah, the best way to understand science is to reject it a priori.......

.... and read a book compiled by emperor Constantine and translated into English by the friggin King of England?!?!?!

This reminds me of when my wife was looking for the translation for the k-pop hit "Gangnam Style". She said," oh, its a love song, how cute." Lol, she didn't really understand how meanings get lost in translation. I'll explain....

There's a line in the song that "translates" into something like,"I like a girl that covers herself up better than one that reveals herself". Doesn't sound like any pop music I've ever heard.

...So, I gave her a different translation:"I like a b!tch to tease me, not a b!tch that's easy". Now, that sounds like a pop song!!!

...And she attained a new understanding of "lost in translation". All bible thumpers could do well to learn this very lesson.

"I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

Obfuscation

Yeah, the best way to obfuscate an argument is to make things up...

I don't reject science (shame on you for lying), I embrace it. And the rest of your post is nonsense and unrelated to the issues. Nice try at misdirection, but it didn't work.

No King but Jesus, no President but Ron Paul

Daphne flies

My nephew is a PhD in marine biology. He spent years working with Daphne flies, watching and documenting them evolve.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

Really?

What did they evolve into? Sheep?

No King but Jesus, no President but Ron Paul

funny

They evolved various traits - whichever ones the researchers decided to play with.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

They stayed flies, right?

They stayed flies, right? Like I said - no evolution there.

No King but Jesus, no President but Ron Paul

Joη's picture

more from Dr. Terry Mortenson:

What's your point?

That evolutionists get upset when someone challenges their religion and shows the "fact" of evolution to be false?

No King but Jesus, no President but Ron Paul

I don't get upset. The theory of evolution is sound.

Just as sound as the theory of gravitation.

Let me test your composure...

Your religion is a lie, the Book of Genesis is fictitious and the stories are copied from Greek and Egyptian mythology, and creationism is not a science, but a desperate marketing campaign to keep selling religion to the unwitting masses.

Nothing new

Nothing new - or true - in your statement.

No King but Jesus, no President but Ron Paul

.....

"Your Religion is a lie"

You are smart enough to know the difference between Christianity and Catholicism, aren't you?

They that give up liberty for security deserve neither.

Yep. Reared Catholic.

I didn't specify which religion I was talking about because I was talking about all of them. Catholic, Wicca, Islam, it is all the same to me. You can believe whatever you want and I'll let you worship in peace, but if you are going to aggressively go after fundamental scientific principles in an attempt to uphold ancient fallacies and myths, I am going to respond and defend science.

Our society should be advancing science by having these types of debates like the aqua ape theory and savanna theory, not by refusing to advance human knowledge because of blind trust in ancient mythology.

I believe in science, too.

I think it is absolutely, the worst thing anyone can do, to deny fields of science. Whether the science is on religion, biology, or physics, all of it should be adhered to with keen observation.

Evolution is not a process of advancing species, only diversifying them through reproduction.

No where in the field of:
- Biology, can it be shown that an organism reproduces itself with more DNA

- Physics, can an object of matter duplicate itself with more information.

Evolution leads to extinction, not an increase of DNA.

We never ascended up INTO humanity, we've rather descended into what humanity is today.

They that give up liberty for security deserve neither.

Joη's picture

and who are you to judge such a distinction?

Evolution is not a process of advancing species, only diversifying them through reproduction.

Are you a predator? A global environmental change? A solar belch of increased randomness? A thousand harmless mutations over billions of years suddenly made useful by a series of cosmic coincidences?

When is a human not a human? When one has an extra toe? Or can't see from birth? Extra ribs? A dermal melanin level not equal to yours? A fusiform gyrus formed differently than yours? Who are you to say when any combination of these will be useful, let alone deserve a different label by one particular species?

Variation is all that is necessary.

"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it." | Up for a game?

....

Variation is not advancement, though it may provide genetic ability to survive in environments where others may not.

Tell me, are there more animals today than before? So, how does a species increase in survival ability yet decrease in numbers due to the inability of survival?

A seed of an apple tree will only make an apple tree, while not identical, it is not a different species.

Let me know when an apple seed produces a banana, and ill show you a fly that became a lion.

They that give up liberty for security deserve neither.

Joη's picture

this horse has his tongue in the water but will not drink

You ignore my point, do not appreciate the orders of magnitude involved, and seek absurdity over understanding.

Here's a life algorithm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life

Though oversimplified, it is how life evolves. Imagine each animation frame as one million years' worth of mutation. Proximity is genetic similarity. Sometimes they separate. Empty cells are extinctions. They are common. Just because 99% of all species that ever evolved are now extinct does not in any way disprove evolution or its mechanics.

When trying to distinguish similar species, it may be appropriate to imagine their genetic lineages as thick rope composed of thousands of tiny twines, each a little different, just waiting for an external pressure to cleave the rope down the middle, separating species.

All the organic structures you see today are the outermost leaves of a tree so colossal and ancient most of its trunk rotted away a billion years ago. This does not disprove the fact that it grows to this day.

"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it." | Up for a game?

My apologies for not being more clear.

I do believe in Evolution as Change within Species, however, not a change OF species.

All scientific evidence suggests changes occur within DNA strands from one offspring to the next. This is where I encourage others to carefully define Evolution before dismissing it's entirety.

Many people like to ignore the MACRO concept because of Micro discrepancies... as I said above, it is not wise to ignore what evidence does exist, for either argument.

They that give up liberty for security deserve neither.

Joη's picture

summed variation over time yields speciation

There is no operational difference between micro and macroevolution. It is literally the same process in both. One does not refer to microaddition for small numbers and macroaddition for large numbers for the same reason. They both do the exact same thing. Accepting one is admitting both.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution#misuse

Just because the changes in other animals are slight and rare from the perspective of a human no way precludes their sum over time to yield speciation.

"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it." | Up for a game?

Speciation is not evolution

Speciation is not evolution. Creationists believe and accept speciation. In fact speciation should be a problem and an embarrassment for evolutionists if they really understood it. Speciation generally is the result of some sort of environmental factor such as geographic isolation that results in a loss of some of the genetic variability that existed in the original population. The more a population speciates, the less genetic variation it has. This often results in the eventual extinction of the species. Island populations are a prime example of this.

Evolution requires an ever increasing amount of genetic information. Speciation is the ever decreasing amount of genetic information. Evolution has never happened.

No King but Jesus, no President but Ron Paul

Joη's picture

speciation is absolutely part of evolution

One cannot "accept speciation" yet "deny evolution". This sounds identical to the above person who accepted "microevolution" but not "macroevolution", as if that distinction mattered.

Evolution occurs through the propagation of favorable mutation.

I maintain most do not appreciate the orders of magnitude involved that make a rule as simple as that into every organism we see. So I shall attempt a very crude series of approximations:

There are at least 103.5 quadrillion mammals, birds, bugs, trees, and fish alive today (can't find numbers for reptiles). Let's conservatively say each of them house one million bacteria, and only 1/1000 is procreating, so we're at .1 sextillion organisms. Every single one of these is transcribing at least 1 chromosome of minimum 1 million base pairs, so that's at least 103,500,435,282,189,450,000,000,000 or 103.5 septillion fallible hands transcribing at this instant for life on Earth (but very likely much, much more). And they doesn't always transcribe verbatim.

That is where the "ever increasing amount of genetic information" comes from. Are you saying that number is not big enough to be whittled by the rise and fall of predators, resources, temperatures, and continents through the ages to yield the diversity we see in the current tree of life?

"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it." | Up for a game?

It's never happened

Your argument is a fairy tale. Mutation never results in a gain of genetic information.

Evolutionists postulate that over millions of years, simple organisms containing minimal information evolved into increasingly complicated creatures. This uphill progression requires a continual net increase in the amount of genetic information. The problem is that the currently popular mechanisms of evolution (natural selection and mutation) result in an increase of information only in the imaginations of evolutionists. Observational science has demonstrated repeatedly that these processes reduce information or at best shuffle existing information.

Information scientist Dr Werner Gitt has observed,

“There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.”

Evolutionists often claim that mutations can increase genetic information. But even when mutations occur and add to the variability, they do not increase the genetic information so as to provide the raw material to produce new kinds of animals, as evolutionists claim. In no case does any mutation provide the information to become—to evolve into—a new kind of organism.

Even when scientists tamper with life, nothing ever changes. Flies stay flies, roses stay roses, dogs stay dogs, etc. Evolution has never happened. This micro/macro stuff is hogwash - to say nothing of the phony millions of years that it supposedly requires.

No King but Jesus, no President but Ron Paul