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.

Exactly.

It is SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE that an offspring can contain MORE DNA than their parents.

It is also SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN that the Universe is a form of reduction through chemical interaction. I.E. the formation of Stars.

It does no good for a wise man to argue with a fool, from a distance, no one knows the difference.

They that give up liberty for security deserve neither.

Joη's picture

false and irrelevant

1) offspring are infrequently born with an extra chromosome. Extra chromosome == "more DNA" than parent.

But that's not even a relevant or appropriate concern for your goal. It's not "more organs == more human!" or "biggest DNA is best DNA". For example, some plants have nearly 50x the genome size as humans, this fish has a genome 40x the size of the human, and this bacteria you can't even see has a genome 209x the size of humans. There's surely "more information" there, but it's all in how the code interprets it.

2) information entropy is not thermodynamic entropy. See:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Information_theory#Creationist_...

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

Joη's picture

see

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Information_theory#Dr._Werner_G...

And the first paragraph on the page.

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

Zero evolution

Gitt's statement, “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," has never been refuted, no matter how much you argue against it.

No one has shown an example of information creating itself, no one has shown an example of evolution, etc. You can argue all you want, provide all the links you want, but the bottom line is that no one has ever provided any proof of evolution. Fruit flies staying fruit flies is not evolution. Evolution is a fairy tale and has no science behind it.

No King but Jesus, no President but Ron Paul

Joη's picture

so are all transitional fossils fake, which show exactly that?

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

You're approaching this from a distinctly human perspective, as if each species is "a goal", clearly defined, when it really is nothing more than summed variations significant enough to stop interbreeding. If that happens and the things still look the same, no one really cares that you don't see a difference, they've become two different species and that's that. You can be unhappy they're "not the right kind of different information", but only those basing their beliefs on Gitt will care. Gitt was (in some parts wholly misapplying information theory and elsewhere) being very vague with his terminology to skirt around exactly this issue.

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

There ain't none

There are no transitional fossils - sooner or later the religion of evolutionism ends up flip flopping like Mitt Romney. E.g., look at the first alleged transitional fossil in the article you linked to, Archaeopteryx:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v7/n1/flown-the-...

And this statement is laughable: "If that happens and the things still look the same, no one really cares that you don't see a difference, they've become two different species and that's that."

A dog that stays a dog is still a dog. No evolution there. Speciation is not evolution. How gullible are you?

No King but Jesus, no President but Ron Paul

Joη's picture

this is bad how?

"...Xu and co-workers’ finding only deepens the impact of Archaeopteryx by highlighting the rich evolutionary nexus of which it is a part..."

Conclusions were improved upon given more data? Would you rather that not happen?

But I see we've reached the fossil denial stage of argument, so I'm out. Good luck setting back medical research.

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

Evolutionists

need to evolve themselves.

How does one explain extinction and advancement of species with the same evidence? LOL

They that give up liberty for security deserve neither.

First time I've seen this

It seems reasonable, and explains some lose ends in the savannah theory. The human fetus briefly develops gills during gestation.

Just open the box and see

Will watch tonight!

The "mammalian diving reflex" is real, that much I know. Looking forward to checking this out.

Love or fear? Chose again with every breath.

That's right along with a number of adaptations

Not only the diving reflex, that slows the heart and conserves blood oxygen, there are others too. A very weak thirst instinct, eye tears, sweat, dilute urine, flexible spine, body fat layers, body hair alignment, smooth skin, voluntary ability to hold breath etc. I know anthropologists reject the theory as it conflicts with the conventional savanna theory that they accept as fact.

Apparently

no one understands how evolution works.

They that give up liberty for security deserve neither.

OK enlighten me, I'm listening

How does evolution work?

Sure.

When you have one object of matter, the best you can do is duplicate it. So, nature reproduces itself either equally or with less information, never more.

Simple as that.

They that give up liberty for security deserve neither.

SaveThePandas's picture

I really liked this theory

I have heard it a few times in the past. Basically at some point in our evolution we were water dwelling creatures.

As I understand the theory,

we are adapted to the shore line, semi aquatic as opposed to the conventional theory we adapted to a savanna, as anthropologists suggest.