Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Aquatic Ape theory?
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 31 of 138 (100279)
04-15-2004 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by RAZD
04-15-2004 2:53 PM


And just a brief walk into google land I found this Which seems puts the aquatic ape were he belongs: in the toilet.

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 04-15-2004 2:53 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
redwolf
Member (Idle past 5791 days)
Posts: 185
From: alexandria va usa
Joined: 04-13-2004


Message 32 of 138 (100319)
04-16-2004 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by 1.61803
04-15-2004 1:53 PM


Wherever humans originally existed, for whatever reason, sharks must have been absent.
One thing you might notice, there being no plausible ancestor for modern man on this planet after the neanderthal has been eliminated as such by DNA testing, is that there is no real way to know whether modern man arose on this planet or somewhere else. If somewhere else, then probably somewhere else without sharks.
Humans of course do not still live in water. Too many sharks...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by 1.61803, posted 04-15-2004 1:53 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by 1.61803, posted 04-16-2004 1:42 AM redwolf has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 33 of 138 (100322)
04-16-2004 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by redwolf
04-16-2004 1:13 AM


Redwolf, was this a rebuttal or retraction from your aquatic ape banner waving? Sharks have been on this planet longer than humans, so how could they be absent? Or are you proposing early aquatic apes had shark deterrent nets?
redwolf writes:
there is no real way to know whether modern man arose on this planet or somewhere else.
I think your aquatic ape theory was a better guess than extra terrestrial. But feel free to continue astounding the forum with your command of the subject of anthropology for dumb asses.

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by redwolf, posted 04-16-2004 1:13 AM redwolf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by redwolf, posted 04-23-2004 12:07 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
redwolf
Member (Idle past 5791 days)
Posts: 185
From: alexandria va usa
Joined: 04-13-2004


Message 34 of 138 (102173)
04-23-2004 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by 1.61803
04-16-2004 1:42 AM



Redwolf, was this a rebuttal or retraction from your aquatic ape banner waving? Sharks have been on this planet longer than humans, so how could they be absent? Or are you proposing early aquatic apes had shark deterrent nets?
Studies of neanderthal DNA have cleanly eliminated the neanderthal as a plausible human ancestor, and all other hominids are much further removed from modern humans THAN the neanderthal. That eliminates the possibility of modern humans having evolved here on this planet, and leaves three choices;
  • Modern man was created here, from scratch.
  • Modern man was genetically re-engineered from the neanderthal.
  • Modern man was brought here from elsewhere.
The "elsewhere" in item three could easily have been a place lacking sharks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by 1.61803, posted 04-16-2004 1:42 AM 1.61803 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Denesha, posted 04-23-2004 12:33 PM redwolf has not replied
 Message 36 by Loudmouth, posted 04-23-2004 12:34 PM redwolf has replied

  
Denesha
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 138 (102178)
04-23-2004 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by redwolf
04-23-2004 12:07 PM


I don't think marine sharks did really be a problem for primitive human. They certainly didn't spend time padling in the waves.
But some shark species are known to visit estuaries and rivers.
Conversely, crocodiles were more serious demographic regulators. Thus could speculate that the primitive human spread was to avoid crocodiles first.
Denesha

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by redwolf, posted 04-23-2004 12:07 PM redwolf has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 138 (102179)
04-23-2004 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by redwolf
04-23-2004 12:07 PM


quote:
Studies of neanderthal DNA have cleanly eliminated the neanderthal as a plausible human ancestor, and all other hominids are much further removed from modern humans THAN the neanderthal. That eliminates the possibility of modern humans having evolved here on this planet, and leaves three choices;
For your theory to work you have to fit in the three problems listed below.
1. Genetic similarities between humans and neanderthals. Mitochondrial DNA seems to indicate that humans and neanders were genetically isolated, but the similiarities between the DNA sequences is still striking.
2. Genetic similarities between humans and chimps/bonobos/gorillas. If humans are extra-terrestrial in origin, then these apes have to be as well. The only way to make sense of the genetic similarities, both in base-base comparisons and genetic markers such as ERVs, is common ancestory. Or, with your ET theory, that they were breed or designed by the same space aliens to resemble a clade.
3. The hominid fossils which point to humans coming from an ape-like ancestor. Although the fossils we found may not be directly linked to humans through common ancestory, they nonetheless give us an idea of what hominids looked like millions of years ago. There is no denying the progression from ape like to human like morphology. Neanderthals are not the last link, there are numerous other fossils and species that point towards a common ancestory with apes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by redwolf, posted 04-23-2004 12:07 PM redwolf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by redwolf, posted 04-23-2004 2:27 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
redwolf
Member (Idle past 5791 days)
Posts: 185
From: alexandria va usa
Joined: 04-13-2004


Message 37 of 138 (102202)
04-23-2004 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Loudmouth
04-23-2004 12:34 PM


Here's the problem:
Neanderthal DNA has been described as "halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee" and recent scientific studies have concluded that the neanderthal made no detectable contribution to the genetic makeup of modern man. Moreover, all other hominids are much more remote from us than the neanderthal. Somebody who wanted to go on believing that modern man evovled here on Earth would have to come up with some new hominid, closer to us in both time and morphology, and since neanderthal remains and works are all over the map, the remains and works of this closer hominid should be very easy to find, IF he had ever existed. In real life, no such have ever been found.
That leave a clean and total break. There is simply no useful evidence of man evolving here on Earth. Now, you might still claim that man evolved somewhere else and was then brought to this planet, but that's about the best you could do.
Moreover, all of the various stories which we read about man evolving here on Earth are basically ridiculous. Elaine Morgan refers to them generically as "Tarzanism".
Logically, you only have to think about it a little bit to realize how stupid it really is.
You are starting out with apes ten million years ago, in a world of fang and claw with 1000+ lb. carnivores running amok all over the place, and trying to evolve your way towards a more refined creature in modern man. Like:

HEY! Ya know, I'll betcha if I put on these lace sleeves and this powdered wig, them dire-wolves an sabertooth cats'll start to show me a little bitta RESPECT!!!"
What's wrong with that?
The problem gets worse when you try to imagine known human behavorial
constants interacting with the requirements of having the extremely
rare to imaginary beneficial mutation always prevail:
Let's start from about ten million years back and assume we have our ape
ancestor, and two platonic ideals towards which this ape ancestor (call
him "Oop") can evolve: One is a sort of a composite of Mozart,
Beethoven, Thomas Jefferson, Shakespeare, i.e. your archetypal dead
white man, and the other platonic ideal, or evolutionary target, is
going to be a sort of an "apier" ape, fuzzier, smellier, meaner, bigger
Johnson, smaller brain, chews tobacco, drinks, gambles, gets into knife
fights...
Further, let's be generous and assume that for every one chance
mutation which is beneficial and leads towards the gentleman, you only
have 1000 adverse mutations which lead towards the other guy. None of
these mutations are going to be instantly fatal or anything like that at
all; Darwinism posits change by insensible degree, hence all of these
1000 guys are fully functional.
The assumption which is being made is that these 1000 guys (with the bad
mutation) are going to get together and decide something like:

"Hey, you know, the more I look at this thing, we're really
messed-up, so what we need to do is to all get on our motorcycles and
pack all our ole-ladies over to Dr. Jeckyll over there (the guy with
the beneficial mutation), and try to arrange for the next generation of
our kids to be in better genetic shape than we are..."

Now, it would be amazing enough if that were ever to happen once;
Darwinism, however, requires that this happen EVERY GENERATION from Oop
to us. What could possibly be stupider than that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Loudmouth, posted 04-23-2004 12:34 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Loudmouth, posted 04-23-2004 2:58 PM redwolf has replied
 Message 46 by Sylas, posted 04-28-2004 9:10 PM redwolf has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 138 (102206)
04-23-2004 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by redwolf
04-23-2004 2:27 PM


Redwolf,
You still didn't address the ERV's (endogenous retroviral insertions). This is very strong evidence for common ancestory of hominds and new world apes.
Also, this picture of prominent homind fossil skulls seems to refute your argument that there is no other lineage in the fossil record besides Neaders.
However, to divert the anger of the Admins, this is getting a smidge off topic. If you would like, we could start a new thread on either Neanderthals as a separate non-interbreeding species separate from humans, or we could go into the fossil evidence for man's link to new world apes (both fossil and genetic evidence). If you feel uncomfortable starting a new thread I could step in and give it a try. I am not trying to duck your arguments, just think it might be more appropriate in another thread.
PS: I am as guilty as anybody when it comes to topic drift, don't feel like I am singling you out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by redwolf, posted 04-23-2004 2:27 PM redwolf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by RAZD, posted 04-23-2004 5:03 PM Loudmouth has replied
 Message 41 by redwolf, posted 04-23-2004 7:53 PM Loudmouth has not replied
 Message 43 by redwolf, posted 04-23-2004 8:00 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 39 of 138 (102238)
04-23-2004 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Loudmouth
04-23-2004 2:58 PM


I think that would make a great (new) topic!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Loudmouth, posted 04-23-2004 2:58 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Loudmouth, posted 04-23-2004 5:52 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 138 (102254)
04-23-2004 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by RAZD
04-23-2004 5:03 PM


RAZD,
Agreed, but the data may be incomprehensible to the non-scientifically trained. I will try to get something together within the next week (hopefully) and the local laymen editors can have their way with it. It will take time to track down genome placement, specific mutations within ERVs, etc. I have opened a new thread (Needed: Info on Human/Chimp ERV's) if you or anyone else want to contribute.
To Redwolf, I will layoff the ERV issue until I open a new thread. Hopefully you will contribute to the debate once I get my chicks in a row. It would probably be more appropriate in a thread by itself instead of sidetracking us here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by RAZD, posted 04-23-2004 5:03 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
redwolf
Member (Idle past 5791 days)
Posts: 185
From: alexandria va usa
Joined: 04-13-2004


Message 41 of 138 (102293)
04-23-2004 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Loudmouth
04-23-2004 2:58 PM



You still didn't address the ERV's (endogenous retroviral insertions). This is very strong evidence for common ancestory of hominds and new world apes.
Not really. What it really is strong evidence for is genetic engineering and re-engineering in past ages.
Henry Gee
Monday February 12, 2001
The Guardian
The potentially-poisonous Japanese fugu fish has achieved notoriety, at least among scientists who haven't eaten any, because it has a genome that can be best described as "concise". There is no "junk" DNA, no waste, no nonsense. You get exactly what it says on the tin. This makes its genome very easy to deal with in the laboratory: it is close
to being the perfect genetic instruction set. Take all the genes you need to make an animal and no more, stir, and you'd get fugu. Now, most people would hardly rate the fugu fish as the acme of creation. If it were, it would be eating us, and not the other way round. But here is
a paradox. The human genome probably does not contain significantly more genes than the fugu fish. What sets it apart is - and there is no more succinct way to put this - rubbish.
The human genome is more than 95% rubbish. Fewer than 5% of the 3.2bn As, Cs, Gs and Ts that make up the human genome are actually found in genes. It is more litter-strewn than any genome completely sequenced so far. It is believed to contain just under 31,780 genes, only about half as many again as found in the simple roundworm Caenorhabditis elegans (19,099 genes): yet in terms of bulk DNA content, the human genome is almost 30 times the size.A lot is just rubbish, plain and simple. But at least half the genome is
rubbish of a special kind - transposable elements. These are small segments of DNA that show signs of having once been the genomes of independent entities. Although rather small, they often contain sequences that signal cellular machinery to transcribe them (that is, to switch them on). They may also contain genetic instructions for enzymes whose function is to make copies and insert the copies elsewhere in the genome. These transposable elements litter the human genome in their hundreds of thousands. Many contain genes for an enzyme called reverse transcriptase - essential for a transposable element to integrate itself into the host DNA.
The chilling part is that reverse transcriptase is a key feature of retroviruses such as HIV-1, the human immunodeficiency virus. Much of the genome itself - at least half its bulk - may have consisted of DNA that started out, perhaps millions of years ago, as independent viruses or
virus-like entities. To make matters worse, hundreds of genes, containing instructions for at least 223 proteins, seem to have been imported directly from bacteria. Some are responsible for features of human metabolism otherwise hard to explain away as quirks of evolution - such as our ability to metabolise psychotropic drugs. Thus, monoamine oxidase is involved in metabolising alcohol.

If the import of bacterial genes for novel purposes (such as drug resistance) sounds disturbing and familiar, it should - this is precisely the thrust of much research into the genetic modification of organisms in agriculture or biotechnology.
So natural-born human beings are, indeed, genetically modified. Self-respecting eco-warriors should never let their children marry a human being, in case the population at large gets contaminated with exotic genes!One of the most common transposable elements in the human genome is called
Alu - the genome is riddled with it. What the draft genome now shows quite clearly is that copies of Alu tend to cluster where there are genes. The density of genes in the genome varies, and where there are more genes, there are more copies of Alu. Nobody knows why, yet it is consistent with the idea that Alu has a positive benefit for genomes.
To be extremely speculative, it could be that a host of very similar looking Alu sequences in gene-rich regions could facilitate the kind of gene-shuffling that peps up natural genetic variation, and with that, evolution. This ties in with the fact that human genes are, more than most,
fragmented into a series of many exons, separated by small sections of rubbish called introns - rather like segments of a TV programme being punctuated by commercials.
The gene for the protein titin, for example, is divided into a record-breaking 178 exons, all of which must be patched together by the gene-reading machinery before the finished protein can be assembled. This fragmentation allows for alternative versions of proteins to be built from
the same information, by shuffling exons around. Genomes with less fragmented genes may have a similar number of overall genes - but a smaller palette of ways to use this information. Transposable elements might have
helped unlock the potential in the human genome, and could even have contributed to the fragmentation of genes in the first place (some introns are transposable elements by another name). This, at root, may explain why human beings are far more complex than roundworms or fruit flies. If it were not for trashy transposable elements
such as Alu, it might have been more difficult to shuffle genes and parts of genes, creating alternative ways of reading the "same" genes. It is true that the human genome is mostly rubbish, but it explains what we are, and
why we are who we are, and not lying on the slab in a sushi bar.
Deep Time by Henry Gee will be published shortly in paperback by Fourth Estate. He is a senior editor of Nature.
Related articles

Gee's statement above which I redlined, again:

If the import of bacterial genes for novel purposes (such as drug resistance) sounds disturbing and familiar, it should - this is precisely the thrust of much research into the genetic modification of organisms in agriculture or biotechnology.
is basically saying that the evidence indicates that humans were engineered the same way we are beginning to engineer new strains of corn and cattle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Loudmouth, posted 04-23-2004 2:58 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 42 of 138 (102298)
04-23-2004 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by SweeneyTodd
04-07-2004 2:45 AM


Replay of topic defining message 3
quote:
All righty then...the Aquatic Ape theory, from what I understand, basically states that early humans evolved aqautic envioronments instead of a more widely accetped savannah approach.
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.
Body fat composition in infants, as compared to other primates, seem quite suited to give that extra bouyancy that would be needed for wet environments.
Gives an explanantion as for a reason to stand up on hind legs...to keep that head above water, as opposed to stand an look out for predators. Today animals from prairie dogs and meer cats to baboons all stand on two legs to scout for predators, but all run away on four legs, which is much faster.
These are some of the ideas that Elaine Morgan came up with in here series of books on the subject. I don't beleive she had any real training in science, but alot of what she says is interesting.
Just curious about what other people think.
Adminnemooseus

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 44 by redwolf, posted 04-23-2004 8:04 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied
 Message 45 by redwolf, posted 04-23-2004 8:08 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
redwolf
Member (Idle past 5791 days)
Posts: 185
From: alexandria va usa
Joined: 04-13-2004


Message 43 of 138 (102299)
04-23-2004 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Loudmouth
04-23-2004 2:58 PM



Also, this picture of prominent homind fossil skulls seems to refute your argument that there is no other lineage in the fossil record besides Neaders.
I am not aware of any serious scientists who view the talk.origins "FAQ" system as reasonable or honest. Other than that, the skulls in the picture don't add anything. Only one or two skulls have ever been found which might raise any question of human/neanderthal interbreeding which would have to be possible for us to be descended in any way from neanderthals, and those one or two are questionable to say the least. The one I've seen is of a young girl.
Arrayed against the one or two questionable skulls are dna studies indicating that there is no relationship between us and neanderthals, along with studies indicating that, even in areas in which modern humans and neanderthals lived side by side with eachother for very long stretches of time and much interbreeding would be expected, there is zero evidence of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Loudmouth, posted 04-23-2004 2:58 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
redwolf
Member (Idle past 5791 days)
Posts: 185
From: alexandria va usa
Joined: 04-13-2004


Message 44 of 138 (102300)
04-23-2004 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Adminnemooseus
04-23-2004 7:59 PM


Re: Replay of topic defining message 3
Again in case you missed it, I don't see a need to believe in evolution or be an evolutionite in order to believe that what Morgan says is correct, i.e. that humans, regardless of how they came into being, originally lived in water. The evidence she presents is pretty coercive. I'd recommend "Scars of Evolution" as a starting point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-23-2004 7:59 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
redwolf
Member (Idle past 5791 days)
Posts: 185
From: alexandria va usa
Joined: 04-13-2004


Message 45 of 138 (102301)
04-23-2004 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Adminnemooseus
04-23-2004 7:59 PM


Re: Replay of topic defining message 3

Gives an explanantion as for a reason to stand up on hind legs...to keep that head above water, as opposed to stand an look out for predators.
When you think about it, most monkeys trying to swim the way we do would likely just turn sumersaults in the water. Your legs almost have to be the major limbs to swim any better than dogpaddling; apes' and monkeys' arms are their major limbs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-23-2004 7:59 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024