Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9094 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: d3r31nz1g3
Post Volume: Total: 901,873 Year: 12,985/6,534 Month: 268/2,210 Week: 209/390 Day: 15/50 Hour: 3/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Aquatic Ape theory?
hitchy
Member (Idle past 4552 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 69 of 138 (216736)
06-14-2005 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by artturi
06-13-2005 3:22 AM


Re: Why anthropologists don't accept the Aquatic Ape Theory
Just started reading this and found it a little interesting. Sorry if I go over any already covered ground.
quote:
our fossil findings tell that that gradual change came from gradual or less gradual adaptation to watery environment
Why would proto-humans have to adapt to water? I have my doubts that proto-humans that adapted to water would outcompete other human ancestors that had been adapting to savanna after these "water-babies" come back out of the water. Unless, of course, these water people were the only human ancestors.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by artturi, posted 06-13-2005 3:22 AM artturi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by artturi, posted 06-14-2005 5:29 AM hitchy has replied

  
hitchy
Member (Idle past 4552 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 72 of 138 (216781)
06-14-2005 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by artturi
06-14-2005 5:29 AM


Re: Why anthropologists don't accept the Aquatic Ape Theory
Hello again. Thanks for replying.
quote:
so the question is "Why would proto-humans have to adapt to water?"- they have, so there was a reason for it. Geological evidence say that millions years ago( I guess it was 7), the place where about the first fossils were found, was flooded. It's much drier now. So naturally our ancestors had to adapt. And I do not mean that they had to adapt to living completelly in the water, like 100% of the time, but much.
Just b/c an animal can exploit a certain habitat does not mean that that habitat affected its modern form. Sloths are great swimmers, but I would like to see how their evolutionary history was affected by the water. Same with dogs. Or tigers. They are not extremely well adapted for an aquatic or semi-aquatic existence. But they all can swim!
Also, what "first fossils"?
Lastly, we find a lot of fossils where water once swept the bodies into the area, covered them with sediment and allowed them to fossilize. Just b/c we find fossils in a place doesn't mean the creatures whose bones they are lived there.
Other explanations are simpler and more direct--standing upright on two legs is advantageous in grasslands where the taller you are, the further you can see over the grasses; a reduced sense of smell is just what you would expect from an animal that is vision oriented (interesting how our vision is related to us being diurnal, just like the other great apes).
Can you give me some links to your info. I would like to see what these people have to say. Beware of running with a novel idea just b/c of its novelty. Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by artturi, posted 06-14-2005 5:29 AM artturi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by artturi, posted 06-14-2005 2:31 PM hitchy has not replied
 Message 74 by artturi, posted 06-15-2005 3:45 PM hitchy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022