Home
Search
Register
Log inBigfoot News
Bigfoot Evidence
Bigfoot Evidence
feeds
Aquatic Ape Theory
3 posters
Page 1 of 1
Aquatic Ape Theory
DPinkerton Thu Feb 28, 2013 9:08 pm
http://www.ted.com/talks/elaine_morgan_says_we_evolved_from_aquatic_apes.html
This is the most fascinating Theory
It also explains how SCIENCE is to new theory
Figured I would move this to a new thread....I find it very interesting...and the more I look into it..the more I feel it was NOT ever given serious consideration.
Mainstream evolutionary theory relies on fossil records...something that would be very difficult to use to confirm the AAT since conditions in watery environments are not conducive to fossilization.
DPinkerton- Posts : 171
Join date : 2012-08-14
Location : Colorado
Re: Aquatic Ape Theory
Woodwose Fri Mar 01, 2013 1:37 am
We have a fossil record that shows the transition from land mammals to dolphins and wales (one of the best fossilised examples of transitional evolution). Why would there be no physical or genetic evidence of AAT? Also, advances in genetic mapping show no evidence of an aquatic origin for the physical trates attributed to AAT.
AAT has been very well refuted for the most part and does not deserve a separate thread. DNA and fossil records do not rule out the possibility that a brief period of semi-aquatic coastal lifestyle may have contributed to our evolution. However the proposed long term aquatic evolution has been well and truly debunked.
Remember that I say this as someone who initially found AAT credible and defended it for many years. The hypothesis was initially rejected by somie people for being controversial, but science did not brush it under the carpet. In the end it was given thevattention it deserved, but unfortunately when you look at the cold hard evidence, AAT should necessarily be consigned to the same cemetery as piltdown man.
AAT has been very well refuted for the most part and does not deserve a separate thread. DNA and fossil records do not rule out the possibility that a brief period of semi-aquatic coastal lifestyle may have contributed to our evolution. However the proposed long term aquatic evolution has been well and truly debunked.
Remember that I say this as someone who initially found AAT credible and defended it for many years. The hypothesis was initially rejected by somie people for being controversial, but science did not brush it under the carpet. In the end it was given thevattention it deserved, but unfortunately when you look at the cold hard evidence, AAT should necessarily be consigned to the same cemetery as piltdown man.
Woodwose- Posts : 389
Join date : 2012-08-04
Re: Aquatic Ape Theory
CMcMillan Fri Mar 01, 2013 9:26 am
Wood
You do know we don't have all out fossil records or mans transitions over time. We are still missing steps.
Aquatic Theory as far as I can read doesn't say when the transition was or at what time.
It actually to me makes more sense since the earth is mostly water that we would have been some type of Water Species. Maybe as time went on we began to have more issues with dangerous species in the water and started to come on land more.
I am presently looking at the concept a lot more its fascinating.
Now I will swing the Bigfoot idea here. Think about this . People like Matt Moneymaker say Bigfoots have like Bio-Luminescent eyes that they can control and Infra sound. If a species of ape lived in the water the deep water they would need to have Light and sound to navigate in the water.
If one is to accept the Theory that Humans and some other species bread to create bigfoot. What if it was along the lines of an Aquatic-ape decedent and Land-ape decedent mating at one time?
(Just a thought not something to debate)
Aquatic theory makes much more sense to me.
But what i did like about the video was her warning how "The Clergy of Science" act about Paradigms how the base can totally be destroyed by a new evidence and they just say well yea but lets continue anyway with what we have built up.
We have a fossil record that shows the transition from land mammals to dolphins and wales
You do know we don't have all out fossil records or mans transitions over time. We are still missing steps.
Aquatic Theory as far as I can read doesn't say when the transition was or at what time.
It actually to me makes more sense since the earth is mostly water that we would have been some type of Water Species. Maybe as time went on we began to have more issues with dangerous species in the water and started to come on land more.
I am presently looking at the concept a lot more its fascinating.
Now I will swing the Bigfoot idea here. Think about this . People like Matt Moneymaker say Bigfoots have like Bio-Luminescent eyes that they can control and Infra sound. If a species of ape lived in the water the deep water they would need to have Light and sound to navigate in the water.
If one is to accept the Theory that Humans and some other species bread to create bigfoot. What if it was along the lines of an Aquatic-ape decedent and Land-ape decedent mating at one time?
(Just a thought not something to debate)
Aquatic theory makes much more sense to me.
But what i did like about the video was her warning how "The Clergy of Science" act about Paradigms how the base can totally be destroyed by a new evidence and they just say well yea but lets continue anyway with what we have built up.
CMcMillan- Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT
Re: Aquatic Ape Theory
Woodwose Fri Mar 01, 2013 9:58 am
CMcMillan wrote:We are still missing steps.
That will always be the case - that's the nature of evolution and the fossil record.
We do however have enough to suggest that AAT is untenable (plus much better evidence to explain the traits attributed an aquatic influence on our development). That might change if new evidence comes to light, but that evidence would have to be pretty extraordinary.
As I said before, I can appreciate how compelling AAT is and how it initially 'makes sense'. But ultimately we have to look at the evidence and in the case of AAT, it just isn't there. For arguments sake it remains a remote possibility, but currently it seems to be implausible.
I can also appreciate how it's conceivable that AAT could fit in with BF. However using an implausible hypothesis for the basis of improbable speculation isn't good reasoning. Valid speculation should be based upon evidence and there just isn't any evidence for AAT or an AAT related origin for bioluminescent traits in BF.
But what i did like about the video was her warning how "The Clergy of Science" act about Paradigms how the base can totally be destroyed by a new evidence and they just say well yea but lets continue anyway with what we have built up.
I think that's a fallacy used to defend pseudoscience......but I think we will just have to agree to disagree.
Woodwose- Posts : 389
Join date : 2012-08-04
Re: Aquatic Ape Theory
CMcMillan Fri Mar 01, 2013 11:05 am
http://survive2012.com/index.php/aquatic-ape.html
However, the Savannah Theory is riddled with conundrums, such as:
Primates such as baboons and vervet monkeys live on the savannah - they have not become bipedal, nor have they lost hair
The many thousands of years it took to evolve from being able to move quickly on four legs, to beings able to run on two legs, would have left the prototype humans extremely vulnerable to predators.
here is, however, one primate species that regularly walks on its hind legs, the proboscis monkeys of Borneo. They live in mangrove swamps and regularly drop down into the water below them. They are excellent swimmers, but if they are able to touch the bottom they elect to walk, just like humans. With the support of water around them, the instability and discomfort of terrestrial bipedalism disappears. With their heads held up high they are able to breathe easier than when swimming.
The plot thickens when we delve into he geological and climatic history of North East Africa, where the fossils of “Lucy” and other famous human ancestors have been dug up. Lucy’s scientific title is Australopithecus afarensis, because she was found in the region of Ethiopia known as Afar. From seven million to 70,000 years ago this area was an inland sea, sea water that flooded in and then got trapped, separated from the ocean proper. This is typical of the environment we would expect an Aquatic Ape to evolve in. Today it has all dried up, leaving a virtually impassable desert, with salt deposits thousands of feet deep.
CMcMillan- Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT
Re: Aquatic Ape Theory
Woodwose Fri Mar 01, 2013 11:39 am
The many thousands of years it took to evolve from being able to move quickly on four legs, to beings able to run on two legs, would have left the prototype humans extremely vulnerable to predators.
Not unsurprisingly we often find signs of predation on specimens from that period of our development. Also there is some evidence that our bipedalism could have developed before we took to the savanna (via brachiation).
here is, however, one primate species that regularly walks on its hind legs, the proboscis monkeys of Borneo. They live in mangrove swamps and regularly drop down into the water below them. They are excellent swimmers, but if they are able to touch the bottom they elect to walk, just like humans. With the support of water around them, the instability and discomfort of terrestrial bipedalism disappears. With their heads held up high they are able to breathe easier than when swimming.
That sounds plausible enough. Remember, I did say that we cannot rule out the possibility that some of our traits could have come about from ancestral species taking advantage of aquatic habitats. It doesn't follow that we should therefore accept the rest of AAT.
In addition, if were to apply the flawed logic of 'why haven't other primates developed bipedalism?', then why haven't proboscis monkeys lost their hair, become fully bipedal and developed the same fat deposits seen in humans? In both cases, evolution simply doesn't work like that: it isn't linear and there are no evolutionary paths that a species must follow. If we could re-run evolution it's likely that humans would turn out very differently, or may not evolve at all.
From seven million to 70,000 years ago this area was an inland sea, sea water that flooded in and then got trapped, separated from the ocean proper
Many land-based animals lived in this area. Are we to assume that they must also have been aquatic?
The logic to these arguments is deeply flawed and contradictory. They are also put forward by individuals who have little understanding of paleoanthropology and it's complexities. These are just a couple of reasons why science currently doesn't take AAT seriously.
If a qualified scientist were to come forward with proper evidence and arguments that fit the fossil record and what we know about evolution, then all this would change. As things stand AAT is at best journalistic speculation.
Woodwose- Posts : 389
Join date : 2012-08-04
Re: Aquatic Ape Theory
CMcMillan Fri Mar 01, 2013 12:27 pm
You keep saying "Expert Scientists"
Seriously you really need to rethink that.
Read Charles Darwin's Bio.
Read about Dian Fossey
Read about Jane Goodall
You don't need to be a scientist to start to have done something wonderful and revolutionary in the Scientific field.
Seriously you really need to rethink that.
Read Charles Darwin's Bio.
Read about Dian Fossey
Read about Jane Goodall
You don't need to be a scientist to start to have done something wonderful and revolutionary in the Scientific field.
CMcMillan- Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT
Re: Aquatic Ape Theory
Woodwose Fri Mar 01, 2013 12:42 pm
I'm not saying that you have to be an expert in order to speculate about evolution or even put forward a new hypothesis.
However these ideas cannot claim to be scientific or legitimate alternatives to accepted wisdom unless they are backed up by solid evidence and have been fully endorsed by individuals with the necessary training and expertise. You can't just accept an idea because it seems to make sense - there are strict scientific standards that must be met.
The AAT has been around for nearly 40 years and no one has come forward and shown that it has any basis in fact.
Similarly your idea regarding bioluminescence is interesting and certainly worth considering, but no one can take it seriously without evidence, peer review and all the other aspects of the scientific method that are needed to test and verify whether it has merit. Your first hurdle is that there are plenty of mammals that are either semi-aquatic or fully aquatic, but as far as I am aware, none of them have developed bioluminescence.
However these ideas cannot claim to be scientific or legitimate alternatives to accepted wisdom unless they are backed up by solid evidence and have been fully endorsed by individuals with the necessary training and expertise. You can't just accept an idea because it seems to make sense - there are strict scientific standards that must be met.
The AAT has been around for nearly 40 years and no one has come forward and shown that it has any basis in fact.
Similarly your idea regarding bioluminescence is interesting and certainly worth considering, but no one can take it seriously without evidence, peer review and all the other aspects of the scientific method that are needed to test and verify whether it has merit. Your first hurdle is that there are plenty of mammals that are either semi-aquatic or fully aquatic, but as far as I am aware, none of them have developed bioluminescence.
Woodwose- Posts : 389
Join date : 2012-08-04
Re: Aquatic Ape Theory
DPinkerton Sat Mar 02, 2013 9:35 am
Woodwose wrote:However these ideas cannot claim to be scientific or legitimate alternatives to accepted wisdom unless they are backed up by solid evidence and have been fully endorsed by individuals with the necessary training and expertise. You can't just accept an idea because it seems to make sense - there are strict scientific standards that must be met.
The AAT has been around for nearly 40 years and no one has come forward and shown that it has any basis in fact.
And herein lies the problem..."science" is content with what they think they know...they have no desire to look into a different theory.
DPinkerton- Posts : 171
Join date : 2012-08-14
Location : Colorado
Re: Aquatic Ape Theory
Woodwose Sat Mar 02, 2013 9:46 am
Since scientists are constantly trying to disprove one another and put forward new and conflicting theories, that comment just doesn't make sense.
Woodwose- Posts : 389
Join date : 2012-08-04
Re: Aquatic Ape Theory
DPinkerton Sat Mar 02, 2013 10:01 am
Woodwose wrote:Since scientists are constantly trying to disprove one another and put forward new and conflicting theories, that comment just doesn't make sense.
It that were true then "scientist" would be actively searching for an unknown homind in North America....but instead "science" ridicules and completely dismissed the idea as BS and refuses to spend any time and money into investigating. So yea...it makes perfect sense.
Would anyone else care to talk about the AAT? If not...could an admin please delete the thread? As Woodwose here has said...it doesn't warrant its own thread.
DPinkerton- Posts : 171
Join date : 2012-08-14
Location : Colorado
Re: Aquatic Ape Theory
Woodwose Sat Mar 02, 2013 10:20 am
You know full well that numerous scientists do take BF seriously.
It's a fringe interest so naturally there is going to be some ridicule and as a result it can be hard to fund proper research. However that ridicule comes from individual scientists, not science as a whole. Sciencentists can be biased, but science is impartial and regardless of the ridicule, if the evidence is good, science must take notice.
In the case of AAT there has been no evidence put forward to support it. It has remained an hypothesis for 40 years. In that time the standard model of human evolution has been challenged, debated and modified many times in line with new evidence that has been brought to the table.
This makes AAT look like a non-starter and science hasn't rejected it because it's controversial, but rather because no one has put forward any evidence or a means of testing it. Until that changes AAT doesn't warrant any serious consideration and there isn't anything to discuss.
It's a fringe interest so naturally there is going to be some ridicule and as a result it can be hard to fund proper research. However that ridicule comes from individual scientists, not science as a whole. Sciencentists can be biased, but science is impartial and regardless of the ridicule, if the evidence is good, science must take notice.
In the case of AAT there has been no evidence put forward to support it. It has remained an hypothesis for 40 years. In that time the standard model of human evolution has been challenged, debated and modified many times in line with new evidence that has been brought to the table.
This makes AAT look like a non-starter and science hasn't rejected it because it's controversial, but rather because no one has put forward any evidence or a means of testing it. Until that changes AAT doesn't warrant any serious consideration and there isn't anything to discuss.
Woodwose- Posts : 389
Join date : 2012-08-04
Re: Aquatic Ape Theory
CMcMillan Sat Mar 02, 2013 10:36 am
Again you are missing Many facts.
Much of the fossils found were known to be in areas that were once underwater.
So perhapse the Fossils we are finding are not identified correctly.
you are stating things on a Pyramid Since we build on that if we remove a level it would fall, yet why doesn't it when it was proven that certain Paradimes changed the logic that it is built on?
Because the scientists don't want to rebuild the pyramid.
Aquatic Ape Theory is a better fit for our evolution and why we developed like we did when other apes and animals have not evolved like we. If we lived on the planes.
Science has not discredit it. Both Aquatic and the evolution we believe now are just 2 different ways to view our evolution based off the evidence.
Much of the fossils found were known to be in areas that were once underwater.
So perhapse the Fossils we are finding are not identified correctly.
you are stating things on a Pyramid Since we build on that if we remove a level it would fall, yet why doesn't it when it was proven that certain Paradimes changed the logic that it is built on?
Because the scientists don't want to rebuild the pyramid.
Aquatic Ape Theory is a better fit for our evolution and why we developed like we did when other apes and animals have not evolved like we. If we lived on the planes.
Science has not discredit it. Both Aquatic and the evolution we believe now are just 2 different ways to view our evolution based off the evidence.
CMcMillan- Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT
Re: Aquatic Ape Theory
Woodwose Sat Mar 02, 2013 12:57 pm
CMcMillan wrote:Aquatic Ape Theory is a better fit for our evolution and why we developed like we did when other apes and animals have not evolved like we.
It's only a better fit if it can be backed up with evidence.
Science has not discredit it.
You cannot discredit something that has no supporting evidence and cannot be tested. AAT proponents need to meet these criteria and prove their case. After 40 years of rhetoric science is still waiting for AAT to be presented in a way that measures up to the standards that apply to accepted models of human evolution.
Having nothing more than compelling a hypothesis isn't good enough I'm afraid.
Woodwose- Posts : 389
Join date : 2012-08-04
Re: Aquatic Ape Theory
DPinkerton Sat Mar 02, 2013 1:49 pm
Thank you for your insistence that the theory is BS...I think we get the picture.
It was nice to be able to discuss the topic with you...end sarcasm.
But seriously...it is clear there is no desire to discuss it with the exception of CM and myself, and we can do that in another format.
Please close this thread.
It was nice to be able to discuss the topic with you...end sarcasm.
But seriously...it is clear there is no desire to discuss it with the exception of CM and myself, and we can do that in another format.
Please close this thread.
DPinkerton- Posts : 171
Join date : 2012-08-14
Location : Colorado
Re: Aquatic Ape Theory
Woodwose Sat Mar 02, 2013 3:32 pm
I think you haven't understood what I am saying.
I have not said that it is BS - I actually said that it appears compelling and it is feasible that it could be proven. However AAT proponents have so far failed to produce any evidence or research, or even a means of testing that would enable science to even contemplate whether or not it's BS.
Do you understand the distinction?
A similar situation applies to BF - although unlike AAT there is at least some evidence that can be considered. So far science isn't convinced by the evidence, but that doesn't mean that science regards BF as BS.
In answer to the question 'does BF exist?' The scientific consensus isn't 'no' or 'it's BS'. Science is neutral on the matter and the answer is 'we don't know' or 'unknown'.
I'm of the same opinion and I really don't understand why you repeatedly react to ths neutral position with such hostility.
I have not said that it is BS - I actually said that it appears compelling and it is feasible that it could be proven. However AAT proponents have so far failed to produce any evidence or research, or even a means of testing that would enable science to even contemplate whether or not it's BS.
Do you understand the distinction?
A similar situation applies to BF - although unlike AAT there is at least some evidence that can be considered. So far science isn't convinced by the evidence, but that doesn't mean that science regards BF as BS.
In answer to the question 'does BF exist?' The scientific consensus isn't 'no' or 'it's BS'. Science is neutral on the matter and the answer is 'we don't know' or 'unknown'.
I'm of the same opinion and I really don't understand why you repeatedly react to ths neutral position with such hostility.
Woodwose- Posts : 389
Join date : 2012-08-04
Similar topics» FB/FB and their silly "Asian Vocal Chord" theory
» I am going to post some controversial topics Comment if you have an opinion or theory
» I am going to post some controversial topics Comment if you have an opinion or theory
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum|
|
|