OK I accept your hypothesis may be correct but for your theory to convince me fully it would require rapid change in evolution. There has been no magical missing link found but IF it ever is it will be very interesting to see what mankinds evolution truly is.
This theory does provide a credible piece of the human puzzle. To bad the Truth has no proof. Good thinking!
Before you continue to state what is fact and what isn't, you should check the facts first. Throughout this page the facts have been twisted to support your theory. I can't go into all of the errors, as that would take forever, however you first start off by stating that we evolved from apes. WRONG- we did not evolve from apes or chimpanzees or any other primate currently living. However we (humans and current day primates) do have a common ancestor. At some point in evolution we continued down one path while the others continued down another. That is why there are chimps still around, not because they all didn't evolve.
- As far as for sweating, it is in fact a great, efficient way to cool the body. The cooling doesn't occur from the sweat only covering the skin Cooling comes from the evaporation of the water (or sweat) on our skin.
- Why don't you test your salt excreting theory out on yourself. Drink only saltwater for the next 24 hours and see what happens.... hint you won't be excreting all that salt in your sweat and tears. On second thought don't try it, because you will die.... we aren't designed or have any remenant of a design to allow us to continuously ingest salt water. There is some salt in our tears and sweat, as well as in our spit, semen, blood, urine, breastmilk, etc. ALL our body fluids have salt in them at a specific concentration. In order to maintain that concentration, your body adjusts the fluid intake/output.
Your arguments about why all ape fossils are found near water and other scientific facts (why we walk in only 2 feet and others) are deturped. Your explanation of the 'savannah theory' is wrong: you probably misunderstood it when you read it. You may fool people who want to be fooled, but anyone which studies a little of Evolution in highschool will know you are wrong (oh I forgot, Darwin's evolution theory hasn't got to USA yet...)
- Don't waste your time in desinformating people, you are only making us go backwards.
- And you even misunderstood what's expected to happen in 2012, you can't even be a credited new ager... geeez.
- Go do yourself a bit of Reiki to see if your mind gets clear.
- I'm a Student of Biology in a University and I live in Europe.
I agree with Rita!
Rita, you unfortunate fool - what the hell is 'desinformating' i was 'a Biology student in Europe' and that means sweet f a anyway you pretentious 'desinformated' ignoramus....
That is definitely some good information to ponder, there. However, if something does happen in 2012, I don't think we, as humans would be able to evolve any further. When you have reached a point in your sentience that you theorize how your species came to be, evolution is no longer possible. We aren't primates anymore, and given our dependencies on technology, relying on nature to find some way to adapt won't happen. Perhaps if this global disaster leaves us to fend for ourselves the jungle maybe, but anything that wipes out ALL of our technological resources won't leave many of us alive. The few that would survive might evolve somewhat, but first they would have to de-evolve in a sense.
Certainly an interesting theory although probably as good (or bad) as any other ("orthodox" or not). The thing is, despite all arguments for or against this theory we have too few data to prove or disprove it.
- But, while my mind and intuition are certainly more inclined towards the "paranormal" than towards the "skeptical", in my case your theory has given rise to a certain idea.
- IF (and only IF) some or all of the postulates above are proofs for the aquatic origin of Mankind, then maybe it was not so much because of evolution: 1) The Bible says about creating Man in God's (the gods') resemblance. 2) A number of so-called "myths" and "legends", notably the one coming from the Dogon tribe in Mali, say about aquatic "gods", half human, half fish, living in water, coming out of water, returning to water. A very brave idea (and possibly to many people it couldn't be any crazier): could it be that we are an effect of genetic manipulations from "aquatic" "gods" such as the Nommo? OK, this is just an idea, perhaps it's rubbish but how would you check whether or not it is?
Dr. Art O'Malley:
I would suggest that those of a scientific bent and enquiring mind research the origins of the dogon tribe of Timbucktu and Mali. They spoke of astronomical knowledge gained from the nommo. The nommo communicated with them in relation to the Sirius A B and C constellation. Astronomical science has confirmed what they knew before the advent of telescopes. The nommo
- are indeed of aquatic origin and drawings suggest to me elongated upper body with gill like apertures. Just to add to Robert's cataclysmic theory, regularly the earth has collided with other planets or asteroids. This leads to super volcanoes eg yellowstone national park Tsunami or global floods and polar shifts. Any impact of a major mass would disrupt earths magnetic field and lead to massively increased exposure to radiation. This is perhaps what has caused our original 12 stranded DNA to become denatured to man's miniscule double helix. However as the twelth planet NIbriu approaches ( it will be at its nearest point in 2012 )the pull on earths gravitational field will recur. Of interest Sirius has given rise to a white dwarf star and with its implosion may be why the nommo left to travel to earth only 8.6 light years away.
Its nice to see someone "think" in what some educated people consider unconventional avenues of thought, then to totally accept the curiculum we have been force fed throughout our "education". In just a short period of the last forty years so many "facts" we were taught to be true, have now been proved to be erronious. Whats true today is false tommorrow. For all we NOW know, we still haven't scratched the surface! I give credit to anyone that is willing to question our human orgins, our existance, creation VS evolution and the destiny of the human race. Until someone builds a "time viewing" device, I don't think we'll ever be able to truely know our true orgins. But, I'm always willing to consider other's points of view. Your hypothesis is as good or better as to what we were taught in school. I do not quite understand how your theory applies to 2012, but there is much food for thought. Kudus to you and your upcoming book!
Art: Thanks for your thoughts. One comment - even if Niburu exists, it will never be close enough to Earth in our lifetimes to exert enough gravitational influence to affect anything in the slightest
Good to see your welcome ruminating on the "Aquatic Ape" idea...I am a long-time student of Anthropology, and definitely, there is a lot of bias in academic Anthropology against even looking at theories other than the current in-vogue "savannah" theory; although, it turns out that recent fossil finds appear to indicate that bipedalism did NOT evolve on the savannah at all, but in a forested, WATERED environment...! The AAT offers a truly interesting and logical explanation for the evolution of bipedalism: that of having to wade into bodies of water to forage for existing foods in a rich shoreline eco-niche. Macaques have been known to wade into water to harvest crabs, and have switched to an upright, bipedal position both to catch crabs, and to carry them on shore. Bonobos, a species of chimpanzee closely related to humans and currently living in the tropical forests of central Africa, the now newly credible habitat in which bipedalism evolved, have been seen bipedally wading into rivers to catch fish! In fact, I have a video tape showing this very interesting behavior. The alternative explanations & theories for bipedalism given in mainstream Anthropology texts and courses, are ludicrous by comparison with the above scenario. As bipedalism is the absolute signature characteristic defining hominid evolution, it requires cogent & credible explanation, and AAT [Aquatic Ape Theory] comes closest, it seems to me, to filling that bill!
It is interesting to think that all new born babies can swim and hold their breath when put in water. I also ponder about the humen foot and how the skin between our toes has grown into more of a pattle than a prehencile appendage as seen on mall other primates, even those who are capible of bipedal moovement.
- Although this article was very thought prevoking, I feel that lacked any solid connection to this whole 2012 thing. It dosn't take a catostrofick world event to push a mamal back into the sea after living on land for a billion some odd years
Okay for all of you AAT fans. Where are the fossils? What mammal in the water is capable of bipedalism? Perhaps bipedalism was necessary to survive in the savannahs and forest lands. Of course this is all conjecture but maybe the early primates had to chase their food source or run away from being a food source. Curious...
- I am a first year physical anthropology grad student.
dev, you'll find that fossils are very very rare (try asking an expert how many humanoid fossils of any variety have been found), and only show you bones and teeth. Fossils cannot prove or disprove the AAT. Regarding bipedalism - AAT is not saying that water causes it in sea mammals (there aren't any suitable candidates, think about it), but rather our time spent in the water helped us develop it, like the proboscis monkeys of Borneo
i think the thing most of these commenting visitors seem to be missing is that whether or not its "true", its really cool and an exciting thing to think about. and thats much more important to me, for one.
Dudes, as much as the AAT is extremely flawed, the Savannah theory is just as flawed, for all you people who want to stick by it. Humans would not likely have evolved from a savannah-dwelling australopithecine, they would have been selected against due to 1) hairlessness (making us extremely succeptible to changes in the weather); 2) bipedal locomotion (which is inefficient for running to or from anywhere - especially faster predators such as the large felines; plus makes you extremely visible to prey and creates back problems for the organism unlucky enough to get about in this way). Not too mention the increasing helplessness of our young as the brain becomes larger and more developed, meaning that they need to be born earlier and weaker. I know that the last point holds for any environment, but coupled with other factors, it doesn't make a very convincing case for the Savannah hypothesis.
Curious College Student:
Curious College Student:
C1/3: It's not so much that any one theory is wrong or right, or wins or fails, as that there's been a constant bias in "western" intellectual practice (tracking back to its contributing streams) for some 2500 years (most intensely across the last 500 - read Europe and America) for 'silver' bullet (single bullet) theories. There's a, sometimes labelled, Aristotelian or Cartesian, kind of thinking that seems to require either an A OR B result; unlike the persistent and nearly omnipresent phenomena interrelating A AND B (to put it simplistically), that have been, increasingly, pounding on the doors of folks like complex systems theorists. Their ideas, as with archaeologists, quantum field theorists, and other strange bedfellows, arise from observations, theory, experimental demonstrations and direct experience, that the 'world' is dynamically, strangely (to our classical intuitions), and complexly intertwined and interrelated. Hence our theories, especially any as complex as to embrace into a single millennia-spanning picture that might crystallize, not the "correct", but ACTUAL picture of events that occurred (we will never know them all) will be compelling when we hear it, and hear it we will, in our heads, in our hands, and in our hearts.
C2/3: It will be compelling because, as we have all experienced, there is a moment in some (not all) affairs when perspective "comes right", not because it resonates with one's beliefs or paradigms, but , partly, because it transcends them, weaving them as parts into a whole they appear naturally part of; and in whatever direction you look the explanation, story or 'theory' that has crystallised, has resonance and consistent connection in all directions (until at least the next niggling unexplainable arrives :)! ). I think the story, or, theory we're discussing here will "come right', partly because so MANY minds and attentive spirits are turned towards it, and communicating with each other, and, partly because the present environment and its perils, both terrestrial and extra-terrestrial, continue to create an environment of rising pressure.
- Somehow, this question, and others, are interlinked less and less with our armchair, academic, or professional curiosities, and somehow, more and more with a growing and sometimes indefinable urgency that I believe most people sense, but do not presently articulate. Anyway, I believe these discussions are both interesting and vital because, in increasingly interconnected circles, we are all trying to work out something of more than passing curiosity, and perhaps of central importance within the event horizons of our own personal lives.
C3/3: It is also interesting and disturbingly sobering to begin to see the narrowing in the choice of forms that somehow consistently interrelate the various faces of "evolution", mysteries such as the Dogon tribe of Mali, why the mitochondrial clock in "man", presently, points back to some events roughly 200-to-300,000 years back; the various accounts (as taken from original archaelogical records) of Genesis that predate Genesis, and the thousands of pieces of history, legend, fossil, traditions, findings and more, that abound. One of my interests is in "invariance", in the sense of what remains "true" (or 'so') independent of changes in or across co-ordinates, contexts and consciousness. I think George Santayana has, recently, said it best, in 1905, in "The Life of Reason, Volume 1": "Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." We've had such a large and global amnesia I sometimes think of our current efforts as part of a huge effort to recover our hidden histories and, hence, our memories and imminent futures. Let's keep talking.
I fail to see what this has to do with 2012... [from Rob: well, a global cataclysm = global flooding = humans living in the sea]
Aquatic apes - well you're pretty close on this. Most bio-anthropologists would or should agree since this has been talked about for over 30 years.
[edited by Rob, just AAT stuff remains] A girl i used to know had unusual feet. The toes beside the big toe were joined together almost completely basically making her feet flippers. I also remember another case of this in a boy who i took karate class with. I can't remember seeing his feet i just remember him showing them off with a tone of embarassment in a dojo full of barefooted boys and girls. Could these be flipper-like appendages naturally selected in an aquatic/land environment?
More on AAP: Whether or not all humans originate from an aquatic environment will be hard to verify but due to what we do know about humans and water, most noteably the curious fact that a very young baby is at home in a pool full of water (apparently only after we become accustomed to land do we forget how to swim) it must be true that humans are at least not strangers to aquatic environments.
The matter of nutrients is crucial to the evolutuionary 'jumps' from a chimp-type ancestor to the Homo line. It is seafoods which are the key and there is plenty of published material to refer to. See my books on my website : sondela.co.uk
hum this is a theory and like any theory its relative and not absolute so it maybe true or just wrong. hum ... even the evolution theory is relativ ... no?
- so i thinks it may be probable but we need
- more proof ...an then the aquatic ape that appear before sapien ...
- I hear strange things like homo sapien sapien skull is more litle than homo sapien one and the neanderthale one and when the sapien x 2 appear the homo sapien x1 and the neanderthal diseapear mysteriously and civilisation quickqly appear from just litle farming they went to building huge cities and a formidable knownledge .
- Is that true or just a lies.
It seems almost self-evident that mankind would have had to evolve within or near to water. Certainly the savannah I would have thought is too daunting a place for an animal, which has soft feet and cannot run fast. Neither can it climb sufficiently well to escape predation. Tools such as spears would have been just as useful in a costal environment as in a savannah. Tool evolution could occur more rapidly on the coast.
- There is one other peculiarity we have. Why pubic hair when few if no animals have hair in such a region? Indeed no sea mammals do either. Was that developed later once land was regained and if so why? Pheromones and increased sexual bonding? [from Rob Bast: if we had spent longer in the sea, all of our hair would have gone, but we didn't. Our remaining hair "flows" in a streamlined way...]
When you want to talk about evolutionary theories you have to know what it means.
- It's a natural selection and have to be an advantage. Walking on 2 feet is in an open area not an advantage. Besides that you have to compare the genes, there is no match at all. The same goes for the mass of the brains.
- No furry coat means also no protection from the sun in these open areas.
The AAH, currently modified as the wading ape hypothesis, is indeed the model of the early evolution, which now has the most arguments on its side. There has been written much on this topic, mainly on the level of popular science. The first work in this field matching real scientific quality criteria is the award winning master thesis of Algis Kuliakis. It is to be read at www.riverapes.com. He invented falsification criteria and made the proof.
- But the AAH does not implicate a flooding necessarily. Primate evolution is to be seen slightly different to that of other animals. This diffenrence is culture. The famous Macaca macaca population at Koshima island in Japan shows, that a change of the ecological niche does not always need a change in environment. Since 1954 those japan macaces - formerly mainly terrestric - invented the washing of food (first in fresh water, then in salt water), swimming, diving, eating seafood and fish. This change in behavior is not inherited, but spread from generation to generation by learning and tradition. These monkeys have evolved a new kind of living - not forced by cataclysms, just because they wanted to do so. And this change in life style changes the selection.
- Taking into consideration that our ancestors were at least as intelligent as modern japan macaces, this special pattern of evolution might have occured as well as a forced change of the environment by nature.
Rob, please read all the comments here - especially curious college student and isabella and (minding her poor grammar) rita.
- You have some good information here but there are many misconceptions about the nature of evolution which need to be corrected for your work to be convincing.
- If you would like some help editing your work to be more scientifically accurate feel free to email me.
- Please also see my other comments throughout your site.
Re: the two-legged argument - have you ever seen a cow hold a knife?
The Critical Skeptic:
The Critical Skeptic:
Is it known when subcutaneous fat first appeared in the hominid line ?
The Critical Skeptic:
How would you get a fossile of fat? Typically, only bones are fossilized, and the only "preserved" remains (like mummies, etc.) we really have are less than 5000 years old. The oldest body (some guy they found frozen up in the mountains, in russia I think) we have that we could even look at is only estimated to be around 8 to 10 thousand years old. If evolution is true, then the only remains we have other than bones aren't going to be old enough to tell us much.
The Critical Skeptic:
Here is some more evidence you perhaps never thought of and could be mentioned on your page. The second most intelligent animals on Earth are dolphins. Third are pigs, another aquatic species. Compared to dolphins and pigs, most land animals, even other mammals, are dumber than dirt. It seems that aquatic environments encourage the evolution of superior intelligence. Dolphins are almost as smart as we are, doesn't it make sense that we came from a similar environment?
ex - yes, dolphins are incredibly smart, and also interestingly the only other animal that has sex for fun - but there are plenty of other animals that are smart as well. Many primates can learn and use sign language and create tools to use. Certain species of primates (bonobo monkeys, for example) also have sex for reasons other than reproduction; bonobos trade sexual favors for food, grooming, social status, and more.
Have you ever seen Copacabana Beach on a sunny weekend? There will be up to half a million people of all ages there, playing, sleeping, eating, sunbathing, reading the weekend papers, swimming, surfing, working out or just looking at the ocean. Ever wondered why?
I was advised that Frederick Wood Jones proposed this theory first. Can you confirm this? Where might I find copies of his work?
I came upon the aquatic ape theroy just a few days ago. But it is obvious to me that mankind could not have evolved on the savannah, we donot have the body that would suggest the latter. Rather, we have a body which is absolutly suited for an aquatic invornment.
if we came from the water, why do we keep finding predecessor species in the middle of the savannah? They weren't swimming in mud holes. The theory sounds good only so long as you ignore the facts. [ they were in the savannah, then there was a global/biblical flood.. - Rob]
cris manuel 25:
ever notice the walking efficency of land mammals, most are running in under an hour. while our babies take as much as a year to walk. these are poor survival traits for anything born on land. babies are obviously built for water. they're boyant fatty bodies are ideal for swimming. i'd also guess they would actually build muscle faster, and probably walk sooner if raised in water.
- on another note, all the hair that remains on our bodys is streamlined, with the bulk of it on our head(hey guess what part of your body you need out of the water to breathe)
- i discovered this theroy a few years ago, discovered your page today...
- nice work.
Manfred Icarus Kean:
Putting it all together - a delight to read.
- Any comment on merfolk? They would be a cousin to man on the evolutionary scale, perhaps being the ones who stayed in the sea.
Wrong or Right at least it's an attempt to answer the "missing link" problem. As an Engineer I've always been amazed that another discipline can simply say "Well, It's a mystery" and continue on without any theory of how man evolved in so short a time with so many evolutionary changes. They must think that someone is going to dig up a hundred or so semi human skeletons to answer there questions for them and until that event they just don't care. The Aquatic Ape Theory has many valid points and the fact it isn't taken seriously by the Paleontologists isn't surprising since they don't seem to be motivated to find any alternate answers. Medical Doctor were still "Bleeding" people 100 years ago. I have little respect for any disciple who shuts it's doors to valid questions and ridicules theories that they replace with unknowns.
ill make mine quick, im not a very relegious boy, but i do not beleive in the theory of evolution, it all seems to convienient, the passages in our ears to block sound waves to a calmer frequency, the lids on our eyes to refresh our eyeballs with the liquid to keep them moist. our nostrols designed in a position so we may swim without any problems of water escaping into them, and of course our spine which was designed specifically for us to be a bi-pod, coincidence? i think not--Rob: Age 16
I have cycstic fibrosis a genetic illness which doctors beleive to be this and that. I am expected to eat large amounts and do things as they suggest. consuming large amounts of salt based medical drugs. on that note I am extremely healthy compared to others with my condition and choose to go against the grain. cf is a genetic flaw somehow introduced to the human genome. my own personal 'unproven' understanding of CF from what I have been through is that high salt foods make me feel sick and tired and most medical drugs. However masturbation, sex and lots of 0 salt and low salt fluids and foods benefit my mental feeling and most deffinately my health. In years to come my own theories on salt will be brought forward. on a sub note. a comment made. 'In actuality, drinking salt water, in limited quantities,' This is understandable when viewed from the point of view that it kills the bugs. however note all living organisms live in much the same way. therefore if it kills small organisms. over time it will infact destroy large organisms.
forgive me 'In actuality, drinking salt water, in limited quantities, can actually serve medical purposes.' was the comment.
although i came across this teory a cople of days back, i have been saying the same things, i dont know for how many years.i have not read the morgan book nor have i read the hardy lecture. my hypothesis started from two inexplicable problems. 1)all our four legged cousins except the orangutang can run faster than us on the ground. 2)man has the highest child-birth mortality rate arising from its pelvic position. both together would have been enough to make the nacked savanah ape extinct.
A. M. Clark:
My main reason for favoring the aquatic ape theory is that the savannah theory that is taught in classrooms is so hard to swallow. Critics of the aquatic ape theory are usually quite laughable - their main argument against AAT is that every detail of the theory isn't concretely provable. All the other current theories of hominid development are only that - theories, even though the scientific community seems to have a lot vested in them. There really isn't a comprehensive record of what happened back then. Of all the theories I've heard, AAT provides the strongest theoretical reasoning to explain differences between humans and apes.
This is an awsome theory I've never heard anything like it....it is great...
The comments section is now closed, but you can still email me, or even
better, visit 2012 Forum
Script by Alex