The aquatic ape theory

I just read an interesting theory and would like some opinions from the more learned evolutionist/creationists members. I personaly think it has some merits but it doesnt "feel" right to me. Can anyone help me pick it apart? heres the link: survive2012.com...

Ohboy!

The writer of the web page is not the originator of the "swamp ape" idea and understands it very badly. He shows it in this paragraph:

For humans to evolve from apes in the manner described above, one of the following needed to occur:

1) A localized flood, and all humans descended from a small group
2) A global flood

In a cataclysmic flood scenario, the usual habitats of most land-based mammals would end up underwater, and large populations would drown. Survivors would be extra hungry and more likely to attack each other. Humans may have retreated to water for the sake of safety. Because their numbers were greatly reduced, and (I believe), subjected to large doses of radiation, we have an ideal situation for rapid evolution. Where in the timeline of human development this occurred, and whether it was during the last cataclysm or one prior, I cannot say.

1. Primates generally move out of the way of rising waters, donchaknow. They're not rocks. And it takes more than one generation to make a new species.
2. No evidence of a global flood and the scenario below that is silly.

Here's a critique of the original Aquatic Ape theory from the "Straight Dope" staff:
www.straightdope.com...


...and more:
www.riverapes.com...

It does have its adherents (I'm not one of them though I found the original idea charming. I later rejected it on much the same basis that the Straight Dope folks give) and occasionally we bash heads (or knuckles) on anatomical features.

As ot the original website, it's kind of a rehash of a lot of things. We have Journeys With Captain Obvious on a lot of things ("Ancient cultures communicated with each other in some way" -- gee. Do tell? Like... walking up to the border and waving your blanket at folks so they'd come over and gossip and buy your stuff...) and Adventures With Captain Clueless where it's obvious that the website owner read the words and has no idea what's really going on (pole shifts is my favorite where he says " There is no known terrestial mechanism that can cause pole shifts, so the trigger could well be extra-terrestial.")

I could go on... and on... and on.

Maybe we were genetically engineered by aliens!
most of the stuff on aliens says so

check out the Lacerta files, they're interesting (just google it,don't know how to make a link)
:

Originally posted by savagecupid
heres the link: survive2012.com...

Byrd seems to have noted that the site isn't an accurate aquatic ape theory site
this one is referenced at the talkorigins site
www.sondela.co.uk...
www.llb.labournet.org.uk...
www.riverapes.com...

Apparently its primarily the idea of a woman named Elaine Morgan

and a criticism of the various theories
www.aquaticape.org...

Ah...the sea monkey theory. When I first heard this theory, it seemed to explain a lot. Though, I've never seen the "penis size" or "missionary position" take on it. It's also kind of cool how the author ties in a global flood (creationism reference?) and concludes the article with the imposing date of 2012 (but doesn't elaborate).

Personally, I don't buy it. But I'm happy to see people challenge existing ideas.

Thanks for the input gang. I have alot of reading to do. I will hold my opinion until I read more but now I know why I had that feeling.

Originally posted by Kushi_Master
Maybe we were genetically engineered by aliens!
most of the stuff on aliens says so

I'm not sure about aliens but I do think something influenced our evolution.

Here's a thorough description of the aquatic ape theory:

who lies sleeping?

It puts forth a pretty convincing argument. Although a pretty long read, I found the whole site fascinating, as the sea mammal chapter is only one chapter of an entire advanced saurian biped theory that's laid out really well.

Here's a teaser -

A few million years in the water give us convincing explanations of otherwise untypical and inexplicable human characteristics, including some of the those we have been looking at. Why are we bipedal? Why are we naked? Why do we have a layer of subcutaneous fat? Why do we possess the diving reflex? Why can young human babies swim before they can walk? What triggered off speech?

Makes sense we might have returned to the sea for a time - other mammals did.

Originally posted by yellocake
Here's a thorough description of the aquatic ape theory:

who lies sleeping?

It puts forth a pretty convincing argument.

Actually, the "convincing" arguments were discussed in the articles that the rest of us linked to... and they're not terribly convincing, really.

One of the big issues that has to be addressed is skeletal changes. In order to be able to walk comfortably for any length of time as a biped, several things have to happen to the skeleton:

1) your hips have to develop a "basket" shape so your innards don't sag out your end and pregnancies can be carried to a successful end. This would NOT happen in a water environment, because water would support the body organs.

2) Your spine has to develop an "s" curve. This is because of weight distribution and the center of gravity. In water you can float/stand upright without the need for this spine adaptation. In fact, there's nothing to drive that adaptation at all.

3) The opening in your skull where your spinal cord runs from the brainstem to the spinal column actually has to shift toward the center bottom of the skull. In non-bipeds, it emerges from the back of the head.

4) leg and arm proportions have to change (our arms are roughly 2/3 the length of our legs.)

In addition, there has to be all sorts of musculoskeletal changes and other changes.

If you learned to walk upright in water, the gravitational support would fail the minute you hit land, and you'd go back to walking on all fours. Physical movements in one environment may not be useful in another (penguins can "fly" underwater but this doesn't help their land locomotion skills at all.)

...and so forth. There's lots of good readable information on those pages. The "swamp ape" is pretty much discounted.

However, recent discovery of a set of bones dated at around 6 million years offers another theory that would fit the scenario better. The fossil, Orrorin tugenensis, is of an anthropoid (ape-type creature) that walked upright and lived in forested areas. Researchers are suggesting that this earliest known "bipedal anthropoid" in the human lineage learned to walk upright from walking along branches in the forest.

This would make more sense, because it would mean that the more successful ones who could walk the branches easily would have the traits necessary for bipedalism.

www.pbs.org...

There's lots more to do, but "forest walkers" seems a bit more plausible from the anatomy and physical dynamics.