The Aquatic Ape Theory
(The
Aquatic Ape Theory is mostly the work of just two people[1]
- I have nothing new to add, except for a possible connection with global cataclysms)
Consensus amongst scientists (known
as the Savannah Theory) has it that the following sequence occurred:
- When human predecessors in the African jungles became overpopulated,
some of them were forced to live on the open plain or savannah.
-
Having to hunt game for food, they learnt to stand on their hind legs to see their
prey more easily
- Because it was so hot out there,
they shed their hair to enable sweat to flow freely
-
Speech and intelligence grew from the need to communicate and hunt in packs
Hence
humans evolved. On the surface it makes a lot of sense, and we can be forgiven
for not questioning any aspects of this theory. We know from images in encyclopedias
and popular culture that primitive men hunted animals for food and skin, and that
they lived in caves. They were hairy brutish thugs and a perfect intermediary
between the chimpanzees and humans of today.
 This
is just a small portion of my online book, Survive 2012 - a look into possible
ways our world might end, and how to survive. Available in bookstores sometime
before 2012, fingers-crossed... |
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.
Mammals are not designed to walk
vertically, because it is grossly inefficient. If the first apes attempted it,
they would have been like year old babies: falling over all the time. Furthermore,
the “missing link” would have lacked the locking mechanism of the knees
that we have today. Imagine trying to stand with your knees bent for a few hours.
Without a high priority reason to do so, the human predecessors would have simply
given up. Evolution does not have an agenda. Animals cannot see into the future
and aspire to being human, they can only respond to need. To gain a better view
over the tall grass, a more obvious change, seeing as our ape relatives are good
at jumping, would have been to jump higher.
The mammalian
spine is designed like a clothes rack - things hang from it. It consists of a
long, slightly arched rod supported by two sets of legs. The animal’s body
weight is evenly distributed and the centre of gravity is low, making for a well-balanced
individual. Using four legs has been shown, by the evolution of all the other
species, to be best way of getting about. In rare cases like kangaroos and ostriches,
you can see how evenly their weight is distributed. No other animal walks perpendicular
like humans - it isn’t an efficient way of doing things. If you need more
convincing, simply consider the terrible back problems the majority of us will
suffer during our life time due to our ridiculous posture.
There
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.
A
key problem cited by orthodox scientists, the lack of fossil evidence for the
Aquatic Ape Theory, is ridiculous. None of the aquatic characteristics listed
here can be deduced from fossils. So theoretically any ancient hominids may have
had these features, we just can’t tell. For the same reason, scientists might
guess at the skin or hair colour of fossils, but they cannot know.
Turns
out that most African hominid fossils have been found in or near bodies of water.
This is explained as “they were passing by, and stopped for a drink”
or “heavy rains made the river overflow and they drowned”. The obvious
explanation, that they lived in and beside the water (as most humans still do),
is rarely considered.
There is considerable evidence
to show that regions of Africa once had the same characteristics as the mangrove
swamps of Borneo.
A press release from the University
of Toronto, August 1999, states:
“The
first humans may have been beach-dwellers foraging for shellfish, not grassland
hunter-gatherers… ….evidence that the large brains of the earliest humans
could only have evolved on the nutrient-rich diet provided by shellfish and other
animal life found near shorelines. "You don't need a big brain to collect
mussels and clams. But living on them gives you the excess energy and nutrients
that can then be directed towards brain growth."
The
popular image of the earliest humans living on the African savanna must be wrong,
[Stephen] Cunnane says. His team has found that a specific fatty acid, DHA, necessary
for human brain and eye development, is easily available in food near shore environments
but not in the diet of savanna mammals. This suggests humans evolved near water
before spreading inland, he says.
"We'd like
to see early humans as hunters who took advantage of nature and grew a big brain
in the process," he says. "But how could that hunting ability miraculously
appear overnight? Well, it didn't. Instead, they evolved in a place where they
didn't have to hunt."
Cunnane believes recent
hominid finds in South Africa that show proto-human fossils in close association
with the remains of aquatic creatures are more evidence for the theory, which
he hopes to further test next year by isotopic analysis of early human fossils.”
Fat,
Sweaty and Hairless
Charles Darwin once wrote:
“The loss of hair is an inconvenience and probably an
injury to man , for he is thus exposed to the scorching of the sun and to sudden
chills, especially due to wet weather. No one supposes that the nakedness of the
skin is any direct advantage to man; his body therefore cannot have divested of
hair through natural selection."[2]
The
Savannah Theory fails in this regard. These areas of Africa can cool to 11ºC
at night, and it would not be an advantage for humans to sleep there even on a
dry night. It is normal for terrestrial animals to have fur or thick hair. Humans
still have the capillary muscles which enable our hair to stand on end. If our
hair were longer it would then trap a layer of air close to the body, creating
a thermal blanket of sorts. Feathers work the same way. Most animals have the
ability to adjust their exterior in accordance with changing air temperature,
whereas us poor humans have to resort to clothing. Hair or fur is also very useful
for protection against injury, something very important in the wild. Obviously
we lost our hair, not because hairlessness was an advantage, but because at one
time our habitat was such that having hair was a distinct disadvantage.
The
easiest way to determine why humans are hairless is to study other mammals that
have evolved into a similar situation. Charles Darwin commented thus:
“Whales and porpoises, dugongs and the hippopotamus are
naked, and this may be advantageous to them for gliding through the water; nor
would it be injurious to them from the loss of warmth, as the species which inhabit
the colder regions are protected by a thick layer of blubber.”[3]
Elephants
are virtually hairless and are capable of swimming many miles, their trunks perfectly
suited to use as a snorkel. The tapir of Asia, Central and South America is like
a mini elephant, with a small proboscis nose. It’s hair is very sparse and
it loves to swim and dive. Pigs such as the babirusa are yet another mammalian
species which have evolved to suit living in the water - losing hair and gaining
blubber. (Mammals living in subterranean circumstances have also lost hair, and
usually sight as well - this angle is best put aside for whoever invents The Mole
Ape Theory,)
Pigs and hippopotami readily come to
the minds of children when searching for animal personifications to bait their
obese acquaintances with.
Compared to all the
other primates, humans definitely deserve the “fatty” tag. A gorilla
or chimpanzee kept in a cage might put on a fraction of extra weight, as might
an old horse that can’t run about as much as it use to. But the only land
mammals capable of doubling or trebling their natural weight, to have rolls of
fat hanging from arms, legs, hips and bellies, to be unable to walk without breaking
into a sweat, are humans.
This fattiness is normal.
If a woman’s body is underweight it chooses not to conceive. A typical 16-year-old
girl should have 27% of her body weight in fatty tissue. If it were to drop below
22%, her menstruation cycle will cease. The reason that we need to stitch up serious
flesh wounds is because the layer of fat just below our skin tries to ooze out.
The edges of the cut become separated and are unable to rejoin and heal - other
mammals don’t have this problem, their skin sits on top of muscle, not fat.
The concept of sweating as a cooling device is ridiculous.
This system, which is unique to humans (other mammals that sweat do it less profusely
than us, and use a different type of gland) is flawed. It is prone to activating
at the wrong time (in humid weather), is too slow to start and stop, provides
far more than the thin layer of moisture required for cooling, and wastes salt.
We are the only mammal that expels salt when we sweat. Even when a human is nearing
total dehydration it will continue sweating in hot weather and even die. Our sweating
system is yet another disadvantage of being human.
So
why do we sweat? One possible reason is to expel salt. If and when they first
took to the sea, our ancestors would have been eating seafood (which by definition
is salty) and accidentally swallowing salt water. The overload on our kidneys
would have created a need for a secondary system to evolve. Seabirds have special
glands for removing salt from their body.
Humans
cry, the function of which that has long baffled evolutionary scientists. It is
also for the purpose of expelling salt. You may have noticed that if you cry too
long, the saltiness will sting your eyes. Why this action is nowadays connected
to our emotions is unknown. Have you heard of crocodile tears? Well it is true,
crocodiles also cry as a means of expelling salt from their system (of course
this is not case with freshwater crocs). Walruses cry. Elephants cry. Non-human
primates do not cry. Although we obviously look like monkeys, in some ways we
have close connections to water-loving mammals. Pigs love to “wallow”,
and we use pigs as organ donors. Elephants are, when you think about it, smooth-skinned,
swimming, crying, intelligent, overweight social animals - just like us. It appears
that they evolved in the ocean as well, but chose to come back on land rather
than becoming whales. Humans made a similar decision, whereas dolphins chose the
sea.
Swimming & Diving
Swimmers
and Divers require a large opening to enable the rapid inhalation and exhalation
of air - and our mouths are large compared to the small opening of our nose and
the noses of most other mammals. They also need to be able to close their air
passages, making it harder for them to accidentally swallow water.
"Several unrelated aquatic species have evolved some kind
of movable flap either instead of, or in addition to, valvular nostrils. The penguin
has one, and the crocodile has one. Alone among the primates, humans have such
a flap - that is, the back of the soft palate, known as the velum, which in our
species can be raised and lowered to isolate the nasal passages from the mouth
cavity. It could not opeate in this fashion if the larynx had not retreated out
of its way to its present position below the back of the tongue.
"The
only other mammals which are known to feature a descended larynx are diving mammmals
- the sea lion and the dugong. These two species are about as unrelated to one
another as they are to humans. The descended larynx must have evolved independently
in each of them, after their respective land-dwelling ancestors entered an aquatic
environment."[4]
While
we were aquatic mammals, our descended larynx helped us with communication - as
we began to speak we were capable of a wider range of sounds. The primary reason
why apes such as the chimpanzee can not "speak" is not because of the
limited range of sounds available to them - they can say "ah", "ee",
"oo", and pronounce the letters k, p, h and m. These few sounds are
ample to create a large number of words. They have proven to be capable of excellent
communication using sign language, and they also understand verbal instructions,
but they lack the capacity speak as we do. The reason is not intelligence, it
is to do with breathing. Like most mammals, the breathing function in chimpanzees
is not voluntary, it is as automatic as the heart. To some extent it is also involuntary
in humans, like when we sneeze, hiccup or get a sudden fright. But the rest of
the time we get to choose how we breathe - this is directly attributed to our
aquatic past, when we had to hold our breath to dive below the surface.
Conscious
control of breath is a characteristic that we share with all other diving mammals,
and something that no other non-aquatic mammals have.
The Penis
The
large comparative size of the penis in adult male humans (man 13cm vs gorilla
3cm) is not related to the frequency of deployment. It is a necessary consequence
of the retraction and relative inaccessability of the vagina.
“An aquatic environment seems to have had a broadly similar
effect on some other species - that is, relative retraction of the femal sex organ
leading to a corresponding extension of that of the males. For example, most birds
and reptiles do not possess a penis; the pressing together of the cloacal apertures
seems to suffice for the transference of the sperm. But many species of aquatic
reptiles (crocodiles and turtles) and aquatic birds (swans, ducks, geese) have
found it necessary to evolve a penis as part of their adaption to a watery habitat.”[5]
Scent
Signalling
“In mammals, oestrous status is communicated
by scent signalling - a pheromonal message emitted by the female. Being airborne,
it may be carried quite a long way - as evidenced by the distance a dog will travel
to locate a bitch on heat. But in a wading or swimming ape the pheromones would
be washed away almost as soon as they were scented.
“...But
in humans the ability to receive and interpret scent signals is very low. The
olfactory lobe in our brains is proportionately smaller than in the brains of
apes. (This is a common feature in aquatic mammals. In whales and seals the olfactory
lobe has diminished almost to vanishing point.) So one reason for the ending of
the oestrus could be that it ceased to work properly. As a result of the pheronomal
secretions being washed away, plus diminished scent perception, the signal was
simply not getting across.”[6]
The
Missionary Position
As humans we have a common sexual position
that is quite different to that of other land-based mammals – front to front.
The usual explanation is that we wish to kiss...
“Ventro-ventral
copulation, very rare in land mammals, is the commonest mode in aquatic mammals
except for those that go ashore to breed. Whales and dolphins, dugongs and manatees,
beavers, and sea otters are among the numerous aquatic species which mate face
to face. Swimming promotes this method of copulation in the same way that bipedalism
does, because in both cases the spine and the hind limbs are realigned, forming
a continuous straight line instead of the 90-degree angle found in most quadrapreds.”[7]
-----------------------------
I
have only touched upon the topic. For far, far more evidence you need to read
the works of Elaine Morgan, especially The Aquatic Ape Theory. Anyone of average
intelligence and an open mind should find her theory to be credible.
Handy
Link: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5168/aat.html
Aquatic Apes & 2012
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.
My
thoughts are as follows:
- Humans
acquired intelligence and bipedalism whereas other primates did not
-
The aquatic scenario provides support for bipedalism and brain food
-
There is evidence of global cataclyms in the past, and myths of great floods
-
A forced change of habitat combined with increased radiation creates an ideal
situation for rapid evolution
Discuss Survive
2012 at our forumGive the author your thoughts, and discuss any 2012
ideas with others, at 2012 Forum |
Comments from Visitors
noah count:
Is it known when subcutaneous fat first appeared in the hominid line ?
(21.03.2005, 22:31)
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.
(25.03.2005, 19:17)
The Critical Skeptic:
(25.03.2005, 19:33)
eX0RciS+:
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?
(26.03.2005, 17:26)
Friendly Biologist:
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.
(05.04.2005, 19:30)
theDugster:
www.biped.info/missingrace.html
(10.04.2005, 15:30)
McCleod:
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?
(12.04.2005, 05:50)
Anne Fleming:
I was advised that Frederick Wood Jones proposed this theory first. Can you confirm this? Where might I find copies of his work?
(19.04.2005, 10:16)
Robert Cardwell:
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.
(21.04.2005, 17:16)
Lancep:
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]
(24.04.2005, 03:39)
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.
-
- ~cris~
(05.05.2005, 22:46)
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.
(04.06.2005, 14:43)
george burkard:
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.
(08.07.2005, 11:59)
Rob:
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
(04.08.2005, 22:29)
Jonathan Lynn:
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.
(21.08.2005, 22:57)
Jonathan Lynn:
forgive me 'In actuality, drinking salt water, in limited quantities, can actually serve medical purposes.' was the comment.
(21.08.2005, 22:59)
S.A.Banerjee:
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.
(25.08.2005, 00:52)
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.
(26.08.2005, 14:49)
vince G:
This is an awsome theory I've never heard anything like it....it is great...
(08.09.2005, 18:15)
Scott:
(18.09.2005, 00:57)
20 of 55 comments (part 1) [
»
] [ *
] The comments section is now closed, but you can still email me, or even
better, visit 2012 Forum
Script by Alex
|
[1] Few authors have contributed to this
idea, therefore most of this information has been gleaned from the excellent books
of Elaine Morgan, and she got her ideas from Sir Alistair Hardy
[2] Probably Origin of Species.
[3] Probably Origin of Species
[4] The Scars of Evolution: What our bodies
tell us about human origins, Elaine Morgan, Penguin 1990, p135-140
[5] The Scars of Evolution: What our bodies
tell us about human origins, Elaine Morgan, Penguin 1990, p146-147
[6] The Scars of Evolution: What our bodies
tell us about human origins, Elaine Morgan, Penguin 1990, p148-151
[7] The Scars of Evolution: What our bodies
tell us about human origins, Elaine Morgan, Penguin 1990, p148-151
