Waterside Hypotheses 1 : The Reaction to the so-called "aquatic ape"

[VojvodinaNet]

Algis - I am disappointed with the way you handled the discussion on 'talkrational' forum. You should not accept the challenge from vulgar "opponents" when in fact all they are trying is to sabotage you. They are most likely paid professionals, and you are making it harder for an average reader to understand your thoughts by using vulgar language. Those people are NOT stupid, they know exactly what they are doing.

[VojvodinaNet]

Algis - do you have more suggestions regarding the possible diet during waterside phase?

[plusthinking]

what a retard....

[stu8500uk]

its a good theory and fits in with our bodys design better than the savannah theory i can also see the clear benefits to our ancestors thinking about predation our bodys skin etc, if anything my view is this came first and the savannah a lot later on as things started to dry up. vorsuz your skins like a sponge it absorbs water as well like an amphibians and our breathing is better for diving which could be used as defense to help not get spotted, thick ape hair stores water an otters stores air

[stu8500uk]

@stu8500uk not saying the savannah theorys wrong just that it came a lot later on

[vorsuz]

I like the idea about evolution of early bipedalism in flooded environment. However I don't understand how it is related to loss of body hear. For an instance beavers, otters and similar didn't lost the fell.

If to think that human is an excellent runner, what is hardly arguable (even some elderly people can run for six hours) then it is easy to explain advanced respiratory system and loss of body hear for improved vaporization of sweat.

How you argue against this classic hypothesis?

Thanks!

[061369317]

Paleonthological evidences for this particular theory (which doesn't contradict overall human evolution theory BTW) may currently lay under several hundred feet of salt water.

Scientific theories are mostly built upon facts, problem is that only known facts can be used, those remaining to be found must be ignored...and thus may stay ignored so for a long time.

[AlgisKuliukas]

Thankyou for your intelligent comment. Evidence for evolutionary theory, thankfully, goes well beyond the paleontological. Evidence of convergent evolution from comparative biology and molecular studies can also be used.

[061369317]

Hi Algis, thanks for your response !

I had posted some futher comments but they eventually disapeared in the yahoo-parallel worlds-black hole :-)

As average, man in the street, paleonthology buff, my understanding so far is that the current theory for the 'hominization' trigger is still fashioned along the 'forest great ape parachuted in the savanah' line, even if recent finds show that bipedy was already present in a densely forested habitat (Ardipithecus)

[061369317]

This theory was built at a time when Australopithecines were thought to be on the direct human ancestors linkage after chimp and homo-bound branches diverged.This successfull phylum (3 MYA ?) was found to have evolved through drier and drier habitats, culminating with Robustus forms, with their 'millstone' molars.Problem is that why an open habitat upright primate with conserved tree climbing abilities would trade off these for purely bipedal traits, even along with slightly larger brain case ?

[061369317]

If this primate stays in the same environment, no further adaptation is needed.If the climate becomes drier, he simply 'grows' larger molars and mastication muscles (Robustus).

But if this primate, let's call him a pre-australopithecine, conquers a seashore niche, tree climbing then becomes redundant, while permanent bipedy (and associated breath control) gives him a strong selective advantage.

Once he has grown a larger brain case through his diet, he colonizes savanah back with more assets.

[061369317]

This would explain the lack of fossiles records for purely bipedal/flatter faces hominids between 6MY and 2MY in African dry climate mainland, that is when and where Australopithecines phylums flourished.

Paradoxaly, though it has been believed that environment dryness shaped homo geniu features , this may well be humidity which shaped him.

Like when searching for our keys, the solution for the 'hominization trigger' issue might be found in the lest 'thinkable' place : in and around water ;-)

[wifflecube]

Thanks for educating people about Hardy.

[AlgisKuliukas]

Why (mistermucky17)? Because if some of our ancestors arrived at the coasts they'd have found more food, more reliably there, easier to obtain than on the savannah. Humna infants can learn to swim before they cn learn to walk. Odd that.

[mistermucky17]

Algis, my point is why would they lose their tree climbing ability, when apes and monkeys can get around in water just as well as an untrained human.

You can't compare apes with modern humans. Our upright ape ancestors would not be able to do the breast stroke, or crawl, or backstroke. They would have been doing a crude 'doggy paddle', just like apes and monkeys do.

To lose the ability to run up a tree, just to be able to wade slightly better, is not going to happen.

[Skymt]

Well, isn't water also protection against predators, just as climbing trees?

And we share over 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees. Why can't we compare?

[mistermucky17]

Why would our ape ancestors lose the fantastic ability to run up trees, and escape predators, just to wade a little bit better? I've seen film of apes and monkeys in water, and they get around fine, no worse than an untrained human.

We humans are intensively coached to learn to swim, it's not a natural thing.

[tazykat1]

Why are we "Intensively coached" When? When we are at school? For sport? If the savannah theory is correct why do we now even go near the water? why don't we fear it as MOST other primates do? We don't because this makes sense. Why don't you mistermucky put your energy into fidning the truth? It i just an idea as was saying that the earth went around the sun or that it wasn't flat.

[asaheuser]

I got to read Elaine Morgan's "The Descent of Woman" in the 70's, and it really made sense to me. But then I never heard anything about it, so I thought that perhaps it had been proven wrong. Now I'm so happy to see that there is more evidence for it, and it seems to me that it might be officially recognized in a near future. Congratulations on you research.

[snerka]

Good talk, thank you for posting it

[AlgisKuliukas]

Thanks for the kind words. Algis

[PlayT0E]

My congratulations to Algis Kuliukas for doing the study on the relationship of water environments to our evolution.

The subject deserves a far more serious study and scientific debate than we have seen for the past 50 years.