Elaime Morgan is no more than a peddler of pseudoscientific babble. Her whole hypothesis is based on conjecture and is either utterly unproven or in some cases disproven. One would think TED could do better
Homosexual activists understand the power of words.
Please visit my channel to watch a one-minute video clip in which popular atheist author Richard Dawkins admits that homosexual activists "hijacked the word 'gay'".
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate because it, unlike the word "gay", actually describes the behavior/attraction/relationship being discussed.
The word "gay" helps homosexual activists push their agenda.
@lightandbeautiful I've heard they all attend a meeting once a year and disuss and amend that agenda! Luckily for me and lightandbeautiful our tinfoil hats keep us safe from their malign influence!
I don't see this theory as unscientific or crazy. It is probably wrong, but if it turns out to be right, it wouldn't exactly set the world on fire. Also what's so crazy about Yetis? They would be like snow-gorillas. Would it really be so crazy if we found that in addition to polar bears and snow leopards there are/were also snow gorillas?
Western bible - The Origin of Species. I hear the same veneration I hear when people speak of 'God'. How many TED talks refer to this lol...and with the same veneration...and there's always a gentle sigh of deep emotional connection from the audience when it is
Why does she keep saying we're naked when we have hair everywhere? They're light colored and thin at times, but we have lots of it. If you shave an area that looks hairless it will grow hair. Shave your cheek. Also this is tied in with hormones. etc But that phenotype difference is not one to bring up. Talk about others if you have them. OH, and example of a pig, if you let it go to the wild, it immediately starts growing hair and fangs.
Everyone interested in learning more about actual science and the objective facts about human evolution, Roede et al. (1991) published a 22 chapter volume disputing the claims she makes. She's full of shit. One of the most tenacious proponents of anti-science around.
@thepilgrim1296 actually, technically you're right. Everything continues to evolve on a microscopic level. With changes so small that they are barely noticeable. For example take the appendix. Human beings are born with an organ called an appendix which serves no function, however it did serve a function to ancient man who had to feed off of raw meat. Within a few generations we will be born without it. Also we can observe speciation. Thats two instances of evolution being observable in nature
@TheManMostMysterious I may be wrong, but surely we cannot lose our appendix any more than we can lose our wisdom teeth or little finger? The only way that would happen is if there was some reason why people born without an appendix, had some selective advantage over the rest of us, and therefore produced more offspring. For example if a large number of people with an appendix died before they were able to reproduce, due to infection like appendicitis, those without one would have more children.
@danargyle : incorrect. you don't lose it in one generation. Vestigial organs are those that are no longer needed, and are less expressed with each passing generation. Wisdom teeth ages have changed, due to the invention of bread. Stone ground grain contains sillica from the grinding wheels. It wears your teeth down and you starve to death. Selection favored those who erupted their molars later, increasing lifespan, and increasing the likelihood of passing that trait.
Well ive done my research and...apparently humans do not have the DNA to be related to apes(aquatic or not). We all know if we dont have the DNA for something than its impossible for us to be related to it.
@carlosrocker52 Humans aren't related to apes. Humans ARE apes. Homo Sapiens IS A SPECIES OF PRIMATE. We still have primate genetic markers, such as the gene to grow a tail as well as a gene for hair instead of bare skin. They are just inactive. Then there is our fused chromosome. Apes have 24 pairs and we have 23, however one of our 23 (the 2nd I believe) is fused. Simply claiming that you researched something doesn't make it correct if your sources were crazed, fringe minds.
This is the sort of tripe you get from people who aren't at all educated in the sciences. Conspiracies en masse. Making fun of the opposition.. yeah, real scientific.
'Naked' skin: Easier managing of temperature and lice.
Sorry guys, there's no jumpcuts here. This lady isn't exactly Raywilliamjohnson or shay carl. It's a TED talk. If you don't have mind to listen to discovery and lecture, this isn't for you. Thats what a TED talk is.
She may or may not be interesting to you, she may or may not be correct, but that is what a TED talk is about - lecture, discovery, exploration.
Now I remember why I used to have youtube comments hidden via a greasemonkey script.
@unkhl3 Yes actually. The theory of aquatic apes she described is actually widely accepted by many scientists. Think about it. Humans are really the only primates that are capable swimmers. Chimps, gorillas, and monkeys tend to panic in the water. So a ape in an aquatic environment is not just possible, its very probable.
@unkhl3 Correction. I shouldn't have said "widely" accepted. Many scientists do accept this theory but it still has a great deal of opposition. The only problem is that we have yet to find the fossil evidence to back this up. Until we do it will remain an unsubstantiated hypothesis.
Aquatic ape proponents will be pleased to know that the Aquatic Ape Theory's tenth most imprtant proponent, Algis Kuliukas, is available for discussion on a daily basis in his own Waterside Hypotheses of Human Evolution thread in the Evolution & Origins forum at Talk Rational.org
Pretty much. Elaine Morgan is as much an evolutionary biologist as William Lane Craig is an archaeologist. She didn't like the savanna hypothesis because it was "male-centered". She is basically parroting Alistair Hardy, who himself spent his time running the Religious Experience Research Centre after retiring as a professor and marine biologist. Her theories are untestable, and we don't have any history of adaptation for aquatics and nothing in the fossil record.
@Rurne Exactly. I think TED needs to act now if they want to keep their credibility. Otherwise they will just be one of so many organisations that spreads pseudo science that matches what is currently politically correct.
@Rurne The fact that we don't have much in the fossil record for humans at all might itself be down to the fact that they were dying at sea more than on land, where biodegradation was less likely to fossilize.
Think about this at birth a woman has already replicated all that she ever will this happens at the sametime she herself was made so why/how does that what is in the process of being made go threw the process of reproduction at the same time with no life input decision there has to be a reason. I think it's because women naturaly make bad decisions ha. So the cell devides and makes all its parts and at the same time make its siblings that is ludicris. like comming out of another dimension.
Hey I am all about it I just like saying God. You are not listening to what I am saying, God damn it. I realy hope you are not saying I think we don't need to understand because I said God someone needs to get tickled the greatest or the worst thing mankind will ever do is reproduce, hopefully advance what God started threw reproduction. Think about it kids are the only thing we ever actualy create or do we. At fertilization the cell decides to devide we are not connected to that just a host
To me Elaine Morgan has been a breath of fresh anthropological air. She makes that clear in the first minute here. Her works including "The Descent of Woman" highly recommended, even if you don't know much on these topics! She treats all the familiar major theories and finds practical intelligent reasons for all the major things about us that they leave out. She's right---when a scientific paradigm fails, science tries to go on as if nothing happened! For careers and not truth are at stake
*Sigh* This kind of lazy thinking really grates on me. Just saying "God did it" is pointless. Not only that it misses the point. I'm not going to debate the existence of God, but all evidence points to these theories. Now i'm not saying there is no God, but to ignore evidence, science and the benifits to humanity they provide is on the basis that "God did it" is just ridiculous! All this amazing technology, medicine and development that you talk about is as a direct result of reasoned thinking.
@theblondegoth *God* it seem to me God is what created DNA to me God is ancient space traveling DNA it made us I'm not going to complain. The universe in scope alone makes me blush. question when are we going to allow the spread of life to other planets we have the capability so what is the real reason. the clock is ticking for us eventualy an asteroid will hit then what. we are too vein a being. If all it takes to make a human is time and some starter DNA then why don't we copy God bone head.
@1Ryon Thats kind of my point. If we sit around saying "We don't need to understand it because God did it" then we will never advance beyond where we are now.
So because science is all a guessing game, it would be easy for me to say this stuff to. I seriously try to take this serious, but I have a feeling you and the evolution community will have another theory in the next couple of years. Just sayin.....
@AmericanPatriot333 Science is far from guess work. Science is looking at what we can observe and building on that knowledge with new ideas and testing ideas to see if they stand up to criticism. Elaine Morgan isn't a scientist, she is a writer. Aquatic ape theory isn't a widely accepted idea in the scientific community. It is interesting but I don't think any science textbooks mention it. This theory isn't something new. It was first proposed as early as 70 years ago.
@AmericanPatriot333 (continued) The basics of evolution by natural selection have changed very little over the past 150 years. The fact that it happens isn't debated at all. The only debates going on are specifics, like the one you see here. We can't know for sure if humans have an aquatic evolutionary predecessor but we do know that the actual evolution happened.
if you look at bird wishbones there are three groups the gloders the simi aqueous and the aqueous. the wish bone of the glider is a u shape with some anterior arching. and the other end there is the water flyers that have a flat v shape wishbone fore forward and back motion only. and then there is the simiaqueous wishbone that is v shaped and also is has a anterior bend aspect. this v shape and anterior curve closely resembles our chest. in the spectrum of birds we are semi aqueous, ha
@AmericanPatriot333 1. We didn't evolve from apes. We are classified as apes. Assuming you mean chimps, we didn't evolve from them. We have a common ancestor with chimps. To simplify it I will put it this way: A primitive hominid 7 million years ago has 4 kids. To move to NYC and procreate there. The other two move to LA and live there. The ones in NYC evolve to humans. The ones in LA become chimps. If Americans evolved from Europeans, why do we still have europeans? etc.
@AmericanPatriot333 2. We haven't really been seriously studying animals for 600 years. 2000 at the most. And we've only understood natural selection for less than 200 to attempt to observe it. Also, even if we had been for 6000 years, that is too short a time. We're talking millions of years. Sometimes it is difficult to understand how long it takes.
@Sweepingreaper4 "If Americans evolved from Europeans, why do we still have europeans?" What kind of analogy is that? Do you know how long 7 million years is! This is why I cant believe this stuff. The world is 3 billion years old, hominid that was 7 million years, etc... How do you come up with that date. I mean seriously?
@AmericanPatriot333 The analogy is to say that humans brached off of other apes. We aren't exactly them. The earth is about 4.5 billion years old. We know this because we can measure radioactive decay among the earth's rock. We've come up with about 7 million years ago through dating fossils and observing the mutations among chimp and human DNA.
@AmericanPatriot333 The mutual ancestor was a singular creation of God no more ape than human therefore unique in the world at that time keeping with our humanistic superiority of intelegent actions, as we need to do today. so to say we evolved from apes is a misleading statment that confuses the general public. The ape has God smarts, meaning conceiously or not does no more damage to it's environment than can be repaired. Our tech is to powerful for our God will for earth alone to support!
1. Apes are modern organisms we didn't evolve from a modern chimpanzee we evolved from a common ancestor. They are still around for the same reason that dog breeds are still around. One common ancestor can diverge into different forms of the same organism (dog breeds). Or even different species (all the great apes and humans)
2. 6,000 years is no where near enough time for something like an ape to involve into something like a human it can take millions
@AmericanPatriot333 1. There are apes and monkeys still around because that kind of animal can survive in many situations. In certain situations (on top of trees, etc) they survive better than other species.
2. It takes a lot longer than a few thousand years for that kind of evolution to happen.
She makes claims of "facts" that she has been informed of are factually incorrect, and she claims people to be on her side, who have stated that they aren't...
The reason that scientists within any relevant field, rejects the aquatic ape hypothesis, is because pretty much every single claim made by it, has been shown to be utter nonsense. Nonsense that generally already has proper explanations.
Unlike the hypothesis she claims has problems (they aren't).
That scientists can't accept changes in paradigms, or that academic organizations reject hypotheses because they don't like them... Those are the words of a conspiracy nut or creationist.
and I will make your child bearing painful, Eve. Did you know that you can also orgasm instead of scream to make babies. Thanks god -- crazy person out.
My theory is that the world evolves and that a set number of gods gain control and dictate us, the animals. They eventually lose control to something "above" them like Babel. The evidence I find for genetically engineered humans is how our heads expand after birth, certain mental illness and blue-brown eyes (the kind with the yellow ring). Even if you had an IQ of 70, if there was 6 billion of you, you could accomplish genetic engineering.
the apes have stayed in Africa, so they haven't evolved traits for cold weather. Africans have moved around, so it's difficult to know their exposure. I think it would be cool to see what would happen to a bunch of chimps in the arctic.
Where did we live though? We wouldn't have survived in the ocean. We're slow swimmers. We also don't have mouths designed for eating fish. Sometimes, I think that when we're exposed to certain things, dual traits come out. Like fat for an ice age inspired our aquatic lineage to come out.
I don't believe that all human's from ape,my fourteenth father which is KING SOLOMON he had apes working for hem in his kingdom,IN the book of 2 chronicles9:21,in the king James bible,have a look my dear,you can not fool me
These are just my first impressions but, this appears to be an argument of common sense and the drawing conclusions from vague comparisons. Not just from this talk but also from the short text "Why a new theory is needed" by Morgan, the argument doesn't seem detailed, in depth or very scientific. This seems like a presentation of something very exciting with potential but the 'something' has not been defined yet. Hopeful many other 'schools' will come on board such as palaeontology, biology etc.
what is the aquatic theory? we may have had something to do with water for a short period of time in our evolutionary history whoop de do i'm astonished lol. use science woman.
Elaine Morgan is the most amazing person and she deserves to be recognised for the work she has done promoting the Aquatic Ape theory. It IS the ONLY theory on human evolution that answers ALL the questions and stands up to scrutiny. One day it will be the accepted theory, and I hope it's in her lifetime so that she can at least feel the acknowledgment for her work. One day she will be as famous as Darwin.
Everybody ought to read her books. It is tragic how her work has been obsessively ignored by so-called scientists. Why do they not start to do research to examine her overwhelmingly intelligent , brilliant arguments? What are these guys afraid of? Having to admit that a little old lady outwitted them?
My own opinion is that even if you think a scientific hypothesis appears completely absurd, the scientific inquiry into any subject will reveal something new. So the fact her theories have been disregarded in such a fashion is truly unscientific. No one can say that they have properly given this matter proper attention to have a positive or negative position on the subject, other than to say 'that's an interesting thought'.
and what about the fossil record? do we see a transition from land to water? we seem to see a tendency to live closer to the water, or at least away from forrests, as our species evolved, but we see a bigger mind evolving and not a better system for aquatic life.
I think I have a better idea for why we no longer have fur or excessive fur. what if it was because we developed a bigger brain and the capability to seek shelter and make clothes, and so it became unnecessary?
@jolsteiner the brain size as we see it today in humans increased in size by about 200-400cc as far as i know, from erectus to homo sapiens and this occured when we became what i would call fully bipedal. and yes, most aquatic animals lack fur, but they also have a very different anatomy to humans, the capability to see, breathe and move in the water as well as keeping warm with a large quantity of blubber for example. it would be a shorter step to develop oil, some humans have oily hair anyway.
@daemonowner Dolphins can't breathe under water, and they're more aquatic than we could've been. Though blurry, you can see under water, or at least I can.
@spartacandream our eyes would have had to have changed and become more acute, and what about our ability to swim underwater, or relative lack thereof. We can't swim underwater very well, and we certainly could have used tools back then to catch food, we would have needed to go back on land where our good food sources were and where we could use our tools to our benefit.
"Just saying." Im completely open to criticism about my views on, much appreciated.
@daemonowner It's good, I'm open to criticism as well. Though I'm actually not 100% sold on the aquatic ape theory, I think it does well to explain alot.
Perhaps we haven't had the time within the few million years for our eyes to become better? Or perhaps we swam on the surface more than beneath the water, to go to where the fish were, with a spear, so it wasn't necessary for our eyes to become more acute? That is a good point though.
@spartacandream If we were to use tools such as a spear whilst swimming we would've lost the use of one arm effectively, which would make the process of swimming rather difficult. Fish are generally fast, agile and a small target, we would require a good eyesight to see them, and the ability to swim fast underwater and chuck a spear underwater to get them - Which is obviously hard due to friction.
The way we catch fish today is in very shallow ponds with spears or with nets in rivers..
@daemonowner I don't mean javelin type of spears, I mean the ones that you use to stab down into the water, and not the thrown type. Good point about the impairment of swimming while wielding a spear.
@spartacandream If you were to consider stabbing javelins into water, the water would be relatively shallow, which is not precisely what the aquatic hypothesis attempts to explain. If we were to swim but not above water, then we would be evolving away from our ability to catch food on the land (in the sense of specializing), and we wouldn't really be able to get food from under water as we couldn't see. this would mean we would get food from land, but would limit our aquatic evolution.
@daemonowner We have the same number about hair on our bodies as chimpanzees, but like with an elephant, we have hair, but its very thin and short.
The first humans didn't need clothing, they lived in a similar way to the kalahari bushmen, who don't wear clothing. Being that they lived in a tropical enviroment on top of that, it seems the loss of hair came way before the creation of clothing. The 2 don't seem connected to the bigger brains either.
@spartacandream We may have the same number of hairs, not sure, but they are severely diminished in size, and we can even see hair growing and diminishing at around 6months into pregnancy.
the first humans used at best loincloths, certainly not clothing to the degree that we have it, but clothing allows us to move into other territories, and also importantly to protect our genitals, anyone who had an accident would not have been able to pass on their genes.
@spartacandream It is possible that hair loss and then clothing would be explained from a change in climate, environment, or even personal preference.
It could be climate change, and climates have changed over large quantities of time in the past. Also, it is common to feel rather cold and exposed to the elements when nude, so as the temp. dropped, people may have prefered use of clothing to some extent.
@daemonowner As in personal preference, you're referring to sexual selection right? That would work.
Or maybe clothing was made, because when getting out of the water, it can feel cooler? Or is that different in tropical zones? I know its that way up here in a temperate climate, but it barely goes higher than 90 fahrenheit. and when you get out of the water, its usually 80 out.
@spartacandream I'm throwing sexual selection out there, yes.
Clothing can be made very adjustible as you can have multiple pieces, they are easy to make and you can merely take them off at a whim. when we leave a pool for example, we put clothes on as we are generally freezing. Moving through water does that to you - Unless you have oil, fur or fat, which we don't have enough of.
I would agree that temperature above or below could certainly affect our quantity of body hair, or clothing use.
human babies and chimpanzee babies look very much alike, the differences lie in the way they grow.
i do have a question, which can't be answered by her now, but it is 'what about penguins, and other aquatic birds?' she gave a slightly evasive answer to otters, but what about our tendency to get cold, even with our supposed fat layer. we can't catch anything underwater, all we get is cold. we aren't suited for seeing or breathing there and why didn't we evolve oily fur like the penguin?
@daemonowner We have oily skin. Aside from that, how long has the otter been an aquatic species?
I don't think that they're suggesting that we spend all our time in the water.
Why do humans swim? It's really strange if you think about it, other apes really don't. I'm not 100% certain about chimpanzees, but I think they don't either.
@spartacandream The Hypothesis is a 'theory of everything', they get their hypothesis and see where it hits reality, and speak about that.
Humans don't have very oily skin, certainly not what we would expect such as from an otter, and how would be survive under water, we have bad eyesight, hearing, and we couldn't possibly find food down there, and the type of food is not what we need, and according to some archeological digs, even what we were eating.
@daemonowner I do admit that the hearing and eyesight problems are big. Though perhaps there wasn't time enough to develope them? I see about the oily skin problem.
@spartacandream We were eating foods that were higher in proteins than anything underwater, the difference would be seen by comparing shellfish, the best we could have gotten without underwater tools, and buffalo or other savanah animal.
If we weren't able to develop them to a degree where they were useful, then we shouldn't have become that aquatic, we would actually have to be able to see or hear or smell underwater before we could move their even significantly.
Humans swim i would assume for reacreational means, at least today. I would say that we swam a little more when we lost our most of our hair and left the forest habitat that our predecessors were in and moved to the savannah. There was not much water where we moved to, and we have evidence of where we moved to. It goes against what we have discovered about human ancestry.
@daemonowner There is a problem there though, as a chimpanzee can't swim. Why can people do what a chimpanzee can't? Is there a purpose for our swimming? I certainly see what you're saying, and we are more evolved for running and it doesn't seem that it's as much for swimming, but there does seem to be a problem there.
@spartacandream I think we became bipedal so as to free up our arms and to increase our lung and heart size, which would certainly benefit us, as we can see by our technology and also tools and ornaments created by H. Erectus many thousands of years ago. It seems to me as though with the ability for us to make clothing, we lost our hair and used the 'energy' (used in producing the hair from birth) for something else. The same can be said for the wings of a flightless cormorant...
With a freed up chest and arms that were stronger and more accurate in movement (comparing say humans to chimps, we have better hand eye coordination, however small the difference is..), swimming can have come naturally. Perhaps it was common recreation, or a sexual selective benefit, such as artifacts we have discovered from our ancestors which showed off the artifact creators qualities. This is mere speculation.
@daemonowner Or perhaps we swam in Savannah waters to catch up to a herd when it was most vulnerable, trying to relax and cool down at a waterhole under the midday sun? Or along a river.
@spartacandream That would benefit them, but i don't think that would account for the dramatic changes she is proposing. We could just as easily use our tools to take them down, or go for a different food source if that fails..
Since it wouldn't really be of any harm to a hairy homo erectus if it's hair became wet, i don't think that would necessarily be why we lost the hair.
There isn't much in the way of lakes in the savannah such that becoming amphibious in nature would occur..
@daemonowner In this instance, its more aimed at why we swim, but I agree, its not why we lost our hair if we're only entering the water for certain events. In the savannah, you're right there isn't alot of water, I know this. However, during the midday heat, the animals we know we hunted, such as buffalo (or at least we think), went to the rivers and what not to cool down. Humans could have become swimmers to be able to hunt down buffalo, even if they tried to cross the river to escape.
@spartacandream It is important i think to realise the difference with merely being able to swim and becoming mostly aquatic as this hypothesis proclaims, and in that sense our discussion is going on a bit of a tangent. Whilst humans, or at least our ancestors like erectus, may have found swimming beneficial, i doubt it was the only factor or even the major factor in the changes we see, and there is a large difference between us and say chimpanzees that allowed us to swim.
@daemonowner That is true, as there is a difference there. I don't think that we ever were mostly aquatic. I see what your saying about the becoming bipedal, it could've been by accident that we were able to swim, afterall, nearly our entire body was reshaped for running. We do use alot of the same parts for running that we apply to swimming.
@daemonowner This is to account only for the swimming, if you are correct that we aren't an aquatic ape. Those humans that didn't lose their hunt because it crossed a river, didn't starve and were better able to pass on their genes than those that now needed to go look someplace else, because they couldn't swim to catch up with the herd.
The bare skin is another issue, but I think you've made a good point on it, so I left it alone, at least for now :)
@spartacandream that would be a good use of the ability to swim, and may be considered an influencing factor in our development of bipedalism as bipedalism certainly allows for us to swim. However, with such a minimal amount of swimming being constricted to small rivers would not seem to be the most important factor in losing hair or becoming bipedal. I acknowledge that such a scenario could affect our evolution however minimally, or not.
@daemonowner Some of us do have alot of hair, its just not as long or thick as that as a chimpanzee. You got a point though about the hair, but having less body hair does create less drag. We're not notoriously fast, so perhaps we have shorter and thinner hair because it benefitted us when crossing rivers after herds?
I agree about that though, you've convinced me that we weren't going amphibious, but I still wonder if one of our hunting strategies influenced our evolution, if it was one.
@spartacandream certainly hunting strategies that improved ones ability to get food would benefit ones survival and ability to reproduce.
I think that you might be onto a factor, but i doubt that would be the only reason. If we have the ability to change clothing to suit environments, then we wouldn't need hair, so we would probably lose it. That seems to me to be the most influencial factor, but crossing rivers may also have affected it, I wouldn't leave that out.
@daemonowner I wonder if cooling down might have had something to do with our hair loss. We already know we have a sweat system to help us keep cool in the midsummer heat, perhaps the loss of hair also helped in this regard? I've veered far off the aquatic ape hair loss idea I know, but I'm just curious. It also seems to fit.
@spartacandream If we had a sweat system whilst having a coat of hair, that may end up making us hotter instead, so its likely that we lost our hair and gained a sweat system independantly. As we lost hair, throughout our ancestry, we gained the use of tools and clothing, so the chances of us losing our hair because we became aquatic doesn't seems plausible.
I really am totally bemused to why this theory isn't just at least investigated independently or by several universities, it's not a ridiculous thought. We obviously didn't evolve from a creature that is overly similar to the apes still existing today because the differences we have from them can't be explained using the time period they were supposed to of developed in.
All in all, I think it's the result of small minds considering huge questions.
@Norm1011616 I agree that it needs to be looked into. At least it shouldn't take our small minds as long as it took for our small minds to evolve as big as they are,
@Norm1011616 We do know of numerous ways more plausible that can account for the changes we see. We could have become bipedal so as to increase lung and heart size, free our hands, run faster etc. And when it comes to swimming we are utterly useless compared to animals that can survive there. We can't breath underwater, or barely can hold our breath for long, we can't smell, hear or see. We would have any need for a larger brain as tools wouldn't be used. This is a 'theory of everything'...
@daemonowner What you are saying is not relevant because you are viewing this from a position as if we had never left water in the first place. What differences we have from common apes can be explained with a short period of existence with a semi-aquatic lifestyle. The animals you are comparing us to never had several million years existing outside the water, so the rate of adaption you are wanting to see simply could not of happened within the short period of time you demand it should of.
@Norm1011616 I think it likely that we left the forest and lived in plains in some cases close to large bodies of water, which could account for some changes, but i don't take it to any extreme of humans evolving simply from becoming more aquatic. We are semi aquatic in that we can swim, although mostly uselessly in an evolutionary sense. if we couldn't become suited to swimming and seeing/hearing underwater we would have evolved to be aquatic. Becoming aquatic would have been a side-effect.
@daemonowner Also the reasons you give for changes, "We could have become bipedal so as to increase lung and heart size, free our hands, run faster etc..." are incomplete pieces of reasoning. You are using the outcome as a justification, which is an inversion of the reasoning that evolution works to. We change due to environmental pressures causing certain traits to become more predominant. There must be an environmental change that meant we needed to increase lungs and heart size for instance.
@Norm1011616 no. If we are suited for our environment, and there is competition, then there will be selection pressure, which can account for changes in a population. Consider it stabilising selection.
If we have a group of H. Erectus in the savannah, and they are competing, or even not, but they can become better suited to their environment, then the ones which do not gain larger lungs and bipedality are less likely to survive.
@daemonowner Also we couldn't support the increase in nutrition needed to grow such large brains without a diet of protein high food, ie. fish.
And as for your condescending "This is a 'theory of everything'", well maybe you should start taking everything into consideration the shouldn't you. For instance, the fact the Havana explanation has been proven to be false and most of the theories you cite are reliant upon it.
All said and done I am merely considering a theory.
@Norm1011616 It is a theory that was made based on no evidence and proclaims to explain everything. When you make a theory such as that, of course you will hit a few landmines and avoid some. Some things will be explained others won't. all you need then is a conformation bias and you have followers of this 'theory'.
this theory has far more against it than for it, there are papers available emphasizing the problems with this and the fossil record among other things.
@daemonowner Swimming isn't utterly useless when we're chasing an already tired herd acrossed a river. We have a body designed to run efficiently in the midday sun. Unlike our rivals at the time, who fought for the same resources, such as lions.
@spartacandream that is a scenario where swimming may be of some use, but does not warrant for a complete change in phenotype however. I'm not sure what you mean by lions not being able to run in the midday sun, they seem to do if well enough to me.
@maxxoccupancy Science does not offer public debate, at least that is taken into consideration. Scientists with the knowledge gained and the results of experimentation, debate and come up with the most fitting explanation.
You forget that scientists are trying to determine the truth, there is no conspiracy, they are simply attempting to explain the world the best possible.
@maxxoccupancy Actually, the issue is with the battle of ideas, ideas usually have a long gruesome battle to the top in science. Look at the big bang theory, it was mocked until it rose to the top.
@daemonowner Yeah, a badge of a reminder of the time when steady state theory seemed to most to make more sense (even though gravity would be pulling everything together, so in retrospect, steady state theory sounds rather silly).
@texaspoep I figured she was highlighting the differences in appearance at first glance. We have shorter, thinnner hair. We are completely bipedal, instead of semibipedal quadrupeds. Our hips are also very different.
Now tell us about the controlled experiments and real life observations that confirm macroevo. You know, like they do for all the nonatheism-friendly theories before accepting them as proven. Try to do it without confusing microevo for macro. All we see happen is variation in what's already there (microevo) such as size, color and subtleties of shape. Macroevo needs completely new body parts.
I think this have might been possible in all of mammals common ancestor. Name a mammal that doesn´t know how to swim? Or any mammal that does not know how to sustain breath under water? Thats what we are after all, both aquatic and terrestrial beings, and in our case, even cosmic :D I believe that primates never lived apart from the sea or it´s influence.
one of the reasons the aquatic theory has never been accepted is because it has been purposed that we did not evolve on earth at all,but in the oceans of mars.we were supposedly transported here in water when mars was destroyed by meteor strikes 3 billion years ago. also as a side note she fails to mention other aspects that are far more convincing of our aquatic ancestory such as the development of our throats.
The reason (most) humans are pretty much hairless, unlike chimps, monkeys and apes, is because Homo Sapiens didn't want to stink all the time.
Homo Sapiens routinely bathed in the sea.
Also, when homo sapiens discovered fire, and how to use it to improve their lives (to cook food and for heat), the hom sapiens with the most hair, routinely caught on fire next to campfires.
Those that didn't have much hair, were at an advantage, mated and multiplied. - A bit of natural selection.
When our ancestral population was very small, a few generations of females preferring men with less hair would have also done it. Look at how easy it is to breed hairless dogs or cats. I find it interesting how there are some women who really have a strong aversion to male body hair. Some are the opposite, but I wonder what the mix is nowadays ? Reducing body hair also means less habitat for ectoparasites, and bipedalism means no need for mum to have hair to hang onto since she can use arms.
It's very clear that not only did we go through a semi-aquatic phase, but we are still partially aquatic. On our farm, our fully dry-land animals don't go regularly wallowing in water and mud. There are two animals on our farm that do favor the water on a warm day - our 3-year old who strips naked and jumps in the water, and our pigs (who don't have much hair themselves). Pigs have a semi-aquatic background and still favor water and wallows. Humans too still have a great affinity to water.
@cyberdaemon If you are not your personality or body, then what are you? It seems to me that for all intensive reasons, you do not exist. I would say instead that you clothes are a part of you, just as is your hair or your body, as a reflection of your personality, a product of chemical and physical science, and also the experiences obtained throughout life.
@BitchslapMonk I dont know what i am , i dont even know why should anything happen.I dont believe that existence of consciousness can be proven i a first place in a scientific basis.
Your right. It can't be proven. But as long as you can even think such a thing, you might as well assume that you do have consciousness on some level.
Elaime Morgan is no more than a peddler of pseudoscientific babble. Her whole hypothesis is based on conjecture and is either utterly unproven or in some cases disproven. One would think TED could do better
Toadmeister327 1 week ago
Homosexual activists understand the power of words.
Please visit my channel to watch a one-minute video clip in which popular atheist author Richard Dawkins admits that homosexual activists "hijacked the word 'gay'".
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate because it, unlike the word "gay", actually describes the behavior/attraction/relationship being discussed.
The word "gay" helps homosexual activists push their agenda.
lightandbeautiful 1 week ago
@lightandbeautiful I've heard they all attend a meeting once a year and disuss and amend that agenda! Luckily for me and lightandbeautiful our tinfoil hats keep us safe from their malign influence!
Toadmeister327 1 week ago
I don't see this theory as unscientific or crazy. It is probably wrong, but if it turns out to be right, it wouldn't exactly set the world on fire. Also what's so crazy about Yetis? They would be like snow-gorillas. Would it really be so crazy if we found that in addition to polar bears and snow leopards there are/were also snow gorillas?
LemmingClub 3 weeks ago
Such a cute lady. Great speaker
crudhousefull 1 month ago in playlist More videos from TEDtalksDirector
Western bible - The Origin of Species. I hear the same veneration I hear when people speak of 'God'. How many TED talks refer to this lol...and with the same veneration...and there's always a gentle sigh of deep emotional connection from the audience when it is
crudhousefull 1 month ago in playlist More videos from TEDtalksDirector
im open minded about this, truly. but i would like some more evidence before i believe it, like a fossil from any aquatic ape.
spaik007 1 month ago
this lady is amazing!
DigitalHemorrhoids 1 month ago
TROLOLOLOLOL
kartyarty 2 months ago
Thank you for posting this. I love it and I can't wait to watch more TEDtalks. Free thought is a blessing too few are brave enough to use.
JebusFugginSlice 4 months ago
@JebusFugginSlice I agree with your three sentences 100%.
macvill1x 3 weeks ago in playlist Origins of Man
I think that Hardy's aquatic orgins should have been immediately suspect just because he came up with it during the 60's. -puff puff-
dejavuman22 4 months ago
Why does she keep saying we're naked when we have hair everywhere? They're light colored and thin at times, but we have lots of it. If you shave an area that looks hairless it will grow hair. Shave your cheek. Also this is tied in with hormones. etc But that phenotype difference is not one to bring up. Talk about others if you have them. OH, and example of a pig, if you let it go to the wild, it immediately starts growing hair and fangs.
boobootoob 4 months ago
@boobootoob I don't think you know what the difference between a pig and a hog is...
RageMonkey37 6 days ago
Everyone interested in learning more about actual science and the objective facts about human evolution, Roede et al. (1991) published a 22 chapter volume disputing the claims she makes. She's full of shit. One of the most tenacious proponents of anti-science around.
daemonowner 4 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
what a load of shit...dont belive here !!! we are not from the apes !!! this is illuminati brainwashing !!!!!!!
Kimindigo 5 months ago
@thepilgrim1296 actually, technically you're right. Everything continues to evolve on a microscopic level. With changes so small that they are barely noticeable. For example take the appendix. Human beings are born with an organ called an appendix which serves no function, however it did serve a function to ancient man who had to feed off of raw meat. Within a few generations we will be born without it. Also we can observe speciation. Thats two instances of evolution being observable in nature
TheManMostMysterious 5 months ago
@TheManMostMysterious I may be wrong, but surely we cannot lose our appendix any more than we can lose our wisdom teeth or little finger? The only way that would happen is if there was some reason why people born without an appendix, had some selective advantage over the rest of us, and therefore produced more offspring. For example if a large number of people with an appendix died before they were able to reproduce, due to infection like appendicitis, those without one would have more children.
danargyle 5 months ago
@danargyle That's a bingo!
pccalhoun 5 months ago
@danargyle : incorrect. you don't lose it in one generation. Vestigial organs are those that are no longer needed, and are less expressed with each passing generation. Wisdom teeth ages have changed, due to the invention of bread. Stone ground grain contains sillica from the grinding wheels. It wears your teeth down and you starve to death. Selection favored those who erupted their molars later, increasing lifespan, and increasing the likelihood of passing that trait.
Goosemeyer 2 months ago
Well ive done my research and...apparently humans do not have the DNA to be related to apes(aquatic or not). We all know if we dont have the DNA for something than its impossible for us to be related to it.
carlosrocker52 6 months ago
@carlosrocker52 Humans aren't related to apes. Humans ARE apes. Homo Sapiens IS A SPECIES OF PRIMATE. We still have primate genetic markers, such as the gene to grow a tail as well as a gene for hair instead of bare skin. They are just inactive. Then there is our fused chromosome. Apes have 24 pairs and we have 23, however one of our 23 (the 2nd I believe) is fused. Simply claiming that you researched something doesn't make it correct if your sources were crazed, fringe minds.
TheManMostMysterious 6 months ago
This is the sort of tripe you get from people who aren't at all educated in the sciences. Conspiracies en masse. Making fun of the opposition.. yeah, real scientific.
'Naked' skin: Easier managing of temperature and lice.
Bipedality: Freeing hands; thermoregulation; efficient locomotion; increased sight.
Fat layer: We freeze easily in water, this pitiful layer of fat doesn't help us much. "never explained" argument from ignorance.
daemonowner 6 months ago
This is amazing. I love her, and this theory is very interesting to say the least.
MuggendeVlieg 7 months ago
I can't believe she got a TED talk. Seems any cute asshat gets his/her 18 min.
Running man hypothesis... Enough said.
calimagfan 7 months ago
Look into the theory! It doesn't sound ludicricy at all!!!!
crazyspacechick 7 months ago
I see TED is getting bashed by its own wacko belief-mongering audience
Zareste 8 months ago
Sorry guys, there's no jumpcuts here. This lady isn't exactly Raywilliamjohnson or shay carl. It's a TED talk. If you don't have mind to listen to discovery and lecture, this isn't for you. Thats what a TED talk is.
She may or may not be interesting to you, she may or may not be correct, but that is what a TED talk is about - lecture, discovery, exploration.
Now I remember why I used to have youtube comments hidden via a greasemonkey script.
Nerolus 8 months ago 18
@Nerolus I liked it, who didn't like it? Ejuts!
LeeMarcelle 5 months ago
Mark Wahlberg's big brother is in the audience at 3:42!!!
molesticles 8 months ago
bibliotecapleyades . net/sumer_anunnaki/reptiles/reptiles17a.htm#2 - The Transparent People
ruslan675 9 months ago
...zzzZZzz...zZzzzzZZzzz...
unkhl3 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@unkhl3
CUuuu...uuUUuu..nT ! ! !.
DelbyC 4 months ago
Comment removed
unkhl3 9 months ago 6
@unkhl3 she wasnt a 'grandma' when she first started btw
mastifiorulamitongla 6 months ago
AHAHAHAHAHA IS SHE SERIOUS ????!!!
unkhl3 9 months ago
@unkhl3 of course she is serious think about it seriously then mock my friend !!!!! ARE U SERIOUS ???
skeelsyT 6 months ago
@unkhl3 What would she not be serious about?
AngelSnacks 6 months ago
@unkhl3 Yes actually. The theory of aquatic apes she described is actually widely accepted by many scientists. Think about it. Humans are really the only primates that are capable swimmers. Chimps, gorillas, and monkeys tend to panic in the water. So a ape in an aquatic environment is not just possible, its very probable.
TheManMostMysterious 6 months ago
@unkhl3 Correction. I shouldn't have said "widely" accepted. Many scientists do accept this theory but it still has a great deal of opposition. The only problem is that we have yet to find the fossil evidence to back this up. Until we do it will remain an unsubstantiated hypothesis.
TheManMostMysterious 6 months ago
Aquatic ape proponents will be pleased to know that the Aquatic Ape Theory's tenth most imprtant proponent, Algis Kuliukas, is available for discussion on a daily basis in his own Waterside Hypotheses of Human Evolution thread in the Evolution & Origins forum at Talk Rational.org
jointgib 10 months ago
I can't believe TED is promoting is pseody scientific bullshit.
SuperRegisteredUser 10 months ago
@SuperRegisteredUser
Pretty much. Elaine Morgan is as much an evolutionary biologist as William Lane Craig is an archaeologist. She didn't like the savanna hypothesis because it was "male-centered". She is basically parroting Alistair Hardy, who himself spent his time running the Religious Experience Research Centre after retiring as a professor and marine biologist. Her theories are untestable, and we don't have any history of adaptation for aquatics and nothing in the fossil record.
Rurne 10 months ago
@Rurne Exactly. I think TED needs to act now if they want to keep their credibility. Otherwise they will just be one of so many organisations that spreads pseudo science that matches what is currently politically correct.
SuperRegisteredUser 10 months ago
@Rurne The fact that we don't have much in the fossil record for humans at all might itself be down to the fact that they were dying at sea more than on land, where biodegradation was less likely to fossilize.
leconfidant 1 month ago
Think about this at birth a woman has already replicated all that she ever will this happens at the sametime she herself was made so why/how does that what is in the process of being made go threw the process of reproduction at the same time with no life input decision there has to be a reason. I think it's because women naturaly make bad decisions ha. So the cell devides and makes all its parts and at the same time make its siblings that is ludicris. like comming out of another dimension.
1Ryon 11 months ago
Hey I am all about it I just like saying God. You are not listening to what I am saying, God damn it. I realy hope you are not saying I think we don't need to understand because I said God someone needs to get tickled the greatest or the worst thing mankind will ever do is reproduce, hopefully advance what God started threw reproduction. Think about it kids are the only thing we ever actualy create or do we. At fertilization the cell decides to devide we are not connected to that just a host
1Ryon 11 months ago
To me Elaine Morgan has been a breath of fresh anthropological air. She makes that clear in the first minute here. Her works including "The Descent of Woman" highly recommended, even if you don't know much on these topics! She treats all the familiar major theories and finds practical intelligent reasons for all the major things about us that they leave out. She's right---when a scientific paradigm fails, science tries to go on as if nothing happened! For careers and not truth are at stake
37Dionysos 11 months ago
*Sigh* This kind of lazy thinking really grates on me. Just saying "God did it" is pointless. Not only that it misses the point. I'm not going to debate the existence of God, but all evidence points to these theories. Now i'm not saying there is no God, but to ignore evidence, science and the benifits to humanity they provide is on the basis that "God did it" is just ridiculous! All this amazing technology, medicine and development that you talk about is as a direct result of reasoned thinking.
theblondegoth 11 months ago
@theblondegoth *God* it seem to me God is what created DNA to me God is ancient space traveling DNA it made us I'm not going to complain. The universe in scope alone makes me blush. question when are we going to allow the spread of life to other planets we have the capability so what is the real reason. the clock is ticking for us eventualy an asteroid will hit then what. we are too vein a being. If all it takes to make a human is time and some starter DNA then why don't we copy God bone head.
1Ryon 11 months ago
@1Ryon Thats kind of my point. If we sit around saying "We don't need to understand it because God did it" then we will never advance beyond where we are now.
theblondegoth 11 months ago
she owns the current scientists......
plusthinking 11 months ago
remember that widely accepted ideas is usually wrong. truth is not a democracy:)
plusthinking 11 months ago
Interesting.........
AmericanPatriot333 11 months ago
So because science is all a guessing game, it would be easy for me to say this stuff to. I seriously try to take this serious, but I have a feeling you and the evolution community will have another theory in the next couple of years. Just sayin.....
AmericanPatriot333 11 months ago
@AmericanPatriot333 Science is far from guess work. Science is looking at what we can observe and building on that knowledge with new ideas and testing ideas to see if they stand up to criticism. Elaine Morgan isn't a scientist, she is a writer. Aquatic ape theory isn't a widely accepted idea in the scientific community. It is interesting but I don't think any science textbooks mention it. This theory isn't something new. It was first proposed as early as 70 years ago.
Sweepingreaper4 11 months ago
@AmericanPatriot333 (continued) The basics of evolution by natural selection have changed very little over the past 150 years. The fact that it happens isn't debated at all. The only debates going on are specifics, like the one you see here. We can't know for sure if humans have an aquatic evolutionary predecessor but we do know that the actual evolution happened.
Sweepingreaper4 11 months ago
if you look at bird wishbones there are three groups the gloders the simi aqueous and the aqueous. the wish bone of the glider is a u shape with some anterior arching. and the other end there is the water flyers that have a flat v shape wishbone fore forward and back motion only. and then there is the simiaqueous wishbone that is v shaped and also is has a anterior bend aspect. this v shape and anterior curve closely resembles our chest. in the spectrum of birds we are semi aqueous, ha
1Ryon 1 year ago
Question! If we evolved from apes.......
1. Why are there still apes/monkeys around
2. Why hasnt an ape evolved into a human in the last 6,000 years?
Im no scientist but this just doesnt make any sense.
AmericanPatriot333 1 year ago
@AmericanPatriot333 1. We didn't evolve from apes. We are classified as apes. Assuming you mean chimps, we didn't evolve from them. We have a common ancestor with chimps. To simplify it I will put it this way: A primitive hominid 7 million years ago has 4 kids. To move to NYC and procreate there. The other two move to LA and live there. The ones in NYC evolve to humans. The ones in LA become chimps. If Americans evolved from Europeans, why do we still have europeans? etc.
Sweepingreaper4 11 months ago
@AmericanPatriot333 2. We haven't really been seriously studying animals for 600 years. 2000 at the most. And we've only understood natural selection for less than 200 to attempt to observe it. Also, even if we had been for 6000 years, that is too short a time. We're talking millions of years. Sometimes it is difficult to understand how long it takes.
Sweepingreaper4 11 months ago
@Sweepingreaper4 "If Americans evolved from Europeans, why do we still have europeans?" What kind of analogy is that? Do you know how long 7 million years is! This is why I cant believe this stuff. The world is 3 billion years old, hominid that was 7 million years, etc... How do you come up with that date. I mean seriously?
AmericanPatriot333 11 months ago
@AmericanPatriot333 The analogy is to say that humans brached off of other apes. We aren't exactly them. The earth is about 4.5 billion years old. We know this because we can measure radioactive decay among the earth's rock. We've come up with about 7 million years ago through dating fossils and observing the mutations among chimp and human DNA.
Sweepingreaper4 11 months ago
@AmericanPatriot333 The mutual ancestor was a singular creation of God no more ape than human therefore unique in the world at that time keeping with our humanistic superiority of intelegent actions, as we need to do today. so to say we evolved from apes is a misleading statment that confuses the general public. The ape has God smarts, meaning conceiously or not does no more damage to it's environment than can be repaired. Our tech is to powerful for our God will for earth alone to support!
1Ryon 11 months ago
@AmericanPatriot333 is this a joke?
1. Apes are modern organisms we didn't evolve from a modern chimpanzee we evolved from a common ancestor. They are still around for the same reason that dog breeds are still around. One common ancestor can diverge into different forms of the same organism (dog breeds). Or even different species (all the great apes and humans)
2. 6,000 years is no where near enough time for something like an ape to involve into something like a human it can take millions
SpitViper007 10 months ago
@AmericanPatriot333 1. There are apes and monkeys still around because that kind of animal can survive in many situations. In certain situations (on top of trees, etc) they survive better than other species.
2. It takes a lot longer than a few thousand years for that kind of evolution to happen.
leconfidant 1 month ago
Chimps walk on four legs?
Funny, 'cause they only have two of them...
She makes claims of "facts" that she has been informed of are factually incorrect, and she claims people to be on her side, who have stated that they aren't...
How did this lying idiot get invited to TED?
ZarlanTheGreen 1 year ago
The reason that scientists within any relevant field, rejects the aquatic ape hypothesis, is because pretty much every single claim made by it, has been shown to be utter nonsense. Nonsense that generally already has proper explanations.
Unlike the hypothesis she claims has problems (they aren't).
That scientists can't accept changes in paradigms, or that academic organizations reject hypotheses because they don't like them... Those are the words of a conspiracy nut or creationist.
ZarlanTheGreen 1 year ago
and I will make your child bearing painful, Eve. Did you know that you can also orgasm instead of scream to make babies. Thanks god -- crazy person out.
returnoftheramble3 1 year ago
not expand but aren't equal then our care time. I was typing fast, and I've been evolved. Don't get angry. I'll stop hogging now.
returnoftheramble3 1 year ago
My theory is that the world evolves and that a set number of gods gain control and dictate us, the animals. They eventually lose control to something "above" them like Babel. The evidence I find for genetically engineered humans is how our heads expand after birth, certain mental illness and blue-brown eyes (the kind with the yellow ring). Even if you had an IQ of 70, if there was 6 billion of you, you could accomplish genetic engineering.
returnoftheramble3 1 year ago
it's okay, I'm crazy too. I think we were genetically engineered at one point.
returnoftheramble3 1 year ago
skin color doesn't mean that much because it can be altered within a generation even. Note how Africans are normally thinner due to their climate.
returnoftheramble3 1 year ago
the apes have stayed in Africa, so they haven't evolved traits for cold weather. Africans have moved around, so it's difficult to know their exposure. I think it would be cool to see what would happen to a bunch of chimps in the arctic.
returnoftheramble3 1 year ago
Where did we live though? We wouldn't have survived in the ocean. We're slow swimmers. We also don't have mouths designed for eating fish. Sometimes, I think that when we're exposed to certain things, dual traits come out. Like fat for an ice age inspired our aquatic lineage to come out.
returnoftheramble3 1 year ago
I don't believe that all human's from ape,my fourteenth father which is KING SOLOMON he had apes working for hem in his kingdom,IN the book of 2 chronicles9:21,in the king James bible,have a look my dear,you can not fool me
tom7771able 1 year ago
@tom7771able come on guy, the bible is not the end all be all source of information. enlighten yourself
jamez289 1 year ago
Skeptics = people who deny common sense too..
DoomNoMore 1 year ago
These are just my first impressions but, this appears to be an argument of common sense and the drawing conclusions from vague comparisons. Not just from this talk but also from the short text "Why a new theory is needed" by Morgan, the argument doesn't seem detailed, in depth or very scientific. This seems like a presentation of something very exciting with potential but the 'something' has not been defined yet. Hopeful many other 'schools' will come on board such as palaeontology, biology etc.
linatina123 1 year ago
what is the aquatic theory? we may have had something to do with water for a short period of time in our evolutionary history whoop de do i'm astonished lol. use science woman.
shudador 1 year ago
Elaine Morgan is the most amazing person and she deserves to be recognised for the work she has done promoting the Aquatic Ape theory. It IS the ONLY theory on human evolution that answers ALL the questions and stands up to scrutiny. One day it will be the accepted theory, and I hope it's in her lifetime so that she can at least feel the acknowledgment for her work. One day she will be as famous as Darwin.
fceska 1 year ago
ummmm we humans are not the only bi pedal animals just sayin she fucked up at 8:29 I jussss destroyed her whole hypothesis I am AWESOME!
steviewonder417 1 year ago
Is she saying we descend from sea monkeys? no wonder they didnt accept her statement..
martivernis6 1 year ago
Everybody ought to read her books. It is tragic how her work has been obsessively ignored by so-called scientists. Why do they not start to do research to examine her overwhelmingly intelligent , brilliant arguments? What are these guys afraid of? Having to admit that a little old lady outwitted them?
LadyoftheLabyrinth 1 year ago
@LadyoftheLabyrinth I think that is generally it.
My own opinion is that even if you think a scientific hypothesis appears completely absurd, the scientific inquiry into any subject will reveal something new. So the fact her theories have been disregarded in such a fashion is truly unscientific. No one can say that they have properly given this matter proper attention to have a positive or negative position on the subject, other than to say 'that's an interesting thought'.
Norm1011616 1 year ago
why is the audio so bad near the end? It sounds like someone is playing with velcro? Please fix this.
ecocentrik 1 year ago
and what about the fossil record? do we see a transition from land to water? we seem to see a tendency to live closer to the water, or at least away from forrests, as our species evolved, but we see a bigger mind evolving and not a better system for aquatic life.
I think I have a better idea for why we no longer have fur or excessive fur. what if it was because we developed a bigger brain and the capability to seek shelter and make clothes, and so it became unnecessary?
daemonowner 1 year ago
@daemonowner The bigger brain appeared long after bipedalism developed. Most aquatic animals lack fur.
jolsteiner 1 year ago
@jolsteiner the brain size as we see it today in humans increased in size by about 200-400cc as far as i know, from erectus to homo sapiens and this occured when we became what i would call fully bipedal. and yes, most aquatic animals lack fur, but they also have a very different anatomy to humans, the capability to see, breathe and move in the water as well as keeping warm with a large quantity of blubber for example. it would be a shorter step to develop oil, some humans have oily hair anyway.
daemonowner 1 year ago
@daemonowner Dolphins can't breathe under water, and they're more aquatic than we could've been. Though blurry, you can see under water, or at least I can.
Just saying.
spartacandream 1 year ago
@spartacandream our eyes would have had to have changed and become more acute, and what about our ability to swim underwater, or relative lack thereof. We can't swim underwater very well, and we certainly could have used tools back then to catch food, we would have needed to go back on land where our good food sources were and where we could use our tools to our benefit.
"Just saying." Im completely open to criticism about my views on, much appreciated.
daemonowner 1 year ago
@daemonowner It's good, I'm open to criticism as well. Though I'm actually not 100% sold on the aquatic ape theory, I think it does well to explain alot.
Perhaps we haven't had the time within the few million years for our eyes to become better? Or perhaps we swam on the surface more than beneath the water, to go to where the fish were, with a spear, so it wasn't necessary for our eyes to become more acute? That is a good point though.
spartacandream 1 year ago
@spartacandream If we were to use tools such as a spear whilst swimming we would've lost the use of one arm effectively, which would make the process of swimming rather difficult. Fish are generally fast, agile and a small target, we would require a good eyesight to see them, and the ability to swim fast underwater and chuck a spear underwater to get them - Which is obviously hard due to friction.
The way we catch fish today is in very shallow ponds with spears or with nets in rivers..
daemonowner 1 year ago
@daemonowner I don't mean javelin type of spears, I mean the ones that you use to stab down into the water, and not the thrown type. Good point about the impairment of swimming while wielding a spear.
spartacandream 1 year ago
@spartacandream If you were to consider stabbing javelins into water, the water would be relatively shallow, which is not precisely what the aquatic hypothesis attempts to explain. If we were to swim but not above water, then we would be evolving away from our ability to catch food on the land (in the sense of specializing), and we wouldn't really be able to get food from under water as we couldn't see. this would mean we would get food from land, but would limit our aquatic evolution.
daemonowner 1 year ago
@daemonowner We have the same number about hair on our bodies as chimpanzees, but like with an elephant, we have hair, but its very thin and short.
The first humans didn't need clothing, they lived in a similar way to the kalahari bushmen, who don't wear clothing. Being that they lived in a tropical enviroment on top of that, it seems the loss of hair came way before the creation of clothing. The 2 don't seem connected to the bigger brains either.
spartacandream 1 year ago
@spartacandream We may have the same number of hairs, not sure, but they are severely diminished in size, and we can even see hair growing and diminishing at around 6months into pregnancy.
the first humans used at best loincloths, certainly not clothing to the degree that we have it, but clothing allows us to move into other territories, and also importantly to protect our genitals, anyone who had an accident would not have been able to pass on their genes.
daemonowner 1 year ago
@daemonowner Good point!
spartacandream 1 year ago
@spartacandream It is possible that hair loss and then clothing would be explained from a change in climate, environment, or even personal preference.
It could be climate change, and climates have changed over large quantities of time in the past. Also, it is common to feel rather cold and exposed to the elements when nude, so as the temp. dropped, people may have prefered use of clothing to some extent.
Im just throwing this out here...
daemonowner 1 year ago
@daemonowner As in personal preference, you're referring to sexual selection right? That would work.
Or maybe clothing was made, because when getting out of the water, it can feel cooler? Or is that different in tropical zones? I know its that way up here in a temperate climate, but it barely goes higher than 90 fahrenheit. and when you get out of the water, its usually 80 out.
spartacandream 1 year ago
@spartacandream I'm throwing sexual selection out there, yes.
Clothing can be made very adjustible as you can have multiple pieces, they are easy to make and you can merely take them off at a whim. when we leave a pool for example, we put clothes on as we are generally freezing. Moving through water does that to you - Unless you have oil, fur or fat, which we don't have enough of.
I would agree that temperature above or below could certainly affect our quantity of body hair, or clothing use.
daemonowner 1 year ago
human babies and chimpanzee babies look very much alike, the differences lie in the way they grow.
i do have a question, which can't be answered by her now, but it is 'what about penguins, and other aquatic birds?' she gave a slightly evasive answer to otters, but what about our tendency to get cold, even with our supposed fat layer. we can't catch anything underwater, all we get is cold. we aren't suited for seeing or breathing there and why didn't we evolve oily fur like the penguin?
daemonowner 1 year ago
@daemonowner We have oily skin. Aside from that, how long has the otter been an aquatic species?
I don't think that they're suggesting that we spend all our time in the water.
Why do humans swim? It's really strange if you think about it, other apes really don't. I'm not 100% certain about chimpanzees, but I think they don't either.
spartacandream 1 year ago
@spartacandream The Hypothesis is a 'theory of everything', they get their hypothesis and see where it hits reality, and speak about that.
Humans don't have very oily skin, certainly not what we would expect such as from an otter, and how would be survive under water, we have bad eyesight, hearing, and we couldn't possibly find food down there, and the type of food is not what we need, and according to some archeological digs, even what we were eating.
daemonowner 1 year ago
@daemonowner I do admit that the hearing and eyesight problems are big. Though perhaps there wasn't time enough to develope them? I see about the oily skin problem.
What types of foods were we eating?
spartacandream 1 year ago
@spartacandream We were eating foods that were higher in proteins than anything underwater, the difference would be seen by comparing shellfish, the best we could have gotten without underwater tools, and buffalo or other savanah animal.
If we weren't able to develop them to a degree where they were useful, then we shouldn't have become that aquatic, we would actually have to be able to see or hear or smell underwater before we could move their even significantly.
daemonowner 1 year ago
Humans swim i would assume for reacreational means, at least today. I would say that we swam a little more when we lost our most of our hair and left the forest habitat that our predecessors were in and moved to the savannah. There was not much water where we moved to, and we have evidence of where we moved to. It goes against what we have discovered about human ancestry.
daemonowner 1 year ago
@daemonowner There is a problem there though, as a chimpanzee can't swim. Why can people do what a chimpanzee can't? Is there a purpose for our swimming? I certainly see what you're saying, and we are more evolved for running and it doesn't seem that it's as much for swimming, but there does seem to be a problem there.
spartacandream 1 year ago
@spartacandream I think we became bipedal so as to free up our arms and to increase our lung and heart size, which would certainly benefit us, as we can see by our technology and also tools and ornaments created by H. Erectus many thousands of years ago. It seems to me as though with the ability for us to make clothing, we lost our hair and used the 'energy' (used in producing the hair from birth) for something else. The same can be said for the wings of a flightless cormorant...
daemonowner 1 year ago
@spartacandream [Continued - "There is a problem though"]
With a freed up chest and arms that were stronger and more accurate in movement (comparing say humans to chimps, we have better hand eye coordination, however small the difference is..), swimming can have come naturally. Perhaps it was common recreation, or a sexual selective benefit, such as artifacts we have discovered from our ancestors which showed off the artifact creators qualities. This is mere speculation.
daemonowner 1 year ago
@daemonowner Or perhaps we swam in Savannah waters to catch up to a herd when it was most vulnerable, trying to relax and cool down at a waterhole under the midday sun? Or along a river.
spartacandream 1 year ago
@spartacandream That would benefit them, but i don't think that would account for the dramatic changes she is proposing. We could just as easily use our tools to take them down, or go for a different food source if that fails..
Since it wouldn't really be of any harm to a hairy homo erectus if it's hair became wet, i don't think that would necessarily be why we lost the hair.
There isn't much in the way of lakes in the savannah such that becoming amphibious in nature would occur..
daemonowner 1 year ago
@daemonowner In this instance, its more aimed at why we swim, but I agree, its not why we lost our hair if we're only entering the water for certain events. In the savannah, you're right there isn't alot of water, I know this. However, during the midday heat, the animals we know we hunted, such as buffalo (or at least we think), went to the rivers and what not to cool down. Humans could have become swimmers to be able to hunt down buffalo, even if they tried to cross the river to escape.
spartacandream 1 year ago
@spartacandream It is important i think to realise the difference with merely being able to swim and becoming mostly aquatic as this hypothesis proclaims, and in that sense our discussion is going on a bit of a tangent. Whilst humans, or at least our ancestors like erectus, may have found swimming beneficial, i doubt it was the only factor or even the major factor in the changes we see, and there is a large difference between us and say chimpanzees that allowed us to swim.
daemonowner 1 year ago
@daemonowner That is true, as there is a difference there. I don't think that we ever were mostly aquatic. I see what your saying about the becoming bipedal, it could've been by accident that we were able to swim, afterall, nearly our entire body was reshaped for running. We do use alot of the same parts for running that we apply to swimming.
spartacandream 1 year ago
@spartacandream I agree with that.
daemonowner 1 year ago
@daemonowner This is to account only for the swimming, if you are correct that we aren't an aquatic ape. Those humans that didn't lose their hunt because it crossed a river, didn't starve and were better able to pass on their genes than those that now needed to go look someplace else, because they couldn't swim to catch up with the herd.
The bare skin is another issue, but I think you've made a good point on it, so I left it alone, at least for now :)
spartacandream 1 year ago
@spartacandream that would be a good use of the ability to swim, and may be considered an influencing factor in our development of bipedalism as bipedalism certainly allows for us to swim. However, with such a minimal amount of swimming being constricted to small rivers would not seem to be the most important factor in losing hair or becoming bipedal. I acknowledge that such a scenario could affect our evolution however minimally, or not.
daemonowner 1 year ago
@daemonowner Some of us do have alot of hair, its just not as long or thick as that as a chimpanzee. You got a point though about the hair, but having less body hair does create less drag. We're not notoriously fast, so perhaps we have shorter and thinner hair because it benefitted us when crossing rivers after herds?
I agree about that though, you've convinced me that we weren't going amphibious, but I still wonder if one of our hunting strategies influenced our evolution, if it was one.
spartacandream 1 year ago
@spartacandream certainly hunting strategies that improved ones ability to get food would benefit ones survival and ability to reproduce.
I think that you might be onto a factor, but i doubt that would be the only reason. If we have the ability to change clothing to suit environments, then we wouldn't need hair, so we would probably lose it. That seems to me to be the most influencial factor, but crossing rivers may also have affected it, I wouldn't leave that out.
daemonowner 1 year ago
@daemonowner I wonder if cooling down might have had something to do with our hair loss. We already know we have a sweat system to help us keep cool in the midsummer heat, perhaps the loss of hair also helped in this regard? I've veered far off the aquatic ape hair loss idea I know, but I'm just curious. It also seems to fit.
spartacandream 1 year ago
@spartacandream If we had a sweat system whilst having a coat of hair, that may end up making us hotter instead, so its likely that we lost our hair and gained a sweat system independantly. As we lost hair, throughout our ancestry, we gained the use of tools and clothing, so the chances of us losing our hair because we became aquatic doesn't seems plausible.
And yes, what you're saying does seem plausible.
daemonowner 1 year ago
Human babies can swim from birth. Do chimpanzee babies?
Norm1011616 1 year ago
@Norm1011616 Chimpanzee adults can't swim. I do think that adds credibility to the theory.
spartacandream 1 year ago
@spartacandream I didn't think they could.
I really am totally bemused to why this theory isn't just at least investigated independently or by several universities, it's not a ridiculous thought. We obviously didn't evolve from a creature that is overly similar to the apes still existing today because the differences we have from them can't be explained using the time period they were supposed to of developed in.
All in all, I think it's the result of small minds considering huge questions.
Norm1011616 1 year ago
@Norm1011616 I agree that it needs to be looked into. At least it shouldn't take our small minds as long as it took for our small minds to evolve as big as they are,
spartacandream 1 year ago
@Norm1011616 We do know of numerous ways more plausible that can account for the changes we see. We could have become bipedal so as to increase lung and heart size, free our hands, run faster etc. And when it comes to swimming we are utterly useless compared to animals that can survive there. We can't breath underwater, or barely can hold our breath for long, we can't smell, hear or see. We would have any need for a larger brain as tools wouldn't be used. This is a 'theory of everything'...
daemonowner 1 year ago
@daemonowner What you are saying is not relevant because you are viewing this from a position as if we had never left water in the first place. What differences we have from common apes can be explained with a short period of existence with a semi-aquatic lifestyle. The animals you are comparing us to never had several million years existing outside the water, so the rate of adaption you are wanting to see simply could not of happened within the short period of time you demand it should of.
Norm1011616 1 year ago
@Norm1011616 I think it likely that we left the forest and lived in plains in some cases close to large bodies of water, which could account for some changes, but i don't take it to any extreme of humans evolving simply from becoming more aquatic. We are semi aquatic in that we can swim, although mostly uselessly in an evolutionary sense. if we couldn't become suited to swimming and seeing/hearing underwater we would have evolved to be aquatic. Becoming aquatic would have been a side-effect.
daemonowner 1 year ago
@Norm1011616 Correction - becoming more able to swim and more inclined to swim is a side-effect.
daemonowner 1 year ago
@daemonowner Also the reasons you give for changes, "We could have become bipedal so as to increase lung and heart size, free our hands, run faster etc..." are incomplete pieces of reasoning. You are using the outcome as a justification, which is an inversion of the reasoning that evolution works to. We change due to environmental pressures causing certain traits to become more predominant. There must be an environmental change that meant we needed to increase lungs and heart size for instance.
Norm1011616 1 year ago
@Norm1011616 no. If we are suited for our environment, and there is competition, then there will be selection pressure, which can account for changes in a population. Consider it stabilising selection.
If we have a group of H. Erectus in the savannah, and they are competing, or even not, but they can become better suited to their environment, then the ones which do not gain larger lungs and bipedality are less likely to survive.
daemonowner 1 year ago
@daemonowner Also we couldn't support the increase in nutrition needed to grow such large brains without a diet of protein high food, ie. fish.
And as for your condescending "This is a 'theory of everything'", well maybe you should start taking everything into consideration the shouldn't you. For instance, the fact the Havana explanation has been proven to be false and most of the theories you cite are reliant upon it.
All said and done I am merely considering a theory.
Norm1011616 1 year ago
@Norm1011616 It is a theory that was made based on no evidence and proclaims to explain everything. When you make a theory such as that, of course you will hit a few landmines and avoid some. Some things will be explained others won't. all you need then is a conformation bias and you have followers of this 'theory'.
this theory has far more against it than for it, there are papers available emphasizing the problems with this and the fossil record among other things.
daemonowner 1 year ago
@daemonowner Swimming isn't utterly useless when we're chasing an already tired herd acrossed a river. We have a body designed to run efficiently in the midday sun. Unlike our rivals at the time, who fought for the same resources, such as lions.
spartacandream 1 year ago
@spartacandream that is a scenario where swimming may be of some use, but does not warrant for a complete change in phenotype however. I'm not sure what you mean by lions not being able to run in the midday sun, they seem to do if well enough to me.
daemonowner 1 year ago
@daemonowner To run and hunt? Maybe sometimes, but usually that's when they need a break becuase of the heat.
spartacandream 1 year ago
Comment removed
daemonowner 1 year ago
There are several different theories explaining human existence, but the current establishment is neither permitting investigation nor public debate.
maxxoccupancy 1 year ago 2
@maxxoccupancy Science does not offer public debate, at least that is taken into consideration. Scientists with the knowledge gained and the results of experimentation, debate and come up with the most fitting explanation.
You forget that scientists are trying to determine the truth, there is no conspiracy, they are simply attempting to explain the world the best possible.
daemonowner 1 year ago
@maxxoccupancy Actually, the issue is with the battle of ideas, ideas usually have a long gruesome battle to the top in science. Look at the big bang theory, it was mocked until it rose to the top.
spartacandream 1 year ago
@spartacandream And amusingly, the 'big bang' was a derogatory name that eventually caught on.
daemonowner 1 year ago
@daemonowner Yeah, a badge of a reminder of the time when steady state theory seemed to most to make more sense (even though gravity would be pulling everything together, so in retrospect, steady state theory sounds rather silly).
spartacandream 1 year ago
shes so sweet. Man i found this idea so acceptable. I think its prob true, it really makes sense.
AndreLeCoz 1 year ago 2
Always filing the piece to fit into the puzzle
Texoki 1 year ago
"There's a chimp, there's a man. They're astoundingly different, no resemblance at all."
Yeah, no resemblance at all... O_O
texaspoep 1 year ago
@texaspoep I figured she was highlighting the differences in appearance at first glance. We have shorter, thinnner hair. We are completely bipedal, instead of semibipedal quadrupeds. Our hips are also very different.
spartacandream 1 year ago
You don't have to be an atheist to believe in evolution dude. Thats retarded.
Scoob505 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Now tell us about the controlled experiments and real life observations that confirm macroevo. You know, like they do for all the nonatheism-friendly theories before accepting them as proven. Try to do it without confusing microevo for macro. All we see happen is variation in what's already there (microevo) such as size, color and subtleties of shape. Macroevo needs completely new body parts.
ExtremeWorship 1 year ago
Hmm, i'm not convinced
waw460 1 year ago
@waw460 Why not?
BlitzThrash 1 year ago
I think this have might been possible in all of mammals common ancestor. Name a mammal that doesn´t know how to swim? Or any mammal that does not know how to sustain breath under water? Thats what we are after all, both aquatic and terrestrial beings, and in our case, even cosmic :D I believe that primates never lived apart from the sea or it´s influence.
Icneumone7 1 year ago
Shes like a real Mrs. Doubtfire!
peteallyn412 1 year ago
Comment removed
razorbladethorax 1 year ago
Comment removed
slugdub101 1 year ago
what an amazing woman, one of my heroes. still going strong at 90
legolooney 1 year ago 7
that we are naked is something that we're not supposed to notice or admit...
glrcmptn 1 year ago
one of the reasons the aquatic theory has never been accepted is because it has been purposed that we did not evolve on earth at all,but in the oceans of mars.we were supposedly transported here in water when mars was destroyed by meteor strikes 3 billion years ago. also as a side note she fails to mention other aspects that are far more convincing of our aquatic ancestory such as the development of our throats.
Zendishwasher1 1 year ago
this may be the dumbest thing i've ever heard
pheeeel17 1 year ago
Or we adapted to not have hair on our body from wearing animal skin as clothes to keep warm.
xendlessxurbiax 1 year ago
The reason (most) humans are pretty much hairless, unlike chimps, monkeys and apes, is because Homo Sapiens didn't want to stink all the time.
Homo Sapiens routinely bathed in the sea.
Also, when homo sapiens discovered fire, and how to use it to improve their lives (to cook food and for heat), the hom sapiens with the most hair, routinely caught on fire next to campfires.
Those that didn't have much hair, were at an advantage, mated and multiplied. - A bit of natural selection.
TheLiptonGroup 2 years ago
When our ancestral population was very small, a few generations of females preferring men with less hair would have also done it. Look at how easy it is to breed hairless dogs or cats. I find it interesting how there are some women who really have a strong aversion to male body hair. Some are the opposite, but I wonder what the mix is nowadays ? Reducing body hair also means less habitat for ectoparasites, and bipedalism means no need for mum to have hair to hang onto since she can use arms.
GowanBray 1 year ago
Fail....look that up pls
alisyn313 2 years ago
It's very clear that not only did we go through a semi-aquatic phase, but we are still partially aquatic. On our farm, our fully dry-land animals don't go regularly wallowing in water and mud. There are two animals on our farm that do favor the water on a warm day - our 3-year old who strips naked and jumps in the water, and our pigs (who don't have much hair themselves). Pigs have a semi-aquatic background and still favor water and wallows. Humans too still have a great affinity to water.
kf1000 2 years ago
I believe that my personality and body are just illusions , im not really them at all just like you are not your clothing ;)
cyberdaemon 2 years ago
@cyberdaemon If you are not your personality or body, then what are you? It seems to me that for all intensive reasons, you do not exist. I would say instead that you clothes are a part of you, just as is your hair or your body, as a reflection of your personality, a product of chemical and physical science, and also the experiences obtained throughout life.
BitchslapMonk 2 years ago
@BitchslapMonk I dont know what i am , i dont even know why should anything happen.I dont believe that existence of consciousness can be proven i a first place in a scientific basis.
cyberdaemon 2 years ago
Your right. It can't be proven. But as long as you can even think such a thing, you might as well assume that you do have consciousness on some level.
BitchslapMonk 2 years ago
So in other words , we assume there is a consciousness , even if its mostly a faith based :P
cyberdaemon 2 years ago
Essentially. But the majority of it is determined by the alternative to making that assumption.
BitchslapMonk 2 years ago