Evolutionists, you've got it all wrong

10 posts / 0 new
Last post
Harry33Truman's picture
Evolutionists, you've got it all wrong

We didn't evolve from apes- we evolved from aquatic sea monkeys:

https://www.ted.com/talks/elaine_morgan_says_we_evolved_from_aquatic_ape...

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

charvakheresy's picture
I saw the video. She seemed

I saw the video. She seemed convinced. I would not dismiss her idea easily....

Her reasoning seemed worthy of attention and I would definitely like to read more on the matter or give it a good consideration before outright refuting it.

Dave Matson's picture
Elaine's news and feminist

Elaine's news and feminist credentials were mentioned, but I didn't see any scientific credentials. Does she have any relevant, scientific credentials? Has she authored an article in Nature or Science? Those are the relevant questions that need to be answered in the affirmative before I take a serious interest in her idea.

By the way, what are "sea monkeys?" How do they fit into the taxonomic scheme of things? Aren't they just another ape living in a somewhat wetter environment on land?

algebe's picture
Sea monkeys are a kind of

Sea monkeys are a kind of shrimp. When I was a kid they use to advertise them on the back of comics. You got a packet containing eggs and nutrients, which you could tip into a container of water to create an Instant aquarium. They have tails that resemble monkeys' tails. Hence the name. As to whether they are part of our evolutionary family tree, your guess is as good as mine.

Dave Matson's picture
Algebe,

Algebe,

Ah, yes! Now I remember. Every comic book had its sea monkey ad along with the ad for "X-ray glasses!"

But wait! Even if sea monkeys are in our family tree, how does that make evolutionists wrong about tagging our closest living ancestor as the chimp? What would be wrong about evolutionists tracing our family tree through the various hominids (the older meaning of the word)? I suppose Harry Truman could have an odd sense of humor.

That one guy's picture
This is an extremely

This is an extremely interesting idea. I was actually wondering the other day what evolutionary advantage losing our fur might offer. Especially considering other great apes hadn't, so there must be a reason. She offers some very good points such as the streamlining of our bodies, the similarities between us and other species who had lost their fur due to having ancestors that were semi aquatic, and the layer of fat between our skin and muscle that no other apes have yet is reminiscent of whales. It is an interesting hypothesis. I might not necessarily accept it off hand but it seems definitely worth considering.

Dave Matson's picture
When all else fails, it's

When all else fails, it's time to Google it! "Aquatic Ape Theory" gets a lot of interesting information on Wikipedia. My impression is that it is interesting but not scientifically up to par.

A good reason for human evolution to reduce fur might be this: Compared to apes, humans excelled at prolonged running/walking. (I once saw a video of a group of lady aborigines in the Australian outback who literally ran/walked down cats for food! They would chase the poor cat from bush to bush--beating the bushes to get the cat going again--until it finally dropped from fatigue.) You can't keep it up if you have a coat of fur since you would seriously overheat. Hence, the advantages of human mobility might be the reason for the loss of body hair. (Note that many aquatic animals have a thick coat of body fur. But, mammals that spend all their time in the ocean, who have some need for speed, would be hindered by hair. For them hair would serve no purpose, maybe even being a hindrance. But that role would not apply to humans.)

That one guy's picture
I'm sure there are lots of

I'm sure there are lots of reasons that could explain the fur loss. Its just that there was another theory that I read about a few years ago that our increased brain function had to do with our early ancestors having a high shell fish diet which are high in omega vitamins. It just seemed interesting that these ideas ran in line with that. But as you said interesting but not up to par as of yet. To many holes. Not enough unification.

chimp3's picture
I have a good idea why

I have a good idea why scientists dismiss her ideas. I also know I just wasted 17:09 of my life.

chimp3's picture
Where are the transitional

Where are the transitional species? Hehehe!

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.