• Welcome to the DeeperBlue.com Forums, the largest online community dedicated to Freediving, Scuba Diving and Spearfishing. To gain full access to the DeeperBlue.com Forums you must register for a free account. As a registered member you will be able to:

    • Join over 44,280+ fellow diving enthusiasts from around the world on this forum
    • Participate in and browse from over 516,210+ posts.
    • Communicate privately with other divers from around the world.
    • Post your own photos or view from 7,441+ user submitted images.
    • All this and much more...

    You can gain access to all this absolutely free when you register for an account, so sign up today!

The swimming ape theory

Thread Status: Hello , There was no answer in this thread for more than 60 days.
It can take a long time to get an up-to-date response or contact with relevant users.
Why could you not have been polite enough to start your own thread as I suggested?

Forgive us, we're only human. What has surprised me is that there are that many people in the western world upposing evolution in this desperate attempt to stick with misconcepted theistic ideas. No wonder there exist people like Osama bin Looser.

Must be confused instincts.
I thought about writing a comment about sticking to the subject so as not to be misleading to people interested in the thread they log onto but I couldn't be bothered:head

What I am interested in is the original subject and its relevance to us as freedivers/speros etc:D
I'm just part way through reading Homo Delphinus and have found it v interesting. I agree that there seems to be allot of holes in the theory but I don't care! To me the evidence is in the fact that there are people still living this life style in various parts of the world (yes I know they are not apes) and most peoples love of the sea in some form or another. Could it not be that both theories could be correct in part??

As always I apologies for my lack of scientific knowladge:confused:

Eric, it's been a long time since I took an Archeology class, but I remember that there were at least 6 different ways to date something. Carbon 14 was only one way. There were also dendrocronolgy, potassium-argon, fission-track, uranium series, electron spin resonance(ESR), and some others that may be new since I took that last class. [/B]

There are indeed many ways to date artifacts these days with various forms of scientific study. That said, most if not all suffer from a lack of one ability or another. Dendrochronology for example only dates wood - and can only be used if there is piece from that forest, grown at the time of harvest already entered into a database somewhere. As it stands right now this form of dating while useful in Northern and Western Europe is almost useless elsewhere.

Scanning Electrion Microscopy (SEM) can be used to assist in dating the manufacture and place of manufacture of many metals. But this is still in its early stages of usage within the archaeological community, while geologists have been using it for some time.

C14 dating also suffers from the unreliability of the "modern era" (technically we are in the post modern era, but that's another topic entirely). In other words, C14 can only reliably date artifacts lost prior to a thousand years ago or so. Why then is EVERYTHING in the scientific and archaeological community tested with C14? Because of all the options it is STILL the most reliable at this stage and the benchmark for other forms of dating within the scientific community.

As for the arguments on this thread over the validity of white-tower science - allow me point out the simple fact that it is truly rare that any scientist follows the scientific method to its conclusion. As T.C. Chamberlain once stated (and I am paraphrasing here) "We observe, we study, but we fail to exclude. We should always be willing to ask The Question - what evidence will refute my entire thesis?" This is what leads us back and forth with the arguments in every scientific field. Science is the outgrowth of man's innate curiosity about his world. We struggle for understanding and to figure out how the world works. We should try to respect the ideas posed here and continue this thread. There is a great deal of information being bandied about. Lets try to hear one another out. :)

And while I'm at it.....I got lost somewhere along the way on the naked ape theory......can someone please clear that one up for me? ;)
I was very close to putting this on the other thread that was started but as an act of chivialry I won't. But I would like to state a couple of things about this site.
First- this is not YOUR thread, once it is on this PUBLIC forum it is everyone that wants to respond to it.
That's why it's public, if you only want certain people to respond to your statements then ask them to PM you.
Second-if you would spend alittle time going back through the achives you'd see we've had some other contraversal threads where everyone stated their opinion and it was taken as that.
Third-if you want to start a thread so obviously biased in one direction and won't allow differing thoughts then maybe this isn't the right forum for you. We've always accepted if not welcomed varied opinions on this site, thats been the beauty of this site and I believe everyone that has participated has learned from each other given the personal and cultural differences we have here. If I am wrong I'll stand corrected by one of the forum mentors. You can rest assured I won't interupt this thread again.
Originally posted by Jay Styron
We've always accepted if not welcomed varied opinions on this site, thats been the beauty of this site and I believe everyone that has participated has learned from each other given the personal and cultural differences we have here.

Well said Jay! :D
I can not believe what I am hearing. If you start a thread on monofins, and I repeatedly interrupt with some enthusiastic info on damn good regulators it would not be concidered relevant. Once or twice would be ok, but not every other post!
On the topic...

I thought we were on the topic of the aquatic ape....it appears that much of the thread has been and continues to be about that topic and the scientific theory behind it. At every turn I thought there was a debate/ongoing discussion and exchange of ideas. For that reason I think your thread is quite interesting. Keep it going.....
Bernt: are you Jessica Ward?

I found this site of hers online


reason i ask is that the first few paragraphs of your first post in this thread are identical to hers.

Sir Alister *Hardy proposed the idea that hominids at some stage in their evolution were aquatic or semi-aquatic. It seemed to him that many of the differences between modern day humans and apes could be interpreted as aquatic adaptations.

Principal among these was a lack of body hair together with a layer of fat under the skin. Hair is useless for insulation in the sea in a larger mammal; a layer of sub-cutaneous fat is better. Hair impedes the free flow of water over the body; fat fills out the hollows and streamlines.

These features are found in humans and the larger aquatic mammals alike. It is argued that they developed in unrelated mammals through a process of convergent evolution.
And I actually took it from a different author: Author: Andrew Lewis. This is not a research paper or formal thesis, it is an exchange of information on a discussion board
You should always source your material.

And you prefaced your thread with :

Here is a brief account written in a rush without spellchecking, in my second language, so I hope you are forgiving

implying they were your own thoughts.
I do not know where you want to go with this, but what I did not paraphrase (perhaps half) was written in a rush in my second language (just run spellchecker on the post :) not to mention grammar). My intention was not to mislead anyone into thinking I invented the aquatic theory of evolution. Ctrl. C and Ctrl. V saved me a lot of time laying the theory (which I in no way am an expert on.. I am in fact very sceptical of it.. as you will see in latter posts) forth so we could discuss it. I could have sourced my material, but thought this was not neccisary in an informal thread on a freediving forum.
Just giving some advice that's all - i have no intention of starting an argument.

Whether it is a formal research paper, or an informal exchange on an anonymous messageboard, it is always important to credit information when used.

Whether or not you intended to, you did mislead people into thinking those were your original thoughts.

If you were the author of the original material, and you discovered someone using your own words on a messageboard, implicitly (and inadvertantly in your case) claiming that it's their own original thoughts, I'd imagine you to be slightly upset.
  • Like
Reactions: Erik
i find this thread fascinating so far, even though it's taken several google searches to keep up with the technical jargon in some of these posts.
To return to the swimming ape theory.....Is any mention made of visual adaptations in humans to underwater conditions? (for the sake of my question, let's assume that the basic swimming ape theory is correct, and that hairlessness and subcutaneous fat evolved as adaptations to an aquatic lifestyle). If considered from the perspective of gradual evolution, it would seem that in the time it took to develop a specialized adaption such as hairlessness, some type of visual correction would also have occured. How do other aquatic mammals counter the problem of visual distortion under water? Humans are heavily dependent on visual input, so it seems strange that evolution would not have adressed this problem before the problem of hair or subdermal fat. Just some thoughts...
We covered this in the sister thread. Marine mammals become nearsighted so they can see underwater. Likewise, a nearsighted person can see better underwater than a normal person. If you have a prescription of -45D, then you can see perfectly underwater, even though you will be very blind above the water.

The idea is that the reason more than half the world is nearsighted is in part due to aquatic adaptation. To me it seems like nearsightedness is more of an aquired defect, which occurs after reading, computers, etc... however, experts ASSURE us that nearsightedness is a GENETIC or HEREDITARY defect, which would support the aquatic adaptation theory. Perhaps it is a combination; perhaps genetics or adapation makes us more susceptible to myopia.

Eric Fattah
BC, Canada
DeeperBlue.com - The Worlds Largest Community Dedicated To Freediving, Scuba Diving and Spearfishing


ISSN 1469-865X | Copyright © 1996 - 2024 deeperblue.net limited.

DeeperBlue.com is the World's Largest Community dedicated to Freediving, Scuba Diving, Ocean Advocacy and Diving Travel.

We've been dedicated to bringing you the freshest news, features and discussions from around the underwater world since 1996.