Do you think, as I do, that humans were once semi-aquatic?
Elaine morgan pioneered this idea that the reason humans have so little body hair, and babys can swim when they're born is that we once spent a lot of time in warmish water, eating a lot of fish, and evolved according to our new habitat. Food for thought? tell me yours.
Answers:
Firstly, Creation science isn't a science because it starts with the premise that we were created. Real science started with questions, How? Why? Where? When? I've read Elaine Morgan's book and humans do seem to have affinity to water. I've heard the big brain theory before in a book called Nutrition and Evolution where it also suggests that the long chain fatty acids in sea food enhanced brain development in a kind of substrate driven evolution, and it commented on the comparatively low levels of Mental illness in societies that consume a lot of fish? The coastal strip also seems very significant in human migration. I think there is much still to find out about early hominids and the fossil evidence though growing is still very small. I hope as a geologist that one day evidence of these lagoon dwelling forebears may be found?
The human race have evolved from the sea, if you look below the ears of all people there are indentations that used to be gills when we were fish.
Humans were aquatic before our evolution.
no
Food for cranks. You were aquatic in your mother's womb.
i don't buy evolution of humans.so, no
nope!!! i thought the reason babys can swim is because they just came out of a load of fluid anyway in the womb.
I don't think that is true. If it was I think God would have told me.
Ive got the webbed toes to prove it.
Mammals also have an inherent dive reflex.
If you plunge someones face in a bucket of water their heart rate and blood pressure changes. Not quite as good as dolphins but noticeable!
No I don't think that highly intelligent human beings came from fish.if that was so why haven't all the other fish turned into humans by now.
I thought that it was well known we evolved from an oceanic creature. We still have vestigial webbing between our thumbs and forefingers and between our toes which would suggest an aquatic origin.
No, I think we were created by God just like we are, so no need to worry yourself thinking too much.
We came from somewhere why not fish. Snakes were lizards that lost there legs because they did not use them. We lost hair because we no longer needed it. We have adjusted through the years. But I am still afraid of mice. Are they our future intelligence.
The theory sounds a little fishy to me.
It may be that the first proteins to form on the earth that gave rise to any living creatures may have occurred in an ocean enviornment, but human development occurred long after that.
I don't think humans were ever semi-acquatic. On the other hand, fetuses do evolve in the womb in amniotic fluid, but don't try to have them live in a fluid environment after they're born!
There are many other reasons to account for the lack of body hair, and eating fish, and for the reason babies can swim. Lack of body hair can be accounted for by genetics that adapted to certain climates; eating fish can be accounted for by geography and culture. That babies can swim, can be accounted for by the physics of their bodies and instinctive movements.
Since we have always had the ocean and the human characteristics you mentioned are still around, I would think that there would be a race of people somewhere with acquatic features.a race of Aquamen and women!
Reaching a conclusion like Morgen's based on appearances like body hair, eating fish, etc. is like saying "If the moon has holes in it, it must be made of swiss cheese!"
Of course, I've never been there, so I can't confirm or deny it as a fact!
Utter rubbish! Anyway, I can' swim and I've had 3 shots at lessons! Fish don't have body hair, and I never saw a fish that didn't swim! Dogs have loads and they swim instinctively! Elaine Morgan likes to write books!
If were used to breathing water than why so much pneumonia
That is an interesting theory that could be plausible but IMO not very probable. (and nothing like gills, man from Atlantis or such - we are talking early humans\hominids who lived on shores and spent considerable amount of time in the ocean) Certainly there are cultures (and have been cultures) who's main source of sustenance is from the ocean. And islands (like Australia) were populated by people crossing oceans as early as 100,000 years again in rather rudimentary vessels so undoubtedly they were quite at home on the water. But there is too much fossil evidence that humans evolved mainly as hunter\gatherers. If there could be more fossil evidence turn up that would help her theory.
My daughter told me about this theory quite awhile ago and at first I just shook my head, but the more I learned, the more sense it made. She had several points that made the theory logical, like the shape of our feet - like flippers more than hooves or paws. Also, all the legends about merpeople. It's an interesting theory which combines with another that human history is much longer than conventional science teaches.
I'm a conservative Christian, but I would love to see any evidence that this is possible. Fantasy is fun and all, and it is cool to look at creation and find similarities. But if we evolved from either fish or monkeys, where are all the skeletons or fossils? Why are there only drawings of evolution and no displays of discovered bodies?
I don't think this is at all possible, but I will remain open minded. Show me some evidence. Until then, I'll trust Genesis 1.
Even Darwin set restrictions on his own theory of evolution. Rules that, if broken, would disprove his theory. They have been disproved by science. Check out the link.
I still am! Catch me on my days off and see for yourself!
Sorry but I think the theory sucks big time.
Although I do think that there is a possibilty in the future that we may have to evolve into water dwelling animals.
All this evidence is anecdotal. As a human fetus develops, early on its growth it appears to have gills and a tail, looks like a fish. Many people say "AHA! that PROVES we evolved from the sea." It proves no such thing.
Love, Jack.
I think it was rather Desmond Morris who was the first to come up with that idea. It would explain speech capacities, brain volume, sweating, swimming, hair loss, in fact so many things that coincide with our actual state of body, that as a reasonable person, I can't discard that possibility, in fact, the arguments oblige believe in the theory. As for the gills and tails: what we are saying here is that, at some point, our ancesters lived in a semi-aquatic environment. Not ancesters like in "when we were fish", but a specific group of primates, by some or other reason, found itself living in very watery regions, and in that environment, the one loosing their hair, the ones best adapted got the head on the others, and went on. The main difference between us and the other primates are our skin (fat, sweat), the fact we can cry, hair growing hydrodynamicaly, aerodynamic body shape and lots of minor details. I repeat; the period doesn't go back til devoon, jura or whatever, it concerns somewhere in between now and the split with the bonobo branch. We have too much features of aqual mammals, like the dolphin, whale,. It's not for nothing that the dolphin has an IQ which some of us could well use. Listen, most about this I forgot, it has been like twenty years all that. Read Desmond Morris (on the internet, I'll do the same) and make up your own mind.
I thought we were semi-aquatic. At least Mark Spitz sure seemed to be.
It is interesting to note that early Nordic hunters ate a large diet of fish and clams. Also if you look at the Japanese Maquacs you notice they are very comfortable in water. I think it is possible our anscestors could have been a semi-aquatic ape. It would explain why although there are chimps and other land apes still alive there are no living representatives of our own anscestors. It would also explain why our ancestors evolved so quickly. When you are threatened by such a variety of predators it becomes necessary to evolve ways of protecting yourself from them. Notice that most land apes although they live in a social group do not look out for each other. If a leapord or another such predator attacks they simply run and leave the weaker members to fend for themselves. Aquatic mammals such as dolphins and whales are more family minded and take better care of each other. Maybe that is why humans have a sense of duty to take care of ailling relatives.
Ms Morgan has her hang-ups, but on this subject she is immensely persuasive. I'm sure that most unbiased readers of her main work on the subject (what was it - "The descent of woman"?) would conclude with her that we are what we are largely because of adaptations to a life on the littoral.
Good question. It is entirely possible that humans were once semi-aquatic. We have several key features which would support this idea.
1. No fur. All terrestrial animals have fur (even elephants). Humans do not. Yes, we have body hair, but, if you'll notice, it's growth pattern is streamlined for swimming.
2. Humans have a piece of cartilage covering their noses to prevent water from entering the sinuses while swimming.
3. The human pelvis is built to afford a straight body line, suited for swimming, as opposed to a crouched over body like other mammals.
4. Humans cry salty tears. Other land animals don't. It's just water.
5. Human teeth rot faster because we don't spend as much time is the sea water as we used to (if at all). Gargle with salt water...feels good, eh?
The list goes on.
Didn't all life come from the sea? Wouldn't that explain our bond with dolphins? It makes so much sense when you consider how much of our planet is water, and how much of our bodies, especially the brain, are water.
To add to that, the Full Moon influences the tides of the ocean and female animals menstrual cycles.
Life forms began in the sea.
tell me something..?
What is the point of a plug-in electric toothbrush?
if you could play god and make yourself a perfect partner, would you do it?
If we came after dinosaurs what would come after us if we were wipped off the earth?
what is the meaning of the world yaman?
What is the Branch Which call without the name of tree?
what was the most embarrasing day of youre life so far?
Can you remember the moment you realised you are not a child any more?
Answers:
Firstly, Creation science isn't a science because it starts with the premise that we were created. Real science started with questions, How? Why? Where? When? I've read Elaine Morgan's book and humans do seem to have affinity to water. I've heard the big brain theory before in a book called Nutrition and Evolution where it also suggests that the long chain fatty acids in sea food enhanced brain development in a kind of substrate driven evolution, and it commented on the comparatively low levels of Mental illness in societies that consume a lot of fish? The coastal strip also seems very significant in human migration. I think there is much still to find out about early hominids and the fossil evidence though growing is still very small. I hope as a geologist that one day evidence of these lagoon dwelling forebears may be found?
The human race have evolved from the sea, if you look below the ears of all people there are indentations that used to be gills when we were fish.
Humans were aquatic before our evolution.
no
Food for cranks. You were aquatic in your mother's womb.
i don't buy evolution of humans.so, no
nope!!! i thought the reason babys can swim is because they just came out of a load of fluid anyway in the womb.
I don't think that is true. If it was I think God would have told me.
Ive got the webbed toes to prove it.
Mammals also have an inherent dive reflex.
If you plunge someones face in a bucket of water their heart rate and blood pressure changes. Not quite as good as dolphins but noticeable!
No I don't think that highly intelligent human beings came from fish.if that was so why haven't all the other fish turned into humans by now.
I thought that it was well known we evolved from an oceanic creature. We still have vestigial webbing between our thumbs and forefingers and between our toes which would suggest an aquatic origin.
No, I think we were created by God just like we are, so no need to worry yourself thinking too much.
We came from somewhere why not fish. Snakes were lizards that lost there legs because they did not use them. We lost hair because we no longer needed it. We have adjusted through the years. But I am still afraid of mice. Are they our future intelligence.
The theory sounds a little fishy to me.
It may be that the first proteins to form on the earth that gave rise to any living creatures may have occurred in an ocean enviornment, but human development occurred long after that.
I don't think humans were ever semi-acquatic. On the other hand, fetuses do evolve in the womb in amniotic fluid, but don't try to have them live in a fluid environment after they're born!
There are many other reasons to account for the lack of body hair, and eating fish, and for the reason babies can swim. Lack of body hair can be accounted for by genetics that adapted to certain climates; eating fish can be accounted for by geography and culture. That babies can swim, can be accounted for by the physics of their bodies and instinctive movements.
Since we have always had the ocean and the human characteristics you mentioned are still around, I would think that there would be a race of people somewhere with acquatic features.a race of Aquamen and women!
Reaching a conclusion like Morgen's based on appearances like body hair, eating fish, etc. is like saying "If the moon has holes in it, it must be made of swiss cheese!"
Of course, I've never been there, so I can't confirm or deny it as a fact!
Utter rubbish! Anyway, I can' swim and I've had 3 shots at lessons! Fish don't have body hair, and I never saw a fish that didn't swim! Dogs have loads and they swim instinctively! Elaine Morgan likes to write books!
If were used to breathing water than why so much pneumonia
That is an interesting theory that could be plausible but IMO not very probable. (and nothing like gills, man from Atlantis or such - we are talking early humans\hominids who lived on shores and spent considerable amount of time in the ocean) Certainly there are cultures (and have been cultures) who's main source of sustenance is from the ocean. And islands (like Australia) were populated by people crossing oceans as early as 100,000 years again in rather rudimentary vessels so undoubtedly they were quite at home on the water. But there is too much fossil evidence that humans evolved mainly as hunter\gatherers. If there could be more fossil evidence turn up that would help her theory.
My daughter told me about this theory quite awhile ago and at first I just shook my head, but the more I learned, the more sense it made. She had several points that made the theory logical, like the shape of our feet - like flippers more than hooves or paws. Also, all the legends about merpeople. It's an interesting theory which combines with another that human history is much longer than conventional science teaches.
I'm a conservative Christian, but I would love to see any evidence that this is possible. Fantasy is fun and all, and it is cool to look at creation and find similarities. But if we evolved from either fish or monkeys, where are all the skeletons or fossils? Why are there only drawings of evolution and no displays of discovered bodies?
I don't think this is at all possible, but I will remain open minded. Show me some evidence. Until then, I'll trust Genesis 1.
Even Darwin set restrictions on his own theory of evolution. Rules that, if broken, would disprove his theory. They have been disproved by science. Check out the link.
I still am! Catch me on my days off and see for yourself!
Sorry but I think the theory sucks big time.
Although I do think that there is a possibilty in the future that we may have to evolve into water dwelling animals.
All this evidence is anecdotal. As a human fetus develops, early on its growth it appears to have gills and a tail, looks like a fish. Many people say "AHA! that PROVES we evolved from the sea." It proves no such thing.
Love, Jack.
I think it was rather Desmond Morris who was the first to come up with that idea. It would explain speech capacities, brain volume, sweating, swimming, hair loss, in fact so many things that coincide with our actual state of body, that as a reasonable person, I can't discard that possibility, in fact, the arguments oblige believe in the theory. As for the gills and tails: what we are saying here is that, at some point, our ancesters lived in a semi-aquatic environment. Not ancesters like in "when we were fish", but a specific group of primates, by some or other reason, found itself living in very watery regions, and in that environment, the one loosing their hair, the ones best adapted got the head on the others, and went on. The main difference between us and the other primates are our skin (fat, sweat), the fact we can cry, hair growing hydrodynamicaly, aerodynamic body shape and lots of minor details. I repeat; the period doesn't go back til devoon, jura or whatever, it concerns somewhere in between now and the split with the bonobo branch. We have too much features of aqual mammals, like the dolphin, whale,. It's not for nothing that the dolphin has an IQ which some of us could well use. Listen, most about this I forgot, it has been like twenty years all that. Read Desmond Morris (on the internet, I'll do the same) and make up your own mind.
I thought we were semi-aquatic. At least Mark Spitz sure seemed to be.
It is interesting to note that early Nordic hunters ate a large diet of fish and clams. Also if you look at the Japanese Maquacs you notice they are very comfortable in water. I think it is possible our anscestors could have been a semi-aquatic ape. It would explain why although there are chimps and other land apes still alive there are no living representatives of our own anscestors. It would also explain why our ancestors evolved so quickly. When you are threatened by such a variety of predators it becomes necessary to evolve ways of protecting yourself from them. Notice that most land apes although they live in a social group do not look out for each other. If a leapord or another such predator attacks they simply run and leave the weaker members to fend for themselves. Aquatic mammals such as dolphins and whales are more family minded and take better care of each other. Maybe that is why humans have a sense of duty to take care of ailling relatives.
Ms Morgan has her hang-ups, but on this subject she is immensely persuasive. I'm sure that most unbiased readers of her main work on the subject (what was it - "The descent of woman"?) would conclude with her that we are what we are largely because of adaptations to a life on the littoral.
Good question. It is entirely possible that humans were once semi-aquatic. We have several key features which would support this idea.
1. No fur. All terrestrial animals have fur (even elephants). Humans do not. Yes, we have body hair, but, if you'll notice, it's growth pattern is streamlined for swimming.
2. Humans have a piece of cartilage covering their noses to prevent water from entering the sinuses while swimming.
3. The human pelvis is built to afford a straight body line, suited for swimming, as opposed to a crouched over body like other mammals.
4. Humans cry salty tears. Other land animals don't. It's just water.
5. Human teeth rot faster because we don't spend as much time is the sea water as we used to (if at all). Gargle with salt water...feels good, eh?
The list goes on.
Didn't all life come from the sea? Wouldn't that explain our bond with dolphins? It makes so much sense when you consider how much of our planet is water, and how much of our bodies, especially the brain, are water.
To add to that, the Full Moon influences the tides of the ocean and female animals menstrual cycles.
Life forms began in the sea.
The answers post by the user, for information only, UKQnA.com does not guarantee the right.