Jump to content
ZVBXRPL

Aquatic ape hypothesis

Recommended Posts

Wondered what people thought of this hypothesis.

 

I remember years ago I read something somewhere about ancestors of humans living in water and this helped with our evolution.

 

I think of it now and again, but until now didn't know what the theory was called or anything.

 

I did a search and managed to find the name of the hypothesis I was thinking of - Aquatic ape hyopthesis.

 

Seems interesting. If it were true it would mean that water was not only a major factor in evolution of life in general but for human evolution too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly support the AAT but in the end, because evolution is so slow, it becomes impossible to say why our genes were an advantage or non life threatening over the millions of years the changes have been occurring.

There was really good discussion of the topic on another sister forum last year. It probably would come up on a Google search "aquatic Ape again" forums.

Edited by Robittybob1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I looked at I didn't see that it was the best explanation for these traits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I looked at I didn't see that it was the best explanation for these traits.

Exactly it came to a matter of opinion and there was no way to make the decision final. But it gained my support for a semi-aquatic stage during human evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think humans do have some adaptations to living and working in and around water, but I think the AAH overreaches a bit and attempts to explain a lot of traits that are better explained by other selection pressures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've experienced a flood of misunderstanding and prejudice about this topic, which I have to say still baffles me. English is not my native language, but aparently the nomer "aquatic" would give off a notion about a being with as high a water existence as that of e.g. cetaceans. I've read a lot of the sources on this topic, and I never got any other impression than what was being posited being that of a "beach ape" of sorts. The latter in my opinion is the one likely scenario that could've served as a selective pressure over 2-7 million years of evolution for those traits in modern humans, that defer substantiously from our ape cousins, especially when you couple it with our behavioral traits, e.g. afinity for bathing.

 

The aquatic ape hypothesis (AAH) suffers from focusing much on soft tissue features, e.g. lack of fur cover, which is hard to make testable via e.g. the hominin fossil archive. Debating more or less entirely from the physical bones is very much the standard in the traditional anthropological debate, so much so that trying to debate human origin from a strict comparative analysis of physiology (which is conversely very much the standard in evolutionary biology) is traditionally frowned upon amongst anthropologists. Or at least so it seems to me. AAH also suffers heavily from having been proponed for some forty years by an amateur writer, Elaine Morgan who died recently, which in my opinion was eligible for the Darwin-Wallace medal despite her true academic shortcomings. Her being an amateur I sense exacurbated a range of prejudices from professional anthropologists, which made them stigmatize the entire topic around water and human evolution.

 

I have to say, and this is obviously my complete personal opinion, that some aquatic pressure during recent human evolution is the one remaining notion that makes any sense in terms of best explaining our unique origin as a species, if envisioning us being indeed a result largely of selective pressure, as laid out by e.g. Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace. Neither the savannah or the jungles can explain the traits that make us stand out amongst the apes, at least nowhere near as well as the watersides. In my opinion.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23272598

A comment on the idea's reception.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis

This article has a series of problems, but it goes to show the level of the debate. At least it presents some of the many arguments posited in this debate.

 

This is the range of aquatic arguments illustrated. Some arguments are better than others. Click on image for access to higher resolution:

640px-Human_Aquatic_Adaptations.png

Edited by CEngelbrecht

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In What Darwin Got Wrong, authors Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini discuss "master genes" that regulate multiple traits and so force those traits to evolve together. In their example, the traits regulated by a particular master gene, designated Otxi, seem unrelated to each other, but as a group the linked traits are oddly suggestive of an aquatic episode in humankind’s past. The authors write,

"[. . . ] in particular, since the Otxi ‘master’ gene controls the development of the larynx, inner ear, kidneys, and external genitalia and the thickness of the cerebral cortex, selective pressures sensitive to changes in the functions of the kidneys (due to bipedal station, or different liquid intake and excretion resulting from floods or droughts), or the fixation of different sexual patterns, may have had in turn secondary effects on the expansion of the cerebral cortex and the structure and function of the larynx.”

This set of traits, under the control of the same master gene, plays a foundational role in the aquatic ape hypothesis. Fluid/salt regulation (kidneys), 3D proprioceptive orientation (inner ear), breath control and speech (larynx), ventro-ventral copulation (genitals) and development of a complex cerebral cortex turn out to be fated to travel together, all being regulated by the same master gene, and all being components of the aquatic ape scenario.

Certainly not conclusive, but suggestive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not really in favor of that criticism of the role of selection, I think maybe the authors focus too much on rival mechanisms like genetic drift, that would otherwise supplement selection, not replace it. (Plus, I always see wolves in the pope's clothing whenever people critizise Darwin.) Just understand, that AAH is not contrary to natural selection. I have seen detractors of AAH claim such, and for the like of me I can't see how.

Edited by CEngelbrecht

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My pet theory is not that we came from an aquatic ape: this is our future, not our past. Our past are the trees of Africa, today our wish is The Beach, tomorrow we will enter the waters like other mammals did before us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say, and this is obviously my complete personal opinion, that some aquatic pressure during recent human evolution is the one remaining notion that makes any sense in terms of best explaining our unique origin as a species, if envisioning us being indeed a result largely of selective pressure, as laid out by e.g. Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace. Neither the savannah or the jungles can explain the traits that make us stand out amongst the apes, at least nowhere near as well as the watersides. In my opinion.

 

 

Yes, I agree. We do have a large set of traits that appear to be adaptions to an aquatic environment.

 

On the other hand, we don't have the capacity to hold our breath underwater for very long. Aquatic mammals such as sea lions and whales have high levels of myoglobin in their muscle tissue, which allows them to store large amounts of oxygen, and therefore remain underwater for prolonged periods. This adaptation has obviously evolved multiple times. The fact that we aren't adapted in this way perhaps points towards a weak version of the AAH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My pet theory is not that we came from an aquatic ape: this is our future, not our past. Our past are the trees of Africa, today our wish is The Beach, tomorrow we will enter the waters like other mammals did before us.

 

I like this. We should stop peeing in the pool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

On the other hand, we don't have the capacity to hold our breath underwater for very long
We do, actually, even as children - certainly compared with any other primate, and most savannah mammals, and so forth. We have special air control setups in our throats - one of the reasons we can talk and chimps cannot. Even an inexperienced, city-dwelling, physically substandard homo sapiens can "lock down" their breath and free dive to ten meters. If you ever get in a fight with a chimp, try to take them into water and dive - you can drown them. And that's your only chance - they'll tear you apart, on land.

 

There are nature movies frequently rotated on cable in which various prey animals escape predators by jumping into water; the wild dogs, leopards, cheetahs, lions, wolves, chimps, hyenas, and so forth, are stymied - they wait on the bank, or give up. A tiger or jaguar may risk shallower water, a bear (with their human-llike plantigrade foot and fat layer etc) may go deeper. For a pack of human hunters in a warm climate, that's game over - prey is caught. A single human being, desperate enough to go for it, can kill a moose with his bare hands if he catches it in deep enough water.

 

But probably the single most significant observation regarding the beach ape hypothesis is that for a couple of major human traits the alternative hypotheses so far available are borderline just so stories, without plausible mechanism or timeline agreement. Of these, bipedalism ranks at the top - the timeline fits like a glove, the mechanism is obvious, the sequence of events completely plausible and easily matched with the known results. So while as short of evidence as we are, as unknown as the field is, it's no mystery that the beach ape hypothesis is not simply taken for granted or accepted without critique, still the preference of so many in the scientific community for comparatively implausible, evidence-free, mechanism-free, timeline inconsistent, poorly reasoned alternatives for major features such as bipedalism is striking. Odd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shipwrecks have been a selective force for ~5,000 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes, I agree. We do have a large set of traits that appear to be adaptions to an aquatic environment.

 

On the other hand, we don't have the capacity to hold our breath underwater for very long. Aquatic mammals such as sea lions and whales have high levels of myoglobin in their muscle tissue, which allows them to store large amounts of oxygen, and therefore remain underwater for prolonged periods. This adaptation has obviously evolved multiple times. The fact that we aren't adapted in this way perhaps points towards a weak version of the AAH.

 

I'd like to see a chimp or a gorilla manage even a fraction of this:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see a chimp or a gorilla manage even a fraction of this:

 

 

Most humans can't do that either. Your example is a highly trained and conditioned person. Most humans have about the same ability to swim or dive underwater as the Japanenese Macaque (monkey).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a good day I can reach the bottom of the deep end. About the same as the family dog...

 

As for why Fido doesn't take down that great horned beast that keeps swimming around in the jacuzzi... Well, I can only speculate that the risk of injury increases when more common tactics would fail to work.

 

There's too many counterpoints IMO. You start looking at the actual history of water birth, infants with their non-descended larynx, other mammals with a descended larynx(ADH - Aquatic Deer Hypothesis), it all just looks really shaky.

 

Possible, sure. Probable, I am not seeing it as such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
. Most humans have about the same ability to swim or dive underwater as the Japanese Macaque (monkey).

Perhaps you are thinking of a SE Asian Macaque, such as a crab-eating macaque? Japanese macaques don't do much swimming and diving, and most humans are much better at it than they are.

 

Meanwhile, the best swimming macaques (some populations of Indonesian crabeating macaques) spend much of their lives foraging for food in the living oceans and rivers, eventually to match the performance of a citified and physically inept human on vacation who last went swimming in a hotel hot tub five years ago. They do not begin to approach the competence of an ordinary human child with anything like equivalent experience.

 

 

 

 

There's too many counterpoints IMO. You start looking at the actual history of water birth, infants with their non-descended larynx, other mammals with a descended larynx(ADH - Aquatic Deer Hypothesis), it all just looks really shaky.
Those aren't counterpoints. Are you sure you know what the basic hypothesis is? Edited by overtone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That we went through a period of adaption to a semi-aquatic environment.

 

It is the question of whether our adaptions are specific to that environment which is the issue.

 

If you make the case the descended larynx's suggest adaptation to a semi-aquatic environment and I bring out a male Red or Fallow deer, he makes for an effective counterpoint.

 

I do have to admit some unavoidable bias. We have a score of accidental drownings every year in Florida. The media coverage at least is frequently concerned with cases involving young children. Can't really get away from the public safety campaign against it.

Edited by Endy0816

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That we went through a period of adaption to a semi-aquatic environment.

 

It is the question of whether our adaptions are specific to that environment which is the issue.

 

If you make the case the descended larynx's suggest adaptation to a semi-aquatic environment and I bring out a male Red or Fallow deer, he makes for an effective counterpoint.

 

I do have to admit some unavoidable bias. We have a score of accidental drownings every year in Florida. The media coverage at least is frequently concerned with cases involving young children. Can't really get away from the public safety campaign against it.

Even the aquatic mammals e.g seals didn't become fully aquatic (get their oxygen from the water like fish do) either, they still need to come up for air now and then. So even they drown I believe.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/01/120106-harp-seals-global-warming-sea-ice-science-environment/ - see there is at least one article confirming that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for discussing this. Unfortunately, there are still a lot of misconceptions & unproven assumptions about our semi-aquatic evolution (so-called AAT or AAH) not only by AAT opponents, but also by some proponents.
Our semi-aquatic phase didn’t happen 6 or more mill.yrs ago as Elaine Morgan thought (Hardy even thought >10 Ma), it has nothing to do with apes or australopiths, but it is about archaic Homo during the Ice Ages (Pleistocene 2.5 - 0.01 Ma). Most erectus fossils are typically found amid edible shellfish (marine & freshwater) and show several unmistakable convergences to littoral species: pachyostosis (thick & dense bones), platymeria (flattened femora), platycephaly (long low flat skulls), ear exostoses (as in human divers), orbital rim (eye-protecting), intercontinental dispersal (as when fossil whales became littoral), projecting nostrils etc. Pleistocene Homo did not run over open plains, but simply followed the African & Eurasian coasts & rivers, where they beach-combed, dived & waded bipedally for littoral, shallow aquatic & waterside foods. Our "scars of evolution" (title of one of Elaine's books) show that our ancestors' lifestyle at some time(s) included shallow frequent diving for shellfish, probably this was early-Pleistocene, when they followed the coasts: 1.8-Ma Homo fossils are found as far as Mojokerto on Java (in deltaic sediments, amid shellfish & barnacles), Turkana in the Rift (where H.erectus appeared together with stingrays, showing a marine connection then) & Dmanisi in Georgia (at a confluence of big rivers not far from the Black-Caspian Sea connection then).

This littoral diaspora has been called the “coastal dispersal” model by Stephen Munro (Molluscs as Ecological Indicators in Palaeoanthropological Contexts 2010 PhD thesis Austr.Nat.Univ.Canberra), IMO a much better term than “aquatic ape”, see my paper attached.

Please also google the recent papers of José Joordens & Stephen Munro http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/anu-archaeologist-helps-discover-earliest-human-engravings-20141203-11ys3h.html

In any case, our Pleistocene ancestors did not run over savannas as popular views still assume: this is biologically & physiologically, see e.g. my letter to Nature 325:305-6 in 1987, Origin of hominid bipedalism:

"... Man is the opposite of a savanna inhabitant. Humans have thermo-insulative subcutaneous fat layers, which are never seen in savanna mammals. We have a water- and sodium-wasting cooling system of abundant sweat glands, totally unfit for a dry environment. Our maximal urine concentration is much too low for a savanna-dwelling mammal. We need much more water than other primates, and have to drink more often than savanna inhabitants, yet we cannot drink large quantities at a time ..." Humans have about 10 times as much SC fat as chimps, which is a serious risk of overheating in an open milieu. And salt & water are scarce on savannas: sweating is a very poor solution in open environments, but overheated furseals on land also sweat profusely through abundant sweat glands on their naked hind-flippers.

 

HE'13.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ at marcverhargen, DNA has allowed science to trace human life back to Africa. Observations about body fat, craving is shells, and other circumstantial bits does not trump DNA. The migration out of Africa is rather well preserved in our DNA.

"Two pieces of the human genome are quite useful in deciphering human history: mitochondrial DNA and the Y chromosome. These are the only two parts of the genome that are not shuffled about by the evolutionary mechanisms that generate diversity with each generation: instead, these elements are passed down intact. According to the hypothesis, all people alive today have inherited the same mitochondria"

"Genetic studies and fossil evidence show that archaic Homo sapiens evolved to anatomically modern humans solely in Africa, between 200,000 and 60,000 years ago,that members of one branch of Homo sapiens left Africa by between 125,000 and 60,000 years ago, and that over time these humans replaced earlier human populations such as Neanderthals and Homo erectus.The date of the earliest successful "out of Africa" migration (earliest migrants with living descendants) has generally been placed at 60,000 years ago as suggested by genetics, although migration out of the continent may have taken place as early as 125,000 years ago according to Arabian archaeology finds of tools in the region."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans#Mitochondrial_DNA

 

The attached files in your post were interesting. However they do not address the gentics. Lots of observations and questions abou different adaptations but no genetics. So while compelling the points are not compelling enough. DNA evidence is simply more conclusive IMO than hypothesis' about why humans have larger nasal cavities than chimps.

I was also put off by the papers attack on Wikipedia. Citation for everything on Wikipedia is provided. If there is a problem with a study or theory presented on Wikipedia that should be addressed directly. Going after the the site itself seems like a bait and switch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ at marcverhargen, DNA has allowed science to trace human life back to Africa. Observations about body fat, craving is shells, and other circumstantial bits does not trump DNA. The migration out of Africa is rather well preserved in our DNA.

"Two pieces of the human genome are quite useful in deciphering human history: mitochondrial DNA and the Y chromosome. These are the only two parts of the genome that are not shuffled about by the evolutionary mechanisms that generate diversity with each generation: instead, these elements are passed down intact. According to the hypothesis, all people alive today have inherited the same mitochondria"

"Genetic studies and fossil evidence show that archaic Homo sapiens evolved to anatomically modern humans solely in Africa, between 200,000 and 60,000 years ago,that members of one branch of Homo sapiens left Africa by between 125,000 and 60,000 years ago, and that over time these humans replaced earlier human populations such as Neanderthals and Homo erectus.The date of the earliest successful "out of Africa" migration (earliest migrants with living descendants) has generally been placed at 60,000 years ago as suggested by genetics, although migration out of the continent may have taken place as early as 125,000 years ago according to Arabian archaeology finds of tools in the region."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans#Mitochondrial_DNA

 

The attached files in your post were interesting. However they do not address the gentics. Lots of observations and questions abou different adaptations but no genetics. So while compelling the points are not compelling enough. DNA evidence is simply more conclusive IMO than hypothesis' about why humans have larger nasal cavities than chimps.

 

I don't see anybody aquatically inclined questioning that DNA consensus at all. Yes, Homo sapiens with extreme likelyhood emerged in Africa, as other hominoids and hominins before it. The waterside concept just entails, that sapiens (and erectus two million years prior) would've migrated out of Africa following coastlines of Asia, not across land masses. Which seems confirmed by archeological evidence showing early sapiens migration routes out of Africa along the Yemen coasts, as opposed to across a land bridge through e.g. the Levant. Which also goes to explain why sapiens is evident in coastal Australia before riperian China or Europe. It was the shorter route along the coasts of Southern Asia. Because ethologically, they would've been beach combers, not grassland trekkers or even woodland dwellers.

 

I sense you (like many seem to do) misunderstand these ideas completely and think they somehow argue, that humans would've had a recent origin frolicking in the open seas 24-7-365, on par with cetaceans or sirenia. I don't see that argued anywhere in the key sources, from e.g. Alister Hardy, Elaine Morgan, Carsten Nimitz, Philip Tobias, Marc Verhaegen (posting above), Stephen Munro, Algis Kuliukas, Stephen Cunnane, Leigh Broadhurst, Nicole and Renato Bender, Erika Schagatay, Michel Odent, to name a few off the top of my head. Primarily because, no, that doesn't make a farthing sense what so ever. Not since we were fish 390 million years ago, were we fully aquatic, but it's not being argued, either. Nobody informed is arguing for the existence of mermaids or Aquaman or any such hogwash. Those few that have done this, don't know what they're talking about, either.

 

This phrasing started the whole thing in 1960:

My thesis is that a branch of this primitive ape-stock [hominoids] was forced by competition from life in the trees to feed on the sea-shores and to hunt for food, shell fish, sea-urchins etc., in the shallow waters off the coast. I suppose that they were forced into the water just as we have seen happen in so many other groups of terrestrial animals. I am imagining this happening in the warmer parts of the world, in the tropical seas where Man could stand being in the water for relatively long periods, that is, several hours at a stretch.

 

This is still at the core of the waterside consensus, as posited by the above people. Anything crazy in this?

 

So we'd be ol' beach apes, so what? Hell, Hardy's idea may somehow be wrong or at the last not the full story, but it doesn't have the scientific problems, the majority for some damned reason assume it has. What it does have is a sociological problem, that leaves is stigmatized.

 

obama-beach-photo.jpg

 

"The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it in the endeavor of science. [History] shows us clearly that accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong, and that fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources."
- Carl Sagan

 

Edited by CEngelbrecht

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Anyone defending the viewpoint that it was human thinking in and of itself that generated our bigger brains around 2-3mya is resisting the fact that total iodine-deficiency in a fully thinking pregnant mothers diet still can/will bring about in the worst case scenario a fetal neurodevelopmental condition known as cretinism (to mention the extreme) so iodine (and DHA) in seafood is very much a pivotal subject when it comes to braindevelopment, as Stephen Cunnane aswell as many others has written a great deal about.”

 

~ Michael (WTM Forum - Aquatic Ape)

 

https://www.humancondition.com/forums/topic/loveindoctrination-and-the-aquatic-ape-theory/

 

Here are some supporting arguments:

 

~Missing coat of fur (like other aquatic mammals) for coping with terrestrial wind & sun, which originally required stealing another animals hide to wear over our own to protect us from cold and sun burn.

 

This weakness to the terrestrial elements had also led to us relying on fire as barbarians + needing dry shaded shelters still up until the present day for most (some relying on electricity instead now).

 

~No full estrous cycle with visible swelling (vagina swells and blushes when fertile) for adult females, only menstrual cycle instead (apes have it though, but not humans or aquatic mammals even though all terrestrial mammals do have it).

 

~Newborn babies can't walk but can swim and are born fat (in order to float in water and swim immediately after birth) unlike terrestrial mammals which are born thin and are able to walk or climb immediately (aquatic trait to only swim at birth).

 

~If a human doesn't learn to walk or speak by the age of seven, they become incapable of learning how to, but anyone can learn how to swim at any age, even after seven (suggesting natural instincts to swim but relatively new habits of walking and speaking).

 

~Human premature babies are born with vernix (cheesy like substance on their skin) that helps them float so that they can swim (only human & harbor seal babies have this).

 

~Humans have a brain 3.5x the size of a chimpanzee’s, although only 1.25x as many cortical neurons.

 

~Skull features are opposite from those of apes, humans having a protruding cranium, nose & chin but receding eyes and no protruding brow (as compared to apes which possess protruding brow and eyes but receding nose and chin and non-protruding cranium).

 

~Different throat configuration than apes which enables speech but can mix breathing with swallowing (suggests aquatic ancestry).

 

~Omega 3:6 ratio needed for a healthy diet matches omega ratio of seafood (although some healthy vegetable oils are a close match but definitely not meat or dairy) and also we need iodine + salt that we often don't get (suggestive of aquatic ancestry from the sea).

 

~Webbed fingers & toes + flipper feet, ankles, wrists & palms (aquatic mammal trait).

 

~Hair & nails are weak and must be trimmed unlike terrestrial animals (our nails & teeth are strong enough to process most raw fish but not terrestrial animals).

 

~Teeth are also weak and often malformed (ie wisdom teeth).

 

~10x the adipose tissue (otherwise known as blubber or subcutaneous fat) than terrestrial mammals who primarily have only extra-muscular fat (helps to insulate heat in cold water but does not prevent a chill from a breeze).

 

~Sweat glands cause emission of putrid scent without bathing (unlike terrestrial animals - especially carnivores who primarily pant to dispel heat), which may indicate a reliance on swimming for hygiene.

 

~Swiveling jaw & long intestinal tract (suggesting herbivorous origins) but nutrients for proper brain development may have been aided by our natural ability to eat fish without a cutting tool or fire.

 

~Weak olfactory sense or smell (aquatic mammal trait).

 

~Protruding nose keeps water out when swimming.

 

~Pronounced cranium boasts greater capacity (or adaptation to greater need) for problem solving (ie changing habitats and programming new instincts through  ongoing transition to terrestrial habitat).

 

~Receding eyes have diminished night vision (thus nocturnal or subterranean ancestry is unlikely).

 

~Skin (when pale and not yet conditioned to have protective pigment) and eyes are weak to direct sunlight.

 

~Circulatory system is weak to terrestrial gravity and heart failure due to this maladapted condition is the most common cause of death for humans (especially outside of tropical climates) besides pestilence (ie mosquitos in tropical climates kill more humans than anything else worldwide).

 

~4,000+ Genetic disorders (uncommon amongst all other mammals which have dramatically fewer), indicating inbreeding through maladjusted propagation of our species through our ancestral trauma.

 

~46 chromosomes (apes have 48).

 

Terrestrial Ape Features:

 

~Apes are well balanced with their natural environment (unlike humans or beavers who often cause massive devastation to neighboring habitats).

 

~Apes walk bipedally in water.

 

~Apes can't control their breath.

 

~Apes have greater muscle & bone density.

 

~Apes have better night vision & smell (olfactory sense).

 

~Apes have a coat of fur to keep the moisture & warmth in their skin through the cold and wind and also protects them from the sun.

 

~Apes have a receding chin & nose but protruding large eyes & brow.

 

~Apes have a diminished cranium (suggestive of a lack of a need to analyze their environment and own behaviors since they have adept instincts and thriving physical prowess).

 

~Apes have a similar gestation period (266 days for orangutans, 260 for gorillas & 230 for chimpanzees + bonobos) but they are born fully capable to climb immediately and often cling on to the mother’s coat of fur for dear life.

 

Lloyd Pye, Mark Passio & Michael Tsarion (12 Ways Humans Are Not Primates)

 

Elena Morgan, Alister Hardey & Desmond Morris (The Descent of Woman The Descent of the Child, Naked Ape & Aquatic Ape)

85421A8A-4467-4E4E-AC64-4A4BF69BA638.jpeg

FB68B3EF-2BD9-4A65-91E5-6D49D01C193E.jpeg

72F66DA4-A626-4AE9-83B9-DC9780D934DF.jpeg

C75B492D-C410-4246-BDBC-79364897AE5F.jpeg

Edited by IndySage
Photos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.