2007-08-01 13:21:41 · 6 answers · asked by Cat's Eye Angie 3 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Biology
neither can dolphins or whales
2007-08-01 13:26:24 · update #1
if aquatic apes were more like humans how would fossils prove whether or not they lived in water
2007-08-01 13:35:19 · update #2
correction if the skeletal structures of aquatic apes are closer to being identical to our own how would fossils indicate whether or not the creature lived in water?
2007-08-01 13:37:01 · update #3
is it possible that lucy lived mostly in or nearer the water than apes? I was looking up where they found her and saw that ethiopia is quite near the water, and if the waters were high enough would cover at least an 1/8 of it.
2007-08-01 14:09:57 · update #4
Things the aquatic ape theory explains that the chimp theory doesn't
Why we are virtually hairless, or rather why we have considerably less hair than apes if we spent more time in water especially warm water, why would we need excessive body hair the hair on top of our heads could be used for babies to hang on to while the mother treaded water.
Why we walk on two legs, if we spent most of our time in water we would be forced to walk on two legs to keep our heads above water
Why we have conscious control over our breathing while other land mammals do not.
Why we have more fat cells than any land mammal.
Human facial structure is quite different from other apes, with thick eyebrow hair and downturned nostrils. The shape of the human nose, with nostrils running perpendicular to the rest of the face, prevents water from entering the nose while upright.
2007-08-01 14:17:13 · update #5
The wikipedia article on the aquatic ape theory (which IMO, should still be called the aquatic ape hypothesis due to lack of evidence) addresses both sides of the issue quite well:
Basically, it is not a bad, or unreasonable theory ... there is just very little evidence to support it. All the points you brought up (and several others) are addressed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis#Criticisms_of_the_aquatic_ape_hypothesis
By the way ... I have never heard of "the chimp theory." What's that?
2007-08-01 14:30:39 · answer #1 · answered by secretsauce 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The aquatic ape idea (it's no where near theory status in the scientific definition of theory) is not the simplest explanation for any of the things you mention. "Could be" isn't the same as most likely. There is no real evidence for this idea and as relates to your earlier question on this topic, humans are not more closely related to dolphins than to apes.
You really need to read some credible biology books on great ape (of which humans are one) evolution.
2007-08-01 21:50:57 · answer #2 · answered by Joan H 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The hypothesis does not say that the precursor humans lived in water, but that they lived near it and from it. Diving for a great deal of their food. I really do not know why this hypothesis has not got off the ground, but evidence in time trumps all. If a preponderance of evidence comes forward, then there will be more attention payed to the hypothesis. This is paleoanthropolgy and not my field.
2007-08-01 20:55:02 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Zero fossil evidence.
2007-08-01 20:32:52 · answer #4 · answered by Buddha-rama 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
We don't have fossil evidence that would support it. It's not really a theory.
2007-08-02 13:15:01 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Apes can not breathe under the water.
2007-08-01 20:25:03 · answer #6 · answered by Richard W 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋