"Those whacky evolutionists!"

[Vesayen]

I DO think this site is real by the way, have you read all of it? WAY to much stuff in it to be a fake........

From what I can piece together from the incoherent Evolutionist literature, the Aquatic Ape story goes like this: Billions of years ago a bunch of monkeys lived under the sea. Then one day, one of them gave birth to a human baby. Soon after, all the sea-monkeys began giving birth to human babies. Eventually, there were only humans living under the sea. Then the sea-humans decided to live on the land, so they did just that. Many years latter, one of these now land-living sea-humans gave birth to a baby who was named Charles Darwin. And they lived happily ever after.

ANYWAY How stupid can they be? Yes, people claim there were monkeys, let alone veribrates billions of years ago...... er no lol-no one does.

Also the "aquatic ape" theory isnt about giving birth under the ocean, its explains some wierd human characteristics, like hairlessness(genenrally) and boyant female breasts. The theory dosent claim apes lived in the seas, it was that early humans often ended up in lakes to escape land based predators....


I dont think its correct, but it isnt out of the realm of possibility.

[Kirnwaffen]

The site is parody. A well done parody, given, but a parody, nonetheless. Get over it.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
AAT is hardly as that page depicts it, silly.

However, it is very much a fringe theory within evolutionary circles. It's main postulator, Elaine Morgan, was not a biologist, anthropologist or anything of the like. She was a television writer.

It's fanciful, not entirely scientifically implausible (which is more than any Creationist "theory" has going for it), but has few supporters.

How in the world is AAT "scientifically plausible"?

[Immortal Wombat]

How isn't it?

[Boris Godunov]

Accursed DP

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by The diplomat


How in the world is AAT "scientifically plausible"?

Did you bother to read up on the real theory, or are you just relying on this comical page?

http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Trails/9846/aat/aat_jhr1.html

It's plausible because the theory simply states that, for a period of time, the ancestors of modern humans spent most of their time in shallow water (note: not under it) as protection from land-based predators, and this explains some characteristics of human physiology.

As I said, it is considered fringe, but it is by no means completely implausible. It does lack, however, supporting evidence. Until someone finds fossil evidence for it, it is not much more than fancy. Also, many of the characteristics its supporters maintain are only explicable by AAT (and more accurately it should be "Amphibious," not "Aquatic") have been shown to be explicable by other means of natural selection.

[The diplomat]

"So far, the aquatic hypothesis has received little acceptance because no supporting fossil evidence has been adduced ( Morris 1967 ). In particular, no region in Africa containing marine Pliocene deposits associated with ape - like and man - like fossils has ever been found ( Howells 1967; Leakey 1976 )."

http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Trails/9846/aat/aat_jhr1.html

So, this fringe theory, as Boris pointed out himself, has no fossil evidence whatsoever to back it up, and yet it is called "scientifically plausible"?

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Did you bother to read up on the real theory, or are you just relying on this comical page?

http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Tr.../aat_jhr1.html

Yeah, just did.

It's plausible because the theory simply states that, for a period of time, the ancestors of modern humans spent most of their time in shallow water (note: not under it) as protection from land-based predators, and this explains some characteristics of human physiology.

As I said, it is considered fringe, but it is by no means completely implausible. It does lack, however, supporting evidence. Until someone finds fossil evidence for it, it is not much more than fancy. Also, many of the characteristics its supporters maintain are only explicable by AAT (and more accurately it should be "Amphibious," not "Aquatic") have been shown to be explicable by other means of natural selection.

if it has no fossil evidence, then who cares?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by The diplomat
So, this fringe theory, as Boris pointed out himself, has no fossil evidence whatsoever to back it up, and yet it is called "scientifically plausible"?

You've yet to show how it's implausible. I give you the benefit of the doubt, but you're more and more sounding like the typical Creationist who will jump to any attack and strawman if he thinks it can help

Acknowledging a theory as being "plausible" doesn't mean it is by any means correct, or that I think it is so. Frankly, I think AAT is without merit, but there's nothing in the theory that is outrageously implausible.

The plausibility of a theory doesn't depend a bit on supporting evidence, simply on whether or not it appears to follow logical mechanisms and could achieve the apparent results. That speaks nothing as to its veracity, which is what evidence is used for, simply that, scientifically speaking, it's possible.

[GePap]

if it has no fossil evidence, then who cares?

This, from a creationist?

[Agathon]

Oh ****! Will you two please get a room!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by The diplomat
if it has no fossil evidence, then who cares?

Gee, there's not physical evidence for quantum theory, so who cares?

It's a realm of scientific exploration, that's all. You're the one making a big deal out of it. 99% of evolutionary biologists don't care much about it all!

Why bring it up and then say "who cares?"

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by GePap

if it has no fossil evidence, then who cares?

This, from a creationist?

Good point. ZING!

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Gee, there's not physical evidence for quantum theory, so who cares?

There is physical evidence for quantum theory! Quantum entanglement has been observed. And, there is also the double slit experiment. If you emit only one electron at a time at a double slit, you still observe an interference pattern, eventhough there is only 1 electron.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by GePap

if it has no fossil evidence, then who cares?

This, from a creationist?

Creation scientists study the fossil record too, you know.