Aquatic Ape Theory
I want to start this article off by explaining that this is my belief in how we humans evolved. To me, it explains every question I ever had about how we evolved from simple primates to our more advanced state.I know that there are people out there who are wholeheartedly against this theory and that is fine, but again, this is the theory that makes the most sense to me. I am not here to try to write a scientific paper on this theory, or prove anyone wrong, as quite frankly I do not care what everyone else believes. Therefore a majority of this article will include my own personal observations and reasoning. I am much too lazy to quote from books, but believe me I do read them often. In my opinion anyhow, too many people use words written by someone else to justify their own words. Obviously they are not sure enough about what they are saying so they have to gather proof that someone else thinks the same way. Just because something is published, does not make it scientific fact.
That being said, let me give you an overview of this theory for those who are unaware of it. Basically the AAT or Aquatic Ape Theory states that at one time, in Africa, a group of primates decided to take to the water instead of the trees and grasslands in the area at the time. Water offered reasonable protection from faster predators. This group of primates adapted well to living in a wetland / flood plain environment. Being able to move around by using their 2 feet, while the water held them upright, kept them more alert less exposed. The first food sources for this group of primates would likely have been a form of kelp, bull rushes, or perhaps fruit that grew near the shore. As the primates spent more time in the water however they likely would of discovered fish, and how tasty fish was. From then on, the stage was set for a super race of humanoids. This group prospered while living this way for many many generations, slowly adapting to their environment. The fish providing them with the abundant amino acids required for brain development. Eating raw meat would not of provided such amino acids, and 'fishing' from the shore is a highly unlikely skill to develop, especially in the abundance which would of been required to have an effect on brain development over time.
Now, nay sayers of this theory will of course point out that there are predators in the water as well. This is indeed true, but croc's and other water predators would be easily avoided by a large pack of primates, as they could get out of the water fairly easily and relocate. They are also generally slow and more of an ambush predator, especially when compared to a lion on land. An observant primate could easily spot the danger of an approaching crocadile and warn the group. Nay sayers also point out that sharks and other predators live in the water.... This is all well and good, but in my theory, the humanoids live in grassland marsh, flood plain or river delta where the water is generally shallow, and calm, possibly even brackish. I do not see primates choosing to live in the ocean. That would not be a very hospitable place for them. Nor would a flowing river where the crocs prefer.
In nature, usually you will find that the most basic answer turns out to be the truth. We evolved from a simple Sponge, to an animal which can think, move, and communicate. This was a long journey. We know at some point we were once primates, similar to Apes. But what about before that? How do we know Apes have always lived in a forested situation. How do we know Apes have always climbed trees? If we indeed split off from Apes, 4.4 million years ago, then that leaves us at a point prior to where chimps and other primates split off from the tree. Therefore in effect, it is very possible that primates in general, at that time, were living on land. This could of been the point at which the Ape family tree begins to take to the trees for safety, and the humanoid family tree begins to take to the water for safety. I think some more questions could be answered if we found out how we got from the simple Sponge, to our primate form. That will give us a lot more clues as to what really happened.
Look at some differences we have from other primates, and from most mammals:
- We sweat, a method to expel salt, and cool off.
- We cry, another method to expel salt. The only other mammals to do this, are Elephants, and Hippos, both mammals which spend part of their time living in water.
- Elephants and hippos are also the only other mammals to have no fur...
- And also the only other mammals to have an larynx, or voice box.
- And also the only mammals to be able to control their breathing voluntarily.
- We lost our sense of smell for the most part, as smell has no importance for finding food or mates when your food or mates are in a watery environment. (most other mammals use scent for mating and finding prey/food, our sense of smell is VERY weak compared to most other mammals, and primates).
- Our urine is not as concentrated as most mammals which developed in Africa. With all this sweating and crying and peeing, why waste all this water if we live on a hot dry grassland?
- We store fat instead of using it, or letting un-needed food pass through our system. The fat provides a layer of insulation in the water and helps with floating. In effect, our fat replaces our fur as a means of temperature control.
- The only fur remaining is that on our heads, as we mostly kept our heads above water.
- Human babies are unique in most mammals, in that they can be born underwater, and can naturally float right after birth.
- Humans remain clinging to water, with most of our largest settlements dating back to ancient Egypt, being on the side of a body of water.
- Some modern humans still can hold their breath for upwards of 10 minutes with practice, a skill passed down through many generations. No other mammal would be capable of this.
To me the evidence speaks for itself. I can find countless reasons why this theory is far more realistic then the Savannah theory of evolution. But you be the judge.