Some new ideas re. Aquatic Ape Theory

Brendan (
Mon, 2 Sep 1996 18:39:29 -0400

[This is forwarded from a friend who does not have internet access. You
can reach her through snail-mail, OR write email to me, which I can
forward for you.

The first time this was posted, there were absolutely zero responses, not
even from the AAT people on these newsgroups such as Elaine Morgan. This
greatly surprised Tani and me too. These are some new ideas to throw into
the "stew" and synthesize with current data relating to a good, IMHO,
idea: the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis. Feel free to throw out your responses
onto the newsgroup and stimulate interesting discussion, instead of
arguing about the same old thing!]

>From whitedev Mon Aug 5 17:00:49 1996
Return-Path: whitedev
Received: (from whitedev@localhost) by (8.7.5/8.6.12) id RAA24697; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 17:00:49 -0400 (EDT)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 17:00:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brendan <>
Subject: "Some ideas to think over as yet (I think) not thought out."
Message-ID: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO

"Some ideas to think over as yet (I think) not thought out."
From: Tani Jantsang

Many of the traits adapted in humans which seem "strange" may have been
recessive in man, only to express as a phenotype DUE TO the stresses in
the new environment, and then selected in favor of or against. Remember
Darwin's skew and spew, perish then diversify.

1. webbing of feet 7% of human popullation could be ancient, from
ampihibian stage, and in the genes. Not something new or related to
MAMMALS at all.

2. ability to walk and run upright: gibbons have it despite their other

3. hairlessness: burrowing animals have it and there'd have to have been
many such burrowing animals when mammals lived ALONG SIDE dinosaurs and
had to hide. Point never brought up: which race of humansa re you
speaking about? White man is usually the hairiest man. Not yellows or
blacks. Why baldness but hairy faces (again, mostly in whites)? Nature is
not perfect, but is PARSIMONIOUS instead.

4. sub-fat. Again, which race do you speak of? Us Asians? We have most
sub-fat. We even might be more foetalized. We are less DIMORPHIC in
appearance and in behavior.

5. Predation? No one knows what chimps WERE back then. They have since
evolved too. Chimps sometimes do engage in predation and in organized war
(Goodall). No sea mammal predators? UH, the ORCA? They gang up and prey on
whales. Fossils: Man did not kill man; this is recent. Other: Bonobos
copulate front on. Monkeys and other ape species can swim easily if they
start doing it young (as zoo keepers noted). Primates that do have to
wallow in shallows still have hair just as savannah primates have hair.
Human babies have strong arms, weaker legs. Yes, they can swim when born,
but they also naturally braciate and grab things soon. Even cats can swim
if you heave them into a pool. And adult humans still "briachiate" to
keep balance.

Melanin? Melanocytes develop from same part of embryo as does spine and
nervous system: IN ALL VERTEBRATES. Why is melanin being brought up?
Certain humans LOST permanent melanin due to massive cereal diet, lack of
Vit. D., neeeding to get it from the sun instead. Cf. Cavalli-Sforza
involved in human genome project. These go in sun, get dark, get Vit. D.
Has nothing to do with cold climate or ice and such ice-dwellers are NOT
fair people, again, they never gave up Vit. D. in what they ate.
Cavalli-Sforza. (Imagine if cats were color conscious....)

I agree with AA theory because I like it and my knees float I'm so
buoyant, and that's NO reason to agree with anything; but Morgan uses
teleological arguments thus far. The savannah theory is shot: Savannah
started 2.7 mil years ago. Hominids were around 4 or more mil years ago.
However - endogenous C retrovirus marker, or "banoon marker" is like
genetic fingerprint proof that the African hominids are NOT MAN'S
ANCESTORS! Is this being ignored because a Japanese person showed this?
This is a HARD proof here, not just some bones or peculiar adaptations we
have with theories of their recent origin. Alll our AA appearances may,
in fact, be very old potentials we had in genotype which expressed due to
stresses in environment, got selected in favor of, etc - Darwin. What if
we all married with those 7% webbed footed fellow humans and made even
more preference for the ones with webbed hands? There's be more than 7%
next time around. Darwin holds true. What about ecto, meso, and
endomorphic human types? This is also "set" early on in the embryo. No
one mentions it.

Who is being Lamarckian? What do these people mean by "acquired" traits?
Inherited? Yes. But there is also selection going on, there is perishing
going on, and all that DARWINIAN stuff. Some people are violent, some are
passive by nature - this is known. Let women choose the gangster types
for a few generations and you end up with violent people where once
before not long ago (when the mothers and women cast such violent people
away) you had peaceful people. It can happen fast. It happened right here
in the USA with some blacks.

Environment (uterine and nutritional env included) can become unsuitable
for an organism. Many perish but some take into themselves the unsuitable
env until it BECOMES suitable. Then this becomes the preferred env - that
is, it is absorbed into the metabolism. This would be a mutation that is
directed by the unsuitable-became-suitable environment. Adjusted
organisms select amongst themselves: new species. This is not Lamarckian.
It is Darwinian and LYSENKO-ISM as a fact (I have his own papers). But
it's how evolution works. It's why we are not insects despite the face we
share homeobox gene with insects, it is why we are not apes tho we share
99% identical genes with chimps. SOME stress in the environment did not
just make SOME mutation occur - NO! It also caused what was already
hidden in the genes to express itself, show up as a phenotype; and it was
selected in favor of while those that lacked this perished. DO WE have
sub-fat from water adaptation? Try staying in the water for 12 hours
(salt water) and see if this is right. The Korean women example is not
Lamarckian. Those able to hold breath long and tolerate cold water the
best are SELECTED IN FAVOR OF to breed with. How do you think RACES came
into being? God? Morgan has good things she points out but teleological
arguments won't stand. The Savannahists have good arguments against the
AA of the Morganists but they have NO explanation otherwise that holds
water. BOTH ignore the retrovirus "baboon" marker. Neither look further
further back into man's REMOTE ancestry to figure out why we have what we

Morgan: using orangutans (and a flat, changeless pseudo-Darwin) to
justify RAPE of women won't do. What happens when a gang of female orangs
start killing lone males that tend to rape out of hand? Can't happen?
Cave paintings of women in cone hats standing around a lone male with
weapons in their hands tell another story: so do some of those bands of
women in the east that British soldiers ran into not too long ago. What
happens when chimps go to war? Can't happen? Goodall disagrees because
she saw it. And then there is Bobbit - and there are feminiazis and there
is the ova's electrical field not allowing sperm in (requiring
zona-blasters, used in Israel). Mankind IS evolving if only people LET IT
evolve and understand it DOES evolve. That women have "certain attitudes"
means their brains work along certain lines. That's all part of it:
evolution. Who says we have to remain placental mammals? _Not_ Darwin!
Man the Hunter and Woman the Gatherer? When did this become Man the Lazy
and Woman the Slave in most agricultural societies such as Africa and
India? What about Man the Communal Social Animal? Is that only restricted
to the "more civilized" countries or is the civilization of this sort a
MARKER of evolution? Primitive hunter gatherers are not master/slave
societies, with women being the slaves, at all. So this has nothing to do
with "civilization" per so, but more to do with CIVIL-ization of types of

I notice that many botanists tend to talk as if Lamarckian, yet I think
they don't explain themselves correctly. Plants do things animals can't
do. The expression of a long unseen genotype can be taken as "new
variation" unless you see it submerge again when the plant is back in the
old environment - but if you select and keep doing this by stressing the
environment with a KNOWN DIRECTION IN MIND to MAKE this old-"new" trait
stick, you can get a variation, perhaps a new species. Can't happen?
People aren't all black anymore. It happens. Cf. McKlintock on this with
plants. Organisms probably do "direct" their evolution toward what would
be suitable and AID EACH OTHER in this intraspecific COOPERATION, Cf
Carnes or "the instructionists" (also Lysekno again) Carnes with
bacteria, new data. Nothing mystical about it. Particles "feel" certain
forces and not others, too. Electrons had to "feel" protons for the whle
thing to start: behold there is atmosphere. Amino acids are not alive.
Then came RNA, DNA, then the fist cell that prokayote. Then that strange
phagocyte that behaved in a rather Lamarckian way (for real) by
incorporating bacteria into itself and passing down this definately
ACQUIRED trait: MITOCHONDRIA. Cf. Marguiles spelling? (Nobel Priza for
that data), and deDuve. Environment came first of course. The environment
was alien back then, another eco-system.

Thank you. Think about it - think new thoughts. Synthesize new data and
THROW OUT the mysticism. GOOD LUCK! (SMASH the Tarzanists, they gave us
M.A.D.). I've no internet access, this is being posted for me by a
friend: I'm at PO Box 85 Lehigh Acres, FL 33970-0085 USA.