 |
The Aquatic Primate |
What is human, or humanlike? How do we define what it is to be human as opposed to being pongid? We can return step by step down the "evolutionary ladder" until we meet our common ancestor with the modern day chimpanzee. Somewhere on this "evolutionary ladder" we come to a point where one of our "apelike" ancestors is still more hominid than pongid. At this point we draw the line and consider this as the beginning of the hominid. There are at least four species of these early hominids and they are all of the genus Australopithecus (from Greek meaning "Southern Ape"; named in 1925 by Raymond Arthur Dart [1893-1998]). The Australopithecines were about the size of a chimpanzee but had a slighter build. This meant a greater "brain to brawn" ratio, but the hominine characteristic used to determine the Australopithecines from pongids was their bipedality (from Latin meaning "able to walk on two legs"). Hominid bipedality is more than walking on two legs. Kangaroos and ostriches are bipedal and live their lives on two legs. They do it with their hind limbs located at their center of gravity and their bodies held nearly parallel to the ground. The kangaroo has a heavy tail (counterweight) to get its center of gravity over its legs. It is the "S-curve" of the lower spine that allows hominids their characteristic upright bipedality, and the Australopithecines were at ease walking upright just as we are today. This implies the first advancement of humankind was biological in nature and was the development of upright bipedality. Upright bipedality is the first ability of Mankind and the "S-curved" spine is the first anatomical characteristic we use to define what is human. An entire Australopithecine skeleton was unearthed by Donald Johanson in 1974. It was a female and was named Lucy. Lucy had a brain that was chimpanzee size about one quarter the size of modern Mankind. Probably weighing about 70 pounds, she only stood 3 to 4 feet tall, and had feet nearly identical to modern man. Lucy is an example of Australopithecus afarensis, because Afars is the area of east-central Africa where she was discovered. Australopithecines evolved about 4,000,000 years ago, towards the beginning of the Pliocene Epoch.
The Aquatic Primate - The Homonid
Anthropologists are not certain when hominids quit growing thick fur, or why they developed an opposable thumb and the "S-curve" of the spine for upright bipedality.
I have a novel concept, an hypothesis, that may account for the upright bipedality and the bare skin of Homo sapiens.
Of course, the reasons of their development is meaningless concerning the cause and course of latter developments.
There is a group of monkeys that is currently undergoing the change to bipedality; an occurrence that I have noticed but many others have not.
They live near a semi-permanent water hole (a calm river, or estuary would do as well).
The trees that grow near the pond drop fruit into the water, especially when the monkeys are shaking the limbs of the tree as they climb for the fruit.
Once the monkeys have cleaned the tree of fruit, the ones that can wade farthest into the water and retrieve fruit will eat more and have a better chance of survival.
Wading is a bipedal activity.
The farther one of the monkeys can wade, the more protection they gain from predators that will not swim for game.
When accidentally falling into the water from the fruit tree, upright bipedality increases the monkey's ability to get out of the water.
I wonder if baby chimpanzees can swim in the manner that infant Humans do? (No)
The ability to walk upright and greater manual dexterity allows them to gather more food, avoid predators, and survive drowning.
Considering hippos, seals, whales, and other amphibious mammals, I imagine that fur would be a hindrance for life in the water, and it was eventually lost by the small pongid as it evolved upright bipedality in its aquatic environment.
Chimpanzees use twigs as tools for catching termites and sea otters use stones as tools.
No doubt that our little pongid could do at least these things.
Fish and crustaceans existed in the larger bodies of water. Occasionally one would be caught and eaten.
As the little aquatic primate added fish and crustaceans to its food intake, the enriched diet allowed for the support of a larger brain.
Brains are limited in size and function by the quality of diet.
In modern humans, the brain uses about 66% of all energy metabolized (doubling physical exercise only increases caloric use by about 33% ... so much for diet and exercise!).
Those early hominids that were born with larger brains could not only survive, but develop a few more rudimentary tools, such as tree limbs and bones for use as clubs.
Bipedality in water, normally requires the arms to be held upright and free of the water.
This allows the hands to be used for holding and using tools, and for the hands themselves to evolve into more specialized use not involved with tree climbing.
The advantages of bipedality and dexterity begin to alter the evolution of the early aquatic hominids.
A stick or bone could be used to club some fish in evaporating ponds.
Eventually a sharp stick or bone would stab into one and start the use of sharp sticks in the process of spearing fish (not so difficult as grasping a slippery fish).
Our hominids probably began the process of creating sharpened sticks.
Tool making in its most primitive form may have begun with these "spear fishing" tools.
Created then is a small naked pongid with upright bipedality, dexterous hands, and rudimentary tool making abilities.
I have no doubt that the evolution of the first hominid was the evolution of the first aquatic primate.
As I finished the above, I read about Kenyanthropus platyops.
A 3.5 million year old skeleton which has been discovered in Kenya by Meave Leaky, wife of Richard.
It was discovered south of Afars in an area called Lake Turkana.
Many are claiming that the theories concerning the ancestry of Mankind have been "thrown out" and the new discovery sets science "on its ear".
This of course shows a complete lack of understanding concerning concept formation (to be discussed later), especially that of scientific theory.
The discovery simply adds to the currently integrted body of knowledge, and lends more evidence to the theory of water being the birthplace of our ancestors.
My hypothesis states the ancestor of Homo sapiens came from a body of water.
It could have been at the end of an ice age when sea levels rose and flooded forests.
It may have occurred in rising surface levels on a large lake, complex of lakes, or an estuary located in an area that was heavily over grown with forests full of pongids.
Hominids lived at the edges of the water and in the trees above it.
They waded into water for food and protection.
The environment changed, and possibly predators evolved to feed upon the small aquatic primates.
Perhaps the waters receded and began to dry, and the aquatic primates would occasionally wander back onto the plains surrounding the waters.
The hominids were forced to venture more often away from the water and back onto the land.
Hominids were restricted to living near water and most often these excursions failed, but one obviously has lasted until today.
The Nile River or one of its prehistoric forebears, is probably the water supply directing the first hominid migrations.
If anthropologists would concentrate on finding the body(ies) of water that existed between 6 and 3 million years ago, central to the current body of fossil findings, we will probably uncover large numbers of fossilized hominid skeletons from the corpses that aggregated in the shallow waters and were covered in mud and silt.
These fossils may have been destroyed by scavengers, or perhaps they are located just off of the coastline in the shallows of the ocean or a lake.
Other primates do not have the tear glands of the aquatic primate.
The mammals that do are the otters and the seals.
This along with upright bipedality, opposable thumbs, the swimming behavior of infants, the loss of body hair, and a brain that requires a food source of higher quality than mere plant life;
leaves only one possible explanation — Hominids are an aquatic primate.
Anthropologists will eventually accept this in the future.
Were I an Anthropologist, it would be the discovery of evidence in support of this hypothesis, that would drive my research.
There is no other mechanism which would lead to the evolution of upright bipedality.
The Gorilla and the Baboon are examples of primate evolution directly to land, and both are furry creatures that do not walk upright.
Australopithecus and Kenyanthropus began about 4 million and lived until about 1 million years ago.
After writing the above; I emailed a scientist that writes for Scientific American. I asked if he had heard of any anthropolgists that had proposed a hypothesis about The Aquatic Primate. He pointed me to Elaine Morgan. In the 1970's, Elaine Morgan not only proposed the concept, but set out on a scientific inquiry. That inquiry has lead to her even deducing the salinity of the marsh or bog where early humans began. I cannot believe that the Anthropologic community has ignored this information. Pseudo-science is required to hide this fact. If we know this critical part of human evolution, we can then scientifically create a standard of value which applies to our lives. We can easily view and deduce the "Science of Evil" (The topic of my writings).
The Aquatic Ape - by Elaine Morgan
Aquatic Ape Hypothesis - by Elaine Morgan
