If Star Trek were to introduce another massive Empire...

Post by **Tsukiyumi** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:47 pm

Yeah, I said it was far-fetched; I tried to up with the most reasonable explanation for a purely aquatic race with technology. If humans hadn't abandoned our semi-aquatic coastal existance, I imagine we wouldn't be as far along as we are. Fire is probably the most important reason we left the water again in the first place.

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 3:02 pm

Plenty of creatures leave the water and don't get fire.

Our leaving it was due to a combination of factors, but fire was likely the product of that, not the reason.

Jim · Post by **Jim** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 3:13 pm

How about the Shadows and the Vorlon... They went "beyond the rim" so why couldn't that be the ST universe

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 3:17 pm

Because that would result in a massive lawsuit.

Jim · Post by **Jim** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 3:22 pm

Rochey wrote:Because that would result in a massive lawsuit.

Shove the lawyers into the Shadow vessels as processing units...

Post by **Tsukiyumi** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 3:26 pm

Rochey: I don't know. Indications are that we were making substantial evolutional progress towards being an aquatic race.

Examples being: humans actually have more hair than a chimpanzee, except ours is about ten times thinner (and in locations best for minimizing heat loss). Some people are still born with webbed fingers and toes. Our big toe had already migrated on our feet, starting to turn into a flipper, perhaps; better for swimming than tree-climbing. And, of course, we are the only large primate capable of swimming at all (the others would sink like a rock due to dense musculature).

It seems reasonable that the discovery of fire (and the subsequent discovery that it doesn't work in water) might have prompted us to abandon our aquatic lifestyle. Then again, maybe the water just got too freaking cold at the start of the last ice age...

Post by **Mikey** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 3:57 pm

Most of those evolutionary traits can be desribed as being due to a more terrestrial (as opposed to arboreal) existence, and being bipedal more often and for longer periods. I think that once our primordial amphi-reptilian ancestors first crawled out of the water, we were land-based to stay.

Monroe · Post by **Monroe** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:12 pm

Tsukiyumi wrote:Rochey: I don't know. Indications are that we were making substantial evolutional progress towards being an aquatic race.

Examples being: humans actually have more hair than a chimpanzee, except ours is about ten times thinner (and in locations best for minimizing heat loss). Some people are still born with webbed fingers and toes. Our big toe had already migrated on our feet, starting to turn into a flipper, perhaps; better for swimming than tree-climbing. And, of course, we are the only large primate capable of swimming at all (the others would sink like a rock due to dense musculature).

It seems reasonable that the discovery of fire (and the subsequent discovery that it doesn't work in water) might have prompted us to abandon our aquatic lifestyle. Then again, maybe the water just got too freaking cold at the start of the last ice age...

There is a theory that the missing link is a kind of aquatic ape. It would explain a lot. Just no one has found an aquatic ape skeleton.

Granitehewer · Post by **Granitehewer** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:14 pm

If anyone wants to read up on hominid evolution, arboreal adaptations, or anything on our forebears from proconsol africanus to Australopithecus afarensis to the man on the sidewalk, this aquatic-man theory is worse than pseudoscience, and is anatomically blasphemous, regarding the phalanges.....no taxonomist or anthropologist worth his salt would suggest an aquatic missing link ape........anyone who does has dubious qualifications and no evolutionary acumen, surely

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:23 pm

Tsukiyumi wrote:Rochey: I don't know. Indications are that we were making substantial evolutional progress towards being an aquatic race.

None of those factors indicate evolutionary changes of an aquatic nature, in fact they are indicators of our terrestrial nature.
Ancient 'humans' would have had far thicker hair than we do now.
The location of our toes is for balance due to out bipedal nature (there's a reason cats or dogs can't stand bipedaly for more than a few seconds).
And people being born with webbed hands is a genetic anomaly caused by our amphibious past, not future.
What possible evolutionary triggers would cause humans to become more adapted to water in our current existance?

There is a theory that the missing link is a kind of aquatic ape. It would explain a lot. Just no one has found an aquatic ape skeleton.

I assure you that there is no sceintific evidence for this.

Post by **Mikey** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:23 pm

Agreed - all evidence, as I mentioned, points to those changes from ape to hominid occuring due to a more terrestrial and larger-brained existence.

Granitehewer · Post by **Granitehewer** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:30 pm

Mainstream established Paleoanthropology hasn't seriously given the aquatic ape hypothesis merit, with its focus on the Pliocene-Pleistocene littoral diaspora of Hominids, either in the Rift Valley or on the Pacific Oceanic coastal plains. The number of refutations is far more weighty and adheres to science far more than the AAH proponents

Monroe · Post by **Monroe** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:41 pm

Granitehewer wrote:If anyone wants to read up on hominid evolution, arboreal adaptations, or anything on our forebears from proconsol africanus to Australopithecus afarensis to the man on the sidewalk, this aquatic-man theory is worse than pseudoscience, and is anatomically blasphemous, regarding the phalanges.....no taxonomist or anthropologist worth his salt would suggest an aquatic missing link ape........anyone who does has dubious qualifications and no evolutionary acumen, surely

Hey I didn't say I believe in it

There is some evidence though. Webbed fingers and feet are much more common than tails when tails are closer to our genetic ancestry than webbed didgets are. Humans, as someone pointed out, are also a lot more capable of swimming than any other primate. Humans are capable of surviving in anaboric (i think that's the word, lack of oxygen) environments for brief periods of time.

Sure the likelyhood of aquatic apes is pretty poor, and even more so for them to be our ancestors and not just another failed hommid but there is a tiny bit of evidence for it.

I would buy though that there was either an aquatic humanoid or the evolutionary start of one that either died out or evolution changed its mind. I don't think we descended from them though as there is plenty of evidence against it.

Post by **Tsukiyumi** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:42 pm

I suppose. I just like the ocean way too much for me to believe it to be a coincidence.

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:47 pm

There is some evidence though. Webbed fingers and feet are much more common than tails when tails are closer to our genetic ancestry than webbed didgets are.

Actualy, all humans have a tail bone.

Humans, as someone pointed out, are also a lot more capable of swimming than any other primate.

Have you ever seen someone with no experience in water falling into a deep river or off a boat? The reason we are able to swim is due to our relative lightness, and the fact that we can train ourselves to move our bodies in certain ways.

Humans are capable of surviving in anaboric (i think that's the word, lack of oxygen) environments for brief periods of time.

So is any creature. It's called holding your breath.