So, I know some of you had to watch the program on Animal Planet about mermaids that aired a few days ago. (Or at least I am hoping that some of you have) Interesting stuff huh. Rationally, could there have been a line that evolved in the water rather than on land? I think it's entirely possible, but what about proof. By now we all know that the shows on Animal Planet were hoaxes. But what about all the people throughout history who claim to have seen mermaids? Were they lying, or is it a possibility? I want to hear other people's opinions on the matter. I'm posting this same question in several different places, and I'm just really curious what the majority of people think. I honestly feel that I will get an entirely different answer from my fellow atheists, and I reserve my opinion for later. I don't want to influence anyone from their first instinctual answer. Thank you all for bearing with me and my little experiment.

A similar topic that's already been discussed at great length can be found here:

 

http://www.thinkatheist.com/forum/topics/aquatic-ape-hypothesis ~Admin Edit

Views: 277

Tags: animal, believe, hoax, joke, mermaid, planet, proof, reality, sightings

Comment by matt.clerke on June 2, 2013 at 11:56pm

Rationally, could there have been a line that evolved in the water rather than on land?

Yes, we call them whales. At some point in the past, we shared a common ancestor with them.

Comment by archaeopteryx on June 3, 2013 at 2:24pm

I can't speak for mermaids, but I've seen sketches that demonstrate how - had the Terminator meteor not hit 65 million years ago - the velociraptor could well have evolved into a more efficient (in terms of being able to accomplish intricate tasks), humanesque form, and may have eventually dominated the planet, preventing humans from ever evolving.

Comment by Sagacious Hawk on June 3, 2013 at 2:44pm

Did your source says that eventually would arise a King Koopa (WARNING: do not watch if you are epileptic) who would try to bridge the dimensional gap?

Comment by Gallup's Mirror on June 4, 2013 at 2:16am

I've been reading about AAT since the early 90s, as I find human evolutionary biology a subject of great interest.

The version of AAT propelled by Elaine Morgan never got much traction, mainly because it attempts (rather incongruously) to explain so much with evolutionary events involving water; salty tears and sweat, upright walking, partially webbed hands and feet, the ability to hold the breath, hairlessness, the fat in our skins, the hymen, the philtrum, the descended larynx, the hair on top of our heads, our big brains (from protein-rich seafood diets), and more.

But there are some watered-down (forgive me) versions of AAT in the form of research that examines these adaptations one at a time from other angles. For instance, one paper acknowledges that over 30 explanations exist for bipedal locomotion to evolve in apes and that one of then is wading. Another proposes that the skulls of homo erectus showed signs of adaptation for shallow water diving (similar to those of animals who do it to collect shellfish).

The Elaine Morgan version of ATT is overstatement and conjecture, but there are some evidence-based, non-Morgan versions of ATT that have at least some hint of scientific merit.

Comment

You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service