Este tópico está presentemente marcado como "inativo" —a última mensagem tem mais de 90 dias. Reative o tópico publicando uma resposta.
I think humans did not evolve as anthropologists tell us on the African savanna as scavengers turned hunters but rather at the shore as beachcombers turned fishers. Anthropologists say there were several different anthropoid species present on the savanna. Having learned to walk upright they then went extinct being eaten by lions and eagles. Only the one that evolved into humans survived.
I think the human ancestors didn’t become extinct just like the other anthropoids on the
savanna because they were not there. They were at the beach, in marshes, estuaries and river deltas where they finished evolving into humans on a diet of seafood. This is why a seafood diet is so healthy. Because we evolved where fresh water was plentiful we did not develop the ability to go all day without it as the forest apes can. Another indication of this may involve the need for iodine. As you move inland further and further, iodine deficient symptoms increase. A study that reveals this occurs more often among human populations than adjacent local animal populations would support this supposition by suggesting humans in their evolution never needed to adjust to environments containing less iodine than that available at the shore.
The other day I was watching some chipmunks playing. I thought, “Why not them?” There are other creatures that I’m sure are just as smart as the early human ancestors, they have hands and some use tools. The main difference then is that the human ancestors learned to walk on two legs. The radical physical changes necessary for walking upright seemed to be something impossible until I consider that they evolved around water. Having to move through different depths of water they would be motivated to walk on their hind legs while the buoyancy of the water would assist in this task. After about a zillion years the anatomy of the pre-humans would adjust to this upright posture until they would be able to walk effortlessly without the support of water. This constant wetness I think would encourage the loss of bodily hair.
Having learned to walk upright in an aquatic environment how did the other anthropoids end up on the savanna? Perhaps the river creating their fortunate environment suddenly changed course as the result of an earthquake or volcano. They might then have followed the dry river bed inland. Instead of the beach their aquatic paradise might have been provided by an inland sea or lake that dried up again stranding them on the savanna to be eaten by lions and eagles.
From their beach locations, once they were equipped to do so, humans would have spread
worldwide by following the cost line and inland by moving first up rivers and then following streams, staying close to plentiful water supplies and their resources. As situations and seasons demanded they would have adapted their fishing tools to hunting.
However there is almost zero evidence to support it, and many of it's claims are contradicted by known evidence - a detailed list can bve found here it's well worth reading.