We are the aquatic primates

It took a lot of work for the technological-industrial culture to disarticulate the biblical patriarchal paradigm about the origin of the human species. Years of disinformation and religious authoritarianism created a culture without critical spirit that resisted hard to be replaced.
The new paradigm, which ultimately supplanted him, was also profoundly authoritarian. The "popes" of the industrial-technological aristocracy defined their dogmas and entrenched themselves to defend them by all means at their disposal. Those who were not or do not agree with the theories of "receipt" were or are considered heretical, ignored, ridiculed, and finally, excommunicated from their positions and excluded in the distribution of research funds.
The theory about human evolution, a key element of the prevailing scientific paradigm, is not an exception to this philosophy.
Several decades ago. scientific authorities decreed that our species originated in the African savannas. For this they produced numerous arguments, including several hundreds of fragments of bone fossils and some tools.
The "savannah" origin of human primates became an article of faith without practically anyone contradicting it.
Actually, since the 1930s, there was someone who dared. He was an English biologist named Allister Hardy who pointed out the contradictions of the "Theory of the Savanna" and proposed an alternative vision: human beings had developed as such in an amphibious stage of their evolution1,2.
In 1960, after almost thirty years of preaching the savannah theory, The New Scientist agreed to publish an article by Hardy entitled "Was man more aquatic in the past?" (March, 1960, pp. 642-645).
More than ten years passed without anyone daring to mention the matter.
Only in 1972 was published a new work that developed in depth the concepts of Hardy, made by a talented Welsh writer.
Her name was Elaine Morga0n and her work "The Descent of Woman" (The Descent of Woman). The title was a play on words contradicting the famous Darwinian book called "The Ascendancy of Man" (The Ascent of Man).
Morgan's book was totally ignored by the scientific "establishment". However, despite this, it did not go unnoticed by many people and gradually it became a "best seller".
Ten years later, Ms. Morgan published another book that expanded on the theme: "The Aquatic Ape" (The Aquatic Ape, 1982). Then followed "The Scars of Evolution" (Scars of Evolution), "The Aquatic Monot, Fact or Fiction" (The Aquatic Ape: Fact or Fiction, 1991). «The Descent of the Child» (The Descent of the Child, 1994) and «The Aquatic Monkey Hypothesis» (The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis, 1997).
All the works of Elaine Morgan had great success in the public. Thirty years later it is very difficult to ignore the persistent writer, who also became an expert in paleo-anthropology.
The arguments of the "Theory of the Aquatic Monkey" are compelling.
Humans are very different from the animals of the savannah and, on the other hand, we have many affinities with amphibian mammals.
Like marine mammals, we have very little hair on the body, we have 10 times more fat than the other primates, and even more at birth. Unlike common fat in other apes, ours is subcutaneous fat that is part of the skin and comes off with it. It is the "white fat" type that does not provide immediate energy and serves rather as thermal insulation and to help to float (as in aquatic mammals). For brain development we require certain substances that are only found in fish and shellfish (for example, eicosoic acid).
We waste our inner water through sweat (large number of sweat glands) and salty tears (nonexistent in other primates), we practice frontal sex, such as seals and cetaceans, we can hold our breath for several minutes (which does not happen in other apes), and swim instinctively at the moment of birth.
On the other hand, our specific diseases and parasites require aquatic phases to develop, and the bipedalism that characterizes us (which is not found in any other saban animal, nor in any primmate, except us) is easily explained if we imagine an existence in the shallow waters
Reprinted of "Peoples, Drugs and Serpents", D.Antón, Piriguazú Ediciones

Context B from "Peoples, Drugs and Serpents", D.Anton, Piriguazú Ediciones

Primates of the Seashore

That day the sea was calm.

The sun cleared wisps of cloud and quickly rose away from the horizon toward the highest point of the blue dome.

Several men were swimming in the bay and regularly diving for food. A few women remained in the shallower areas and every now and then swimmed a few strokes away from the beach and then returned.

Some children were swimming near the women and babies stayed afloat strongly clinging to the mothers long hair.

This people were excellent swimmers. For many thousands of lunar months they approached the shores of the sea and lagoons to search for  food.

They developed great skill with their hands. Their long fingers and opposable thumbs adapted marvelously to the exploration within the sandy and clayey bottoms, where shellfish lives.

The skin on their palms had spread slightly between the fingers to facilitate swimming.

Gradually their bodies had lost their old fur and now appeared smooth, tanned, just covered by a slight, almost invisible hair.

Adult males had their faces and breasts covered by curly hairs that showed their manhood in the eyes of females.

Very young children spent many hours in the water with their mothers. They instinctively swam from birth. The tasks of caring for infants were shared by women and men.

When night came, the group left the water and took refuge under the palm trees growing along the beach.

When the sea was rough, they preferred to remain on land where there was also enough food.  Many plants and animals provided a varied diet which complemented well the usual tasty menu of oysters and crabs.

The trees gave nutritious fruits and some plants had leaves and edible flowers.

There were animals that they could kill and eat.  Some were small and agile, others were large and powerful. But these animal-humans had managed to hunt through cunning ambushes or traps hidden in the foliage.

Some animals were very important because in their droppings special, almost magic, fungi grew.   When they ate them they increased their sensitivity and skill.  They could see much further away, feel extremely mild odours and hear almost inaudible sounds, allowing them to find rodents or other animals inside their deep burrows.

 The mushrooms had other main properties. Under their effect it was possible to hear the voice of the Mother Serpent.  She appeared in visions to explain the past and the future.

These animal-humans were at the same time, creatures of the sea and the forests, they could swim almost as dolphins, they were able to quickly climb the trunks of erect palms and, if necessary, ran quickly on the sands of the beaches.

We do not know how they called themselves. Probably they used different names according to their traditions and places.

We don’t know either how much time has passed since then.

Maybe 3 or 4 million years.

A few bones testify of their existence.

Some scientists have named ​​them with, hard to remember terms:, Australopithecus africanus , Australopithecus robustus ,Australopithecus afarensis , and other similar appellations.

Of those who lived near the beaches, may be the majority, very few remains were preserved.

The only incontrovertible remains are ourselves.

Some define them as primitive, semi-human, a very small and simple precursor to the “real” human beings who were to appear in the future version.

Surely it was not.

The spiritual essence that brings us together as a species  was already there. From them we came to be what we are ..

This happened long ago.

It was the time when humans were still brothers and sisters of animals and plants.

Reviewing dogmas about the origin of the human species
Danilo Anton

The Aquatic Ape theory
From the 1930's, and for the next 5 or 6 decades the couple of Louis and Mary Leakey and later several members of their family, discovered pre-human fossils which were called Australopithecus and along with other anthropologists developed the theory of the origin of human species in Eastern and Southern Africa.
The basic hypothesis was that these anthropoids lived in a savannah environment where they had evolved from the original forest. This hypothesis became a dogma that was taken by the anthropological elite as an indisputable fact.
Other researchers developed a different theory: humans had an amphibious phase which give them several very specific physiological characteristics typical of marine animals. They were Allister Hardy (English marine biologist who for many years did not disclose his theory for fear of losing his university post) and later Elaine Morgan, a writer from Wales, who published several books on the subject (including "The Descent of Woman" and "The Aquatic Ape").

These books included a thorough analysis of an amphibian origin of the human species and were "best seller" in Europe and North America. The academic hierarchy of anthropology ignored or despised this work despite the existence of the strong evidence developed by Morgan and others, including the famous biologist David Attenborough.
Elaine Morgan, who died two years ago was scorned for being "foreign" to the anthropological discipline but his brilliant work allowed to rethink the human origin with a radically different approach and strong scientific bases. Today dogmatic "anthropologists" continue to dominate the subject and try to ignore the "aquatic ape"  but this is becoming increasingly difficult because the hard data of science are showing that we, humans, are who we are, because our distant ancestors lived on the shores of lakes and seas, feeding on aquatic organisms, swimming and diving, for hundreds of thousands of years.

It's worth reading the work of Elaine Morgan, fundamental works of paleoanthropology.
(See also daniloanton.blogspot.com, and the book "Peoples Drug and Snakes" of D.Antón, Piriguazú editions.)

Humans experienced an aquatic phase during their evolution?

The Aquatic ape theory

D.Anton

The theory of human evolution, a key element of the reigning scientific paradigm, is no exception to the authoritarian dogmatism of the official scientific establishment.

Several decades ago academic  authorities decreed that the human species originated in African savannas. To sustain this theory there were numerous arguments, including several hundred fossil bone fragments and some tools.

The “savanna” origin of human primates became an article of faith. Virtually no one dared to contradict it. Until 1930 when an English biologist named Allister Hardy noted some contradictions of the “Theory of the Savannah” and proposed an alternative vision: human beings had developed as such through an amphibious stage of their evolution.

In 1960, after almost thirty years of preaching, The New Scientist agreed to publish an article of his entitled: “Was man more aquatic in the past?” (March, 1960, 642-645 dpi.). During twelve years the paper was ignored.

Only in 1972 the concepts of Hardy were taken by a talented Welsh writer. Her name was Elaine Morgan and she published a book entitled “The Descent of Woman”.

The title was a play on words contradicting the Darwinian famous book called “The Ascent of Man”.

Morgan’s book was completely neglected by the scientific “establishment”. In despite of this disregard, many people payed attention to the idea and the book gradually became a “best seller”.

Ten years after this first book, Ms Morgan published another one on the subject: “The Aquatic Ape” (1982). Then followed “Scars of Evolution” (1990), “The Aquatic Ape: Fact or Fiction” (1991). “The Descent of the Child, 1994) and “The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis” (1997).

All works of Elaine Morgan had great success with the public. Thirty years later it was very hard to ignore the persistent writer, who also became an expert in paleoanthropology.

The arguments of the “Aquatic Ape Theory” were overwhelming.

Humans are very different from savannah animals and, instead, have much affinity with amphibious mammals.

As marine mammals, they have very little body hair, possess 10 times more fat than other primates, and even more at birth.  Unlike ordinary fat in other apes, their fat is subcutaneous belonging to the type called “white fat”. This fat does not provide immediate energy and serves more as thermal insulation and buoyancy (as in aquatic mammals). 
Taken from the book "Peoples, Drugs and Serpents",  Danilo Anton, Piriguazú Ediciones.