Simple question that's always floated around in my head.
I'd assume that it would be fish.

Don' gimee none a that "plant" crap.

Human, obviously. It's a lot easier to turn human flesh back into human flesh than any other kind of flesh! :wobbuffet:

Most seafood, lending credence to the "aquatic ape" theory.

NO

MY THEORY IS INFALLIBLE :(

I wonder what primates might look like if they evolved more predatory habits and a stricktly carnivorous diet?

After Man had an answer for Monkeys, but I'm talking about higher primates.


Like, what would we look like if, instead of our ancestors becoming more efficient at tool crafting and problem solving, they became more efficient predators?

Yes, I know tool crafting and problem solving make efficient predators, but I'm talking about a more 'traditional' route.

Fish and arthropods.

They probably would have shifted toward looking like dogs or bears, like most other mammals. Think mandrill and lemur for an idea of the midpoints.

I'm sure you'd want to know, sick cannibal pervert FUCK

What a pity nothing else does. My favorite wacky offshoot of that is the crazy suggestion that all mammals are orginally aquatic animals shaped like embryos that maintained buoyancy with gas bags in their oversized craniums.

There's actually a lot going for the aquatic ape theory.

Our oily, hairless bodies, hooded noses, flat paddly feet(;ast one kind of a stretch, but it works)

And we're also the only ape that can swim.

Human bodies aren't that hairless, there's a lot of variation between individuals and there are aquatic mammals with hair:most seals, sea otters, polar bears. Lots of aquatic animals don't actually have sebaceous glands, and in humans they're more active in males, suggesting some sexual role rather than an adaptation to water. Feet that vaguely resemble paddles don't mean that we used to be aquatic. There's also the issue that the hypothesis is untestable and the proponents of it make lots of uncited claims.

STOP DISCREDITING MY OUTLANDISH CLAIMS

I JUST WANT CANNIBALISTIC FISH PEOPLE

:(

There are factors for it and against it - so yeah, it's a theory. Bit of a jump from that to wacky gasbaghead claim.

Actually it's a hypothesis. Most of the arguments for it are circumstantial at best, there's a reason you won't find any mainstream anthropologists talking about it. Someone has made a nice little website critiquing it here. I wasn't trying to imply that the inflatable head fetuses were part of it, I just like how silly that particular variant of the hypothesis is.