Maybe it's the other way around. Life seems to have started in the sea and there's an old theory than man came out of the sea. The major evidence in support of this, as I remember it, is that our spines are weaker than they should be. Had we evolved on land we should be stronger. In the sea however, gravity doesn't affect our spines as much.
That's a possibility which could go hand in hand with the aquatic ape theory. Still, how would it explain the pelvis of a biped?
In fact seals have pelvis and also whales do, they are obviously modified but still pelvic bones
have a look at this link
I think we must not forget that if aquatic ape theory is correct and if indeed there are mermaids their pelvis would be significantly like human pelvis then pelvis of seals, whales or dolphins because they developed from bipedal animals unlike seals, whales, and dolphins whose ancestors walked on all four.
Aren't seals and whales' pelvis much slimmer then the ones from their all fours ancestors though? Isn't a dog or wolf's pelvis wider?
In the image of the being's pelvis shown at 44:40, you can see what seems to be a wide pelvis, although I'm aware that there aren't any other bones around for us to make a comparison and understand its real width. The pelvis in the image is described by the annalist as the pelvis of a biped, and there was no mention to an adaptation to a marine being's pelvis.
On the left side of the pelvis (right side from the viewer's perspective) there seems to be a femur (thigh bone) attached, although I could well be misinterpreting the picture. But if that is indeed a femur, it is something for me hard to explain. You can still say these are the remaining traces of what was once one of the two legs, but much more data would be needed for a clearer and convincing picture. And from that image these would be pretty big traces, at least from what it seems to me.
I don't have any alternative suggestions really, only doubts, and I certainly lack the knowledge to extrapolate much further.
Maybe the pelvis does make sense and I'm just not seeing it.
I had the same thought but there could be many reasons for this.
Definitely, it is just that for me it had a strong taste of sensationalism. Subjective, of course.
I didn't see anything at all in those boys footage, it was the made for T.V. thing, osit. They didn't even show the picture that the boys supposedly drew, and even if they did I would still take it with a grain of salt since this is a documentary put out by a mainstream media outlet, and I have no way of independently verifying the date of the sketch, and also since the scientists materials were confiscated, I am just left with probabilities.
That caught my attention as well. Also, a boy that young would have to be relatively skilled with his pencil in order to produce a drawing of a head that would accurately match their reproduction of the skull. Mmmm...maybe I'm nitpicking, although truth be said, that was the first thing that crossed my mind at that moment.