We are descended from fish?

Conspirator
Posts: 1374
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 8:10 pm

PostThu May 05, 2011 10:44 pm » by Shemagh


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13278255

I fancy myself as a guppy! How about you?

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 924
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:25 pm

PostThu May 05, 2011 11:08 pm » by Crazynutsx


nope!
didnt happen!
Image

Conspirator
Posts: 1374
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 8:10 pm

PostThu May 05, 2011 11:15 pm » by Shemagh


crazynutsx wrote:nope!
didnt happen!



What didn't happen! hiccups?

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 924
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:25 pm

PostFri May 06, 2011 12:02 am » by Crazynutsx


we didnt decend from fish
Image

Conspirator
Posts: 1374
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 8:10 pm

PostFri May 06, 2011 12:10 am » by Shemagh


crazynutsx wrote:we didnt decend from fish


Knew what you meant mate, just kidding!

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2220
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 12:54 am

PostFri May 06, 2011 12:18 am » by Smokeydog


rgr most life camp out of the water and yes we do have gills and a tail at the very start, i take it u watched it aswell then lol
http://www.youtube.com/user/smokeydogsmokey

When people are sat on something you want you make them an enemy

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 5174
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:36 pm

PostFri May 06, 2011 12:21 am » by Tuor10


shemagh wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13278255

I fancy myself as a guppy! How about you?


There is no tangible evidence to suggest that we directly evolved from fish.
The same argument can be applied to the ape theory as well.
Man has more genetic flaws than any other species on the planet. If man evolved in a linear fashion we would still possess many inherent genetic traits that related back through our evolution.
The fact that we cannot breath under water - or have no physical features that allow us to swim without the need for full bodily exertion - goes against the principles of evolution, for we would still possess the best parts of our former evolutionary state, for example - the ability to breath easier under water.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2220
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 12:54 am

PostFri May 06, 2011 12:26 am » by Smokeydog


tuor10 wrote:
shemagh wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13278255

I fancy myself as a guppy! How about you?


There is no tangible evidence to suggest that we directly evolved from fish.
The same argument can be applied to the ape theory as well.
Man has more genetic flaws than any other species on the planet. If man evolved in a linear fashion we would still possess many inherent genetic traits that related back through our evolution.
The fact that we cannot breath under water - or have no physical features that allow us to swim without the need for full bodily exertion - goes against the principles of evolution, for we would still possess the best parts of our former evolutionary state, for example - the ability to breath easier under water.


i disagree we had gills when in the womb and we have a tail bone which would suggest at some point we had a tail snakes used to have legs you know until they evolved them in ( can still be seen in some species if you cut them open)

so id say we evolved from the water way way way back and the fact that we cant breathe underwater now only means we have evolved past that and we have a respiratory system to breath on land much more efficient when living on land
http://www.youtube.com/user/smokeydogsmokey

When people are sat on something you want you make them an enemy

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 5174
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:36 pm

PostFri May 06, 2011 12:39 am » by Tuor10


smokeydog wrote:
tuor10 wrote:
shemagh wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13278255

I fancy myself as a guppy! How about you?


There is no tangible evidence to suggest that we directly evolved from fish.
The same argument can be applied to the ape theory as well.
Man has more genetic flaws than any other species on the planet. If man evolved in a linear fashion we would still possess many inherent genetic traits that related back through our evolution.
The fact that we cannot breath under water - or have no physical features that allow us to swim without the need for full bodily exertion - goes against the principles of evolution, for we would still possess the best parts of our former evolutionary state, for example - the ability to breath easier under water.


i disagree we had gills when in the womb and we have a tail bone which would suggest at some point we had a tail snakes used to have legs you know until they evolved them in ( can still be seen in some species if you cut them open)

so id say we evolved from the water way way way back and the fact that we cant breathe underwater now only means we have evolved past that and we have a respiratory system to breath on land much more efficient when living on land


I am not disputing that we have some physical traits that might relate us back to part of our primordial state; but I don't think we are the product of direct evolution.
At some point, a major aberration occurred that fundamentally changed us.
Take our DNA for example. Junk DNA exists only in humans. Science has not real explanation for this. IMO the junk DNA has been put there and is not a direct consequence of evolution.
Thus, humans seem to be a mix of natural evolution and something else. Whatever it is, it makes us far more unique than any other species on the planet. That in itself should be reason for interest.

Conspirator
Posts: 3730
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 9:57 pm
Location: Scotland

PostFri May 06, 2011 12:52 am » by Muchtyman


Too good to miss up.................. :twisted:



Next

  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook