So if we come from the sea, why didn't we stay there?

UxoriousMagnus
As far as the actual thread is about though....so only the smallest, weakest who were afraid and starving off decided to take to the shores? The smallest ..... weakest........got it

Think about it. The strong and powerful don't need to be pioneers, because they're fine exactly where they are.
The stongest motive for most migrations in the history of life is probably "We're not doing well here, let's try somewhere else". But once they're out of reach of the competition, they can feed and get stronger.
Why do you find this idea so objectionable?

DISRAELI

UxoriousMagnus
As far as the actual thread is about though....so only the smallest, weakest who were afraid and starving off decided to take to the shores? The smallest ..... weakest........got it

Think about it. The strong and powerful don't need to be pioneers, because they're fine exactly where they are.
The stongest motive for most migrations in the history of life is probably "We're not doing well here, let's try somewhere else". But once they're out of reach of the competition, they can feed and get stronger.
Why do you find this idea so objectionable?

edit on 14-1-2014 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)

*************************************************************************************************
because this goes against the premise of "survival of the fittest" ....in your personal model it is "survival of the weakest and smallest".....

it is a good thing that evolution happens quickly before all the weak small ones die off.....if it took millions of years or something then they would all be dead and eaten.....so your model also require fast evolution.....I guess

DISRAELI

Why do you find this idea so objectionable?

edit on 14-1-2014 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)

It's cognitive dissonance. He has already convinced himself he knows what he's talking about and his perspective will not change.

reply to post by OpenEars123







All other animals have adjusted to the conditions and the changes in the weather to each season.
Humans haven't yet adapted to this planet.
We wouldn't last long walking around naked.

We need clothes and footwear, whereas animals don't.
I don't think we came from the sea.
I don't know WHERE we come from.......but I don't think it's here.

UxoriousMagnus

DISRAELI

UxoriousMagnus
As far as the actual thread is about though....so only the smallest, weakest who were afraid and starving off decided to take to the shores? The smallest ..... weakest........got it

Think about it. The strong and powerful don't need to be pioneers, because they're fine exactly where they are.
The stongest motive for most migrations in the history of life is probably "We're not doing well here, let's try somewhere else". But once they're out of reach of the competition, they can feed and get stronger.
Why do you find this idea so objectionable?

edit on 14-1-2014 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)

*************************************************************************************************
because this goes against the premise of "survival of the fittest" ....in your personal model it is "survival of the weakest and smallest".....

it is a good thing that evolution happens quickly before all the weak small ones die off.....if it took millions of years or something then they would all be dead and eaten.....so your model also require fast evolution.....I guess

Intelligence is a part of being the fittest. Why do you think we are at the top of the food chain? It certainly isn't because of claws or sharp teeth lol....it's because of intelligence.

paradox

UxoriousMagnus

DISRAELI

UxoriousMagnus
As far as the actual thread is about though....so only the smallest, weakest who were afraid and starving off decided to take to the shores? The smallest ..... weakest........got it

Think about it. The strong and powerful don't need to be pioneers, because they're fine exactly where they are.
The stongest motive for most migrations in the history of life is probably "We're not doing well here, let's try somewhere else". But once they're out of reach of the competition, they can feed and get stronger.
Why do you find this idea so objectionable?

edit on 14-1-2014 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)

*************************************************************************************************
because this goes against the premise of "survival of the fittest" ....in your personal model it is "survival of the weakest and smallest".....

it is a good thing that evolution happens quickly before all the weak small ones die off.....if it took millions of years or something then they would all be dead and eaten.....so your model also require fast evolution.....I guess

Intelligence is a part of being the fittest. Why do you think we are at the top of the food chain? It certainly isn't because of claws or sharp teeth lol....it's because of intelligence.

so....how did these small weak fish all become so smart at the same time and still survive for millions of years while the tried to figure out how to grow a leg.....I am off for now.....I just don't get why people believe in evolution....I'm not saying they have to believe in creation but evolution just seems so silly.......always boxing itself into corners. Nothing against you personally

paradox

DISRAELI

Why do you find this idea so objectionable?

edit on 14-1-2014 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)

It's cognitive dissonance. He has already convinced himself he knows what he's talking about and his perspective will not change.

and yours will?

reply to post by UxoriousMagnus

I think my premise accords very well with "survival of the fittest".
I'm suggesting that these ancestral animals were not "the fittest" in the Ocean environment and were not surviving, so they side-stepped the fight by shifting over to a different environment and developing characteristics which made them "the fittest" on land.

"The fittest" is not necessarily the same as "the strongest". It really means "best suited to cope with a particular environment".
Fpr that matter, the human race itself is weak and feeble compared with many large animals. We have prospered by side-stepping the whole "physical strength" fight altogether and tackling the problem from another angle.

so....how did these small weak fish all become so smart at the same time and still survive for millions of years while the tried to figure out how to grow a leg.....I am off for now.....I just don't get why people believe in evolution....I'm not saying they have to believe in creation but evolution just seems so silly.......always boxing itself into corners. Nothing against you personally

It was forced adaptation, kind of like the African gorillas who disarm poacher traps. When you are around something enough, you are forced to adapt to survive. Do you see a majority of ocean predators in shallow coastal waters?

the only corners we are boxed in to are the ones you make up in your head.

UxoriousMagnus

paradox

DISRAELI

Why do you find this idea so objectionable?

edit on 14-1-2014 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)

It's cognitive dissonance. He has already convinced himself he knows what he's talking about and his perspective will not change.

and yours will?

If your points were convincing and not so easily countered, then yes.

reply to post by OpenEars123


Because "we" got hungry.

Perhaps the first organism that made the transition was simply hungry... See the snakehead fish.

Not only can they breathe atmospheric air, but they can also survive on land for up to four days, provided they are wet, and are known to migrate up to 1/4 mile on wet land to other bodies of water by wriggling with their body and fins.

Link, yeah yeah wiki

Over time, adapting and evolving to be able to live/move/survive on land...

Perhaps it was a "decision" by an organism to want to get out of the water to hunt because its natural prey was exhausted. Again, over time jumping out of water..

Perhaps an organism kept washing ashore for such an extended amount of time that they adapted and evolved to survive out of the water indefinitely...

Are we going to poopoo this topic with semantics? ALL things adapt or die. Why are there Great Whites now? Because the oceans can't support Megalodons anymore. ALL THINGS must adapt/evolve or die.

lambros56
reply to post by OpenEars123

 

All other animals have adjusted to the conditions and the changes in the weather to each season.
Humans haven't yet adapted to this planet.
We wouldn't last long walking around naked.

We need clothes and footwear, whereas animals don't.
I don't think we came from the sea.
I don't know WHERE we come from.......but I don't think it's here.

I hear this claim a lot and it is patently absurd. We share a commonality with everything else on the planet.

We are made of the same basic stuff (carbon atoms arranged in similar ways, over and over) as everything else here. DNA, RNA, amino acids, proteins etc. These things are common to all life on Earth. We have segments in our dna which are common to grasses and elm trees, to spiders and horses and starfish.. We breathe nitrogen/oxygen just like almost everything else on our planet that breathes, we metabolise the same food molecules and our body plans are eerily similar to all other vertebrates(we are bilaterally symmetrical, we have a spinal chord, two legs, two arms, a head with a mouth and two eyes at one end and our arses at the other. Roughly the same organs, muscles and bones in similar placement etc etc).

Life on other planets will be subject to the laws of evolution, and with an infinite variety of environmental conditions and different elements and compounds which are abundant on each planet, the chances of us being from another planet and yet sharing all of the above (and much more) is as close to zero as makes no odds.

reply to post by UxoriousMagnus

The fish issue in evolution is a problem because all of the fish fossils look like.....well.....fish. There is no evidence of any sort of evolution within this specie.

ahhem......posted yesterday fossil evidence of


How We Got On Land, Bone by Bone

reply to post by UxoriousMagnus

because this goes against the premise of "survival of the fittest" ....in your personal model it is "survival of the weakest and smallest".....

Evolution is about survival of the species I hope you can see the difference. I will tell you it isn't about the individual.

michael1888
Maybey we didnt come out of the water, science has been wrong before.

There is a very strange theory out there about "andrewsarkus" the pig that became the mammal whale (dna corralations), pig becomes oceatic and evolves into a whale specie. Why couldnt two concurring life forms evolve at the same time, chicken or the egg first niether as both developed at the same time and for the same purpose to create a being. Is this an urban myth? Im ready for the laughter (I am currently a refugee from the RFT forum so do not know your protocals).

In case it hasn't been brought up yet, google the ''aquatic ape hypothesis'', which among other things suggest that humans turned relatively hairless adapting to a watery environment. I don't buy it, but it makes for a pretty interesting read.

UxoriousMagnus
reply to post by OpenEars123

 

The fish issue in evolution is a problem because all of the fish fossils look like.....well.....fish. There is no evidence of any sort of evolution within this specie. Also, like you said....if there was evolution....then it would be into another like/kind specie....not from a fish to an air breathing human. But I will get attacked for even pointing this small thing out.

No, you won't get attacked for pointing out a small thing, you'll get ated for not understanding the basics of biology let alone evolution. As for no evidence for Evolution in fish... see, fish didn't leave the seas and all of a sudden voila! fully developed humans. First came amphibians, creatures with lungs that were still dependent on water for survival, perhaps your seen them once or twice. Salamanders? newts?

On this note too....and sorry because it is a bit off topic but.....as far as carbon dating goes.....it is my understanding that we only have equipment that can read out to about 50,000 years. Science further tells us that diamonds are some of the oldest substance on earth but we can still read c-14 in them. This means they are 50,000 years or younger.

No that's not correct at all. Here's a good link that addresses common misconceptions about carbon dating. ncse.com...
And here's one about diamonds
nature.berkeley.edu...

Back to the subject.....carbon dating fossils reveals c-14 levels as well.....which again....our instruments can only read back to 50,000 years and this is questionable because we have to us c-12 levels to calculate the c-14 levels as c-12 levels are constant but scientists have to essentially guess at how much c-12 was in the environment at that time to then get a good read on the c-14.

You can't carbon date fossils. The minerals are no longer calcium and have been replaced. The is no carbon in a fossil. You can carbon date organic material found in the same strata as the remains but not the remains themselves.

Having said all that.....if we can read any c-14.....it is 50,000 years or younger. If we can't read any c-14 then we have no idea how old it is......but we always find c-14.

Are you telling me the only dating method you are aware of is C-14? You're off on a few salient points. First C-14 can detect carbon older than 50,000 years. You can only get a reliable date out to about 40,000 years though. There are a Multitude of dating techniques available that can give us days as recently as 1000 years ago to as old as billions. I'm not a big fan of wiki but his gives a decent overview if s se radiometric dating methods- en.wikipedia.org...

sk0rpi0n
In case it hasn't been brought up yet, google the ''aquatic ape hypothesis'', which among other things suggest that humans turned relatively hairless adapting to a watery environment. I don't buy it, but it makes for a pretty interesting read.

I think it's been thoroughly debunked and it never passed the peer review process. It's not taken seriously at all by anthropologists.

ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

sk0rpi0n
In case it hasn't been brought up yet, google the ''aquatic ape hypothesis'', which among other things suggest that humans turned relatively hairless adapting to a watery environment. I don't buy it, but it makes for a pretty interesting read.

I think it's been thoroughly debunked and it never passed the peer review process. It's not taken seriously at all by anthropologists.

skOrpiOn did not say he bought the idea, he said the opposite; just gave out information to be read and determined by whatever individual takes a look at it. As far as anthropologists go; a better moniker would be anthro-apologists. As far as determining the origin of this specie 'human' have not been convincing using an evolution model only. Insects actually rule this planet which I find particularly funny.

reply to post by vethumanbeing


What then would your counter hypothesis be if the anthro-apologists have it all wrong?