Agnostic.com

3 1

A question about humanity

Were we fish before we were ape like?

shy-atheist 5 Sep 16
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

3 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

Water is older than mankind or animals and water is needed for life. This why we search for water on Mars, for example. If we find water there could have been (or be) life as we know it. It follows that the first lifeforms came out of the water and then onto land. Mankind as we know today is not necessarily a fish nor an ape. It's just that life came from the water and fish of some sort were before us. We are hominids and so are the apes. It does not mean we came from apes but rather means we are in the same family as apes. Way back in time somewhere we all could have been closer in family to a fish.

The strange thing here is that creationists want us to come from 2 people, - Adam and Eve. It would mean that we all got here from incest and this was why people lived so long way back then to populate the earth. This is also why you need god and were born sinners. Incest must be a part of his perfect plan. People ask which came first, the chicken or the egg? Evolution is slow and doesn't work that way. We might as well ask how disease germs got here and was there a "first disease germ?" Let that idea play out the same way you would with biblical creationism. The thinking mind says we humans are not a disease germ but the Cosmos does not make that distinction. It really doesn't care.

1

Tell you what---Amazon has a great little book called "Your Inner Fish." Get it. It's evolution explained for a non-scientist. Yes...we WERE fish-like animals (briefly) before some of us went on to develop into a million different species...most of which (sorry to say) are no longer living.

As a (nearly) 30-year zoo educator, I've heard every question possible about evolution. It's really fairly simple, and I can explain it to a 10-year old, as long as he/she hasn't been tainted by bible babble!

2

no, not directly beforehand. there was a long, long process of evolution between fish coming slowly onto land and small mammals developing slowly into primates. that latter procedure wouldn't even have happened (maybe) had the dinosaurs not become extinct,probably because of the meteor strike at chicxulub

g

Yes...MAYBE.

@LucyLoohoo well, we'll never know without building a time machine, but it's a very STRONG maybe! the small mammals in the dinosaurs' time had no advantage to gain by increasing in size, or anything else but speed and diversity of diet. since the dnos died largely because their food source was destroyed, diversity of diet was a major reason the small mammals lived! without the dinos, it was no longer advantageous to be small, and the predatory field was open for larger beasts to rule, so they became those beasts. it's a very VERY strong maybe!

g

@genessa My ''maybe'' was related to your earlier comment. Little mammals lived during the age of the huge (and small) dinosaurs and they managed well because they could thermoregulate. Conditions in Africa were optimal for primate evolution...aren't we glad?

@LucyLoohoo i had only made one comment. can you be more specific? (and there was more than one reason small mammals managed well; thanks for mentioning one i had forgotten, as that is also important.) conditions in africa may have been optimal for primate evolution but for one exception, but it was a big exception (with sharp teeth, as portrayed).

g

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:180618
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.