It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Somewhere around 50 million years ago, just before India struck Asia, it pushed the seafloor up, forming a warm shallow sea called Tethys that teemed with plankton life and lured some early wolf-like creatures back to the aquatic life. This is the apparent origin of the sea mammals we call cetaceans, which include whales and dolphins. First the wolf-like creature reverted to a sort of hairy crocodile amphibian stage, then they took seriously to the seas, giving up fur and feet for smooth skins and flippers. Pinnipeds -- `fin-feet' -- also became aquatic mammals, such as sea lions and walruses.
However, why couldn't an ape like creature de-evolve into a puffer fish
Originally posted by melatonin
Depends how you define complexity. How do we measure it?
Is a dolphin less complex than its closest ancestor? Is a snake less complex than a lizard? Is an ape less complex than a monkey? Is a blind shrimp less complex than a sighted shrimp? Is a human less complex than lower mammal?
In each case we could view some degree of complexity ---> simplicity (e.g., limb to fin; tail to no-tail; legs to legless; sight to blind; cellulose-digesting caecum to human appendix).
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by ben91069
the entropy argument has been refuted and refuted and refuted...
alright, entropy within the universe as a whole works... but on the scale of our teeny tiny terrestrial system... evolution makes sense.