Is it possible humans could develop gills?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 09:21 PM
link   
I finished watching the movie Waterworld recently and I began to wonder if it is possible for humans to adapt to a water only enviroment and develop gills. Some scientists believe humans already had gills. That we merely adapted away from gills and they "internalized"

Here is an interesting article on that research.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Anyone have any ideas or opinions on the subject?




posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Just a glitch in the DNA could cause any number of thingsto happen. It seems very well possible.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Sorry for off topic, but where "exactly" do you do to post on a topic here ( link ) . I have been looking for ages and all I could find was for " Alternative news"

I do not have breaking alternative news ?

I expected to see something like " Post on Topics" but nothing that even remotely suggests anything similar.

To make it clear, I want to start a new thread on an existing topic. Please help.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by thedeadtruth
 


You go to the top of the page, click board, then on that page, click a topic. Then click New thread for the topic your in to start a new thread or "post"



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Thankyou very much.

Cant believe those instructions are not easy to find.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 10:12 PM
link   
gilles......fascinating......

always wanted to meet a mermaid...

or find all that lost treasure



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by AzoriaCorp
 


go live in the water, stay their for like 10 generations, you might be able to develop some.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 10:41 PM
link   
I don't see why not. I've seen Americans devolving since the 70s, getting more and more stupid and aggressive and selfish. Not to mention fatter. Anyone else?



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by AzoriaCorp
 


My uneducated opinion is that it couldn't be possible unless the human (meaning mammalian, warm-blooded) metabolic functioning changes radically.

Unless the efficiency of gills changes along with the physical affectation, could it support 'normal' activities; or would we need to actually live full-time in the water?

The Waterworld movie seemed to show that the lead character could swim about and get enough oxygen to do whatever he wanted even at significant (implied) depth. I find it hard to accept that those two little slits could provide enough gas exchange to do this.... but then, he was no longer really 'human' and it was science fiction.

[edit on 14-4-2010 by Maxmars]



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 10:51 PM
link   
nevermind....

[edit on 14-4-2010 by Jay Electronica]



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 10:59 PM
link   
hey...what about that movie the "abyss"

that was real wasnt it



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by AzoriaCorp
 


If you look at the movie "waterworld" it is quite possible, but in real life I couldn't tell you if it is possible without genetic enhancement but perhaps if we are flooded once the ice caps melt then we shall see if nature takes its course.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 11:06 PM
link   
My memory may be off, or the teacher didnt know correctly, but I remember being tought in biology that the (human?)fetus has a type of gill behind the ear that closes up before birth, and I asked what if you gave birth underwater, cuz I found the claim to be facinating, and the reply was that they wouldnt close up. Im pretty sure it was human cuz the topic at the time was human reproduction.

Edit to add
It seems they do after a quick google, but the gill slits are not functional, all the oxygen comes from the mother down the umbilical but the baby practices "breathing" in the fliud before it is born.



[edit on 14-4-2010 by polarwarrior]

[edit on 14-4-2010 by polarwarrior]

[edit on 14-4-2010 by polarwarrior]

[edit on 14-4-2010 by polarwarrior]

[edit on 14-4-2010 by polarwarrior]



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by AzoriaCorp
I finished watching the movie Waterworld recently and I began to wonder if it is possible for humans to adapt to a water only enviroment and develop gills. Some scientists believe humans already had gills. That we merely adapted away from gills and they "internalized"

Here is an interesting article on that research.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Anyone have any ideas or opinions on the subject?


I doubt we would develop them unless we lived in the water which we don't, and even if we did, maybe not. Look at whales, they live in the water and have for millions of years, but they never re-developed gills, just ways to hold their breath longer.

But I liked the plot in Seaquest DSV where the character Piccolo had gills surgically added, that seems possible in the future:

lillandra.tripod.com...


He was brought onboard seaQuest through an inmate release program after volunteering to have working gills surgically attached to him.


That's a good show if you're into this kind of thinking.

The other thought I have is that many of us were taught that the human embryo has gill slits during development, but they aren't functional gills:

www.scientificblogging.com...


Early on the embryo develops gill slits (more correctly called pharyngeal arches) in its neck. In a human, the first gill bar (which supports the pharyngeal arch) develops into the lower jaw as well as the ear bones (malleus and the stapes). The gill slits will then close, leaving just one open for the development of the ear opening


This explanation differs from the explanation in your source which says:


parathyroid glands, which regulate the level of calcium in the blood, probably evolved from the gills of fish


So which explanation is right? I don't know. Maybe somehow they both are, but they don't seem to align that well. If anyone can clear up this apparent contradiction with some facts derived from recent research, it would be nice to know which is right.

[edit on 14-4-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 11:10 PM
link   
ive always wondered if fish can see chemtrails

HGpeaceouthaveagreatweekend



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 11:23 PM
link   
The above post isnt letting me add anything to it no matter what I do but I wanted to say this



If the gill-like slits did remain, the fetus would probably be naturally aborted at a very young embryonic stage. The complex feedback system of embryo development requires a successful step by step process. The human genome project will probably address this or other past characteristics eventually



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 11:41 PM
link   
The Wikipedia article is worth reading:
en.wikipedia.org...

Basically it says that there are six pharyngeal arches and that different structures arise from the different arches. So in a sense, BOTH are correct.

And no, I don't believe gill slits would work for us. They do for sharks and fish (even large ones) but you notice that large seagoing mammals do NOT have gills. Can't get enough oxygen through them (extracted from water) to maintain life.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 12:09 AM
link   
A popular theory in Anthropology, although not well known outside the field, is:

"The Aquatic Ape Theory"

It began with Elaine Morgan, then semi-popularized by Desmond Morris.

The theory basically proves (to me, and anyone else with a brain and an open mind) that modern humans are semi-aquatic, and evolved from an aquatic or semi-aquatic mammal.

This theory is much different than the popular theory of humans evolving from a chimpanzee-type-ape that walked-into-the-savanna.

I think the aquatic theory has been pushed away by the elite because it makes humans more unique, and separates us more (evolutionarily-speaking) from the other apes. I think the elites want the masses to consider humans "just like any other ape/animal" when it's not true.

BUT, as for gills. . . NO, but we might have had an ancestor similar to an aquatic mammal, dolphins or seals, for example. Seals and bears split on their evolutionary line probably 25 million years ago. I would say humans and other apes split about 15 million years ago. Even that is much different than what most archaeologists would say, which is 8 to 14 million at most, usually even less (because they want us to think we are just like other apes). Think about on the MSM when they talk of a "missing link" just 2 or 3 million years old. . . the missing link is more likely 15 million years old, and was under-water (harder to preserve).

By the way, I have degrees in anthropology and archaeology.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
My uneducated opinion is that it couldn't be possible unless the human (meaning mammalian, warm-blooded) metabolic functioning changes radically.

Unless the efficiency of gills changes along with the physical affectation, could it support 'normal' activities; or would we need to actually live full-time in the water?

The Waterworld movie seemed to show that the lead character could swim about and get enough oxygen to do whatever he wanted even at significant (implied) depth. I find it hard to accept that those two little slits could provide enough gas exchange to do this.... but then, he was no longer really 'human' and it was science fiction.

[edit on 14-4-2010 by Maxmars]



I said this in another post...If evolution theory was so perfect how does it explain the Apple-Pear or the Mule? We humans have evolved beyond evolution which is now obsolete, so yes we can have gills...hell our ancestors did.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 04:52 AM
link   
Is it possible humans could develop gills?


hmmmm

maybe..

DOWN IN DULCE!!!


-





new topics
top topics
 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join