Humans evolved from prehistoric shark

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   


Ok I don't know about this one but I thought why not bring it here and let our ATS members chew this one over. I know it's not the supposed "Missing link" but thought this was a interesting read.

Enjoy..

Humans evolved from prehistoric shark

In a significant development in evolutionary studies, scientists have found that human beings evolved from a prehistoric shark which existed more than 300 million years ago. According to a new research, primitive fish named Acanthodes bronni was the common ancestor of all jawed vertebrates on Earth - including humans.

A re-analysis of the fish braincase dating back to 290 million years shows it was an early member of the modern gnathostomes (jaw bearing animals) that include a range of vertebrates from fishes, birds, reptiles, mammals and humans, the Daily Mail reported.




posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 10:59 PM
link   
The problem I have with this theory is that if we evolved from prehistoric sharks then why do sharks still exist today? Would they not have eventually evolved into something else entirely as they supposedly did with us?

A shark to a human is a heck of a stretch.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by TheLieWeLive
 


I thought the whale one was a stretch but this one seems a little too far out there IMO.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by TheLieWeLive
 


I thought the whale one was a stretch but this one seems a little too far out there IMO.


but evolving ultimately from bacteria isn't "too far"?

We all had to start somewhere right?

I've known some "shark like" people...

edit on 16-6-2012 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Well that certainly explains how come there are so many lawyers.And if you trace any species back far enough youll find a common ancestor.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 



I first saw this paper published by University of Chicago Medical Center. Very interesting and important research on early evolutionary transitions in the history of life.
Link
Star for having the stones to bring it to a crowd who still have problems with themselves being a primate let alone related to sharks.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
I've known some "shark like" people...



Leave Lawyers out of this!





posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 12:07 AM
link   
DATELINE 1857: this just in: all mammals evolved from fish!

This 'shark-like human ancestor' was also the ancestor of all primates, possibly even the ancestor of all mammals. And if it wasn't the second of those things, one of its ancestors certainly was.

There is absolutely no news here. This article is just pandering to the creationist gallery, which gets its knickers in a twist every time the evolutionary origins of humanity are mentioned.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 06:03 AM
link   
makes sense to me, life started in the sea so look back far enough and youll find that we evolve from a sea dwelling creature. i always assumed it would be a boring fish but a shark, cool.

and sharks still exist today because when creatures evolve they branch off and evolve into several different creatures, its not like it went from shark to monkey to human. over a long period of time some sharks moved up onto the land and other sharks stayed in the water.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaveNorris
makes sense to me, life started in the sea so look back far enough and youll find that we evolve from a sea dwelling creature. i always assumed it would be a boring fish but a shark, cool.

and sharks still exist today because when creatures evolve they branch off and evolve into several different creatures, its not like it went from shark to monkey to human. over a long period of time some sharks moved up onto the land and other sharks stayed in the water.


Why haven't we evolved to be able to breath both underwater and out of water? The first beings that supposedly walked out of the water would have drowned in the air before it could evolve.
I think the word evolve is a stretch when it comes to describing our past. I think we adapt.

If we did come from sharks then it was genetic manipulation rather than evolving. That's a whole different subject matter though.

Until we find a half human-ish, half shark missing link than evolution from them is all speculation.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax

This 'shark-like human ancestor' was also the ancestor of all primates, possibly even the ancestor of all mammals.


Good thing he evaded the Harpoonasaurus rex.
Yep...that's how close we came to pre-existence extinction.


So, to anyone who can't fathom humans having evolved from a shark-like ancestor...what did you think we were supposed to have evolved from? Do you think primates evolved from sea monkeys? Single-cell DNApes in the primordial goo-tree?



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 



Something is very fishy about this theory.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
Why haven't we evolved to be able to breath both underwater and out of water?

Spending energy to make an apparatus that allows breathing under water takes energy away from elsewhere. Our "recent" ancestors had no need to breath under water, it did not offer a selective advantage. Obviously, natural selection would then favor the individuals that had more energy to spare to essential needs, thus the demise of this ability.


Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
The first beings that supposedly walked out of the water would have drowned in the air before it could evolve.
I think the word evolve is a stretch when it comes to describing our past. I think we adapt.

Obviously, the transformation from the sea to the land did not occur over one generation, but over thousands.


Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
Until we find a half human-ish, half shark missing link than evolution from them is all speculation.

To find such a hybrid would imply that humans evolved directly from fish. Obviously this is not a scenario depicted by modern synthesis. All life on Earth shares a common ancestor in some point of their past. In the light of genetics this is crystal clear.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   
I'm sure scientists make these things up just to test how far the indoctrination has worked.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   
I have a feeling this will be a waste of time, but here we go...


Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
Why haven't we evolved to be able to breath both underwater and out of water? The first beings that supposedly walked out of the water would have drowned in the air before it could evolve.
I think the word evolve is a stretch when it comes to describing our past. I think we adapt.


Evolve = adapt..

Anyhoo, you seem to be unaware of how evolution works. Random genetic mutation in a population. Most of the time, it doesn't work out and kills the organism, other times it confers an advantage, allowing it to breed betteer than it's peers and pass on it's genetic info.

In the case of the first air breathing fish, it was a genetic mutation which first would allow them to carry water with them in sacks onto land, you see this in current fish which can go onto land. This conferred an advantage in coastal area's where you may find yourself out of the water at any time, or perhaps there was plentiful food out of the water which gave the advantage. Over time, those organisms have their own mutations and the water-bearing sacks which the fish had end up being able to draw oxygen from the air itself. So on and so forth. That is how evolution works. There is no design, it is pure luck and random mutation.


Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
If we did come from sharks then it was genetic manipulation rather than evolving. That's a whole different subject matter though.


Why? Genetic mutation, definitely. No need for manipulation. Genes will change over time any for many reasons.


Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
Until we find a half human-ish, half shark missing link than evolution from them is all speculation.


Ridiculous. You clearly do not understand how evolution works



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   


Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
Until we find a half human-ish, half shark missing link than evolution from them is all speculation.


To find such a hybrid would imply that humans evolved directly from fish. Obviously this is not a scenario depicted by modern synthesis. All life on Earth shares a common ancestor in some point of their past. In the light of genetics this is crystal clear.

en.wikipedia.org...

the Land Shark is considered the cleverest of all sharks. Unlike the great white shark, which tends to inhabit the waters and harbors of recreational beach areas, the Land Shark may strike at any place, any time. It is capable of disguising its voice, and generally preys on young, single women.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
The problem I have with this theory is that if we evolved from prehistoric sharks then why do sharks still exist today? Would they not have eventually evolved into something else entirely as they supposedly did with us?

A shark to a human is a heck of a stretch.



Hi, I understand it probably doesn't make much sense when you say it like that. It's not that simple. Humans didn't evolve from the same species of shark we have around today, but from a common ancestor. Like how we didn't evolve from monkeys, but we and monkeys evolved from a common ancestor. Sharks are still around today because they are successful.

I'll give you a simple example (and probably isn't how prehistoric sharks actually evolved to live on land)
You have two groups of sharks that are the same species. They are separated by a land mass (could be anything, maybe an ocean current). On one side of the landmass, the sharks are thriving, eating plenty of fish. On the other side of the land mass, there is a larger predator that feeds on the sharks that go into open ocean. So the second group of sharks ("B") start to die off, until B realize there are fish near the shore. Their large clumsy fins aren't much use when they are in such shallow water, so eventually after thousands of years, mutations that involve smaller fins are favored (because sharks with smaller fins can maneuver easier in shallow water, where the fish are small and quick). Thousands of years after that, their fins are strong enough to pull themselves up to land (a whole other ecosystem they could thrive off of). Natural selection favors those that can hop around on land. Meanwhile, the sharks in group A have barely changed at all, because they don't have the pressures of a larger predator attacking them. They are successful. So now we have sharks and salamander things.

Once again, that is a fictitious story and purely for example. I'm sure with a bit of research you could find scientists' best estimates as to why the certain species evolved to survive on land.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
The problem I have with this theory is that if we evolved from prehistoric sharks then why do sharks still exist today? Would they not have eventually evolved into something else entirely as they supposedly did with us?

A shark to a human is a heck of a stretch.


How on earth did this post get 3 stars? It screams ignorance, just like the "If humans evolved from monkeys, why are they still monkeys". They didn't evolve from modern day sharks or chimps. Humans and sharks share an ancient ancestor that goes way back.

That's almost as bad as saying, "Why haven't they found a half human half shark fossil, if this is true". Learn your basics before attempting to discuss science. Some some respect.

Just read your second post and you said exactly that! Pick up a science book, GEEZ.
edit on 17-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive

Originally posted by DaveNorris
makes sense to me, life started in the sea so look back far enough and youll find that we evolve from a sea dwelling creature. i always assumed it would be a boring fish but a shark, cool.

and sharks still exist today because when creatures evolve they branch off and evolve into several different creatures, its not like it went from shark to monkey to human. over a long period of time some sharks moved up onto the land and other sharks stayed in the water.


Why haven't we evolved to be able to breath both underwater and out of water? The first beings that supposedly walked out of the water would have drowned in the air before it could evolve.
I think the word evolve is a stretch when it comes to describing our past. I think we adapt.

If we did come from sharks then it was genetic manipulation rather than evolving. That's a whole different subject matter though.

Until we find a half human-ish, half shark missing link than evolution from them is all speculation.



adapt, evolve, same thing really. there are fish today that can come on land for a period of time, there are also amphibians (can live in both water and on land).

all life came from the sea, first it was simple life that evolved into plants. so either we evolved from some form of fish or we evolved from plants, i know wich one sounds more likely to me.


and the first person to mention creationism officially has the IQ of primordial slime



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
The problem I have with this theory is that if we evolved from prehistoric sharks then why do sharks still exist today? Would they not have eventually evolved into something else entirely as they supposedly did with us?

A shark to a human is a heck of a stretch.


Prehistoric Shark =/= Modern Shark (lots of subspecies)





top topics
 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join