Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Humans evolved from prehistoric shark

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

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)



Do you know what a theory means?
Evolution, it's a theory.
Creationism, it's a theory.
Your science book on the subject, a theory.

Quit pretending you have a clue yourself. I didn't say you had to take what I wrote and believe it calling it "ignorance".
You're the type that can't debunk it so you attack instead.
There is no need coming into the argument swinging.




posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   
I was swimming at the pool a month ago and figured we had to evolve from something aquatic at some point.
it comes very naturally, and I quickly learned to swim half the length of the pool underwater.
we are specially adapted to swimming (at least most of us, ex; Rodney King) so it must have been inherited.

I don't doubt we came from anything in the water since our planet used to be a water planet and still is in most respects, we simply adapted to the land, no need for water anymore, nor is breathing under it necessary.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by yourmaker
 


Yeah but...

One would think we'd be closer to Dolphins they being mammals and large brained etc instead of a Shark....




posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 06:54 PM
link   
To everyone who responded to my earlier posts. I don't claim to know for sure. I never will claim that.
I believe both creationism and evolution are possible.
I don't ride the fence, i believe they both apply.
One or the other doesn't answer everything but both together does.
Is it a random genetic mutation or deliberate altercation?
It's okay not to agree with me but getting angry over it and having snide remarks is ridiculous.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by yourmaker
 


Yeah but...

One would think we'd be closer to Dolphins they being mammals and large brained etc instead of a Shark....



what if the dolphin and shark came from a single ancestor source at some point and branched off into seperate species earlier or later? I don't know i'm just shooting that idea out my ass lol



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


But if you read what you posted:




...common ancestor of all jawed vertebrates on Earth...


This would include dolphins. Also, dolphins still exist.

Eons. It takes a very, very, very, very, very incomprehensibly long time for evolution to occur. A million years is an extremely long time, in human context. We live, what, 100 years at best? That's a drop of water in an ocean. How can anyone possibly fathom a million years or 100 million or a billion.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
Evolution, it's a theory.
Creationism, it's a theory.

Creationism is not a theory. Creationism is just an idea. For it to be theory it would need to propose an explanation that is consistent with empirically obtained data (like the theory of evolution). It would need to be falsifiable and make verifiable predictions (like the theory of evolution).


Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
Do you know what a theory means?

Do you now know? If not, here's another definition: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena..



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Considering the average person can't hold his breath underwater for that long would seem that there is a big flaw in that theory.

Being able to swim could be more due to the nature of being mammals and how we are born in this world and a mothers womb.

Amoniotic fluid.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by TheLieWeLive
 





Do you know what a theory means?



I know what theory means but your idea sounds like something new to me ( creationism a theory)

Do tell



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
Considering the average person can't hold his breath underwater for that long would seem that there is a big flaw in that theory.


Not at all. We've simply adapted to terrestrial environments and shed our aquatic adaptations through millions of years of natural selection.




Being able to swim could be more due to the nature of being mammals and how we are born in this world and a mothers womb.


Eggs have amniotic fluids as well, so we're not any different in this regard. It's better explained by Evolutionary Theory.



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
Do you know what a theory means?
Evolution, it's a theory.
Creationism, it's a theory.
Your science book on the subject, a theory.

Quit pretending you have a clue yourself. I didn't say you had to take what I wrote and believe it calling it "ignorance".
You're the type that can't debunk it so you attack instead.
There is no need coming into the argument swinging.


Why do people continue to falsely classify science? How many times are people going to fall back on the "it's just a theory" fallacy. A SCIENTIFIC theory is backed by evidence. Learn the difference, instead of pretending you know more than a scientist about a scientific theory of study. It's hilarious how desperate people are to cling to ancient stories of how life began, rather than to understand modern science. One "theory" has a mountain of evidence behind it, one does not. Can you guess which is which? Nobody is attacking you. We are defending science from ignorance, which your post clearly demonstrates.
edit on 18-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by WhoKnows100
I'm sure scientists make these things up just to test how far the indoctrination has worked.


X2

Perhaps the far-out theories are posited to make the less-far-out theories seem more reasonable.





new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join