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.
Our world is 2/3's covered in water. Life as we know it adapts to the environment surrounding it. So why did we evolve and decide to habitat just 1/3 of our world? Why don't we live in or under water?
reply to post by OpenEars123
In evolutionary theory, life did indeed begin in the sea.
The first animals were sea animals.
So our ulitmate ancestors were animals which made the shift from sea to land.
Why did they make that shift?
I think it was because there was too much competition in the sea, so they were in danger of starving unless they tried somewhere else.
Like nineteenth century Europeans deciding to try their luck in America,
edit on 14-1-2014 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)
Well at some point these breathing apparatus sort of fell off. At some point. Like pig wings and unicorn horns.
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus
You starve in a grocery store if all the tins are being grabbed by people who are bigger and stronger than you are.
If all the sea plants and plankton and small fish are being grabbed by the fish which are twice your size, your best chance of survival might be to work out a way of getting at the untouched plants on the edge of the shore.
As for the "nineteenth-century migration" analogy; Even if they were not starving, they were not prospering. Why else do you think they made the voyage?