So if we come from the sea, why didn't we stay there?

Hi, apologies for this short thread as it's really just a question.

First and foremost I need to state that I do not believe in religion, at all.

But this question has been on my mind for some time, and this seems to be the best place to hear different answers.

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?

To religious people I respect your views (excluding the ones who push their agenda, and condemn non believers) but i would really appreciate a civil discussion.

I am popping out for a few hours, and look forward to some insight when I return.

NB: If this has been discussed many times, I apologise to all in advance. I thought writing this thread would still be much quicker than using a flakey search function

Regards
OE123

reply to post by OpenEars123

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?

A couple of things about this thread...

1. We have lungs not gills. You understand we, well at least I can't, breathe under water.

Edit - nevermind my second statement.

Maybey we started eating things from the shore. Like whales do, then over time adapted to go further in land and at one point didnt go back in the water.
I seen on tv in Spain catfish trying to catch pigeons.

I'm thinking that it's easier to avoid large predators on land.

Well at some point these breathing apparatus sort of fell off. At some point. Like pig wings and unicorn horns.

reply to post by OpenEars123


The fish issue in evolution is a problem because all of the fish fossils look like.....well.....fish. There is no evidence of any sort of evolution within this specie. Also, like you said....if there was evolution....then it would be into another like/kind specie....not from a fish to an air breathing human. But I will get attacked for even pointing this small thing out.

On this note too....and sorry because it is a bit off topic but.....as far as carbon dating goes.....it is my understanding that we only have equipment that can read out to about 50,000 years. Science further tells us that diamonds are some of the oldest substance on earth but we can still read c-14 in them. This means they are 50,000 years or younger.

Back to the subject.....carbon dating fossils reveals c-14 levels as well.....which again....our instruments can only read back to 50,000 years and this is questionable because we have to us c-12 levels to calculate the c-14 levels as c-12 levels are constant but scientists have to essentially guess at how much c-12 was in the environment at that time to then get a good read on the c-14.

Having said all that.....if we can read any c-14.....it is 50,000 years or younger. If we can't read any c-14 then we have no idea how old it is......but we always find c-14.

I think people got tired of their skin pruning.

I know that bugs me....

✌️

Maybey we didnt come out of the water, science has been wrong before.

Those that stayed in the water took a different evolutionary path. You can't assume that if a species stayed in the water they would be both intelligent and human like today. The forces that shaped man on the land would not be the same in the water. For example things like quickness may have been a more important trait than intelligence for surviving in the water.

The question should be, "Did intelligence leave the oceans?" Look at what WE deem intelligent. Us #1. Dolphins #2. We could go on but really, this is OUR scale. Who says WE are right? Do OUR tests confirm anything? Human egoism.

The oldest living things on this planet live underwater. I know age doesn't equate to intelligence but as all species evolve/adapt don't you think these "old" species have learned a thing or 2? Like avoiding humans? Hell maybe they kicked us out of the ocean. I don't recall who said this about aliens but it made sense. "The proof of alien intelligence is that they haven't tried to contact us." Maybe our oceanic brethren got that millions of years ago.

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,

DISRAELI
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)

uhhh.....what? They didn't leave Europe because of over-crowding. Not sure where you are going there. And how do you starve in a grocery store full of your favorite things to eat. Fish eat fish.........to many fish just means more fish to eat.

Well it has been proposed we have evolved out of the water simply because water is vital for life on this planet.

Certain animals eventually developed to be able to be able to be both in water, and on land. And then from there, after being on land, certain animals evolved to be primarily land animals. A good example would be most reptiles and Amphibians. A frog for example, at first becomes a tadpole, which swims around in the water. It later grows and spends a great deal of time on land.


Well, why would some animals do this?

It's pretty simple; survival. If you were a sea animal that had the capability to go onto land, you could escape sea predators rather easily. And after realizing you could be able to escape predators, it's logical to assume some animals started leaving the ocean, and made their way onto land where it was safer. And after so long, animals evolved to be better suited for land terrain. And from there, animals took a different course depending on the biome they started inhabiting.

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?

reply to post by OpenEars123


There's a few competing factors, I would think. Escape from predation, mating behaviours and competition for living space spring to mind.

Some aquatic creatures lay their eggs on land, or on an overhanging bit of vegetation in order to avoid predation from water predators. A fish who could escape the water briefly and then return would also have an enourmous advantage agains sea borne predators.

Some aquatic species, particularly arthropods mate on land.

Episode 6 of Life on Earth is entitled The Invasion of the Land and Attenborough explains some of the possible incentives and the various steps organisms have taken to exploit the move from sea to land. It's well worth watching (as is almost everything he does).

ETA - Oh yeah, how about environmental pressures? Droughts, salt water flows, water freezing or becoming too cold.. A fish which could survive a drought for instance (like a lungfish) has a huge advantage..

Animals that can feed or hide from predators in hard to access areas have a greater chance of survival and reproduction so life continually diversifies to survive different habitats.

Logarock

Well at some point these breathing apparatus sort of fell off. At some point. Like pig wings and unicorn horns.

No I think you'll find newts still have such gills....

DISRAELI
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?

I don't have time to teach you about why the Protestant religious people made the trek over....

As far as the actual thread is about though....so only the smallest, weakest who were afraid and starving off decided to take to the shores? The smallest ..... weakest........got it

Good Question, and the answer is simple.

We DID go back to the Sea...We are called Dolphins, Whales, Dugong, Narwhals, Sea Lions, Walrus and all other Mammals that live in the sea.

Dont forget, Humans are just one version of Mammal, we are related to all mammals.