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

peter vlar
reply to post by vethumanbeing

 

What then would your counter hypothesis be if the anthro-apologists have it all wrong?

They dont have it all wrong, evolution is a big player in the success of a dynamic system based in profitability of the specie to maintain itself and survive. If a positive result is unattainable that specie dies out or has enough time to mutate according to reasonable environmental conditions. There is a system of conditions or lab experiments that has been happening for eons on earth that is self evident.

Prezbo369

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....

Well, know it all! That is the larval form of a salamander, neither newts or salamanders have gills . With the exception of some that stay in larval stage pending immediate environmental factors. Namely the tiger salamander complex. This can change within a week of correct environmental factors.Frog larvae start with gills also, seen many gilled frogs ?

Hi all,

Than you very much for your replies and theories.
I got home later than expected so will go through your posts more thoroughly tomorrow (too much red wine)

Having briefly read through your replies I am already swaying towards the survival of the fittest, but will read again and reply individually tomorrow.

Many thanks for keeping it civil!

Respect
OE123

Grimpachi
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus

 

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.

ahhem......posted yesterday fossil evidence of


How We Got On Land, Bone by Bone

reply to post by UxoriousMagnus

 

because this goes against the premise of "survival of the fittest" ....in your personal model it is "survival of the weakest and smallest".....

Evolution is about survival of the species I hope you can see the difference. I will tell you it isn't about the individual.

edit on 14-1-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

yeah....don't take much of what you post to heart there pachi....sorry

reply to post by Blue Shift


Land predators eat fish...............So you are evading one in your element and giving yourself to another on his turf .......

We didn't come from the sea. Its all a massive smokescreen. Both evolution and religion. Humans were created and engineered by a much more advanced civilization. Notice the skin under your tongue and how it is preventing you from choking on it? Genious creation.

To answer your question would be to assume that we came from water, would be to assume we decided to come out of the water, would be to assume that other animals were out of the water before us or that no other animals were there before us........One thing I like is that I see a lot of faith in the OP.

Your answer is resting on a castle made of cards resting on the brink of a hurricane.

vethumanbeing
skOrpiOn did not say he bought the idea, he said the opposite; just gave out information to be read and determined by whatever individual takes a look at it.

Yep, I never said he did buy it either (although it begs the question of if you think it's a load of BS, then why post it?). However, I thought it was worth mentioning that it's rejected by the overwhelming majority of experts in it's own given field. Don't you think that would be useful, for someone taking on that information, to know that virtually the entire fraternity of anthropology had rejected it and that it never passed peer review?....

As far as anthropologists go; a better moniker would be anthro-apologists. As far as determining the origin of this specie 'human' have not been convincing using an evolution model only.

... ohh no. I guess you wouldn't.

Couple of points/questions -

- The world's anthropologists aren't some homogeneous hive-mind. They all have their own opinions and are individuals. Many are good people who have a passion for science. If you believe they are all saying the same thing about the aquatic ape hypothesis due to some conspiracy, how is it none have come forward to spill the beans? No conspiracy can be all powerful.

- If it is indeed a grand conspiracy you are suggesting, then I guess you will continue to believe that, regardless of the evidence you see. Not saying that conspiracies don't happen (they do, just not on a grand scale due to the above point). With people who are convinced of some grand conspiracy it's always the same - Evidence for the conspiracy confirms the conspiracy; Evidence against the conspiracy also confirms the conspiracy. Absence of evidence confirms the conspiracy. You can't win really.

- What would the motivation be for the whole of science to suppress the aquatic ape hypothesis, and does it really make any sense to anyone other than conspiracy theorists? All part of some grand scheme I'll wager...

I didn't read through the entire thread, but what's always been a mystery to me, having 4 kids, they were in a sack of water for 9 months with plugs in their noses while in utero......one of the great mysteries of life for me.....I still question it...

reply to post by bitsforbytes


Wait a minute. When the first fish came out of the water to eat there were no predators waiting. Just free food with no competition. Nature abhors a vacuum.
You could ask the same question about coming out of the water to the first plants on land. Something had to come out of the water first and plants don't need animals to grow it's the other way around.

reply to post by j.r.c.b.


"Plugs in their noses"?! I'd not heard this before..Is that really a thing?

reply to post by OpenEars123

So why did we evolve and decide to habitat just 1/3 of our world? Why don't we live in or under water?

Why do flying fish leave the water?

Why do crocodiles leave the water?

Why do turtles leave the water?

Answer those questions, and you've answered your own.

ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
reply to post by j.r.c.b.

 

"Plugs in their noses"?! I'd not heard this before..Is that really a thing?

It is actually true (first thing baby born is for the deliverer to suck out the nasal plugs). which means the incubus is getting all of the nutrients through the umbilical cord or they are by mouth (resporating/breathing) the uterine embiotic fluids (like a darwinian mammal fish pig whale creature with arms and legs).

reply to post by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing


Yes. I've seen the mucus plugs in all 4 of their noses, while in utero on the ultrasounds. That's why they suction the babies nose and mouth when born

reply to post by vethumanbeing


It's odd watching them on the ultrasounds, cause they can open their mouths and have hiccups and not drown....mystery of life to me...my last child, I had to go every week for months to check up on him through the ultrasound, and it amazed me every time!!

vethumanbeing

ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
reply to post by j.r.c.b.

 

"Plugs in their noses"?! I'd not heard this before..Is that really a thing?

It is actually true which means the incubus is getting all of the nutrients through the umbilical cord or they are by mouth (resporating/breathing) the uterine fluids (like a darwinian mammal fish pig whale creature).

edit on 14-1-2014 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)

The incubus!? What kind of kid you got there? I wouldn't let it sit on your chest if I was you..

reply to post by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing


Lollol.......sorry, the way you said that was hysterical.....lol

j.r.c.b.
reply to post by vethumanbeing

 

It's odd watching them on the ultrasounds, cause they can open their mouths and have hiccups and not drown....mystery of life to me...my last child, I had to go every week for months to check up on him through the ultrasound, and it amazed me every time!!

Well the lungs aren't actually taking in oxygen yet (though aparently they do move in a breathing motion to stimulate lung development), the mothers lungs are oxygenating the foetus' blood for it. That's why it doesn't drown.

reply to post by OpenEars123


We crawled away up onto the sand because the sharks, being of a lessor moral fiber, were aggressive and brutal killers. We had developed some rudimentary thinking skills that revolved around our continuing efforts to escape their patrols and eventually discovered that we had the physical ability to made conscious decisions in addition to the typical instinctive ones.

We tried putting across the concept of diversity, but it didn't help every time they got hungry. Evolution didn't help much in our problem with them. They were super effective killing machines and had no need or desire to change any single aspect about themselves. Our brains allowed us to see that insight, and accordingly, to come up with a solution. Move!

because there are no starbucks, burger kings or video games or real hosuewives of, at the bottom of the ocean. plus, it's just a wee bit chilly and cell phones drop out a lot! if it's still living in the ocean, it's what's known as an "evolutionary dead end"! anyway, anyway, the only thing that lives in the ocean that has anything close to an opposable thumbs are sea otters. and they're like mcnuggets for killer whales! rock on killer whales! how cool are you when your first name is "killer". evolution. the way a super sentient creator would do things in the first place. evolution. it's the equivalent of a ecological tv dinnner. just add radiation and hey presto! mutation. it was in the x-men movies !