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

Here's some info: 'Before appearance of functioning muscles of the soft palate, epithelial plugs in the external nasal openings block nasal cavity. If the plugs were absent, fetal swallowing movement would be impossible, as amniotic fluid would outpour through the nose. Epithelial adhesions in external nasal openings as well as in the larynx and esophagus are temporary structures contributing to formation of palatine shape and establishment of fetal functions.'

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

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


Fascinating!

OpenEars123
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

It seems that the very nature of life is to expand to every area that it can. We see it in the oceans, land, air and even in totally hospitable places.

One needs to remember that even though life happened 4 billion years ago it was reset back to very simple life forms 400 million during snow ball earth to quickly (100 million years later) expand in all directions and size (dinosaurs)

Kind of crazy, but I guess that is normal....

ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
veteranhumanbeing

VHB 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.

ReturnofTheSonofNothingYep, 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?.

Peer review never crossed its mind apparently. Experts in that field are not its forte. Overwelming judgment was just a figment of the imagination (not applied surely) as it was so innocent; posed as a hum...what if?

VHB
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.

RTSN... 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.

Why is there still the nagging problem of the question "Is an ostrich as a bird a dinasour Teradactile relic". No conspiracy thought forms here; just lunacy in not being able to come to an eventual conclusion or at least something reasonable. Why are Tyranousaurous Rex's front legs/arms so short as to be ineffectual to a point of laughter (grooming purposes). Were they feathered creatures cleaning parasites off of their faces (vulture style)?

RTSN- 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.

Me? not a conspiracy theorist; more Gnostic in nature. Absence of what evidence; its screaming at you.

RTSN- 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 watched that animal planet/discovery collaberation. "mermaid a body found". I looked at it from a different perspective (what if the truth is being told as purely fictional). Its done with feature film all of the time. Grand schemes, maybe to enlighten the idiot human.

UxoriousMagnus

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

it is a good thing that evolution happens quickly before all the weak small ones die off.....if it took millions of years or something then they would all be dead and eaten.....so your model also require fast evolution.....I guess

Evolution? The sea? I just cannot seem to swallow these theories. I mean honestly think about it. If in fact our existence as humans was actually a product of evolution, then how do you explain our thought process, our human essence (the soul)...or our five senses? I can see, for arguments sake, that the big bang was the beginning of life and it created physical beings over time, but our inner thoughts, the ability to love and think? How on earth would a meteor create that? Just doesnt make sense. I beelieve we were created by the source at different intervals in time. Obviously a world full of dinosaurs would be unproductive. So we were created after their extinction. I belueve in divine intervention...divine could very well be aliens. We wer strategically placed on this planet at the right time for human existence. The fish have their own purpose, as do the mammals, as do the humans. So, in my opinion, did we evolve from the sea? I think not.

vethumanbeing

Peer review never crossed its mind. Experts in that field are not its forte. Overwelming judgment was just a figment of the imagination (not applied surely) as it was so innocent; posed as a hum...

Sorry, I am not well versed in Haiku, but I will try to answer in style -

Suit yourself, but that's
Many bald face assertions
Spoken by you now.

I don't really care that much about it, but the academic consensus seems to be it never passed peer review. I'll take their word until I see some evidence to the contrary. Who knows, maybe you are right, but a claim without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Why is there still the nagging problem of the question "Is an ostrich as a bird a dinasour Teradactile relic".

Pterodactyls were part of a different group, the pterosaurs. So I'll just disregard that.

But yes, an ostrich is an avian dinosaur. It's not a nagging question though, I think it's pretty much widely accepted now.

Why are Tyranousaurous Rex's front legs/arms so short as to be ineffectual to a point of laughter (grooming purposes). Were they feathered creatures?

The currently accepted hypothesis seems to be the front arms of Tyranosaurus and other large therapods were useful as a counterbalance when maneuvering. Yes, they were feathered, it seems since the recent discovery in China of Yutyrannus further seems to support this idea. The fossil is highly detailed and shows feathers quite clearly.

That's also true of many other different species, mostly in the therapod group. To date they have fossil examples of 34 different species exhibiting feathers.

dp4lyfe
Evolution? The sea? I just cannot seem to swallow these theories. I mean honestly think about it. If in fact our existence as humans was actually a product of evolution, then how do you explain our thought process, our human essence (the soul)...or our five senses? I can see, for arguments sake, that the big bang was the beginning of life and it created physical beings over time, but our inner thoughts, the ability to love and think? How on earth would a meteor create that? Just doesnt make sense. I beelieve we were created by the source at different intervals in time. Obviously a world full of dinosaurs would be unproductive. So we were created after their extinction. I belueve in divine intervention...divine could very well be aliens. We wer strategically placed on this planet at the right time for human existence. The fish have their own purpose, as do the mammals, as do the humans. So, in my opinion, did we evolve from the sea? I think not.

Big bang theory is false, every occurance has a presiding future/past predicessor or a generator not fixed in what we call linear time. Regarding evolution, the shark specie is 350 million years old. They should rule the planet in terms of human linear years cataloged on earth. We did not evolve from the sea; this is a myth and (problem here) the studied ones are attempting to put a round idea into a cube format (forced misconceptualism). Nice post.

reply to post by vethumanbeing


Sharks have changed. They have changed very little.

But there is a reason for that. They are perfect (close to perfect) for their ecological niche. Once this happens there are very little ecological pressures on the species to evolve.

ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
vethumanbeing

The head would be the anchor heavy mass balance point to its body, the tail or spinal column is over engineered; the arms? would be the divit pivot points to balance the upper body; this body could never manuveur successfully as would be awkward slow off balance; hind legs too large to do anything but run at speed at what? A tree? They are static. Push over a stegasourous, and with those little forearm/legs do what exactly? Tail as a weapon? or a balancing act? They were too large for the flora system existing and ate themselves into oblivion. Do you have another opinion; they were also carniverous meat eaters? What is your idea about (after the demise) lemurs became the primary officiate in profligating the mammal specie.

vethumanbeing
I watched that animal planet/discovery collaberation. "mermaid a body found". I looked at it from a different perspective (what if the truth is being told as purely fictional). Its done with feature film all of the time. Grand schemes, maybe to enlighten the idiot human.

If you find a "mockumentary" enlightening, then I bow to your greater enlightenment!

dp4lyfe
I can see, for arguments sake, that the big bang was the beginning of life...

Your post is basically a jumbled mess of what is currently understood (no offence).


To the OP. Life left the oceans because natural selection dictates that it is inevitable - life will always adapt to niches where adaption is possible. It simply takes time.

ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
Life on other planets will be subject to the laws of evolution, and with an infinite variety of environmental conditions and different elements and compounds which are abundant on each planet, the chances of us being from another planet and yet sharing all of the above (and much more) is as close to zero as makes no odds.

If you think about it, that isn't necessarily true. If life evolves in an ocean on an Earth like planet, one particularly efficient design is 'fish-shaped'. Convergent evolution has ended up with the same design many times. Fish require (presumably) front facing eyes/mouth, general bilateral symmetry, two, four or six fins/arms/legs etc. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find aliens that would seem perfectly at home in the Star Wars cantina! Sure, they may also have eyes on the sides of their bodies, and a giant ear on the top of their head - but in many cases I think alien life would be readily recognisable.

MarsIsRed

ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
Life on other planets will be subject to the laws of evolution, and with an infinite variety of environmental conditions and different elements and compounds which are abundant on each planet, the chances of us being from another planet and yet sharing all of the above (and much more) is as close to zero as makes no odds.

If you think about it, that isn't necessarily true. If life evolves in an ocean on an Earth like planet, one particularly efficient design is 'fish-shaped'. Convergent evolution has ended up with the same design many times. Fish require (presumably) front facing eyes/mouth, general bilateral symmetry, two, four or six fins/arms/legs etc. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find aliens that would seem perfectly at home in the Star Wars cantina! Sure, they may also have eyes on the sides of their bodies, and a giant ear on the top of their head - but in many cases I think alien life would be readily recognisable.

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

Even assuming a planet exactly earthlike, there are so many other random factors involved.

As 1 example in a sea of random events, all mammals in their current form owe their existence to the KT extinction which we are pretty sure now was caused by a meteor or comet. This astral body would not hit at the precise moment on New Earth, assuming an identical evolutionary history (which they would not have anyway due to the other myriad random events over time).

There may be commonalities though, I'm not ruling that out of course. But random events at earlier times in their evolutionary history would no doubt cause a large degree of divergence.

There may be beings out there with bilateral symmetry. Possibly even vaguely similar body plans to our own due to filling similar ecological niches, but they would be nothing like us. There would be significant differences.

vethumanbeing
ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
vethumanbeing

The head would be the anchor heavy mass balance point to its body, the tail or spinal column is over engineered; the arms? would be the divit pivot points to balance the upper body; this body could never manuveur successfully as would be awkward slow off balance; hind legs too large to do anything but run at speed at what? A tree? They are static. Push over a stegasourous, and with those little forearm/legs do what exactly? Tail as a weapon? or a balancing act? They were too large for the flora system existing and ate themselves into oblivion. Do you have another opinion; they were also carniverous meat eaters? What is your idea about (after the demise) lemurs became the primary officiate in profligating the mammal specie.

Do you ever look at your creation story so critically?

My first response is, "Who the hell cares? I'm not a freaking paleontologist. Go ask one"

My second response is that I would lean towards the hypothesis that tyranosaurs were warm blooded and thus lived a very active lifestyle. I have this opinion, because I am aware of some of the forensic work done on blood capillaries in the muscles and on the growth rates of young tyranosaurs which imply strongly a very high metabolic rate.

Also the therapods are the direct precursors of birds, which we know to be warm blooded.

I have no position on that last question about lemurs because I haven't a clue what you are asking.


Gees what did the lemurs ever do to us. Leave the poor lemurs alone..

UxoriousMagnus

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

Ha Ha that's fine I didn't expect evidence to sway your stance on evolution. I read a good article which says many people simply evolved to not except things like evolution. You may find it interesting lets just say mental shortcuts help you conserve energy.

dp4lyfe
then how do you explain our thought process, our human essence (the soul)...or our five senses?

So I suppose we are the only creatures on this planet that have cognitive abilities? No other creatures have the ability to taste, smell, touch, hear, or see?

Interesting theory there. Care to tell me how exactly any other creature is able to survive without these capabilities?

And I don't understand how humans would be the only ones that would have a "soul." Obviously people want to believe it. After all it's self interest. Yet, how are we so special compared to other organisms? Give me 3 solid reasons as to why we are so much more great compared to our animal counterparts. We humans love to pat ourselves on the backs. But we hardly have anything to show for it honestly. We are the most reckless and destructive species on the planet. Surely we are the most worthy to have a soul...

Lingweenie...

And I don't understand how humans would be the only ones that would have a "soul."

If humans evolved, then is human sentience, speech and higher mental functions (ability to think in abstracts, questioning our origins etc) a product of DNA? Did the original cell have genetic matter that causes these higher mental capabilities that manifested billions of years later in humans? Or was it a new addition later down the line? If so, how can you be so sure, besides what peer reviewed scrolls papers are saying?

UxoriousMagnus

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

The smallest and weakest left the oceans to live on land. Before that there were no animals on land, so these animals after leaving the oceans would be the strongest and biggest animals on LAND. You are willfully disregarding this fact. It's not like the smallest and weakest animals leave the ocean, only to compete against stronger and bigger animals on land. No they were pioneers, their only competition were plants (which are widely believed to be the first living organisms that made the leap from sea to land). All you'd need to do is spend like 5 minutes thinking about this and you'd come to this conclusion. Stop pretending that you can't figure out why evolution doesn't work and actually research it.

dp4lyfe
Evolution? The sea? I just cannot seem to swallow these theories. I mean honestly think about it. If in fact our existence as humans was actually a product of evolution, then how do you explain our thought process, our human essence (the soul)...or our five senses? I can see, for arguments sake, that the big bang was the beginning of life and it created physical beings over time, but our inner thoughts, the ability to love and think? How on earth would a meteor create that? Just doesnt make sense. I beelieve we were created by the source at different intervals in time. Obviously a world full of dinosaurs would be unproductive. So we were created after their extinction. I belueve in divine intervention...divine could very well be aliens. We wer strategically placed on this planet at the right time for human existence. The fish have their own purpose, as do the mammals, as do the humans. So, in my opinion, did we evolve from the sea? I think not.

Willful ignorance doesn't disprove evolution. The evolution of our senses is well documented. The soul is an unproven concept and until proven has no right to be discussed in evolutionary discourse. As for love and critical thinking, read this article:

Human Cultural Evolution

It's two pages so make sure you read the whole thing. Then come back and talk about your wild theory (Big Bang was beginning of life? What the hell? Big Bang has nothing to do with the beginning of life)

Pauligirl

UxoriousMagnus

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

it is a good thing that evolution happens quickly before all the weak small ones die off.....if it took millions of years or something then they would all be dead and eaten.....so your model also require fast evolution.....I guess

well since Darwin says it.....it is therefore true.