what do u think
2006-09-25 15:19:51 · 17 answers · asked by Robby G 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Earth Sciences & Geology
Fish are vertebrates - that is, they have a backbone. All subsequent vertebrates are descended from marine vertebrates at a time when there were no land animals.
If there were no land animals, then later there is a sequential vertebrate development on land, taking hundreds of millions of years, and leading to primates, and then man, then yes, we can say that we came from fish.
Fish are more like us than most people think - they have similar body bone structure - backbone with radiating ribs. They have two eyes, they have a similar digestive system, males produce sperm and females produce ovaries.
The point is that there is a definite and unmaistakable sequence of development from fish, through ancient amphibians, through reptilian types (have a look at a lizard's limbs, very similar in bone structure), and to mammalians, then primates, then man.
If God indeed created man with nothing to do with this evolutionary sequence, it was very tricky of him to make the evolutionary sequence look for all the world like that was how we were developed.
So, God is a tricky guy, is he? Likes to pull pranks on a million scientists. I don't think so.
2006-09-25 17:00:38 · answer #1 · answered by nick s 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Believing man came from a pool of amino acids (and then fish and so on) is much harder to believe than believing God created us in one 24 hour day. There is zero evidence of evolution (minus natural selection). Go to any museum and look at the fossils. You will not find one transmutational species. You will see something like a horse and over time how it changed, but guess what. At the end of the line, it is still a horse.
2006-09-26 13:29:19 · answer #2 · answered by iron03triathlete 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
All vertebrates are decendants of the early fishes...we go even further back to the notochordal flatworms and single cell oxygen dependant bacteria
2006-09-26 00:21:25 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Modern-day fish? No. Prehistoric quasi-fish? Yes.
2006-09-25 22:25:25 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Have a look at a human embryo (pictures), and notice where the eyes are located. Then look at a fish. Then make up your own mind.
2006-09-25 23:06:56 · answer #5 · answered by Marianna 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Our ancestor about 50,000,000 generations ago, give or take a few million generations, was a fish. Check out your embryo at 14 weeks.
Here fishy fishy http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/wwwhuman/Stages/Images/Cst800.jpg
2006-09-26 02:01:54 · answer #6 · answered by JimZ 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We didn't come directly from fish.We evolved from a series of common ancestors that can be traced to a fish,and even further to single-celled organisms.
2006-09-25 22:38:42 · answer #7 · answered by That one guy 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
It's thought that all life on Earth got it's start in pools of water and oceans. It would be logical to assume that because of this, a very distant ancestor of man was aquatic.
2006-09-25 22:24:41 · answer #8 · answered by minuteblue 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
no man came from ape, ape came from some sea creature and that came form something smaller and so on till it was just one cell to start
2006-09-25 22:36:50 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Man came from ape.
2006-09-25 22:26:52 · answer #10 · answered by ViCKi!™|` 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋