Disprove My Theory About Underwater Fish Men/Women?

Question

Life came from the ocean - if you believe in that keep reading, if not, this question will not be suitable to you (no offense, it just makes disproving me harder). Life began in the ocean, and then evolved into animals that eventually found their way onto land. Theoretically, we evolved from modern apes, and because we were better suited to survive and were able to eat more protein, our brain grew larger, and we became smarter.

Now - thinking that - wouldn't it be 99% feasible that there would be some kind of intelligent fish men/women in the oceans, which cover 75% of the earth. They wouldn't have been harmed as much as our species on land, because they are so far below in the water - and thus evolution would not have paused for their kind, but kept on going, to something truly magnificent - the highest point of evolution thus far.

Yes / No?

Wow, didn't think there would be so many responses so quick.

I said "intelligent fish men/women," not humans. Just because they don't walk upright or have fingers, does that mean they aren't intelligent? We need to have fingers and walk upright, because it provides our necessary survival, so we can adapt our environment to suit our needs.

Fish do not have to deal with that; for the most part, their environment doesn't change as drastically as ours, they can just swim along, evolving all the way. What's a big fishes predator all the way down there?

...And we don't have the first clue what is in our deep oceans, or even how far down it goes.

Answer 1

It's a really interesting theory. But before addressing it, I need to correct two statements you made about evolution.

>"Theoretically, we evolved from modern apes, ..."

Ack. No. No modern species evolved from any other modern species.

Perhaps you meant *extinct* apes (a common ancestor to modern humans and modern apes). That would be more accurate.

>"and because we were better suited to survive and were able to eat more protein, our brain grew larger, and we became smarter."

Uhm. No again. If protein was what made the brain grow bigger, then the big carnivores (like the big cats), who eat a *lot* more protein, would have *much* bigger brains. The answer is different ... but I don't think relevant to your question.

Edit: I completely deleted the rest of my answer after re-reading the rest of your question. It sounded like you were suggesting that a hominid branch returned to the water. But I think instead that your theory is one of parallel evolution of a long line of fish organisms eventually leading to a fish-equivalent of big-brained primates.

However, such a line would leave *some* traces. Remember that the line from fish-to- amphibians-to- reptiles-to- therapsids-to- mammals-to- primates is a long progression that took 365 million years! In that time, a *lot* of fossils were left behind as evidence, both with those land animals, and with the fishes ... and yet in that time, there is no trace of a line among the fishes showing anything remotely equivalent to the line from fishes to primates ... much less the type of rapid brain growth associated with our little branch of the primates.

It is not a totally impossible theory. There would just have to be some *extraordinary* evidence of such a thing. The burden is not on us to disprove your theory. The burden is on you ... not to "prove it" (as this is not possible in science), but to find some evidence.

Answer 2

While I'm not going to disprove your theory about Mermaids, I am going to say that your idea of how evolution works is not correct.

Evolution is the by product of natural selection.

If these mermaids and mermen didn't need to be smart to survive, then they won't be on the average very intelligent.

Now given the kind of predators I have seen on the discovery channel in the ocean, and the relative harmlessness of a human style body swimming in the ocean, I'm thinking any merman shaped like a human would be sharkbait pretty quick.

I guess I am saying I think there is a 99% UNlikelyhood of this being a possibillity.

Answer 3

Nature never does anything unless there is a reason behind it, in the case of evolving brain power, that has to be a better chance of survival.
Intelligence has a huge cost; if you take animals that are just as big as human but not quite as smart, like chimps, you will notice that chimps are several times stronger than humans. The difference is all that energy required to support the brain that is not directed to other functions (1/3 of your energy goes for the brain).
Now, suppose that there would be a fish as smart as a chimp, would it make it better at escaping from being eaten by larger fishes, knowing that it is not just yet smart enough to develop defensive strategies and weapons, and not as strong as much more stupid fishes?

If you check the intelligence of land animals, you have cats and dogs, and elephants, and great apes--gorillas, chimps, urang-utang-- and humans. There is a progression; you do not have a bunch of really dumb animals and one very smart animal (humans), there is a lot of not quite smart but rather more clever than a door knob animals in between.
So, if there was an Albert Einstein smart fish there, there should be dog smart fishes as well, and those ones would not be smart enough to evade detection, and we'd know about them.
Therefore, there should not be very smart fish with an intellect comparable to ours, and by a fair margin; as there are no fish with the brains of a dog.

Answer 4

About as easily as I can disprove any other theories. I happen to like the theory of evolution, so I won't even try to disprove it. How is the fact that there are still monkey's in todays world used to disprove evolution? Is it because as we know, all monkeys, apes and gorillas are actually the same thing? Couldn't it be possible that certain species evolved differently than others? Oh well.

Answer 5

You have just disproved your own theory with your question. Here's why...

Fish did not have a need to evolve great "intelligence"; there's not enough selective pressure. To quote your own words: "They wouldn't have been harmed as much as our species on land, because they are so far below in the water - and thus evolution would not have paused for their kind..."
That's a misconception -- in general, evolution actually occurs FASTER when the population is subject to harm. When there is little disturbance/harm, evolution is slower. This is why you have disproved your own theory.

Answer 6

They wouldn't be fish men/women in the physical sense. By that, I mean they would not resemble human beings in the least because they would have evolved in the water and would have developed adaptations to that environment. The closest thing to fitting your "theory" are whales and dolphins, as both have exhibited at least a limited ability to communicate which many people believe is a sign of intelligence.

Answer 7

No

Different food sources, predators, and living conditions add too many variables for your theory to hold true for the reasons you listed.

Species evolve because they HAVE to. Food sources whether scarce or abundant, easy or difficult to aquire, righ in nutrients or not...have a major effect on the adaptation a species will have to develop in order to survive.

Prey need to adapt in order to survive attacks from predators. Predators (as well as food source competitors) influence the evolution, if any.

Finally, species have to adapt to their environments. Water and land are polar opposites. Enough said.

Great question!

Answer 8

To say men/women would imply that they are at least humanoid. The temperature and pressure at the bottom of the Earth's ocean isn't suitable for large creatures especially in large groups because there isn't enough food to accomodate them. The list goes on. Pleasant theory, but no.

Answer 9

No. As you said we evolved from apes, not fish.
The first life forms were single celled animals. Most likely that lived in water but who knows.

So there were never fish people.

Answer 10

Sorry. You have things backwards. When you come up with a new hypothesis, it is up to you to provide some proof. It doesn't become a "theory" in the scientific sense until you have some evidence and other researchers can duplicate or at least concur with your findings.