Or is it proof for any kind of evolution we might have gone through?
2007-09-20 00:21:21 · 8 answers · asked by tatereatinmic 3 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Biology
No, I don't believe this, I want to see what the opinions of experts on this topic are.
2007-09-20 01:12:30 · update #1
Leviathan, why bash creationists and tell me about how ignorant they are. Just give me the facts or theories or stop wasting my time.
2007-09-20 01:13:50 · update #2
We did not evolve from fish. what gave you that spaced out idea???????????? birds lay eggs too, does that mean they evolved from fish? there's something fishy about this conversation.... hahaha we were created in God's image and i can assure you that he aint a fish. we have and will always be humans, plain and simple. we started off the same and will end the same. i don't think there is such a thing as evolution as you state it. so my reasoning is that we weren't and never will be fish!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! talking about fish, it made me hungry, why don't i go eat a developing baby???
2007-09-20 01:02:39 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 6⤋
The argument you're referring to is summed up in a witty little sentence 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny' it rolls right off the tongue.
The theory is that the transformation taken by the embryo gives clues to our evolutionary heritage though it has been disputed in recent times.
I don't know why some people complain about having evolved from fish. Are these people who would say ok I accept we evolved from apes but apes were put on Earth by the Lord? Please! Obviously every animal you can think of evolved from other animals and the simplest animals evolved from single celled organisms which today would probably be called bacteria. Its one big family tree.
Its just so sad that ignorant creationists even bother trying to answer questions in biology.
You might want to contrast this with 'neoteny' which is the rentension of child-like features in to adult hood which can lead evolution down new paths.
2007-09-20 08:11:06 · answer #2 · answered by Leviathan 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Well - it's not "proof", but it is strong evidence towards evolution via fish.
However, that was a long time ago. 530 million years ago, in fact.
That was when fish evolved as the first vertebrates, and were (naturally) restricted to the seas. Around 365 million years ago, fish started to evolve into amphibians and to colonise the land.
Evolution proceeded through reptiles into birds (~150 M years ago) and mammals (~125 M years ago) - which evolved seperately from different kinds of reptile. And within the mammals the great apes evolved, including us.
2007-09-20 07:42:32 · answer #3 · answered by gribbling 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There is all kinds of evidence for the facts of evolution. Fossils, DNA, microevolution we can watch in action. Put all that together and then notice something like that in the womb and it just adds to the evidence.
2007-09-20 08:42:53 · answer #4 · answered by Joan H 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, all vertebrates have gills at birth, and in that life originated in the oceans, so this does prove that evolution has occurred.
2007-09-20 09:16:13 · answer #5 · answered by rizo_rocker 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, from genetics, It said that human are closely related to sharks. if you believe the process of evolution, you might think that we originate from single ancestor :D
2007-09-20 12:56:46 · answer #6 · answered by 'L' 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, I disagree. In my anatomy and physiology classes, I've learned that the fetus gets it's oxygen from the mother via the umbilical cord. I have never heard that amniotic fluid was oxygenated.
2007-09-20 07:39:33 · answer #7 · answered by cajunrescuemedic 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yeah it means we had to go through fishes to become human.as we have vermiform appendix as vestigial organ so it proved that we had to go through herbivores to stand as human..
2007-09-20 07:30:24 · answer #8 · answered by WEIRDnik 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋