Did humans evolve from fish? If so, How did a fish become a human (stopping at apes in between)?

Answer 1

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

Well, humans evolved from something aquatic, but whether it would resemble a modern-day fish is not clear. And no, there's no "stopping at apes" in between. We have a common ancestor with modern apes, but it was way down on the tree of life, further down from anything you could possibly call an ape. Both we and the apes are primates, but primates is a very large category, and evolved for a very, very long time. Millions of years.

Source(s):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh0F4FBLJ…

Asker's Rating:

Asker's Comment:

Thanks.

For all you others, the idea is stupid to me I just wanted to know how you believed it happened. I don't even believe that crap. Just another case of 'youre not atheist so you're stupid". Give me a break.

Answer 2

Onward Christian Ignorants!

Answer 3

lol

Answer 4

imagine driving from new york city to los angeles.

at no point are you half in nyc and half in la. it is a long process with minor steps. just like evolution.evolution took hundreds of millions of years.

think of this, wolves evolved into dogs in the last 1200 years. a wolf to a chihuahua in 1200 years. is a fish-like-ancestor to human that hard to imagine happening in 1,200,000,000 years?


EDIT: @ keyring, humans are not apes. humans and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor.

Answer 5

yes the did. i saw it on the discovery channel once. Humans really did evolve from fish billions of years ago. Look up some more information on it, a lot of scientists believe it.

Answer 6

It didnt stop at apes obviously. Apes are related, in other words not in the same exact chain

Source(s):

Im not an idiot, unlike "some' people

Answer 7

Firstly, humans are apes.

Secondly, we did not evolve from the fish that exist today, but yes, we evolved from water-dwelling animals. This occured through generations and generations of genetic mutation, and seperation of the mutated offspring from the other offspring- over time, the gene pools become so different that new species are formed. Also, natural selection allowed for the survival of these mutated, land-dwelling animals. These are all subjects you should further examine yourself. Look up the fossil Tiktaalik, btw.

Answer 8

Well, my breath smells fishy at times. The Answer - The same way that everything just "magically" fell into place for life to be sustained on this planet ... just the right distance from the Sun; just the right revolutions on our axis; just the right distance from the other heavenly bodies; just the right mixture of chemicals in the atmosphere to sustain life; just the right tilt on the axis; ad nauseum ... why it's just all magical. My forehead does look like an apes at times and I do like Bananas.

Source(s):

All the thousands of fossils that have been found that prove evolution to be the dawg gone truth.

Answer 9

Those "fish" or marine creature developed feet and diverge into many land animals we see today including humans.

Geological evidence suggests because of rough environmental changes for example drought/flood, it forces these particular group of fish to evolve feet in order to stay on land when there is drought.

While other marine creatures that didn't have to deal with these environmental changes remain in the sea and become fishes as we know them today.

Answer 10

Pretty silly. No, humans did not evolve from fish. Humans and fish have a common ancestor. How? Read any simple introduction to evolution.

Answer 11

duh! have you not watched south park?

it goes something like this:

in the beginning we were fish swimming around in the water.

then one day a couple fish had a retard baby.

and the retard baby was different, so it got to live.

so retard fish goes on to make more retard babies.

and then one day a retard-baby fish crawls out of the water with it's mutant fish hands and it had butt sex with a squirrel of something and made a retard frog squirrel.

and then that had a retard baby that was a monkey-fish-frog...

and that monkey fish frog had butt sex with another monkey which had butt sex with another monkey and that made you.

so, congratulations...you are the retarded offspring of 5 monkeys having butt sex with a fish squirrel.

Source(s):

mr. garrison...that is the greatest piece of south park of all time.

Answer 12

there was a lot of history before fish and a lot of history afterwards. one advantageous mutation led to another and some species lived in different habitats and depended on different adaptations for survival.

Answer 13

Yes, humans evolved from fish. A fish did not become a human. After many many generations, the some of the decedents of fish are humans. Some of the decendents are other kinds of fish. Oh, and amphibians, reptiles, birds, and other mammals.

bony fish ->
sarcopterygians ->
tetrapods ->
amniotes ->
synapsids ->
mammals ->
placental mammals ->
boreoeutheres ->
euarchontoglires ->
archonts ->
primates ->
simian ->
monkey ->
old world monkey ->
ape ->
great ape ->
human

Pierolapithecus is an extinct ape genus that is common ancestor between us and the other extant great apes (maybe after the split with orangutans). Is that the "stopping at apes in between" you wanted? Or I guess you really wanted to stump everyone. Sorry not to comply.

Source(s):

http://thotful.wordpress.com/2007/09/30/…
http://www.locolobo.org/Taxonomy.html

Answer 14

someone need to go to school

Answer 15

haha people will say anything and will do anything to try to prove that God does not exist but all they doing is fighting against God who they say does not exist. So if HE does not exist why they spend so much time trying to fight Him. God created everything and people did not come from anything but were created in God's image

Answer 16

For years, Darwinists portrayed a well-known fossil fish as evidence of their myth of the transition from water to dry land. Described as the best known transitional fossil, the Coelacanth was depicted as a perfect example of that transition from water to land. According to the Darwinist myth, the creature had fins that turned into feet and was developing a lung. However, A LIVING COELACANTH was discovered in the sea in 1938. Darwinists could no longer lie about the Coelacanth. For example, the structures they had for years described as a primitive lung was nothing more than an OIL SAC. The structures they heralded as primitive legs were in fact PERFECT FINS. This life form, alleged to be on the brink of moving from the water to dry land, was in fact a BOTTOM-DWELLING FISH that inhabited depths of 180 meters and that immediately died when brought up into shallower waters. More than 300 other LIVING SPECIMENS have subsequently been caught.

The Darwinist speculation regarding the Tiktaalik was no different to that concerning the Coelacanth. The Tiktaalik, a creature with a mosaic character (containing perfect structures from different life forms), is an exceedingly complex life form with well preserved fossil remains. But its characteristics display no transitional features. Each one is a fully developed, perfect structure found in mosaic life forms (such as the platypus). The sole reason for the Darwinist conjecture around the animal is that they interpret the fossil remains of this extinct mosaic form in the light of their own preconceptions. Just as with the Coelacanth.

The absence of a single transitional form in the myth of the transition from water to dry land, not to mention such a transition being anatomically and physiologically impossible, is alone sufficient to repudiate the claims on the subject.

Simultaneous evolution is another deceptive concept employed by Darwinists. A scenario regarding the supposed evolution of bacteria and parasites. The interesting thing is that bacteria that existed as far back as 3.6 billion years ago are still bacteria, and their parasites are still parasites. For some reason, no changes took place in the life forms in question during this supposed evolution, and no evolution ever happened. These single-cell organisms that should, according to Darwinists’ claims, have developed and turned into fish, mammals and even human beings, are exactly the same now as they were 3.5 billion years ago. Because, like all other life forms, these creatures are entities created by God, out of nothing. And they were created with the same appearance 3.5 billion years ago as that they are created with today.

Darwinism Refuted:

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/index.ph…

Don't Judge Before You Read!

May Allah guide all of us through the right path.

http://www.islamawareness.net/
http://www.ilovezakirnaik.com/
http://miraclesofthequran.com/index.php
http://www.answering-christianity.com/ac…

Answer 17

I believe this belongs in the science section, not the religion one.

Answer 18

I too would like to see an actual answer.

I'm open to the idea of evolution, I just would like to see more than simply a narrative about how they THINK it happened. More concrete evidence, if you will. I know there's no such thing as a half-fish half-human, but I would like to see more evidence of what the in-between stages actually were.

If the narrative is all you have, that's fine, I just wish scientists wouldn't be so adamant about how such large changes MUST have happened over the same genetic line if the evidence to support it is scant. I'm not saying they go all-out for biblical creationism (that is definitely outside of the scope of science), I'm just saying that they should be more tentative about asserting their conclusions as indisputable fact, and not ostracize scientists who voice any form of disagreement.

To those who believe in monophyletic (single common ancestor) evolution*, I would really like to hear ALL the scientific evidence you can throw at me. Seriously. Or point me to where I can find the evidence. Thank you.


*Or any evolution that presupposes such a drastic change as aquatic mammal to human.

Answer 19

it took millions of years
and in millions of years, changes happen
breeding happens, that breeds the changes that happened
thats evolution for you