Shouldn't humans be mermaids according to evolution?

There is more food and less diseases in the oceans so humans would be better able to survive.
Evolution favours optimum survival for the species right?


1|0
3|14

Most Helpful Girl

  • I feel pretty cheated out of the mermaid deal myself but if evolution is correct, then life began in the water so it's only timely we are on land now.

    0|0
    0|0

Most Helpful Guy

  • another proof evolution is bs... .

    0|0
    0|0
    • No just another proof that creationists don't know what they're talking about :)

      FYI, the answer is trivial: the niches are already full

What Girls Said 2

What Guys Said 13

  • The thing is, just because something CAN happen does not mean that it will. In order for evolution to occur, there has to be a very strong, urgent incentive for such a change to occur. Change won't occur just because it can--hence why I personally disagree with anthropologists who read an evolutionary explanation into even the most trivial parts of our anatomy like why we have a chin. But it has to be forced out of necessity and urgency. That said, my answer would be that there was simply never a moment in our history as a species where we needed to become ocean dwellers, at least not urgent enough for evolution to occur.

    0|1
    0|0
  • It all depends on how they choose to spin the fairy tale. They of course choose to select their specious presuppositions so as to manipulate around such obvious road blocks.

    0|0
    0|0
    • Humans developing wings would have been a more palatable spin

    • Show All
    • "CONCLUSION

      Only God could make the species."
      As I explained time after time speciation has been observed time after time and does have a functional definition and listing scientists who accept creation doesn't constitute an argument against Darwinian evolution especially when half aren't even biologists and evolution isn't synonomous with atheism any more than gravity. Evolution is not a religion or even a world view, it is a theory used to explain the diversity of life and there are many people who are christian who accept evolution. But again all you do is assert that the evidence provided for evolution is wrong without in any way justifying your claims and instead call me deluded. But there's a principal called "Hitchens' Razor" which states that any claim that can be made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence and the links I posted weren't from any old website like the ones you posted, they were from peer reviewed sources,

      DONE

    • The 500 scientists cited do not "accept creation", they specifically DO NOT AGREE with the theory of evolution, which of course includes your misinterpretation of "Speciation". The point is, you are not trying to peddle a fact, you're trying to peddle a specious opinion disguised as fact, which I've very clearly proven to be the case.

      And Hitchens was a dullard who dedicated his life to preaching hopelessness and despair. His idiotic "Razor" is both self-contradictory and paradoxical. His assertion that "anything which has no evidence can be dismissed without evidence", does not provide evidence with which to prove its own validity! He thus makes his own assertion dismiss able within the confines of his own assertion! What a moron! And this guy was the leader of your church?

      DONE!

  • Water isn't optimal survival conditions at all, most aquatic animals are very susceptible to changes in temperature, oxygen levels, material decay and so on.
    Diseases also spread quickly in water because it is a closed ecosystem.

    The reason animals left water is FOR survival, since the competition was very high and since it was easy to avoid predators if you could just stay on land while they couldn't then return into water to seek sustenance.
    There was basically nothing on land, no competition and not much in a way of predators that is why "we" or rather primitive fishes ventured out of the water.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Clearly being a mermaid is not actually good for us considering we'd just get eaten by other fish. Also that form is inconvenient for swimming, we'd essentially just have to be whales or dolphins instead. But that's not a mermaid.

    0|0
    0|0
  • You don't understand how evolution works. Lol. I'm not trying to be condescending, just blunt. Ask your bio teacher to explain the phenomenon to you.

    1|0
    0|0
  • Life has evolved to fill every habitable niche of the earth, both land and sea. We happened to evolve on land. There are more parasitical species in the ocean than there are on land, but most can't infect humans.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Thats not how evolution works dude. Humans evoloved from land mammals, we are optimized for survival on land, not water.

    1|0
    0|0
    • All life started from the water tho it should work in reverse also

    • Well hypothetically yes. But that would require humans moving to an aquatic lifestyle, and I dont see that happening.

  • Even if human lived under water there would be diseases. Most deadly diseases are caused by invasion, whether slavery, rape or torture. These gave birth to some the the nasty diseases today. As for the theory of evolution I'm a skeptic.

    0|0
    0|0
  • So where is their... junk.. anyway?

    0|0
    0|0
  • Because the niches were already filled by the marine mammals.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Wut?

    0|0
    0|0
  • You clearly dont know how evolution works

    0|0
    0|0
  • But humans came from the ancestors of monkeys they lived on land are were suited to the food on the land.

    1|0
    0|0
Loading...