Most Helpful Opinions
humans did not exactly evolved from apes, but along with them... from a common ancestor, which in part... evolved from sea creatures, so
yeah, we are the mermaids, without tails though10
What Girls & Guys Said
I don't understand why I or anyone else should be concerned in the least, what difference does it make?
What do I gain or lose by having a shared ancestry or not with apes?11
I wouldn't trust it anyway. Big gubberment steps in to take control of archaeology digs that have a chance of finding things that show the true past. We already know they've found actual giants, but it's being covered up completely by people "for our own good".10
I'd be like "well, makes sense. Life began in the seas way long ago"10
DNA already shows us common ancestry with primates. If mermaids existed and they found a fossil record of them that doesn't mean we have common ancestry with them.10
Supposedly we did come from the oceans but didn’t look like mermaids, more like fish with small legs10
I’d wait for it to be verified and corroborated10
Don't believe everything you see or hear.10
I would one again be sad to remember that "oreopithicus" means "swamp ape" and not "chocolate sandwich cookie ape". This world has a depressing lack of cookie apes, regardless of flavor.
However- such a fossil would prove nothing of the kind; it would just show that at one point, there was an animal (which, being singular, might just have been a deformed example of an otherwise normal-looking species) that looked kinda like a traditional mermaid. Human sensory organs are VERY poorly suited to life underwater, and we don't have the lung capacity to be an aquatic mammal- such a transition would have to have been LONG ago, and the genetic evidence proves our closest relatives are the other apes. If you're going to argue that THEY descended from aquatic creatures, well, I suppose that's correct if you go back to lungfish, but I don't think that's what you meant.