Why do people think it's silly that we evolved from sea-life when we started out as sperm?
812776
First, we didn't all start out as Sperm - that's only half the equation.  We all started out when a  sperm and egg mixed.  That sperm and egg combined and then had all the genetic information to produce each one of us.  That genetic code determined, at that point in time, what each one of use would be (physically).\n\nThe genetic code of some sea animal does not have the ability to produce one of us, and there is no evidence to support the theory that the complex genetic code in any sea animal could mutate to produce one of us.
1170584
The word  evolution means to evolve to change. So if we  came from apes how come we still have apes, after all if man went with an ape the ape population would no longer be around, I've never heard of such utter rubbish in my life, we were created by a power beyond our understanding, just look around you, what do you see, take a seed, how does it grow into a tree etc etc. It only takes a bit of common sense.\n\nGloria(BSYA)
397661
Yes, I don't understand why people have such a hard time accepting this truth but yes, life began in Africa.  We are all descendants of Africans.
617416
origins are hard for small minds to wrap around.  Modern minds are conditioned to getting answers in a few seconds of a soundbite, otherwise they are bored.  Some teenagers still believe in the easter bunny and santa clause. It wasn't Adam and Steve.  Yes, evolution is a process that takes millions of years, not a soundbite of a few seconds. Evolution may seem to have stages, but they never stop. If you don't believe in the concept of evolution, you don't believe in the concept of graduation and may have to get a job at the level of the rest of us apes.
1099264
you seem to be so smug in your belief of evolution.  there is no proof whatsoever of it happening.  adaptation is different.  bacteria becoming immune to antibodies is adaptation.  humans do this all the time.  the bacteria aren't changing into anything different, they are still bacteria.  \nthere is no evidence in the fossil record either to support your idea.  in fact, all evidence in the fossils says otherwise.  there is no common ancestor of humans and primates.  nowhere.  lucy was an oversized chimp.  neanderthal man is equivalent to modern man in brain capacity, body structure, and everything else, what's the difference?  you can't use the tooth of a pig to create an entire skeleton of a human, that is called fraud (piltdown man).\n\ntry these FACTS: dr. frederick hoyle did a study on the probablility of a single-celled lifeform through means of random process from the beginning of time.  the likelihood of this happening is 1 in 10 to the 40,000 power.  (anything over 1 in 1050 is considered scientifically impossible).  hoyle stated, "evolution is nonsense in the highest degree"\nthe co-discoverer of DNA, francis crick; did a similar study on the chance of one single strand of DNA happening by random chance, but the results came that the chance is so small that it is nonexistant (so close to zero it's actually there)\n\nthe alternative? intelligent design.  all evidence points to a young earth.  if the earth is millions of years old: why hasn't it stopped spinning yet?  it slows down every year?  why hasn't the sahara desert taken over the plant yet?  it's growing by the day?  why have we never seen a single star form?  why hasn't the moon left us yet?  it gets farther and farther away every year?  \n\nother science would ask: why do some heavenly bodies rotate counter-clockwise if they all resulted from the big bang?  (according to the LAW of angular conservation, they should all be spinning the same way)  why isn't there a huge vacuum (present after any explosion); but the universe is instead expanding?  (refer to newton's LAWs of relativity)  why would the population curve put the start of humanity at about 4500 years ago, if we've been around for millions?  why is the oldest tree (also the oldest living organism) only 4500 years old?  \n\nuse evolution to explain morality, emotions, intelligence, abstract thought, love, etc.  you can't.  the only plausible answer is intelligent design.  \n\nanthony flue, once the greatest known and most highly revered atheist; writing over 30 books on the subject is an oxford double-doctorate with numerous other degrees and awards.  now a theist.  the clincher?  intelligent design.  unless you think that you're smarter than this guy (and it doesn't look like it from your grammar, spelling, and theology)  study a bit more before you go bashing theists.  \n\n"when science finally comes to the top of this mountain of truth, it will see that religion has been there all along."
517863
This is one of the most common misconceptions regarding the theory of evolution.  The theory of human evolution does not claim that humans came from apes.  Instead, it says that many millions of years ago, there was a species that was neither a human nor an ape.  This species split into at least two groups.  Over millions of years, one of those groups gradually changed to become what we now know as apes, and one of them gradually changed to become what we now know as humans. \n\nWhether you choose to believe the theory of evolution or some other explanation for how humans came to be is an entirely different matter.  That's something you have to decide for yourself--a bunch of strangers on the Internet can't tell you that.
1154645
It doesn't make sense does it, creation doesn't make sense, evolution doesn't make sense, so I think we all came from ummmmmm a giant he drew everything and they came to life, don't ask me where the giant came from, he just was there, I like my theory, don't you, if only I was a sciency person people would decide to believe my theory like people believed Darwin's theory, the silly people.
1183298
no, humans aren't evolved from anything.  they were created by God.
271982
Good point Pazion. But I still say in millions of years we still have seen no physical evidence that this is genetic. There have been no new emergence of a new gender. We are still born male and female. Again, in the next million years we may find that we were wrong in our assumptions. But we will be dead and therefore we still will not care. So it's a lost point even discussing it.
258814
since we all evolved form one celled organisms, which started in water, then we do come from fish. the "land egg" got us out of the water.
859414
"Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life."\n\nI assume it is the phrase "largely fortuitous" that Wells objects to. Arguably, this opinion is more philosophical than scientific (though it's also arguable that it isn't). Still, one phrase in one quote in an interview that is peripheral to the main text hardly seems worth getting overexcited about. It doesn't mean that the treatment of evolution, or of human evolution, in that textbook is not accurate.
993128
The origin of the first life form is actually indeed unclear.  What makes this so difficult is not that one cannot envision molecules that replicate themselves by having certain enzymatic activities.  Rather, if all recent life forms go back to one ancestral species, how did all those parts shared by recent species come together?   (For example, cell membranes, organalles, the nucleic acids etc.)\n\nNow, you are absolutely right that there is an assumed parent species, an ancestor to all other species on the planet.  But science does not show at all that life cannot derive from non-life.  Quite on the contrary, science would suggest, since all the individual parts of which living cells are composed are by themselves not alive, life must emerge from the higher-level organization.  The idea is the following: the properties of the parts of a system do not predict the properties of the whole.  Take water, which is composed of two gases.  Nothing in the properties of either gas suggests or makes predictable that H20 is a translucent liquid with a density anomaly.  The same holds true for biological systems.  Life seems to emerge at one point of complexity as a property of the union of non-living parts in complex systems such as cells.  How that happens is unclear.\n\nNow, I am not familiar with the theory you mention.  As a biologist who has focused much of his work time on evolution, I cannot say that this is a commonly held opinion.  But your question is a very good one:  If that indeed were the case, don't we just push the point of origin one level backwards?  Some scientists opt for the pansperm theory, according to which life came from out of space.  Not to wory, I am not talking UFO's etc.  Rather, amino acids and nucleic acids have been found in space.  The idea comes in two major flavors, namely one, that life originated on earth from these parts that were brought to the surface of the planet by means of meteors and then came together to form life.  The other flavor is that this happened on another planet and that the living cells were transported by meteroites to earth, which likewise would push the problem of the origin of life backwards, just as the "other dimension idea" (which to me seem rather strange and unscientific).
426671
as soon as your dads sperm met your moms egg, you allready died. i'm serious, if you think about it as soon as that happened many of us believe that life starts but in fact you all ready start to die and therefore you never live anyway you are always in a state of getting ready to die.
660271
Sure--why would it be unnatural? It's fun and feels good. You're probably young so the feeling is new and exciting. Nature wants us to perpetuate the species.
376973
Evolution is correct, although some find it emotionally unsatisfying.  However, if we go further back, we can think about the amino acids that all living organisms are made from.\nWhen the earth was much younger, carbon and many other elements and compounds were dissolved in the sea.  Over time, lightning strikes and other forces caused these chemicals to bind into amino acids.  Amino acids, although not alive, of course, are the basic building blocks of all life. If you think about evolution including this period of amino acid evolution, you may be more satisfied with your understanding of evolution.\nNow, if you're looking for a "why" we happen to be, I'd say there is no why.  We exist simply because of a series of chemical accidents.  \nYes, we're a small world in a huge cosmos.  Some argue that we must not be random because the chance of our world existing is so tiny.  I say that given the size of the universe, randomness certainly explains life on Earth.  As an analogy, flipping heads 100 times in a row is very unlikely, but if you flip the coin 100 trillion times, well, your odds are pretty good.  \nLastly, we exist, and therefore are able to argue about how we come to exist.  We have to accept that this unlikely series of events did happen because here we all are.  Inert minerals on planet YR-74298 are not sentient, and therefore don't have the luxury of arguing such things. (smile)\nOh, btw, IQ 147.  Was that what you wanted?
1031230
Errr, not really.\n\nYou must also understand that evolution in no way says anything about the origins of life.  That's a whole other subject ;).
869471
Is that a Q, or a sedantary Comment...?\nThe basics of life is Creation - such as the 'UNMOVED MOVER'\n\nScience cannot support that, so people can take it and shove it up!!  ooop!! they will have to 'move' for that...\n\nAs was a lot of 'that' when our (pre-birth) sperm was swimming...\n\nIf ur comment is on the side of creation - u in the right direction, but still the Creator is not dividing itself,, it is creating indepedent lifes'...