Why do people think it's silly that we evolved from sea-life when we start out as sperm?
827709
you have a point there. good job.
1004804
The thought is that life (all of it) came from a single organism and over a long time has become what we can see today. An example i can think of that has occurred over a short enough time span that we can use would be Human intelligence, size relative to geography, and skin color relative to geography.  We as humans are smarter today than generations past, for instance modern man 10000 years ago did not have the smarts we have today, do you believe it is due to school or human mental advancement(evolution). There is an extremely noticeable difference between natives of different geographical locations. Darker skin in the hotter regions and lighter skin in the regions with less sun per year. ie Africa and Europe  The theory is very well developed and provable back to a certain point.  And NO ONE said that a GOD didn't strike the first amino acid with the lightening to start the evolution.
621021
its worth looking at. i mean there is some convincing evidence that we did evolve from monkeys and other mammals. of course you can say god created man and leave it at that, but how can we move on and learn new things about the origin of life with that view? So i guess i will keep an open mind to both views
193889
The oceans have changed due to the nuclear tests or explosions which have gone unnoticed externaly.\nGod is not a person like a human form as is being made out by many religions but an all prevading all knowing phenomena within the phenomena known externaly to human beings.\nEvery thought process generated in any mind has its effect and brings about changes.\nyour thoughts too are being recorded and being appreciated by the so called GOD but the all prevading inteligence.\nYou become what you think is not wrong .\nGod is creating conditions which will abolish mankind.\nThe conciousness of this planet is changing all arround.\nWhy sperm whales if a handfull of dust converts to deadly virus and adopts wings through the rain, which rises from the oceans, this will be end of mankind.\nI am part of this dust and will stay as dust as long as dust particles exist any where in the skies.\nI see myself not only as a whale but even as an insect or a worm and will perform my journey of the kind .\nmraju69@yahoo.com
332006
WE DO COME FROM THE DOMAIN KINGDOM ANAMILEA,\nBUT THAT DOSNT MEAN WE SHOULD GO AROUND CALLING OURSELVES ANIMALS ..\nITS ALL TO DO WITH THE WAY YOU POSE THE QUESTION. \nNOT MANY PEOPLE EDUCATED IN THAT FIELD "SCIENCE" WILL NOT UNDERSTAND TAXAMONY, WHICH LEAVES US WITH A MORE PRECISE WORD  " HUMANS " WHICH SOUNDS MORE CIVILISED AND LESS INSULTING.
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.
212993
Single, It is all about faith and your beliefs. If you believe in Jelly fish, then that's the path you choose and there or others who believe that Adam came from that higher power, GOD. I believe in the latter, and guess what? If all evolved from protoplasm, Then God mad that Protoplasm. There is no escaping it. God IS the creator. Final.
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.
416340
I would have to answer that you're asking the wrong question!  \n\nThe explanation of how a plant or animal can develop asexual reproduction isn't going to help you better understand incremental changes via evolution; what you really need to understand is how a plant or animal can develop sexual reproduction. \n\nLooking at the first, microbiological life, asexual reproduction - i.e. cell division or 'budding' -  was the first and most essential form of reproduction. It took century upon century for more complex life to develop and specialize; and, for the mechanisms of sexual reproduction to develop and become established. \n\nThe change from asexual to sexual reproduction would indeed have been  massive, but it doesn't follow that it had to be sudden. When scientists look at species and evolution, they will generally say that one species was more successful at adapting to their environment than another. \n\nIt seems that the ancestors of many plants and animals developed sexual reproduction mechanisms, and they were more successful in competing with other animals for food/territory, over an extended period of time. The less successful ones died out long ago.\n\nSo - it may not be totally accurate to say, "reproduction either works or it doesn't." A better statement would be, "evolutionarily speaking, changes in species over time may cause one method of reproduction to become less successful than another."  \n\nHaving said that: there are other scientists who agree that evolution isn't always slow and gradual; they argue that sometimes evolution happens occasionally in a sudden and dramatic way, when one species splits to become new species - generally the new species are created when one population becomes separated by geographic boundaries. \n\nI'd strongly suggest reading the Wikipedia article (linked below) on Stephen Jay Gould for an evolutionary point of view which counters the slow evolution methodologies advocated by Dawkins; as well as the articple on evolution itself - which looks at the development of the understanding of evolutionary principles and their historical context.
1070874
ima try to keep it simple.. more of a opinion than answer because of the topic which we won't really know.  \n\nIf you study science hard as hell, you will see how a single cell organism lived in the water, long ago.  When they adapted... to survive for food they grew to 'cilia' (hair) on sides to move thu water after only having on hair(flagella).  To get to the point... cells evolved into tadpoles. then to fish and snakes. then to amphibians like frogs or platypus which is land and water.  Then reptiles and mammals that live on land.  Most say the monkey group grew to human when more complex learning/thinking came...but this could be the beginning of man.  Then religion to explain it all.  THe big bang theory states dinosaurs could of died when a meteor hit earth and clogged the atmosphere with dust so bad that no light was here for years.  No grass, no oxygen.  If the bible says... let there be light... could that of been when it cleared up.  The whole point is there is no way to prove anything that will satisfy us wholely.  If i do not have the cross of jesus... they do not believe... if you tell them anything out of the norm... they doubt it. It will all be confusion until enough knowledge satisfies their interest whether they choose science or religion.  THis is all because we are becoming in need of security thru reality and facts relating to our own patterns.  Most people believe the bible for only its relating content to everyday life rather than the miracles, holy spirit, and other great feats not known or seen to man today.  A scientist will help fulfill these questions as well as an interpretor of faith.  It depends if your a theorist. So its a bad thing for a scientist to fail in his field. The unexplained is sorta why we even have religion.  You must stop collecting facts and give faith to the supreme being....because even the single cell organism came from somewhere and the power to adapt/evolve is unexplained. unexplained gives a sense of unsecurity where we "fear what we cant control" (heights, ghost, and other scary sh/it.  we feel we cant control our lives without that being explained, so we fear and act off of that. Hope i covered alot in a lil.  Good luck on the answer! peace out!
294512
There is a tailbone in humans which is redundant, just like an appendix. Appendix has use for animals in digesting raw food. People stopped eating raw food, making it redundant. \nIf you check the ancient drawings, ancient humans had a lot of body hair, but as humans evovled, the hair became less.\n\nTo the person above - Neanderthal, Cro-magnan, Homo-erectus fossils are what you can call a "Transitional" fossil to prove evolution.\n\nTo the person who asked the question - Mutation, adaptation and evolution are inter-linked. Monkeys did not evolve into humans overnight. Or it wasnt a case that monkeys gave birth to humans suddenly. Adaptations and mutation over generations results into evolution. In fact you can say that Mutation and adaptations are preliminary steps of evolution.\n\nTo hutsong - Evolution is how life evolved from primitive life form into the current species. It, in no way speaks how life was created in the first way.\nAlso you talk about experiments in labs have proved that one life-form can not evolve into a different life-form. Heres a  question for you - How many years are these laboratories set up for? If the answer is less than 500 years, then its not enough time frame for any evolution to be seen.\nAlso you are giving links to a website which can is run by christains who are staunch opponnents of evolution not scientifically but religiously. So that has no weight at all. Maybe links to magazines like Science or Nature would have been more convincing.\n\nThumbs up to emilyrose!!
620386
We would sound really irritating and people would play tricks on us all the time by walking up behind us and plugging up our  breathing hole in our backs. I don't believe in evolution though, or why are there still apes? Adaptation is natural and selective breeding is mutations that we are good with, like with dogs, cats, horses, and cattle. But to think that we were apes is just nonsense, even Darwin recanted most of his theories before he died.
937655
All the claims based on human physiology have good non-aquatic possibilities such as adaptations to a savanna lifestyle, so it's not a compelling theory.\n\nIt does however seem entirely plausible that as generalists, our ancestors may have foraged around the water's edges and shallows, much like some monkeys do today.\n\nThere's a good list of the arguments for and objections (at the bottom) against the theory on Wikipedia at the link below
376158
Because people can't even begin to fathom the amount of time evolution has been at work on this earth. Mast people can't give their God credit for being around for the 5 billion years the earth has been here. How do you expect the average member of the human species to wrap the feeble little minds around the idea that humans have been around for only 4 million of those years. It is unconsciencable to them. \n\nAs a species, we've only had the ability to write our thoughts down for others to read for the past 20,000 years. When you are asked to realize that life first evolved 225,000 times longer ago than you've been able to write down stories, it's hard to imagine. When truths like that are stairing you in the eye, it's not unreasonable to get scared and and run for one of your oldest fairy tales.
330210
People are programmed to die, as are all life forms (except single-celled organisms). If people didn't die of natural causes and insisted on breeding, the world would be even more overpopulated than it is now. There would be a much slower rate of evolutionary change, far less genetic variation and consequently, if we didn't die of old age we would certainly be killed by disease and predators, as we would not have kept up in the evolutionary race. And we wouldn't be the smarty-pants beings we are now. People die because their cells run out of capacity to reproduce effectively. It means that we don't take life for granted (or we can choose not to take it for granted) and we have some room for our kids.\n\nAs for how did life start? Ooh that IS contentious. But it would only have needed to have taken place once, and that would have been enough to create the amazing diversity of life we have today, given enough time. We have had enough time.\n\nYou can read the Bible, but a far more fun read is "The Science of Discworld" by Terry Pratchett, Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen.
950566
You need an egg and sperm to create life.\n\nOne without the other will die.\n\nEnd of story...pay attention in biology next time.
167524
This is a highly loaded question.  At least you are up front about your intentions.\n\nThe beginning of life is subjective. Not all species follow the same rules.\n\nTake for example a jellyfish. When a jellyfish releases spermatozoa and eggs, these combine to form a planula. This is technically a living cluster of cells. It has no nervous system, no perception, no way to feed, or direct its movement. As it drifts through the water it develops further and has rudimentery chemical senes that will ultimately tell it where to settle and begin its next phase of life.\n\nA mammal is a cluster of cells a few days after conception. These are undifferentited stem cells. They have not yet begun to differentiate. An embryonic dog looks like an enbryonic whale at this stage. It is very fragile and any number of problems will cause it to self terminate and stop growing. It cannot survive without its host, and has no brain or nervous system to be conscious or self aware.  In the case of humans, whose gestation is about 42 weeks, at about week 12, the fetus now has a rudimentery circulatory system and a beating heart. This system now is responsible for delivery nutrients provided by the host (mom) and removing waste products. Any earlier and the fetus/embryo is  in early development. In many cases if you were showed any mammal at the same stage you could not tell a mouse from a dog from a human at 4, 6, or 8 weeks. Even an embryonic fish at 2 weeks looks like a human at 3 weeks. If you had to put a date on this type of question, then 12 weeks seems reasonable. Another perspective is when a fetus could survive outside the uterus, which is about 26 to 30 weeks. In some cases slightly earlier. The nervous system begins development around week 10 to 14 and for all purposes is not finished until about 2.5 years of age. The brain and spinal chord are not cohesive until about 16 t 20 weeks and there are no sensory systems or pain receptors until closer to 30 weeks. Even at birth, newbornes are only semi conscious as their brains interpret the new environment.\nIn short, you cannot accurately and faily put a number on this. Esecially when it comes to a womans right to dictate how her bidy is used. Pregnancy is much like a parasitic infection. Forcing a mother to be a host to this is as cruel as terminating a pregnancy. Prevention is far better and education and access to reliable methods and information should be everyones goals. But you cannot expect the number of pregnancy terinations to go down if you do not educate kids about sex and provide confidential access to birth control.