Did humans evolve from the sea (Sea creatures?)?

Question

or was there something before?

Answer 1

Uh, not directly.

We evolved from other apes, who evolved from other primates, who evolved from other mammals, who evolved from other critters, who evolved from sea critters.

Here are two sources for understanding all this stuff better:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life...

For most of the history of life on Earth, there were only two very simple kinds of living things.

Answer 2

You want to receive stimulation from us and it has nothing to do with some theory that you already know.

Answer 3

There is no one on earth really can answer this question. It's unanswerable !!!

Answer 4

there is no way for anyone to really know the answer so.......

Answer 5

Besides the obvious answer that all terrestrial life had originally emerged from the earths oceans, there are also some interesting hypothesis of our early hominid evoltion and one of these hypothesis speculates that perhaps our own species had revisited a coastal environment in order to aquire many of our characteristics which have become commonplace within our biology and morphology.  I'll go through many of the differing hypothesis of hominid evolution for you:

The earliest hypothesis put forth to explain this was the savanna hypothesis, which became discredited when the archaeological record of hominids showed sites previous to the time of savannas being the primary landscape feature in Africa, namely sites that preceded 3 mya (million years ago). Archaeology at this point has even unearthed a few hominid sites that are proposing that early hominids were present even as far back as 6 mya, and if this is the case then the savanna is truly an impossible environment to have allowed our evolution. It was Raymond Dart who first proposed the savanna hypothesis and he did so because he had discovered a significan number of hominids that had lived in South Africa. The archaeological evidence for his site proposed a savanna environment. Being one of the first hominid sites to be found, he was free to conjecture whatever ideas he saw fit from his evidence and hence the birth of the savanna hypothesis. Over the last 25 years, as the savanna hypothesis has been increasingly discredited because of the discovery of sites that date back to earlier times that did not have a savanna environment. With this contemporary anthropology has more and more began to describing our evolutionionary environment as being that of a mixed hypothesis, which is a primarily arboreal environment with savanna patches between forests. As some Chimpanzee groups live in this "mixed" environment, whereas Bonobos live in a swampy/arboreal environment and display much more incidences of bipedalism, it is my humble opinion that the mixed hypothesis is also flawed in its reasoning, yet that is where anthropology stands on the subject. Other contending hypothesis for the origins of man are:

The ice age hypothesis, which states that Northern Hemisphere ice ages made the African environment drier suddenly, thus forcing the rapic evolution of our species.

The arboreal hypothesis, which states that our constant tree climbing allowed for the adoption of a more upright posture. There are a lot of arboreal monkeys/apes however which are by no means showing the same tendancy so I don't buy this one.

The hypothesis of neotony, which simply states that some undefined rapid environmental change pushed our ancestor towards more generalized neonatal characteristics (baby characteristics) in order to expand our biological toolkit for adaptation.

Now the one that you might be interested in, the aquatic hypothesis, which does NOT propose that our hominid ancestors swam in the open ocean as many of it's opponents will have you beleive. In fact their is a lot of geological evidence that shows that the great rift valley flooded around 8-10 mya and that this would have resulted in an island remaining in Eretria. The aquatic ape hypothesis postulates that the monkeys that were in this area were forced together onto this Island as the water rose during this period of flooding and as the population became too dense for the remaining terrestrial resources to support this population of monkeys, they began to experiment with new food sources. Over the years one food source that became more and more abundant were the shellfish in the adjacent tidal areas and it was these resources which these monkeys began to exploit (like the crab eating macaques do in South East Asia). As this environment was exploited more and more as a food source, the most successful monkeys were the ones that had advantages (ever so slightly) towards holding their bodies erect as they searched for crabs or oysters (excellent protein source for brain development) in the tidal regions and over many generations (about 1 million years of isolation) bipedalism, a reduced size of our hair, the ability to control our breath, increased fatty tissue, a diving reflex and a whole host of other characteristics came about in these now early hominids. Similiar adaptations took place in a whole bunch of other fully aquatic mammal species like seals, dolphins and whales. The difference with hominids, however, was that the waters receeded after we had only made a partial adaptation towards aquaticism, and as of such they were suddenly left with a new set of characteristics that could be applied within the terrestrial environment where these hominids now found themselves. If these characteristics were not beneficcial then hominids would have gone extinct then and there, but as history has proven, this little, naked hominid stood the test of time and was able to apply his new biological toolkit to adapting to new environments throughout the globe.

So these are the proposed hypothesis regarding the origins of man, and I can't wait until more archaeology is done in the danakil hills of Eritria, and hopefully somewhere there were the conditions appropriate towards preservation so that just a few of our earliest hominid relatives can be unearthed thus allowing this hypothesis to spread throughout the archaeological/anthropological community and dethrowning the old-boys-club of archaeology who are ardently holding onto this ridiculous "mixed" hypothesis simply because their life's work has been put towards ideas that depend on it and they don't want to feel like they wasted away their careers. (interestingly enough the old-boys-club which preceeded the current one fought intensely against the "out of Africa" hypothesis being proposed by Raymond Dart and even created the Piltdown hoax to slow the truth from emerging until after Dart's death) Move on and stop creating barriers towards the other hypothesis and the expansion of academic thought in this area. I say this because in the vast majority of undergraduate courses the ONLY perspective which is addressed is the savanna come mixed hypothesis and none of the other hypothesis are even mentioned. Teach these kids how to think! If the theories are wrong then the evidence will prove it and the hypothesis will fade, but do this without bias you old-school anthropolgy hypocrits!

PS the article posted two responses before mine oversimplifies the aquatic hypothesis grosely and is a great example of why archaeologists tend to discredit this hypothesis as it implied that we were swimming with dolphins, "we have also been close to the dolphins for centuries... I feel we are co-species... and the dolphins have often been our companions in the sea", which is a bunch of rubbish.  The model is more coastally aligned and does not include long term exposure to open waters as our adaptions were not aquatically complete enough to bring us great sucess there.  If the hypothesis is aproached holistically to include other evidence like geology and comparative anatomy, then the use of logic becomes overwhelming and it actualy does make a lot of sense.

Answer 6

Yes, as per the Hindu methology, there was only sea over the earth-not salty, the first crature devloped in water i.e.fish-evolution of God Vishnu

Answer 7

Life first began in the sea, so yes. But of more interest, there's a theory called the Aquatic Ape theory. This woman says that humans were actually partially aquatic for a while, hence the lack of hair on our bodies and our sometimes webbed toes. A lot of people don't accept it, but it's an interesting theory. The website can do a better job of explaining than myself. Check it out:

Answer 8

yes, humans evolved from the sea and land and don't forget, Vensus whose light burns with such brilliance and grace. Now {MARS} will hold that next far-our gateway toward [NIV]

Answer 9

If you go back far enough, all land creatures ultimately evolved from sea creatures.  Evidence of this in humans (and other mamals) are the gills that we have during the embryonic state - a kind of leftover from an ancient form.

Going back even further everything evolved from the original single cellular creatures that started life.

Answer 10

Yeah, if you go back far enough.

Answer 11

i don't think so....i thought it was primates. like apes and gorillas

Answer 12

Humans didn't exactly evolve from sea creatures.  Humans didn't exist when vertebrates came out of the ocean.  The oldest known and suspected ancestors are from the sea.

Answer 13

Yes.  Everything ON earth evolved from blue green algae.

Answer 14

NO, we were genetically engineered by god.

Answer 15

yes i think so

Answer 16

According to the fossil record (the real one) humans appeared suddenly, as if from Space. All that were here before were animals of vast diversity and fish, etc.

Those who proclaim 'ape ancestors' of people are selling something for big $$$.

Have you invested heavily?