There's obviously flaws with model organisms, as the saying goes "mice lie and monkeys exaggerate" but zebrafish are surprisingly good organisms to study human problems.
If you wanna kill 20 minutes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zebrafish#Scientific_research
if so, does that mean what applies to fish likely applies at some stage in or some way?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory
Which, despite the awesome rhyming phrase, doesn't really represent reality much. But even if it did, feral stage development wouldn't be reason to believe that this applies to humans.
The better reason to believe there's a chance this applies to humans, to some degree, is that humans and fish share similar brain signaling and micro biome products; which may be true or may not be! It's a big hint of a direction to look, which is great.
But even if this doesn't apply to humans, it's valuable research because it defines what's possible in biology.
(This was my first infishing but it was easy because of related practice: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...)
Lies!
https://web.archive.org/web/20221029231109/https://news.ycom...
Which is fascinating! And we know that gut micro biome has impacts on humans too.
But, we shouldn't extrapolate from research in fish all the way to humans until we can show it. The painful (or joyful) thing about science is dealing with the uncertainty and knowing that hypotheses are just that.