Another irrefutable proof that God created all things using mathematical induction. And a proof that The Bible is the word of God.

[Subduction Zone]

I can believe in that TYPE of evolution. An environment that only allowed a certain species to survive in a particular location.

That was not what was said or implied.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

And in the exact same way, you aren't able to notice a "first spanish speaking person" or a "first homo sapiens" or a "first egg".
This is the nature of gradual change over time.






Way to miss the point.
That point being that in gradual change over time, there is no FIRST.





Yes there is. It's called natural selection. We've known about this phenomena for 200 years. Time to catch on.
EVERY individual is born with micro-changes (mutations). We call it the "mutation rate". In humans, that rate is ~50 mutations per individual.
Those are 50-ish genetic changes that are unique to YOU, which you dit not inherit from either of your parents.

These changes accumulate. Most of these changes are neutral (which is to say, they have no effect on fitness). Some are harmful (to fitness). Natural selection weeds those out quickly (these individuals tend to die before spreading their genes). Some are beneficial (to fitness). Natural selection favours those. Which is to say: these individuals tend to have more succes in spreading their genes. They have higher chance of survival, higher chance of reproducing.

The accumulation of these changes = gradual change over time.

Is it starting to sink in?

Once more: in evolution, there is no "first" eye, no "first" human, no "first" egg.
Just like in that text, there is no "first" blue word.



Once again you are not thinking correctly. You see things in black and white: sharp hearing or deaf. There's a WHOLE range in between those two.
Hearing is the perception of vibration (which is what sound is).



No. Once again, you are focussing on the present trait, which is the result of hundreds of millions of years of evolution.
Our mammalian ear bones, used to be part of jaws in our ancient ancestors. In fact in reptiles, they still are.

You might want to read up a bit (again).

You are talking about traits that literally took hundreds of millions of years of gradual evolution to get to the state they are today.
You keep talking about them as if they somehow showed up overnight.
In analogy of the textual color example, you are jumping from red straight to blue.
This is not how evolution works.



It doesn't sound like it since you keep making the same mistake over and over and over again.



And yet, here we are... you insisting on asking about the "first egg" and now similarly with a complex trait like mammalian ears, which literally have an evolutionary history going back hundreds of millions of years.

So you say. It can't be proven. It is only a theory.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is contradicted by common sense.

Common sense only can inform you on things with respect to the knowledge that you have. Common sense is not a reliable method to learn new things

From "common sense" for example you would NEVER conclude that the earth orbits the sun. The earth "feels "stationary and static. You see the sun come up on one side, "move" across the sky and set down at the other side. Common sense would inform you that the sun orbits the earth.

It's only one you ALLOW new information to be digested by your mind, that you'll realize that what you believed was "common sense", was actually incorrect.

From common sense can only conclude things using models of reality you actually comprehend and from data you actually know about. You can NOT use it to form conclusions from things you do NOT know.

This is why "common sense" almost ALWAYS fails at the frontiers of scientific knowledge.


And because you continue to be willfully ignorant about evolutionary processes, because you insist on strawmanning the theory... that's why you feel like "common sense" contradicts it.

This is why your "common sense" tells you that there had to be a "first human" or a "first egg" or a "first wing".
But as we have seen with the color text example... in gradualism, there is no first.

Once you understand the concept of gradualism and really absorb its implications, your "common sense" will no longer tell you that there was a "first egg". Instead, it will inform you that there wasn't.


See?

I suspect this explanation will receive the same handwaving denial we have come to expect from you.

Evidence has to be properly evaluated.

Then why don't you do that, instead of this handwaving denial treatment you always give it?

When someone claims to know what happened millions of years ago, that is enough to let me know they don't know.

See?
Perhaps, just perhaps, you should first ask the question HOW they know and evaluate those explanations honestly before jumping to those handwaving conclusions?

They are only speculating.

They really, really, really aren't.
If you would give the evidence and explanations an honest evaluation, you'ld realize this.


But I guess your dogmatic religious beliefs, don't allow for that.


Still, I would advice you to give it a sincere shot. I'm not asking you to accept it. I'm asking you to give it a fair reading. Try to learn what it really says.
You don't have to believe it. But if you are going to argue against it, the least you could do is learn what it really says....

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Common sense only can inform you on things with respect to the knowledge that you have. Common sense is not a reliable method to learn new things

From "common sense" for example you would NEVER conclude that the earth orbits the sun. The earth "feels "stationary and static. You see the sun come up on one side, "move" across the sky and set down at the other side. Common sense would inform you that the sun orbits the earth.

It's only one you ALLOW new information to be digested by your mind, that you'll realize that what you believed was "common sense", was actually incorrect.

From common sense can only conclude things using models of reality you actually comprehend and from data you actually know about. You can NOT use it to form conclusions from things you do NOT know.

This is why "common sense" almost ALWAYS fails at the frontiers of scientific knowledge.


And because you continue to be willfully ignorant about evolutionary processes, because you insist on strawmanning the theory... that's why you feel like "common sense" contradicts it.

This is why your "common sense" tells you that there had to be a "first human" or a "first egg" or a "first wing".
But as we have seen with the color text example... in gradualism, there is no first.

Once you understand the concept of gradualism and really absorb its implications, your "common sense" will no longer tell you that there was a "first egg". Instead, it will inform you that there wasn't.


See?

I suspect this explanation will receive the same handwaving denial we have come to expect from you.



Then why don't you do that, instead of this handwaving denial treatment you always give it?



See?
Perhaps, just perhaps, you should first ask the question HOW they know and evaluate those explanations honestly before jumping to those handwaving conclusions?


They really, really, really aren't.
If you would give the evidence and explanations an honest evaluation, you'ld realize this.


But I guess your dogmatic religious beliefs, don't allow for that.


Still, I would advice you to give it a sincere shot. I'm not asking you to accept it. I'm asking you to give it a fair reading. Try to learn what it really says.
You don't have to believe it. But if you are going to argue against it, the least you could do is learn what it really says....

Quit saying I don't understand what you are saying about natural selection. I do - I just don't believe it works like you think it does. Reptiles don't become mammals for instance. Eyesight and hearing and taste didn't just evolve into existence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You are supporting your arguments with things that can't be proven. But you refuse to admit it.

I am supporting my arguments with evidence, reason and sound theory. Much, much more than you have provided for your claims.

I've already told you and others have too. Proof is not a standard of science, but if you think it is a standard, then provide the proof for your claims or admit you can't support them.

Hypotheses are tested using evidence. Theories are supported by evidence. Proof is for math, logic and liquor.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Quit saying I don't understand what you are saying about natural selection. I do - I just don't believe it works like you think it does. Reptiles don't become mammals for instance.

Based on what you are writing here, not only do you not understand natural selection, you clearly don't understand evolution. The theory doesn't say that one taxon will morph into another. Reptiles are ancestral to mammals based on the evidence.

Eyesight and hearing and taste didn't just evolve into existence.

Why not? Demonstrate it. Show me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you say. It can't be proven. It is only a theory.

That depends upon what one calls "proven". Can gravity be proven?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I can believe in that TYPE of evolution

There is only one "type" of evolution in biology.

An environment that only allowed a certain species to survive in a particular location.

It's not about "allowing". That implies intent / purpose. There is no such thing.
There is just that which works and that which doesn't work (or not as well).

Like how bears living in a snowy background will be more succesful in hunting prey when they have white fur as opposed to brown fur.
It is not a coincidence that carnivorus bears living in forests are brown, while bears living in snow are white.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Fact - They CANNOT prove what happened millions of years ago.

Events of the past leave evidence behind that can be investigated in the present.

Thinking reptiles ever give birth to mammals is dumb.

That is indeed dumb.
I already explained ad nauseum to you the concept of gradualism and how every individual ever born was of the same species as its parents.

But alas... you prefer sticking your head in the sand and trippling down on strawmen over actually learning something.
Not much I can do about that, other then to point it out.

It's upto you... if you want to insist on being wrong, so be it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you say. It can't be proven. It is only a theory.

Handwaving denial rooted in scientific illiteracy once again.

Germ theory of desease.
Atomic theory.
Plate tectonics.
Theory of relativity.
Heliocentrism.
...

None of these "can be proven".
All of them "only a theory".


You might want to learn what a theory in science actually is. "objections" such as these, just make you look like a fool tbh.
Here, read this:

Evolution is Not Just a Theory: home

www.notjustatheory.com

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Quit saying I don't understand what you are saying about natural selection.

I didn't even mention natural selection.
I was talking about gradualism. And every time you ask a question about the evolution of a certain trait, you demonstrate that you either do not comprehend the implications of gradualism OR you are ignoring the fact that evolution works gradually. One or the other.

I will happily quit saying you don't understand evolution once you start demonstrating that you actually understand it.
But as long as your questions, objections and general statements about the subject continue to be loaded up with strawmen and ignorance in general about the actual theory of evolution, there isn't anything else I can conclude.

Well, no, that's not true.... I could also conclude that you actually DO understand it, but are misrepresenting it on purpose - meaning that you are being dishonest and purposefully and willingly lying. Is that the case?

It's one or the other.

I do - I just don't believe it works like you think it does. Reptiles don't become mammals for instance. Eyesight and hearing and taste didn't just evolve into existence.

And trippling down again on the same errors.


For crying out loud....


Nothing in biology "just" evolved.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

I didn't even mention natural selection.
I was talking about gradualism. And every time you ask a question about the evolution of a certain trait, you demonstrate that you either do not comprehend the implications of gradualism OR you are ignoring the fact that evolution works gradually. One or the other.

I will happily quit saying you don't understand evolution once you start demonstrating that you actually understand it.
But as long as your questions, objections and general statements about the subject continue to be loaded up with strawmen and ignorance in general about the actual theory of evolution, there isn't anything else I can conclude.

Well, no, that's not true.... I could also conclude that you actually DO understand it, but are misrepresenting it on purpose - meaning that you are being dishonest and purposefully and willingly lying. Is that the case?

It's one or the other.



And trippling down again on the same errors.


For crying out loud....


Nothing in biology "just" evolved.

Others of similar belief to you have mentioned natural selection. Others have said mammals evolved from reptiles. You are either defending evolution or not.

And I'm still waiting for your answer about the egg. If the egg came first as claimed by evolution. What laid that first egg?

Oh that's right. You finally said something like there never was a "first" egg. That really makes sense, since the egg came first.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Events of the past leave evidence behind that can be investigated in the present.


That is indeed dumb.
I already explained ad nauseum to you the concept of gradualism and how every individual ever born was of the same species as its parents.

But alas... you prefer sticking your head in the sand and trippling down on strawmen over actually learning something.
Not much I can do about that, other then to point it out.

It's upto you... if you want to insist on being wrong, so be it.

What actual evidence did you provide from 350 million years ago?

Yes it was dumb, and one of your cohorts said something like that. And yes you explained the concept of gradualism - but that is a far cry from proving that was how things came to be.

I could explain a concept of how you could rub a lamp and out comes a genie. But guess what? It wouldn't be true.

 

[metis]

And I'm still waiting for your answer about the egg. If the egg came first as claimed by evolution. What laid that first egg?

I posted if before, so let me do it once more: why is it that with the myriads of specimens found from the Cambria Explosion, no egg has ever been found?

[hint: no multicellular organisms that far back have ever been found]

 

[TrueBeliever37]

I posted if before, so let me do it once more: why is it that with the myriads of specimens found from the Cambria Explosion, no egg has ever been found?

[hint: no multicellular organisms that far back have ever been found]

Isn't that the same as admitting you have no proof?

 

[metis]

Isn't that the same as admitting you have no proof?

If you can't have the basic courtesy and trying to answer my question, then why should I take your response seriously?

So, please answer my question.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

If you can't have the basic courtesy and trying to answer my question, then why should I take your response seriously?

So, please answer my question.

Maybe all the evidence has decayed over all the millions of years.

Now you - How can you claim the egg was first when you have no evidence of an egg? And IF the egg was first - WHAT laid that egg?

 

[metis]

Isn't that the same as admitting you have no proof?

Now you are being dishonest, which is not a Christian response. I asked you a question and you again deflected it, so this wasn't an accident.

If you can't answer the question, why not be honest and say something like "I don't know the answer" or "I'll look it up"? Better that than acting like a know-it-all.

Trust me, there were times in the past whereas I made the same mistake you have, so I can't throw any stones at ya.

 

[joelr]

I've been looking at some of your so called evidence. Scientists claiming to be able to tell us what happened 350 millions of years ago and longer - I don't believe your evidence.

It's not my evidence. Fossils range from 10,000 to over 4 million years old. It isn't hard to understand this evidence and the dating techniques.

Please explain what you don't believe and why. You don't believe in radio dating? Which method and why? Cross checking is often done as well so it's very reliable.

When someone believe reptiles can become mammals , you kind of have to deal with them on a 3rd grade level.

The person on the 3rd grade level is the one trying to simplify long complex processes into magical transformations.

Mammals developed piecemeal over tens of millions of years, beginning about 325 million years ago when the mammal lineage diverged from the reptiles. The mammal line – known as synapsids – came to dominate the Permian Period (299-252 million years ago), when all land was conjoined into the supercontinent Pangaea.

Again, a case of ignoring evidence in favor of ridiculous creationist apologetics lies and using that to make inaccurate comments.

You don't believe those reptiles also evolved into trees do you?

I believe what is demonstrated by evidence. Both came from early prokaryotes, early eukaryotic cells were 2 or more prokaryotes. No animal evolved back to early life forms. Again, you simply don't want to understand the basic ideas of the theory. You first have to actually care about what is true, not fictional versions of reality.

 

[joelr]

I was wondering if any ape populations (and by apes I mean chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos and the like) are in life-threatening situations in their habitats.

Yes, many great ape species were in life threatening situations. The largest ape species went extinct in fact.

Hominids evolved in the first place because of de-forestization which forced apes to begin to walk more for food.

Considering that the human population is many years in existence according to evolutionists, the theory is that they didn't need to write until making contractual arrangements. And of course, might not be that interested in figuring how they (we, humans) got here.

Early civilizations told stories/myths in pictograms found in stone. Homo Sapien is around 200,000 years old.

So far as I know, gorillas and bonobos have not communicated whether they wonder about evolution.

They have not communicated about what the sun, moon, stars are or any other deeper questions, so that would make sense,

Unless of course, some humans might say, as I've seen done -- well, maybe they do wonder, or know ... (But I don't think so. If you do, that's up to you...) Thanks for your point above which I wonder just how you know from the theory that fish were endangered (environmental pressure perhaps) to move out of the water with legs and develop lungs to breathe air only? I realize there are conjectures about this, but would you say they 'know' beyond a doubt that's how gorillas and humans became (evolved) to what they are.

The evidence is strong that Africa was changing to more grasslands, apes needed to walk more and more recently the brains grew as a result of diet change.

Introduction to Human Evolution

humanorigins.si.edu

Some modern humans still have a small amount of DNA of earlier hominids.