Christian Evolutionist:

[camanintx]

Why would there be any fishy things left in the ocean after millions of years then?

Maybe because the "natural selection" part of evolution drives systems towards an equilibrium. Fish most likely evolved into land animals because the sea was getting too crowded and competitive. When some fish evolved into land animals the selective pressure on the remaining fish lessened the need to evolve.

Also...why have antelope not developed wings so that the lion doesnt get to them?

Evolution is not about directed change. Natural selection can only work with the changes presented by random mutations.

 

[Autodidact]

The reproduction of DNA and RNA is not the issue here. DNA and RNA is essential for life to exist in the first place. So if the evolution theory starts from the basis of DNA and RNA existing already, we cannot say that evolution is how life started, because DNA and RNA has to be present at the same time and work together to sustain life.

That right, Heneni, that's because, and I'm going to put this in all caps in the hopes that you will grasp this once and for all, EVOLUTION THEORY IS NOT ABOUT HOW LIFE GOT STARTED. So, for the 4th or so time, if you want to discuss how life got started, please start a thread for that purpose; it is not relevant to this one. Thank you.

 

[Magic Man]

The same argument could be given for the fish...Why would the fish that grew legs, grow them, if there was plenty of food for it in the water?

Because growing legs helped that species to survive.

And not only would it have to develop a set of legs to feed on land, it would have to change its intestines to cope with the new diet.

It wasn't about feeding on land. As I just said, it still stayed in the water, it was just able to get through areas of dense branches and things in the water. Of course other changes had to happen for it to be able to live on land. All of those changes happened gradually, including developping lungs.

How would the intestines of the fish evolve over thousands of years and still be able to digest the food the fish is getting from the water, while at the same time evolving to cope with the plants or other proteins it would eat on land?

Because it didn't just all of a sudden move to land and then start eating a whole new diet. It ate some new things here and there, and gradually its whole biology changed. By the time it was living on land, it had developped all it needed to, or else it wouldn't be living on land.

 

[Heneni]

Not exactly the same environment. The fish that grew legs found getting into the marshy lands useful, while the predator didn't. The predator had other prey and didn't need to pursue the species evolving legs that much.

The rest of this just doesn't make sense. They didn't grow legs to try to get onto land. They grew legs to get through branches and various other things that impeded swimming, but they still stayed in the water at that point. They were stronger in that way because that predator was then not able to follow them into that area. If they had stayed in the ocean with legs instead of fins, they would have been weaker, but they didn't.

First of all...i have to give you a cigar, :cigar: because for ONCE i am talking to someone about this without them flinging more insults. Cool. I think this is the first time ive been able to debate with you. Lets hope this peace pipe lasts.

Ok...i get what you are saying about the predator having 'other' food.

Now this fish which goes into the marshes...at first did not have 'legs'. So going into the marshes without legs would have meant trouble. It (the marshes)would have impeded their swimming. Therefore making them weaker i.t.o mobility already. They might have got stuck on the marshes. So why would they go into the marshes if going into the marshes impedes their swimming? Why would an animal voluntarily go to an environment where it is not suitable for them?

It would be suitable for them to go into the marshes if they had the 'leg' type of fins already. While they developed these legs it would have been useless in the marshes and in the water. A half grown leg does not make it stronger it makes it weaker. Half an eye does not make you see. So while developing the eye it has no use whatsoever. Therefore...why would the eye evolve?

 

[Autodidact]

Why not? Chemists are able to predict with quite some certainty which chemicals will and wont react. If evolutionists say that a chemical reaction is the basis of life...then the prediction of what we will evolve into based on chemical reaction facts easy rahter than 'no one knows'.

You pack a lot of errors into a small space. 1. There is no such thing as an evolutionist. The word you are looking for is "biologist." 2. The Theory of Evolution (ToE) [wait for it]...does not say anything about what is the basis of life. I have tried to explain what ToE actually does say in very simple terms. Do you need me to do it again? Or is it that you don't believe me and need some authoritative cites? Because if so, I'm happy to provide them. 3. ToE makes a lot of predictions, including that life will always continue to evolve. It does not pretend to predict exactly now, any more than metereology pretends to tell you what the weather will be on April 20, 2011.

My question doesnt make any sense...or you dont have an answer?

the former.

Evolution requires the transition from one kind to another to be gradual. So your 'gradual' needs to be backed up by some evidence that life has been 'evolving for 3 billion years' .

That's what I'm presenting in this thread. You might want to respond to it.

And so they use carbon dating to date things, but we all know carbon dating is flawed.

NO, we don't. You've been reading those darned creationists again. Remember, all creationists lie, and all creationist websites are full of lies. You've been burned once by believing them (The Keith lie.) I strongly advise you to stop. Radiometric dating is widely accepted by the scientific community, especially physicists. My guess is that you have no idea how or why it works. I will be happy to explain it to you, as well as to persuade you that it does. Do I need to do that?

And don't forget that "natural selection" is supposed to retain those individuals which have developed an advantage of some sort. How could an animal intermediate between one kind and another even survive (and why would it ever be selected for), when it would not be well-suited to either its old environment or its new environment?

Every creature on earth is intermediate.

Can you even imagine a possible sequence of small changes which takes a creature from one kind to another, all the while keeping it not only alive, but improved?

Absolutely. I'll give you an example. Say you're an aquatic animal, and there's no life on earth. If you evolve into a species that can walk well enough to skip across to the next puddle, like this:

you have an advantage that will enable you to survive and reproduce. I'm sure you'll agree that this fish-with-legs is "transitional," and there are, right now, 34 known species of these mudskippers.

While a fish grows a leg, the leg is completely useless and therefore not condusive to its current environment and therefore since its evolving into something that is not helping it be a better fish in the water, i can hardly see why it would evolve a leg in the first place. And if the fish crawled out of the water legless, it wont survive the next day before it can develop a leg to walk on.

You still don't understand the most basic idea of how evolution works. Individuals don't evolve; populations do. Please think about this, and ask if you don't understand it; it's very basic to evolutionary theory. No individual fish grows anything. What happens is that fish with a bit stronger fin happens to survive, possibly because it escapes a predator. It gives birth to offspring with those stronger fins, and on down the line.

Since i started this debate i have made it solely about the scientific method, and you have not in way shape form or fashion shown me, how good scientific methods have been used to validate the 'theory' of evolution.

I've only started presenting the evidence. I suggest that you read and respond to it. There's a heck of a lot more.

 

[Heneni]

That right, Heneni, that's because, and I'm going to put this in all caps in the hopes that you will grasp this once and for all, EVOLUTION THEORY IS NOT ABOUT HOW LIFE GOT STARTED. So, for the 4th or so time, if you want to discuss how life got started, please start a thread for that purpose; it is not relevant to this one. Thank you.

Um..take your issue up with the designers of this forum. I did not put this thread in the creationism vs. evolutionism thread like they are opposites to each other.

And werent you the one whos said youd rather evolve from a monkey than god creating you....so why did you make them 'opposites' yourself?

Nevermind. Its not important.

 

[Autodidact]

Let me get this straight....why is there a creationism vs. evolution thread in the first place, if evolution is not considered to be the opposite to creationism?

There are at least two definitions of "creationism," which confuses things. One meaning is that God created everything. Evolution fits comfortably within that definition, and for the purpose of this thread we are all agreeing on that. Another definition is "YEC", which means specifically that the way God created everything was by magically poofing something called a "kind" into existence 6000 years ago, that there was a global flood around 4000 years ago, that a guy names Noah put two of each "kind" on an ark, and that all land creatures are descendants of those that Noah took on the ark. This is clearly false and has been utterly demolished by the evidence. btw, I've asked whether this is your hypothesis, and you have not answered my question, which I've asked at least twice. Would you do so? Thanks.

And now...noboby is saying that evolution is how life started, but creationism says god started it.... :faint:

Whatever. Start a thread.

How long would it take a fish to develop legs? Millions of years maybe? So did the fish know...millions of years before that millions of years in the future there would be no water, or something like that, and therefore it had better get itself some legs.

No. Try to pay attention. What happens is that there is a fish with a bit longer, stronger fin, just due to a random mutation. It happens to help that fish survive, so it gets to reproduce. If that is generally helpful, it spreads around the population enough so you have a lot of fish with longer, stronger fins. Eventually there is a mutation that results in a fin strong enough to support the fish's weight in shallow water. That fish gets to eat some insects that breed there, so it gets to reproduce, etc. Get it?

wow...and some think fish have a memory span of three seconds.

Which seems to be about as long as yours.

 

[Magic Man]

First of all...i have to give you a cigar, :cigar: because for ONCE i am talking to someone about this without them flinging more insults. Cool. I think this is the first time ive been able to debate with you. Lets hope this peace pipe lasts.

I hope so too. I really want you to understand this. If you keep asking questions without dismissing the answers, I'll keep answering like this. This is a lot more fun than getting nowhere.

Ok...i get what you are saying about the predator having 'other' food.

Now this fish which goes into the marshes...at first did not have 'legs'. So going into the marshes without legs would have meant trouble. It would have impeded their swimming as you said. They might have got stuck on the marshes. So why would they go into the marshes if going into the marshes impedes their swimming? Why would an animal voluntarily go to an environment where it is not suitable for them?

They didn't go into the marshes until they developped some kind of legs. At first, it wasn't a true leg, of course, but something with a better ability to push and move around the branches and things. They eventually turned into actual legs as they got fine-tuned. They weren't able to get into the marshes without something more like legs, though, than fins.

It would be suitable for them to go into the marshes if they had the 'leg' type of fins already. While they developed these legs it would have been useless in the marshes and in the water. A half grown leg does not make it stronger it makes it weaker. Half an eye does not make you see. So while developing the eye it has no use whatsoever. Therefore...why would the eye evolve?

As I said, at first, they were just fins with bones or cartilage that made them more stable and sturdy, just enough to push through branches and things. They were still fins that allowed the fish to swim, but were kind of hybrids that also gave it the ability to make its way slowly through dense brush. Eventually, they became more and more like legs as we know them and less like fins, but by that point, that species had no need for fins anymore.

 

[Autodidact]

Um..take your issue up with the designers of this forum. I did not put this thread in the creationism vs. evolutionism thread like they are opposites to each other.

And werent you the one whos said youd rather evolve from a monkey than god creating you....so why did you make them 'opposites' yourself?

Nevermind. Its not important.

yes, it is. This thread is about the Theory of Evolution (ToE.) That is a specific theory in a specific field of science. It does not include abiogenesis, the big bang, quantum mechanics, string theory or baroque music. That is what we are discussing. You seem to have a particular interest in abiogenesis. I agree; it's a fascinating and speculative field. You might want to do some reading in it. In addition, you could start a thread on the subject; it has nothing to do with ToE.

 

[Heneni]

I hope so too. I really want you to understand this. If you keep asking questions without dismissing the answers, I'll keep answering like this. This is a lot more fun than getting nowhere.

Lets smoke the pipe for a few more posts shall we? :cheer: Lets see how far we can go with it.

They didn't go into the marshes until they developped some kind of legs.

Ok. Why develop the leg then? To go into the marshes right? But...evolution says that animals devoloped certain features because their environment changed and not because they want to change their environment.

So the fish would have developed the legs out of necessity due to a change in environment. They would not have developed the legs in order to be able to change their enviroment and hence go into the marshes.

For example a bird would have evolved wings in order to get airborne, because their environment changed, not because they wanted to change their environment by flying somewhere else.

Im still not clear on why the fish would develop legs if those legs in its current enviroment would not have been usefull. As you said...the fish would have developed their legs (be it primitive) before they went into the marshes.

Would the fish get legs because it wanted to go into the marshes, or would the fish get legs because it found itself in more marshy places and therefore needed the legs. Of course how long it took to develop those legs is also an issue, because there would be no gaurentee that the marshes would have remained marshes for as long as it took to develop the legs.

 

[Heneni]

yes, it is. This thread is about the Theory of Evolution (ToE.) That is a specific theory in a specific field of science. It does not include abiogenesis, the big bang, quantum mechanics, string theory or baroque music. That is what we are discussing. You seem to have a particular interest in abiogenesis. I agree; it's a fascinating and speculative field. You might want to do some reading in it. In addition, you could start a thread on the subject; it has nothing to do with ToE.

There is already a thread started by painted wolf on abiogenesis in the 'creationism vs. evolution' thread. If you dont think that abiogenesis belongs in that forum take it up with painted wolf.

 

[Magic Man]

Lets smoke the pipe for a few more posts shall we? :cheer: Lets see how far we can go with it.

I suggest we see whether it can extend longer than that.

Ok. Why develop the leg then? To go into the marshes right? But...evolution says that animals devoloped certain features because their environment changed and not because they want to change their environment.

The change in their environment included the marshy areas and the predators.

So the fish would have developed the legs out of necessity due to a change in environment. They would not have developed the legs in order to be able to change their enviroment and hence go into the marshes.

Correct, except for the last part. They did develop legs to go into the marshes. They didn't change the environment, they changed to work with the new conditions, i.e. marshy areas and predators.

For example a bird would have evolved wings in order to get airborne, because their environment changed, not because they wanted to change their environment by flying somewhere else.

Yes, except that wouldn't the whole point of being able to fly be to go somewhere else?

Im still not clear on why the fish would develop legs if those legs in its current enviroment would not have been usefull. As you said...the fish would have developed their legs (be it primitive) before they went into the marshes.

The marshy areas became part of their environment. They just were not able to access them at first.

Would the fish get legs because it wanted to go into the marshes, or would the fish get legs because it found itself in more marshy places and therefore needed the legs. Of course how long it took to develop those legs is also an issue, because there would be no gaurentee that the marshes would have remained marshes for as long as it took to develop the legs.

They grew legs because they needed to get into the marshy places to survive. As for how long it took, it's not a matter of "I hope this marsh stays here until my species grows appendages that allow it to get in there". As I said, they got into the marshes fairly quickly. It was after they started living there that those appendages truly became legs to help them maneuver there better and better.

Basically, they didn't go about growing legs and had to wait thousands of years before that was complete to move into the marshes. Their fins changed a bit to allow them to get there, and then once they were there, the fins changed more and more to their new environment.

 

[Heneni]

Hmmm...good answers...but there something not quite right about it. For example...wouldnt fishes migrate rather than try to remain in an area that has become unsuitable?

Wouldnt it be easier to migrate to a more suitable environment then evolving legs?

Also, if the marshes have become part of their enviroment which they were unable to change by simply swimming somewhere more suitable how would they survive? What would they eat while they evolved near the marshes? Whatever they were eating, were not in the marshes before because the marshes wasnt there before. The same marshes formed where the fish, its predator and the fishes food were. Are we assuming here that the fishes did not have, like their predators, other options of food available, and other places to swim to?

Heneni

 

[painted wolf]

Marshes are full of yummy insects. The fish that moved in there would be free from predators and have a bonanza of food.
Why not move in?

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

Lets smoke the pipe for a few more posts shall we? :cheer: Lets see how far we can go with it.

Ok. Why develop the leg then? To go into the marshes right? But...evolution says that animals devoloped certain features because their environment changed and not because they want to change their environment.

No. You still haven't grasped the core concept. Nothing happens all at once. A fish happens to be born with something that happens to help it survive, so that it gets to reproduce, such as a slightly longer, stronger fin. They don't have a goal, they're not thinking: "Oh look, a marsh, I'd like to get in there." As a result of this development, they are able to enter say shallow pools. Once there is a species of fish that lives in shallow pools, one happens to develop the ability to skip from one pool to another, and that helps it. Once you have a mudskipper, one happens to be born that can stay out of water a bit longer, and that one survives and reproduces. The offspring of that one includes one that can live amphibiously, and it survives and reproduces. Get it?

So the fish would have developed the legs out of necessity due to a change in environment. They would not have developed the legs in order to be able to change their enviroment and hence go into the marshes.

For example a bird would have evolved wings in order to get airborne, because their environment changed, not because they wanted to change their environment by flying somewhere else.

Im still not clear on why the fish would develop legs if those legs in its current enviroment would not have been usefull. As you said...the fish would have developed their legs (be it primitive) before they went into the marshes.

You don't understand it. No individual fish every sprouts legs. Get that picture out of your mind; that's not how it works.

Would the fish get legs because it wanted to go into the marshes, or would the fish get legs because it found itself in more marshy places and therefore needed the legs. Of course how long it took to develop those legs is also an issue, because there would be no gaurentee that the marshes would have remained marshes for as long as it took to develop the legs.

No individual fish ever gets anything. What happens is that a fish with semi-legs survives and reproduces semi-leg fish, etc. Each species is well-adapted for its current environment at any given time, and is also constantly producing offspring with slight variation, that might possibly be better or worse adapted to the environment at that moment. Those that are better adapted will happen to survive and reproduce, and the process continues, constant, but also contantly changing. It's very, very gradual.

 

[Autodidact]

There is already a thread started by painted wolf on abiogenesis in the 'creationism vs. evolution' thread. If you dont think that abiogenesis belongs in that forum take it up with painted wolf.

It belongs in this forum, just not in this thread. I suggest that you take your abiogenesis questions to that thread, where they belong.

 

[Autodidact]

And if that was true for every creature there would never be a food chain, because animals would all try to evolve in order not to get eaten.

And...what was the 'preditors in the water'. Another fish? Who did not think it smart to get legs to get onto the marshes so that it too could survive, since its food would be flapping around on the ground.

Ding dong...

There's a balance. No species ever "wins." It's not a game. Any species that manages to survive long enough to reproduce does so, and remains in the picture as long as it does. It doesn't have to have all members avoid being eaten, just enough to reproduce. There's an ongoing, changing equlibrium. Yes, amphibious and land-based predators also evolved. Those species that could avoid them long enough to reproduce survived. Get it?

 

[Magic Man]

Hmmm...good answers...but there something not quite right about it. For example...wouldnt fishes migrate rather than try to remain in an area that has become unsuitable?

Wouldnt it be easier to migrate to a more suitable environment then evolving legs?

Not when migrating still leaves them open to those predators. Remember the marshes were used for protection.

Also, if the marshes have become part of their enviroment which they were unable to change by simply swimming somewhere more suitable how would they survive? What would they eat while they evolved near the marshes? Whatever they were eating, were not in the marshes before because the marshes wasnt there before. The same marshes formed where the fish, its predator and the fishes food were. Are we assuming here that the fishes did not have, like their predators, other options of food available, and other places to swim to?

Heneni

First, I'd say that it was probably because they migrated that the marshes became part of their environment. They probably moved to the areas where the marshes were, as opposed to the marshes popping up where the fish were already living.

The marshes already had other lifeforms, just nothing like fish. Those fish which moved there had a food supply because the same things they were already feeding on existed in the marshes most likely, or at least similar things.

I think the key is that I don't think it was so much that the marshes formed where the fish already were, but the fish moved to places where there were marshes. They had other places they could go, but the marshes provided a good place for them to hide from their predators while finding suitable living conditions. At first, it's probably that they moved in and out of the marshy areas as necessary, and only over time started living exclusively in those marshy areas.

 

[Autodidact]

And which would mean the death of the predator. If the weak evolved to get away from predators, then no predator would ever have a bite to eat. Why did the predator not evolve to go where the food goes?

Because enough prey are around for the predators to survive, and enough prey survive the predators to reproduce. It's not an all or nothing situation. Some survive to reproduce, and some don't. That's the driving engine: natural selection.

 

[Autodidact]

So..then are you sure that fishes had predators before they devoloped legs?

Yes.

What did the fishes eat? (Those who developed legs)

Plants, bugs, microscopic creatures.

Was there food in the marshes?

Yes.

If there was food in the marshes, how did this food evolve?

Through the same process.

And when the 'food' in the marshes realises it had better get the hell out of there before it gets eaten, then everything would have landed up......calculating....on rhodes island.

Nothing "realizes" anything. Some of the marsh microscopic creatures get eaten. Those that have enough members that avoid being eaten before they reproduce remain around as a species.