Do you believe in God?

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well...that's an interesting reply, and again, I am no expert, and DNA transmission does sound interesting, but I do not see any evidence that the in-betweens or offshoots of that Unknown Common Ancestor which is no longer around (meaning the gorillas, bonobos, chimpanzees, humans) interbred with whatevers to produce gorillas, chimpanzees, humans, etc.

Yeah, we can't see the past in total. But if the universe is orderly and we add up fossils, DNA, mutations and replication of the fittest gene we get TOE.
That is the version we end at if we assume the universe is orderly and natural. And to me that is how it appears.

 

[McBell]

It might be considered that way by some.

By those who actually understand it.
Those who are not interested in understanding it, that is their problem.

Has the line of descent (or ascent, however it goes) leading from fish without bony structures giving the impression these would lead to legs noted from which this specimen came from? Or went to? I mean evolved to?

No idea what you are asking here.

 

[YoursTrue]

By those who actually understand it.
Those who are not interested in understanding it, that is their problem.


No idea what you are asking here.

Let me see if I can be more understandable to you. There were supposedly fish prior to Tiktaalik, right? And there was something after the Tiktaalik, right? Those specimens haven't been found, have they, in other words, the particular fish that transformed eventually to Tiktaalik. Also, the idea that these eventually turned naturally by circumstances into land-dwellers is conjectured by some scientists because of the detail in their fins or something like that as if they were precursors of legs. Now if you think that's evidence that these things developed (evolved) eventually to landlubbers, that's your choice.

 

[McBell]

Let me see if I can be more understandable to you. There were supposedly fish prior to Tiktaalik, right? And there was something after the Tiktaalik, right? Those specimens haven't been found, have they, in other words, the particular fish that transformed eventually to Tiktaalik. Also, the idea that these eventually turned naturally by circumstances into land-dwellers is conjectured by some scientists because of the detail in their fins or something like that as if they were precursors of legs.

And?
I understand you want a complete fossil record showing every single step from one to next.
It will not happen.
So I guess you got that going in your favour.

I do wonder though, why your standards take a considerable drop when it comes to your beliefs.

Now if you think that's evidence that these things developed (evolved) eventually to landlubbers, that's your choice.

Thank you so much for your permission to make my own choice.

 

[Pogo]

Let me see if I can be more understandable to you. There were supposedly fish prior to Tiktaalik, right? And there was something after the Tiktaalik, right? Those specimens haven't been found, have they, in other words, the particular fish that transformed eventually to Tiktaalik. Also, the idea that these eventually turned naturally by circumstances into land-dwellers is conjectured by some scientists because of the detail in their fins or something like that as if they were precursors of legs. Now if you think that's evidence that these things developed (evolved) eventually to landlubbers, that's your choice.

They were creatures that if you saw one today, you would say it is a fish, you would have no other word for it.

 

[metis]

So according to that theory I suppose, fish evolved to become humans.

Fish have evolved and so have humans, so the fact that life forms have evolved is well established. We have to assume that we still are evolving but we don't know how as these changes usually take thousands to millions of years. Life forms like fruit flies, for example, tend to evolve much quicker.

This is not speculation.

 

[McBell]

Life forms like fruit flies, for example, tend to evolve much quicker.

I disagree.
Well, sorta.
The reason it appears fruit flies evolve quicker is simply because their life spans are much shorter.
The longer the species average life span, the slower it appears to evolve.

This is because evolution is measured in generations, not years.

 

[metis]

I disagree.
Well, sorta.
The reason it appears fruit flies evolve quicker is simply because their life spans are much shorter.
The longer the species average life span, the slower it appears to evolve.

This is because evolution is measured in generations, not years.

Exactly, and I've talked about the fruit fly experiments done where I got my grad degree in anthropology-- Wayne State University.

 

[YoursTrue]

Fish have evolved and so have humans, so the fact that life forms have evolved is well established. We have to assume that we still are evolving but we don't know how as these changes usually take thousands to millions of years. Life forms like fruit flies, for example, tend to evolve much quicker.

This is not speculation.

It is not speculation to view DNA and body parts and compare them with fossils and live organisms. There is simply nothing beyond speculation to maintain that fish evolved to become apes. DNA and Tiktaalik included.

 

[McBell]

It is not speculation to view DNA and body parts and compare them with fossils and live organisms. There is simply nothing beyond speculation to maintain that fish evolved to become apes. DNA and Tiktaalik included.

Let us assume you are 110% correct.
So what?
What does it actually prove?

 

[YoursTrue]

Let us assume you are 110% correct.
So what?
What does it actually prove?

Well of course, nothing is said to be "proved" scientifically, right? But so far there is nothing beyond speculation to maintain that fish evolved to become apes. (including humans, as posited by "Cladistics".) That's what it means.

 

[McBell]

Well of course, nothing is said to be "proved" scientifically, right? But so far there is nothing beyond speculation to maintain that fish evolved to become apes. (including humans, as posited by "Cladistics".) That's what it means.

And?

I mean you been driving this point for the umpteen posts and that is all you got?

 

[YoursTrue]

And?

I mean you been driving this point for the umpteen posts and that is all you got?

what else is there to get in real-time that can be observed beyond that? And so I leave it there for now.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

what else is there to get in real-time that can be observed beyond that? And so I leave it there for now.

Honestly. The problem with only accepting here and now as real is that yesterday is not real. The moment you accept there is a past beyound what you can observe, you can begin making reasoned arguements about the past.
So do you accept there is a past and yesterday happened, or is only now real and the rest is not real?

 

[Debater Slayer]

***Mod Post***
Some posts and responses to them have been deleted from this thread.

Please keep all forum rules in mind while posting, especially Rules 1 and 3:​

1. Personal Comments About Members and Staff
Personal attacks and name-calling, whether direct or in the third person, are strictly prohibited on the forums. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff. Quoting a member's post in a separate/new thread without their permission to challenge or belittle them, or harassing staff members for performing moderation duties, will also be considered a personal attack.

3. Trolling and Bullying
Where Rule 1 covers personal attacks, Rule 3 governs other behaviors and content that can generally be described as being a jerk. Unacceptable behaviors and content include:

1) Content (whether words or images) that most people would find needlessly offensive, especially when such content is posted just to get a rise out of somebody and/or is not part of a reasoned argument.

2) Defamation, slander, or misrepresentation of a member's beliefs/arguments, or that of a particular group, culture, or religion. This includes altering the words of another member in a duplicitous fashion when using the quote feature.

3) Antagonism, bullying, or harassment - including but not limited to personal attacks, slander, and misrepresentation - of a member across multiple content areas of the forums. Repeatedly targeting or harassing members of particular groups will also be considered bullying.

 

[YoursTrue]

Honestly. The problem with only accepting here and now as real is that yesterday is not real. The moment you accept there is a past beyound what you can observe, you can begin making reasoned arguements about the past.
So do you accept there is a past and yesterday happened, or is only now real and the rest is not real?

It's not "here and now." It's what is there...or not there...

 

[YoursTrue]

I disagree.
Well, sorta.
The reason it appears fruit flies evolve quicker is simply because their life spans are much shorter.
The longer the species average life span, the slower it appears to evolve.

This is because evolution is measured in generations, not years.

Not being an expert, I'll betcha that fruit flies are said to have been here longer than humans. Even their lifespan is shorter. (much shorter.) Maybe I"m wrong and you know better.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's not "here and now." It's what is there...or not there...

There is nothing there in the past, as it is all now in your understanding. Is that it?

 

[YoursTrue]

There is nothing there in the past, as it is all now in your understanding. Is that it?

No, but glad you asked. I was referring to fossils. They're either there or they're not there.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, but glad you asked. I was referring to fossils. They're either there or they're not there.

Yeah, but they are not from the past, because we can't observe the past. The past is an evil idea from Satan. If you start believing in the past and that the universe is orderly I can explain how evulution makes sense. But only if you accept the evil idea of the past. It has never been proven and thus is not relevant, but evil.