Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[John53]

Exactly. You're right. You win

What do you think your next evolution thread will be about?

Pre telescope inventing humans.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Congratulations. You win. Evolution is debunked now

Who knew that such genius still lived among us. I wonder if he's solved world hunger, too?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Who knew that such genius still lived among us. I wonder if he's solved world hunger, too?

"She" you blatant sexist!!

Actually I understand. You do not want to insult women. That's okay.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And that's why without so many realizing it, evolution is like a religious concept. Bye for now...

No.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I disagree, poor word choice,

How so?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Except that gorillas are still gorillas, fish are still fish. Ain't morphing now.

Again with this nonsense that people, including me, have been correcting for years????
Here's a post from june 2021 (post #736)

More News on the Changing Evolution Scene :-) !!! :-)

I like bananas, too. One thing in favor of gorillas -- as I understand it, they are not big meat eaters. So they don't raise cattle which is apparently adding to ruin the earth. (Oh, well. The Bible says God will ruin those who ruin the earth -- that's in Revelation, but of course, you probably...

www.religiousforums.com

Why do you insist on repeating falsehoods?
When will you ever learn something?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nope. I have not received any answers that convince me of the validity of the theory. Just to clarify, I used to believe that the theory of evolution is true. I no longer do. Because aside from the fact that no one has seen any form move from one type (fish, for example) to Tiktaalik (for example), the rest is conjecture.

Dude........ you are LITERALLY repeating mistakes that have been corrected time and again for YEARS.

Why are you this dense?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nope, I'm not saying that mainly because the journey will undoubtedly continue, some scientists trying to figure how life as we know it came about. Although I no longer believe the basic inherent theory as purported. But what I am saying is that there is no proof in the form of fossils that show these very small incremental changes happening by mutations, natural selection, or survival of the fittest.

No fossils will show such as fossils are snapshots in time.
However, what fossils DO do, is match predictions based on the theory.
As in: IF species change gradually by accumulation of changes followed by fitness based selection processes, THEN we should have a fossil record exhibiting transitional structures. And that's exactly what the fossil record shows.

That includes Tiktaalik, the derivation of which by evolutionary scientists can only guess, as well as what it supposedly evolved into in the very long run, of course, according to the theory.

Funny that you mention Tiktaalik. As has been said to you COUNTLESS times before: this fossil in particular doesn't help your case, because it was literally found by prediction.

We didn't know about the species at all.
Scientists looked at the theory and said, IF land life evolved from sealife through the process of evolution and IF the transition to land life happened some 350 million years ago, THEN we should be able to find fossil species of such and such age, with such and such anatomical features, in such and such environments.

So they brought in historical geologists to pinpoint where such environments existed 350 million years ago and where those rocks are exposed to the surface, to know where they should dig and how deep they should be digging.

They went to said location, started digging and 'lo and behold, there it was. Tiktaalik. In the exact spot they expected it to be. With the exact anatomical features they expected it to have. Literally a mixture of fish and land crawling anatomical features. Which is why it sometimes is also called a "fish-apod".

Finding this fossil was thus a ginormous success in support of evolution theory.
It was only found because evolution theory and evolutionary history informed the scientists what to look for and where.

How do you explain this find, if we assume evolution theory/history is completely wrong?

There is nothing beyond conjecture to support the idea that some type of fish morphed (evolved) eventually to Tiktaalik which then eventually over the very long run evolved to total land dwellers which then, of course, over another very long run evolved into gorillas, which still stay as gorillas and the like.

How is it "conjecture" when the existence of this fossil, including its age, location and anatomical features, was literally predicted by evolution theory?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is believing that "something" is likely/plausible/probable. Since it is not certain, people need to have faith on it ... and many many times what they believed was wrong.

No, you don't need "faith" when something is not "certain".
You need faith when you don't have evidence.
And science deals in evidence. That's how things are determined likely / plausible / probable.

And non-religious too, as can be seen from a large portion of evolution advocates representing some "science" on this forum

"beliefs" here is used in the sense of belief on faith.
Science doesn't do faith. Science does evidence.

they present evolution of the species as a fact... which is wrong.

No, evolution is a fact. Species factually change over time. Species factually share ancestors. Common ancestry of species is a genetic fact.
The theory of evolution deals with the mechanism of how that occurs.

In the same way, gravity is a fact.
The theory of gravity deals with how gravity works.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You have accepted what is most likely for what is real. You simply can't tell the difference.

No. I accept what is most likely as what is most likely real. It's you who doesn't seem to be able to tell the difference.

"The removal of individuals and their offspring is effectively the same thing as the rest of the species dying off."

How is it even possible an intelligent individual can't see this?

If you remove a few individuals from a population for breeding and remove their off spring from that population as well how is this any different than a random collapse of population known as a bottleneck?

Because "few" individuals doesn't account for +90% of a species.

Address the questions rather than skating about and attacking the messenger.

I do address the questions. But when the questions don't make sense, all I can do is point it out.

How do you have a conversation with people who aren't talking about the same thing you are?

Exactly
You insist on arguing strawmen. It's hard to have a conversation about a theory with you if you insist on misrepresenting it.

All believers want to do is lecture and teach. I've studied Evolution, I DON'T BELIEVE IN IT.

Everything you say about evolution, shows us that it is either a lie that you studied it, or that you didn't comprehend it, or that you got your intel from very dubious sources. Which is it?

Don't teach. Talk.

When you argue strawmen, all I can do is point them out.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

They aren't supposed to have faith in it but we both know they do.

No. I don't do "faith".

Science is being taught wrong now days. It is taught as revealed truth handed down by the Priests of Science called "Peers". Unfortunately many peers have fallen for the hype as well.

Another strawman.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Science is supposed to be based on "evidence" they use to say.

And it is.

But it turns out that what was once considered "evidence" often ceased to be so after a while.

Give an example pertaining to the subject matter.

Do humans actually have any unambiguous and reliable way of determining what "evidence" really is?

Yes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Don't get me started.

I learned long ago that people believe what they want to believe and everyone interprets evidence to fit what they want to believe.

 

[Astrophile]

Nope, I'm not saying that mainly because the journey will undoubtedly continue, some scientists trying to figure how life as we know it came about. Although I no longer believe the basic inherent theory as purported. But what I am saying is that there is no proof in the form of fossils that show these very small incremental changes happening by mutations, natural selection, or survival of the fittest. That includes Tiktaalik, the derivation of which by evolutionary scientists can only guess, as well as what it supposedly evolved into in the very long run, of course, according to the theory. There is nothing beyond conjecture to support the idea that some type of fish morphed (evolved) eventually to Tiktaalik which then eventually over the very long run evolved to total land dwellers which then, of course, over another very long run evolved into gorillas, which still stay as gorillas and the like.

What do you think were the Silurian ancestors of Tiktaalik? What do you think were the Miocene ancestors of gorillas?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Congratulations. You win. Evolution is debunked now

Well just great. Now that science is off the table, what do we discuss?

Would you like to talk about theory about ancient rabbit science and the eons-old war with the ducks?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You have accepted what is most likely for what is real. You simply can't tell the difference.

Coming from you. Wow!

"The removal of individuals and their offspring is effectively the same thing as the rest of the species dying off."

How is it even possible an intelligent individual can't see this?

If you remove a few individuals from a population for breeding and remove their off spring from that population as well how is this any different than a random collapse of population known as a bottleneck?

Very different and how you cannot see that is obvious from reading your stuff for years.

Address the questions rather than skating about and attacking the messenger.

Was this supposed to be a joke?

Why do believers almost never answer a simple direct question?

I don't know why you do not answer questions, but I a fairly certain that is falls into the category of "you don't know, but don't want to admit that".

How do you have a conversation with people who aren't talking about the same thing you are?

It has been tried countless times, but you seem to refuse to listen to anyone else. You don't seem to care what anyone has to say. You just want to declare and consider it settled.

All believers want to do is lecture and teach. I've studied Evolution, I DON'T BELIEVE IN IT.

I don't believe you've studied it or not to any extent that you understand it. This is pretty clear from all your posts.

Don't teach. Talk.

Don't preach. Listen.

 

[cladking]

"When individuals are selected for breeding they are removed from that gene pool. Certainly the individuals selected might have bred naturally without having been removed but the odds are very low and then their off spring would have bred into the population."

So? It's an artificial situation.

Yes!!!! Exactly! This is why I refer to it as "an artificial imposition of a population bottleneck". People are simply duplicating how nature causes species to change.

 

[cladking]

No. I accept what is most likely as what is most likely real. It's you who doesn't seem to be able to tell the difference.

This isn't really true. You know that the the Mississippi River exists. I believe there's a 99% chance. You know that the river has existed for eons and I believe that you can't step into the same river twice. You know the river will exist for a very long time and I have no such belief at all. You know the word "Mississippi" has meaning and a referent that stretches from MN to the gulf. I don't believe in taxonomies nor naming allowing the possibility that the Mississippi really is the Ohio River and its tributaries or even that it starts in my back yard and flows into what you know as the Illinois River. It's all just water flowing downhill and doesn't need no stinkin' river or human (with stinkin' feet) to tell it how or to name the path most of the water usually takes.

Life seemed mystical or... ...drumroll, please... ...metaphysical to people in the 19th century. People who wanted answers turned to religion because science didn't even address life. Darwin brought life to life by providing simplistic highly facile answers to questions about where life came from and how it changed. These answers are so simplistic a child can understand them. They are apparently wrong but a child can certainly understand the Theory of Evolution.

Evolution is much more likely than airways full of storks laden with babies but it doesn't rise to a level that one must "accept" it.

 

[cladking]

Life seemed mystical or... ...drumroll, please... ...metaphysical to people in the 19th century.

Don't panic! I used the other (#2) definition of "metaphysical" here. I almost always intend the #1 definition (basis of science) but I used the #2 here (magical).

I am allowed to do this. We all do this all the time.

 

[Argentbear]

Again with this nonsense that people, including me, have been correcting for years????
Here's a post from june 2021 (post #736)

More News on the Changing Evolution Scene :-) !!! :-)

I like bananas, too. One thing in favor of gorillas -- as I understand it, they are not big meat eaters. So they don't raise cattle which is apparently adding to ruin the earth. (Oh, well. The Bible says God will ruin those who ruin the earth -- that's in Revelation, but of course, you probably...

www.religiousforums.com

Why do you insist on repeating falsehoods?

Do creationists have anything else but falsehoods?