Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[YoursTrue]

Birds are dinosaurs, because it simply happened to be the case that we happen to classify them as such .

That is correct. And so it is that humans are fish. without gills, of course. Those were ditched a long time ago.

 

[Pogo]

Really is that it? Ok then just change “gills” for “gill-like” in my comment.

Given enough time selective preassure and luck our ancestors could develop “gill-like” organs...........does that solve the problem?

As a rather silly meaningless hypothetical, yes, given enough time and some unknown set of selection pressures, yes evolution can come up with all sorts of solutions to all sorts of problems, but that is about it. Though I don't know why you suddenly added ancestors into it. Your father falls into the silly category, for our earliest vertebrate ancestors they actually did evolve what we call gills and then lost them in further evolution.

Is there a point here or are you just trying to cover up your confusion between the science of evolution and your interpretations of it in your attempts to justify your desire for evidence of purpose in the universe?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, thank you I already knew that………but thank you anyway

Then admit your error.

 

[Pogo]

NO

@TagliatelliMonster can explain you why. birds arent fish...

Actually in a monophyletic clade called fishes, if it includes the Coelacanth etc, yes it would, the problem is you don't know what you are talking about no matter how many times we explain it.

 

[YoursTrue]

As a rather silly meaningless hypothetical, yes, given enough time and some unknown set of selection pressures, yes evolution can come up with all sorts of solutions to all sorts of problems, but that is about it. Though I don't know why you suddenly added ancestors into it. Your father falls into the silly category, for our earliest vertebrate ancestors they actually did evolve what we call gills and then lost them in further evolution.

Is there a point here or are you just trying to cover up your confusion between the science of evolution and your interpretations of it in your attempts to justify your desire for evidence of purpose in the universe?

There are fossils said to be transitional forms, but that's about it. No videos were taken and the original items are not known bu rather conjectured. And nothing really beyond fossils as if that's proof to say these things evolved over the course of time to become apes.

 

[YoursTrue]

It's what would be required for gills to re-develop.
Gills are specific anatomical structures with specific genetic underpinnings.


I already explained it. Not sure what else to tell you.

I can't help you with your willful ignorance.

So seems you are saying that apes will never evolve to be water dwellers.

 

[YoursTrue]

Careful with your wording here.

Scientists don't know how chemistry became biochemistry, though it's an area of active research with interesting developments and insights from time to time.

So scientists, you realize, do not really know how chemistry became biochemistry. OK.

 

[YoursTrue]

Au contraire.
The point was about how supposedly @leroy 's mistakes are never pointed out and correct, while they clearly are.
Starting to yap about how some things maybe won't ever be explained scientifically, has nothing to do with that.


There is no reason at all to think that the progress that is being made in the field of abiogenesis will come to a stop.

Meantime, as some scientists have said, maybe aliens landed it from outer space.

 

[McBell]

Meantime, as some scientists have said, maybe aliens landed it from outer space.

STILL waiting for you to present a list of scientists that have made that claim....

 

[blü 2]

So scientists, you realize, do not really know how chemistry became biochemistry. OK.

And neither do you. But they at least are actively looking, rather than taking your road of acting like they were living in a fairy tale.