Evolution My ToE

[Audie]

And your point is? We had already noted that Neanderthals are NOT our ancestors, but instead our cousins.

Well, really, if they injected some genetics then they too
are ancestral.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No. In order for both of us to understand the other, isn't the evolution you are talking about genetic and biological? We have to have a starting point to understand the other. So are we discussing social or genetic evolution in the strict genetic-biological sense?

The analogy was supposed to be the starting point to help you understand.

 

[SkepticThinker]

One of the reasons I will not take a course in it is because I cannot interrupt the instructor and ask questions as I do here. It's possible if I do he will tell me to read another book or go to another website, and the basic questions of doubt will remain unanswered.

That's kind of how education and learning works. You have to put some effort into it on your end.

Also, you can ask teachers and professors questions. I don't know what makes you think you wouldn't be able to do that.

You keep bringing up creationist sites. As if nothing they say has any merit.

When it comes to science, no they don't have any merit. Especially the ones that declare that they will not venture beyond what the Bible says, like Answers in Genesis, for example. That's not how science is done. We must follow where the evidence leads us rather than making the evidence fit with that we want to believe.

Listening sometimes to the impeachment arguments in the U.S., it most assuredly has people highly invested in either side, true or not. I certainly cannot follow it all about the possibilities of evolution -- and so now I have a question based on something I read about Neanderthals. Let me see if you agree with the following statement about them, and so I'll poswe my question after that. (I was wondering exactly when it is said that "Neanderthals" lived, so I looked it up.)
"They lived throughout Europe and parts of Asia from about 400,000 until about 40,000 years ago" From History.com website. I guess that's not a creationist website. So let me ask you, do you agree that Neanderthals lived from about 400,000 until about 40,000 years ago?

Something like that, give or take a few thousand years.

 

[SkepticThinker]

As far as you can tell. But is there any solid (other than conjecture) evidence that species of fish can evolve to whatever the next step outside the

You don't know that for a fact. For instance, there are fish that can crawl on land. But there is simply nothing to prove that these landcrawlers became anything else. You can say they did, but really it's only a figured guess.

What they became is fish that can crawl on land.

Researchers just found four new species of walking sharks off the coast of Australia and New Guinea.
Walking sharks discovered in the tropics

 

[tas8831]

I would like to see that explanation before any other discussion
goes forward.

At one point in time, you have no trace of any vertebrate life on land,
but there are fishes with some evident ability to live out of water,
for at least brief periods of time. They had limb like fins, like
the coelacanth of today. Lungs.

Later, you find there are a number of creatures that obviously
could move about reasonably well on land, their bony structure
so like the crossoptrerygian fishes that it would take looking the other
way to avoid seeing the relationship. No other land vertebratges.
No hyaena, no snake, no bird, Just big clumsy amphibians and
some invertebrates.

As time goes on there is a ;\succession through time of more
capable and diversified land animals.

How indeed did all this happen, if they did not evolve one from the other?

One thing your friend keeps going back to is the microbe-to
man thing. I wonder at what point it becomes impossible?
Unicellular to multi?
Fish leave the water?
I wish I knew what the problem is.

It could be that the creator deity was not very skilled at creating things...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No. In order for both of us to understand the other, isn't the evolution you are talking about genetic and biological? We have to have a starting point to understand the other. So are we discussing social or genetic evolution in the strict genetic-biological sense?

For crying out loud.....

I think I was quite explicit in making it clear that the analogy was about how the graudal accumulation of small changes over generations will inevitably result in large changes over many generations.

To the point that after a while, they can only be called different things, as spanish and latin are hardly the same language.

No, language is not DNA based

Once again, you seem to be going out of your way to explicitly miss (or ignore?) the actual point.
Why do you do this?

I'm having a hard time to believe that you really don't comprehend this.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well, really, if they injected some genetics then they too
are ancestral.

Good point. Though not basal to Homo sapiens.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What they became is fish that can crawl on land.

Researchers just found four new species of walking sharks off the coast of Australia and New Guinea.
Walking sharks discovered in the tropics

Landshark!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

One of the reasons I will not take a course in it is because I cannot interrupt the instructor and ask questions as I do here.

Please. Any teacher worthy of the name will only ENCOURAGE students asking questions.

Off course, you're going to have to do a bit of effort as well. In class, they aren't as patient with the stubborness and willfull ignorance you exhibit here, that is certainly correct.

It's possible if I do he will tell me to read another book or go to another website, and the basic questions of doubt will remain unanswered.

Possible, but not very likely. Honest questions will get honest answers.
Dishonest questions though...that will indeed quickly result in "shut up and listen" or the return question "just why are you here, exactly? To learn the course material, or to troll my class and waste everybodies time?"

You keep bringing up creationist sites. As if nothing they say has any merit.

Not "as if". Well, indeed, nothing they have to say concerning evolutionary biology has any merrit and / or is worth listening to, if the goal is to actually learn about evolutionary biology.

I present their habitual "statement of faith" as evidence of that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It could be that the creator deity was not very skilled at creating things...

as if nature were just left to run its course, working under existing conditions with what was available.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It could be that the creator deity was not very skilled at creating things...

I think he just kept changing his mind.
First he tried australopethicus. Then he thought "nah... far too hairy and too monkey-like"
Then homo habilis. But they still kept crawling in trees!
Then he tried homo erectus. But then he figured "these guys are so small, what the heck was I thinking... they'll look ridiculous riding that horse I plan on making"
After some more trials, he came up with Neanderthals. He got a bit carried away with this one. "Djeezus Gabriel, look at this 14-year old girl... she looks like a miniature Swarzenneger..." Gabriel replied "who???" God said: "ow right... nevermind, you'll see in a couple 100.000 years what I mean..."

Then came Homo Sapiens and god saw it was good.



This is actually rather consistent with how this god's behaviour is described in the bible. There too he can't seem to get anything right. It's failure after failure after failure... First that garden and that then goes wrong. Then he again needs to intervene with the whole babel, soddom & gomorra thingy... It goes so wrong he even needs to literally flush the world once. And then, when all is said and done, surprise surprise, it goes wrong again.

 

[Audie]

Please. Any teacher worthy of the name will only ENCOURAGE students asking questions.

Off course, you're going to have to do a bit of effort as well. In class, they aren't as patient with the stubborness and willfull ignorance you exhibit here, that is certainly correct.




Possible, but not very likely. Honest questions will get honest answers.
Dishonest questions though...that will indeed quickly result in "shut up and listen" or the return question "just why are you here, exactly? To learn the course material, or to troll my class and waste everybodies time?"



Not "as if". Well, indeed, nothing they have to say concerning evolutionary biology has any merrit and / or is worth listening to, if the goal is to actually learn about evolutionary biology.

I present their habitual "statement of faith" as evidence of that.

Please. Any teacher worthy of the name will only ENCOURAGE students asking questions.

Off course, you're going to have to do a bit of effort as well. In class, they aren't as patient with the stubborness and willfull ignorance you exhibit here, that is certainly correct.




Possible, but not very likely. Honest questions will get honest answers.
Dishonest questions though...that will indeed quickly result in "shut up and listen" or the return question "just why are you here, exactly? To learn the course material, or to troll my class and waste everybodies time?"



Not "as if". Well, indeed, nothing they have to say concerning evolutionary biology has any merrit and / or is worth listening to, if the goal is to actually learn about evolutionary biology.

I present their habitual "statement of faith" as evidence of that.

No teacher will appreciate someone playing chick tract

 

[YoursTrue]

Remarkable how you are doing your very best to not acknowledge the point made in the post you are replying to.

I'm not seeing how any of this "reply" of yours is relevant to the point at hand, which was about a progression of "transitional" fossils of which you said that it was just "mere resemblances" while completely ignoring the clear progression through time and the transitional nature of every one of them.

I don't know what you're talking about.

 

[YoursTrue]

Absolutely. We have fossil evidence of the transition from fish to amphibian.



Then how do you explain the fossil evidence? You claim mere resemblance, but ignore *when* the various species existed.

So what is YOUR explanation?

Well, we have a problem (let us say a difference of opinion) when you think everything evolved. Please if you can, present the proof not just of fossil evidence, but of genetics, that fish evolved genetically to amphibian. (Thank you.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

No teacher will appreciate someone playing chick tract

That depends upon the Chick tract:

 

[YoursTrue]

And your point is?

;-/ OK, you don't get it. I'll try again. Maybe you still won't understand, perhaps you can analyze what is being said here. If not, I'll try to help.
"Neanderthals were as Smart as Early Humans, Say Scientists"
Neanderthals were as Smart as Early Humans, Say Scientists | Anthropology | Sci-News.com
Do you believe that until 40,000 or so years ago when these "relatives" went extinct, from possibly 350,000 years ago, Neanderthals were cave dwellers?

 

[Audie]

;-/ OK, you don't get it. I'll try again. Maybe you still won't understand, perhaps you can analyze what is being said here. If not, I'll try to help.
"Neanderthals were as Smart as Early Humans, Say Scientists"
Neanderthals were as Smart as Early Humans, Say Scientists | Anthropology | Sci-News.com
Do you believe that until 40,000 or so years ago when these "relatives" went extinct, from possibly 350,000 years ago, Neanderthals were cave dwellers?

Of course they were not cave dwellers, as such. There are not enough
caves, for one.

People overapplied the whole step by step
evolution thing, showing them as dumb,living in
caves, crude ill fitting clothes etc.

 

[Polymath257]

Well, we have a problem (let us say a difference of opinion) when you think everything evolved. Please if you can, present the proof not just of fossil evidence, but of genetics, that fish evolved genetically to amphibian. (Thank you.)

Well, given how long ago that happened, we don't have the genetics from the relevant fish and amphibians. But we *can* and *do* compare the genetics of living amphibians and fish and yes, amphibians do, in fact, show up in the genetic trees under a certain branch of fish.

 

[Audie]

Well, given how long ago that happened, we don't have the genetics from the relevant fish and amphibians. But we *can* and *do* compare the genetics of living amphibians and fish and yes, amphibians do, in fact, show up in the genetic trees under a certain branch of fish.

There would not be a christian on earth if a thousandth part of the
detail demanded for evolution were applied to their religion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't know what you're talking about.

Yeah, I'm not buying that.

I think you're just playing dumb.

Anything to avoid acknowledging your dishonesty.

I feel like I would be insulting your intelligence to think otherwise.