Evolution of what?

[TagliatelliMonster]

I keep saying that I appreciate x-ray machines (invented by scientists), I drive a car (invented by scientists), I take vaccines (invented by scientists), yet you keep saying I reject science. (LOL...)

Actually, all those things are examples of applied science. Engineering.
They all USE scientific theory to build technology.

Here's the kicker....
If you deny radiometric dating, then you are denying one of the scientific theories that underpins x-ray machines.
If you deny the science of evolution, then you are denying one of the scientific theories that underpins vaccines.

Cars run on fossil fuels. The companies that drill of this fuel employ geologists to tell them were to drill. Without accepting the theories underpinning old earth and the evolutionary history of life on this planet, you don't actually know where you will find oil fields. Exxon will never be employing "creation scientists" to find oil, because they wouldn't even know where to begin. They can't even explain why there is oil in the first place.



It all ties together.
It's like saying "I accept science, I use GPS, but relativity is bullocks" while GPS can't work unless you actually use relativity.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What's the problem? If humans are apes, and said to be "modern apes" no less, why would someone be offended if referred to as a Christian ape by evolution?

Because you aren't being intellectually honest and we all know you mean it as an insult.
Intent. It matters.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes fossils do demonstrate that various forms evolved. The genetic similarities do demonstrate that evolution happened. The evolutionary changes observed in fields and labs demonstrate the same. Your personal opinion on what counts as a demonstration or not does not matter. Nothing can demonstrate the spherical shape of the earth to flat earth believers also. But their opinions are frankly.... irrelevant. Same for yours.

Fossils demonstrate that something considered once as living matter is no longer living and the remnants are left behind.

 

[sayak83]

Fossils demonstrate that something considered once as living matter is no longer living and the remnants are left behind.

Transitional fossils showing early editions of the features from multiple later branches that are today clearly differentiated are a prediction of evolution, and finding them ( and we have found many) are evidence for evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

Transitional fossils showing early editions of the features from multiple later branches that are today clearly differentiated are a prediction of evolution, and finding them ( and we have found many) are evidence for evolution.

So can you please show or detail which transitional fossils in particular you are speaking of? And also importantly after that, maybe more importantly, what multiple later branches are you speaking of as they fit in to the theory? Thank you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So can you please show or detail which transitional fossils in particular you are speaking of? And also importantly after that, maybe more importantly, what multiple later branches are you speaking of as they fit in to the theory? Thank you.

Why are you asking about fossils?

 

[sayak83]

So can you please show or detail which transitional fossils in particular you are speaking of? And also importantly after that, maybe more importantly, what multiple later branches are you speaking of as they fit in to the theory? Thank you.

Tiktaalik.....transitional fossil showing early adaptations that became more developed in the later evolution of land vertebrates branch (a neck region and strong boned fins that acted as proto limbs on land).
Tiktaalik - Wikipedia
The skull of tiktaalik was low and flat, more similar in shape to that of a crocodile than most fish. The rear edge of the skull was excavated by a pair of indentations known as otic notches. These notches may have housed spiracles on the top of the head, which suggest the creature had primitive lungs as well as gills. Tiktaalik also lacked a characteristic most fishes have—bony plates in the gill area that restrict lateral head movement. This makes tiktaalik the earliest known fish to have a neck, with the pectoral (shoulder) girdle separate from the skull. This would give the creature more freedom in hunting prey on land or in the shallows.
The "fins" of tiktaalik have helped to contextualize the origin of weight-bearing limbs and digits. The fin has both a robust internal skeleton, like tetrapods, surrounded by a web of simple bony fin rays (lepidotrichia), like fish.[1] The lepidotrichia are thickest and most extensive on the front edge and upper side of the fin, leaving more room for muscle and skin on the underside of the fin.[2] The pectoral fin was clearly weight bearing, being attached to a massive shoulder girdle with expanded scapular and coracoid elements attached to the body armor. Moreover, there are large muscle scars on the underside of the forefin bones, and the distal joints of the wrist are highly mobile. Together, these suggest that the fin was both muscular and had the ability to flex like a wrist joint. These wrist-like features would have helped anchor the creature to the bottom in a fast current.

 

[ppp]

So can you please show or detail which transitional fossils in particular you are speaking of? And also importantly after that, maybe more importantly, what multiple later branches are you speaking of as they fit in to the theory? Thank you.

So, serious question. Why do you ask about physical evidence when it no role in your stance on human evolution?

 

[YoursTrue]

Tiktaalik.....transitional fossil showing early adaptations that became more developed in the later evolution of land vertebrates branch (a neck region and strong boned fins that acted as proto limbs on land).
Tiktaalik - Wikipedia
The skull of tiktaalik was low and flat, more similar in shape to that of a crocodile than most fish. The rear edge of the skull was excavated by a pair of indentations known as otic notches. These notches may have housed spiracles on the top of the head, which suggest the creature had primitive lungs as well as gills. Tiktaalik also lacked a characteristic most fishes have—bony plates in the gill area that restrict lateral head movement. This makes tiktaalik the earliest known fish to have a neck, with the pectoral (shoulder) girdle separate from the skull. This would give the creature more freedom in hunting prey on land or in the shallows.
The "fins" of tiktaalik have helped to contextualize the origin of weight-bearing limbs and digits. The fin has both a robust internal skeleton, like tetrapods, surrounded by a web of simple bony fin rays (lepidotrichia), like fish.[1] The lepidotrichia are thickest and most extensive on the front edge and upper side of the fin, leaving more room for muscle and skin on the underside of the fin.[2] The pectoral fin was clearly weight bearing, being attached to a massive shoulder girdle with expanded scapular and coracoid elements attached to the body armor. Moreover, there are large muscle scars on the underside of the forefin bones, and the distal joints of the wrist are highly mobile. Together, these suggest that the fin was both muscular and had the ability to flex like a wrist joint. These wrist-like features would have helped anchor the creature to the bottom in a fast current.

I know about the Tiktaalik. I have no idea why it was extinguished. So I'm guessing that scientists think that this emerging organism duplicated itself over time. I'm thinking there should be more than one tiktaalik coming on land at the same time because these would need to duplicate. It couldn't be just one specimen because it would have to make more. There are male and female fish. Do you think it matters how they emerged and what they definitely evolved to?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know about the Tiktaalik. I have no idea why it was extinguished. So I'm guessing that scientists think that this emerging organism duplicated itself over time. I'm thinking there should be more than one tiktaalik coming on land at the same time because these would need to duplicate. It couldn't be just one specimen because it would have to make more. There are male and female fish. Do you think it matters how they emerged and what they definitely evolved to?

Tiktaalik is a species of fish. They did not find only one. No one thought that there was only one.

 

[McBell]

They can, but you refuse to learn.

What is most interesting is that that rant was in reply to a request they present, in detail, their thoughts of how it all came to be...

I give the benefit of the doubt that it is a lack of understanding on their part.
Mainly because calling someone a liar is frowned upon on this forum.

 

[YoursTrue]

And so does science. Theories are never proven, by definition. Theories are supported by evidence. The ToE is supported by so much evidence that it comes as close to proven as a theory can get.

Not sure if I answered this or not, but the things not evidenced are supposed to have happened, right? For instance with Tiktaalik there is no evidence from which organism specifically it evolved from, is there? I mean one can say fish but do scientists know what kind of fish it evolved from?

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes fossils do demonstrate that various forms evolved. The genetic similarities do demonstrate that evolution happened. The evolutionary changes observed in fields and labs demonstrate the same. Your personal opinion on what counts as a demonstration or not does not matter. Nothing can demonstrate the spherical shape of the earth to flat earth believers also. But their opinions are frankly.... irrelevant. Same for yours.

My opinion may not matter to you but unless you can demonstrate the truth and validity of your opinions there is no reason why I should accept your opinions as correct.

 

[YoursTrue]

You know.... when YOU say this, we all know you are trying to be insulting.

Not at all. But then why is it considered by you to be insulting?

 

[YoursTrue]

Not "modern fish" off course. Modern fish did not evolve into humans, true.
Ancient sealife, over the course of some 500 milion years, did.

I figure that's how it likely is figured. Now you got me wondering as to whether there is any evidence that modern fish are evolving.

 

[Heyo]

Not sure if I answered this or not, but the things not evidenced are supposed to have happened, right? For instance with Tiktaalik there is no evidence from which organism specifically it evolved from, is there? I mean one can say fish but do scientists know what kind of fish it evolved from?

Only a clade of fish that might have been it's ancestors and there is even evidence that Tiktaalik may not be the first fish to walk on land or the exact missing link between fish and amphibians. Tiktaalik - Wikipedia
The remarkable thing about Tiktaalik is that it was predicted. From the ToE scientists concluded that something like Tiktaalik must have existed and they knew when it must have existed. So they chose a known formation of the correct age and searched and found it. A good theory makes useful predictions and here the predictions of the ToE were successful.

 

[YoursTrue]

Only a clade of fish that might have been it's ancestors and there is even evidence that Tiktaalik may not be the first fish to walk on land or the exact missing link between fish and amphibians. Tiktaalik - Wikipedia
The remarkable thing about Tiktaalik is that it was predicted. From the ToE scientists concluded that something like Tiktaalik must have existed and they knew when it must have existed. So they chose a known formation of the correct age and searched and found it. A good theory makes useful predictions and here the predictions of the ToE were successful.

I understand. However it doesn't answer the question as to why aren't fish evolving now? Also what species of fish, ancient or modern, did tiktaalik possibly come from. Also what happened to the tiktaalik. I am not contesting whether they existed. I am saying however there are questions about their emergency (evolution), disappearance, and if fish and other organisms are currently evolving in form.

 

[McBell]

So can you please show or detail which transitional fossils in particular you are speaking of?

Please give the details behind your belief concerning the diversity of the animal kingdom.

Perhaps with the added emphasis you can understand this time what is being requested?

 

[Valjean]

So can you please show or detail which transitional fossils in particular you are speaking of? And also importantly after that, maybe more importantly, what multiple later branches are you speaking of as they fit in to the theory? Thank you.

All the fossils show transitional details, and you've already been shown examples.

I know about the Tiktaalik. I have no idea why it was extinguished. So I'm guessing that scientists think that this emerging organism duplicated itself over time. I'm thinking there should be more than one tiktaalik coming on land at the same time because these would need to duplicate. It couldn't be just one specimen because it would have to make more. There are male and female fish. Do you think it matters how they emerged and what they definitely evolved to?

What are you talking about? Of course species like Tiktaalik, Eohippus or Pakicetus existed as populations of reproducing species. Who's implying the fossils were unique specimens?

Not sure if I answered this or not, but the things not evidenced are supposed to have happened, right? For instance with Tiktaalik there is no evidence from which organism specifically it evolved from, is there? I mean one can say fish but do scientists know what kind of fish it evolved from?

Things not evidenced were supposed to have happened???
In re: Tiktaalik, why do you think anyone brings it up as exemplary, if it isn't a link in an evolutionary chain?

 

[Valjean]

My opinion may not matter to you but unless you can demonstrate the truth and validity of your opinions there is no reason why I should accept your opinions as correct.

Because they aren't Sayak's opinions. They're universally accepted biological facts, extensively evidenced.