Evolution of what?

[McBell]

No, thank goodness turtles haven't spoken to me.

Of course they have.
they have laid it all out plain as day.
Why is it you can not understand that which they are so clearly demonstrating?
I bet it is because you were made unable to understand because you do not believe?
Yeah, I bet that is it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As I have said and until shown differently, I believe there is a "intelligence" from a person (who is God) in generating and causing life. Tiktaalik do not prove or evidence evolution as if by necessity. Some animals are on the verge of extinction yet no evolution seems to be taking place there. Perhaps someone can provide evidence that some life forms being threatened now are evolving to forms that will enable them to live in those difficult circumstances. ?
The Bible explains more about why we suffer and it makes sense to me. None of us really want to die. For me, the idea of death is not a pleasant one. I do not want to die but I figure I may die, although I hope I can live forever in beautiful conditions some day.
Some turtles have longer lifespans than we do, which shows me that it is possible to live much longer than we do now. How Long Do Turtles and Tortoises Live?
and here I go, turtles do not compose music, they don't have orchestras. Or write books. (etc.) They are remarkable, however, in their own right. I certainly don't look forward to being a turtle, which some religionists might say that we can transmigrate to another form of life. (I hope not.) I don't believe that and never did even before I believed in the God that inspired the Bible. But then I don't think turtles think about these things, so they're safe in that respect. I don't think they worry or think about dying. But that's me, the way I think now. No, thank goodness turtles haven't spoken to me.

You need to learn what is and what is not evidence. It is a simple concept. Tiktaalik is evidence for the theory of evolution. Let's go over the definition of scientific evidence again:

Scientific evidence is evidence that supports or opposes a scientific theory or hypothesis.

That is all. So number one question, do we have a testable idea? Or in other words do we have a testable theory or hypothesis. And yes we do. Second does the observation support that theory or hypothesis. And yes we do have evidence for that.

The reason that we do not have scientific evidence for ID is that the believers in ID are at best cowards. They want to have a belief supported by the sciences but they refuse to put their concept into a testable form. Michael Behe when he first proposed Irreducible Complexity actually did put it into a testable form. But when one does that other scientists will test it and they did. His idea was quickly shown to be wrong. If you get a definition of what it is today it will not be in a testable form. That is why IR is no longer science. The only scientific form of it was refuted and the new form of it cannot be tested. That makes it pseudoscience.

 

[Watchmen]

Many evolutionists are so obsessed with the idea of a chain of related animals that they forget that the environment around them must have evolved along with or faster than these animals' supposed biological evolution, or else they would not have survived in a hostile environment like the one that suggests a universe in formation.

Why do evolutionists limit their evolutionary theory only to animals, and forget about the environment that also had to be transformed to welcome them upon their "evolutionary" arrival?

For example: when did the water appear in the evolution of the animals?

Your entire premise is wrong.

 

[YoursTrue]

Of course they have.
they have laid it all out plain as day.
Why is it you can not understand that which they are so clearly demonstrating?
I bet it is because you were made unable to understand because you do not believe?
Yeah, I bet that is it.

Some turtles live according to what I read until about 140 years. And again, they don't write music or newspapers. Sorry, some are said to live up to 150 years. How Long Do Turtles and Tortoises Live?

 

[McBell]

Some turtles live according to what I read until about 140 years.

So what?

And again, they don't write music or newspapers.

And again,
So what?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Some turtles live according to what I read until about 140 years. And again, they don't write music or newspapers. Sorry, some are said to live up to 150 years. How Long Do Turtles and Tortoises Live?

Wrong:

 

[YoursTrue]

It depends what you mean. If you mean that there is some sort of intelligence behind the universe coming into existence, and ONLY that, you are correct. The problem is, that's not what intelligent design means. ID comes with all the baggage of creationism. And yes, Mudskippers pose a problem for creationists.

Exactly how this Intelligence did this I certainly can't say, and the Bible also does not say in any detail. In that you could be right about the use of the term intelligent design, but I do not know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Exactly how this Intelligence did this I certainly can't say, and the Bible also does not say in any detail. In that you could be right about the use of the term intelligent design, but I do not know.

Then why even believe it in the first place? You have just admitted that there is no difference between believing in ID and in "fairies did it".

 

[John53]

So what?


And again,
So what?

Refuted....

 

[Heyo]

Further, there are many varieties of fish around today. Has anyone seen any of these fish evolve in current times?

@sayak83 answered that already in #364.

 

[ppp]

Refuted....

I love that song.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Refuted....

Wow, what a flashback to my childhood. Love that song, and I really dig the longer hair and sideburns!

 

[Heyo]

As I have said and until shown differently, I believe there is a "intelligence" from a person (who is God) in generating and causing life.

That is your right. You have a right to believe even if what you believe is wrong. I wont attack you for that. (And I like to remind my fellow YEC opponents to also carefully distinguish between statements of faith and statements of facts.)

Tiktaalik do not prove or evidence evolution as if by necessity.

That is a statement of fact which is wrong and born out of your ignorance.
You have to accept that you have been lied to and that most of what you think you know about the ToE is creationist propaganda. Stick to your beliefs, refuse to learn but don't think you can repeat creationist lies here without fierce opposition.
And if you want to learn, my thread Why the Theory of Evolution is True. Part 1: What is Science? is still open.

 

[gnostic]

I did some research as to the discovery of the Tiktaalik. This does not disprove the idea of intelligent design.

Again -- this does not disprove the idea of intelligent design.

I understand you believe the theory of evolution without intelligent design behind the various entities is true. Animal life, including fishes, is a wondrous and fabulous thing to behold. I believe that there is a Designer behind the various entities of plant and animal life.

For someone who claimed they are not anti-science, that all I see from you.

Whenever a scientist starts a new hypothesis, it is never automatically true (or never “true by default”).

The new hypothesis has to be TESTED, and that can only happen if there are observations of the EVIDENCE or observations of the EXPERIMENTS -

​

TO VERIFY the hypothesis​

or

TO REFUTE the hypothesis​

Those that cannot be tested, are deemed to be UNFALSIFIABLE, meaning the concepts or claims are untestable. Meaning, there would be no evidence or experiments to verify or refute it.

Unfalsifiable claims are deemed to be pseudoscience, and it would disqualify it from it being a “hypothesis”.

Did you noticed that I have never used the words “proof”, proven or prove, in the above?

That‘s because hypothesis have to be TESTED with evidence or experiments, or both. You don’t test hypothesis with proofs, because proofs are merely formulas or equations, and formulas & equations are not evidence, nor experiments.

you don’t prove hypothesis, you’d test hypothesis.

you still cannot grasp the concept of scientific method, where all hypotheses have to be tested, not proven. Hence you are not only anti-science, you are a science illiterate...especially if you cannot distinguish between “testing” and “proving”, or between “evidence” and “proof”.

Intelligent Design is unfalsifiable, due to the fact that Intelligent Design is centred around the so-called “Intelligent Designer”.

So if the Designer is the root cause of nature being designed, then you have to test the Designer itself. But the Designer is untestable, unobservable, therefore Intelligent Design is also untestable and unfalsifiable. So Intelligent Design doesn’t even qualify being called a hypothesis.

And even if I were to your silly pointless “proof”, you cannot “prove” Intelligent Design, because there are no equations or formulas for this nonexistent Designer.

Can you show “equation” for the Designer? If you cannot, then you cannot prove Intelligent Design.

i have not seen any so-called experts present this PROOF you keep harping on.

Plus, I am not a claimant for Intelligent Design…you are. The claimant of untested claims of ID, are the one who must verify and validate their claims. You have presented no evidence or experiments for ID…and you certainly have presented any mathematical proof.

btw, my previous replies to you, I have never mentioned Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is no better than creationism in any form, because they are both pseudoscience and unfalsifiable opinions.

 

[gnostic]

Btw @YoursTrue

Michael Behe have admitted that Intelligent Design have never been tested, and have never been peer-reviewed, during him being cross-examined In the Kitzmiller vs Dover case:

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District: Trial transcript: Day 12 (October 19), AM Session, Part 1

Rothschild: Now you have never argued for intelligent design in a peer reviewed scientific journal, correct?​

​

Behe: No, I argued for it in my book.​

​

Rothschild: Not in a peer reviewed scientific journal?​

​

Behe: That's correct.​

​

Rothschild: And, in fact, there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred, is that correct?​

​

Behe: That is correct, yes.​

​

Rothschild: And it is, in fact, the case that in Darwin's Black Box, you didn't report any new data or original research?​

​

Behe: I did not do so, but I did generate an attempt at an explanation.​

Michael Behe is a biochemist, and the so-called “expert witness“ for the Dover School Board.

The judge recognised that Intelligent Design is a religious or theological concept, not a scientific concept.

it has been nearly 20 years since this civil case, and still no experts for ID - including Michael Behe - have not tested Intelligent Design, so not only there are no evidence for ID, not a single one of them presented any mathematical equations (hence no proofs) that “prove” ID being true.

You can continue to advocate Intelligent Design, as that is your personal choice to believe whatever you want to believe…but they are no more than just personal and unsubstantiated opinions.

 

[Valjean]

Again -- this does not disprove the idea of intelligent design.

Nor is it evidence of ID. It looks like an argument from ignorance.
Believing things that are well evidenced is rational. Believing things that are poorly evidenced or merely claimed is irrational.

Argument from ignorance, also known as appeal to ignorance, is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. Wiki.​

Believing in ID is irrational inasmuch as:
1. it's an unevidenced, religious claim.
2. A scientifically accepted, well evidenced, alternative mechanism exists.

​

​

​

 

[YoursTrue]

Who said fish are not evolving now? Here is evidence.
Rapid evolution in fish: Genomic changes within a generation

Sorry but it really does not show that they stay anything but fish.

 

[YoursTrue]

A

Btw @YoursTrue

Michael Behe have admitted that Intelligent Design have never been tested, and have never been peer-reviewed, during him being cross-examined In the Kitzmiller vs Dover case:



Michael Behe is a biochemist, and the so-called “expert witness“ for the Dover School Board.

The judge recognised that Intelligent Design is a religious or theological concept, not a scientific concept.

it has been nearly 20 years since this civil case, and still no experts for ID - including Michael Behe - have not tested Intelligent Design, so not only there are no evidence for ID, not a single one of them presented any mathematical equations (hence no proofs) that “prove” ID being true.

You can continue to advocate Intelligent Design, as that is your personal choice to believe whatever you want to believe…but they are no more than just personal and unsubstantiated opinions.

That's interesting because I don't think one can test Intelligent Design. That is probably not the best term for what I believe, but I do believe there is an originator of life. People have different ideas about God, what He created, what He does, etc. I do not agree with all their ideas, and so even the idea of intelligent design can be misleading. The Bible says (and I believe it), "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." There is nothing to show/prove/demonstrate or evidence otherwise.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

@sayak83 answered that already in #364.

Fish remain fish and the theory of evolution doesn't demand that they change or explain that fish will magically change into something else right in front of ones eyes either.

What it explains is that some line of fish evolved in response to the environment to the point that the descendants could exploit new niches including the shallows and eventually land.

Fish remaining fish is a variation of the old "if man evolved from monkeys (apes), then why are there still monkeys" that still gets repeated despite the rational explanations that have been provided since that question was first flung.

 

[sayak83]

Sorry but it really does not show that they stay anything but fish.

Emergence of new species of fish is not evolution??
I already showed you transitional Tiktaalik during the transition of marine to aquatic vertebrates. This link shows continuous evolution and speciation within various types of fish.
Emergence of a new kind of land vertebrates from a marine vertebrate requires land free of already existing land animals or birds. Since that is not there, no such thing can happen now...again a prediction from evolution theory. You NEED an large empty niche for adaptive radiation to occur.