Evolution of what?

[McBell]

And what is that first mammal you are talking about?

Seriously, you would look a lot less the fool if you were to read the articles presented

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No matter how many flowers you throw into the sewage waters, they will not smell better.

If the basis of a theory is false, no matter how much you try to embellish it, it will not become true.

The theory is sound. You just don't understand science and don't want to from all indication.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What do you mean? Is it not true what it says?

I was reading Quora about certain faith groups. So, what they say about them on there is true? Good to know.

Somehow, I think that you will call that false, and what you think supports you, you will call true. What da ya think? Yeah.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And what is that first mammal you are talking about?

I'm not really convinced that you know enough about any of this to know if you were given a name whether you would recognize it was an actual ancient mammal or Minnie Mouse.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What do you mean? Is it not true what it says?

Can you explain why you think that scientists don't think the environment changes?

Can you provide evidence that you know and understand the theory of evolution?

Can you tell us what natural selection is?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No matter how many flowers you throw into the sewage waters, they will not smell better.

If the basis of a theory is false, no matter how much you try to embellish it, it will not become true.

What is the basis of the theory? Please demonstrate that it is false.

If you cannot answer the questions put to you, how can you consider yourself in a position to know or state anything about this science? If it is that you believe you know everything there is to know about it, then either demonstrate that or concede that you can't.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

What do you mean? Is it not true what it says?

It means you have quoted an unreliable source, so it doesn't count as evidence.

 

[YoursTrue]

Do you think the dates are wrong?
If so, why?

I don't know if they're right or wrong.

 

[Heyo]

I don't know if they're right or wrong.

But if they are right or at least in the right order of magnitude, then there are about 1,500,000 generations between fish and mammals (as the average time for animals to mature is about a year). 1,500,000 tiny changes, each single one almost imperceptible, to get from A to B.
Imagine a picture of a fish, 1,000 times 1500 pixels, depicting a fish. Imagine each second only one pixel changing. Imagine watching the picture for 17 days.
Can you imagine the picture of a fish having changed into a picture of a mammal?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I looked that up and find the following. I quote one sentence from the article in Scientitic Amerian and put the link there, too.
"The most complete extinct-ape skull ever found reveals what the last common ancestor of all living apes and humans might have looked like, according to a new study." Now the sentence says "all living apes and humans." Fossil Reveals What Last Common Ancestor of Humans and Apes Looked Like

I don't know what you looked up exactly, but it sure wasn't anything related to genetics since you are talking about a fossil.

The extant genome of extant humans, chimps, bonobo's, gorilla's,... demonstrate that they all share an ancestor.
So much so that it can be called a genetic fact.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Oldest according to what? And according to whom?

Data / evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Is radiometric dating infallible?

Nothing is infallible.
But radiometric dating is very demonstrable and very reliable.
There is off course a margin of error.

But a sample that is properly dated to say 100 million years old.... yeah, there is ZERO chance that it actually is just a couple thousand years old.
The margin of error is rather slim.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What science says about it: "in some cases, geological processes such as metamorphism or recrystallization can reset the isotopic system, leading to inaccurate results."

And the fact that they know about this is because the entire thing is quite well understood.
They can recognize these cases and accomodate for it.

Are you a scientist?

No. The people that study and know about this stuff, are.
So, are you a scientist? What makes you think you can overrule their results and know-how?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If the basis of a theory is false, no matter how much you try to embellish it, it will not become true.

How is the basis of evolution theory false?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What reason is it that you think the dates are not right?

My guess is what Dawkins calls "the argument from incredulity".

Aka "my evidence against it, is that I don't believe it."

 

[gnostic]

Of course, there was first water and later animals:

Third day or period:

Gen. 1:9 Then God said: “Let the waters under the heavens be collected together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth, but the collecting of the waters, he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said: “Let the earth cause grass to sprout, seed-bearing plants and fruit trees according to their kinds, yielding fruit along with seed on the earth.” And it was so. 12 And the earth began to produce grass, seed-bearing plants and trees yielding fruit along with seed, according to their kinds. Then God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.

Fifth day or period:

Gen 1:20 Then God said: “Let the waters swarm with living creatures, and let flying creatures fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” 21 And God created the great sea creatures and all living creatures that move and swarm in the waters according to their kinds and every winged flying creature according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 With that God blessed them, saying: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the waters of the sea, and let the flying creatures become many in the earth.” 23 And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

While it is true that Genesis 1 say water existed before animals, including humans.

Genesis 1:26-27 humans were created last, after vegetation (1:11-12), after fishes and birds (1:20-22), and after all land animals (1:24-25).

You are ignoring the fact that Genesis 2 contradicting Genesis 1 as to WHEN humans were created.

In Genesis 2 Adam was created before plant life and before animals. In verse 5, it clearly stated there were no vegetation:

Genesis 2:4-6 In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no vegetation of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground, 6 but a stream would rise from the earth and water the whole face of the ground—

It then say in verse 7, God created man:

Genesis 2:7 7 then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

And then, and only then, God created plant life in verses 8 & 9 that included the Tree of Life and Tree of Knowledge:

Genesis 2:8-9 8 And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9 Out of the ground the Lord God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

That's completely out of order with Genesis 1.

Also, it say God created animals (2:19) AFTER Adam and vegetation.

Genesis 2:19-20 19 So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air and brought them to the man to see what he would call them, and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all cattle and to the birds of the air and to every animal of the field, but for the man

In Genesis 1, birds and land animals were created before humans, but not in the case of Genesis 2.

The timeline in Genesis 1 and timeline in Genesis cannot be both "right", as these 2 chapters contradicted each other.

 

[AppieB]

Well, I want to define a new "evolution" about the sorroundings of the alleged evolved animals ... so, what?

Great!
Now try to set up a hypothesis and do some actual science work.

 

[Left Coast]

Of course, there was first water and later animals

So, we agree that the question you started this thread with was silly:

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

I'm glad you realize it now!

 

[TLK Valentine]

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?

You seem a little puzzled.

Unless the environment changed, natural selection would not be possible, so evolutionists have not "forgotten" anything.

As for liquid water, that formed on Earth long before the first life - in fact, it's commonly believed that life would not exist here without it, so the presence (or at least the possibility) of liquid water on other worlds is one of the major criteria when it comes to searching for extraterrestrial life.

 

[YoursTrue]

While it is true that Genesis 1 say water existed before animals, including humans.

Genesis 1:26-27 humans were created last, after vegetation (1:11-12), after fishes and birds (1:20-22), and after all land animals (1:24-25).

You are ignoring the fact that Genesis 2 contradicting Genesis 1 as to WHEN humans were created.

In Genesis 2 Adam was created before plant life and before animals. In verse 5, it clearly stated there were no vegetatio


The timeline in Genesis 1 and timeline in Genesis cannot be both "right", as these 2 chapters contradicted each other.

Actually it isn't out of order. The descriptions do not contradict each other. It is a recount of the creation and shows that God prepared the Garden of Eden for Adam to dwell in.