Evolution of what?

[YoursTrue]

Yes we are land living and land breathing fish, along with all mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians. Science does not classify living things based on what it does now but what is it's lineage is.

I've already asked because of your answer if what came before fish are also fish. Would you say what came before fish are fish, as you say what came after fish, such as humans, are also fish?

 

[YoursTrue]

Your question is only towards Christians correct?

Basically that is correct.

 

[sayak83]

I've already asked because of your answer if what came before fish are also fish. Would you say what came before fish are fish, as you say what came after fish, such as humans, are also fish?

No.
Fish is special type of whichever vertebrate type that came before fish, as we are.
That is what nested hierarchy means. Everything that comes later remains within everything that came before it....but not vice versa.
Nested set collection - Wikipedia.

 

[YoursTrue]

No.
Fish is special type of whichever vertebrate type that came before fish, as we are.
That is what nested hierarchy means. Everything that comes later remains within everything that came before it....but not vice versa.
Nested set collection - Wikipedia.

Exactly the definition I was thinking of regarding hierarchy. Except it doesn't work in total, maybe in some philosophical argument. The large doll in which the others fit is not the smallest doll. Thanks for your input. Take care. P.S. There are other definitions of hierarchies, such as in the military or in a family, but I don't see that humans are fish. Now if you can show me biologically that they are fish, that might be another story.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's not what I'm asking though. So going back to the question, and I understand that scientists say the particular apes (including those they include in that category called humans) have an unknown common ancestor. I'm not discussing things like albinos, long legged or short legged tribes. But rather that gorillas, as one example, are not seen to be evolving.

If you had been paying attention you would not have to ask such questions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Supposedly there is an unknown common ancestor for the great apes, is there not? Let's answer that question first.

No, you need to answer my question first. Your post shows that you do not understand the theory of evolution since it is as profound as saying " two plus two equals four" in an argument and yet you seemed to believe that you were making a point.

 

[Eli G]

Supposedly there is an unknown common ancestor for the great apes, is there not? Let's answer that question first.

Exactly.

Everyone knows that the evolutionary doctrine preaches about a supposed family tree in which branches (of different "trees", as if they grafted themselves) grow and then give rise to more branches, supposedly for ever and ever.

All trees have a trunk from which the first branches emerge, and all branches belong to the same kind of tree. Humans are supposedly a branch that is on the edge of the tree, but evolutionists cannot prove that humans have any connection with the trunk of that supposed tree.

The entire doctrine of evolution is assumptions and speculation without any proof. Those who believe in this doctrine are supposed to put faith in those assumptions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Exactly.

Everyone knows that the evolutionary doctrine preaches about a supposed family tree in which branches (of different "trees", as if they grafted themselves) grow and then give rise to more branches, supposedly for ever and ever.

All trees have a trunk from which the first branches emerge, and all branches belong to the same kind of tree. Humans are supposedly a branch that is on the edge of the tree, but evolutionists cannot prove that humans have any connection with the trunk of that supposed tree.

The entire doctrine of evolution is assumptions and speculation without any proof. Those who believe in this doctrine are supposed to put faith in those assumptions.

I can see that you have never heard of DNA.

 

[YoursTrue]

If you had been paying attention you would not have to ask such questions.

Yeah before I even saw who wrote that response I figured it was probably you with your --- remarks.

 

[YoursTrue]

I can see that you have never heard of DNA.

Again ... I hope you're ok.

 

[YoursTrue]

Exactly.

Everyone knows that the evolutionary doctrine preaches about a supposed family tree in which branches (of different "trees", as if they grafted themselves) grow and then give rise to more branches, supposedly for ever and ever.

All trees have a trunk from which the first branches emerge, and all branches belong to the same kind of tree. Humans are supposedly a branch that is on the edge of the tree, but evolutionists cannot prove that humans have any connection with the trunk of that supposed tree.

The entire doctrine of evolution is assumptions and speculation without any proof. Those who believe in this doctrine are supposed to put faith in those assumptions.

From what I have also read, some suppose different trees started from different things at ... Um... abiogenesis.

 

[John53]

All trees have a trunk from which the first branches emerge, and all branches belong to the same kind of tree. Humans are supposedly a branch that is on the edge of the tree, but evolutionists cannot prove that humans have any connection with the trunk of that supposed tree.

DNA, fossil record and observation

 

[YoursTrue]

No, you need to answer my question first. Your post shows that you do not understand the theory of evolution since it is as profound as saying " two plus two equals four" in an argument and yet you seemed to believe that you were making a point.

You gotta be kidding. Like you think there is a Known Common Denominator for the 'Great Apes' ? I'm thinking you don't know what you're talking about about.

 

[Eli G]

From what I have also read, some suppose different trees started from different things at ... Um... abiogenesis.

Most of them believe that the seed of that supposed phylogenetic tree came out of nowhere.

Others believe that this seed came from space, where there were supposedly already trees of that type.

In the end, they have a lot of faith in their own beliefs, and they want people to adopt their religion and accept what their priests say.

 

[YoursTrue]

DNA, fossil record and observation

From how many trees,?

 

[Eli G]

Phylogenetic trees are hypotheses that reflect some convention about what are the possible "family" relationships between different classes of animals (or plants, etc.).

They can even be changed over time, if someone thinks that a branch is incorrectly placed... which obviously shows that they have no proof of anything and that they build that tree based on speculation.

It's like a child who sees a small plane and asks his parent: "What kind of dragonfly is that?" And the father answers: "no, it's not a dragonfly, it's a butterfly." Then the man who overhears the conversation tells them that "neither a dragonfly nor a butterfly, what you see is a bird."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah before I even saw who wrote that response I figured it was probably you with your --- remarks.

Yes, I am very honest and do not play around. Thank you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Phylogenetic trees are hypotheses that reflect some convention about what are the possible "family" relationships between different classes of animals (or plants, etc.).

They can even be changed over time, if someone thinks that a branch is incorrectly placed... which obviously shows that they have no proof of anything and that they build that tree based on speculation.

It's like a child who sees a small plane and asks his parent: "What kind of dragonfly is that?" And the father answers: "no, it's not a dragonfly, it's a butterfly." Then the man who overhears the conversation tells them that "neither a dragonfly nor a butterfly, what you see is a bird."

Oh my. Someone needs to take a course on logic. When there is incomplete evidence scientists will have to guess for the fine points. When more evidence comes in, and more is always coming in, there may be a slight shift in the location of a branch.

So what?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You gotta be kidding. Like you think there is a Known Common Denominator for the 'Great Apes' ? I'm thinking you don't know what you're talking about about.

You can do better than that. Try again. You have been corrected on this countless times.

By the way, when you ignore or cannot understand the corrections constantly given to you you are once again demonstrating that you have no understanding of the theory of evolution.

 

[Eli G]

There is no intermediate link between different species of animals.

The only option left for evolutionists is to assume that there was a female ape somewhere that gave birth to a human being at some point.