Evolution of what?

[TagliatelliMonster]

Like: when did the dry land appear for those walking animals?

See? You have it exactly backwards.

Dry land existed before walking animals.
Land crawlers evolved to accomodate for living on dry land, not the other way round.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

@Valjean I got it ... the point is it's not that simple if we think on the time it took, the earth, to be what we are seeing right now to receive the animals you say took so long to evolve. Something doesn't add up, don't you think?

The only thing that doesn't add up is your idea of how evolution works.

 

[viole]

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?

What makes you think they forget that? Changes in the environment are true drivers of evolution.

After all, you, and all of us, exist, among other things, because an asteroid kicked off the orbit between Mars and Jupiter 150 millions ago, hit the earth 65 millions years ago.

you should thank that heavy stone vastly more than any imaginary being you thank for your existence.

ciao

- violw

 

[Eli G]

Do evolutionists also have a family tree (phylogenetic) for plants, just like the one they invented for animals?

If the answer is yes: can you superimpose one on top of the other to find out what did the first animals eat, those that did not yet "know" the plants and fruits that would supposedly appear millions of years later?

 

[Left Coast]

Do evolutionists also have a family tree (phylogenetic) for plants, just like the one they invented for animals?

Yes.

Plant evolution - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

If the answer is yes: can you superimpose one on top of the other to find out what did the first animals eat, those that did not yet "know" the plants and fruits that would supposedly appear millions of years later?

We don't need to superimpose them. Scientists know what sponges and jellyfish eat.

 

[Eli G]

It seems to me that evolutionists can't see the whole system like I want to... Maybe they are forced to see only one chapter at a time, and so on, one by one, until they finish the story in the reality of the modern biodiversity. How convenient!

I prefer to see the complete picture, to realize all the fiction that is in that story. I need to think by myself.

And here again: What did an apple tree have to adapt to and be able to survive to become a banana plant? ...I am referring to that evolution of plants; I am not satisfied with the simplism of some storytellers.

 

[Left Coast]

It seems to me that evolutionists can't see the whole system like I want to... Maybe they are forced to see only one chapter at a time, and so on, one by one, until they finish the story in the reality of the modern biodiversity. How convenient!

I prefer to see the complete picture, to realize all the fiction that is in that story. I need to think by myself.

It seems to me like you're just thinking of random questions to ask and people here just keep answering them, so you come up with new ones. But I agree that it's good to think critically by yourself, without an organization telling you what you're allowed to think to be on God's good side. I'm glad you're moving in that direction.

 

[Eli G]

I am a very coherent person. I am showing all incoherences of the theory of evolution to rational thinkers, so they can think by themselves and do not accept what others want they to.

 

[Left Coast]

I am a very coherent person. I am showing all incoherences of the theory of evolution to rational thinkers, so they can think by themselves and do not accept what others want they to.

I haven't seen any incoherences yet, but maybe you'll come up with one some day. If so, you'd be up for a Nobel!

 

[Eli G]

I haven't seen any incoherences yet, but maybe you'll come up with one some day. If so, you'd be up for a Nobel!

I don't have any problem with that. I am a world minister.

 

[Left Coast]

I don't have any problem with that. I am a world minister.

That tells me your objections to evolution are theological, not scientific. Your religion tells you you're not allowed to believe the science of evolution, so you don't. Unfortunately, that means professional scientists are unlikely to take you seriously. When you obtain the necessary education to understand the science and then start doing scientific research, let me know what you find.

 

[Eli G]

There are many non-evolutionist professional scientists ... You are living in a bubble and so, your opinion is irrelevant.

Have an excellent weekend.

 

[Left Coast]

There are many non-evolutionist professional scientists ...

Not who work in biology, archaeology, or other fields relevant to evolution. Sorry, there really aren't.

You are living in a bubble and so, your opinion is irrelevant.

Have an excellent weekend.

I'm really not, ironically lol. You know very little about me. But I understand that your religion teaches you that evolution is false, so you must agree with them if you wish to remain part of it.

I wish you well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do evolutionists also have a family tree (phylogenetic) for plants, just like the one they invented for animals?

What do you mean by that? What are "evolutionists"?

If you are talking about the phylogenetic trees those were not invented. The evidence "invents" those.

If the answer is yes: can you superimpose one on top of the other to find out what did the first animals eat, those that did not yet "know" the plants and fruits that would supposedly appear millions of years later?

Phylogenetic trees only give you lines of descent.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are many non-evolutionist professional scientists ... You are living in a bubble and so, your opinion is irrelevant.

Have an excellent weekend.

About 99% of all scientists accept that evolution is a fact. For those that understand the science the science deniers are less than one tenth of a percent. This is the first time that I have heard of a tenth of a percent being called "many".

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am a very coherent person. I am showing all incoherences of the theory of evolution to rational thinkers, so they can think by themselves and do not accept what others want they to.

No, you are far from it. Your questions alone show that.

 

[shunyadragon]

I am a very coherent person. I am showing all incoherences of the theory of evolution to rational thinkers, so they can think by themselves and do not accept what others want they to.

No, your questions reflect an intentional ignorance of the sciences of evolution.

Apple trees do not adapt to evolve to banana trees,

 

[Twilight Hue]

I am a very coherent person. I am showing all incoherences of the theory of evolution to rational thinkers, so they can think by themselves and do not accept what others want they to.

What is the coherent alternative then?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Do evolutionists also have a family tree (phylogenetic) for plants, just like the one they invented for animals?

If the answer is yes: can you superimpose one on top of the other to find out what did the first animals eat, those that did not yet "know" the plants and fruits that would supposedly appear millions of years later?

Evolutionary biologists did not invent taxonomy. That was done by Christians starting with Andrea Cesalpino who worked with plants and culminating with the work of Swedish botanist Carl Linnaeus whose book, Systema Naturae 10th Edition forms the basis of modern taxonomy.

No, you cannot superimpose them to achieve what you seem to be asking.

It amazes me how little you seem to know about any of this and yet seem to consider yourself qualified to dismiss it all as nonsense.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There are many non-evolutionist professional scientists ... You are living in a bubble and so, your opinion is irrelevant.

Have an excellent weekend.

Who are you responding to? Why do you do that? Are you afraid of something or is it just an indication of how little you respect others with views different from your own?

Approximately 97% of scientists accept the theory of evolution. The "many non-evolutionist professional scientists" that don't, isn't that many.