How can you justify the sheer complexity that evolution would have to evolve?

[Valjean]

Correct. So there simply is no real reference to how and what fish (as an example), morphed to apes, going through all the distinct stages.

We do have evidence of the various stages. Transitional stages can be seen today in living organisms.

 

[Argentbear]

So -- let me try to recap this -- briefly--very briefly--one or two fish developed body parts that allowed after a real long time for their descendants to live on land, no water dwelling -- and then a couple of these land dwellers by mutation with no intelligent force behind these mutations--evolve to gorillas, and humans. Would you agree with that very brief summary?

I think it would be a great idea if you actually educated yourself on he basics of evolution cause you don't seem to have a very good grasp of the topic

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So -- let me try to recap this -- briefly--very briefly--one or two fish developed body parts that allowed after a real long time for their descendants to live on land, no water dwelling -- and then a couple of these land dwellers by mutation with no intelligent force behind these mutations--evolve to gorillas, and humans. Would you agree with that very brief summary?

No, to simple and not just brief.

 

[Pogo]

I think it would be a great idea if you actually educated yourself on he basics of evolution cause you don't seem to have a very good grasp of the topic

She knows it well enough according to her, according to us she knows it only well enough to make strawmen.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Most here know that science teaches all life evolved and was mot designed by an intelligent force. Thus, some fish emerged slowly, very slowly from water -- developed legs by mutations and air-breathing lungs and nostrils and stayed on land. To recap: that's what many people believe, including scientists. That is my point. That is what the science of evolution teaches.

That is because that is what the evidence tells us. To date there is no evidence for Intelligent Design or any other creationist buzz word concepts. This is why I try to teach creationists the concept of evidence. Creationism is their belief, it is their burden of proof.

I think that the reason that creation "scientists" do not follow the scientific method is because they know that they are wrong. That is why so many creationist articles are easily shown to be filled with lies when analyzed by experts in the field.

 

[Audie]

That is because that is what the evidence tells us. To date there is no evidence for Intelligent Design or any other creationist buzz word concepts. This is why I try to teach creationists the concept of evidence. Creationism is their belief, it is their burden of proof.

I think that the reason that creation "scientists" do not follow the scientific method is because they know that they are wrong. That is why so many creationist articles are easily shown to be filled with lies when analyzed by experts in the field.

"Because they know they are wrong."

On some level I expect that is so.

Some, the simple con men, cynics,
those who like tobacco industry scientists
or oxy- doctors just want money.

Others are sincere in their cog dis and
intellectual dishonesty.
So I'd say creation "scientists' are all
either morally weak, or simply insane.

 

[John53]

Most here know that science teaches all life evolved and was mot designed by an intelligent force. Thus, some fish emerged slowly, very slowly from water -- developed legs by mutations and air-breathing lungs and nostrils and stayed on land. To recap: that's what many people believe, including scientists. That is my point. That is what the science of evolution teaches.

So you keep repeating. If that's your point then we can move on. If not then please hurry up and get to it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

you have no idea whether not a small but very dense inner core of Green cheese resides inside said planet

I do. You should have a pretty good idea about that, too.

So do you and scientists believe all life forms evolve or maybe only some of them or maybe some do not evolve?

The theory contends that all living populations are evolving. Gene pools are constantly changing (evolving).

So humans you think may not evolve?

Human beings are also evolving.

science, you say, if I understand you correctly, does NOT teach there was no intelligent force behind the process of evolution. In other words, they (the scientists, for the most part) think there could be an invisible intelligent force behind the process of evolution but they don't find any evidence of that, so maybe they think there is, and maybe there is not, right? As I understand it, because science finds no evidence of superior unseen intelligent forces, that does not mean these forces do not exist or -- that they do exist. In oither words, would you say the jury of science is out on this issue? In other words, it is not within the realm or scope of investigation according to scientists to determine whether there IS an unseen intelligent force behind the complexity of living matter?

I'd agree with that. Science makes no comment about gods. It only comments on what it finds studying reality. If a god exists, it hasn't been detected yet.

So then one would have to deduce from that -- that science would categorically refute the concept that there is an intelligence behind life (without saying it out loud or in print).

That's a different position. Last time, you were correct, but not this time.

So -- let me try to recap this -- briefly--very briefly--one or two fish developed body parts that allowed after a real long time for their descendants to live on land, no water dwelling -- and then a couple of these land dwellers by mutation with no intelligent force behind these mutations--evolve to gorillas, and humans. Would you agree with that very brief summary?

Ancient fish have living descendants today, some of which still live in water and have gills and fins which you would recognize as and call fish.

But those ancient fish also have descendants that live on land today and which you would not recognize as the descendants of fish.

 

[YoursTrue]

to clarify my position:
I simply do not accept in reality (meaning all the possible possibilities of mutations causing the various entities of organisms, etc.) any longer that are said by scientists to actually cause "natural" mutations stemming from whatever happened at abiogenesis until humans. I no longer think or believe evolution can really explain it, although scientists try. But really what is considered evidence is not the tell-all factor, because so much just isn't there. Now if I were on a jury and seeing that sort of evidence would I agree with the scientific conclusion that is how humans came about? From fish morphing-evolving little by little to eventually turn into humans? I certainly might have years ago but not now. Thanks anyway though for offering your thoughts on the matter.

 

[YoursTrue]

I do. You should have a pretty good idea about that, too.

The theory contends that all living populations are evolving. Gene pools are constantly changing (evolving).

Fish still remain fish, don't they, even though gene pools are constantly changing, which you seem to equate with evolution. So far that scientists have observed in the actual circumstance and not fossils.

 

[John53]

to clarify my position:
I simply do not accept in reality (meaning all the possible possibilities of mutations causing the various entities of organisms, etc.) any longer that are said by scientists to actually cause "natural" mutations stemming from whatever happened at abiogenesis until humans. I no longer think or believe evolution can really explain it, although scientists try. But really what is considered evidence is not the tell-all factor, because so much just isn't there. Now if I were on a jury and seeing that sort of evidence would I agree with the scientific conclusion that is how humans came about? From fish morphing-evolving little by little to eventually turn into humans? I certainly might have years ago but not now. Thanks anyway though for offering your thoughts on the matter.

We know! You've repeated it 1,000 times!

Is there a point to this repetition?

 

[YoursTrue]

I do. You should have a pretty good idea about that, too.

The theory contends that all living populations are evolving. Gene pools are constantly changing (evolving).

Human beings are also evolving.

I'd agree with that. Science makes no comment about gods. It only comments on what it finds studying reality. If a god exists, it hasn't been detected yet.

That's a different position. Last time, you were correct, but not this time.

Ancient fish have living descendants today, some of which still live in water and have gills and fins which you would recognize as and call fish.

But those ancient fish also have descendants that live on land today and which you would not recognize as the descendants of fish.

Now of course, humans do not revert by natural means to whatever they evolved from, do they? I guess they'd have to get rid of a few genes.

 

[YoursTrue]

We know! You've repeated it 1,000 times!

Is there a point to this repetition?

Let me rephrase then. Do you or scientists that study this stuff know which type of fish began morphing (I mean evolving naturally) to be the next step (whatever it is) in the lineup to be an "old ape" maybe? And then of course, new apes I suppose.

 

[YoursTrue]

I do. You should have a pretty good idea about that, too.

The theory contends that all living populations are evolving. Gene pools are constantly changing (evolving).

Human beings are also evolving.

I'd agree with that. Science makes no comment about gods. It only comments on what it finds studying reality. If a god exists, it hasn't been detected yet.

That's a different position. Last time, you were correct, but not this time.

Ancient fish have living descendants today, some of which still live in water and have gills and fins which you would recognize as and call fish.

But those ancient fish also have descendants that live on land today and which you would not recognize as the descendants of fish.

So where's the substantive proof/show/evidence (whatever you want to call it) that demonstrates or shows which fish morphed to be more than fish. Unless of course you want to say that all humans are fish, that would close that topic, right? Except which fish do scientists know started the morphing process? Oh, yes, let me guess, who knows, maybe I"ll be right! Scientists do not KNOW which type or species of fish started moving to get on to land, right? And maybe scientists think that particular species of fish are no longer around--or maybe they're still around. What do you think?

 

[John53]

Let me rephrase then. Do you or scientists that study this stuff know which type of fish began morphing (I mean evolving naturally) to be the next step (whatever it is) in the lineup to be an "old ape" maybe? And then of course, new apes I suppose.

How about rephrasing it into an understand able question. Dropping the brackets might help (or might not) (but worth a try).

 

[firedragon]

No .. the inability to explain it is not what defines it as Magic ... as there are manythigns we can not explain that are not magic .. but regardless .. what part of >>>> "" YOUR DEFINITION IS SELF CONTRADICTORY IRRATIONAL FALLACIOUS NONSENSE" are you not getting here ?

Describing the universe's creation ex nihilo as "magic" suggests an event that defies natural explanation, akin to a magical act where something emerges without any preceding cause or material. This characterization arises because it contrasts sharply with our everyday understanding of cause and effect, making it seem as mysterious and inexplicable as magic. Even if you disagree and has to abide by "one day we will understand", try not to reduce everything to cinders and throw them away and look to insult as if an insult is a fantastic philosophical argument. Be a bit responsible.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, to simple and not just brief.

OK, you say no to my summation slightly of what scientists say happened. I'll rephrase if possible:
Do you know if a couple of fish developed body parts that allowed after a real long time for their descendants to live on land, no water dwelling, or was it many fish that evolved and left the waters and became eventually after a long haul to be land dwellers.

 

[YoursTrue]

How about rephrasing it into an understand able question. Dropping the brackets might help (or might not) (but worth a try).

lol, I'll try again. So!
Do you or scientists that study this stuff know which type of fish began morphing aka as evolving to be the next step in the lineup from fish to eventually be an "old ape" maybe? And then of course, new ape. So just taking fish as an example -- what fish was supposedly the first to start the process of evolving to the next step? Hopefully that is a clear enough question.

 

[John53]

lol, I'll try again. So!
Do you or scientists that study this stuff know which type of fish began morphing aka as evolving to be the next step in the lineup from fish to eventually be an "old ape" maybe? And then of course, new ape. So just taking fish as an example -- what fish was supposedly the first to start the process of evolving to the next step? Hopefully that is a clear enough question.

I'm not a scientist so I can't answer what they know. Morphing isn't evolving. I don't know what an old ape is.

Every living creature doesn't fossilise so naming one particular species is virtually impossible. Even if they did all fossilise someone would need to stumble upon that particular fossil and recognise the change.

We share a common ancestor with fish, one particular fish didn't evolve into a human.

 

[Pogo]

lol, I'll try again. So!
Do you or scientists that study this stuff know which type of fish began morphing aka as evolving to be the next step in the lineup from fish to eventually be an "old ape" maybe? And then of course, new ape. So just taking fish as an example -- what fish was supposedly the first to start the process of evolving to the next step? Hopefully that is a clear enough question.

One of the Backbone family.
Whether it was Eddy or his Cousin Fred we don't know, he didn't have fingers yet to write it down.

ETA clearification to set up the next silly strawman.