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

[YoursTrue]

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.

and those that do and know how to write do not know -- if it was Eddy or Fred either. The other fishes just didn't mutate enough...(lol) They were in a class by themselves...

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

Morphing is not evolving? I like this definition of the term morph. I think it fits. "Morph- is a combining form used like a prefix meaning “form, structure.” It is often occasionally used in scientific terms, especially in biology and linguistics. Morph- comes from Greek morphḗ, meaning “form.” Then there's another one: "How does morphology relate to evolution?
What can we learn about evolution by studying morphology? Morphology is a very useful way of understanding evolutionary processes. Charles Darwin famously noticed differences in beak morphology of Galapagos finches, which helped inform his theory of natural selection and the 'Origin of species'.Sep 15, 2017" I like the term morphing. Q&A: Morphological insights into evolution'.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

Oh--every living creature doesn't fossilise you say so one cannot name one particular species that morphed-evolved to something graduating-changing in the process of leaving fishdom going to land dwellers. Therefore -- you may make your own determinations as to what exactly happened. Or what you think happened in agreement with scientific postulations.

 

[gnostic]

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.

Sciences are not court of laws, and they don’t have jury.

And Peer Review are not jury.

Jury in a trial courtroom are chosen from many different backgrounds, without requiring any expertise in law enforcement, without requiring any expertise in forensic science, without requiring any expertise on how lawyers do their jobs. Their jury duties are just to listen to all witnesses’ testimonies, the testimonies of plaintiffs & defendants, and to listen and observed any evidence shown by expert witnesses (eg ME, forensic scientists, arson analysts, financial analysts, etc), testimonies from any police or investigators involved in the arrest, and so on.

NOTE: And this is very important, YoursTrue, in criminal and civil trials, no jury would ever handle any physical evidence or data collected, let alone try to recreate the crime or fraud or accident. That’s not the jury duties.

In the end, jury will determine if a defendant(s) is guilty or not guilty in criminal trial, or liable or not liable in civil court trial.

Pever Review are different. When a scientist or team of scientists either submit a new hypothesis or submit additional models or modifications to an existing scientific theory, the peer or peers must belong to same or related fields of the submitter(s).

Say for example, you are the submitter of new hypothesis in molecular biology, then the peers themselves who would handle your hypothesis, would have to be either in the field of molecular biology, or related fields, like biochemistry or biology. So your peers wouldn’t be geologists, or physicists in quantum mechanics, or astrophysicists.

Do you understand that, YoursTrue?

Any changes to existing theories, or any new hypotheses, the submitters must include submissions of test results from either the evidence or experiments, and that would include all data (eg quantities, measurements, analysis of composition of the evidence, etc).

Whoever are the peers that will handle submissions of new hypotheses, or additions or modifications of existing theories, must know or understand the sciences behind any proposed hypothesis or theories, because they are the ones who must analyse the models and data submitted by the submitters.

Peer Review must be able to analyse the models, the evidence & data, to find errors, flaws in the models, weaknesses in the logical or mathematical models. And if necessary a reviewer may even try to reproduce any experiment to see if the end-results (of the experiment) verify the hypothesis or existing theory, or refute them. If the peer’s experiment refute the hypothesis or theory, then the hypothesis is either wrong, or the submitter has doctored the test results…the later (eg doctored results or data) would be fraudulent.

As I said earlier, jury don’t handle evidence, experiments or data in the courtrooms, while peer reviewers can, because th reviewers must be able to rigorously analyse submissions.

You are not a scientist in any field, so you have expertise in such field, you are certainly no biologist (and if the review were about fossils, then you are no paleontologist, nor geologist), therefore you would be disqualified from being a peer reviewer.

Why would anyon really consider your personal opinion, if your education in biology don’t extend beyond high school biology?

 

[gnostic]

@YoursTrue

You haven’t commented, nor answered any of my questions, in post 612 , in which I had replied about your beaks and birds.

Do you have any reply to my reply?

 

[Pogo]

and those that do and know how to write do not know -- if it was Eddy or Fred either. The other fishes just didn't mutate enough...(lol) They were in a class by themselves...

You know better than this, it has been explained to you 100s if not thousands of times and you claim to understand it. Evolution happens to populations not individuals and it is a slow process involving many generations. Thus your question either demonstrates that you are amazingly poor at learning and arrogantly ignorant of your true state of knowledge or disingenuously presenting strawmen.
Neither one reflects terribly well on you in terms of convincing others to take you seriously.

 

[Argentbear]

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. r.

again you should educate yourself as to what evolution actually says

 

[Argentbear]

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 Tiktaalik? this fish lived 375 million years ago and had shoulders, elbows, legs, wrists, a neck and rudimentary lungs

 

[Pogo]

Morphing is not evolving? I like this definition of the term morph. I think it fits. "Morph- is a combining form used like a prefix meaning “form, structure.” It is often occasionally used in scientific terms, especially in biology and linguistics. Morph- comes from Greek morphḗ, meaning “form.” Then there's another one: "How does morphology relate to evolution?
What can we learn about evolution by studying morphology? Morphology is a very useful way of understanding evolutionary processes. Charles Darwin famously noticed differences in beak morphology of Galapagos finches, which helped inform his theory of natural selection and the 'Origin of species'.Sep 15, 2017" I like the term morphing. Q&A: Morphological insights into evolution'.

So which is it, you don't know how to use a dictionary or you are pretending to confuse the act of morphing in the sense used in animation with the biological meaning and with the study of the biological shapes. Or do you actually understand and this is just another strawman?
Again, this has been explained numerous times.

 

[John53]

Morphing is not evolving? I like this definition of the term morph. I think it fits. "Morph- is a combining form used like a prefix meaning “form, structure.” It is often occasionally used in scientific terms, especially in biology and linguistics. Morph- comes from Greek morphḗ, meaning “form.” Then there's another one: "How does morphology relate to evolution?
What can we learn about evolution by studying morphology? Morphology is a very useful way of understanding evolutionary processes. Charles Darwin famously noticed differences in beak morphology of Galapagos finches, which helped inform his theory of natural selection and the 'Origin of species'.Sep 15, 2017" I like the term morphing. Q&A: Morphological insights into evolution'.

If morphing meant the same as evolving you wouldn't need to keep typing.... "morphing (I mean evolving)"

You've answered your own question numerous times.

 

[Pogo]

Oh--every living creature doesn't fossilise you say so one cannot name one particular species that morphed-evolved to something graduating-changing in the process of leaving fishdom going to land dwellers. Therefore -- you may make your own determinations as to what exactly happened. Or what you think happened in agreement with scientific postulations.

More simply, we understand that if John was in San Francisco last week and is in New York now that he must have traveled from there to here since we know about travel and have never seen any evidence of a teleporter.

Again, Straw man or true ignorance?

 

[John53]

Oh--every living creature doesn't fossilise you say so one cannot name one particular species that morphed-evolved to something graduating-changing in the process of leaving fishdom going to land dwellers. Therefore -- you may make your own determinations as to what exactly happened. Or what you think happened in agreement with scientific postulations.

What?

Try typing how you would talk in a normal conversation and remember I'm an uneducated Aussie. Keep it simple.

 

[Pogo]

how about Tiktaalik? this fish lived 375 million years ago and had shoulders, elbows, legs, wrists, a neck and rudimentary lungs

Which just brings up the two gaps instead of one and if not that, the finding that Tiktaalik was not a direct ancestor but a relative.
None of this is new, it is just a collection of strawmen to serve some need for attention of any kind.

 

[YoursTrue]

If morphing meant the same as evolving you wouldn't need to keep typing.... "morphing (I mean evolving)"

You've answered your own question numerous times.

I believe it does mean the same as evolving, but I explain it for those who may not know what I mean.

 

[YoursTrue]

What?

Try typing how you would talk in a normal conversation and remember I'm an uneducated Aussie. Keep it simple.

OK, let's try, shall we? OK I mean I'll try, not you.
So! I said, "Oh--every living creature doesn't fossilise you say so one cannot name one particular species that morphed-evolved to something graduating-changing in the process of leaving fishdom going to land dwellers. Therefore -- you may make your own determinations as to what exactly happened. Or what you think happened in agreement with scientific postulations."
You said -- "every living creature doesn't fossilize." OK. Every living creature does not fossilize.

 

[YoursTrue]

how about Tiktaalik? this fish lived 375 million years ago and had shoulders, elbows, legs, wrists, a neck and rudimentary lungs

OK, so it had those things.

 

[anotherneil]

There are 3 billion base pairs in the human genom(a cell) and around 30-40 trillion cells in a human each specialized for a specific function.

There are approximately 86 billions of neurons in the brain.

The eye has a cornea, iris, pupil, lens, retina, optical nerve, macula, fovea, Aqueous Humor, Vitreous Humor, Ciliary Muscles, sclera, Choroid and Conjunctiva to name a few. The eye can distinguish between 10 million colours.

The human gut is home to trillions of microorganisms, collectively known as the gut microbiome.

These are just a few incredible facts about the human body there are hundreds more.

This doesn't even touch on the origins of the first cell, first DNA, first multi cell etc etc

How can you expect anybody to believe that it was random mutations that ultimately created all of this, the complexity is ridiculous and there's no way all these complex organisms could have evolved to work together in harmony as they do?

It's all there to observe & the environment, conditions, and circumstances are also there to observe; the process that organisms go through to develop into these large structures, generation after generation, are also there to observe; this compels observers to come to the conclusions that they arrive at. Facts are not incredible.

 

[gnostic]

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.

you are still going on about fishes and land animals?

You are generalising and oversimplifying it.

Fishes didn’t become apes, if that’s what you are saying. A fish don’t jump from being a fish to ape. There thousands upon thousands of transitions before ever got to apes.

Fishes are informal term. The word fishes are not name of species. It isn’t a name of any class, order, family or genus. You have to be more specific with which type of clade, class, order, family, genus, species or subspecies.

Apes are also informal name, and again you would have very specific. Old apes, new apes…that’s not specific.

i have said all that before, you refuse to be more specific. And any time people explain to you, correct you, or lead to relevant information from scientific sources, you would evade or ignore them all, and repeat the same misinformed scenarios over and over again.

Your comments and questions are too general, leaves a lot of ambiguity, and therefore they are often misleading. You like being misleading, don’t you?

 

[John53]

I believe it does mean the same as evolving, but I explain it for those who may not know what I mean.

Then why not just type evolving? Easier for you to type and easier for us to understand.

 

[Pogo]

I believe it does mean the same as evolving, but I explain it for those who may not know what I mean.

Except that it doesn't it has one sense that can be used to describe evolution and another that does not that you use to disingenuously cast shade on evolution. Rather juvenile wordplay in my opinion.