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

[Valjean]

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.

We know what fish &al had the type of fins that enabled walking on the bottom or venturing over land for short distances.
We have fossil evidence of sequences of change, in more recent organisms we have DNA.

 

[John53]

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.

I don't believe every living creature has become a fossil. You need a very specific set of circumstances for fossilisation to happen, it's very rare. Do you believe every living creature has become a fossil? They also need to be found. I'm getting the feeling you think every fossil has been discovered.

I don't know what fishdom is, according to google it's a computer game. Not sure what that has to do with the discussion.

I never use the word postulate in a conversation and have no idea what a scientific postulation is.

 

[Valjean]

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...

Again, not mutation, just reproductive variation and selection. Fish, like any animal, specialize for different habitats and lifestyles; some at the surface, some deep down, some roam the bottom.

We see land animals returning to an aquatic or marine environment everywhere. Why is it so hard to imagine animals moving in the other direction?

 

[gnostic]

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.

There are two classes of bony fishes (superclass Osteichthyes) that exist back then (hence most of them are extinct), and today:

• ray-finned fishes (class Actinopterygii). The majority of orders, families and genera (hence species too) fall under this type of bony fishes, the actinopterygians. Examples, swordfish, tuna, salmon and even goldfish, all have ray-like fin, therefore they all under the Actinopterygii category.
• lobe-finned fishes (class Sarcopterygii). There used to be diversity of sacropterygians in the seas and freshwater, (particularly the Carboniferous & Permian periods), but majority of them are now extinct. The only surviving sacropterygians, are 2 coelacanth species and 4 lungfish species.
  

The differences between ray-fins and lobe-fins, is that ray-fin consists of bony spine covered by skin that webbed the spine together.

Whereas, as lobe-fin, the fish would have some rudimentary bones that connect to the shoulder and to the elbows. And the shoulder and elbow part are covered in flesh. The bones provide better for body weight, should these sacropterygians venture on to dry land, a lot better than any ray-finned fishes, because they have limb-like pectoral side fins on either side of the body.

There is one extant oddity among the families of Actinopterygii class, the mudskipper. On their spine and backs, they have the normal ray-fins, but their 2 front side pectoral fins, clearly exhibited elbow-jointed limb-like fins, which allowed them to skip on dry land.

The mudskippers seemed to exhibit both actinopterygian-like features and sacropterygian-like features.

In a way, there peculiarities are like that of a platypus, where they are clearly mammals, and yet they lay their eggs like reptiles and birds. Under normal circumstances, mammals keep the growing fetuses in their wombs, before giving live birth. The echidnas, do the same thing like the platypuses.

With these in mind, I don’t think fishes from the Sarcopterygii class, developing tetrapod trait (4 limbs) and having functional lungs and becoming amphibians, so strange. Or that some species of amphibians eventually evolving into fully terrestrial animals, hence the amniotes, which are groups of tetrapod vertebrates. Then divergence among the amniotes to become reptile-like animals (clade Sauropsida of Amniota) and become mammal-like animals (clade Synapsida of Amniota).

I think Genesis 2:7 where soil becoming a fully grown human male, is less believable than Natural Selection.

like everybody has been telling you, do some basic research, instead the same stupid & misinformed scenarios repeatedly.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't believe every living creature has become a fossil. You need a very specific set of circumstances for fossilisation to happen, it's very rare. Do you believe every living creature has become a fossil? They also need to be found. I'm getting the feeling you think every fossil has been discovered.

I don't know what fishdom is, according to google it's a computer game. Not sure what that has to do with the discussion.

I never use the word postulate in a conversation and have no idea what a scientific postulation is.

Of course I do not believe every living creature has become a fossil. I kind of like the term fishdom, I did not know it is a game, but I like the term in reference to the world of fish. I will try to avoid it, however, in the future.
Insofar as postulates go, here is what I read about that: https://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/abstract/S0169-5347(00)02085-1

 

[gnostic]

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

Morphology is about form and shape and structure, and even size.

Morphology don’t always lead to speciation, hence it’s not always about Evolution.

If you have sibling, you could have different built (hence different morphology) to him or her, doesn’t mean that you are not siblings.

Like @John53 said, use evolving instead of morphing, as not all different morphology lead to speciation.

 

[YoursTrue]

There are two classes of bony fishes (superclass Osteichthyes) that exist back then (hence most of them are extinct), and today:

• ray-finned fishes (class Actinopterygii). The majority of orders, families and genera (hence species too) fall under this type of bony fishes, the actinopterygians. Examples, swordfish, tuna, salmon and even goldfish, all have ray-like fin, therefore they all under the Actinopterygii category.
• lobe-finned fishes (class Sarcopterygii). There used to be diversity of sacropterygians in the seas and freshwater, (particularly the Carboniferous & Permian periods), but majority of them are now extinct. The only surviving sacropterygians, are 2 coelacanth species and 4 lungfish species.

The differences between ray-fins and lobe-fins, is that ray-fin consists of bony spine covered by skin that webbed the spine together.

Whereas, as lobe-fin, the fish would have some rudimentary bones that connect to the shoulder and to the elbows. And the shoulder and elbow part are covered in flesh. The bones provide better for body weight, should these sacropterygians venture on to dry land, a lot better than any ray-finned fishes, because they have limb-like pectoral side fins on either side of the body.

There is one extant oddity among the families of Actinopterygii class, the mudskipper. On their spine and backs, they have the normal ray-fins, but their 2 front side pectoral fins, clearly exhibited elbow-jointed limb-like fins, which allowed them to skip on dry land.

The mudskippers seemed to exhibit both actinopterygian-like features and sacropterygian-like features.

In a way, there peculiarities are like that of a platypus, where they are clearly mammals, and yet they lay their eggs like reptiles and birds. Under normal circumstances, mammals keep the growing fetuses in their wombs, before giving live birth. The echidnas, do the same thing like the platypuses.

With these in mind, I don’t think fishes from the Sarcopterygii class, developing tetrapod trait (4 limbs) and having functional lungs and becoming amphibians, so strange. Or that some species of amphibians eventually evolving into fully terrestrial animals, hence the amniotes, which are groups of tetrapod vertebrates. Then divergence among the amniotes to become reptile-like animals (clade Sauropsida of Amniota) and become mammal-like animals (clade Synapsida of Amniota).

I think Genesis 2:7 where soil becoming a fully grown human male, is less believable than Natural Selection.

like everybody has been telling you, do some basic research, instead the same stupid & misinformed scenarios repeatedly.

You might as well look up more about the postulates of Darwin -- whereas I realize what most scientists agree on referring to the process of evolution, there are many unknown factors, by that I do mean proof even though it is said there is no proof in science. And no wonder because in this case with all the many forms of life, there is no proof scientifically for any lifeform emerging and changing to the various entities of life such as birds, dinosaurs, whales, and so forth. As I have said and will keep saying until proven wrong, birds remain birds, gorillas remain gorillas, and so far, humans remain humans.

 

[John53]

Of course I do not believe every living creature has become a fossil. I kind of like the term fishdom, I did not know it is a game, but I like the term in reference to the world of fish. I will try to avoid it, however, in the future.

You seemed surprised when I mentioned it.

Insofar as postulates go, here is what I read about that: https://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/abstract/S0169-5347(00)02085-1

Quote from that webiste "To read this article in full you will need to make a payment"

I'm not prepared to pay for something I probably wouldn't understand.

 

[John53]

You might as well look up more about the postulates of Darwin -- whereas I realize what most scientists agree on referring to the process of evolution, there are many unknown factors, by that I do mean proof even though it is said there is no proof in science. And no wonder because in this case with all the many forms of life, there is no proof scientifically for any lifeform emerging and changing to the various entities of life such as birds, dinosaurs, whales, and so forth. As I have said and will keep saying until proven wrong, birds remain birds, gorillas remain gorillas, and so far, humans remain humans.

But there is strong evidence.

 

[YoursTrue]

Morphology is about form and shape and structure, and even size.

Morphology don’t always lead to speciation, hence it’s not always about Evolution.

If you have sibling, you could have different built (hence different morphology) to him or her, doesn’t mean that you are not siblings.

Like @John53 said, use evolving instead of morphing, as not all different morphology lead to speciation.

Evolution and morphology are very closely connected in terms of actuality and slow transformation. One definition of morph from Merriam Webster is:
"a local population of a species that consists of interbreeding organisms and is distinguishable from other populations by morphology or behavior though capable of interbreeding with them"
When I think of morph I think of one organism changing to another, such as fish developing feet and air-breathing lungs.So the "morphing" (or evolution) did not happen overnight. Obviously. That's the theory.

 

[YoursTrue]

You seemed surprised when I mentioned it.



Quote from that webiste "To read this article in full you will need to make a payment"

I'm not prepared to pay for something I probably wouldn't understand.

I notice that, but the basic idea is there. I would not pay to read that either. And -- there are many other websites that announce Darwin's postulations.

 

[Pogo]

You might as well look up more about the postulates of Darwin -- whereas I realize what most scientists agree on referring to the process of evolution, there are many unknown factors, by that I do mean proof even though it is said there is no proof in science. And no wonder because in this case with all the many forms of life, there is no proof scientifically for any lifeform emerging and changing to the various entities of life such as birds, dinosaurs, whales, and so forth. As I have said and will keep saying until proven wrong, birds remain birds, gorillas remain gorillas, and so far, humans remain humans.

And as you have been told innumerable times before, no-one is claiming that any critter leaves it's clade, that is why you are an ape and all of your children will be no matter how much different they are than you.
As to your "postulate" confusion, that is just as disingenuous as your theory as guess argument. Either you really are illiterate or you are playing silly buggers.
Juvenile word play is just that.

 

[Sargonski]

An interesting way to say that your God is the god of the gaps not any defineable object/being but just the answer to what you don't know.

"God of Gaps" he cries out .. "Waaaaa" using a term he does not know .. addressing a concept he does not understand ?

I didn't tell you about my God friend .. that is not what is being discussed .. so it is not my "God of Gaps" -- but yours .. as we are talking about your definition of God .. as per your claim .. in support of your claim -- the big Gap .. your inability to provide such a definition to clarify your position .. just answering/ confirming that you don't know .. perhaps not having thought about it much .. what you would consider a Godly power .. "Magic" were such a being to present itself .. and do .. you simply don't know .. what it is that you think .. not having thought .. due to some "Thought Stopping" barrier .. very similar to what one would expierience debating fundimentalist from of the destructive cult variety .. where some naughty cult leader has been using sophisticated mind control techniques. .. Not in any way suggesting that you are a member of such -- just a comment on the "Thought Stopping" similarity -- on both sides of the Secular-Theocratic fence.

 

[YoursTrue]

But there is strong evidence.

I am glad you said that. I appreciate your respect and honesty. The question for me is: do I believe the evidence leads to the conclusion of many that evolution is how lifeforms developed from a single cell to humans? I am, of course, going to say no right now and hope to find out more later.

 

[YoursTrue]

And as you have been told innumerable times before, no-one is claiming that any critter leaves it's clade, that is why you are an ape and all of your children will be no matter how much different they are than you.
As to your "postulate" confusion, that is just as disingenuous as your theory as guess argument. Either you really are illiterate or you are playing silly buggers.
Juvenile word play is just that.

.....Please do excuse. Thank you.

 

[Pogo]

Evolution and morphology are very closely connected in terms of actuality and slow transformation. One definition of morph from Merriam Webster is:
"a local population of a species that consists of interbreeding organisms and is distinguishable from other populations by morphology or behavior though capable of interbreeding with them"
When I think of morph I think of one organism changing to another, such as fish developing feet and air-breathing lungs.So the "morphing" (or evolution) did not happen overnight. Obviously. That's the theory.

Well then you think wrong, morphology is the static description of the entity, morphing as I already explained has two senses/definitions. One, we are familiar with from sci-fi etc is an individual changing his shape. The other, rarely used these days is change over time which can be appropriate to describing evolution if one remembers that it is not the individual but the population.

Attempts to repeatedly confuse the two meanings is again either juvenile humor or disingenuous.

corrected second not to but

 

[Pogo]

"God of Gaps" he cries out .. "Waaaaa" using a term he does not know .. addressing a concept he does not understand ?

I didn't tell you about my God friend .. that is not what is being discussed .. so it is not my "God of Gaps" -- but yours .. as we are talking about your definition of God .. as per your claim .. in support of your claim -- the big Gap .. your inability to provide such a definition to clarify your position .. just answering/ confirming that you don't know .. perhaps not having thought about it much .. what you would consider a Godly power .. "Magic" were such a being to present itself .. and do .. you simply don't know .. what it is that you think .. not having thought .. due to some "Thought Stopping" barrier .. very similar to what one would expierience debating fundimentalist from of the destructive cult variety .. where some naughty cult leader has been using sophisticated mind control techniques. .. Not in any way suggesting that you are a member of such -- just a comment on the "Thought Stopping" similarity -- on both sides of the Secular-Theocratic fence.

Whatever this word salad is about, I differentiate between "I don't know" and the concept of Goddidit.

 

[Pogo]

You seemed surprised when I mentioned it.



Quote from that webiste "To read this article in full you will need to make a payment"

I'm not prepared to pay for something I probably wouldn't understand.

I have little doubt that she read any more than you did, it probably came up on a Google search and it is odd in that it doesn't even have an abstract or anything.

 

[Sargonski]

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.

Who is describing the univers's creation as ex nihilo as "magic" .. but you.. and/or the side you are arguing .. "I don't believe in Magic" .. sayeth the parisioner in reference to God - Godly Powers . all I asked for is a definition of such -- what is the definition of God being used here .. define the term por favor .. for clarification .. don't care how you do it . define God as the power of the Sun . Moon .. Wind -- if you like .. I don't care what it is you wish to define as a Godly power .. but without defining what is meant by the Word GOD .. how can anyone have the faintest idea what you are claiming not to believe ?

"Be a bit Responsible" is then cried LOL .. after starting out with a strawman and finishing with Ad Hom Fallacy and false accusation .. Too cool for school mate Right ! heh heh.

What is the minimum requirement of power for some entity to show you for that entity to be classified as a God ... baby steps .. start out with personal responsibility .. and answer the question .. define your terms .. instead of this continuous misdirection ..

 

[Pogo]

I notice that, but the basic idea is there. I would not pay to read that either. And -- there are many other websites that announce Darwin's postulations.

There is no idea there beyond your attempt to conflate postulate with wild donkey guess.