• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
What is your objective evidence for that?
The fact that that which is imperceptible and unevidenced can't be examined or researched. We can't see the invisible. The confidence level of the imperceptable is exactly equal to that of the non-existent.

There are billions of "possibilities," If you gave each one equal credence your brain would explode!
The only workable course of action is to consider only things that are actually perceptible, with actual features that can be examined.
The problem is that the bold one is a norm, not a fact.
It is a reasonable, rational conclusion, and the only practicable course of action. We follow the evidence, not the myriad unevidenced 'possibilities'.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
The fact that that which is imperceptible and unevidenced can't be examined or researched. We can't see the invisible. The confidence level of the imperceptable is exactly equal to that of the non-existent.

There are billions of "possibilities," If you gave each one equal credence your brain would explode!
The only workable course of action is to consider only things that are actually perceptible, with actual features that can be examined.

It is a reasonable, rational conclusion, and the only practicable course of action. We follow the evidence, not the myriad unevidenced 'possibilities'.

Yeah, but it is not objective evidence as for the bold one. It is because it makes sense to you.
The joke is that the bold is not actually perceptible, with actual features that can be examined.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
This is the accepted norm universally in accademicWell, yes, if you accept methodological naturalism and the norm for evidence, then yes.
This is the accepted universally academic norm in science world wide.

Your foggy vague philosophical ;beliefs are problematic when it comes to science and the real world.
 

Sargonski

Well-Known Member
Go back and read the comment I responded to.


But see, how did the universe come about? What do you "believe"?

Why are you answering a question with a question .. in continuous gibberish speak .. having no relation to the conversation you jumped into.

What part of .. Define God .. in such a way as to describe what it is you don't believe in -- is giving you heaploads of trouble .. and quite a number of others .. one in exasperation using the "God is everything" definition which is intrinsicly circular and moronic beyond prima facie.

How can I tell you what I think about your lack of belief .. if you have not stated what it is you lack belief in ? Give us the minimum requirment for an entity to be classified as a God .. be it hurling lightning bolts from the sky .. anything . but say something.

Why is it you are so afraid to define the term God as per the context of your claim -- "I don't believe in Magic" .. in the context of Godly powers.

tell us what is a "Godly Power" in yoru opinion ? and then we can talk about the singularity and what I learned in my 400 level quantum class .. particle in a Box .. mysticism in the new Physics .. Dancing with the Wu Lie Masters .. and get as funky as you like..

but first you must figure what God(s) is .. as as of right now Bother Fire .. you have not the faintest idea of the Primordial Dragon .. lurking behind the mirror.
 

Sargonski

Well-Known Member
This is the accepted universally academic norm in science world wide.

Your foggy vague philosophical ;beliefs are problematic when it comes to science and the real world.

Pot .. how have you been all these days .... :) har har har.. snicker snicker :) where did you last leave off stumped ?
 

Balthazzar

N. Germanic Descent
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?
No snowflake is the same, and a small snowball is quite complex in and of itself. I've rolled a few nearly half my height. They just keep accumulating and bond the only way they are able.
 

Sargonski

Well-Known Member
We are atheists. It's not our job to define gods. That's the job of the theist who claims such a being exists.
So we go with the definitions provided by them.

And those definitions are on par with magic.

Holy Frack .. umm yeah .. the onus is on you to define your terms when making a claim .. such as "I don't believe in God(s)" or any other claim in an argument .. basic logic 101 my son .. heh heh..

and what definitions are on par with "Godly Powers" --- "Magic" as these have been defined as one in the same by the God Hating Claimant !
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
The lack of knowledge of science and evolution in this case is intentional.
If only there were video cameras when fish were said by scientists to be developing legs and then eventually evolved to apes. Ah, if only. Fossils don't really do the job of completely transmitting these little details.
 

McBell

Unbound
If only there were video cameras when fish were said by scientists to be developing legs and then eventually evolved to apes. Ah, if only. Fossils don't really do the job of completely transmitting these little details.
Sadly, neither do deities....
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Some became amphibians.
You don't know that. There were no cameras tracking the mutations leading to fish becoming amphibians and then humans in the long run. None whatsoever. Kinda hard to have cameras running though all those millions of years. And fossils don't tell the story either of those miniscule changes whatsoever from who knows how many fish, for example, to amphibians and then eventually humans.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Sadly, neither do deities....
I am sure that those who believe in deities may or may not believe the theory of evolution. And some will be brave enough to say why they believe in a deity or God or deities. There are those here who are well educated but get really upset when asked why they believe in that unseen force called gods or God. Or who knows, maybe goddesses.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
You don't know that. There were no cameras tracking the mutations leading to fish becoming amphibians and then humans in the long run. None whatsoever. Kinda hard to have cameras running though all those millions of years. And fossils don't tell the story either of those miniscule changes whatsoever from who knows how many fish, for example, to amphibians and then eventually humans.
Now you are just making lame excuses. We do not need cameras to know that some things happened. If we find a mans sperm as shown by the DNA of the sperm in a woman it indicates that there was some sort of sexual contact between the two (okay there are some extreme examples of how it could have gotten into her, but I don't want to offend some overly sensitive members). That is why it can be considered "proof" of rape in a case of nonconsensual sex. There were no cameras to record that event (hopefully}. There are all sorts of events that are not directly recorded that we can still reason that occurred. Fossils are "proof of concept". The best evidence for evolution is still DNA, but the fossils confirm that we can see what the theory predicts.

So yes, fossils are strong evidence for evolution even if you do not understand the concept. Andin other words, yes we o now that . We can demonstrate how we know it. Remember how knowledge is demonstrable?
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Many scientists believe the theory of natural selection by mutation and I understand that they do, but there simply is nothing to show in reality that is how fish evolved to get out of water and then become monkeys. Among other mutations.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Not at all. Because while fossils evidence an organism, there really is nothing beyond a fossil to show the actual evolution as proposed/conjectured by some scientists.
There is if you can apply critical reasoning to the problem.

This is why I keep trying to teach you the scientific method and the concept of evidence, but since you can see that applying those refutes some of your personal beliefs you keep avoiding learning. The Ostrich Defense does not work in reality.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Many scientists believe the theory of natural selection by mutation and I understand that they do, but there simply is nothing to show in reality that is how fish evolved to get out of water and then become monkeys. Among other mutations.
This is simply false and even you know it. If you did not you would not be so afraid to learn the basics of science. If you did you would have to admit out loud what you will only whisper to yourself right now.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Pot .. how have you been all these days .... :) har har har.. snicker snicker :) where did you last leave off stumped ?
This is the accepted universally academic norm in science world wide.

Your foggy vague philosophical ;beliefs are problematic when it comes to science and the real world.

Please respond coherently without the funny faces
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Many scientists believe the theory of natural selection by mutation and I understand that they do, but there simply is nothing to show in reality that is how fish evolved to get out of water and then become monkeys. Among other mutations.
For beginners in layman terms. Of course you are perpetually intentionally ignorant of science based on an ancient tribal agenda,


HomeMacroevolution through evograms → The origin of tetrapods

The origin of tetrapods​

The word “tetrapod” means “four feet” and includes all species alive today that have four feet — but this group also includes many animals that don’t have four feet. That’s because the group includes all the organisms (living and extinct) that descended from the last common ancestor of amphibians, reptiles, and mammals. So, for example, the ichthyosaur, an extinct swimming reptile, is a tetrapod even though it did not use its limbs to walk on land. So is the snake, even though it has no limbs. And birds and humans are tetrapods even though they only walk on two legs. All these animals are tetrapods because they descend from the tetrapod ancestor described above, even if they have secondarily lost their “four feet.”
Tetrapod phylogeny from The Tangled Bank, used with permission of the author, Carl Zimmer, and publisher, Roberts & Company, Greenwood Village, Colorado.
Tetrapods evolved from a finned organism that lived in the water. However, this ancestor was not like most of the fish we are familiar with today. Most animals we call fishes today are ray-finned fishes, the group nearest the root of this evogram. Ray-finned fishes comprise some 25,000 living species, far more than all the other vertebrates combined. They have fin rays — that is, a system of often branching bony rays (called lepidotrichia) that emanate from the base of the fin.
In contrast, the other animals in the evogram — coelacanths, lungfishes, all the other extinct animals, plus tetrapods (represented by Charles Darwin) — have what we call “fleshy fins” or “lobe fins.” That is, their limbs are covered by muscle and skin. Some, such as coelacanths, retain lepidotrichia at the ends of these fleshy limbs, but in most fleshy-finned animals these have been lost.
The common ancestor of all those different organisms (ray-fins, coelacanths, lungfishes, tetrapods, etc.) was neither a lobe-fin nor a ray-fin. This ancient vertebrate lineage had fins (with lepidotrichia), scales, gills, and lived in the water. Yet they also had air bladders (air-filled sacs) connected to the back of their throats that could be used for breathing air (i.e., as lungs) or for buoyancy control. The air bladders of many ray-fins no longer connect to their throats, and so they are not able to breathe air. In these ray-fins, the air bladder is used mainly for buoyancy control and is known as a swim bladder. By contrast, tetrapods have taken an alternative route: they have lost the buoyancy control function of their air bladders, and instead this organ been elaborated to form the lungs that we all use to get around on land.
When we get past coelacanths and lungfishes on the evogram, we find a series of fossil forms that lived between about 390 and 360 million years ago during the Devonian Period. During this interval, this lineage of fleshy-finned organisms moved from the water to the land. Many parts of the skeleton changed as new innovations that permitted life on land evolved.
For example, the ancestors at the base of this evogram lived fully in the water and had skulls that were tall and narrow, with eyes facing sideways and forwards. This allowed them to look around in their watery environments for predators and prey. However, as ancestors of the first tetrapods began to live in shallower waters, their skulls evolved to be flatter, with eyes on the tops of their heads. This probably allowed them to look up to spot food. Then, as tetrapods finally moved fully onto land and away from the water, many lineages once again evolved skulls that were tall and narrow, with eyes facing sideways and forwards, allowing them to look around their terrestrial environments for predators and prey.
As lineages moved into shallower water and onto land, the vertebral column gradually evolved as well. You may have noticed that fishes have no necks. Their heads are simply connected to their shoulders, and their individual vertebrae look quite similar to one another, all the way down the body. Mobile necks allow land animals to look down to see the things on the ground that they might want to eat. In shallow water dwellers and land dwellers, the first neck vertebra evolved different shapes, which allowed the animals to move their heads up and down. Eventually, the second neck vertebra evolved as well, allowing them to move their heads left and right. Later tetrapods evolved necks with seven or more vertebrae, some long and some short, permitting even more mobility.

Read on, but I doubt you will . . .
 

John53

I go leaps and bounds
Premium Member
Many scientists believe the theory of natural selection by mutation and I understand that they do, but there simply is nothing to show in reality that is how fish evolved to get out of water and then become monkeys. Among other mutations.

So if it's not ToE then what is it? Why is there so much evidence for ToE? Is there someone or something planting the evidence? Are numerous biologists, geologists etc lying?
 
Top