How do you define evolution?

[Subduction Zone]

I would think that because you mention there is no goal, there are other causes for life to emerge (evolve) from sea dwellers to land dwellers. You mention food source. OK, do you think that these fish smelled the food source and desired it so much that they developed the means to get to the land to eat it, even if they had enouigh to eat in the water? Or maybe not enough to eat in the water -- they developed legs in teeny tiny steps and then eventually developed until their offspring mutants no longer could live exclusively in water?

There is no goal means that they were not trying to evolve legs. They were merely trying to eat food that is not available in their old habitat.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Glepts? GibbleLipplePolyTrilitStumpus?

Actually,the development of land life forms begins with microbial life and viruses first in the tidal zone in semi-aquatic migration to land.

I know, Tetrapods did not find a desert when they left the sea. But we both know that.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes, I say mindless because unless you want to say that the microbes as offered in explanation for the process of evolution had minds and mentally knew what they were doing, yes -- it's mindless.

NoI never made such nor 'want to say' foolish ridiculous claims. Please cite my posts correctly and specifically avoid the nonsense above.

You misuse of 'mindless' represents your use of poor English and self-inflicted ignorance of science.

I was specific based on the 'objective verifiable evidence' the cause of evolution are Natural Laws and natural processes.

Again . . . Since your totally ignorant of the sciences that are the basis of evolution on what basis do you make the uninformed assertions rejecting evolution throughout this thread?

Please respond.

 

[YoursTrue]

Tell me what you mean by kinds. I can't answer a question with an undefined term. Are you asking how speciation occurs?

I used the term kind because you used it in a previous post. I'm not sure how you used it, but since you used it, I used it, too. Perhaps you didn't mean to use it that way. Here's your comment from the post:
"No, this has been explained to you countless times. There is no change in kind in evolution. New species or variations arise but they are always still in the same group that they came from. That is why we are still apes. It is why birds are still dinosaurs. The offspring of birds will always be birds. The offspring of gorillas will always be gorillas. Even if a new name is thought of for the new species..." #695
So I was commenting on your comment when you said there is no change in kind in evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

I know, Tetrapods did not find a desert when they left the sea. But we both know that.

As I said, the fish must have wanted a different environment? Slowly but perhaps surely enough. Maybe not so slow -- would you happen to know if it was fast or slow evolving from pure water organisms (no breathing for long on land) to total air breathing 4 footers. Do you think they liked the smell of the fields? Or perhaps weren't getting enough to eat in the waters and so figured yeah, these feet can really carry us... Until, of course, we may not be able to go back to the water. Funny the way evolution works once you really look at it. Mindless, but thought out by scientists.

 

[YoursTrue]

NoI never made such nor 'want to say' foolish ridiculous claims. Please cite my posts correctly and specifically avoid the nonsense above.

You misuse of 'mindless' represents your use of poor English and self-inflicted ignorance of science.

I was specific based on the 'objective verifiable evidence' the cause of evolution are Natural Laws and natural processes.

Again . . . Since your totally ignorant of the sciences that are the basis of evolution on what basis do you make the uninformed assertions rejecting evolution throughout this thread?

Please respond.

OK, so the microbes that supposedly were at the beginning of the evolution process did not have minds, is that right? Now that you say I'm totally ignorant of the "sciences" that are the BASIS of evolution -- I recognize that the BASIS of evolution, as you put it, is SCIENCE...right? Other than that, what IS the basis of evolution? Science?

 

[shunyadragon]

OK, so the microbes that supposedly were at the beginning of the evolution process did not have minds, is that right? Now that you say I'm totally ignorant of the "sciences" that are the BASIS of evolution -- I recognize that the BASIS of evolution, as you put it, is SCIENCE...right? Other than that, what IS the basis of evolution? Science?

No, Science is the nature of our knowledge of the universe and evolution of life from the human perspective, and NOT the cause. I clearly and specifically stated 'by the objective verifiable evidence Natural Laws and natural processes are the cause of not only the evolution of life, but the entire history of our universe.

I believe God Created the Natural Laws and natural processes that is Creative process of our universe and the evolution of life including human evolution. Science is how understand God's Creation, but this is religious belief and science is neutral to the claims of religious beliefs, because they are too variable and conflicting among the diverse religions from the fallible human perspective.

Again . . .

Since your totally ignorant of the sciences that are the basis of evolution on what basis do you make the uninformed assertions rejecting evolution throughout this thread?

 

[shunyadragon]

I used the term kind because you used it in a previous post. I'm not sure how you used it, but since you used it, I used it, too. Perhaps you didn't mean to use it that way. Here's your comment from the post:
"No, this has been explained to you countless times. There is no change in kind in evolution. New species or variations arise but they are always still in the same group that they came from. That is why we are still apes. It is why birds are still dinosaurs. The offspring of birds will always be birds. The offspring of gorillas will always be gorillas. Even if a new name is thought of for the new species..." #695
So I was commenting on your comment when you said there is no change in kind in evolution.

Ir has been objectively determined by science that the horses of today, and the related species evolved from small animals that were definitely not horses.

 

[YoursTrue]

Ir has been objectively determined by science that the horses of today, and the related species evolved from small animals that were definitely not horses.

You and science may say what you want. You offer your opinion, and I'm sure it coincides with that of many (probably), but you offer no evidence in your statement. Next step will be for you to call me ignorant. Because I say you offer no evidence, only your assertion and opinion. And so goes it -- have a good evening. By the way, fossils and dna are not evidence of your assertion. It's evidence that there is somewhat similar dna among the various species, but that is not evidence of evolution. It's evidence that there is similar dna among many. Sometimes more, sometimes less.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I used the term kind because you used it in a previous post. I'm not sure how you used it, but since you used it, I used it, too. Perhaps you didn't mean to use it that way. Here's your comment from the post:
"No, this has been explained to you countless times. There is no change in kind in evolution. New species or variations arise but they are always still in the same group that they came from. That is why we are still apes. It is why birds are still dinosaurs. The offspring of birds will always be birds. The offspring of gorillas will always be gorillas. Even if a new name is thought of for the new species..." #695
So I was commenting on your comment when you said there is no change in kind in evolution.

I used it because there is no "change of kinds" as creationists try to claim. Evolution is a fact. You should try to interpret the Bible based upon reality, not fantasy. One can still be a Christian and accept the fact that Genesis is myth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As I said, the fish must have wanted a different environment? Slowly but perhaps surely enough. Maybe not so slow -- would you happen to know if it was fast or slow evolving from pure water organisms (no breathing for long on land) to total air breathing 4 footers. Do you think they liked the smell of the fields? Or perhaps weren't getting enough to eat in the waters and so figured yeah, these feet can really carry us... Until, of course, we may not be able to go back to the water. Funny the way evolution works once you really look at it. Mindless, but thought out by scientists.

hunger is a want. But it does not lead to animals controlling their evolution. Think of it this way, evolution is a result, it is not a want or a desire. If you fall down do you want to hit the ground or is that a result?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So if there is no change in kind in evolution, how do you explain where the groups as you say above, or kinds emerged from?

From the groups that came before it.

Be careful of the goalposts now...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I would think that because you mention there is no goal, there are other causes for life to emerge (evolve) from sea dwellers to land dwellers. You mention food source. OK, do you think that these fish smelled the food source and desired it so much that they developed the means to get to the land to eat it, even if they had enouigh to eat in the water? Or maybe not enough to eat in the water -- they developed legs in teeny tiny steps and then eventually developed until their offspring mutants no longer could live exclusively in water?

Ignoring the rather juvenile way that you put it, essentially yes - in the sense that it is a gradual process that likely takes several millions of years. It's also not from "deep sea to land". It's gradually towards land.
First into shallow waters, then semi-aquatic, perhaps swampy until eventually full land crawler.


Tiktaalik is an intermediate of exactly this process which was found by prediction.

Scientists estimated the period in which such creatures would have lived, predicted the kind of environment it would have lived in (shallow waters / swampy) and then went looking for exposed rock from that period matching such environments.

And there it was.... the "fishapod" Tiktaalik. Essentially a fish with tetrapod features. Or a tetrapod with fish features.

If this transition of water to land didn't happen, then how come scientists were able to find Tiktaalik by prediction? A fossil which was predicted in terms of age, environment, location and anatomical features. How?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I used the term kind because you used it in a previous post. I'm not sure how you used it, but since you used it, I used it, too. Perhaps you didn't mean to use it that way. Here's your comment from the post:
"No, this has been explained to you countless times. There is no change in kind in evolution. New species or variations arise but they are always still in the same group that they came from. That is why we are still apes. It is why birds are still dinosaurs. The offspring of birds will always be birds. The offspring of gorillas will always be gorillas. Even if a new name is thought of for the new species..." #695
So I was commenting on your comment when you said there is no change in kind in evolution.

In that context, I think @Subduction Zone meant "branch". As in a branch of the tree of life.
If you are on the "feline branch", all of your offspring will remain on said branch.

You can't outgrow your ancestry.
The descendants of felines, will be more felines. They might further specialize into new subspecies (like lions, tigers, etc), but they will always remain felines. They will also remain mammals. And tetrapods. And eukaryotes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

As I said, the fish must have wanted a different environment? Slowly but perhaps surely enough. Maybe not so slow -- would you happen to know if it was fast or slow evolving from pure water organisms (no breathing for long on land) to total air breathing 4 footers. Do you think they liked the smell of the fields? Or perhaps weren't getting enough to eat in the waters and so figured yeah, these feet can really carry us... Until, of course, we may not be able to go back to the water. Funny the way evolution works once you really look at it. Mindless, but thought out by scientists.

In this, case, it's more like "mindless, and misrepresented due to intellectual dishonesty and good ol' ignorance"

 

[shunyadragon]

You and science may say what you want. You offer your opinion, and I'm sure it coincides with that of many (probably), but you offer no evidence in your statement. Next step will be for you to call me ignorant. Because I say you offer no evidence, only your assertion and opinion. And so goes it -- have a good evening. By the way, fossils and dna are not evidence of your assertion. It's evidence that there is somewhat similar dna among the various species, but that is not evidence of evolution. It's evidence that there is similar dna among many. Sometimes more, sometimes less.

A 'hand wave' dodging and avoiding the specific posts that responded to your assertions does not give credibility to your case.

I gave a detailed post on horse evolution with references, and you chose to ignore it.

Again . . .

Since your totally ignorant of the sciences that are the basis of evolution on what basis do you make the uninformed assertions rejecting evolution throughout this thread?

Where are the references to support your assertions without science?

Still waiting . . .

 

[SkepticThinker]

As I said, the fish must have wanted a different environment? Slowly but perhaps surely enough. Maybe not so slow -- would you happen to know if it was fast or slow evolving from pure water organisms (no breathing for long on land) to total air breathing 4 footers. Do you think they liked the smell of the fields? Or perhaps weren't getting enough to eat in the waters and so figured yeah, these feet can really carry us... Until, of course, we may not be able to go back to the water. Funny the way evolution works once you really look at it. Mindless, but thought out by scientists.

It seems you are only here in some attempt to mock a scientific theory you don't seem to understand, no matter how many times it's explained to you.
Is that the case? If it is, it would explain a lot.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You and science may say what you want. You offer your opinion, and I'm sure it coincides with that of many (probably), but you offer no evidence in your statement. Next step will be for you to call me ignorant. Because I say you offer no evidence, only your assertion and opinion. And so goes it -- have a good evening. By the way, fossils and dna are not evidence of your assertion. It's evidence that there is somewhat similar dna among the various species, but that is not evidence of evolution. It's evidence that there is similar dna among many. Sometimes more, sometimes less.

Oh okay. So genetic similarities between you and your family members also doesn't show that you are all related, right? it's all just a random fluke? I mean, you could easily be more closely related to me that to your own mother because, well, DNA can't tell us anything about relatedness!

Congratulations, you've entered the realm of the completely absurd.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Ignoring the rather juvenile way that you put it, essentially yes - in the sense that it is a gradual process that likely takes several millions of years. It's also not from "deep sea to land". It's gradually towards land.
First into shallow waters, then semi-aquatic, perhaps swampy until eventually full land crawler.


Tiktaalik is an intermediate of exactly this process which was found by prediction.

Scientists estimated the period in which such creatures would have lived, predicted the kind of environment it would have lived in (shallow waters / swampy) and then went looking for exposed rock from that period matching such environments.

And there it was.... the "fishapod" Tiktaalik. Essentially a fish with tetrapod features. Or a tetrapod with fish features.

If this transition of water to land didn't happen, then how come scientists were able to find Tiktaalik by prediction? A fossil which was predicted in terms of age, environment, location and anatomical features. How?

I've made mention of Tiktaalik several times now, and have yet to receive any response.

Good luck!

 

[YoursTrue]

Oh okay. So genetic similarities between you and your family members also doesn't show that you are all related, right? it's all just a random fluke? I mean, you could easily be more closely related to me that to your own mother because, well, DNA can't tell us anything about relatedness!

Congratulations, you've entered the realm of the completely absurd.

Who said genetic similarities do not show one's relation to a family member? Not me. I'm thinking you did not understand the point, but thanks anyway, so in kindness, I won't continue. Thanks anyway.