How do you define SCIENCE?

[John53]

Oh, and of course, similar to the UCA (Unknown Common Ancestor) of humans -- plus a few other "mammals," how about what fish it was? Gone? Forgotten? No trace? Conjecture like tiktaalik, or however you spell it? The type of fish it ostensibly came from is -- gone? unknown?

OK I get it, you keep repeating the same stuff. Tell me what actually happened. Along with your proof.

 

[YoursTrue]

That idea may be a bit controversial. Some say that if a scientitst falsifies his experimental results then there's hell to pay. Their thinking is that it's wrong to do so because it's not the truth.

Like it or not, science does not function w/o concepts such as right/wrong and truth/falsehood.

So since there is no proof in science, it seems like it's up in the air as to whether something is right or wrong in a philosophical sense. A conjecture is possibly considered as truth if it meets the standards of conjectural likelihood, such as evolution of fish to humans.

 

[YoursTrue]

OK I get it, you keep repeating the same stuff. Tell me what actually happened. Along with your proof.

See that's the thing, good you got it, John! You tell me!! Oh nevermind, others have said how it (probably maybe) happened. And you believe those proposals. Or possibilities. No problem, thanks for mentioning it in a backhanded way.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm not trying to prove anything. Did you understand my post?

Yes. And I realize you're not trying (I suppose) to prove your belief, only to present proposals as to what you think happened, right? Or may have happened.

 

[PureX]

When I was in school i did not question the theory of evolution because I thought what they were teaching me was the truth. I had no reason to doubt what I was being taught. The point is that I believed I was being taught the truth. It was later that I realized the gaps in the theory which are covered over by conjecturing what may have happened, in other words.. guessing according to the established theoretical framework.

Science was never about seeking or presenting truth. If you were confused about that as a kid, that’s understandable. But you aren’t a kid anymore.

 

[John53]

See that's the thing, good you got it, John! You tell me!! Oh nevermind, others have said how it (probably maybe) happened. And you believe those proposals. Or possibilities. No problem, thanks for mentioning it in a backhanded way.

You didn't answer my question for about the 100th time.

 

[Yerda]

Yes. And I realize you're not trying (I suppose) to prove your belief, only to present proposals as to what you think happened, right? Or may have happened.

That's right.

I'm saying that if you accept the numbered statements in my post then you would have to agree that it is possible that a lineage that produced fish could later produce humans. Agreed?

And you are right to say it may have happened. We don't know for certain.

 

[John53]

Yes. And I realize you're not trying (I suppose) to prove your belief, only to present proposals as to what you think happened, right? Or may have happened.

And what is it you are doing? It has me completely baffled.

 

[John53]

Let me not forget about "survival of the fittest" in that possibility of how many fish evolve to become humans.

This sentence makes no sense. I recognise English words but the order they are in is confusing.

 

[PureX]

Of course mutations happen. This does not make fish eventually to mutate (evolve) to humans.

Why not? It makes green fish become blue fish, and small fish become big fish. So over a longer time frame why not fish becoming eels. And eels becoming water snakes. And water snakes becoming land snakes. And land snakes becoming weasels, and on and on. Given enough time, the changes will just keep on happening until the original form is unrecognizable to the new form.

Look at how many different kinds of dogs there are just from humans deliberately breeding them to enhance certain traits. Many don’t even look like the same species, anymore. And that’s only after a few thousand years of selective breeding. Imagine after a few million.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why not? It makes green fish become blue fish, and small fish become big fish. So over a longer time frame why not fish becoming eels. And eels becoming water snakes. And water snakes becoming land snakes. And land snakes becoming weasels, and on and on. Given enough time, the changes will just keep of happening until the original form is unrecognizable.

Look at how many different kinds of dogs there are just from humans deliberately breeding them to enhance certain traits. Many don’t even look like the samethat' species. And that’s only after a few thousand years of selective breeding. Imagine after a few million.

the dogs are still dogs, though. There's really nothing more to say now. Except that there is no proof, of course, showing that the propositions are true.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why not? It makes green fish become blue fish, and small fish become big fish. So over a longer time frame why not fish becoming eels. And eels becoming water snakes. And water snakes becoming land snakes. And land snakes becoming weasels, and on and on. Given enough time, the changes will just keep on happening until the original form is unrecognizable to the new form.

Look at how many different kinds of dogs there are just from humans deliberately breeding them to enhance certain traits. Many don’t even look like the same species, anymore. And that’s only after a few thousand years of selective breeding. Imagine after a few million.

Can you show me mutations that are beneficial now in humans perhaps? There's always Down's syndrome, and children born with one body, two heads, right?

 

[John53]

Can you show me mutations that are beneficial now in humans perhaps? There's always Down's syndrome, and children born with one body, two heads, right?

So what is your truth on this. Jehovah punishing them because a snake fooled Eve?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's a valid question. The whole idea of the entire globe being heated by the greenhouse is rediculous. The mass of the earth is more than 5.97x10^24 kilograms, meaning if ALL the solar energy were absorbed it would still take 10K years to heat up by one degree.

And that is not how warming works. You also are probably a terrible cook.

 

[shunyadragon]

When I was in school i did not question the theory of evolution because I thought what they were teaching me was the truth. I had no reason to doubt what I was being taught.

This is an unfortunate robotic attitude towards the sciences of evolution, which does not teach the truth

The point is that I believed I was being taught the truth. It was later that I realized the gaps in the theory which are covered over by conjecturing what may have happened, in other words.. guessing according to the established theoretical framework.

This demonstrates your lack of knowledge of the sciences of evolution, and replaced your lack of knowledge with blind faith in an ancient religious agenda without science,

 

[shunyadragon]

Of course mutations happen. This does not make fish eventually to mutate (evolve) to humans.

True, but this reinforces your ignorance of science.

 

[YoursTrue]

So what is your truth on this. Jehovah punishing them because a snake fooled Eve?

Remember though that the consequence of life via evolution and/or abiogenesis produces the end result, mutations or otherwise. (death) I'm not discussing God here in particular -- just science and its supposed relation to mutations and survival of the fittest. So far you have not provided anything but scientific conjecture.

 

[John53]

Remember though that the consequence of life via evolution and/or abiogenesis produces the end result, mutations or otherwise. (death) I'm not discussing God here in particular -- just science and its supposed relation to mutations and survival of the fittest. So far you have not provided anything but scientific conjecture.

I haven't provided anything because it's a waste of time providing anything to you.

I'm asking you how it's done because you know more than all of science.

 

[YoursTrue]

I haven't provided anything because it's a waste of time providing anything to you.

I'm asking you how it's done because you know more than all of science.

science doesn't even know about itself in many respects. It knows there is no proof of some things although they are taught as truth.

 

[YoursTrue]

@John53 God isn't punishing anyone personally by allowing deleterious mutations to transmit problems. But most mutations are not beneficial. So again -- how many fish does it take to mutate (evolve) to become landrovers? One? Two? continual mutations until legs and lungs develop? I haven't gone into the mathematical possibilities of mutations turning into beneficial evolutions.