How would we know if a species was newly evolved?

[YoursTrue]

Proof for what? You admitted to trying to understand evolution, and that you still don't. Now if only you could admit that it might be a limit of your understanding rather than a problem for the theory, this could finally be going somewhere, but as it stands, we're still at only this point in your evolution debate:

You've tried to understand evolution.
-)
That's it.



Why would you want to ask for proof? You know the difference between proof and evidence because i've seen this explained to you dozens of times on these forums. Oh right, so you can say there is no proof when you really mean evidence! Classy.



You don't understand evolution. You've already admitted to it. Now i'm thinking you didn't admit it on purpose though. Tough luck, you did anyway. And i believed you then. And i don't believe you now.

You also said that you believe that understanding it is actually impossible. I also believe that you believe it.

lol, ok.

 

[YoursTrue]

Hi there.

If fish genomes make fishes,
and mammal genomes makes mammals,
and genomes are 'changy',
what reason would there be to expect that a lineage that once produces fishes couldn't later produce mammals?

One of the reasons is that anything leading to that conclusion is speculation. Another reason is that it's speculation. And another is that there is no evidence of things morphing (or evolving) in real-time to form something rather different from whatever the genomes produced, such as fishes to mammals.

 

[YoursTrue]

So, long story short: You tried to understand evolution. It didn't work.

And now we're here arguing your straw men.

Ugh.

Some may figure they understand evolution in the sense of believing that's the way things happened. I understand that. And have a good night, nice talking to you. with certain exceptions of ughs.

 

[YoursTrue]

When people say that "science doesn't prove things" they mean that technically there are always other explanations that can't be ruled out by experiment. For me personally I'm fine with that term in cases where we can eliminate plausible alternatives.

In this case, I don't believe that there is proof.

There is evidence that all of the tetrapods share an ancestor that came from the seas. That is, go far back in the lineage of any of the things with four limbs (and some that have lost the limbs since) and you'll find fishy ancestors. Also, as far as I know there is no evidence that contradicts this "hypothesis", though my knowledge isn't really extensive.

Does that answer your question?

By the way, it answers my question insofar as I think people make things up as to what seems logical to them, no proof, of course, but conjecture.

 

[YoursTrue]

Forgive me if I am wrong, but that is the message that many of us seem to be getting.

I am not sure that answers my point about determining who has the truth. All you are saying is that someone does and that some people won't believe them, but that does not show us how one could determine who that someone is and how what they know is the truth.

Scientists do have evidence. You have been shown some of that evidence here and you have even presented some of that evidence yourself. Is it really the conclusions about that evidence that you consider to be the fairytale?
It could be that it happened in an instant, fully formed, but it doesn't explain why there would be evidence that it didn't happen that way and this planet and life did not appear fully formed.

The evidence supports the conclusion of random (chance) events and non-random action that resulted in a universe, planet and life as we know it. It isn't all chance and that is not what is claimed with science.

A creation process could occur in practically unlimited iterations. That the details are omitted in Genesis may be more telling than many believers are willing to concede. Perhaps learning how things happened is part of our mission in life. Certainly, pursuing those details does not repudiate God or say anything negative about Him at all.

Let's just say the scientists have evidence. I'm sure they consider that as evidence. Evidence of what? Evolution, of course. But does that mean that evolution is the way lifeforms such as fishes and mammals came about? (I don't think so, and science does not prove that from the evidence, at all.)

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I have reason to believe we will not all die. And especially not to be dead forever.

Yeah, to me you believe that. I have tried to figure that one out and to me, it is unknown.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Science, as I learned from these boards, proves nothing. You might think religion per the Bible proves nothing, but there is where we disagree. Anyway, have a nice day.

We agree with science. It proves nothing. But neither does the bible.

 

[Darkstorn]

One of the reasons is that anything leading to that conclusion is speculation. Another reason is that it's speculation. And another is that there is no evidence of things morphing (or evolving) in real-time to form something rather different from whatever the genomes produced, such as fishes to mammals.

So you still think, after all these years of people explaining and your own admission to having tried to understand, that evolution means things morphing in front of your very eyes, in real time, to some different lifeform? It doesn't mean or imply that: What you have is a ridiculous sounding straw man.

I think it's a game for you. Because I think you know better. The alternative isn't great.

But the result is that you still don't understand evolution. And that everyone is wasting their time until you do understand it. I don't think you're even trying.

 

[Astrophile]

Has there been any (scientific) corroboration that fishes "became" mammals, in the long run of evolutionary changes, of course? I can't ask for proof, because there is no proof. Right?

You could try googling on 'how did fish become mammals?'. When I did it, I got about 386 million results. Some of these should help to answer your question.

 

[Astrophile]

Let's just say the scientists have evidence. I'm sure they consider that as evidence. Evidence of what? Evolution, of course. But does that mean that evolution is the way lifeforms such as fishes and mammals came about? (I don't think so, and science does not prove that from the evidence, at all.)

Yes, there is evidence for evolution, and the theory of evolution explains the observed facts of biology. Have you got a different hypothesis that is equally successful in explaining these observed facts? What evidence can you present for your hypothesis? Is there any conceivable evidence that would disprove it?

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, there is evidence for evolution, and the theory of evolution explains the observed facts of biology. Have you got a different hypothesis that is equally successful in explaining these observed facts? What evidence can you present for your hypothesis? Is there any conceivable evidence that would disprove it?

There is simply no true evidence of any distinct organism such as fish evolving into mammals, even in slow little itty-bitty increments. None whatsoever. About the alternative, I leave that up to you.

 

[YoursTrue]

You could try googling on 'how did fish become mammals?'. When I did it, I got about 386 million results. Some of these should help to answer your question.

It's all conjecture based on the idea that one distinct organism, such as fish moved eventually to mammals.

 

[YoursTrue]

So you still think, after all these years of people explaining and your own admission to having tried to understand, that evolution means things morphing in front of your very eyes, in real time, to some different lifeform? It doesn't mean or imply that: What you have is a ridiculous sounding straw man.

I think it's a game for you. Because I think you know better. The alternative isn't great.

But the result is that you still don't understand evolution. And that everyone is wasting their time until you do understand it. I don't think you're even trying.

You still didn't get the point about seeing things in front of anyone's eyes. No one obviously has seen fish move, morph, or 'evolve' into mammals. And that's where I leave it right now.

 

[YoursTrue]

We agree with science. It proves nothing. But neither does the bible.

That is between you and your mind.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yeah, to me you believe that. I have tried to figure that one out and to me, it is unknown.

The only logic to something like Jesus walking on water is that he did it. Or that it was a myth. Because I have come to the conclusion that God is greater than the substances he created, He could therefore enable Jesus to do things like walk on water.

 

[YoursTrue]

OK, so I came in on this discussion a bit after the first post, so I'm hoping someone can answer here. Perhaps there is real-life scientific evidence that bacteria change into something other than bacteria? Meaning experiments showing that bacteria become something other than bacteria.

 

[YoursTrue]

So you still think, after all these years of people explaining and your own admission to having tried to understand, that evolution means things morphing in front of your very eyes, in real time, to some different lifeform? It doesn't mean or imply that: What you have is a ridiculous sounding straw man.

I think it's a game for you. Because I think you know better. The alternative isn't great.

But the result is that you still don't understand evolution. And that everyone is wasting their time until you do understand it. I don't think you're even trying.

You said the alternative isn't great. What is the alternative you are pointing to?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You said the alternative isn't great. What is the alternative you are pointing to?

That you claim "if I think X is Y, then it is a fact that X is Y". That has nothing to do with religion as such. You are just a variation of that one.

 

[Yerda]

One of the reasons is that anything leading to that conclusion is speculation. Another reason is that it's speculation.

Hello again.

Ok. It's fine for you to be sceptical of these claimes. But, maybe we should withold from describing the output of highly-trained professionals as "speculation" until we understand it to a level where we are qualified to make that judgement. Isn't that reasonable?

For instance, when Richard Dawkins wrote off the entire field of theology in a similar way, people who understand the field suggested he was mistaken. A reasonable person would admit that they don't know the field and aren't in a position to dismiss claims made by the pros.

Don't you think so?

And another is that there is no evidence of things morphing (or evolving) in real-time to form something rather different from whatever the genomes produced, such as fishes to mammals.

Say I handed you a special book and each time you opened the book to read it the text changed a little (on its own and at random). You might not ever see the book change from a treatise on steam energy into a play by Shakespeare in "real time". That wouldn't rule out the possibility that you could have a book that reads as a physics text later read as a tragic play at some time.

So, by analogy, we shouldn't rule out the possibility that a lineage that produces fishes couldn't later produce mammals. We don't expect to see fish give birth to mammals but if we look at the fossil record we can infer that some lineage that produced lobe-finned fish about 400 million years ago gave rise to all the wide variety of tetrapods that we see now, including mammals.

By the way, it answers my question insofar as I think people make things up as to what seems logical to them, no proof, of course, but conjecture.

I'm doing my honest best. Take care.

 

[metis]

There is simply no true evidence of any distinct organism such as fish evolving into mammals, even in slow little itty-bitty increments. None whatsoever. About the alternative, I leave that up to you.

OK, so if that is so bloody obvious, then post scientific evidence to support your claim.