How would we know if a species was newly evolved?

[YoursTrue]

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

Once again, I have looked at it carefully, and I believe and think the Bible does prove that God exists, also as a Creator. But in order to understand, one must really have divine guidance. I used to be without that belief and divine guidance. It's almost like the song "Amazing Grace." You are familiar with that song? No, it doesn't "prove" anything, but because of circumstances and reality, I believe that the Bible is from God. Evolution or rather the science of it, really shows that no one can duplicate the Creator's arrangement.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Once again, I have looked at it carefully, and I believe and think the Bible does prove that God exists, also as a Creator. But in order to understand, one must really have divine guidance. I used to be without that belief and divine guidance. It's almost like the song "Amazing Grace." You are familiar with that song? No, it doesn't "prove" anything, but because of circumstances and reality, I believe that the Bible is from God. Evolution or rather the science of it, really shows that no one can duplicate the Creator's arrangement.

That you believe and think and that is all you give above, doesn't meant that it is so independent of you thinking and believing. Do you understand?

 

[YoursTrue]

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?

Once one does research, just like with doctors who declare they have the background and training to deal with situations, it doesn't always work. That means that there are really basic questions, yes, including the gaps of genomes in the so-called theory from fish to mammals as well as what is called one of man's closest "relatives," the gorilla, or bonobo. And there is no suggestion, is there, that any of them are currently evolving. Of course the answer has been that there's no enough time to observe -- but really -- there is not even a suggestion.
When someone sees a doctor or professional, it is up to one's judgment whether to believe him and go along with the treatment. And even if a person goes along with the treatment, as we know, doctors can make mistakes, plus insofar as I know, no matter how specific a medication is, there can be a serious downside. That means that there is no guarantee with science of certain sorts.
I'll try to get to the rest of your post asap. Thank you.

 

[YoursTrue]

That you believe and think and that is all you give above, doesn't meant that it is so independent of you thinking and believing. Do you understand?

I think I understand your comment, but then wouldn't you say the same applies to scientific analyses of various categories in science, including and especially in this case, the theory of evolution? So far I really have not seen evidence of forms evolving into other forms, advancing or not advancing as the expression may go. Ascending or descending. Despite fossils and conjectural opinion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think I understand your comment, but then wouldn't you say the same applies to scientific analyses of various categories in science, including and especially in this case, the theory of evolution? So far I really have not seen evidence of forms evolving into other forms, advancing or not advancing as the expression may go. Ascending or descending. Despite fossils and conjectural opinion.

Because your standard is to prove. As long as you don't first understand methodological naturalism, we can't move on to the difference between proof and evidence.

 

[metis]

Once again, I have looked at it carefully, and I believe and think the Bible does prove that God exists, also as a Creator.

But that is not science, nor can we substantiate it with objective evidence.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

lol so you say...

 

[YoursTrue]

Because your standard is to prove. As long as you don't first understand methodological naturalism, we can't move on to the difference between proof and evidence.

If there were videos of even incremental changes from fish, for instance, to mammals, that would be "evidence" that is seemingly incontrovertible. However -- you got yours and I got mine. And perhaps the two will never meet, metaphorically speaking, of course. So -- as the saying also goes -- have a good one!

 

[YoursTrue]

But that is not science, nor can we substantiate it with objective evidence.

The objective evidence is that before you or I were born, we knew nothing. Unless you want to say, well, maybe that's true or not true. After all, you can't prove it can you? So after these discussions, what I have seen is there is no real proof or evidence of the theory. But of course that size doesn't fit everybody. Yes, have a nice day. (P.S. dinosaurs, newly discovered big ones in fossils, remain dinosaurs. )

 

[YoursTrue]

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

I said, to which you replied per the above, "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." Why, you think there is evidence of the real-life kind showing that fish evolved (eventually became?) mammals? No insult intended, perhaps you do. And if you can show the "evidence" that would be interesting...It HAS been interesting talking with you, And others here.

 

[YoursTrue]

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?

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.

I'm doing my honest best. Take care.

I realize that, but frankly you made me laugh when you said we shouldn't rule out the possibility that a lineage that produces fishes couldn't later produce mammals. We shouldn't rule out other possibilities either I suppose.

 

[metis]

The objective evidence is that before you or I were born, we knew nothing. Unless you want to say, well, maybe that's true or not true. After all, you can't prove it can you? So after these discussions, what I have seen is there is no real proof or evidence of the theory. But of course that size doesn't fit everybody. Yes, have a nice day. (P.S. dinosaurs, newly discovered big ones in fossils, remain dinosaurs. )

Again, science works on evidence, not speculation.

 

[Yerda]

Once one does research, just like with doctors who declare they have the background and training to deal with situations, it doesn't always work. That means that there are really basic questions, yes, including the gaps of genomes in the so-called theory from fish to mammals as well as what is called one of man's closest "relatives," the gorilla, or bonobo. And there is no suggestion, is there, that any of them are currently evolving. Of course the answer has been that there's no enough time to observe -- but really -- there is not even a suggestion.

Where did you get this idea?

Sometimes a lineage will go relatively unchaged for long periods of time (tens of millions of years) but that seems to be a very rare exception.

When someone sees a doctor or professional, it is up to one's judgment whether to believe him and go along with the treatment. And even if a person goes along with the treatment, as we know, doctors can make mistakes, plus insofar as I know, no matter how specific a medication is, there can be a serious downside. That means that there is no guarantee with science of certain sorts.

Ok. If I go to the doctors and they tell me that following my scan that they think I have a rare disorder I might think that this is unlikely (though I'd have no grounds for this) but wouldn't dismiss it as speculation and the doctors as mere speculators when I know that they have went through years of training and have used the skills they've learned to make the diagnosis.

I realize that, but frankly you made me laugh when you said we shouldn't rule out the possibility that a lineage that produces fishes couldn't later produce mammals. We shouldn't rule out other possibilities either I suppose.

Well, at the very least you got a chuckle out of this.

 

[YoursTrue]

Again, science works on evidence, not speculation.

Where did you get this idea?

Sometimes a lineage will go relatively unchaged for long periods of time (tens of millions of years) but that seems to be a very rare exception.

Ok. If I go to the doctors and they tell me that following my scan that they think I have a rare disorder I might think that this is unlikely (though I'd have no grounds for this) but wouldn't dismiss it as speculation and the doctors as mere speculators when I know that they have went through years of training and have used the skills they've learned to make the diagnosis.

Well, at the very least you got a chuckle out of this.

I'm not going to argue this any more. I know scientists may use fossils as evidence of evolution but I no longer go along with that. Fossils are evidence of...fossils and something that died.

 

[YoursTrue]

Where did you get this idea?

Sometimes a lineage will go relatively unchaged for long periods of time (tens of millions of years) but that seems to be a very rare exception.

Ok. If I go to the doctors and they tell me that following my scan that they think I have a rare disorder I might think that this is unlikely (though I'd have no grounds for this) but wouldn't dismiss it as speculation and the doctors as mere speculators when I know that they have went through years of training and have used the skills they've learned to make the diagnosis.

Well, at the very least you got a chuckle out of this.

That's good.

 

[YoursTrue]

Again, science works on evidence, not speculation.

So what's the evidence (and I really mean evidence) that fish eventually evolved to become mammals? Evidence -- not speculation.

 

[Yerda]

I'm not going to argue this any more. I know scientists may use fossils as evidence of evolution but I no longer go along with that. Fossils are evidence of...fossils and something that died.

Something that lived, more importantly.

No worries though. Take it easy.

 

[YoursTrue]

Something that lived, more importantly.

No worries though. Take it easy.

OK, something that died. But first it had to live, didn't it? You, too, take it easy. Meantime -- though -- fossils do NOT prove, or evidence, evolution as if these dudes the fossils "belonged to" emerged by "natural selection," lol, from fish to mammals. But that's my take on it now. Not mainstream scientists. Have a good one.
*Oh wait! Something that lived and died. I suppose. Take care, nice chatting with you.

 

[metis]

I'm not going to argue this any more. I know scientists may use fossils as evidence of evolution but I no longer go along with that. Fossils are evidence of...fossils and something that died.

Ever hear of "forensics science", which often people are convicted on? For example, fingerprints, dna testing, objects left behind, etc.?

IOW, fossils leave us evidence because they don't come out of nowhere.

 

[metis]

So what's the evidence (and I really mean evidence) that fish eventually evolved to become mammals? Evidence -- not speculation.

Fish also evolved, and you can read about it here: Evolution of fish - Wikipedia And let me recommend that you scroll down to "Fish to tetrapods".

However, a fish simply didn't mutate to become a human, although some people I know...