i totally have lost all signs of evolution

[McBell]

Yet again, despite the fossil and mineral evidence as working into the theory, scientists have not as yet found the 'missing' link between humans and whatever they think they descended from as well as anything beyond guessing how life got started.

And interestingly enough, that is YOUR hang up, not sciences.

 

[YoursTrue]

And interestingly enough, that is YOUR hang up, not sciences.

Again -- it is one of the hangups. Since there is (oddly enough) nothing to show for that missing link. Just not enough evidence, is that it, to demonstrate what, when, or where humans came from in reference to that missing link? And that's not all. There IS no previous evidence that anything biologically evolved real-time to anything else. None whatsoever. No matter what evidence is unearthed and what estimations were done by scientists, there is no real-time biologic evidence. None. To show a fossil and claim it evolved from something else is really not evidence. It's conjecture based on whatever is said to be evidence.

 

[YoursTrue]

Find me a mammal in pre-cambrian strata.
Find me a homo sapiens buried with a T-rex.


The fossil record clearly shows a progression.
Mammals weren't around in the pre-cambrian, because mammals hadn't evolved yet.
Homo sapiens weren't around in the jurassic, because homo sapiens hadn't evolved yet.

OK, I admit it. I am not knowledgeable about these things. So perhaps you can help me. When did male and female organisms come about, and what were they?

 

[McBell]

Again -- it is one of the hangups.

For you.
Of course, you are only using it in a sad attempt at discrediting evolution.
I can not help but wonder what you think would replace evolution if you were to succeed.
Surely you do not think that proving evolution wrong will magically make creation anything more than wishful thinking it actually is... or do you?

Since there is (oddly enough) nothing to show for that missing link. Just not enough evidence, is that it, to demonstrate what, when, or where humans came from in reference to that missing link? And that's not all. There IS no previous evidence that anything biologically evolved real-time to anything else. None whatsoever. No matter what evidence is unearthed and what estimations were done by scientists, there is no real-time biologic evidence. None. To show a fossil and claim it evolved from something else is really not evidence. It's conjecture based on whatever is said to be evidence.

more gish gallop

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

OK, I admit it. I am not knowledgeable about these things. So perhaps you can help me. When did male and female organisms come about, and what were they?

The subject of evolution of sexual reproduction is far too big to handle in a forum post.

Evolution of sexual reproduction - Wikipedia

Enough resources around to read up, I'ld say.

There's no shame in not being knowledgeable about a subject - as long as one is aware of it and can admit it.
The shame manifests though, when someone who knows he's not knowledgeable about a subject, insists on arguing against (or for) it anyway....

If it bothers you that you aren't knowledgeable about a subject, there is a very easy solution: read and learn.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Again -- it is one of the hangups. Since there is (oddly enough) nothing to show for that missing link. Just not enough evidence, is that it, to demonstrate what, when, or where humans came from in reference to that missing link? And that's not all. There IS no previous evidence that anything biologically evolved real-time to anything else. None whatsoever. No matter what evidence is unearthed and what estimations were done by scientists, there is no real-time biologic evidence. None. To show a fossil and claim it evolved from something else is really not evidence. It's conjecture based on whatever is said to be evidence.

There are plenty of links between modern humans and our ancestors. This whole "missing link" argument is a bit off, given that there isn't going to be just one "missing link" but rather a series of links tying us to our common ancestors.

Nobody shows a single fossil and "claim it evolved from something else." Again, evolution works on populations, not individuals.

I'm sorry to have to point it out again, but you've got a lot to learn about evolution. Perhaps you should gain a better understanding of it, before coming to any conclusions about it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

OK, I admit it. I am not knowledgeable about these things. So perhaps you can help me. When did male and female organisms come about, and what were they?

If you're not knowledgable about it, how did you manage to come to any conclusions about it?

 

[McBell]

If you're not knowledgable about it, how did you manage to come to any conclusions about it?

Parrot

 

[YoursTrue]

For you.
Of course, you are only using it in a sad attempt at discrediting evolution.
I can not help but wonder what you think would replace evolution if you were to succeed.
Surely you do not think that proving evolution wrong will magically make creation anything more than wishful thinking it actually is... or do you?


more gish gallop

What I find interesting, helpful, and informative is that you have no real answers. Have a nice night.

 

[YoursTrue]

If you're not knowledgable about it, how did you manage to come to any conclusions about it?

So don't answer my question about male and female when they came about. That's good. Because evidently you cannot inform, only insult. And that's the way it should be with you. (Have a good evening.)

 

[YoursTrue]

There are plenty of links between modern humans and our ancestors. This whole "missing link" argument is a bit off, given that there isn't going to be just one "missing link" but rather a series of links tying us to our common ancestors.

Nobody shows a single fossil and "claim it evolved from something else." Again, evolution works on populations, not individuals.

I'm sorry to have to point it out again, but you've got a lot to learn about evolution. Perhaps you should gain a better understanding of it, before coming to any conclusions about it.

I wonder if anyone answered about the first beings that had male and female reproductive powers enabling them to reproduce. Yes, I have more to learn, but from what I've seen so far, there is a bunch of insulting from the pro-evolutionists here, and that without any real information they can explain or substantiate about evolution in previous actual progress. Still going over the posts (replies) and aside from insults, wonder if anyone can answer when male and female beings came about producing offspring.

 

[YoursTrue]

If you're not knowledgable about it, how did you manage to come to any conclusions about it?

Oh, by the way, I came to conclusions about it from the reports of evolutionists as I've read the posts and links, as well as the (lack of) true evidence placing the so-called evidence in the framework of the theory, although I can 'see it' and understand how and why these artifacts might be placed in that framework, but I don't think it meets the test. Because no real concrete evidence of evolution in motion, only fossils and dating methods. Also the insulting here by many who promote evolution. Further, the fact that no one so far has explained anything on these boards that I can see about the data as fitting into the evolution theory makes me realize that nothing here explains it as if it's true, the theory. So thanks to all for the education, I've appreciated it. Really.

 

[YoursTrue]

The subject of evolution of sexual reproduction is far too big to handle in a forum post.

Evolution of sexual reproduction - Wikipedia

Enough resources around to read up, I'ld say.

There's no shame in not being knowledgeable about a subject - as long as one is aware of it and can admit it.
The shame manifests though, when someone who knows he's not knowledgeable about a subject, insists on arguing against (or for) it anyway....

If it bothers you that you aren't knowledgeable about a subject, there is a very easy solution: read and learn.

I've tried plowing through some of the material offered here and elsewhere, and find little to no credence in these. And when I ask questions of those presenting the material, I get little to no answers except perhaps another link. To me, that's not an answer from someone who knows or can explain it.
Just for starters, however, would you happen to know what are the first organisms with male and female parts that could not reproduce (mate) with same sex or impregnate themselves, if you understand the question? Just please if you know, is there some animal that evolutionists say is the first organism to have distinct sexes, male and female? I don't need a whole long article. I'm not asking for the entire subject, just what is the first known organism of male and female? Obviously two females cannot make a baby, and two males cannot make a baby. So when did it start? Really a simply question that someone (like yourself or others here) should answer pretty easily. Thanks.

 

[YoursTrue]

For you.
Of course, you are only using it in a sad attempt at discrediting evolution.
I can not help but wonder what you think would replace evolution if you were to succeed.
Surely you do not think that proving evolution wrong will magically make creation anything more than wishful thinking it actually is... or do you?


more gish gallop

Hmm, still no discovery in the missing link area. (Thanks.)

 

[YoursTrue]

There are plenty of links between modern humans and our ancestors. This whole "missing link" argument is a bit off, given that there isn't going to be just one "missing link" but rather a series of links tying us to our common ancestors.

Nobody shows a single fossil and "claim it evolved from something else." Again, evolution works on populations, not individuals.

I'm sorry to have to point it out again, but you've got a lot to learn about evolution. Perhaps you should gain a better understanding of it, before coming to any conclusions about it.

Right now it just makes me laugh when I see artist's depictions of what they imagine were the faces of previous types of humans. My conclusion about the theory is from the fact that the proof (evidence) taken is basically that of fossils and making it appear they fit into the theory because they have similar looking parts, etc.

 

[night912]

I have looked at some of the evidence reported on, and taken from a different perspective than what I formerly had (believing what they told me), I no longer see what is called evidence as fitting into the theory of virtual mechanical evolution as if that is what caused the division between plants and animal life, also what caused apes to 'evolve' into humans, or dinosaurs become birds. I see similarities in structures, but I no longer see that as evolution. If I saw evidence of evolution, I would believe it. But I don't. What I mean by that is that I'd personally have to see it in action somehow. But I don't because...there is none.

I realize this thread is not about evolution (in a way), but you mentioned Darwin and evidence of the theory of evolution, so I'll say that the scientific opinion of whatever is called evidence is rather regularly changing as to the perception of what the evidence is said to mean.

For instance, as I was reviewing the information or "evidence" of what evolutionists say about humans closest common ancester, I came across this comment by a scientist:
"There appears to be a decrease in overall body size within our lineage, rather than size simply staying the same or getting bigger with time, which goes against how we generally think about evolution," Grabowski said." (Taken from New study suggests that last common ancestor of humans and apes was smaller than thought)
So -- as far as fitting the evidence in with the theory, it is clear that scientists review the evidence as changing perception (ideas) as to its relevance to the application of the theory. So, while Charles Darwin formed a theory of progression of life as he understood it, based on what he observed, the evidence and scientific opinions as to how it relates to the theory changes. Therefore, and in any case, according to science, it really and simply cannot be proved.

So far I see no (verifiable) evidence that the theory of evolution and natural selection as far as progression or continuation of life forms is true, although I can see that if a person believes in the theory, it can easily be made to say that a fossil or similar discovery or thought fits in with that theory. I used to believe it. I used to believe almost anything scientists said because they were the scientists and would know what they were talking about.

You are misunderstanding a couple things. The first, and most important thing is that science doesn't squeeze in evidence to make it fit the conclusion, regardless of it being a hypothesis or theory. Second, the "new" evidences found, such as fossils, doesn't disprove the theory. The opinions of those scientists you're referring to is not about the theory itself. The change of opinions deals with changing the lineage of an organism, not the mechanism of how an organism evolved. Then there is the quote that you posted. You took it out of context. That scientist wasn't referring to the mechanism, but was referring to how science thought about the ancestors of humans. How do I know this? It's because that whole article talks about human ancestors, and not the theory itself. Lastly, from your comments, it appears that you don't know or understand what is the theory of evolution. The things that you mention, such as evidences and questions, has nothing to do with the theory. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the lineage of organisms and how it should be. It is the model for the process of how an organism change through time. Loosely put it, scientists use that theory as a tool to help them determine the lineage of an organism. Scientists draw the line of how an organism evolutionary route goes. From early ones and goes through their decendants. When new discoveries are found and evidence leads to a different route from what was previously thought, they correct it, sometimes splitting the old route. And now having a divergence, different branches, are form and organisms previously thought as being direct decendants are corrected and move to its proper branch. Of course this explanation is just a quick and general description. So once again just to be clear, the theory of evolution does not determine the lineage of organisms. It does regulate how something evolves or which path it must take. It is only a model in which scientists use. The environment is one factor that determines an organism's course of evolution.

 

[night912]

Hmm, still no discovery in the missing link area. (Thanks.)

What do you consider as a missing link? When is a link not consider as being a link? How do you determine what is and what isn't a link? And yes, you must have the answer to these questions first before the evidence is presented to you, because the purpose is for it to convince you that it is the missing link. And obviously, if you don't know, then you cannot say that there is no missing link and/or It hasn't been discovered, because you wouldn't know if whether or not it has already been discovered and presented.

To help you out a little, look at it this way. You are one of the transitional link between your parents and your children. How do you determine what is the difference and similarities between your parents, you, and your children. How do you determine that our parents are the grandparents of your kids?

 

[night912]

Right now it just makes me laugh when I see artist's depictions of what they imagine were the faces of previous types of humans. My conclusion about the theory is from the fact that the proof (evidence) taken is basically that of fossils and making it appear they fit into the theory because they have similar looking parts, etc.

How do you know that it's not like what they depicted? And from the comment about your conclusion, you've just proved that you do not know and/or understand the theory of evolution. So with that being said, you are not qualify to determine what is and what is not evidence. You can try to find the evidence all you want and as long as you want, but you will never find any evidence. The reason is because you cannot find evidence for something that you are not searching for. If the goal is to find evidence for how a dead person died, and instead you are searching for that person's grandparents, then you will never find the evidence for how that person died.

You should first start with learning what is the theory of evolution. And knowing just knowing the name of the theory doesn't mean that you know what it is.

BTW, pointing you in the right direction is not an ad hominem. It's called, a helping hand.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I've tried plowing through some of the material offered here and elsewhere, and find little to no credence in these. And when I ask questions of those presenting the material, I get little to no answers except perhaps another link. To me, that's not an answer from someone who knows or can explain it.
Just for starters, however, would you happen to know what are the first organisms with male and female parts that could not reproduce (mate) with same sex or impregnate themselves, if you understand the question? Just please if you know, is there some animal that evolutionists say is the first organism to have distinct sexes, male and female? I don't need a whole long article. I'm not asking for the entire subject, just what is the first known organism of male and female? Obviously two females cannot make a baby, and two males cannot make a baby. So when did it start? Really a simply question that someone (like yourself or others here) should answer pretty easily. Thanks.

The reason you don't comprehend this stuff, is because you are trying to run before you can walk.

You might want to start with the basics first, before moving on to more advanced topics.

When you ask things like "what are the first organisms with male and female parts", you kind of betray that you have no understanding of the basics of the evolutionary process.

Someone with such understanding, knows that it's a senseless question to ask about "the first occurence of X" in that sense, when talking about a gradual process.

It's like asking about "the first homo sapiens".
It assumes that at some point a non-homo sapiens gave birth to a homo sapiens.
Gradualism doesn't work like that.

Really a simply question that someone (like yourself or others here) should answer pretty easily. Thanks

It's not a simple question at all. It's instead a partially invalid question about a pretty complicated subject.
You'ld know that if you had a bit of a decent background. But you don't.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hmm, still no discovery in the missing link area. (Thanks.)

Another hint that you completely lack knowledge of the basics of the evolutionary process.
Yapping about "missing links", is a typical objection by someone who fails to understand the fossil record and gradualism. And the difference between the evolutionary process and evolutionary history, for that matter.