New Evidence Found To Show Humans Came From Fish

[BilliardsBall]

Well, this "nonsense" is just plain old common sense based on overwhelming scientific evidence.

As far as we can tell, all life forms are in a constant state of flux, therefore incremental changes can and do kick in that can and have led to the formation of different species (Google "speciation" and maybe go to the links to studies).

Unfortunately for you and me, we cannot see a great deal of changes now. We can see tiny, incremental changes only, which lead to new species today but not new forms or any transitional forms.

 

[Jose Fly]

Unfortunately for you and me, we cannot see a great deal of changes now. We can see tiny, incremental changes only, which lead to new species today but not new forms or any transitional forms.

You've made claims about "transitional fossils" and "kinds". Could you provide your definition for each?

 

[Shad]

So . . . you've got nothing.

No your reading comprehension is poor. Go back and read why I criticized you.

We can try again, if you like. 1) Pick a resolution to debate.

If you wish to put forward a view you want me to address feel free to bring it up.

2) Bring facts, rather than hyperbole and falsely identifying fallacies.

Already have before, it never stopped your whining when I criticized you

No, actually there are numerous academics who support my views, for example, I would say Jesus was a real person

I said your biblical view which goes well beyond Jesus merely being a person.

you would say He's a myth,

Strawman

and then I'd demonstrate that nearly 100% of academics,

Knocking down your own strawman. Try not to hurt your shoulder patting yourself on the back

secular or religious academics, agree that Jesus preached, was baptized and crucified, and that His followers soon after declared Him resurrected.

A point I never contested.

What I've noticed--and have been trying to point out patiently over these weeks--is that you seek no conciliation or common ground with me whatsoever,

How can we have common ground when you hold fundamental different views than I? What you want is for me to accept your view as uncritically as you have.

and merely post "fallacy!" and "wrong!" next to every sentence I post.

Hardly. Amusingly you can not avoid lying as per your above claims regarding what I think.

Do you want to debate something, listen and learn something or both? You are accomplishing neither.

Already debated something, your demand people that disagree with you to leave. I read your argue and found it to be whining. I learned you can not get over people pointing out your whining.

Mission accomplished but I need no aircraft carrier nor banner.

 

[sayak83]

I don't disagree with your rationalist mindset and your strong scientific viewpoint, rather I commend it.

But we have different ideas as to what a transitional fossil is. I'm amazed that scientists take something like ambulocetus, for one of many examples, as far as they do.

Cars have wheels, trucks have wheels, boats and planes have wheels. They didn't evolve mechanistically from one another.

I propose that you find it difficult to believe because you are not adequately aware of the evidence. Here for example is the evidence, (still in brief), of the transition from sea to land. I see nothing in adequate about it,
Evidence of Evolution that was presented but never addressed
And the associated genetic mechanisms that made it possible
Evidence of Evolution that was presented but never addressed
Evidence of Evolution that was presented but never addressed

Here too is an example of a large scale evolutionary transformation seen directly in the lab
Evidence of Evolution that was presented but never addressed

Evidence showing that rates of beneficial mutation is sufficient for evolution to occur
Evidence of Evolution that was presented but never addressed

Thus theoretical, experimental, observational and fossil evidence all verify the basic evolutionary process. Why should science not accept it?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Whoa! First things first, brother. Everybody does worship something:

*a god
*themselves
*their minds
*money
*sex
*power

I cannot discuss Evolution with you until you chime in on point one. Then you will understand how humans are devolving, not evolving!

I don't worship things.

 

[SkepticThinker]

1. God shows many people many things.

2. You don't use solely empirical evidence to justify your beliefs, do you? Because you believe certain things regarding Evolution from the fossil record, the distant past. And we can find many things recorded about God in the Bible, another recording from the past. Be consistent.

The Bible is full of claims. Not evidence.

I try not to believe things for which I have no evidence.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Correct, but there is no evidence that my children or yours are new "kinds" forming.

There are no species all the time, but no new dog/cats or fish/birds. Nor in the fossil record, arguably.

Then your children are transitional forms.

 

[metis]

Unfortunately for you and me, we cannot see a great deal of changes now. We can see tiny, incremental changes only, which lead to new species today but not new forms or any transitional forms.

These "tiny, incremental changes" add up over time, and in the case of humans we are talking about 6+ million years from where we and the early ape-line separated, whereas we now share about 99% of our genetic code. That ain't much, especially since only 1% needed to change over millions of years.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You've made claims about "transitional fossils" and "kinds". Could you provide your definition for each?

Let's keep it simple. Sea animals and land animals and amphibious animals were all distinct and did not move one kind to another. Have you considered the difficulties in these perceived transitions?

 

[BilliardsBall]

No your reading comprehension is poor. Go back and read why I criticized you.



If you wish to put forward a view you want me to address feel free to bring it up.




Already have before, it never stopped your whining when I criticized you



I said your biblical view which goes well beyond Jesus merely being a person.



Strawman



Knocking down your own strawman. Try not to hurt your shoulder patting yourself on the back



A point I never contested.



How can we have common ground when you hold fundamental different views than I? What you want is for me to accept your view as uncritically as you have.



Hardly. Amusingly you can not avoid lying as per your above claims regarding what I think.



Already debated something, your demand people that disagree with you to leave. I read your argue and found it to be whining. I learned you can not get over people pointing out your whining.

Mission accomplished but I need no aircraft carrier nor banner.

On what basis do you find Jesus merely human, not divine, as above?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I propose that you find it difficult to believe because you are not adequately aware of the evidence. Here for example is the evidence, (still in brief), of the transition from sea to land. I see nothing in adequate about it,
Evidence of Evolution that was presented but never addressed
And the associated genetic mechanisms that made it possible
Evidence of Evolution that was presented but never addressed
Evidence of Evolution that was presented but never addressed

Here too is an example of a large scale evolutionary transformation seen directly in the lab
Evidence of Evolution that was presented but never addressed

Evidence showing that rates of beneficial mutation is sufficient for evolution to occur
Evidence of Evolution that was presented but never addressed

Thus theoretical, experimental, observational and fossil evidence all verify the basic evolutionary process. Why should science not accept it?

Have you not noticed how much evidence must be presented for one to become "adequately aware" as you wrote? I've noticed that there is not yet adequate evidence to describe these transitions as discussed. There isn't adequate evidence, either, in the papers I've read, to describe how plants existed for 1 B years and respirated oxygen without animals in symbiosis.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I don't worship things.

We can use synonyms. Everyone adores/craves/lusts after some things or some people or self.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The Bible is full of claims. Not evidence.

I try not to believe things for which I have no evidence.

I do the same. Therefore, I accept the Bible, since it contains not only claims, but excellent, testable, verifiable, falsifiable evidence. It's goal, however, is not just knowledge but relationship.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Then your children are transitional forms.

My children are the same species as you and I. They have neither ancilliary nor vestigial ANYTHING.

 

[BilliardsBall]

These "tiny, incremental changes" add up over time, and in the case of humans we are talking about 6+ million years from where we and the early ape-line separated, whereas we now share about 99% of our genetic code. That ain't much, especially since only 1% needed to change over millions of years.

Tiny changes over time cannot enhance the survivability of many things. You need 30 proteins to form blood scabs alone, rather than bleed to death from wounds.

And 1% of genetic code is MANY differences rather than "great similarity". Millions of genetic differences.

 

[sayak83]

Have you not noticed how much evidence must be presented for one to become "adequately aware" as you wrote? I've noticed that there is not yet adequate evidence to describe these transitions as discussed. There isn't adequate evidence, either, in the papers I've read, to describe how plants existed for 1 B years and respirated oxygen without animals in symbiosis.

All science requires reading of hundreds of articles and many many books to become adequately aware of it. I am sorry but knowing requires work.
You are confused. Oxygen was slowly rising throughout the period u spoke about. By Carboniferous we had 30-35% oxygen in the atm. It has slowly decreased since then as land animals have grown numerous.

 

[Jose Fly]

Let's keep it simple. Sea animals and land animals and amphibious animals were all distinct and did not move one kind to another. Have you considered the difficulties in these perceived transitions?

Oh geez, here we go again. Another creationist makes all sorts of claims about transitional fossils and kinds, but then as soon they're asked what those terms mean, they run around in circles doing everything they can to avoid the question. So predictable, it's pathetic.

Come on, you used the terms transitional fossil and kind. Don't you know what they mean?

 

[Shad]

On what basis do you find Jesus merely human, not divine, as above?

I see no reason to believe in the stories about Jesus which claim he is divine. For example the virgin birth is an extraordinary conclusion compared Mary had sexual relations out of wedlock with Joseph or was an adulteress. Jesus dying and rose 3 days later, which itself is a later addition to the Gospel of Mark, versus he just died. I see a human figure with mythology piled on top.

 

[metis]

Tiny changes over time cannot enhance the survivability of many things.

That is patently absurd even just on the logical level.

And 1% of genetic code is MANY differences rather than "great similarity". Millions of genetic differences.

I would suggest that a 1% difference suggests "great similarity" since 99% is the same.

Evolution, including "macro-", clearly has happened, and any religion or denomination that suggests otherwise is pretty much a bogus one since the truth cannot be relative. IOW, there's no room for "alternative facts" on this.

 

[BilliardsBall]

All science requires reading of hundreds of articles and many many books to become adequately aware of it. I am sorry but knowing requires work.
You are confused. Oxygen was slowly rising throughout the period u spoke about. By Carboniferous we had 30-35% oxygen in the atm. It has slowly decreased since then as land animals have grown numerous.

On the contrary, some scientists have calculated that with plant life above the surface, there would be enough oxygen to incinerate the atmosphere in 100,000 years, let alone 1 B years.