On Evolution & Creation

[YoursTrue]

Apes are the descendants of a specific genetic lineage. A fish can't go back and enter the cladistic lineage that led to apes any more than I could go back and become your great-grandfather. Genealogy doesn't work that way, and cladistics is genealogy.

A fish could presumably evolve into an apelike organism, under the right circumstances, but not into the actual ape lineage. The same is possible for apes evolving into an aquatic, fishlike form, but they won't be able to insert themselves into the actual, ancient, fish lineage.

Right now since I've been reading some of your viewpoints about other things (like maybe you think the world is improving...) Whether or not you believe in God, I am going to remember you in my prayers. I am going to stop asking you questions about what you think in reference to evolution. And if you think one does not have to do with the other, I certainly do and it relates to reality AND science and so again -- hope you have a nice day and hope you are well. Bye for now...take care.

 

[YoursTrue]

It's what evolution says. You know..... that theory you refuse to learn yet are hellbend on arguing against.



Chordates.

Well, I was thinking about snakes and human evolution. I realize evolution says they're connected, and we're ALL connected in one way or another -- but I won't go into that now because you are very entrenched in the theory of evolution without stop as it is taught by most scientists. Soooo....enjoy...as the world goes on. Science has not proved evolution despite genetic similarities and fossils. Nope, chordates or not, the whole thing as advanced by evolutionary scientists no longer adds up as it currently stands by most.

 

[YoursTrue]

No.

Why wouldn't it be possible in your mind that mutations could occur taking apes back to fish? What is the scientific definite answer to that?

 

[YoursTrue]

Yeah, science is quite useful like that.

You weren't talking about ability of science, were you?

 

[YoursTrue]

Apes are the descendants of a specific genetic lineage. A fish can't go back and enter the cladistic lineage that led to apes any more than I could go back and become your great-grandfather. Genealogy doesn't work that way, and cladistics is genealogy.

A fish could presumably evolve into an apelike organism, under the right circumstances, but not into the actual ape lineage. The same is possible for apes evolving into an aquatic, fishlike form, but they won't be able to insert themselves into the actual, ancient, fish lineage.

Right -- so you say... (Have a nice day and thanks...) Why not? With that type of reasoning, maybe people could become trees. Why not, because you think there were different formats begun from one, two, ten or a thousand different beginning starter molecules? I'm not a betting person, but I guess that's what some must believe...

 

[Esteban X]

When are you going to reveal the names of these scientists?

I think he may have misunderstood the theory of Panspermia - Wikipedia, or more precisely Pseudo-panspermia - Wikipedia

 

[YoursTrue]

A common ancestor.

Do you know for sure and with verification what that "common ancestor" is?

 

[YoursTrue]

Where it came from and where it was going is not where the evidence lies. The evidence is in the sequence of changes the fossil record shows, and their dates.

Nope. It may be the sequence, but it does not prove evolution. And of course, you know that nothing in science apparently can be proven, so you may contest that, nevertheless, the sequence does not tell anyone for certain that everything from that one, two, or ten+ starting molecules means everything evolved as now taught by many scientists. Doesn't mean that at all. Naturally you will contest that. Be that as it may, contests or protests do not verify the aspect of it. Because -- if there were video cameras then and now on and in organisms, it could be a different story. (Have a nice evening.)

 

[Valjean]

Right -- so you say... (Have a nice day and thanks...) Why not? With that type of reasoning, maybe people could become trees. Why not, because you think there were different formats begun from one, two, ten or a thousand different beginning starter molecules? I'm not a betting person, but I guess that's what some must believe...

Somehow you missed the reasoning entirely.

Trees are very different from any animal. Remember, evolution has to work with what's already there. It modifies existing structures and processes. It doesn't create whole new parts or processes. Plants and animals are so different anatomically and physiologically that any transition one to the other is practically inconceivable.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I already looked. There is nothing to SEE in reference to what Tiktaalik came from and where it was going (I mean evolving).

You mean, aside from the fact that its existence, anatomy, location and age was extremely accurately predicted literally based on theorizing what it evolved from and what it was evolving into.......................




Also, definition of a "transitional fossil": fossils that have both traits of its evolutionary ancestors as well as its evolutionary descendents.
Tiktaalik is literally a creature that is a mixture of fish anatomical traits with tetrapod anatomical traits.
Which is why it is also called a "fish-apod" or a "tetra-fish".

When it comes to transitional fossils, it doesn't get much more "transitional" then tiktaalik.

With that in mind, one can only wonder what a fossil should look like for it to comply to your "standards" of then being able to "SEE" it as being a transitional.
You probably don't even know yourself. More then likely, what you are saying is that no fossil could possibly ever show you anything at all or count as evidence of anything. This is a problem stemming from your willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty. It is not a problem of the fossil record.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No? Why not? Why DON'T you think that fish could again "evolve" to become apes?

Because they are on different evolutionary branches.
Species don't evolve twice. And in this case, it's not just species. It's entire evolutionary branches (tetrapods, mammals, primates,...)
It's not going to happen.

Or perhaps apes to devolve, no, I mean, evolve, to be fish.

We have examples of mammals that evolved into sea animals. They are called dolphins and whales and stuff.
They might look like fish, but they aren't fish. They are mammals.

What's the "scientific" answer to those questions?

That species can't outgrow their ancestry. Species don't jump branches. Speciation is a vertical process, not a horizontal one.
Cats will not evolve into dogs.

Maybe apes need to go back to water breathing organisms. C'mon -- if spaceships could have deposited the start of living matter on the earth, propose some scientists, why not a nice little thought about apes evolving to fish? WHY NOT?

Because it doesn't work that way. I'm sorry that you insist on this willful ignorance, but I don't know what to tell you.....

This once again ties into the mistake you have been refusing to correct for at least the past 3 years. You categorically refuse to understand / learn that speciation is a vertical process. Species produce more of their own or SUBspecies. Visualized on the tree of life, they branch out into sub-branches.
They don't jump branches.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, I was thinking about snakes and human evolution. I realize evolution says they're connected

Yes. Both are eukaryote amniotes. The split occurred some 300 million years ago. One lineage went on to evolve into synapsids (ancestors of mammals) and the other into sauropsids (dino's, turtles, lizards, snakes, etc)

, and we're ALL connected in one way or another

Yep, as our collective DNA demonstrates.

-- but I won't go into that now

I went into it countless times already. Why would you think I would run away from it?
You don't seem to realize in just how much detail we have actually unraveled the "tree of life" by now.

https://evogeneao.s3.amazonaws.com/images/tree_of_life/tree-of-life_2000.png

This is is the extent of our knowledge based on comparative anatomy, distribution of species and DNA sequencing. Multiple independents lines of evidence, which all converge on the same tree. You think that's coincidence?

because you are very entrenched in the theory of evolution

I'm entrenched in evidence based knowledge.

without stop as it is taught by most scientists.

No. As it is shown by evidence.

Science has not proved evolution despite genetic similarities and fossils

Not exactly correct. Common ancestry of species = genetic fact.

. Nope, chordates or not, the whole thing as advanced by evolutionary scientists no longer adds up as it currently stands by most.

This is genetic fact.

 

[Pogo]

Why wouldn't it be possible in your mind that mutations could occur taking apes back to fish? What is the scientific definite answer to that?

Evolution, they would still be apes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You weren't talking about ability of science, were you?

Sequencing and mapping of DNA, is very much an ability of science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do you know for sure and with verification what that "common ancestor" is?

No. Just like I don't know for sure who my grand-grand-grand-grand-grand mother was.
But I do know she was the common ancestor of me and my distant cousin, who I can identify simply by comparing our DNA.

If the DNA of myself and some person shows we are cousins, then we KNOW we share ancestors. We don't need to know who that ancestor was to know it existed.

 

[BrokenBread]

When you say "slavery," most of us assume you're talking about chattel slavery.
I agree, a great many people are exploited in forced marriages, prostitution, wage slavery, &c. Whether the percentage of the exploited is greater than in the past, though, I can't say.

So as to the increased slavery in our age, is this real time evidence of evolution in progress before our eyes , the superior breeds of the species taking natural advantage of what they their natural instincts recognize as being inferior sub-human breeds ?

Civil Society

Modern slavery is increasing – 1 in every 150 people are victims​

Sep 16, 2022

 

[Valjean]

So as to the increased slavery in our age, is this real time evidence of evolution in progress before our eyes , the superior breeds of the species taking natural advantage of what they their natural instincts recognize as being inferior sub-human breeds ?

Civil Society

Modern slavery is increasing – 1 in every 150 people are victims​

Sep 16, 2022

Might = superiority? Christian values = inferior, sub-humans?

 

[BrokenBread]

Might = superiority? Christian values = inferior, sub-humans?

You need to get up to speed & educated on modern slavery as it relates to evolutionary dominance .
You are about 300 years behind in thinking Might anywhere near today's slave maker that cunning and exploitation of need, exploitation of drug dependence is , exploitation of societal crisis:

The Invisible Pandemic of Modern Slavery Requires Financial Sector Action​

Understanding the impact of COVID-19 on modern slavery and human trafficking - and the role of the financial sector in combating these crimes.
Date Published30 Jul 2021AuthorDaniel Thelesklaf


Which gets back to my question , are the intellectual advancements in the last 300 years within the species as it relates to new less labor intensive methods for subjugating others, not as intellectually advanced, into slavery evidence of the evolution ?

By the way , the only "Christians" that by definition believe in sub-humans are the highly educated Christians who believe that God accomplished the creation of the first human to be granted a living soul thru the evolutionary process.
By definition then making the entire generation of the fully developed parents of Adam & Eve being sub-human in that they were no different than a spider, rabbit, or fish in terms of being eligible & welcomed into God's heaven.

 

[McBell]

She misunderstands statements that scientists make about evolution not relying on natural abiogenesis. She simply cannot get her mind around the idea that natural abiogenesis is the most likely answer by far, but even if that was impossible there are other possible sources for first life. What probably galls her even more is that it is more likely that (second to natural abiogenesis) that life from space is more likely than magical poofing.

Every time they mention that scientists have said life came from other planets I flat out ask them to list said scientists and they completely ignore that the request was made.

This has happened in at least two different threads.

Perhaps they have me on ignore?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Every time they mention that scientists have said life came from other planets I flat out ask them to list said scientists and they completely ignore that the request was made.

This has happened in at least two different threads.

Perhaps they have me on ignore?

Possibly. I refuted her so many times that instead of fixing her behavior she put me on ignore.