On Evolution & Creation

[YoursTrue]

No humans have fish-like ancestral and vestigial attributes, as do all land animals.

What reason would you and experts offer to say that humans cannot evolve to water dwellers?

 

[YoursTrue]

You're preaching, URAVIP2ME
Man evolved from earlier form, like any other animal. There is overwhelming, consilient evidence for this. There is no evidence of any special creation, de novo or from dust/clay. It's a fantastc claim based solely on religious mythology.

How do you normally determine if a claim is true or false? What is your assessment modality?

So again, what reason would you offer that men-fish could not evolve to water dwelling animals?

 

[YoursTrue]

You're preaching, URAVIP2ME
Man evolved from earlier form, like any other animal. There is overwhelming, consilient evidence for this. There is no evidence of any special creation, de novo or from dust/clay. It's a fantastc claim based solely on religious mythology.

How do you normally determine if a claim is true or false? What is your assessment modality?

Whether you realize it or not, you're preaching your belief, even though you just accept whatever you want to without investigating or...thinking hard, Valjean. You just blindly accept what the scientific consensus may be. You couldn't possibly understand everything there is to know within the theoretical analysis. And I'm speaking even of the basics. You...and others ..do ..not...know no matter if you think you do and swear by it. I have come to this conclusion after reading these many posts.

 

[The Hammer]

What reason would you and experts offer to say that humans cannot evolve to water dwellers?

We can.

"... the Bajau have lived like this for a long time (historical evidence suggests at least 1,000 years), many researchers have speculated that they carry genetic traits which adapt them to their remarkable lifestyle. The Bajaus are a group who literally are born to dive and have evolved into better divers."

Filipino Bajaus Evolved Biologically For A Life At Sea

The Bajaus, a seafaring, indigenous group in Southern Philippines have resisted colonization and have always been known to be excellent divers. But scientists recently discovered that Bajaus have e…

fdnbayanihan.org

-----

Whales are also land animals that evolved into water animals.

The Origin of Whales (evolution) - Baleines en direct

The first whales appeared 50 million years ago, well after the extinction of the dinosaurs, but well before the appearance of the first humans. Their ancestor is most likely an ancient artiodactyl, i.e. a four-legged, even-toed hoofed (ungulate) land mammal, adapted for running. Cetaceans thus ha

baleinesendirect.org

"The first whales appeared 50 million years ago, well after the extinction of the dinosaurs, but well before the appearance of the first humans. Their ancestor is most likely an ancient artiodactyl, i.e. a four-legged, even-toed hoofed (ungulate) land mammal, adapted for running. Cetaceans thus have a common ancestor with modern-day artiodactyls such as the cow, the pig, the camel, the giraffe and the hippopotamus."

 

[Pogo]

What reason would you and experts offer to say that humans cannot evolve to water dwellers?

Again massive failure to understand evolution, there is nothing that says we could not evolve to be water dwellers as whales and porpoises have done, but they haven't nor will we ever evolve into fish.

 

[Tiberius]

The fossil record certainly can show progression of organisms. Humans, for instance, were not around when fish were first formed. Genetics certainly do relate organisms to an extent. These things, however, do not prove in the sense of demonstrate for a certainty such things happened as said by scientists by random chance mutation.

Yes they do. There is no other rational explanation for the genetic similarities other except evolution.

 

[Tiberius]

The process of change, associated with evolution, is a reasonable assumption and can be inferred by fossil data. Where I differ is how/why this change occurs. The random and statistical models, common to the Life Science, are pseudo-science. Tell me what drives any black box random process? Is it a drunk goddess called lady luck? Random is an assumption with no tangible or rational source. It is a math assumption and not a statement of fact based on laws of science. Tell me the facts!

Random and statistics are often demonstrated by rolling dice. If I have a set of two, six sided dice, and keep rolling, there are odds for each roll, while all the possible combinations, with enough rolls, will repeat over time. Yet evolution does not repeat over time like dice. Life from scratch does not happen again, again, even in the lab. The dinosaurs; double sixes, have not reappeared again after millions of rolls of the dice. The current model is not modeling the reality of evolution, which is non repeating novelty and diversity. The casino model does not work in the reality of evolution. Card games are based on repeatable outcomes and hierarchies of outcomes.

What the data says is, things happen once, and then move to another future state. This is not random but has a sense of direction, forward in time. Faith in a lottery or casino model of evolution is not science. People have won lotteries more than once; repeat dice model.

If we stick to a dice model, evolution behaves more like an infinite sided dice, so it may take infinite rolls to repeat any step. This would show up as different critters each roll. But that infinite sided dice model also implies, it will take an infinite time between each needed step; side, and therefore life should never have occurred, or should still be very basic. Neither are observed.

You have missed the very basic fact that evolution is not random.

The solution is evolution is based on a law of science; 2nd law, entropy. Entropy has to increase. Entropy is not a wave, that repeats like rolls of the dice or energy. It has a linear increase, like we see in evolution. Since all of current evolutionary science, is based on the pseudo science of dice, what should be done? Does separation of church and state come into effect? It is time for moth balls or the fire pit?

I agree that evolution would decrease the entropy on Earth. However, you are forgetting about the sun. The Earth is, after all, not a closed system. It gets a huge amount of energy constantly pouring into it from the sun. While evolution acts to decrease entropy, the overall entropy of the earth/sun system is increasing.

Darwin postulated natural selection, which is also not about dice. It is about real logical natural pressures; based on laws of physics, pushing and pulling, with increasing entropy the drive for the advances in complexity, over time, that should not repeat no matter how many rolls. It will quantum step forward and can meet the reasonable time lines. Is it moth balls or fire pit? I am fine either way.

Again, this argument fails when you consider the energy delivered to earth through radiation from the sun.

 

[The Hammer]

Unlike animal life, man was formed/fashioned from the existing dust of the ground - Gen. 2:7
Man did Not start breathing until God ' breathed the breath of life ' into life-less Adam
In other words, Adam did Not become animated/alive until he started breathing
Thus, Adam went from non-life, to life, and at his death returned back to non-life

That IS the story you prefer yes.

 

[Valjean]

So again, what reason would you offer that men-fish could not evolve to water dwelling animals?

What are you talking about???
Of course apes could evolve into water dwellers, though they wouldn't look like fish. Evolution modifies existing anatomy, it doesn't redesign an organism de novo, for a different environment.
There are lots of land dwelling animals at various stages of adaptation to aquatic environments. Nobody's saying this doesn't happen.

 

[YoursTrue]

What are you talking about???
Of course apes could evolve into water dwellers, though they wouldn't look like fish. Evolution modifies existing anatomy, it doesn't redesign an organism de novo, for a different environment.
There are lots of land dwelling animals at various stages of adaptation to aquatic environments. Nobody's saying this doesn't happen.

How do you know they wouldn't look like fish? Maybe transitionally they would look like crocodiles. Thank you!!

 

[The Hammer]

How do you know they wouldn't look like fish? Maybe transitionally they would look like crocodiles. Thank you!!

You missed my entire post, purposely... (Porpoisely?).

But ya know whales certainly "look like fish", they are just mammals.

So... Now what? /s

 

[YoursTrue]

You missed my entire post, purposely... (Porpoisely?).

But ya know whales certainly "look like fish", they are just mammals.

So... Now what? /s

Like I asked yes maybe humans will evolve to look like porpoises purposely. YOU don't know,do you?

 

[The Hammer]

Like I asked yes maybe humans will evolve to look like porpoises purposely. YOU don't know,do you?

It is quite possible per evolution for purposeful porpoises to be propagated via persons and post-persons via millions of generations of pan-oceanic prolificness.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is quite possible per evolution for purposeful porpoises to be propagated via persons and post-persons via millions of generations of pan-oceanic prolificness.

I figured someone would say something like that...have a good one!

 

[YoursTrue]

Like I asked yes maybe humans will evolve to look like porpoises purposely. YOU don't know,do you?

Actually I should have said porposely, not purposely.

 

[The Hammer]

I figured someone would say something like that...have a good one!

Then you at least got one thing right in this thread! Woohoo!

 

[YoursTrue]

I figured someone would say something like that...have a good one!

keep going and then when you get there, try learning more about the unlikelihood of -- evolution according to Darwinian style theory. Keep learning.

 

[YoursTrue]

Then you at least got one thing right in this thread! Woohoo!

What you all have taught me is that you ... don't ... know. Thank you very, very much!!

 

[The Hammer]

What you all have taught me is that you ... don't ... know. Thank you very, very much!!

Yeah.. that's science. We know what we know. And we know what we don't know. .

 

[YoursTrue]

Yeah.. that's science. We know what we know. And we know what we don't know. .

and you really don't KNOW how life began to "replicate." Anything you say is mere conjecture.