Which Theory of Evolution do you Believe?

[BilliardsBall]

I didn't say that - I said it was a meaningless question. Which it is. What you're asking, and subsequently saying here, is meaningless, empty nonsense. What "utopia" are we talking about? How can we "evolve" to be "ready" for one? That simply doesn't make sense.

Interesting. For over 95% of the population if not more, who have ever lived, regardless of religion, time or culture, it was not a meaningless question, "Will you be ready for the utopia that comes?" This is one of the problems with scientism, materialism, and accepting mechanistic evolution as the sole driver of life.

From the standpoint of societal evolution, man is striving to be... more. Will he be perfect? If not, he cannot be a contributing member of the coming utopia. The bridge here? Jesus Christ.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Interesting. For over 95% of the population if not more, who have ever lived, regardless of religion, time or culture, it was not a meaningless question, "Will you be ready for the utopia that comes?" This is one of the problems with scientism, materialism, and accepting mechanistic evolution as the sole driver of life.

From the standpoint of societal evolution, man is striving to be... more. Will he be perfect? If not, he cannot be a contributing member of the coming utopia. The bridge here? Jesus Christ.

Well, I can see I won't be getting any sense out of you. Never mind.

 

[habiru]

That test would be meaningless. For we are apes.

Ciao

- viole

Okay, you might be an ape but I surely not am one. And I surely doesn't have any tendencies to have sex with an ape.

 

[metis]

Okay, you might be an ape but I surely not am one.

A monkey? lower yet?

 

[habiru]

Well.., the word theory means something that could be a possibility. Like I had posted a video about an upright walking ape which says that there were once an specie of chimps that had walked upright had became instinct. In the video, A group of scientist was going to test their theory into making a fact can this ape impregnate an human woman that she was going to be doing it in the name of science, and or maybe not that she can be impregnated by this ape.. Well it is just a theory.

.

 

[Valjean]

Okay, you might be an ape but I surely not am one. And I surely doesn't have any tendencies to have sex with an ape.

So what are you -- a talking axolotl?

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Okay, you might be an ape but I surely not am one. And I surely doesn't have any tendencies to have sex with an ape.

So you're not human?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Well, I can see I won't be getting any sense out of you. Never mind.

I believe biological evolution is a fact. However, evolution lacks the power to change species between families or "kinds", even given large amounts of time.

 

[viole]

Okay, you might be an ape but I surely not am one. And I surely doesn't have any tendencies to have sex with an ape.

Non sequitur. We are mammals, too. That does not entail that we should, as mammals, feel attractions for things like rats.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Valjean]

I believe biological evolution is a fact. However, evolution lacks the power to change species between families or "kinds", even given large amounts of time.

Why do you believe this, when all the evidence indicates otherwise?
You say you believe change happens; how do the changes know when to stop so as to avoid creating new Families? Where are the brakes?
How do you explain the genetic relationships, fossil evidence of gradual development, or the existence of whole Orders and Classes today that didn't exist before? For that matter, where did the original Families come from?

 

[metis]

I believe biological evolution is a fact. However, evolution lacks the power to change species between families or "kinds", even given large amounts of time.

Google "speciation" for such evidence, and even the Wikipedia article has a good piece on it with links to scientific studies.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Why do you believe this, when all the evidence indicates otherwise?
You say you believe change happens; how do the changes know when to stop so as to avoid creating new Families? Where are the brakes?
How do you explain the genetic relationships, fossil evidence of gradual development, or the existence of whole Orders and Classes today that didn't exist before? For that matter, where did the original Families come from?

The evidence to date includes tremendous anomalies and gaps. The brakes are simple changes separate species, many complex changes separate new families. Also, breeding two animals together can produce a new species via genetic potential. Let me give you an example. Explain this to me in lay terms without saying "read this book" and I will better understand and be able to recant my position. You seem to be saying that gradual changes over time could make a move across families, say, a sea animal to land. This animal(s) will require the following:

*a new respiratory system
*a new thermoregulatory system
*a new food supply
*a new digestion system to aid with the new food supply
*a mate and surviving offspring
*a new excretory system
*a new reproductive system

And more... if all these change gradually over time, they cannot compete with the existing sea creatures' systems, or they will not survive long enough to make the switch.

Thanks.

 

[Ouroboros]

The evidence to date includes tremendous anomalies and gaps. The brakes are simple changes separate species, many complex changes separate new families. Also, breeding two animals together can produce a new species via genetic potential. Let me give you an example. Explain this to me in lay terms without saying "read this book" and I will better understand and be able to recant my position. You seem to be saying that gradual changes over time could make a move across families, say, a sea animal to land. This animal(s) will require the following:

*a new respiratory system
*a new thermoregulatory system
*a new food supply
*a new digestion system to aid with the new food supply
*a mate and surviving offspring
*a new excretory system
*a new reproductive system

And more... if all these change gradually over time, they cannot compete with the existing sea creatures' systems, or they will not survive long enough to make the switch.

Thanks.

Mudskippers and whales.

Mudskippers are land walking fish. Look it up. There are videos of them because they exist today.

Whales, are mammals, and were once walking on land. Related to cows, if I'm not mistaken. And there's fossil evidence to support the transition.

Turtles live both on land and in the ocean. No issues there.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Mudskippers and whales.

Mudskippers are land walking fish. Look it up. There are videos of them because they exist today.

Whales, are mammals, and were once walking on land. Related to cows, if I'm not mistaken. And there's fossil evidence to support the transition.

Turtles live both on land and in the ocean. No issues there.

Mudskippers can only do some of the list I've mentioned, feeding on land and interacting.

You should do more research on Ambulocetus. A few bones are extrapolated to hypothesize walking on land.

And are you saying that turtles and mudskippers or any amphibious creature demonstrates the ability/desirability/survivability of transferring wholly from one medium to the other?

 

[Ouroboros]

Mudskippers can only do some of the list I've mentioned, feeding on land and interacting.

You should do more research on Ambulocetus. A few bones are extrapolated to hypothesize walking on land.

And are you saying that turtles and mudskippers or any amphibious creature demonstrates the ability/desirability/survivability of transferring wholly from one medium to the other?

What do you think transitional forms mean?

Entity A: only lives in water, can't live on land
Entity B: only lives on land, can't live in water
Entity C: one kind of transitional form that can live part on land, part in water.

The idea of small steps in transitions between species means that there are multiple species and steps in between from A to B, and C would be like an example of such form at one point.

 

[BilliardsBall]

What do you think transitional forms mean?

Entity A: only lives in water, can't live on land
Entity B: only lives on land, can't live in water
Entity C: one kind of transitional form that can live part on land, part in water.

The idea of small steps in transitions between species means that there are multiple species and steps in between from A to B, and C would be like an example of such form at one point.

Are you claiming that mudskippers and turtles are smoking gun species proving the transition? Or whales? Scientists have not made that commitment. Do you see the slippery scientific slope you are on?

You ducked my original questions regarding multiple systems. And this would be a different discussion if, among the millions, even billions of fossils now held in museums and in tracts of land rich in fossils, there was one short-necked giraffe fossil or birds with half-wings and etc. ("rudimentary wing appendages" are not half-wings). There is VERY good evidence in the fossil record, and across biology and paleontology, that animals have always been separated by kinds or families, etc. without evolving one to the other.

However, since our take on spirituality, God and other things colors our perceptions and data interpretations, I will allow you to have the last word on this subject, but if your last word is "science has already pointed to EXACT transitional forms and EXACT species that are THE transitional species," you are being dishonest.

 

[Ouroboros]

Are you claiming that mudskippers and turtles are smoking gun species proving the transition? Or whales? Scientists have not made that commitment. Do you see the slippery scientific slope you are on?

It was an answer to your question:

This animal(s) will require the following:

*a new respiratory system
*a new thermoregulatory system
*a new food supply
*a new digestion system to aid with the new food supply
*a mate and surviving offspring
*a new excretory system
*a new reproductive system

Since you can see those animals and forms of animals with these traits, your question was answered.

You ducked my original questions regarding multiple systems. And this would be a different discussion if, among the millions, even billions of fossils now held in museums and in tracts of land rich in fossils, there was one short-necked giraffe fossil or birds with half-wings and etc. ("rudimentary wing appendages" are not half-wings). There is VERY good evidence in the fossil record, and across biology and paleontology, that animals have always been separated by kinds or families, etc. without evolving one to the other.

Do you know how a plant grows from a seed to a tree? By small, small steps. You seem to think that things has to explode into existence, but they don't have to. Small changes can have small advantages, enough to keep them around, until many small changes pile up to what seems to be a large change.

However, since our take on spirituality, God and other things colors our perceptions and data interpretations, I will allow you to have the last word on this subject, but if your last word is "science has already pointed to EXACT transitional forms and EXACT species that are THE transitional species," you are being dishonest.

I'm not being dishonest. But you're being a jerk for saying it.

You claimed that the transitional species had to have certain traits, and I showed you that they did and do exist. There's no dishonesty in answering your question (with facts).

 

[habiru]

How the ideology of people evolved from animals had came about, is how much similarities that we has in common with them.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It was an answer to your question:

Since you can see those animals and forms of animals with these traits, your question was answered.


Do you know how a plant grows from a seed to a tree? By small, small steps. You seem to think that things has to explode into existence, but they don't have to. Small changes can have small advantages, enough to keep them around, until many small changes pile up to what seems to be a large change.


I'm not being dishonest. But you're being a jerk for saying it.

You claimed that the transitional species had to have certain traits, and I showed you that they did and do exist. There's no dishonesty in answering your question (with facts).

Sorry, not trying to be rude or a jerk. But I prefer to argue with someone who is more knowledgeable on the subject. Saying things like "but trees grow from seeds" when we know seeds contain all the genetic material the trees will bear, and then using that to "prove" transitions between families and kinds, is uniformed.

 

[Ouroboros]

Sorry, not trying to be rude or a jerk. But I prefer to argue with someone who is more knowledgeable on the subject. Saying things like "but trees grow from seeds" when we know seeds contain all the genetic material the trees will bear, and then using that to "prove" transitions between families and kinds, is uniformed.

I think you missed the point. You demanded that there has to be proof of species that have a set of traits that are intermediary because you don't know about them. I give you some examples of them. You then claim that I'm too dumb to know the topic. Got it.

You are a jerk. And now I remember why I had you on ignore... bye.