Zero probability for Evolution

[Polymath257]

New abilities like what?
An animal adapts to colder climates?

More, that it has more adaptability to colder climates.

Or, for example, increased abilithold oxygen in the blood, allowing for better adaptation to higher altitudes.

Already programmed in it's DNA.

Yes. To some extent. The extent can change, though.

An animal transition from a replied to a mammal?

Yes. We even have the fossils for that transition: multiple species changing from a reptilian body type to a mammalian one.

Not possible. It's a completely different body system.

You might be interested in looking at the species that form the transition. For example, ones that have the jaw double jointed to allow for a transition between the reptilian style ear to the mammalian. We have the actual fossil skulls of this transition. And yes, it was a perfectly well working animal in its own right.

 

[Polymath257]

Of course it is. Only more so. A one celled organism to an elephant for example.

Now, it is different. But the transition from single celled organism to an elephant occurred over billions of years, compared to just a few tens of millions for the transition from ancient carnivore to modern cats.

You do realize we have living organisms today that represent most of the stages between single celled organisms and mammals, right?

 

[Wildswanderer]

You might be interested in looking at the species that form the transition. For example, ones that have the jaw double jointed to allow for a transition between the reptilian style ear to the mammalian. We have the actual fossil skulls of this transition. And yes, it was a perfectly well working animal in its own right.

Again, a certain type of joint doesn't make it a half reptile half mammal. That's an assumption.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Now, it is different. But the transition from single celled organism to an elephant occurred over billions of years, compared to just a few tens of millions for the transition from ancient carnivore to modern cats.

You do realize we have living organisms today that represent most of the stages between single celled organisms and mammals, right?

I have seen the charts. Very incomplete and not convincing
In fact they don't support the gradual changes theory.

 

[Polymath257]

Again, a certain type of joint doesn't make it a half reptile half mammal. That's an assumption.

You are expecting a half reptile and half mammal? Maybe you need to better understand what the actual science says.

We have fossils of animals that had BOTH reptilian and mammalian characteristics with other aspects intermediate between the two. So, the bones in the skull are different in reptiles and mammals, with reptiles having more bones in the jaw, for example. The transitional stages have some of the reptilian bones, but they are smaller and farther back. Eventually those bones became part of the mammalian inner ear.

 

[Polymath257]

I have seen the charts. Very incomplete and not convincing
In fact they don't support the gradual changes theory.

Really, how do they contradict it?

 

[Polymath257]

I have seen the charts. Very incomplete and not convincing
In fact they don't support the gradual changes theory.

So, for example, we have single celled organisms. We have organisms that spend part of the time as single cells and part as groupings of many cells. We have organisms that have a total of 2,4,8,16, up to 128 cells total. We have organisms with no organs, but where all cells can do any job in the organism (ex, sponges). We have organisms with no nervous system that engulf their food, digest it, than spit it out again (jelly fish).

I can keep going, but I would ask which stage you consider to be impossible?

 

[Wildswanderer]

You are expecting a half reptile and half mammal? Maybe you need to better understand what the actual science says.

We have fossils of animals that had BOTH reptilian and mammalian characteristics with other aspects intermediate between the two. So, the bones in the skull are different in reptiles and mammals, with reptiles having more bones in the jaw, for example. The transitional stages have some of the reptilian bones, but they are smaller and farther back. Eventually those bones became part of the mammalian inner ear.

So, first you make fun of the idea of it being half and half and then basically said that's what happened.

 

[Wildswanderer]

So, for example, we have single celled organisms. We have organisms that spend part of the time as single cells and part as groupings of many cells. We have organisms that have a total of 2,4,8,16, up to 128 cells total. We have organisms with no organs, but where all cells can do any job in the organism (ex, sponges). We have organisms with no nervous system that engulf their food, digest it, than spit it out again (jelly fish).

I can keep going, but I would ask which stage you consider to be impossible?

There's no problem with any of them being created.

But them evolving into each other is an assumption. This one:

Evolution relies on processes that allow increases in organization from the simple to the more complex, from non-life to life, from lower to higher life-forms.

These processes are described as the “self-organization of matter.” The so-called evolutionary factors are mentioned as cause. B. Rensch defines the evolution of the cosmos up to man as follows : “Evolution manifests itself as a continuous progression from the origin of the solar system and the earth, through the assemblage of the first elements of life, followed by true forms of life, and increasingly higher developed groups of animals, leading up to man.”

Only that is nonsense. The actual so called evolutionary tree is a mess of branches going nowhere, missing connections, and false starts. Time to scrap the whole tree...

 

[Polymath257]

So, first you make fun of the idea of it being half and half and then basically said that's what happened.

Too many creationists think in terms of crocoducks.

The reality is more of a mosaic of features.

 

[ratiocinator]

Evolution relies on processes that allow increases in organization from the simple to the more complex, from non-life to life, from lower to higher life-forms.

These processes are described as the “self-organization of matter.” The so-called evolutionary factors are mentioned as cause. B. Rensch defines the evolution of the cosmos up to man as follows : “Evolution manifests itself as a continuous progression from the origin of the solar system and the earth, through the assemblage of the first elements of life, followed by true forms of life, and increasingly higher developed groups of animals, leading up to man.”

You're plagiarising Answers in Genesis again.

 

[Polymath257]

There's no problem with any of them being created.

But them evolving into each other is an assumption. This one:

Evolution relies on processes that allow increases in organization from the simple to the more complex, from non-life to life, from lower to higher life-forms.

These processes are described as the “self-organization of matter.” The so-called evolutionary factors are mentioned as cause. B. Rensch defines the evolution of the cosmos up to man as follows : “Evolution manifests itself as a continuous progression from the origin of the solar system and the earth, through the assemblage of the first elements of life, followed by true forms of life, and increasingly higher developed groups of animals, leading up to man.”

Only that is nonsense. The actual so called evolutionary tree is a mess of branches going nowhere, missing connections, and false starts. Time to scrap the whole tree...

So you are getting your terms from a source that knows nothing about what the term 'evolution' actually means in science?

Evolution is, simply, the change of species over geological time. it has nothing to do with the Big Bang cosmology. It has nothing to do with the beginning of life. It has nothing to do with the formation of the basic elements from stars.

It is about living things and how they change over time. NOTHING ELSE.

And the evolutionary tree has many dead ends, where species go extinct. We don't usually have the resolution to talk about twigs, instead we talk about the major branches.

But the living things we have evidence of and the genetics we have of those from which we can get DNA shows that the totality of life *is* organized as a tree of descent.

 

[metis]

The reality is more of a mosaic of features.

And this cannot be emphasized enough because one thing we've learned over the years is that the evolutionary process is not "pretty", nor simple.

 

[metis]

The actual so called evolutionary tree is a mess of branches going nowhere, missing connections, and false starts. Time to scrap the whole tree...

Why do that? Seems you're looking for perfection whereas perfection is not how the process actually works. The Bible is not perfect, and yet you and I believe in using it as a large part of the basis for our faith.

 

[Polymath257]

And this cannot be emphasized enough because one thing we've learned over the years is that the evolutionary process is not "pretty", nor simple.

Exactly. Evolution occurs by tweaking what is already there. it can extend the length of a leg, or use something for a novel purpose. It does NOT form new things out of nothing.

That leads to most things in living organisms having more than one function, a big distinction to things that are designed. It means that the Panda's 'thumb' is actually a modified wrist bone or a bats wings are modified arm and hands with webbing. The patterns are there, but the use is different.

And that is how evolution works: by modifying (adapting) what is already there over the course of generations, leading to larger and larger differences.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Same difference.

Not at all.
Your bare denialism doesn't change the facts.

If you would truly have a valid case against evolution, you wouldn't need to misrepresent it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are deliberately being deceptive.

No. I'm being deliberately accurate and honest about what evolution actually says.

Claiming that felines and canines came from the same ancestor is the same thing as having one morph into the other over time.

It is not.

Just like it is not the same thing to say that you and your cousin share an ancestor "is the same thing" as having you morph into your cousin.

The whole theory requires that fish become transformed into mammals

You mean eukaryote vertebrates.

, and mammals into man

Last time I checked, man IS a mammal.

. It doesn't matter how many stages in between you propose.

I know it doesn't matter to you. Nothing about the theory matters to you.
All that matters to you is you denying evolution in favor of your a priori religious beliefs.
And you don't even care that you need to argue against a strawman version of the theory - either because you don't know any better or because you can't argue against he actual theory.

Either way, arguing a strawman is not a proper way to go about it.

Being willfully ignorant on the subject, isn't either.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nope, you can't have new kinds with the same limited DNA information.

I didn't say "new kinds".
I said "sub-kinds".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not possible. It's a completely different body system.

No, they are absolutely NOT "completely different". In fact, they are far more alike then they are different.

Here's one that I find rather funny. And which honestly kind of blew my mind the first time I saw the picture.
You are, I'm sure, familiar with the external looks of elephant feet:

Now watch this cross section:

Isn't that hilarious? Kind of looks like a human foot with an oversized heel, in boots.

Here's an x-ray of a human foot, to compare with:

Anyhow........... no, clearly, body types are really not "completely different".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have seen the charts. Very incomplete and not convincing

Please.

As if anything would ever convince you.

In fact they don't support the gradual changes theory.

Denial. Not just a river in Egypt.