Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Beyond_Reason said:
Not really, almost all appeared at that time (leaving possible exceptions for some microbes). Evolution explains why. “Progressive creation” does not.
Click to expand...
Where are the fossils of the evolutionary ancestors of fish?
Why does the Cambrian explosion resemble an orchard of trees (sudden disparity/almost all the different pyhla appearing in a relatively short period of time) and not the single tree that evolution predicts?
According to evolution there must exist millions of transitional fossils between dinosaurs and birds. How many have been found?
 
Last edited:
Edgar said:
40.png
Beyond_Reason:
If you define “forms” for me, I’ll be happy to oblige. But I’m waiting because I suspect you will change after I provide it if I dont nail you down to one ahead of time.
Click to expand...
Huh? You want me to define “forms”? It’s your term, not mine!
Click to expand...
Oh well then that’s easy. HIV strains often evolve new forms even within a single patient. That’s why it’s so hard to cure. A paper discussing this:

Loading…

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

and a wiki article explaining some of the language: HIV tropism - Wikipedia
 
Please be so kind as to point out exactly where these articles define “forms” or even use the word.
 
Where are the fossils of the evolutionary ancestors of fish?
Click to expand...
Here you go:
Why does the Cambrian explosion resemble an orchard of trees (sudden disparity/almost all the different pyhla appearing in a relatively short period of time) and not the single tree that evolution predicts?
Click to expand...
They do have precursors. More fossil evidence has emerged since Darwin, and even since Gould. But to the general point, you’re basically asking why tree branches are thickest closest to the trunk. According to evolution, we should expect the most generalized animal forms the furthest back, and see things specialize over time. Keep in mind that the different phyla are things like:
Arthropods ← everything from crustaceons to insects to centipedes
Nematoads ← round worms
Molluscs
Flatworms
Sea Urchins
a bunch of other things that are like worms
and Chordata, which are the first things that have a spine (basically just fish at this point).
You don’t have any mammals or birds or lizards or amphibians. Just something with a spine that will then diverge over time into all the spine-having animals.

Here’s a pretty good article discussing this stuff:
https://www.nature.com/news/what-sparked-the-cambrian-explosion-1.19379
According to evolution there must exist millions of transitional fossils between dinosaurs and birds. How many have been found?
Click to expand...
A lot, but keep in mind that fossilization is a very rare process, especially for land animals. Very, very few animal carcasses will become fossils, and then we have to find them.
 
Yeah, everything dies eventually. “Death sucks” is not exactly an argument against natural selection happening.
 
I find that your post in response is not only nonsensical, it’s also insulting. And, on top of that, you never dealt with what I asked, namely what evidence can you present that there’s some sort of magical wall between micro-evolution and macro-evolution?

However, since all you did was to deflect and then resort to a personal insult, this is my last response to any of your posts. Goodbye.
 
Techno2000 said:
Why evolution didn’t make them fit for survival.
Click to expand...
There were fit. They lived until they died, and the species still has living members. Everything dies, or hadn’t you noticed. Evolution can beat entropy in the short term, but not in the long term.

rossum
 
Metis1 said:
all you did was to deflect and then resort to a personal insult
Click to expand...
Hmm.

Let’s see.

You posted:
First of all, will you provide scientific evidence to show that micro-evolution cannot lead into macro-evolution? All I ever see by some is this deflection into something else.
Click to expand...
To which I responded
You are basically admitting that the “theory” is unfalsifiable. The onus on you is to demonstrate that it is, that it is indeed science.
Click to expand...
No deflection but rather I was pointing out that I cannot comply with your request because the concept that macro and micro evolution are continuous is an assumption that is unfalsifiable.

You asked:
Do you have any children, by chance? Is so, look into a mirror, and what you see is a “transitional form” since evolution never stops.
Click to expand...
Now since we are discussing the boundaries between micro and macroevolution, and considering that we know ourselves better than anything else, since we would be part of the process, I responded with the question:
Are you suggesting you are more or less human?
Click to expand...
No insult here as far as I can interpret and most definitely none intended. I was making what I thought was a clear point, but as everyone who follows this thread knows, I can elaborate for as long as anyone would wish.

For some reason you asked:
Finally, do you really think that the vastly overwhelming majority of biologists and geneticists are so ignorant and/or dishonest that they don’t know what they’ve studied and concluded?
Click to expand...
To which I answered:
They are human beings as are you and I. I’m conversing with you and I don’t think you don’t know what you’ve studied or are being dishonest.
Click to expand...
Pretty much everything we know is by authority and that would be why you mention the "overwhelming majority of biologists and geneticists’. Be aware that I have no doubt that I would get along in perfect agreement with them were we to discuss the scientific data, assessing the evidence of any real scientific fact. The issue is that with evolution we are treading beyond the realm of science and into that of philosophy and metaphysics. At that point they being human like you and I, and each of us having our own personal relationship with reality, we might disagree. You have studied evolution, as we all have, and I assume you are sincere and not dishonest. It makes no difference to me whether I discuss evolution with you or any scientist.

I hope I have clarified the matter.
 
Last edited:
Techno2000 said:
Why evolution didn’t make them fit for survival. 🤔
Click to expand...
Just show me one cow that existed 3 billion years ago. We know that cows definitely exist, so it shouldn’t be a problem finding fossils according to your judgement. Better yet show me a 3 billion year old platypus.
 
I dont think I’ve ever seen anyone with so weak a grasp on what evolution actually is as techno2000 seems to have. It is actually literally amazing. Bravo if you’re a Poe because its bizarro brilliant.
 
Last edited:
It’s sorta like why my old alma matter doesn’t win every game. Sometimes events can happen that are too much even for the evolutionary process to save the organisms.

Evolution is not perfect-- matter of fact it’s in reality quite sloppy. When explaining this to my anthro students, I used what I call “mosaic evolution” as an example, and it goes like this: Evolution typically involves many different species and subspecies and gene pools, each evolving in their own way due to various factors, only some of which may form new species.

IOW, it’s not clean and simple and gradual like Darwin hypothesized.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top