YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I ain't gonna argue with that.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Definitions and species (hmmm...)
- Thread starter YoursTrue
- Start date
Nope. It is a set of two very different situations. It is a ridículous comparison.
You are mistaken. Seriously so.
Of course it wasn't 'a fish or a couple of fishes.' It was POPULATIONS of fish, some of which over long periods of time became populations of amphibians, of which some became populations of reptiles, some of which became populations of mammals, some of which became populations of apes, some of which became populations of humans...a little bit at a time, over 390 million or so years, over tens or hundreds of millions of generations...
NOTHING MORPHED. Populations changed gradually to become slightly different than their ancestors, and more different over time.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
Proof no, for the umpteenth time, proof is for math and alcohol, but there is tons of evidence and none against it your denial not withstanding.
You really need to stop reading your creationist web sites, they are lying to you.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I explained what I meant by proof. There has been no evidence of seeing any fish develop legs and plodding on to ground them developing lungs by mutation etc. Yes, I know the excuse is that it was a loonngg time ago, etc.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I don't know what ideas you assert about creationist websites.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Ah it was populations of fish you say that morphed, evolved, developed into landlubbing whatevers. Not just one or two mutants, right? And you're sure of this. Do you know this and know WHICH fish or "populations" morphed, moved, evolved, developed legs?
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Ok. Does that mean that they developed from fish without legs? Lest I forget, survival of the fittest, natural selection, or mutations that enabled these particular organisms to get out of water and flop around for a while?
Walking fish - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
So you've seen populations of fish develop legs? Or any scientists have seen these changes take place? Maybe it's happening now...if not, why not? No need, you think?
If I went to the trouble to provide you all the links, I'm positive you wouldn't read them, and would continue to deny them...
Have a nice day.
No specific fish did. What we have is a fossil record of fins becoming more robust, and of some species using them to forage more on the sea/lake floor.
We have such fish today. We have fossils of fish with quite leglike fins, strong enough to allow "walking" in very shallow water or even short forays onto the shore. It was not just the fins that altered over the millennia, it was eyes, swim bladders and the whole body, as some species found safety or rich pickings out of the deep water.
Why is this hard to believe? We have living examples of the various water-to-land stages. Religion offers no alternative explanation for the fossils -- or the process. Goddidit! doesn't explain anything.
Last edited:
siti
Well-Known Member
Yes - here's an example of a fish developing legs:
And here's a whole population of them walking on the ground
It doesn't go from fin to leg in one generation. You've been shown numerous times examples of fish in the process of moving from water to land but you don't understand why it is relevant.
I have no idea why I bothered trying again, I already know what the response will be
What would you give as your best explanation for the homologenous structures in the forelimbs of these very, very different creatures, if you don't think that it might be that they all share a common ancestor? Study it carefully - it contains land and water animals, animals that swim, walk and fly. Outside of the homology of the bones in all of their fore-limbs, the only other thing that they seem to share in common -- to those who think in terms of "kinds" -- is that they are all (except for birds) mammals.
Some are furred (humans are, but we lost most of it), some have feathers. The flying ones fly by very, very different mechanics, and for sure the whale can be thought of as "flying" through water.
Why all of these animals (and many, many more) should have essentially all the same bone structures, slightly or greatly modified for their lifestyle and environments, is one of the questions that Evolution tries to answer. So can you answer it?
Last edited:
Nope. Really, we are into silliness territory.
You infer that fully formed new species just pop into existence -- by the word of God -- all the time. The fossil record shows thousands of species that appear at one point and disappear later. Noöne's ever seen this happen, but we have seen visible changes -- large and small --in populations, as they adapt selectively.
So, reasonably, which claim seems more believable?
Pogo
Well-Known Member
No there isn't because your version of evolution from Dr. Dino (Inmate Number 06452017) is just a strawman made to sound ridiculous ant to appeal to lazy thinkers.
There is however all of the fossil record and more recently all of the genetic record that documents the slow change from early vertebrates to all current vertebrate life.