• 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!

Can Randomness and Chance cause the Evolution of life?

james bond

Well-Known Member
Evolution happens, sorry you dont like it

Microevolution or rapid natural selection or speciation happens, but not macroevolution. Sorry you don't like it.

Remember, I believed all of evolution at first. The parts that made my face scrunch up was the origins part, i.e. had questions about the tree of life, common ancestors and macroevolution. Then I started investigating creation science and the Bible.

Which is beside the point. GMO foods are not in our best interests if it goes against microevolution.
 
Last edited:

james bond

Well-Known Member
A couple of thoughts-

The "superweeds" your refer to are, I think, misnamed,
and to call them that is misleading.

I was not around for it, but I am told that in DDT days,
files became resistant to DDT. They were referred to then as, yes, "superfiles".

As a biology prof explained it though, the housefiy is about as close to perfect, as is, as any organism can be.

Thus, the metabolic compromises necessary for them
to be able to process DDT did enable them to survive
in that hostile environment, but, at some cost.

When DDT stopped being used, the files quickly reverted to non-immune.

I think the weeds you speak of would do the same.

Environmental damage associated with fish farms
includes such things as disrupting the sex ratio of central american crocodiles. In the event, they do a lot of harm, everywhere. The genetic modification of the fish raised may well be the least of the harm or potential harm.

One who reads about the history or radium and how
recklessly it was used might wonder how it applies to
GM,

In general, I agree with you that it is risky shyt, and
that the big corporations / fellow travelloer politicians
are no more to be trusted implicitly than, say, big tobacco with its pet politicans and researcher-minions.

Your pal subz kind of just likes to argue. :D

I like the first part and agree. Today, the GE people are changing the mosquito to combat Zika. It sounds noble, and worth studying and experimenting, but it could also create bigger problems. I agree with the website's opinions.

Super-Mendelian mosquitoes may fight malaria

>>A: In general, I agree with you that it is risky shyt, and
that the big corporations / fellow travelloer politicians
are no more to be trusted implicitly than, say, big tobacco with its pet politicans and researcher-minions.<<

Word. I think I'm glad Monsanto got bought out by some Swiss firm. Bigger may not be better. Maybe they'll have less influence in the US. I dunno.

>>A: Your pal subz kind of just likes to argue. :D<<

ROTFL.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Microevolution or rapid natural selection or speciation happens, but not macroevolution. Sorry you don't like it.

Which is beside the point. GMO foods are not in our best interests if it goes against microevolution.

Micro v macro is of course just creo-cant.

Your opinion stated as fact.

But-

I wonder how you would, with said opinion in mind, explain the fossil record
that does appear to support what you refer to as "macro"?
 

james bond

Well-Known Member
Micro v macro is of course just creo-cant.

Your opinion stated as fact.

But-

I wonder how you would, with said opinion in mind, explain the fossil record
that does appear to support what you refer to as "macro"?

What about superweeds? I think they happened pretty rapidly.

>>A: But-

I wonder how you would, with said opinion in mind, explain the fossil record
that does appear to support what you refer to as "macro"?<<

What has the head of a crocodile and the gills of a fish?

The fossil record for humans starts with the tiktaalik. It looks like a fish to me and the website agrees. The lobed fins do not appear to be for walking on land, but for swimming. The evos followed with the coelacanth, but we found that they live today. The bias is evident in the title claiming the head is that of a crocodile. I don't think it had crooked teeth.
 
Last edited:

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Microevolution or rapid natural selection or speciation happens, but not macroevolution. Sorry you don't like it.

Remember, I believed all of evolution at first. The parts that made my face scrunch up was the origins part, i.e. had questions about the tree of life, common ancestors and macroevolution. Then I started investigating creation science and the Bible.

Which is beside the point. GMO foods are not in our best interests if it goes against microevolution.

I love this

Macroevolution is simply lots of microevolution. This is repeatedly shown to be factual. The only people who deny it are those few who think their god (not any of the other 2700+ creator gods invented by humans) made them in one piece out of mud.

Strawman ignored

Tell that to he billion + people its saved from starvation.
 

james bond

Well-Known Member
I love this

Macroevolution is simply lots of microevolution. This is repeatedly shown to be factual. The only people who deny it are those few who think their god (not any of the other 2700+ creator gods invented by humans) made them in one piece out of mud.

Strawman ignored

Tell that to he billion + people its saved from starvation.

Then we should see lots of evidence of transitional fossils if you're just going by fossils. What fossils are plentiful? Dinosaur fossils? Do they show a transition? I think you are using uniformitarian thinking in order to understand the past. Start thinking how catastrophism formed the earth. This way, the layers of the earth are not chronological (It can be shown via experiment.). In fact, the names for these layers are based on location, not chronology.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
What about superweeds? I think they happened pretty rapidly.

What has the head of a crocodile and the gills of a fish?

The fossil record for humans starts with the tiktaalik. It looks like a fish to me. The lobed fins do not appear to be for walking on land, but for swimming. The evos followed with the coelacanth, but we found that they live today. The bias is evident in the title claiming the head is that of a crocodile. I don't think it had crooked teeth.

Um, ok, the development of the roundup resistant weed came about
quickly, but what significance to you give to that?

The fossil record for humans does not "Start" with your Tiktik. Why say it does?

The fins would not be very good for getting about on land, but then,
they may have worked at least as well, or better than those of these critters-

walking catfish - Results For Yahoo Image Search Results

mudskipper - Results For Yahoo Image Search Results


And of course, you cannot really expect to figure all of the capabilities of an animal by a cursory look at its skeleton.

Still, it looks a lot more capable than the catfish does. For all of that, it
didnt need to be quick as a coyote, there was nobody else around.
tiktaalik skeleton - Results For Yahoo Image Search Results

As for our friend the Coelacanth ( have a nice model of one from the Field museum on my desk here) you are kind of mixed up!

The sarcopterygian fish were known long long before Tiktik, not after.
All known fossils are of freshwater specimens, and they disappear from the
record the same time the dinosaurs did.

So of course it was a surprise and delight to find a living relative of the
line that led to the amphibians! A relative-one with an oil filled sac where
their cousins had lungs, and some other differences, but a cuz all the same.

Your comment about "followed with" the Coel. really makes no sense.

The bit about "head of a crocodile" is just pop-science talk. Dont take it
so seriously. There is a bit of a resemblance. Saying so does not invalidate
all the research that went into it.

You did not actually say anything about how you would explain the fossil record,which also shows plant evolution, you know. No "macro"? Then what does explain it?

sarcopterygian skeleton - Results For Yahoo Image Search Results

sacropterygian skeleton - Results For Yahoo Image Search Results
 
Last edited:

Audie

Veteran Member
Then we should see lots of evidence of transitional fossils if you're just going by fossils. What fossils are plentiful? Dinosaur fossils? Do they show a transition? I think you are using uniformitarian thinking in order to understand the past. Start thinking how catastrophism formed the earth. This way, the layers of the earth are not chronological (It can be shown via experiment.). In fact, the names for these layers are based on location, not chronology.

Oh dear oh dear oh dear. Whata loada moldy pratts.

I thought you were good for more than that.

"Uniformitarianism" ? That is so 19th century.

You have a lot of studying to do before you are ready to be taken seriously.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Then we should see lots of evidence of transitional fossils if you're just going by fossils. What fossils are plentiful? Dinosaur fossils? Do they show a transition? I think you are using uniformitarian thinking in order to understand the past. Start thinking how catastrophism formed the earth. This way, the layers of the earth are not chronological (It can be shown via experiment.). In fact, the names for these layers are based on location, not chronology.

You see evidence of transitional fossils in every fossil you look at. All fossils are transitional.

Another straw man. Earth formation is nothing to do with transitional fossils
 

james bond

Well-Known Member
Um, ok, the development of the roundup resistant weed came about quickly, but what significance to you give to that?

I would think that speciation is rapid than slow, incremental change.

The fossil record for humans does not "Start" with your Tiktik. Why say it does?

The fins would not be very good for getting about on land, but then,
they may have worked at least as well, or better than those of these critters-

walking catfish - Results For Yahoo Image Search Results

mudskipper - Results For Yahoo Image Search Results


And of course, you cannot really expect to figure all of the capabilities of an animal by a cursory look at its skeleton.

Still, it looks a lot more capable than the catfish does. For all of that, it
didnt need to be quick as a coyote, there was nobody else around.
tiktaalik skeleton - Results For Yahoo Image Search Results

As for our friend the Coelacanth ( have a nice model of one from the Field museum on my desk here) you are kind of mixed up!

The sarcopterygian fish were known long long before Tiktik, not after.
All known fossils are of freshwater specimens, and they disappear from the
record the same time the dinosaurs did.

So of course it was a surprise and delight to find a living relative of the
line that led to the amphibians! A relative-one with an oil filled sac where
their cousins had lungs, and some other differences, but a cuz all the same.

Your comment about "followed with" the Coel. really makes no sense.

The tiktaalik is the transitional fossil from fish to amphibian. Oh, I see. Coel came before tiktaalik.

What were the early fishes that became tetrapods? Sharks, ray-finned fishes, coelacanth and lungfish. See, how it's strange that tiktaalik was the only one that became extinct. There should still be tiktaaliks or one should be able to GE one from its ancestors. Four legs evolved here means a miracle happened here because no one has created an amphibian yet from its "ancestors."

tiktaalik_phylogeny.gif


tetrapod_evo.jpg


The origin of tetrapods
The origin of tetrapods

No question there are fish that can live out of the water, but why would they have stopped being tetrapods when we still have fish and reptiles? Are there tetrapods still existing today? We have wolves and dogs and we have the wolf-dog. Can one genetically engineer a fish and create a tetrapod? The bottom tree shows a man is a living tetrapod. Sounds like something SZ would interject into the conversation. I think he said a man is an ape already.

The bit about "head of a crocodile" is just pop-science talk. Dont take it so seriously. There is a bit of a resemblance. Saying so does not invalidate all the research that went into it.

You did not actually say anything about how you would explain the fossil record,which also shows plant evolution, you know. No "macro"? Then what does explain it?

sarcopterygian skeleton - Results For Yahoo Image Search Results

sacropterygian skeleton - Results For Yahoo Image Search Results

I thought they said crocodile to infer it was amphibian-like which is putting the cart before the horse. A croc is not an amphibian, but a reptile so it is confused. Let me look at the fossil record and plant evo and I'll get back to you.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
I would think that speciation is rapid than slow, incremental change.



The tiktaalik is the transitional fossil from fish to amphibian. Oh, I see. Coel came before tiktaalik.

What were the early fishes that became tetrapods? Sharks, ray-finned fishes, coelacanth and lungfish. See, how it's strange that tiktaalik was the only one that became extinct. There should still be tiktaaliks or one should be able to GE one from its ancestors. Four legs evolved here means a miracle happened here because no one has created an amphibian yet from its "ancestors."

tiktaalik_phylogeny.gif


tetrapod_evo.jpg


The origin of tetrapods
The origin of tetrapods

No question there are fish that can live out of the water, but why would they have stopped being tetrapods when we still have fish and reptiles? Are there tetrapods still existing today? We have wolves and dogs and we have the wolf-dog. Can one genetically engineer a fish and create a tetrapod? The bottom tree shows a man is a living tetrapod. Sounds like something SZ would interject into the conversation. I think he said a man is an ape already.



I thought they said crocodile to infer it was amphibian-like which is putting the cart before the horse. A croc is not an amphibian, but a reptile so it is confused. Let me look at the fossil record and plant evo and I'll get back to you.

The resistant weed is not a new / different species.

Tiktik is a representative of the group of animals that were involved in
transition to land dwelling. Not "the" link.

Your questions about "why only one that is extinct"....no. They are
all extinct. I can certainly spend time answering your questions,
which are not hard to explain, as you are simply misunderstanding /
going on very limited reading.

Not sure if you want to know, as you've not made any effort on your own.

You will need a great deal more than a "look at" to get the
idea about evolution, I am afraid this is a bit like trying to
duscuss calculus when you are thinking there's no way algerbra
makes sense. Happy to help, tho, if you want.

I mean nothing unkind or snarky, I hope you know that.
Ok? :D. ?
 
Last edited:

james bond

Well-Known Member
The resistant weed is not a new / different species.

From what I've read, these super weeds, i.e. resistant to Roundup or other herbicides, have created new species.

Tiktik is a representative of the group of animals that were involved in
transition to land dwelling. Not "the" link.

I've heard all of the proto-creatures but there is no evidence for them. That's why I said, with GE, these GE scientists should be able to create one. It doesn't have to be tiktaalik, but let's say we want to bring back an extinct animal or populate a near extinct animal.

What God or nature has done is we can't create hybrids from different families (hope I'm using the right term). These hybrids such as fish-amphibian will not multiply even if they survive.

Your questions about "why only one that is extinct"....no. They are
all extinct. I can certainly spend time answering your questions, which are not hard to explain, as you are simply misunderstanding/going on very limited reading.

Tiktaalik is extinct. The other species are still living.

Not sure if you want to know, as you've not made any effort on your own.

Well, the model on your desk was considered extinct at one time. When one was found, one scientist flew around the world trying to find it. Today, we know they live in various parts of the world. Now you say there are different species of tiktaaliks. Why are tiktaaliks (plural) extinct? If you can't answer my question, then you lose credibility since your argument is they are a "group" of animals to macroevolve into land dwellers. You said they're not missing links. If they're extinct, then aren't they missing? Where are the other fossils?

You will need a great deal more than a "look at" to get the
idea about evolution, I am afraid this is a bit like trying to duscuss calculus when you are thinking there's no way algerbra makes sense. Happy to help, tho, if you want. I mean nothing unkind or snarky, I hope you know that.
Ok? :D. ?

I'm well versed in calculus as I minored in math. And how do you know there is more about evolution? Sure, we can get into the details, but a brief explanation of what you mean would be a start.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
From what I've read, these super weeds, i.e. resistant to Roundup or other herbicides, have created new species.



I've heard all of the proto-creatures but there is no evidence for them. That's why I said, with GE, these GE scientists should be able to create one. It doesn't have to be tiktaalik, but let's say we want to bring back an extinct animal or populate a near extinct animal.

What God or nature has done is we can't create hybrids from different families (hope I'm using the right term). These hybrids such as fish-amphibian will not multiply even if they survive.



Tiktaalik is extinct. The other species are still living.



Well, the model on your desk was considered extinct at one time. When one was found, one scientist flew around the world trying to find it. Today, we know they live in various parts of the world. Now you say there are different species of tiktaaliks. Why are tiktaaliks (plural) extinct? If you can't answer my question, then you lose credibility since your argument is they are a "group" of animals to macroevolve into land dwellers. You said they're not missing links. If they're extinct, then aren't they missing? Where are the other fossils?



I'm well versed in calculus as I minored in math. And how do you know there is more about evolution? Sure, we can get into the details, but a brief explanation of what you mean would be a start.

It would take far more than a brief explanation to bring you up to speed.

Think of it this way. Are you a football fan?

If so, how long would it take for you to see I was clueless if I
started talking about the ring and innings and baskets?

Would a brief explanation get me ready to hold my own at the
after game show, even if I did not have your attitude that the whole thing
(evolution) was supid?

I certainly could walk you through all the things you ask about, but it is a
big project and you are not at all receptive. If you were atvall interested
you'd not be talking on the level of my hyopthetical talk of a football
goalie. You know? You are not interested.

My interest was enough to get me an A in "comparative vertebrate anatomy"
among other rather demanding courses. If you'd studied vert anat, you 'd
kind of cringe at the things you say.

Anyhow- your objections to ToE consist entirely of things
that are only reflections of confusion and ignorance on your part.

Dont mean it unkindly, but it is an obvious fact.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
The coelacanth was thought to be extinct until the latter half of last century

Well, not exactly. Its nearest known relatives were all extinct. ( still are! :D )
They were fresh water creatures, disappeared at the end of the cretaceous.

Nobody knew our coelacanth had ever existed. Deep water marine fish
are next to impossible to fossilize, and not necessarily easy to find alive.

It was a sensation of course, but the way creationists get confused over its
significance and value to science is a real face-palm.
 

james bond

Well-Known Member
It would take far more than a brief explanation to bring you up to speed.

Think of it this way. Are you a football fan?

If so, how long would it take for you to see I was clueless if I
started talking about the ring and innings and baskets?

Would a brief explanation get me ready to hold my own at the
after game show, even if I did not have your attitude that the whole thing
(evolution) was supid?

I certainly could walk you through all the things you ask about, but it is a
big project and you are not at all receptive. If you were atvall interested
you'd not be talking on the level of my hyopthetical talk of a football
goalie. You know? You are not interested.

My interest was enough to get me an A in "comparative vertebrate anatomy"
among other rather demanding courses. If you'd studied vert anat, you 'd
kind of cringe at the things you say.

Anyhow- your objections to ToE consist entirely of things
that are only reflections of confusion and ignorance on your part.

Dont mean it unkindly, but it is an obvious fact.

I'm not into football. Like baseball and basketball. My friend's wife doesn't care for basketball because she thinks the same things happen on either side of the court (maybe she likes football). My friend and I both play basketball, so can appreciate the skills, physicality and stamina being exhibited. However, I can explain to her what's happening and why it is special. Then she can see that a play just happened and all the people are getting up out of their seats to applaud and high five each other. I don't explain everything. Just what she needs to know. You don't have to be a nerd.

I don't need to know comparative vertebrate anatomy to understand what you're talking about with transitive form from fish to amphibian.

An argument against it can be made in a few sentences. Like beauty, it is in the eyes of the beholder. Scientists imagine what a transitive form looks like and find fossils that can be made to appear to fit their preconceived notion. It's confirmation bias.

"For [Ted] Daeschler, who is based at the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the big question was: how did terrestrial animals evolve from fish? The key step, so we think, was when the lobe-shaped fins of some bony fish evolved into limbs around 375 million years ago. But there was no fossil evidence for this. So Daeschler teamed up with Neil Shubin from the University of Chicago and together they scoured geological maps in search of surface rocks of the correct age. Their spotlight fell on Ellesmere Island in the high Canadian Arctic and, in the fourth summer of digging, they finally uncovered their quarry: a fish with four limbs. They called it Tiktaalik."

Evolution’s detectives: Closing in on missing links
 

james bond

Well-Known Member
Macroevolution in action

Wrong. Microevolution. They're still weeds, but notice resistance happened fast and didn't take years. How did your hero Borlaug use this to advantage?

The coelacanth was thought to be extinct until the latter half of last century.

Only by atheist scientists who thought they were millions of years old.

God musta dunit

Now you're getting it. He made fish and amphibians separate.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
I'm not into football. Like baseball and basketball. My friend's wife doesn't care for basketball because she thinks the same things happen on either side of the court (maybe she likes football). My friend and I both play basketball, so can appreciate the skills, physicality and stamina being exhibited. However, I can explain to her what's happening and why it is special. Then she can see that a play just happened and all the people are getting up out of their seats to applaud and high five each other. I don't explain everything. Just what she needs to know. You don't have to be a nerd.

I don't need to know comparative vertebrate anatomy to understand what you're talking about with transitive form from fish to amphibian.

An argument against it can be made in a few sentences. Like beauty, it is in the eyes of the beholder. Scientists imagine what a transitive form looks like and find fossils that can be made to appear to fit their preconceived notion. It's confirmation bias.

"For [Ted] Daeschler, who is based at the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the big question was: how did terrestrial animals evolve from fish? The key step, so we think, was when the lobe-shaped fins of some bony fish evolved into limbs around 375 million years ago. But there was no fossil evidence for this. So Daeschler teamed up with Neil Shubin from the University of Chicago and together they scoured geological maps in search of surface rocks of the correct age. Their spotlight fell on Ellesmere Island in the high Canadian Arctic and, in the fourth summer of digging, they finally uncovered their quarry: a fish with four limbs. They called it Tiktaalik."

Evolution’s detectives: Closing in on missing links


Whatever, guy, I am not trying to win anything and I sure
cannot tackle your attitude.

If you ever develop an interest,you've lots to learn.
Maybe you'd enjoy it.
 
Top