Evolution based on random mutations and natural selection

[FearGod]

Endless of questions can be asked and answers are always a guess work for what had happened billions of years ago but they agree that no intelligence were required or any kind of design but it just happened to be so according to the circumstances and the events, they don't even dare to call it coincidences, chances and accidents because it'll show how stupid their theory is, and if we say mutations are random then they'll say "but natural selection isn't", if we ask why we can't see any change of kinds, then their answer will be "it takes millions of years for that to happen".

This thread is made as to ask questions for the evolutionists and hope the creationists (if they still do exist) to share their questions and ideas.

I start with one known question , hope to have a healthy argument than silly comments.

How the fish survived on land for millions of years before having legs ? fishes don't need legs in water but only fins, why the fish need to leave the water to live on land, was it due to curiosity or searching for foods ? what forced the fish to leaves its environment to entirely a different one ? humans lived close to the sea for millions of years will they eventually evolve into fishes (reverse evolution if i may say), i think human won't evolve into fishes regardless of the time they can live in the sea because it isn't their environment and they'll die before being evolved to a fish (like creature).

 

[Rick O'Shez]

If you are interested in a genuine discussion you might want to consider renaming the thread title and removing the word "stupidity".

 

[FearGod]

If you are interested in a genuine discussion you might want to consider renaming the thread title and removing the word "stupidity".

I hope one of the mods to do the job by removing the word "the stupidity", unfortunately it is not editable.

 

[Valjean]

Are these serious questions, FG, or are you just winding us up?
First, we can see evolution. We've even seen new species emerge.
As for your final paragraph, I think you know the answers to your questions.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Endless of questions can be asked and answers are always a guess work for what had happened billions of years ago but they agree that no intelligence were required or any kind of design but it just happened to be so according to the circumstances and the events, they don't even dare to call it coincidences, chances and accidents because it'll show how stupid their theory is, and if we say mutations are random then they'll say "but natural selection isn't", if we ask why we can't see any change of kinds, then their answer will be "it takes millions of years for that to happen".

The stupidity of evolution theory is readily apparent, but then still you actually have to do science and describe how organisms are designed. Which is to describe how organisms are chosen to be the way they are.

You should try and get some knowledge about how decisionmaking works. Simply look for the best theory which describes the universe in terms of that freedom is real and relevant, that things are chosen to be the way they are.

 

[Valjean]

Evolution theory isn't stupid. Intelligent people all over the world believe in it.
If anything is readily apparent it's the stupidity of magic.

 

[HonestJoe]

but they agree that no intelligence were required or any kind of design

It is true that no intelligence is required for evolutionary theory to be correct and there is no clear evidence of conscious design in the process. That isn't the same as claiming either of those are impossible but even if either were the case, evolutionary theory could still be entirely accurate.

they don't even dare to call it coincidences, chances and accidents because it'll show how stupid their theory is

Use of those words don't demonstrate "stupidity" of evolutionary theory. They're often dishonestly misused to misrepresent evolutionary theory to falsely claim it's "stupid". I do hope you're not trying to do that.

How the fish survived on land for millions of years before having legs ?

Legs aren't required to survive on land. Snakes have no legs. There are some fish around today that spend some time out of water, often in dry seasons when there is little water around. In the past, some such species would develop towards hiding somewhere moist and effectively hibernating though the dry season but others might develop towards be more active and therefore benefiting from greater ability to move on land. Those that happened to develop in that direction would start to spend longer periods on land and less in the water, hence many of today's amphibians.

Yet again, this is basic information that you could access in much more effective and accurate forms from all sorts of scientific and educational sources. Asking them here, on a relgious discussion forum, clearly has an ulterior motive that you would gain a little more credit for being open about. The attempted trap-door questions aren't working for you.

 

[FearGod]

Evolution theory isn't stupid. Intelligent people all over the world believe in it.
If anything is readily apparent it's the stupidity of magic.

But you believe that the nature can unintentionally do magics, can you believe if i say to you that i can make a small seed that can grow to a huge tree, you may say that i'm a magician or liar but if the nature then it's normal and very rational thing to happen because nature is an inanimate and an amazing things can be done without prior plan or design.

 

[FearGod]

Legs aren't required to survive on land. Snakes have no legs. .

If not required then why evolved at first place.

 

[SomeRandom]

You are aware of the Mudskipper, right? The fish that literally lives out of water!

Eels can also travel over land if need be. (Pssst, they have no legs either!)

Then of course there is the walking catfish. A catfish that can breathe on land, walk on fins and survive out of water quite efficiently.

Like this is stuff that took me literally seconds to Google.

 

[HonestJoe]

If not required then why evolved at first place.

They can obviously be beneficial but that doesn't mean they're required. There are multiple ways for a species to achieve fundamental survival, depending on their environment and circumstances. That's why there are all sorts of vastly different species out there.

 

[philbo]

I have a question, too..

Why do creationists always post stupid questions which demonstrate not so much a lack of understanding as a willful desire to misrepresent?

Did this strawman evolve, or was it (un)intelligently designed?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

If not required then why evolved at first place.

I am not sure why you think asking unintelligent and poorly thought through questions a reasonable way to defend creationism.

Even a child could give you many reasons why in many circumstances legs are advantageous, they would also be able to give you examples why in some circumstances they might not be appropriate

there are also many examples where mamals birds and amphibians have changed the structure of limbs to better serve other purposes. Or have lost the use of other organs, such as eyes, through lack of need or adverse conditions.

Wilful ignorance seems to be a requirement for supporters of creationism.

 

[Nietzsche]

If not required then why evolved at first place.

It's not a conscious decision to evolve. It's a small change in an animal that sometimes results in it doing better than its competitors. You keep stacking those changes and the animal becomes more & more different. But it's not just this one animal getting the changes. All animals are changing as well. The environment is changing too. What was useful one year might kill it the next.

It's sort of an arms-race, only one where the parties involved have no say in what they 'produce'.

 

[Jainarayan]

If anything is readily apparent it's the stupidity of magic.

I have now put a curse on you for being faithless.

Nah, j/k.

 

[FearGod]

You are aware of the Mudskipper, right? The fish that literally lives out of water!

Eels can also travel over land if need be. (Pssst, they have no legs either!)

Then of course there is the walking catfish. A catfish that can breathe on land, walk on fins and survive out of water quite efficiently.

Like this is stuff that took me literally seconds to Google.

And for how long they're doing so ? search again

 

[Parsimony]

How the fish survived on land for millions of years before having legs ? fishes don't need legs in water but only fins, why the fish need to leave the water to live on land, was it due to curiosity or searching for foods ? what forced the fish to leaves its environment to entirely a different one ? humans lived close to the sea for millions of years will they eventually evolve into fishes (reverse evolution if i may say), i think human won't evolve into fishes regardless of the time they can live in the sea because it isn't their environment and they'll die before being evolved to a fish (like creature).

You sure do like straw-men, don't you?

 

[HonestJoe]

And for how long they're doing so ? search again

Why should they? This is a discussion forum, not a random Google request game. If you have an actual point to discuss in relation to the development of these species, you really need to tell us what it is so we can, you know, discuss it.

 

[LuisDantas]

Perhaps ironically, this is easily the most reasonable and intelligent thread that you have created on the matter in quite a while, FearGod. At least now that the title has been corrected.

Endless of questions can be asked and answers are always a guess work for what had happened billions of years ago but they agree that no intelligence were required or any kind of design but it just happened to be so according to the circumstances and the events, they don't even dare to call it coincidences, chances and accidents because it'll show how stupid their theory is, and if we say mutations are random then they'll say "but natural selection isn't", if we ask why we can't see any change of kinds, then their answer will be "it takes millions of years for that to happen".

That is correct, except that:

1. It is not just a matter of guesswork, far from that. There is quite a lot of research, mainly in biology and archeology, that evidences and supports the theory.

Yes, I know lots of people say otherwise. They are lying, perhaps out of ignorance or need for social acceptance. That is an unfortunate reality that must be faced upfront.

2. Evolution did not stop billions of years ago. It is still happening and has been consistently observed, even manipulated.

3. Events that are shaped by circunstances (such as, say, rivers flowing from higher altitudes to lower ones) are by definition not coincidences.

4. For that reason, the word "stupid" is truly misplaced in your paragraph. Nor is "daring" necessary to call natural selection "coincidences". Instead, it might appear coincidental for those who do not understand what natural selection is.

5. "Kinds" are so vague a concept as to be meaningless, and natural selection of course needs several generations to take effect in a clear way. But contrary to what you state, it is both observable and observed.

This thread is made as to ask questions for the evolutionists and hope the creationists (if they still do exist) to share their questions and ideas.

I start with one known question, hope to have a healthy argument than silly comments.

How the fish survived on land for millions of years before having legs? fishes don't need legs in water but only fins, why the fish need to leave the water to live on land, was it due to curiosity or searching for foods ? what forced the fish to leaves its environment to entirely a different one ? humans lived close to the sea for millions of years will they eventually evolve into fishes (reverse evolution if i may say), i think human won't evolve into fishes regardless of the time they can live in the sea because it isn't their environment and they'll die before being evolved to a fish (like creature).

These questions betray a lack of understanding of the basic concept of natural selection.

Before I answer, I want to ask you to read a bit about natural selection and describe it to me in your own words. It is wasteful to attempt to explain it to you repeatedly while attempting to answer questions that need a fair understanding of that concept.

 

[LuisDantas]

But you believe that the nature can unintentionally do magics, can you believe if i say to you that i can make a small seed that can grow to a huge tree, you may say that i'm a magician or liar but if the nature then it's normal and very rational thing to happen because nature is an inanimate and an amazing things can be done without prior plan or design.

This is a very difficult text to parse, unfortunately. I'm not even sure whether it is a question or not.

We know, of course, that seeds can and do grown into huge trees. Whether that qualifies as magic is a matter of personal judgement, I think.