Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[John53]

Oh, now you got me wondering about caterpillars. And butterflies. Some moths are very pretty. Fish have eggs. So far what is there to see that fish are evolving?

Mud skippers, Cichlids in Lake Victoria, Flying Fish. How many do you want?

 

[cladking]

Let me go back for a moment to fish. It is said that fish evolved to become mammals and believers in evolution will give the sequence. But frankly it doesn't make sense any more to me. Do scientists know or estimate how many fish evolved from that state to become land dwellers?

I'm not sure we should think of aquatic animals that crawled out of the sea onto land as necessarily "fish". If this really happened (I believe it probably did) then I'd think of them as "fish like". I don't know but the fossil evidence really does appear to support such a thing.

Whatever changed into land animals were likely very very old ie-their ancestors dated back to long before life on earth so they had a wide array of ancestors.

I don't believe any fish "evolved" into anything through survival of the fittest or any other mechanism. I believe they changed, some adapted, some mutated but all these changes were strongly influenced by their genes and changes were precipitated by behavior at bottlenecks. The "fish" that crawled out of the ocean were the remnants of a species that all died except a few that spent some time out of the water. If the rest of the species hadn't gotten blown away these oddballs would have blended back into the population. Left on their own they bred a new species related to the behavior of spending time out of the water.

Darwin was wrong. He could not have been more wrong. Ancient writing was far more correct.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm not sure we should think of aquatic animals that crawled out of the sea onto land as necessarily "fish". If this really happened (I believe it probably did) then I'd think of them as "fish like". I don't know but the fossil evidence really does appear to support such a thing.

Whatever changed into land animals were likely very very old ie-their ancestors dated back to long before life on earth so they had a wide array of ancestors.

What? Ancestors of life on Earth that predates life on Earth? Where is the sense in a statement like this? Though, it is good to see that you are starting to recognize and accept evolution.

I don't believe any fish "evolved" into anything through survival of the fittest or any other mechanism.

Now there are no mechanisms. Before you claimed other mechanisms.

What you believe is irrelevant. Rejecting a theory, because of misguided and unevidenced notions is not evidence faulting a theory.

I believe they changed, some adapted, some mutated but all these changes were strongly influenced by their genes and changes were precipitated by behavior at bottlenecks.

A belief that has been widely refuted, but that you cling to for some unknown reason that is likely associated with a very limited and trivial understanding of the science, the evidence and what appears to be a belief in your own omniscience.

The "fish" that crawled out of the ocean were the remnants of a species that all died except a few that spent some time out of the water. If the rest of the species hadn't gotten blown away these oddballs would have blended back into the population. Left on their own they bred anew species related the behavior of spending time out of the water.

This is nonsensical.

Darwin was wrong.

No. He wasn't.

He could not have been more wrong.

He could have been, but he wasn't.

Ancient writing was far more correct.

Tells us nothing about evolution, science or theories.

 

[gnostic]

Oh, now you got me wondering about caterpillars. And butterflies. Some moths are very pretty. Fish have eggs. So far what is there to see that fish are evolving?

You seems to be stuck on the whole fish thing.

Other members have already explained to you, corrected you, but you have ignored it, and haven’t learned a thing.

As to insects, including butterflies & moths. I am not a bug person, meaning I don’t know much about their biology (except very basic things) or their evolution.

What I do know, is that they are invertebrate animals that grow exoskeletons over their fleshy bodies, hence they are arthropods like their marine & aquatic arthropod cousins.

The other thing I know is that the earlier and extinct species of the insects, were more likely the earliest land animals, before vertebrates such as the earliest & primitive species of amphibians.

You seemed to be ignoring that early primitive insects were land animals that arrived before the vertebrate amphibians.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Perhaps.

Widely demonstrated based on the evidence and stories like those you posted on this thread.

I'm certainly making more progress on pyramids.

That is not what I've read elsewhere. Sounds like you should stick to clad coinage.

But I've put less effort into change in species and have been studying it far longer. It doesn't ring true now and it didn't ring true when I was a child.

From what I have seen, the effort and basis of knowledge of both seem about equal. I'm sure there are a lot of things that don't ring true to you but that isn't a legitimate basis to reject those things.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You need to show this.

I've shown it to you until I'm blue in the face. You need to show that population bottlenecks are speciation events. You've never done that. All you have demonstrated is that a bottleneck is another biological concept that you haven't the first clue about.

The fossil record is not an experiment because it is wholly dependent on interpretation.

I never said it was. Your statement about things not claimed refutes nothing. And you are back at acting as if you know more than people trained in the field of discussion. I don't recognize you as omniscience no matter how much you try to project it.

One can see change in species in a very short time span and this is what gave ancient people the idea to grow their own food.

Is this a fact or just your belief? It seems to me like a belief you have convinced yourself is now a fact.

I think that agriculture evolved by happenstance and observation, but I don't pretend to know what those things that were observed were.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

"Species" change. They do not "Evolve".

They change and that change is called evolution. Semantic games again. That won't help you.

It's likely no life ever arose on earth rather the primordial soup was contaminated from the outside.

It could be, but I don't know the likelihood and don't know of any reason to consider you do either.

Nothing "evolves". Things change.

Of course. Semantic games always solve the problem of a lack of knowledge. You should consider copyrighting this.

The river you can't step into twice makes massive changes in fits and starts.

Who cares. It doesn't tell us anything.

It changes its course and catchment areas suddenly.

No. The course changes vary in length and are not all sudden. Show me.

Things seem to change gradually because we have an analog language in a reality with only ones and zeros.

They seem to change gradually, because the evidence says they do. You can play word games and fence all you like that only works on the ignorant and the uninformed.

...Depends on how you interpret it...

I would expect that someone interpreting an ancient language would be fluent in it. And if there isn't anything in that ancient language describing evolution, speciation, biology, etc., then it tells us nothing. You haven't demonstrated fluency, let alone that something relevant to biology is lurking there.

 

[gnostic]

I don't believe any fish "evolved" into anything through survival of the fittest or any other mechanism.

You are ignoring the earlier families and species of the lobe-finned fishes (class Sacropterygii) that developed bony wrist-like and digit-like structures. Some primitive sarcopterygian species even developed lungs, which survived and existed in some modern sarcopterygians, like the lungfishes.

The modern lungfishes and coelacanths are directly related to the early Sacropterygii species, so they are related distantly to the older tetrapod-like Sacropterygii species, but not descendants from them…nor are tetrapods descended from the modern coelacanths & lungfishes.

The tree of the Sacropterygii, and it is relation to the tetrapods are bit more complex, so I am not going try go through its branches, although I did try in some other earlier threads, and probably confused everyone.

 

[YoursTrue]

Mud skippers, Cichlids in Lake Victoria, Flying Fish. How many do you want?

Does anyone know from what type of fish (or species) these came? I mean like there are salmon today, cod fish, herring...they have not been observed, for instance, to be evolving, have they?

 

[McBell]

As I have said, while scientists may believe fossils explain or fit into the theory of evolution, there were are still are no video cameras showing the small changes in any organism leading to what happened insofar as the theory goes as fish developing legs and then breathing air and crawling on land as absolute air breathers. No certainty of anything happening like that now to fish, is there? Or apes, is there? Yes, so far as it can be seen, birds remain birds, fish remain fish right now.

The video camera nonsense again?
You really need a new song and dance.

 

[YoursTrue]

I haven't read all of it, but I wonder and I ask @cladking how she figures species change, slowly or suddenly. For me, I'd think it would take a long time to evolve from water breathing fish by mutation to land dwelling oxygen breathing animals. But note I really do think it did not happen that way. Because it's too incredible (i.e., not making sense). And yes, because the Bible says God made the organisms according to their kind, or genre. However you want to use the word. There have to be two of a set, I know the word 'kind' isn't liked too well by some, but I wonder -- there was once a type of fish, and it had mutations very slowly developing legs for instance. That is part of the theory. So little by little they had babies with similar characteristics further developing down the road more mutations that led them to crawl on land -- not by necessity but by sheer mutation. It starts with one mutation passing it on. One fish mutating and developing more and more until it no longer is salmon but salmon evolved into not a salmon. I use salmon of course as an example. Aside from birds growing smaller or larger beaks, they still are birds, yes, chimpanzees remain chimpanzees, fish still do remain fish.

 

[YoursTrue]

The video camera nonsense again?
You really need a new song and dance.

Except it's true. There is nothing to show anything today in the "fish" family or chimpanzee family that these are yet evolving.

 

[Eli G]

Except it's true. There is nothing to show anything today in the "fish" family or chimpanzee family that these are yet evolving.

Sure thing.

 

[YoursTrue]

You seems to be stuck on the whole fish thing.

Other members have already explained to you, corrected you, but you have ignored it, and haven’t learned a thing.

As to insects, including butterflies & moths. I am not a bug person, meaning I don’t know much about their biology (except very basic things) or their evolution.

What I do know, is that they are invertebrate animals that grow exoskeletons over their fleshy bodies, hence they are arthropods like their marine & aquatic arthropod cousins.

The other thing I know is that the earlier and extinct species of the insects, were more likely the earliest land animals, before vertebrates such as the earliest & primitive species of amphibians.

You seemed to be ignoring that early primitive insects were land animals that arrived before the vertebrate amphibians.

I know the theory goes way beyond the "fish thing." Starting from -- the primordial soup which they still can't figure out to humans. As if it all came about by natural means by mutations.

 

[McBell]

Except it's true. There is nothing to show anything today in the "fish" family or chimpanzee family that these are yet evolving.

Are you really going to demand video camera footage?

If so, then you must have video camera footage for creation, right?

 

[YoursTrue]

Are you really going to demand video camera footage?

If so, then you must have video camera footage for creation, right?

Scientists really think they can figure it out, don't they? No need to actually see it with their own eyes and mind, right?

 

[McBell]

Scientists really think they can figure it out, don't they? No need to actually see it with their own eyes and mind, right?

You did not address the point of the post you responded to.
Why is that?

Care to actually address it?

 

[Eli G]

I wonder which one of those four great apes in the last pic, they believe were the parents of the first human.

 

[McBell]

I wonder which one of those four great apes in the last pic, they believe were the parents of the first human.

How did you choose the four you chose from the 9 you presented?

 

[YoursTrue]

I wonder which one of those four great apes in the last pic, they believe were the parents of the first human.

I meant to say that I loved the picture.