Evolution of what?

[Eli G]

Many evolutionists are so obsessed with the idea of a chain of related animals that they forget that the environment around them must have evolved along with or faster than these animals' supposed biological evolution, or else they would not have survived in a hostile environment like the one that suggests a universe in formation.

Why do evolutionists limit their evolutionary theory only to animals, and forget about the environment that also had to be transformed to welcome them upon their "evolutionary" arrival?

For example: when did the water appear in the evolution of the animals?

 

[Heyo]

Many evolutionists are so obsessed with the idea of a chain of related animals that they forget that the environment around them must have evolved along with or faster than these animals' supposed biological evolution, or else they would not have survived in a hostile environment like the one that suggests a universe in formation.

Why do evolutionists limit their evolutionary theory only to animals, and forget about the environment that also had to be transformed to welcome them upon their "evolutionary" arrival?

For example: when did the water appear in the evolution of the animals?

Evolution is only defined for living things (practically) or more precisely for entities which reproduce with inheritance and random mutations. (That can also apply to computer programs but that is recently and niche.)

 

[Eli G]

Well, I want to define a new "evolution" about the sorroundings of the alleged evolved animals ... so, what?
Don't you think that the environment must have change for the new arrivals of new animals?
Like: when did the dry land appear for those walking animals?

 

[Valjean]

Many evolutionists are so obsessed with the idea of a chain of related animals that they forget that the environment around them must have evolved along with or faster than these animals' supposed biological evolution, or else they would not have survived in a hostile environment like the one that suggests a universe in formation.

"Evolutionists" are not obsessed with any chain. We accept evolution for the same reason we accept the germ theory: because there is abundant supporting evidence.
Yes, environments change. If organisms cannot adapt they die out. This has happened to most species we're aware of.

Why do evolutionists limit their evolutionary theory only to animals, and forget about the environment that also had to be transformed to welcome them upon their "evolutionary" arrival?

Because by "evolution" we mean biological evolution, driven by reproductive variation. The environment also changes, but by entirely different mechanisms.

For example: when did the water appear in the evolution of the animals?

Before there were any animals to evolve.

 

[ChristineM]

Many evolutionists are so obsessed with the idea of a chain of related animals that they forget that the environment around them must have evolved along with or faster than these animals' supposed biological evolution, or else they would not have survived in a hostile environment like the one that suggests a universe in formation.

Why do evolutionists limit their evolutionary theory only to animals, and forget about the environment that also had to be transformed to welcome them upon their "evolutionary" arrival?

For example: when did the water appear in the evolution of the animals?

The evolution of life transformed the environment making it oxygen rich which in turn allowed more complex life to evolve.

It is said that water was on earth before evolution of life, in fact water was essential to life.

 

[Valjean]

Well, I want to define a new "evolution" about the sorroundings of the alleged evolved animals ... so, what?
Don't you think that the environment must have change for the new arrivals of new animals?
Like: when did the dry land appear for those walking animals?

The environment changed independent of any animals. If any animals couldn't adapt to the changes, they went extinct.
This seems a pretty simple concept to me.

 

[Eli G]

I am accustomed to the idea of a direct creation by God in different stages, each one giving rise to the conditions that would be needed for the next creation... and so on for six stages called "days" in the Bible. It is even said that from time to time God inspected what he had just created or formed to see if it could be considered excellent (Gen. 1:10,12,18,21,25).

Why are evolutionist so focused only in the alleged "evolution" of animals if the environment must have change also?

I want to hear more about it; you, guys, are reading just a paragraph of that story of fiction, but people need the whole story, like the one I learn out of the Bible ...

 

[SkepticThinker]

I am accustomed to the idea of a direct creation by God in different stages, each one giving rise to the conditions that would be needed for the next creation... and so on for six stages called "days" in the Bible. It is even said that from time to time God inspected what he had just created or formed to see if it could be considered excellent (Gen. 1:10,12,18,21,25).

Why are evolutionist so focused only in the alleged "evolution" of animals if the environment must have change also?

I want to hear more about it; you, guys, are reading just a paragraph of that story of fiction, but people need the whole story, like the one I learn out of the Bible ...

You've been given some responses ... maybe try acknowledging and responding to them.

 

[Eli G]

@Valjean I got it ... the point is it's not that simple if we think on the time it took, the earth, to be what we are seeing right now to receive the animals you say took so long to evolve. Something doesn't add up, don't you think?

 

[King Phenomenon]

No one’s forgetting

 

[Left Coast]

I am accustomed to the idea of a direct creation by God in different stages, each one giving rise to the conditions that would be needed for the next creation... and so on for six stages called "days" in the Bible. It is even said that from time to time God inspected what he had just created or formed to see if it could be considered excellent (Gen. 1:10,12,18,21,25).

Why are evolutionist so focused only in the alleged "evolution" of animals if the environment must have change also?

I want to hear more about it; you, guys, are reading just a paragraph of that story of fiction, but people need the whole story, like the one I learn out of the Bible ...

Scientists do study the development of non-living things, for example in geology or cosmology.

If you want to know about water, here's something that ought to keep you busy for a while: Origin of water on Earth - Wikipedia

 

[Eddi]

Life forms created Earth's atmosphere so in that sense evolution effected something other than life

 

[Eli G]

Animals and the environment are in a symbiotic relationship. There cannot be fish where there is no water, nor quadrupeds where there is no dry land, nor herbivores where there is no grass, nor birds where the air is not breathable, etc. Do you understand my point?

However, evolutionists disconnect the relationship between environment and evolution... from my point of view, this disconnection causes them to stop being objective in the comprehension of the time of appearance of animals and the changes that actually occurred on the planet before their appearance (or creation).

This totally distorts the supposed chronological line of appearance of the links in that supposed evolutionary chain. So it's not as simple as it may seem.

 

[Left Coast]

Animals and the environment are in a symbiotic relationship. There cannot be fish where there is no water, nor quadrupeds where there is no dry land, nor herbivores where there is no grass, nor birds where the air is not breathable, etc. Do you understand my point?

However, evolutionists disconnect the relationship between environment and evolution... from my point of view, this disconnection causes them to stop being objective in the comprehension of the time of appearance of animals and the changes that actually occurred on the planet before their appearance (or creation).

This totally distorts the supposed chronological line of appearance of the links in that supposed evolutionary chain. So it's not as simple as it may seem.

Water came first. Then life came after.

What's confusing or "disconnected" there?

 

[Valjean]

I am accustomed to the idea of a direct creation by God in different stages, each one giving rise to the conditions that would be needed for the next creation... and so on for six stages called "days" in the Bible. It is even said that from time to time God inspected what he had just created or formed to see if it could be considered excellent (Gen. 1:10,12,18,21,25).

This narrative is unevidenced. It's an interpretation of a fable in a book of ancient folklore.

Why are evolutionist so focused only in the alleged "evolution" of animals if the environment must have change also?

I don't understand your question. Environment changes. Animals adapt or die.

Summer becomes Winter. If you continue wearing only shorts and a t-shirt, ie: fail to adapt, you will freeze. Your environment changed independent of you. It was up to you to adapt.

I want to hear more about it; you, guys, are reading just a paragraph of that story of fiction, but people need the whole story, like the one I learn out of the Bible ...

But the Bible is just that, a story written by people with almost no knowledge of the world, natural history, or how things worked. There are no explanations in the Bible, only attributions of agency.
Science researches and explains. It relies on tested evidence. The Bible does not.

 

[Eli G]

@Valjean For any non-believer the Bible can be whatever he wants. For a believer is a Revelation that came from our Creator. I don't mind your opinion so, limit your posts to the topic and stop that line of argumentation... it's just out of place, so move on.

@Left Coast , sum the times and compare with the age of the Universe. Look at the earth now and tell me: how much time really need everything to "evolve" and become what we see?

 

[Valjean]

@Valjean For any non-believer the Bible can be whatever he wants. For a believer is a Revelation that came from our Creator. I don't mind your opinion so, limit your posts to the topic and stop that line of argumentation... it's just out of place, so move on.

You made an unevidenced claim in a debate forum. You've offered nothing supporting your claim. My reply was entirely relevant to your post, and I'm prepared to support it.

@Left Coast , sum the times and compare with the age of the Universe. Look at the earth now and tell me: how much time really need everything to "evolve" and become what we see?

 

[ChristineM]

However, evolutionists disconnect the relationship between environment and evolution.

Bull, it is known that environment directs evolution.

 

[Left Coast]

@Left Coast , sum the times and compare with the age of the Universe.

Sum what times?

Look at the earth now and tell me: how much time really need everything to "evolve" and become what we see?

I don't think I understand your question or what it has to do with what I said.

Again, water came first, then life came after. What is confusing about that to you?

 

[McBell]

Well, I want to define a new "evolution" about the sorroundings of the alleged evolved animals ... so, what?
Don't you think that the environment must have change for the new arrivals of new animals?
Like: when did the dry land appear for those walking animals?

Just add it to your growing collection of evolution strawmen.