Evolution of what?

[Valjean]

@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?

Life's been evolving for 4 Billion years. That's a lot of time.

 

[GardenLady]

Someone told me somewhere here that some of the atheists here are so agressive with believers because they carry with them a trauma since when they were religious.

This is a horrendous and dishonest description of those who accept the scientific evidence supporting deep time and evolution. In fact, most mainstream Christians do. Your posts would rather push people away from your denomination that persuade them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is a horrendous and dishonest description of those who accept the scientific evidence supporting deep time and evolution. In fact, most mainstream Christians do. Your posts would rather push people away from your denomination that persuade them.

He is probably unaware that "deep time" arose with early Christian geologists who also refuted the flood myth of Noah's Ark.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It seems to me that evolutionists can't see the whole system like I want to... Maybe they are forced to see only one chapter at a time, and so on, one by one, until they finish the story in the reality of the modern biodiversity. How convenient!

I prefer to see the complete picture, to realize all the fiction that is in that story. I need to think by myself.

And here again: What did an apple tree have to adapt to and be able to survive to become a banana plant? ...I am referring to that evolution of plants; I am not satisfied with the simplism of some storytellers.

You should sign up for some scientific courses on evolution. You don't seem to know that much about it.

 

[shunyadragon]

We think similar ... since an ape never became a human...

True, an ape never became a human, but we did evolve from common primate ancestors.

 

[shunyadragon]

@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?

Think? I doubt it. Addup? Tou apparently flunked basic math.

 

[Subduction Zone]

True, an ape never became a human, but we did evolve from common primate ancestors.

I would say that a modern ape never became a human. Our common primate ancestor that we share with chimps was an ape, and so is the one that humans and chimps share with gorillas and the one that we share with orangutans.

 

[shunyadragon]

I would say that a modern ape never became a human. Our common primate ancestor that we share with chimps was an ape, and so is the one that humans and chimps share with gorillas and the one that we share with orangutans.

Poor terminology. I prefer primate ancestry to avoid confusion.

 

[YoursTrue]

The particular wonderment I have now about the theory of evolution is the guesswork that seems many engage in and adhere to. It's not that I don't have questions about other things, but my curiosity is about the things like switching from fish to humans (in the long run...I mean evolving not switching although it should not be a misnomer) and how evolutionists figure by evidence that fish became mammals as if that happened by incremental genetic changes.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The particular wonderment I have now about the theory of evolution is the guesswork that seems many engage in and adhere to. It's not that I don't have questions about other things, but my curiosity is about the things like switching from fish to humans (in the long run...I mean evolving not switching although it should not be a misnomer) and how evolutionists figure by evidence that fish became mammals as if that happened by incremental genetic changes.

What amazes me is how little you seem to have learned in your time here. It is as if you don't want to learn and would rather create a straw man version of the theory and the science to attack as if that is what others accept.

What are you calling "guesswork"? Is it real? That it isn't real seems most likely. Is that a proper characterization or just one convenient to denial?

Switching is a misnomer and in no way reflects what is observed or has been stated in defense of the science here or anywhere.

The evidence demonstrates that fish and mammals share a common ancestry. All this time here and you have failed to show otherwise. From what I have observed and come to conclude, your best efforts seem to be in the apparent purposeful mischaracterization of the science, sing-songy posts that are difficult to understand or see sense in and attempts to paint yourself as some sort of victim while showing the least respect for the views of others. You literally followed me around for months making snide comments, snarky remarks and veiled accusations to gain my attention while I was ignoring you. That is the witness that I have received loud and clear.

Do you have anything that would challenge the theory or is it just more of the same old?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Poor terminology. I prefer primate ancestry to avoid confusion.

There is no confusion if one uses cladistics. And to make a separate class of other great apes just because they are not human is very confusing. Paraphyletic groups lead to a misunderstanding of biology and evolution.

 

[shunyadragon]

This is a horrendous and dishonest description of those who accept the scientific evidence supporting deep time and evolution. In fact, most mainstream Christians do. Your posts would rather push people away from your denomination that persuade them.

Itis ost likely the beliefs of literal Creationism of their denomination that supports them.

 

[Valjean]

True, an ape never became a human, but we did evolve from common primate ancestors.

The primates include lemurs, lorisis, tarsiers, galagos, new and old world monkeys, and lesser and greater apes -- the latter including humans. We are a genus of ape.

 

[Valjean]

The particular wonderment I have now about the theory of evolution is the guesswork that seems many engage in and adhere to. It's not that I don't have questions about other things, but my curiosity is about the things like switching from fish to humans (in the long run...I mean evolving not switching although it should not be a misnomer) and how evolutionists figure by evidence that fish became mammals as if that happened by incremental genetic changes.

How many times must we remind you that science is not guesswork? You don't seem to understand the process of science. You persist in equating it with religion.

 

[McBell]

You persist in equating it with religion.

Seems to me they know that religion will never make it up to the status of science, so they are forced to reduce science down to religion.

 

[Audie]

You should sign up for some scientific courses on evolution. You don't seem to know that much about it.

Actually a lot less than nothing.

 

[YoursTrue]

What amazes me is how little you seem to have learned in your time here. It is as if you don't want to learn and would rather create a straw man version of the theory and the science to attack as if that is what others accept.

What are you calling "guesswork"? Is it real? That it isn't real seems most likely. Is that a proper characterization or just one convenient to denial?

Switching is a misnomer and in no way reflects what is observed or has been stated in defense of the science here or anywhere.

The evidence demonstrates that fish and mammals share a common ancestry. All this time here and you have failed to show otherwise. From what I have observed and come to conclude, your best efforts seem to be in the apparent purposeful mischaracterization of the science, sing-songy posts that are difficult to understand or see sense in and attempts to paint yourself as some sort of victim while showing the least respect for the views of others. You literally followed me around for months making snide comments, snarky remarks and veiled accusations to gain my attention while I was ignoring you. That is the witness that I have received loud and clear.

Do you have anything that would challenge the theory or is it just more of the same old?

I learned a lot. There are fossils and dates assigned to these fossils.

 

[Valjean]

I learned a lot. There are fossils and dates assigned to these fossils.

...and the diversity and average complexity of these forms have increased over time.

 

[YoursTrue]

I would say that a modern ape never became a human. Our common primate ancestor that we share with chimps was an ape, and so is the one that humans and chimps share with gorillas and the one that we share with orangutans.

A "modern" ape never became a human? Can you explain that remark? Let me guess. You mean modern apes are not human, is that what you mean?
Plus you don't know what 'ape' all are said by most evolutionists to share...furthermore, I have been doing research about the theory of evolution and find scientists are disputing among themselves about so many ideas inherent in the theory with specifics.
Anyway, have a nice evening, and thanks y'all for the discussion. It is quite interesting, especially when researching the comments of scientists deeply involved in the recognition of whatever theory might be explored. While it can be more than complicated, I have learned a lot and that right now about the deep controversies among scientists who are deeply involved in the theory. Soooo, have a good evening. Truly.

 

[YoursTrue]

...and the diversity and average complexity of these forms have increased over time.

I looked up some stuff about mutations. (The scientific) jury is not only out but actually undefinable regarding the accuracy of the theory at large. Thanks. I'm getting close to finish my examination of what scientists believe then and now about evolution, the theory of.