I have two questions about monkeys and evolution

[joelr]

Evidence? I know there are fish that flop out of water and flop for a while, then go back to water, but where is the evidence that floppy fish became landwalkers permanently? Not conjecture, but evidence.

The fossil record shows
i. The Sarcopterygii (lobefin fish)
ii. The Actinopterygii (fin-ray fish)
were partial land animals first, then Amphibians show up as mostly fish and adapt to land quicker. One of the first was a fish but had limbs, hands and feet for walking on land. Then amphibians begin to live more and more on land.

many of the intermediate steps are here
https://www2.gwu.edu/~darwin/BiSc151/Tetrapods/Amphibians.html

 

[metis]

I looked at the article and aside from the possibility of statements without backup, please explain what you assert, thank you.

Then you either didn't actually read it or you just blocked it from you mind as it's there.

 

[YoursTrue]

Then you either didn't actually read it or you just blocked it from you mind as it's there.

Are you saying you understand and can explain everything the authors said? If so, please do answer questions I may have in reference to the article itself, ok?

 

[YoursTrue]

The fossil record shows
i. The Sarcopterygii (lobefin fish)
ii. The Actinopterygii (fin-ray fish)
were partial land animals first, then Amphibians show up as mostly fish and adapt to land quicker. One of the first was a fish but had limbs, hands and feet for walking on land. Then amphibians begin to live more and more on land.

many of the intermediate steps are here
https://www2.gwu.edu/~darwin/BiSc151/Tetrapods/Amphibians.html

That doesn't prove evolution. Yes, I know, science doesn't prove anything, but still -- that there is evidence of fish and then after that land-dwelling animals doesn't prove (or show) evolution -- except, of course, to those who doubt what the Bible says so they figure well, it must have evolved by "natural selection," but rather it is in harmony with what the Bible says about the order of creation of living beings on the earth. First fish or aquatic beings and flying creatures, then land animals, in that order.

 

[YoursTrue]

Basing truth on ancient religious myths is a faulty way to find what is actually true. Islam bases truth on their scripture because it says God wrote it. It also says Christians and Jews believe false things, lie and have screwed up the true message of Yahweh. Their proof? Well it says so in scripture. So it must be true. By 2050 Islam will outnumber Christianity in the US.
I would like to think critical thinking would be more popular by then but probably not. The majority religion will believe you have messed up Yahwehs message and are going to hell (a painful doom).
This is what you get when truth is based on claims that cannot be verified and have no evidence and emotional attachments to claims.

In order to truly understand the Bible, one must really have the blessing of God. Not all will have it, no matter how religious or devout they may claim to be. For instance, while the words 'hell' and 'torture' are used in the scriptures, a true (or honest) analysis shows that God OR the devil do not literally, physically, or mentally torture anyone eternally. But that takes time and honesty and God's blessing to understand. I'm rather sure, for the sake of discussion, that not all will agree. As Jesus spoke of the blind leading the blind -- he knew. He was speaking also of the religious leaders.

 

[ppp]

but rather it is in harmony with what the Bible says

It doesn't matter. There is a demonstrated mechanism for the evolution of biological mechanisms. There is no such thing for your particular sacred text. You denials of those two facts is hollow indignation.

 

[joelr]

That doesn't prove evolution. Yes, I know, science doesn't prove anything, but still -- that there is evidence of fish and then after that land-dwelling animals doesn't prove (or show) evolution -- except, of course, to those who doubt what the Bible says so they figure well, it must have evolved by "natural selection," but rather it is in harmony with what the Bible says about the order of creation of living beings on the earth. First fish or aquatic beings and flying creatures, then land animals, in that order.

No there are fish then we see fossils of creatures that walk on land part time and stages in between. Until we get to amphibians who spend most time on land and some time in water? How hard is that? You seem to be resisting at every turn? "oh that doesn't prove evolution.."?? Uh, it's one small part?
It actually isn't in harmony with the Bible because there are creatures that are water and land creatures.

Why are you still talking Genesis? Christian scholarship admits it's a mythical narrative? You seem to want to ask for information then just say "well that doesn't prove anything and GOD!". If you do not care about learning the complexities of evolution why bother playing games?
Evolution isn't just shown in animal changes, it's seen in every level. Cell structures are built on older structures in ways you would expect if things evolved rather than were made specifically for us.

 

[joelr]

In order to truly understand the Bible, one must really have the blessing of God. Not all will have it, no matter how religious or devout they may claim to be. For instance, while the words 'hell' and 'torture' are used in the scriptures, a true (or honest) analysis shows that God OR the devil do not literally, physically, or mentally torture anyone eternally. But that takes time and honesty and God's blessing to understand. I'm rather sure, for the sake of discussion, that not all will agree. As Jesus spoke of the blind leading the blind -- he knew. He was speaking also of the religious leaders.

Right and to really understand the Quran and the true updates to Christianity one must have the blessing of Allah. Maybe one day you will get the right blessing and learn the updates. It's true. It says so.

 

[metis]

Are you saying you understand and can explain everything the authors said? If so, please do answer questions I may have in reference to the article itself, ok?

Sorry, but I have lost interest.

 

[YoursTrue]

No there are fish then we see fossils of creatures that walk on land part time and stages in between. Until we get to amphibians who spend most time on land and some time in water? How hard is that? You seem to be resisting at every turn? "oh that doesn't prove evolution.."?? Uh, it's one small part?
It actually isn't in harmony with the Bible because there are creatures that are water and land creatures.

Why are you still talking Genesis? Christian scholarship admits it's a mythical narrative? You seem to want to ask for information then just say "well that doesn't prove anything and GOD!". If you do not care about learning the complexities of evolution why bother playing games?
Evolution isn't just shown in animal changes, it's seen in every level. Cell structures are built on older structures in ways you would expect if things evolved rather than were made specifically for us.

I'm talking Genesis because it's brief and not a scientific meandering treatise, but the sequence is reasonable. First land -- then water creatures -- then land creatures -- etc. How did they know unless they knew from someone?
OK, so what fossils prove to you (Ok, not prove but rather show you or demonstrate) other than pictures or conjectures that organisms evolved by "natural selection" from water dwelling organisms (like fish) to land dwellers? I've looked at these things like land flopping fish, ostensibly moving on (evolving) to become total land dwellers, but this does not show/demonstrate/ or the worst word yet, prove evolution. Heavens to betsy, not -- prove. Because it doesn't. So some spend "some time" in water, and "some time on land," this does not mean that they evolved to or from such. Others spend all their time in water. And others cannot breathe in water.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sorry, but I have lost interest.

(meantime -- I have not, and find it very interesting that people post links they can't explain in detail about science. Please understand this is my perception and of course, not an insult. These posts have proved very helpful and informative to me...so thanks anyway.)

 

[YoursTrue]

The fossil record shows
i. The Sarcopterygii (lobefin fish)
ii. The Actinopterygii (fin-ray fish)
were partial land animals first, then Amphibians show up as mostly fish and adapt to land quicker. One of the first was a fish but had limbs, hands and feet for walking on land. Then amphibians begin to live more and more on land.

many of the intermediate steps are here
https://www2.gwu.edu/~darwin/BiSc151/Tetrapods/Amphibians.html

Thank you for the link. At this point, and also after I looked at the link, I am more than ever convinced that evolution of "natural selection" is not, and cannot, be true. Because -- the complicated parts (to use that term) of any organism including those considered the most basic -- simply are impossible to come about by so-called "natural selection." Why? Because they are inexplicably complex, without proof of how these complexities came about except by conjecture. Plants also are so complex that I no longer believe in evolution as taught according to Darwinian natural selection premise. But thanks anyway, I did look at it and really do see that the scientists there are relying upon the theory in order to place the fossils.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm talking Genesis because it's brief and not a scientific meandering treatise, but the sequence is reasonable. First land -- then water creatures -- then land creatures -- etc. How did they know unless they knew from someone?
OK, so what fossils prove to you (Ok, not prove but rather show you or demonstrate) other than pictures or conjectures that organisms evolved by "natural selection" from water dwelling organisms (like fish) to land dwellers? I've looked at these things like land flopping fish, ostensibly moving on (evolving) to become total land dwellers, but this does not show/demonstrate/ or the worst word yet, prove evolution. Heavens to betsy, not -- prove. Because it doesn't. So some spend "some time" in water, and "some time on land," this does not mean that they evolved to or from such. Others spend all their time in water. And others cannot breathe in water.

You've just completely contradicted yourself.

You just said the Bible's explanation of land dwellers to water dwellers to land dwellers is "reasonable" ("how did they know unless they knew from someone?"), and then right after that you claimed that the evolutionary demonstration of evolution from land dwellers, to water dwellers to land dwellers isn't based on factual information. So is it a fact, or not?

 

[joelr]

I'm talking Genesis because it's brief and not a scientific meandering treatise, but the sequence is reasonable. First land -- then water creatures -- then land creatures -- etc. How did they know unless they knew from someone?
OK, so what fossils prove to you (Ok, not prove but rather show you or demonstrate) other than pictures or conjectures that organisms evolved by "natural selection" from water dwelling organisms (like fish) to land dwellers? I've looked at these things like land flopping fish, ostensibly moving on (evolving) to become total land dwellers, but this does not show/demonstrate/ or the worst word yet, prove evolution. Heavens to betsy, not -- prove. Because it doesn't. So some spend "some time" in water, and "some time on land," this does not mean that they evolved to or from such. Others spend all their time in water. And others cannot breathe in water.

Well you wanted evidence of fish to land dwellers. You asked for that? Now you say you have seen intermediate stages of fish slowly becoming land creatures? The fossil record shows fish slowly becoming land animals. I thought you wanted to see that? Yes there are animals that spent most time in water and evolved to full time land creatures. The same organism shows changes over time that allow it to become a land animal. But you have also seen the emergence of chimp-like animals that began some walking all the way to modern humans.

Genesis knew stuff because it was re-working Mesopotamian creation stories. They also started out with water, things come from the water first.


"The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis. Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.

 

[joelr]

Thank you for the link. At this point, and also after I looked at the link, I am more than ever convinced that evolution of "natural selection" is not, and cannot, be true. Because -- the complicated parts (to use that term) of any organism including those considered the most basic -- simply are impossible to come about by so-called "natural selection." Why? Because they are inexplicably complex, without proof of how these complexities came about except by conjecture. Plants also are so complex that I no longer believe in evolution as taught according to Darwinian natural selection premise. But thanks anyway, I did look at it and really do see that the scientists there are relying upon the theory in order to place the fossils.

Natural selection is not evolution. It's one part. When someone with a PhD in evolutionary science, who actually understands the process says it's impossible then that might be something.
I suspect you have an interest in not believing evolution because it contradicts a belief you hold in a myth and the belief cannot bend. I mean today I've seen people say the only people who can talk about the truth of the Bible are people who fully believe it 100%? I see how they rope people in.


Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] These characteristics are the expressions of genes that are passed on from parent to offspring during reproduction. Different characteristics tend to exist within any given population as a result of mutation, genetic recombination and other sources of genetic variation.[3] Evolution occurs when evolutionary processes such as natural selection (including sexual selection) and genetic drift act on this variation, resulting in certain characteristics becoming more common or rare within a population.[4] The evolutionary pressures that determine whether a characteristic should be common or rare within a population constantly change, resulting in the change in heritable characteristics arising over successive generations. It is this process of evolution that has given rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms and molecules.[5][6]

 

[YoursTrue]

Natural selection is not evolution. It's one part. When someone with a PhD in evolutionary science, who actually understands the process says it's impossible then that might be something.
I suspect you have an interest in not believing evolution because it contradicts a belief you hold in a myth and the belief cannot bend. I mean today I've seen people say the only people who can talk about the truth of the Bible are people who fully believe it 100%? I see how they rope people in.


Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] These characteristics are the expressions of genes that are passed on from parent to offspring during reproduction. Different characteristics tend to exist within any given population as a result of mutation, genetic recombination and other sources of genetic variation.[3] Evolution occurs when evolutionary processes such as natural selection (including sexual selection) and genetic drift act on this variation, resulting in certain characteristics becoming more common or rare within a population.[4] The evolutionary pressures that determine whether a characteristic should be common or rare within a population constantly change, resulting in the change in heritable characteristics arising over successive generations. It is this process of evolution that has given rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms and molecules.[5][6]

I don't believe I ever said natural selection was evolution, but let me ask you this: is evolution BY "natural selection" the way it (evolution) goes? I mean you give a nice explanation of natural selection incorporated in the process of evolution, but -- it does not add up insofar as fishes becoming (eventually) mammals. Sorry, it doesn't add up at all.

 

[joelr]

I don't believe I ever said natural selection was evolution, but let me ask you this: is evolution BY "natural selection" the way it (evolution) goes? I mean you give a nice explanation of natural selection incorporated in the process of evolution, but -- it does not add up insofar as fishes becoming (eventually) mammals. Sorry, it doesn't add up at all.

Seems to add up pretty well in this paper? But the biggest factor was gene duplication:
Evolution from fish to mammals by gene duplication - PubMed

EVOLUTION FROM FISH TO MAMMALS BY GENE DUPLICATION

 

[YoursTrue]

Seems to add up pretty well in this paper? But the biggest factor was gene duplication:
Evolution from fish to mammals by gene duplication - PubMed

EVOLUTION FROM FISH TO MAMMALS BY GENE DUPLICATION

Nothing personal, but...
1. You're kidding about all those references, aren't you?
2. Can you explain them so they can be understood?
3. It is all supposition, otherwise fish would still be evolving, NOT to "other" fish, but to organisms that are NOT water-dwellers.
4, Unfortunately, I hate to say this, but your stance on this is not well taken, even though you cite scientific articles (which I doubt YOU can explain or understand enough to explain them), and again -- nothing beyond supposition supposedly bolstering up the theory.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't believe I ever said natural selection was evolution, but let me ask you this: is evolution BY "natural selection" the way it (evolution) goes? I mean you give a nice explanation of natural selection incorporated in the process of evolution, but -- it does not add up insofar as fishes becoming (eventually) mammals. Sorry, it doesn't add up at all.

@joelr, Hi there. So I'm not sure if you answered the question about "natural selection." Is evolution supposed to work by the process of what is called "natural selection"?

 

[joelr]

Nothing personal, but...
1. You're kidding about all those references, aren't you?

NO.

2. Can you explain them so they can be understood?

Some, not all. Some things I have to look up and do some side learning.
But you are the one kidding now. You, a fundamentalist, who trusts Mesopotamian influenced myths over science, is extremely unlikely to ever disregard all emotionally attached beliefs regarding an afterlife, want me to write a layman summary? So your emotional center can come up with some mechanism to continue disbelief, saving you the trauma of facing the fact that there really is no God, afterlife and such?

Evolution is complex, you don't need to understand everything to see the information they have and the depth of the theory. You can also start with layman books. You have to have the desire to learn and to test your beliefs.

3. It is all supposition, otherwise fish would still be evolving, NOT to "other" fish, but to organisms that are NOT water-dwellers.

See, you are full of weird misinformation you could fix if you bothered to pick up some books. There are creatures who are currently evolving into fish from land creatures. There are fish that walk on land. This one century is just a snapshot, you need millions of years to see clear changes that you want to see?

4, Unfortunately, I hate to say this, but your stance on this is not well taken, even though you cite scientific articles (which I doubt YOU can explain or understand enough to explain them), and again -- nothing beyond supposition supposedly bolstering up the theory.

I already covered this. I'm sure you know science is extremely complex and trust surgeons, engineers who make airplanes and all the fields. Yet somehow you think all evolutionary biologists are crank? Of course you are not going to accept something that clashes with belief in ancient mythology?
You would have to completely revise your world model. It isn't comfortable for anyone to have to do that.
How my understanding or lack of understanding plays into what is true I have no idea? You either care about what is actually true or you don't.

I already trust entire fields of science have the best possible guess at truth. I don't need to learn every aspect of evolution. The section - . Actual evidcnce of gene duplication by tetraploidizatioii in salmonoid fish - was a bit enlightening. You don't need to understand every word to see how deep the theory goes and the types of things they are looking at.

It is clear that they are looking at DNA, gene duplication, chromosomes, and they have extensive information from fossils.



(2) Immediately after the emergence of the first vertebrate, nature appears to have begun extensive experiments with gene duplication, producing diverse types of genomes with different DNA values. Four means employed for these experiments were: a) unequal exchange between two sister chromatids of the same chromosome, b) unequal crossing-over between two homologues during meiosis, c) redundant duplication of DNA niolecules on small segments of chromosomes and d) polyploidization. Most of the experiments were done while vertebrates were still aquatic.