i totally have lost all signs of evolution

[Dan From Smithville]

It is almost as if he is fishing to have his *** handed to him in order to make himself feel better.
Like a drug addict, only his "drug" is being shown he is wrong.

That is very interesting thought. Perhaps he is a pseudo-masochist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're funny. Still no verifiable evidence. Well, who knows? And imagine it's just not there -- now, as Einstein implied in his discussion of scientific truth. Or maybe -- they just haven't uncovered the fossils yet. (Have a nice night.)

so sad. You still do not know what is and what is not evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How long do you think before your posts start showing it?

Soon I hope, but probably not.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

so sad. You still do not know what is and what is not evidence.

Sure he does. Evidence is anything a creationist believes.

 

[YoursTrue]

You are misunderstanding a couple things. The first, and most important thing is that science doesn't squeeze in evidence to make it fit the conclusion, regardless of it being a hypothesis or theory. Second, the "new" evidences found, such as fossils, doesn't disprove the theory. The opinions of those scientists you're referring to is not about the theory itself. The change of opinions deals with changing the lineage of an organism, not the mechanism of how an organism evolved. Then there is the quote that you posted. You took it out of context. That scientist wasn't referring to the mechanism, but was referring to how science thought about the ancestors of humans. How do I know this? It's because that whole article talks about human ancestors, and not the theory itself. Lastly, from your comments, it appears that you don't know or understand what is the theory of evolution. The things that you mention, such as evidences and questions, has nothing to do with the theory. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the lineage of organisms and how it should be. It is the model for the process of how an organism change through time. Loosely put it, scientists use that theory as a tool to help them determine the lineage of an organism. Scientists draw the line of how an organism evolutionary route goes. From early ones and goes through their decendants. When new discoveries are found and evidence leads to a different route from what was previously thought, they correct it, sometimes splitting the old route. And now having a divergence, different branches, are form and organisms previously thought as being direct decendants are corrected and move to its proper branch. Of course this explanation is just a quick and general description. So once again just to be clear, the theory of evolution does not determine the lineage of organisms. It does regulate how something evolves or which path it must take. It is only a model in which scientists use. The environment is one factor that determines an organism's course of evolution.

Thank you. Would you mind telling me why it is said that birds evolved from dinosaurs?

 

[YoursTrue]

Another hint that you completely lack knowledge of the basics of the evolutionary process.
Yapping about "missing links", is a typical objection by someone who fails to understand the fossil record and gradualism. And the difference between the evolutionary process and evolutionary history, for that matter.

So do you know why scientists say there is a missing link?

 

[YoursTrue]

The reason you don't comprehend this stuff, is because you are trying to run before you can walk.

You might want to start with the basics first, before moving on to more advanced topics.

When you ask things like "what are the first organisms with male and female parts", you kind of betray that you have no understanding of the basics of the evolutionary process.

Someone with such understanding, knows that it's a senseless question to ask about "the first occurence of X" in that sense, when talking about a gradual process.

It's like asking about "the first homo sapiens".
It assumes that at some point a non-homo sapiens gave birth to a homo sapiens.
Gradualism doesn't work like that.



It's not a simple question at all. It's instead a partially invalid question about a pretty complicated subject.
You'ld know that if you had a bit of a decent background. But you don't.

So where is the evidence that non-humans gradually evolved to humans? But that famous picture of monkeys and apes in successive states gradually standing taller and then becoming humans, do you think they left out a missing link? More importantly, how do they know that apes or monkeys evolved to what is known as homo sapiens? Even if you think that homo sapiens are apes, how do they know that bonobos or another type of ape eventually became (evolved into) humans?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So do you know why scientists say there is a missing link?

Show me a scientific paper that refers to that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So where is the evidence that non-humans gradually evolved to humans?

In the DNA (which makes common ancestry of the great apes, which includes humans, a genetic fact btw....) and in the fossil record.

More importantly, how do they know that apes or monkeys evolved to what is known as homo sapiens?

The same way we can know who your biological parents, siblings, cousins, etc are:

DNA

Even if you think that homo sapiens are apes

That's not an opinion. That's a biological fact.
Just like it's a fact that humans are mammals, vertebrates and eukaryotes.

, how do they know that bonobos or another type of ape eventually became (evolved into) humans?

Humans didn't evolve from bonobo's. Humans and bonobo's share a common ancestor, which wasn't a human and wasn't a bonobo, but some ancestral primate.

And we know that through the genetic evidence.

 

[YoursTrue]

Another hint that you completely lack knowledge of the basics of the evolutionary process.
Yapping about "missing links", is a typical objection by someone who fails to understand the fossil record and gradualism. And the difference between the evolutionary process and evolutionary history, for that matter.

What would you say about this?
"In 2015, for instance, Almécija and his colleagues published an analysis of ape hands that emphasised just how much the length of digits has evolved in chimpanzees since they split from the LCA. Judging by fossil evidence from earlier apes, human hands are surprisingly primitive in appearance – notwithstanding the fact that we evolved an opposable thumb after the split from the LCA."
This is from an article from the BBC. We have still not found the missing link between us and apes
("We Still Have Not Found the Missing Link Between Us and Apes") Very, very interesting.
The information and demonstration of reasoning in the article is very good. It's a keeper.

 

[Audie]

I have been learning about the theory and scientific evidence you're talking about, so thank you for that. Yes, I am asking you, since the theory of evolution is there -- what are/were the first male and female animals, and what did they evolve from? (Any idea?) I mean it can't be that hard to give a simple answer, can it? OK, I give up. Maybe it is that hard. So I hope you can at least give the conjectural answer given by scientists as to what they think/believe is the first male and female animals, and then, of course, the question is: coming from -- where?
I'm not the only one coming to conclusions about the lack of evidence verifying the theory of evolution by natural selection, I have come to realize. There are others.

But these others are far better conversant with the topic than I am. But no matter -- I see no verifiable proof except for say-so or conjecture to verify the theory of evolution by natural selection.

You sure have not been learning much -
as shown by your "verifiable proof".
Andcif you would had been studying you
would understand things like that exchange of
genetic material is done by microbes.
You might have even learned than some fish
change sex.

But this is all about how little you are willing
to invest in education. Of course you "see no".
I see no rhymes in Russian poetry. Guess why.

You come back with data showing ToE is wrong,
then you will have sonething to display besides
confusion and ignorance.

Nothing but contrary data is of any interest,
especially your personal failures.

As it is, its like you are arguing against calculus
without you even know what a cosine is.

 

[Audie]

i have known a few creationists with a martyr complex. Arguments can get really weird since the more one shows them to be wrong the holier they think that they are.

Oh absolutely!
Look at Job! The martyrs!
"Hold fast the faith" is as holy
as a person can get!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What would you say about this?
"In 2015, for instance, Almécija and his colleagues published an analysis of ape hands that emphasised just how much the length of digits has evolved in chimpanzees since they split from the LCA. Judging by fossil evidence from earlier apes, human hands are surprisingly primitive in appearance – notwithstanding the fact that we evolved an opposable thumb after the split from the LCA."
This is from an article from the BBC. We have still not found the missing link between us and apes
("We Still Have Not Found the Missing Link Between Us and Apes") Very, very interesting.
The information and demonstration of reasoning in the article is very good. It's a keeper.

This is from an article from the BBC

IE, a media outlet that looks for sensational titles and catchphrases.
That's not to say the info is inaccurate (I didn't even read it), but it's pretty much like that other catchphrase "survival of the fittest".

It has no real scientific value.

 

[night912]

Thank you. Would you mind telling me why it is said that birds evolved from dinosaurs?

Tell me what you think it says. So I know if you're on the page or not.

 

[YoursTrue]

This is from an article from the BBC

IE, a media outlet that looks for sensational titles and catchphrases.
That's not to say the info is inaccurate (I didn't even read it), but it's pretty much like that other catchphrase "survival of the fittest".

It has no real scientific value.

Ok so you can't explain it. And brush it off. Ok. Thanks, now I understand. Because I see you don't want to cope with the findings.

 

[YoursTrue]

Tell me what you think it says. So I know if you're on the page or not.

When I say it is said, I mean some say birds evolved from dinosaurs.

 

[YoursTrue]

This is from an article from the BBC

IE, a media outlet that looks for sensational titles and catchphrases.
That's not to say the info is inaccurate (I didn't even read it), but it's pretty much like that other catchphrase "survival of the fittest".

It has no real scientific value.

Maybe if you read it, you'd learn something. So because you and others know so much, that's the end of the discussion.

 

[YoursTrue]

This is from an article from the BBC

IE, a media outlet that looks for sensational titles and catchphrases.
That's not to say the info is inaccurate (I didn't even read it), but it's pretty much like that other catchphrase "survival of the fittest".

It has no real scientific value.

Then again, you say there is no missing link, is that right, or is it you don't want to talk about it with me?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ok so you can't explain it. And brush it off. Ok. Thanks, now I understand. Because I see you don't want to cope with the findings.

What findings? It is the popular media and not a research report.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Then again, you say there is no missing link, is that right, or is it you don't want to talk about it with me?

If you would learn some facts and could put aside your bias and speculation you elevate to facts. Maybe clarify your posts so the comprehensibility is maximized.