• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

New Evidence Found To Show Humans Came From Fish

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
I was merely pointing out your presupposition. After all it does carry ideas that can not be verified such as chain of transmission and preservation



No as I pointed out their excuse is simply they error in sentence structure and reading, nothing more. Show how my view would invalidate any of the claims from those people.

Nonsense. I read modern translations taken straight from the Greek and Hebrew, and thousands of scholars are looking at first and second century source texts, fragments and letters quoting the verses in question.

One of the things apologists do is point to the fact that we have FAR better chains of evidence for the scriptures' authenticity, down to facts that are verifiable from archaeology in placing the times of the writings, than we do for say, Julius Caesar's existence.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
It does when fossils clearly show temporal order. Fish like animals gradually turn into amphibians over a period of 20 million years with fully weight bearing limbs, shoulders and necks...as the fossils show..and as expected if evolution is correct.


No idea what you are talking about. Ever species in an evolutionary chain of descent is a fully functioning form, as natural selection favors adaptive mutations. Thus fully functioning deep water fins evolve into partially transitional forms that are adapted to swimming in shallows and partial ability to crawl in the mud. Some of their descendants develop more limb like adaptations as they spend more time in shallower waters and banks of rivers and this trend continues as their fins become limbs. At each stage, the species has a fin/limb structure fully functional in its environment. So, when evolutionary transformation is occurring each transitional structure is fully adaptive and functional. Thus evolution does not predict anything that is half-formed, ever.

There are reasons to question the times given. You are skipping over "small things" like the impossibility of carbon dating to reach back that far and the necessity of assessing geologic formations where we find fossils, or if we don't like the dates, nearby formations, but regardless, your description of a fin/limb structure "fully functional in its environment" is describing a more rapid evolution than any current scientist advocates. You think structures had changed in ONE GENERATION, and therefore fossil-to-fossil?

Is it a wonder that 50% of Americans believe the pseudoscience of macro-evolution, even though evolution dominates the schools, intelligentsia and the culture?
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
You don't make any sense. All currently living organisms are equally evolved.

From currently "living" prions to daffodils to HIV virii to sea lions to humans. All equally evolved.

You just don't make any sense, BilliardsBall.

What do you mean, "equally evolved"? You can't be assuming that abiogenesis made one common ancestor. That's out of fashion these days.

You can't mean all living things evolved from other species, since I can tell you that we only have speciation visible now (like new dog breeds) and have no historical records of cats giving birth to dogs - you are just busting my chops semantically now, aren't you? Can't we talk about the issues instead?
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
I think you're missing the forest for the trees. Speciation is real. Dogs becoming cats, et al, isn't. Fruit flies at the end of years of testing . . . are fruit flies.
Still doing everything you can to avoid simply defining the terms "transitional fossil" and "kind", even though both terms were important to the argument you were making.

Says a lot about your argument, doesn't it?
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
There are reasons to question the times given. You are skipping over "small things" like the impossibility of carbon dating to reach back that far and the necessity of assessing geologic formations where we find fossils, or if we don't like the dates, nearby formations, but regardless, your description of a fin/limb structure "fully functional in its environment" is describing a more rapid evolution than any current scientist advocates. You think structures had changed in ONE GENERATION, and therefore fossil-to-fossil?

Is it a wonder that 50% of Americans believe the pseudoscience of macro-evolution, even though evolution dominates the schools, intelligentsia and the culture?
Could you explain how you concluded that 10 million years of evolution amounted to me saying that things changed dramatically over one generation? Assuming fish live around 10 years, 10 million years amount to one million generations. Small changes per generation accumulating over a million generations in fits and spurts is sufficient to explain the transformation of fins to limbs. Each small change was functionally adaptive. The fossil record is evidence of this.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
Nonsense. I read modern translations taken straight from the Greek and Hebrew, and thousands of scholars are looking at first and second century source texts, fragments and letters quoting the verses in question.

It is your presupposition about what the text mean was my point. You see it as some sort of message from God, I do not.

One of the things apologists do is point to the fact that we have FAR better chains of evidence for the scriptures' authenticity, down to facts that are verifiable from archaeology in placing the times of the writings, than we do for say, Julius Caesar's existence.

Demonstrate this when your linked site does not make a basic mistake in reading comprehension. You have no method to show authenticity, you have no method to show how archaeology does not support the text is a history rather than prophecy, you have no source to the supposed dates many of these figures lived. You have faith, nothing more.

We have evidence of Casar from archaeology evidence of his forts in Gaul, to his journals to multiple contemporary sources, you have no such thing with the Bible. Let's see the external contemporary source of Moses. Go.
 

Derek500

Wish I could change this to AUD
What do you mean, "equally evolved"? You can't be assuming that abiogenesis made one common ancestor. That's out of fashion these days....
Really? How so ? As far as I understand evolutionary theory, all modern living organisms are equally evolved. From all those forms of modern "higher" prokaryotes to all those forms of modern "higher" whales. All equally evolved.
 
Last edited:

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Still doing everything you can to avoid simply defining the terms "transitional fossil" and "kind", even though both terms were important to the argument you were making.

Says a lot about your argument, doesn't it?

Birds multiply according to their kind in Genesis. So do fruit trees and cattle/ranched animals. These don't become other things, ever.

Fruit flies mate and produce offspring with rapidity in lab environments. We can watch thousands of generations in the lab become . . . fruit flies.

I invited you to share your taxonomy with me, so we can agree on terms to debate.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Could you explain how you concluded that 10 million years of evolution amounted to me saying that things changed dramatically over one generation? Assuming fish live around 10 years, 10 million years amount to one million generations. Small changes per generation accumulating over a million generations in fits and spurts is sufficient to explain the transformation of fins to limbs. Each small change was functionally adaptive. The fossil record is evidence of this.

You are making an argument from fossil SILENCE. There are NO small changes between fossils. Are paleontologists are doing here is putting nearby one another on imaginary lines of descent similar WHOLLY formed (created) animals and plants.

There is NO small change that you can see in the record or creationism would be null and void.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
It is your presupposition about what the text mean was my point. You see it as some sort of message from God, I do not.



Demonstrate this when your linked site does not make a basic mistake in reading comprehension. You have no method to show authenticity, you have no method to show how archaeology does not support the text is a history rather than prophecy, you have no source to the supposed dates many of these figures lived. You have faith, nothing more.

We have evidence of Casar from archaeology evidence of his forts in Gaul, to his journals to multiple contemporary sources, you have no such thing with the Bible. Let's see the external contemporary source of Moses. Go.

You think I will sit here and add over 1,000 archaeological proofs of both testaments because you said "Go"?

Nay.

I have a methodology and other things, but you aren't really asking me. You are being wholly rhetorical.

I might share my logic and methods if you actually ask.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Really? How so ? As far as I understand evolutionary theory, all modern living organisms are equally evolved. From all those forms of modern "higher" prokaryotes to all those forms of modern "higher" whales. All equally evolved.

Again, that phrase "equally evolved" is unfamiliar to me. If you mean, "everything we see today shows no evidence of changing," I'll agree.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Birds multiply according to their kind in Genesis. So do fruit trees and cattle/ranched animals. These don't become other things, ever.

Fruit flies mate and produce offspring with rapidity in lab environments. We can watch thousands of generations in the lab become . . . fruit flies.

I invited you to share your taxonomy with me, so we can agree on terms to debate.
Do you really not see your hypocrisy here? You're the one who made claims about "kinds", yet you've spent weeks doing everything you can to avoid actually saying what the word "kind" means. And now you're asking me to explain my taxonomy?

So maybe we should move on to the next obvious question......why can't you define the term "kind"?
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
You are making an argument from fossil SILENCE. There are NO small changes between fossils. Are paleontologists are doing here is putting nearby one another on imaginary lines of descent similar WHOLLY formed (created) animals and plants.

There is NO small change that you can see in the record or creationism would be null and void.
Then consider creationism null and void....

article 8

Tony Arnold and Bill Parker compiled what may be the largest, most complete set of data on the evolutionary history of any group of organisms, marine or otherwise. The two scientists amassed something that their land-based colleagues only dreamed about: An intact fossil record with no missing links.

"It's all here--a virtually complete evolutionary record," says Arnold. "There are other good examples, but this is by far the best. We're seeing the whole picture of how this group of organisms has changed throughout most of its existence on Earth."...

...As he speaks, Arnold shows a series of microphotographs, depicting the evolutionary change wrought on a single foram species. "This is the same organism, as it existed through 500,000 years," he says. "We've got hundreds of examples like this, complete life and evolutionary histories for dozens of species."

About 330 species of living and extinct planktonic forams have been classified so far. After thorough examinations of marine sediments collected from around the world, micropaleontologists now suspect these are just about all the free-floating forams that ever existed.

The species collection also is exceptionally well-preserved, which accounts largely for the excitement shared by Parker and Arnold. "Most fossils, particularly those of the vertebrates, are fragmented--just odds and ends," says Parker. "But these fossils are almost perfectly preserved, despite being millions of years old."

..."The forams may not be representative of all organisms but, at least in this group, we can actually see how evolution happened," says Parker. "We can see transitions from one species to another. And that's a very rare observation."

...We've literally seen hundreds of speciation events," syas Arnold. "This allows us to check for patterns, to determine what exactly is going on. We can quickly tell whether something is a recurring phenomenon--a pattern--or whether it's just an anomally. This way, we cannot only look for the same things that have been observed in living organisms, but we can see just how often these things really happen in the environment over an enormous period of time.

...The record reveals a robust, highly branched evolutionary tree, complete with Darwin's predicted "dead ends"--varieties that lead nowhere--and a profusion of variability in sizes and body shapes. Transitional forms between species are readily apparent, making it relatively easy to track ancestor species to their descendents. In short, the finding upholds Darwin's lifelong conviction that "nature does not proceed in leaps," but rather is a system prepetually unfolding in extreme slow motion.

Time to come up with excuses as to why this doesn't count.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
You are making an argument from fossil SILENCE. There are NO small changes between fossils. Are paleontologists are doing here is putting nearby one another on imaginary lines of descent similar WHOLLY formed (created) animals and plants.

There is NO small change that you can see in the record or creationism would be null and void.
Small changes occur all the time in species as experimentally seen in micro-evolution of organisms. And fossils provide clear and unambiguous evidence of these small changes causing transformations like fins to limbs over time. And finally there is genetic and embroyological evidence that this transformation occured step by step.
Also there are plenty of organisms where fossil record is continuous enough to record how small changes lead to speciation over millions of years. An example below
E6-71-03-08-F05.jpg


Another example of a complete fossil record showing continuous evolution followed by speciation,
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Abstract.— Marine planktonic microfossils have provided some of the best examples of evolutionary rates and patterns on multi-million-year time scales, including many instances of gradual evolution. Lineage splitting as a result of speciation has also been claimed, but all such studies have used subjective visual species discrimination, and interpretation has often been complicated by relatively small sample sizes and oceanographic complexity at the study sites. Here we analyze measurements on a collection of 10,200 individual tests of the Eocene planktonic foraminifer Turborotalia in 51 stratigraphically ordered samples from a site within the oceanographically stable tropical North Pacific gyre. We use novel multivariate statistical clustering methods to test the hypothesis that a single evolutionary species was present from 45 Ma to its extinction ca. 34 Ma. After identification of a set of biologically relevant traits, the protocol we apply does not require a prior assignment of individuals to species. We find that for most of the record, contemporaneous specimens form one morphological cluster, which we interpret as an evolving species that shows quasi-continuous but non-directional gradual evolutionary change (anagenesis). However, in the upper Eocene from ca. 36 to ca. 34 Ma there are two clusters that persistently occupy distinct areas of morphospace, from which we infer that speciation (cladogenesis) must have occurred. (gradual evolution followed by speciation in late Eocene shown in figure below)

i0094-8373-40-1-130-f06.jpeg



Thus:-
1) Where fossil record is complete (usually for marine invertebrates with hard exoskeletons) the fossil record captures the complete trend of small scale evolution causing large scale transformations and (in some cases) speciation (shown above).

2) For vertebrates where there are quite a number of fossils (like in the transformation of fish to amphibians), the fossils are numerous enough to show the trajectory of the small changes that led to transformation of fins to limbs (along with shoulder development etc.) I have already provided multiple lines of evidence to demonstrate how this supports evolution and refutes creationism. You are free to address any of the points I discussed:-
Evidence of Evolution that was presented but never addressed

3) The entire step-by-step genetic mutation pathway that resulted in the gradual transformation of fins to limbs have also been charted. The genetic pathways once again vindicates evolution demonstrating that nothing other than gradual step by step transformation through mutation and selection of a few of the fin generating genes is needed to transform the fin of a fish to limb of a land animal. I have presented the evidence which you are free to discuss,
Evidence of Evolution that was presented but never addressed
Evidence of Evolution that was presented but never addressed

A simple and clear exposition is linked below:-

So, given that all the extensive evidence supports the evolutionary explanation and none support creationism, rationality dictates that the evolutionary explanation is accepted as true.
 
Last edited:

Sapiens

Polymathematician
You are making an argument from fossil SILENCE. There are NO small changes between fossils. Are paleontologists are doing here is putting nearby one another on imaginary lines of descent similar WHOLLY formed (created) animals and plants.

There is NO small change that you can see in the record or creationism would be null and void.
Plain and simple, you are wrong. There are many fossils that show large and yet identifiable changes and many that show small and incremental changes, the fossil record is not only clear prospectively and retrospectively but is thoroughly supported and augmented by data from numerous other fields including immunology and genetics.
 

Derek500

Wish I could change this to AUD
Again, that phrase "equally evolved" is unfamiliar to me..
To you the phrase "equally evolved" won't be familiar as you get your information from creationist sources and don't have a clue what evolutionary theory involves.

It's easy. All modern organisms, from prokaryotes to whales; all modern living organisms, are equally evolved. Every currently living thing in the world. That's basic evolutionary theory.

If you mean, "everything we see today shows no evidence of changing," I'll agree.
Then you don't have a clue. I am different from my parents. You are different from your parents.

Again, you have no clue what evolutionary theory involves.
 
Last edited:

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
To you the phrase "equally evolved" won't be familiar as you get your information from creationist sources and don't have a clue what evolutionary theory involves.

It's easy. All modern organisms, from prokaryotes to whales; all modern living organisms, are equally evolved. Every currently living thing in the world. That's basic evolutionary theory.

Then you don't have a clue. I am different from my parents. You are different from your parents.

Again, you have no clue what evolutionary theory involves.


It's always extremely tempting to extrapolate small superficial observations into fully comprehensive explanations. That's what gave us classical physics, and similarly genetic apples falling not far from their trees, cannot account for the trees themselves

i.e. it's not just matter of scale, imagination, artistic impressions, lack of direct evidence, that stands between micro and macro evolution, but a fundamental, insurmountable logical paradox.
 

Derek500

Wish I could change this to AUD
It's always extremely tempting to extrapolate small superficial observations into fully comprehensive explanations. That's what gave us classical physics, and similarly genetic apples falling not far from their trees, cannot account for the trees themselvesi.e. it's not just matter of scale, imagination, artistic impressions, lack of direct evidence, that stands between micro and macro evolution, but a fundamental, insurmountable logical paradox.
To you word salads always win, hey?
 
Top