Facts to disprove theory of evolution

[Larniavc]

The problem with evolutionary theory is that it explicitly states that marine animals developed the ability to respirate outside of water/gills.

So you DO think individual animals change into other animals! Over what? Days, minutes, hours?

That is as far from what ToE states as claiming Jesus was plumber who was born in America and wrote the Constitution.

Evolution happens in the population level, not the individual level. How can someone with access to Google not know this?

 

[Larniavc]

Okay then. Tell me what actually happened.

The frequency of allele expression in a population changes over time as a result of genetic variation inherent in error prone replication.

If you don’t understand that you don’t have the chops for this conversation.

 

[Larniavc]

I am attempting to disprove ToE by highlighting the absurdity of marine life adapting to living on land.

You are disputing a strawman. ToE is not what you are describing.

 

[Ophiolite]

Okay then. Tell me what actually happened.

Certainly. This is a good starting point. The Evolutionary History of Whales and Dolphins.

If there are any points you are unclear about, or where you think a statement may be in error, let me know and I shall do my best to clarify. I would appreciate it if you were to display a genuine interest in understanding the explanations (you don't have to agree with them) rather than, as often seems to be the case, just attacking them.

Edit: There are several more recent papers on the topic that provide important updates, but I think the one above is good as an overview.

 

[Astrid]

You are disputing a strawman. ToE is not what you are describing.

That is almost always the problem, a severe lack of
understanding.
And disbelieving what they imagine (make up).

 

[friend of]

Post 38

As for what you find absurd...
I addressed transition to land in that post.
It's not a big mystery.


Again, it was not marine but fresh water fish that
were ancestral to amohinians, so there's one error.

Heres some fish that live out of water. Drown if kept in water.

What do you find absurd about them.?

Okay so you think we originated from such fish then? Or at least, you think Apes evolved from them?

That's pretty far fetched imo

 

[friend of]

So you DO think individual animals change into other animals! Over what? Days, minutes, hours?

That is as far from what ToE states as claiming Jesus was plumber who was born in America and wrote the Constitution.

Evolution happens in the population level, not the individual level. How can someone with access to Google not know this?

According to evolution, they do. That's literally what evolution is about. The transition of one species into another.

 

[friend of]

You are disputing a strawman. ToE is not what you are describing.

Yes it is. You believe we all came from monkeys, and monkeys came from creatures from the sea.

 

[friend of]

To everyone insinuating I'm a luddite, where did the bonobos or chimps come from in the first place?

 

[Astrid]

Okay so you think we originated from such fish then? Or at least, you think Apes evolved from them?

That's pretty far fetched imo

I asked if you find fish going ashore to be absurd
even after seeing a video.

Do you?

Fish to man does sound far fetched. So do / did
many things we now readily accept / understand .

Cell phones, bacteria making you sick, horseless carriage,
A- bomb...

The step by small step from a fully aquatic fish to one
that lives on land is quite well known.


It's only for fetched before it's understood.

Like wireless telegraph.

I will be glad to help you see how it works.


I've worked as a volunteer esl ( English as second
language ) teachrr. It's fun and easy if there's interest in
learning. I'm infinitely patient with questions.

I won't work with someone who fights it.


Your choice.

 

[Astrid]

To everyone insinuating I'm a luddite, where did the bonobos or chimps come from in the first place?

Their parents.

 

[Astrid]

Yes it is. You believe we all came from monkeys, and monkeys came from creatures from the sea.

They did, according to an enormous
body of evidence.
And, in line with theme of thread,
there is zero disproof of ToE.

Which to remind you, if it were false, that would be easy.

Of course, it was very far from one step
from fish to monkey, which calling it fish- to - monkey does sseem intended to make it sound absurd.

Correct me if that's not the case.

 

[Astrid]

According to evolution, they do. That's literally what evolution is about. The transition of one species into another.

One individual cannot evolve. At all.
All it can do is pass on its genetics, for
better or worse.

The " better" tends to survive and pass it on.
The " worse" does not.
The " better' may be said to have evolved by
that tiny amount. Lots of littles make a big.

It's really very simple.



One sprcies can evolve into one or more
species.
You say that cant happen?

 

[sfs]

No. As I said, I haven't read the book. I read about it many years ago. The OP asked for facts, and has asked for facts several more times in the thread, so after 8 pages of being snarky I thought I'd try and help her out, so I said "maybe" she could look into Wistar.

You not only pointed her to the book, you claimed enough knowledge of its contents to summarize its conclusions. You also stated, 'The interesting thing is that the pro-evolutionists could not refute the mathematicians, so they resorted to simply saying "but we can't say this publicly!"' That's not providing a pointer -- that's making a claim about the book as a refutation of evolution. It's also a complete fabrication, by the way.

I do recall that some of the mathematicians were very top-notch from places like MIT so calling them "mathematical types" is a bit insulting.

It's not remotely insulting -- it's an attempt to accurately portray the participants. There were two participants who presented mathematical arguments against evolution and one who presented a simple mathematical model of evolution that has incorrectly been described as an argument against evolution. All three were using math but only one was a mathematician; the others were an engineer and a physicist.

Should anyone be interested in what arguments were actually presented at that long-ago Wistar conference, Jason Rosenhouse has a detailed description in his book, The Failures of Mathematical Anti-Evolutionism. Rosenhouse does miss one important reason that one of the arguments was wrong: it assumed that function is rare in protein space. We know know that it's not in fact rare at all.

 

[sfs]

Okay so if I as a human being wanted to develop gills so I could respirate underwater like a common fish, how would I go about it?

You probably couldn't. Water contains far less oxygen than air, so a limited ability to absorb oxygen from water would be of no use and provide no selective advantage. It would therefore probably never evolve, regardless of how long your descendants spent in water.

A limited ability to absorb oxygen from air, on the other hand, would be very useful for a fish and would therefore provide selective pressure for gradually improving that ability.

 

[Astrid]

You not only pointed her to the book, you claimed enough knowledge of its contents to summarize its conclusions. You also stated, 'The interesting thing is that the pro-evolutionists could not refute the mathematicians, so they resorted to simply saying "but we can't say this publicly!"' That's not providing a pointer -- that's making a claim about the book as a refutation of evolution. It's also a complete fabrication, by the way.

It's not remotely insulting -- it's an attempt to accurately portray the participants. There were two participants who presented mathematical arguments against evolution and one who presented a simple mathematical model of evolution that has incorrectly been described as an argument against evolution. All three were using math but only one was a mathematician; the others were an engineer and a physicist.

Should anyone be interested in what arguments were actually presented at that long-ago Wistar conference, Jason Rosenhouse has a detailed description in his book, The Failures of Mathematical Anti-Evolutionism. Rosenhouse does miss one important reason that one of the arguments was wrong: it assumed that function is rare in protein space. We know know that it's not in fact rare at all.

Thanks for going over that.
I hope its read, understood, so
the nonsensical argument is
never repeated.

 

[Astrid]

You probably couldn't. Water contains far less oxygen than air, so a limited ability to absorb oxygen from water would be of no use and provide no selective advantage. It would therefore probably never evolve, regardless of how long your descendants spent in water.

A limited ability to absorb oxygen from air, on the other hand, would be very useful for a fish and would therefore provide selective pressure for gradually improving that ability.

Uh no. There's no way a person could develop gills.

Whether human beings could be some day genetically
engineered into such a monstrosity, let's hope not.

As for fish using atmospheric air, that's easy,
and many fish are doing it, some with with
no modification of body plan.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes it is. You believe we all came from monkeys, and monkeys came from creatures from the sea.

Evolution is a game of connect-the-dots.

............................ Creation ............................................. Evolution

 

[friend of]

Their parents.

Where did their parents come from?

 

[friend of]

Evolution is an exercise in connect-the-dots.

View attachment 344044 View attachment 344045

............................ Creation ............................................. Evolution

No wonder it's so hard for proponents of evolutionary theory to grasp what I'm saying. They have to connect dots.