Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It's the only game in town.
What have you got?
To assert the truth of a proposition simply because one cannot imagine alternatives is not science as I know it.
Science does not assert absolute truth. Science asserts the best explanation currently available. You may not be satisfied with evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life, but you haven't got a better one. In fact it is not only the best available, as far as I know it's the only one available. It's the only game in town.To assert the truth of a proposition simply because one cannot imagine alternatives is not science as I know it.
I never realized the scale and the complexity of that transition from fish to tetrapod. At first, I thought it very unlikely but after reading this article. It seems almost an impossibility, far to many deep changes, the heavier skeleton, the bone itself needs to morph. Explaining the change from fins to feet is almost inconceivable.
It depends what you're prepared to accept as evidence. In the fossil record, lineages are discovered when a temporal sequence of fossils is found where each has a characteristic pattern of anatomical and situational similarities with the next, and this pattern is carried through the sequence with ongoing modification and refinements that indicate an overall development or progression over time. The last fossil in the sequence may be very different from the first, but is connected to it by this sequential pattern of development and characteristic features.So let's get this straight my friend.
There does not exist a series of fossils illustrating the transition of species in a phylogeny. According to the theory of Evolution. There is instead a suggestion of, a pattern of, a transition of species in a phylogeny.
This appears to be more of an hypothesis, rather than a theory. A pattern missing the direct evidence. I find this confronting.
I should have known better that asking for direct evidence.
Some (fairly) recent discoveries in genetics and protein folding have shed light on how the evolutionary process manages to get a surprising number of functional results from random mutations; you might find this article interesting: The Strange Inevitablility of Evolution.Read it, interesting.
One of the great evolutionary transitions from fins to feet and weight bearing legs at that. Gills to lungs, is a monumental development also. A truly formidable transition requiring the sacrifice of innumerable mice.
The information on the change in the bone composition of the skull of the fish.This represents a very deep problem and one that may keep researches, busy for a very long time.
I never realized the scale and the complexity of that transition from fish to tetrapod. At first, I thought it very unlikely but after reading this article. It seems almost an impossibility, far to many deep changes, the heavier skeleton, the bone itself needs to morph. Explaining the change from fins to feet is almost inconceivable.
I also understand the tremendous focus on the genetics, the genetic switches needed to facilitate such tremendous changes across the fish. That is where the answers will arise, if there are answers to these questions. No doubt many more questions will stem from this genetic research and don't expect a solution soon.
What some fish decides to become an amphibian, then decides to become a tetrapod?
It's not something individual creatures decide for themselves.
If you are aware that species (or individual organisms, for that matter) don't "decide" to evolve, why did you chose these words then, other than to erect a strawman?I am fully aware of that.
Do you believe that the ToE somehow states that cats can live for millions of years?What are you inferring? A cat will over a million years turn into a dog?
I think people have an issue when seeds get mixed up and such and you have a zebra lion.Some questions...
If you think it's wrong, can you tell me which one exactly do you think is incorrect?
- Do you agree that if you have a group of animals - say a herd of zebra - then each individual will be slightly different to the others?
- Do you agree that some of those differences can make it easier for that individual to survive - say, better eyesight so it has a better chance of spotting an approaching predator?
- Do you agree that these differences are due to the genes that the animals have?
- Do you agree that the genes that are responsible for these differences can be passed on to the offspring when that animal reproduces?
- Do you agree that if an animal has some genes that mean it has a difference that helps it survive, this animal is more likely to have more offspring precisely because these differences help it live longer (living longer means more chances to reproduce)?
- Do you agree that if animals with these helpful differences produce more offspring, then the number of animals in the herd that have this helpful difference will tend to increase over the generations?
- Do you agree that if we wait for enough generations to pass, most if not all animals in the herd will have this difference, and what was once different is now normal?
I can't make sense of that - can you explain what you mean?I think people have an issue when seeds get mixed up and such and you have a zebra lion.
Science does not assert absolute truth.
Science asserts the best explanation currently available. You may not be satisfied with evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life, but you haven't got a better one.
And the emergence of new species has been observed and confirmed. You are going to have to fin some other reason to deny evolution.
You are mistaken. Adaption and improvement are evolution.
Over a long enough time scale humans studding the evidence for a slowly changing population will label one point one species and a later variation another species.
Another way for this to happen is for the population to split into isolated groups so the slow changes/adaptations will be subtly different. Leading to the populations varying faster from each other then each is from the ancestral population. This is especially true if the pressures are different in the two environments.
"Theistic evolution" is too vague a term. Most varieties of it have no argument with contemporary evolutionary theory. Complexity theory, if true, would be a step forward in understanding biological evolution, not a denial of it.I disagree. One cannot ever attain absolute truth, of course, but that is the goal.
To be satisfied with an inaccurate model means the death of science. Dissatisfaction is the engine that keeps science moving.
I've got at least 2 alternatives for you: theistic evolution and the complexity-based theory of Kauffman.
I was kind of joking, chimera type genetic engineering isn't really a thing so ..I can't make sense of that - can you explain what you mean?
I was kind of joking, chimera type genetic engineering isn't really a thing so ..
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?