Facts to disprove theory of evolution

[friend of]

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

Then how could a creature with gills develop lungs?

 

[AV1611VET]

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

This picture says it all:

Notice those blue lines on that chart?

They make evolution look analog (nice and smooth).

But in reality, those blue lines are glossing over more "missing links" than Carter has liver pills.

Imagine driving down a road full of potholes, but covered over with tarp.

From a distance, the road looks smooth.

 

[Astrid]

Where did their parents come from?

Theirs.

If you are asking about the origin of all life,
there is no data, i have no answer.

If you mean something about " first" chimp,
there was no first chimp. Or poodle.

 

[Astrid]

Then how could a creature with gills develop lungs?

You are back to your Q # 4, which I answered with
A #38

And in the part of post 237 that you deleted

 

[AV1611VET]

Theirs.

That's cute.

If you are asking about the origin of all life, there is no data, i have no answer.

The Bible does.

If you mean something about " first" chimp, there was no first chimp. Or poodle.

They all burst on the scene at once?

Sounds Biblical to me.

One day there's just trees and grass.

The next, there's cows, giraffes, dragons, satyrs, unicorns, buffalo, and people.

 

[friend of]

Theirs.

If you are asking about the origin of all life,
there is no data, i have no answer.

If you mean something about " first" chimp,
there was no first chimp. Or poodle.

I am not asking about the origin of life/abiogenesis. I'm asking a very simple question about evolution. If there is no "first" chimp or anything, then why do we consider a chimp to be a chimp at all, today? We clearly make distinctions in the animal kingdom.

My question is regressive, not definite. Where did the parents of the parents of the parents, et. al., come from?

 

[friend of]

You are back to your Q # 4, which I answered with
A #38

If the entire animal kingdom emerged from on amoeba like creature underwater, then it can be concluded that said creature respirated underwater, for it would lack the capacity to swim up to the surface of the waters and obtain oxygen from the air. It would also have no experience being outside of water, and hence, no reason to adapt to the surface world.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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.

In a search the other day for the 1966 Wistar conference this book was the first link that wasn't from an obvious creationist outlet (DI, etc.) I thought about linking it the other day, so here it is.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/the-failures-of-mathematical-anti-evolutionism/

EDIT: And it doesn't work after I stripped off the tracking info. Sigh, why do so many websites have to be so evil.

 

[Neogaia777]

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

What, you've never seen Waterworld?

But all joking aside, and this part is for everyone to hear @Estrid, and is not just leveled at you personally, the way evolution proposes to work, is by life's adaptive changes to changes in it's environment, etc.

No change in environment, no need to adapt right away, but when the environment does change, then either some of that life that is exposed to that new environment changes, and some does not if some of that previous environment still exists, or certain life dies off completely if the previous environment no longer exists, and only the life that changed or adapted to suit it's new environment lives on after that, etc. This is an overgeneralization, as there are also other things/changes that causes life to change and/or adapt, but say in the case of Waterworld, while totally fictional, all of the sudden humans are in a world that is covered with only water, and some of them can begin to adapt, etc, which gives them an advantage over the rest, etc, which could eventually cause them to replace the other ones that either didn't or couldn't adapt, etc, but it's all dictated by changes to the lifeforms environment in the broadest meaning of the word or term "environment", etc.

Why we may not find very many transitional fossils that so many are looking for, is probably because for however long the environment doesn't change, then life doesn't need to change, or pretty much stays the same, etc, but when a decent change occurs, then the adaptation process happens rather "relatively quickly", etc, "relative" to "geologic time" that is anyway, etc.

But humans nowadays, have totally disrupted the evolutionary process, etc, causing life to thrive that maybe shouldn't, or shouldn't have perpetuated itself any longer, or shouldn't exist, and causing other life to die off, that maybe still should exist, etc.

And without a drastic enough environmental change, I don't think we'll ever be a part of the "normal" evolutionary process again, because we are already moving into areas, where we will be able to decide or get to dicate, or even engineer, our own changes, etc, or will get to decide which life, or not which kind of life, will either get, or else not get, to exist, or perpetuate itself, or exist, etc.

For that reason, some think we are becoming more "gods" each and every single day, etc. But, our environment could still prove itself still our master still, in or by the end of it, etc.

God Bless.

 

[sfs]

If the entire animal kingdom emerged from on amoeba like creature underwater, then it can be concluded that said creature respirated underwater, for it would lack the capacity to swim up to the surface of the waters and obtain oxygen from the air. It would also have no experience being outside of water, and hence, no reason to adapt to the surface world.

All true. Air-breathing arose much, much later than such a creature. Air breathing arose among fish, some of which spend a lot of time close to the surface, where they sometimes eat things on the surface, meaning they're already taking in some air and absorbing some oxygen through their digestive tracks. That's the starting point, not an amoeba.

 

[Neogaia777]

What, you've never seen Waterworld?

But all joking aside, and this part is for everyone to hear @Estrid, and is not just leveled at you personally, the way evolution proposes to work, is by life's adaptive changes to changes in it's environment, etc.

No change in environment, no need to adapt right away, but when the environment does change, then either some of that life that is exposed to that new environment changes, and some does not if some of that previous environment still exists, or certain life dies off completely if the previous environment no longer exists, and only the life that changed or adapted to suit it's new environment lives on after that, etc. This is an overgeneralization, as there are also other things/changes that causes life to change and/or adapt, but say in the case of Waterworld, while totally fictional, all of the sudden humans are in a world that is covered with only water, and some of them can begin to adapt, etc, which gives them an advantage over the rest, etc, which could eventually cause them to replace the other ones that either didn't or couldn't adapt, etc, but it's all dictated by changes to the lifeforms environment in the broadest meaning of the word or term "environment", etc.

Why we may not find very many transitional fossils that so many are looking for, is probably because for however long the environment doesn't change, then life doesn't need to change, or pretty much stays the same, etc, but when a decent change occurs, then the adaptation process happens rather "relatively quickly", etc, "relative" to "geologic time" that is anyway, etc.

But humans nowadays, have totally disrupted the evolutionary process, etc, causing life to thrive that maybe shouldn't, or shouldn't have perpetuated itself any longer, or shouldn't exist, and causing other life to die off, that maybe still should exist, etc.

And without a drastic enough environmental change, I don't think we'll ever be a part of the "normal" evolutionary process again, because we are already moving into areas, where we will be able to decide or get to dicate, or even engineer, our own changes, etc, or will get to decide which life, or not which kind of life, will either get, or else not get, to exist, or perpetuate itself, or exist, etc.

For that reason, some think we are becoming more "gods" each and every single day, etc. But, our environment could still prove itself still our master still, in or by the end of it, etc.

God Bless.

But I think it's very, very beautiful and very, very wonderful that life normally adapts this way, etc.

And I say "normally" because of the way life/man is right now currently, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Hans Blaster]

If the entire animal kingdom emerged from on amoeba like creature underwater, then it can be concluded that said creature respirated underwater, for it would lack the capacity to swim up to the surface of the waters and obtain oxygen from the air. It would also have no experience being outside of water, and hence, no reason to adapt to the surface world.

1. I don't know why you keep using amebae. I am unaware of biology positing the amebae are the predecessors of multi-cellular animal life. (They are, of course, already animals.)

2. Many animals already live underwater and don't have terrestrial ancestors. For example, most fish (present company excluded, of course) or clams.

3. Insects and other arthropods come from completely different lineages than us quadrapeds with the air-breathing fish ancestors.

Finally, there is so much documentation of all of this including modern forms of animals living on the margin between underwater and above water living. You would benefit from trying to find some well formed information. You could start with a few wikipedia articles. For example this one on crustaceans makes it clear that a some crustaceans have adapted to land separately from the insects (which are not crustaceans). The sea-land transition has been made many times.

Crustacean - Wikipedia

 

[Neogaia777]

But I think it's very, very beautiful and very, very wonderful that life normally adapts this way, etc.

It's a testimony of how life is a testimony to life if you ask me.

God Bless.

 

[Larniavc]

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

Species as in population. Individual do not morph into different individuals.

It’s not Pokémon.

 

[Larniavc]

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

But that is NOT one animal changing its shape while it is alive to be a different animal. YOU are claiming this.

ToE does NOT say that a cat will grow wings, gills, swim bladders etc, over the course of it’s life.

Not a single word you have written represent the Theory of Evolution. Stop watching X-Men movies and crack open a text book.

 

[Larniavc]

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

A common ancestor. How can you not know that EVEN if you don’t believe it?

 

[Larniavc]

We clearly make distinctions in the animal kingdom.

For purposes of convenience to categorise extant organisms. But like most categories they are arbitrary.

 

[Neogaia777]

But I think it's very, very beautiful and very, very wonderful that life normally adapts this way, etc.

It's a testimony of how life is a testimony to life if you ask me.

The difference between me and the athiest is, is that I think life/chemicals/the universe, etc, was programmed or was designed to be/act/behave this way, etc.

And in fully predictable ways also, except for maybe the kind of thing man is maybe doing right now nowadays, etc.

God Bless.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The difference between me and the athiest is, is that I think life/chemicals/the universe, etc, was programmed or was designed to be/act/behave this way, etc.

And in fully predictable ways also, except for maybe the kind of thing man is maybe doing right now nowadays, etc.

God Bless.

Yeah, I get what you're saying. The present varieties of Trans-Humanism do smack thematically of the notions that went into the Tower of Babel account.

 

[Larniavc]

So it looks like there are two conflicting views on this thread.

One view is that ToE states that (for example) Spot the Dog can grow gills if he live near or around water.

The other view is not that. The other view is that allele frequency changes over time (up to 10,000’s of generations or more) and this leads to new species (not Spot magically growing gills).

The latter is correct. The former is mind numbingly wrong.

That this has to be pointed out is shameful of standards of education.