One thing never evolves into something else!

[shinbits]

Humans are not hairless. Humans have hair on every surface of the body except your palms and soles and parts of the genitals.

I said comparitavely hairless---by comparison.

Twisting my words to make a point is wrong.

 

[Apos]

"You can call an amphibian a fish. They share a similar environment. Naturally, therefore, they might share similarities in structure though I suspect there are functional differences."

Sigh. Please, do what Aron-Ra said. Try to define "fish" in such a way that both:
1) includes characteristics shared by all fish
2) excludes amphibians.

You can't do it. It takes actually trying it, working it out in detail, to see why it can't be done. Amphibians not only get subsumed inside fish, but in the fossil record it makes perfect sense that they would. Fish appear first, not a day earlier, but millions of years earlier. And the earliest amphibians are fishlike. All modern amphibians are subsequent modifications of the basic fish bodyplan.

But remember, it's just a name you are calling it. You're still only grouping things.

Well, yes. But the groupings are based on a study of their mophology. It isn't pulled out of thin air: it's based on deep PATTERNS of genetic and morphological similarity that match up in great detail. Which itself in turn matches the fossil record.

As you can see the members of this kind have legs and feet. They don't swim like fish. They don't have typical fish parts like fins and scales.

But what are legs and feet? They are modified fin lobes. What is their swimming and locomotion based on? Well, howdy-do: its a modified variation of the basic chordate structure and the sorts of movement possibilities inherent.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Cladistically, amphibians are fish, and so are people.

Only according to your abstract way of grouping and naming things.

Not so. I didn't want to accept it either. It took time to convince me, so I'm sure it will you too.

Reminds me of the principle, a rose is a rose by any other name.

Yeah, it doesn't matter what you call it; chordate, fish, doesn't matter. The criteria you use to recognize it is still the same.

You can call an amphibian a fish. They share a similar environment. Naturally, therefore, they might share similarities in structure though I suspect there are functional differences.

All amphibians have some traits not shared by any traditional fish. But there is no feature common to all traditional fish that is not shared by any amphibian.

But remember, it's just a name you are calling it. You're still only grouping things. An amphibian is an ancient form/kind of creature.

As you can see the members of this kind have legs and feet. They don't swim like fish. They don't have typical fish parts like fins and scales.

Axlotl larvae are virtually indestinguishable from catfish. They swim like fish, and have all the typical fish parts, like fins and [distended] gills, everything but scales.

Caecilians are another line of much more primitive amphibians, and are truly amphibian, although they have no limbs at all, and swim like eels, and even have the same kind of sparse vestigial bony scales that traditional fish do.

The waters brought forth living creatures according to their kind. A fish is one kind. An amphibian is another kind.

Actually, it seems that "fish" is one kind, and amphibians are a subset of that same kind, as are we also.

They both have a spinal column. That's only relevant to your system.

Actually, its impossible to define the word "fish" without it being synonemous with 'Chordate'.

Tell me then, what traits belong to fish, (all fish) that do not belong to any amphibians? And tell me which this thing is?

It has no fins. It has a frog-like head, legs and feet. I would call it an amphibian.

Well, actually it does have fins. It even has fin-bars in its tail, just like those of traditional ray-finned fish. Its eight toes on the front limb are webbed into fins also.

And what may look to you like a frog's head only appears so because this creature has internal gills exactly like those of any traditional fish.

And although it had lungs and legs, it had the skeletal support of an ordinary fish, and couldn't support itself outside the bouancy of water.

"I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts. For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again."
--Ecclesiastes; 3:18-20

It says that men are animals, and that to deny that is vanity. Yet you deny it anyway. Also, the next line assumes (for the sake of argument) that other animals may have souls, and it remarks on the fact that you don’t really what happens after they die –no matter what you believe.

No. You have to understand the writer's point of view. Man was created. In that sense, he is a creature like the other creatures God created.

The writer says, concerning the estate or the condition of his existence, that man is a beast. He says, - for he has no advantage over the beast - as one dieth, so the other dieth. All are of dust and all return to dust.

If you agree with me, you could just say so. You don't have to explain why.

Linnaeus was a creationist who had no explanation for what he was seeing, and even asked his colleagues and contemporaries to try and explain it away for him. They couldn’t. They could only ignore it as you. They (and you) are the ones using the system of ignorance. He saw what he did not want to see.

Well, it's irrelevant whether he was a creationist or not. Systems group things and, as a result, they define things. Systems necessarily ignore or minimize any information that doesn't matter to the system.

That's why it matters that he was a creationist, like you. What was ignoring that you are not? Because, I have to tell you, it really looks like he didn't ignore anything even if he didn't want to see it, but you will ignore whatever you don't want to accept.

If only I had that ability. But sadly, I cannot ignore anything that can be shown to be probable or reasonable. There is nothing I minimize or ignore in this matter, and I defy you to back your accusation.

 

[shinbits]

"You can call an amphibian a fish. They share a similar environment. Naturally, therefore, they might share similarities in structure though I suspect there are functional differences."

Sigh. Please, do what Aron-Ra said. Try to define "fish" in such a way that both:
1) includes characteristics shared by all fish
2) excludes amphibians.

You can't do it.

The higher an organism is, the more specific and unique its traits are. A fish is much, much lower then human beings or apes, which are among the highest forms of life on earth. As you up the chart to higher and more complex organisms, you are less and less able to use this example, until you finally reach apes and humans.

The comparison of fish to human classification is an extremely poor one.

Nice try though.

 

[Hydra009]

The higher an organism is, the more specific and unique its traits are. A fish is much, much lower then human beings or apes, which are among the highest forms of life on earth. As you up the chart to higher and more complex organisms, you are less and less able to use this example, until you finally reach apes and humans.

You've really to define this better. A LOT of species could be considered unique in some way or another. What exactly makes a particular species a "higher form of life" ?

Btw, you all know about the "ladder of progress" misconception right?

 

[Aron-Ra]

The higher an organism is, the more specific and unique its traits are. A fish is much, much lower then human beings or apes, which are among the highest forms of life on earth. As you up the chart to higher and more complex organisms, you are less and less able to use this example, until you finally reach apes and humans.

This is almost correct, except that "descendants" shouldn't be thought of as "higher" than their ancestors. Niether high nor low really apply here. Neither does simple and complex. Because we have some fairly simple higher animals, and some way complex "simple" life forms.

Other than that, you've almost got the concept.

The comparison of fish to human classification is an extremely poor one.

How about between "chordate" and human? If we use that word instead of 'fish', would it make more sense to you?

 

[Lilandra]

I searched high and low to find it.

A year ago, I posted as an OEC. It embarasses me to remember what I posted. Although none it approached the level of insult to the intelligence and patience of the evo posters that you post here.

People take time to carefully and correctly answer your question. Your response typically amounts to Nuh-Uh!

How much time does it take to compose a reply like that? Why do you think your dismissal, w/o considering evidence or posting valid evidence of your own, amounts to more than the scientifically based responses here?

You aren't convincing anyone but yourself and the few others who don't want to accept common ancestry.

I didn't want to accept it either. I didn't ignore what they said. People were patient with me but I finally had to take my medicine from one of the posters here. The same one who you just told "nice try" after he carefully tried to show you guys something.

So no I am not desperate to prove evolution. I don't have to be. I accept common ancestry and evidence is on my side.

What do you have?

Nada

And the pics posted by consideringlily, were said by the link to be a "disorder". That means those people in the pics are unfortunate victems of a freak accident. A freak accident is not proof at all, except to those who desperately want to prove evolution.

 

[shinbits]

I'm sure this has been posted here, as this has been posted a lot on these boards, but to emphasize:

If you have a spine, four limbs, an ear with three bones and a jaw with one, fur, your females lactate and give birth to live young, warm blood, flexible fingers, forward facing eyes, general body plan, general dentition, trichromatic vision, fingernails, opposable thumb, no tail, larger than average brain cavity, then you are an ape. If you have a chin, your foramen magnum enters towards the front of the skull, a large Broca's Region, and are suited to bipedality, then you are also a Human.

So shinbits, which part do you not have that makes it so you're not an ape?

This is an incomplete discription of humans. How funny that this quote "forgot" to add the fact humans walk up-right.

What part makes it so that I'm not an ape?

The part that was that was dishonestly left out.

 

[USincognito]

I searched high and low to find it.

A year ago, I posted as an OEC. It embarasses me to remember what I posted. Although none it approached the level of insult to the intelligence and patience of the evo posters that you post here.

Click on User Control Panel (link at the top).
Click on Attachments (listed to the left).
Find the attachement you're referring to... unless it was a link, in which case I can't help.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Shinbits, Consideringlily didn't want to change her mind. The evidence compelled her despite what she would rather believe. The same thing happened to me. We were both happy believing as we did. So how hard would it be for you to give us both what we need to believe again?

Try that angle instead of rudely accusing us of being lying Nazi racist liberal communist baby-killers in league with Satan. Because your current approach only discourages others who would otherwise believe as you do.

 

[shinbits]

I searched high and low to find it.

A year ago, I posted as an OEC. It embarasses me to remember what I posted. Although none it approached the level of insult to the intelligence and patience of the evo posters that you post here.

People take time to carefully and correctly answer your question. Your response typically amounts to Nuh-Uh!

wow. this is just a lie. You know full well that there are no posts in which I don't explain why I believe like I do. There are no "nuh-uh" posts, as you imply, where I just don't have an answer and, just dismiss by saying "nuh-uh." Find one if you can.

 

[random_guy]

This is an incomplete discription of humans. How funny that this quote "forgot" to add the fact humans walk up-right.

What part makes it so that I'm not an ape?

The part that was that was dishonestly left out.

You mean this part:

If you have a spine, four limbs, an ear with three bones and a jaw with one, fur, your females lactate and give birth to live young, warm blood, flexible fingers, forward facing eyes, general body plan, general dentition, trichromatic vision, fingernails, opposable thumb, no tail, larger than average brain cavity, then you are an ape. If you have a chin, your foramen magnum enters towards the front of the skull, a large Broca's Region, and are suited to bipedality, then you are also a Human.

EDIT: Also, whether that part about walking upright was included or not, you still haven't pointed out which ape characteristic you don't have which makes it so you're not an ape. No where in the ape description did it mention that you have to walk on fours. I suggest you carefully reread the description, think about what it means before you start throwing out words like dishonest.

 

[trase]

A fish said to itself : " I would like to explore the world outside the water but first I will have to grow lungs. If I start now I will have a full functioning pair in a few million years".


Why did the fish want to explore the world ?

Dude, you should be embarrassed! Please try to have at least one clue what you're talking about before you speak up. Read this: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

Maybe you could get educated yourself !! Try this...

http://mercy.urantia.org/papers/paper65.html

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Maybe you could get educated yourself !! Try this...

http://mercy.urantia.org/papers/paper65.html

the first time on these boards that someone linked to the urantia book

The story of man's ascent from seaweed to the lordship of earthly creation is indeed a romance of biologic struggle and mind survival. Man's primordial ancestors were literally the slime and ooze of the ocean bed in the sluggish and warm-water bays and lagoons of the vast shore lines of the ancient inland seas, those very waters in which the Life Carriers established the three independent life implantations on Urantia.
...
Man thus evolved from the higher mammals derived principally from the western implantation of life in the ancient east-west sheltered seas. The eastern and central groups of living organisms were early progressing favorably toward the attainment of prehuman levels of animal existence. But as the ages passed, the eastern focus of life emplacement failed to attain a satisfactory level of intelligent prehuman status, having suffered such repeated and irretrievable losses of its highest types of germ plasm that it was forever shorn of the power to rehabilitate human potentialities.

Since the quality of the mind capacity for development in this eastern group was so definitely inferior to that of the other two groups, the Life Carriers, with the consent of their superiors, so manipulated the environment as further to circumscribe these inferior prehuman strains of evolving life. To all outward appearances the elimination of these inferior groups of creatures was accidental, but in reality it was altogether purposeful.

Later in the evolutionary unfolding of intelligence, the lemur ancestors of the human species were far more advanced in North America than in other regions; and they were therefore led to migrate from the arena of western life implantation over the Bering land bridge and down the coast to southwestern Asia, where they continued to evolve and to benefit by the addition of certain strains of the central life group. Man thus evolved out of certain western and central life strains but in the central to near-eastern regions.

In this way the life that was planted on Urantia evolved until the ice age, when man himself first appeared and began his eventful planetary career. And this appearance of primitive man on earth during the ice age was not just an accident; it was by design. The rigors and climatic severity of the glacial era were in every way adapted to the purpose of fostering the production of a hardy type of human being with tremendous survival endowment.

from: http://mercy.urantia.org/papers/paper65.html


what exactly do you wish to have us gain from reading this trash?

 

[Aron-Ra]

Maybe you could get educated yourself !! Try this...

http://mercy.urantia.org/papers/paper65.html

Aah, I give you peer-reviewed scientific literature, and you give me something akin to the Weekly World News.

That Urantia channeling of extraterrestrial angels nonsense is no better than this tabloid.

 

[trase]

To claim that we have evolved, as human beings, through absolutely RANDOM mutations, is total silliness. Scientifically speaking, the odds of that happening are practically ZERO.

The Urantia Book doesn't deny evolution but it correctly states that it is a theistic evolution.

Scientific biological evolution can never answer WHY the fish wanted to explore the land ! Any bright scientific ideas ??

 

[random_guy]

To claim that we have evolved, as human beings, through absolutely RANDOM mutations, is total silliness. Scientifically speaking, the odds of that happening are practically ZERO.

The Urantia Book doesn't deny evolution but it correctly states that it is a theistic evolution.

Scientific biological evolution can never answer WHY the fish wanted to explore the land ! Any bright scientific ideas ??

But we didn't evolve through random mutations alone. No one (but Creationists) claim this. We evolved with natural selection, mutations, and a few other bits and pieces.

Also, did you know that, mathematically speaking, an event with 0% chance of occurring can occur?

 

[Silent Bob]

Scientific biological evolution can never answer WHY the fish wanted to explore the land ! Any bright scientific ideas ??

How about two obvious ones? Escaping a predator and migrating to a new source of food where maybe they can find more to eat and they are better at evading the predators there... Then you also have plants growing on land as well, with plants you also have a food source. The plants moved there to get better sunlight and avoid being eaten all the time. Little did they know that some of the ocean grazers would follow them on land.

 

[trase]

Scientific biological evolution can never answer WHY the fish wanted to explore the land ! Any bright scientific ideas ??

How about two obvious ones? Escaping a predator and migrating to a new source of food where maybe they can find more to eat and they are better at evading the predators there... Then you also have plants growing on land as well, with plants you also have a food source. The plants moved there to get better sunlight and avoid being eaten all the time. Little did they know that some of the ocean grazers would follow them on land.

Pleeeaaassssseeee !! The next thing I will read here is that those fishes could do calculus !!!

I think zebras had plenty of time to EVOLVE into something mean and vicious and pay back the lions for all the hard times. Why haven't they ?

 

[random_guy]

Pleeeaaassssseeee !! The next thing I will read here is that those fishes could do calculus !!!

I think zebras had plenty of time to EVOLVE into something mean and vicious and pay back the lions for all the hard times. Why haven't they ?

Too much Pokemon, not enough science. Please study evolution and biology.