Resources on Evolution

[Brightmoon]

If environment has a profound influence to the evolution process, then in the earth history, we should see many cases that illustrated backward evolution when the environment gradually changed "back" to what it was. That is something we never see.

. Name an environment that happened to. By the way devolution doesn’t happen . That’s a fantasy. Organisms can re- evolve an ancestral trait, but that leaves genetic vestiges in the DNA

 

[juvenissun]

. Name an environment that happened to. By the way devolution doesn’t happen . That’s a fantasy. Organisms can re- evolve an ancestral trait, but that leaves genetic vestiges in the DNA

I am telling you a question which evolutionist can not answer. I am NOT giving you an example to answer my question. Remember my question and ask it to an evolutionist. So far, I am not sure you understand my question.

 

[Brightmoon]

I understood that you proposed a fantasy geological situation and expect biologists to give organisms to fit that fantasy . Ok I’ll try .

Unicorns especially pink ones!

 

[juvenissun]

I understood that you proposed a fantasy geological situation and expect biologists to give organisms to fit that fantasy . Ok I’ll try .

Unicorns especially pink ones!

I am a geologist. I know how did the environment of the earth change. What I proposed is a reasonably hard question, not a fantasy. The 42 guy asked how is my question related to the definition of evolution. The answer is: what we see does NOT fit what the definition says.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If environment has a profound influence to the evolution process, then in the earth history, we should see many cases that illustrated backward evolution when the environment gradually changed "back" to what it was. That is something we never see.

It's statements like this, that show how you actually don't comprehend evolutionary processes at all....

 

[DogmaHunter]

I am telling you a question which evolutionist can not answer. I am NOT giving you an example to answer my question. Remember my question and ask it to an evolutionist. So far, I am not sure you understand my question.

Your question makes no sense because it is loaded with ignorance and false assumptions.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I am a geologist. I know how did the environment of the earth change. What I proposed is a reasonably hard question, not a fantasy. The 42 guy asked how is my question related to the definition of evolution. The answer is: what we see does NOT fit what the definition says.

What do we see?
How does it not fit the definition?

Don't assert it. Explain it.

 

[Brightmoon]

Juvie , what kind of geologist makes up the stuff you do? You don’t seem to understand the basic geological column or how they’re dated or index fossils which iirc is middle school geology .

 

[juvenissun]

Juvie , what kind of geologist makes up the stuff you do? You don’t seem to understand the basic geological column or how they’re dated or index fossils which iirc is middle school geology .

Sorry to say this. But you are done.

 

[Brightmoon]

I’m not the only one stating that you have no idea what you’re talking about . Unlike you I’m at least familiar with the subject so I agree on that basis

 

[Brightmoon]

You claim that Tiktaalik isn’t a transitional between lobefin lungfish and amphibians. Fish have a bone called a cleithrum which attaches the back of the skull roof to the scapula. If you look at the skull of Tiktaalik you see that the scapula is detached from the skullroof and the cleithrum is shrinking . If you look at fishopods that are younger than tiktaalik, you see that the cleithrum is almost gone . By the time they become amphibians the skullroof is losing that notch at the back which allows the fishopod more freedom of movement in the neck region . The evolution of amphibians from fish IS the evolution of the neck . Fishopods mostly were shallow water dwellers and they used their fins to move mud and vegetation around, not to walk on land . Dry land walking developed later when they evolved stronger layered gut muscles . We’ve retained that lattice of layered gut muscles even in humans and during fetal development the fact that our skullroof is made up of the same ectoderm derived bone ( it’s not from cartilage which is mesodermal derived bone) as a fish.

Speaking of fish skulls . They have 2 , an outer skullroof which sorta makes up the face and an inner braincase which covers the brain . The braincase is derived from cartilage based bone . Again humans have retained some of this . The cartilage based braincase is at the base of our brain on top of the spine . So not only do we have the fossils but our own bodies demonstrate that common ancestry from fish

 

[xianghua]

"just" a tree.... a tree that happens to be exactly what evolution would predict it would be.

but its actually just a general classification (reptiles, mammals, birds etc). we can do that with vehicles too: cars, vans, trucks etc. no evidence for evolution here.

There is no reason to have this specific pattern, in a world where evolution is false.

why not? we cant classify creatures by groups if they were made by design?

 

[Speedwell]

why not? we cant classify creatures by groups if they were made by design?

We can, but the classification will not reveal a pattern of nested hierarchy.

 

[xianghua]

We can, but the classification will not reveal a pattern of nested hierarchy.

remember that we are talking about general hierarchy here.

 

[46AND2]

remember that we are talking about general hierarchy here.

No, we are talking about nested hierarchy.

 

[DogmaHunter]

but its actually just a general classification (reptiles, mammals, birds etc).

No, it's not. Classification has nothing to do with it.
In fact, these genetic relationships, is what has driven the classifications.
Classifications aren't superimposed on species. They are derived from them.

we can do that with vehicles too: cars, vans, trucks etc. no evidence for evolution here.

You can not, as those don't fall in a nested hierarchy, as has been explained to you more times then I can remember.

why not? we cant classify creatures by groups if they were made by design?

You can put whatever label on whatever you want, but it will not change the physical and genetic traits of species, nore will it affect the nested hierarchy they fall in.

The pattern is an objective reality that can be observed, measured, mapped. Not something that was "labeled" or "classified".

 

[DogmaHunter]

remember that we are talking about general hierarchy here.

You are.

We aren't.

Nested hierarchies. As if you've never been told this before....

 

[xianghua]

You are.

We aren't.

Nested hierarchies. As if you've never been told this before....

but you only showed a general hierarchy: fishes, reptiles, mammals etc.

You can not, as those don't fall in a nested hierarchy, as has been explained to you more times then I can remember.

show me an example and i will show you the same with evolution.

 

[DogmaHunter]

but you only showed a general hierarchy: fishes, reptiles, mammals etc.

No. I linked you to phylogenetic trees several times.

show me an example and i will show you the same with evolution.

I can't show you examples of things that don't exist.
To my knowledge, only things that develop through evolutionary principles (accumulation of changes over generations) fall into nested hierarchies.

 

[xianghua]

No. I linked you to phylogenetic trees several times.

here is a phylogenetic tree:

(image from Home)

as you can see its just a general hierarchy: mammals, reptiles etc.