Can you prove evolution wrong? -- Part 2

a reply to: turbonium1



I have already posted this.
Obviously some either didn't watch it or they can not grasp it.

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: turbonium1

I have already posted this.

Obviously some either didn't watch it or they can not grasp it.

Which means no second human, or third, or 100th, or any human, afterwards!!

We aren't really humans.. oh well!!

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: turbonium1

I have already posted this.

Obviously some either didn't watch it or they can not grasp it.

Which means no second human, or third, or 100th, or any human, afterwards!!

We aren't really humans.. oh well!!

It simply means that there is no distinct border that can be drawn between "human" and "humans' nearest ancestors" (and that's true for any species).

It may be true that a human today would not be a biologically compatible mate with a human ancestor species from 3 million years ago, but each individual organism along the tree of evolution leading to Homo Sapiens was biologically compatible with the organism directly before it and directly after it. They were also biologically compatible with the individual organism 10 generations before and 109 generations after....

...that is to say, they would all be the same species.

However, while evolution is so gradual that 10 generations doesn't beget whole new species, it is also very persistent. Eventually all of the small evolutionary changes in an organism -- changes that do not make for a new species in the short term -- will add up in the long term, so that a human ancestor from 3 million years ago is not a biologically compatible mate with a human today -- we are a different species.

And while we are a different species, the border between our species and the species that proceeded us is extremely fuzzy. There was no first human.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: turbonium1

I have already posted this.

Obviously some either didn't watch it or they can not grasp it.

Which means no second human, or third, or 100th, or any human, afterwards!!

We aren't really humans.. oh well!!

It simply means that there is no distinct border that can be drawn between "human" and "humans' nearest ancestors" (and that's true for any species).

It may be true that a human today would not be a biologically compatible mate with a human ancestor species from 3 million years ago, but each individual organism along the tree of evolution leading to Homo Sapiens was biologically compatible with the organism directly before it and directly after it. They were also biologically compatible with the individual organism 10 generations before and 109 generations after....

...that is to say, they would all be the same species.

However, while evolution is so gradual that 10 generations doesn't beget whole new species, it is also very persistent. Eventually all of the small evolutionary changes in an organism -- changes that do not make for a new species in the short term -- will add up in the long term, so that a human ancestor from 3 million years ago is not a biologically compatible mate with a human today -- we are a different species.

And while we are a different species, the border between our species and the species that proceeded us is extremely fuzzy. There was no first human.

Every species has been that very same species.

It is an untenable argument to claim that every species is evolving into a different species, but the change is virtually undetectable over 10,000 years. But it still happens, over many MILLIONS of years!

Elephants are going to fly with their ears in about 10 million years, but it's impossible to identify the change over 10,000 years. But it is happening, okay?


SHOW EVIDENCE OF AT LEAST ONE SPECIES CURRENTLY EVOLVING, OR HAVING SOME INDICATION OF EVOLVING, OVER THE PAST 10,000 YEARS.


Let's consider the past 10,000 years, for any, or all, the species on Earth.

All of the species are the very same, over that period. Not a single species, among the millions of various living species of Earth, indicates the slightest change. Not one.

What would extrapolate from that in 100,000 years is no change, and so would 100 million years.


10,000 years, and millions of generations, among millions of different species, is clearly a valid sample size to indicate whether or not species are 'evolving', or not. Nothing indicates evolution is a legitimate argument.

A claim like 'humans are different from humans a long time ago' is absurd. No evidence supports this. You just say 'it happens over millions of years', somehow you think that is the answer for anything you can't prove!

10 million years is simply a year by year progression of time. It is not magical time period where apes turned into humans, so imperceptibly slow, over millions of years, it happened without any way to identify the change!!


You need to show actual evidence of it, but there is no evidence, and the only conclusion is that evolution is a complete fairy tale.

originally posted by: turbonium1
SHOW EVIDENCE OF AT LEAST ONE SPECIES CURRENTLY EVOLVING, OR HAVING SOME INDICATION OF EVOLVING, OVER THE PAST 10,000 YEARS.

6 Animals That Are Rapidly Evolving
7 Animals That Are Evolving Right Before Our Eyes
Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island

Snails are evolving different penises. onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

Evolution is not limited to animals, you know.

In the 1880s a flower called Spartina anglica originated in Southampton Water in the UK.

In the mid-1900s another new flower, Senecio cambrensis, naturally speciated in North Wales in the UK, while around the same time two species of flower Tragopogon mirus and T. miscellus appeared in Washington State in the US.

www.bbc.co.uk...

Elephants are going to fly with their ears in about 10 million years, but it's impossible to identify the change over 10,000 years. But it is happening, okay?

Extremely unlikely, flight is achieved by use of front limbs, not ears. But the elephants are definitely losing their tusks, which allows them to survive poaching. www.independent.co.uk...

Humans are:

Animals
Mammals
Primates
Great Apes (Hominidae)
Bipedal Hominids (homo)
Sapiens

We didn't come from animals, we ARE animals. We didn't come from apes, we ARE apes. Being part of the animal kingdom does not mean we just spawned from a monkey, it means the entire animal kingdom shares a common ancestor dating back to when the kingdom first split off from another one.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: turbonium1

Still dodging the evidence I see. Again, speciation has been achieved in a lab. What do you have to say about this or the direct observable mutations I mentioned?

This is why religion is a mental illness. Just ignore all evidence and refuse to do any research whatsoever on the subject, just deny it in favor of ancient texts. Come on, bro. Make a real argument.

Tampering with genetic codes of different species in a lab. It's like saying Dr. Frankenstein would have proven evolution is true, because he created an entirely new species - Monster-Man!

Which genetic codes were tampered with, in which labs by which groups? It should be an easy enough task to cite that information. Otherwise you're just throwing spaghetti at the wall and hoping that some of it sticks.

A genetic mix of cat and rabbit DNA created a 'cabbit'. And tiger and lion mix created 'ligers'.

A cabbit was not a new species. A species reproduces. A cabbit cannot reproduce, since it was NEVER a species to begin with.

You do know that a "Cabbit" exists only in fiction don't you? They're each from a completely separate and distinct genus and family. Cats are from the Family Felidae and the Order Carnivora whereas rabbits are from the Family Leporidae and the Order Lagomorpha. One is a carnivore and the other an herbivore. Aside from both being mammals, you can't get much farther separated than cats and rabbits as their Last Common Ancestor is estimated to have been roughly 90 million years ago. There are no Cabbits outside of fiction. Primarily Anime from what I've seen. So you have actually made one correct statement in this whole thread... That Cabbits can't reproduce because they were never a species is entirely correct.

Lions and tigers however are quite closely related, both carnivores and while no longer true due to human encroachment into their ecological niches, there was a lot of overlap where lions and tigers had the opportunity to meet one another in their natural habitats. And they still didn't mate in nature.

As you seem to rule out any possible mechanism for the introduction or evolution of a new species why don't you give us some insight into your hypothesis for where the genetic diversity on Earth originates. To harbor this degree of umbrage towards the MES, you must have an alternate hypothesis that you wish to test against the scientific method. Or am I giving you too much credit?

Evolution is the theory that thinks any extinct species evolved into other species, millions of years ago.

And this post is the post in which you very clearly demonstrate that despite your utter contempt for the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, you don't understand the most basic aspects of what falls under the scope of the theory on any level whatsoever.

Please... Feel free to provide a citation that supports your commentary if you are able. I a, always happy to be proven wrong and using that as a learning exercise.

I'll give you a quick hint though... Nowhere is it stated in any scientific literature that all extinct species have evolved into other species. I've never heard anyone make this claim in a classroom, in a lab, at a conference or even in casual conversation.

Only here on ATS do I see people make inane claims based on their own lack of knowledge and comprehension of the various scientific disciplines involved in studying the evolution of biological life on Earth. There are countless evolutionary dead ends. Our own Genus, Homo, is filled with many examples from Homo Naledi to Homo Antecessor to Homo Floresiensis. They all lived contemporaneously with, in some cases, 6 or more different species within our genus depending on their geographical location and Eco-niche. Nobody claims that they went extinct because they evolved into a new species of hominid. Just like Neanderthal and Denisovans didn't evolve into some magical new hominid, they all simply went extinct.

No, they are all extinct species. Same as Dodo birds are an extinct species.

So no interest in addressing all of the magical fallacies you’ve propped your position upon? Ehh... not terribly surprised.

None are 'evolutionary dead ends' or whatever.

Why not? Because you say so? Sorry, I’ll go with testable and repeatable ssoectsof the scientific method over the o he ruins from someone who doesn’t understand the most basic aspects of evolutionary theory.

Could you please explain, in detail, how a species might evolve into another species?

So you want me to boil down several years of study into a quaint little paragraph? Go get a library card and borrow some books.

Two humans have children. Human children.
Every generation of human born afterwards are still human.

Ok... you know how the birds and the bees work. That’s a start I guess. The part you’re ignoring though is that when humans reproduce (just like any other mammal) their offspring isn’t a genetic clone, completely unchanged from parent to child. They’re the combination of chromosomes from both parents. This means there are replication errors and the potential for positive mutations to be passed down to the offspring. You keep claiming that there are there has been no observable evolution over the last 10,000 years and this too is entirely false. Light hair, eye color other than brown and lighter skin tones and lactase persistence are all less than 10,000 years old. Some pretty big mutations to filter their way throughout multiple populations for a species that doesn’t evolve. Don’t worry... I know you wont alter your views. But if someone else can see this and see that you’re full of fluff and don’t address any points made by anyone who has replied to you and instead simply keep repeating he same fish galloping mantras, then I’ve done my job.

Where does it start to evolve humans into another species?

There is no arbitrary line to be drawn between one species and another over the course of their lineage.

If you want to believe your ancestors were not human, go ahead.

What I believe isn’t really pertinent. It’s what the evidence says that truly matters.

Humanoid species once existed, and became extinct. Nothing more.

Yet you neglect to explain why things are the way you insist they must be. Nor have you attempted to provide an alternate hypothesis to explain the genetic diversity we see in modern human populations.

Human beings have always been human beings. Nothing else.

So which humans are we then? There were several known members of our genus and likely more that we are unaware of based on genetic data obtained the past decade of advancements in extraction of archaic genetic material.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
And while we are a different species, the border between our species and the species that proceeded us is extremely fuzzy. There was no first human.

I see vagueness still rules supreme in these parts. Always nice when your storylines can't be evaluated for their accuracy/truthfulness that way.

What About Human Evolution?

Look up the topic of human evolution in many textbooks and encyclopedias and you will see a series of pictures​—on one side a stooped, apelike creature followed by creatures that have progressively more upright posture and larger heads. At the end stands modern man. Such renderings along with sensational media reports of the discovery of so-called missing links give the impression that there is ample evidence that man evolved from apelike creatures. Are such assertions based on solid evidence? Consider what evolutionary researchers say about the following topics. *

*: Note: None of the researchers quoted in this box believe in the Bible’s teaching of creation. All accept the teaching of evolution.

WHAT THE FOSSIL EVIDENCE ACTUALLY SHOWS

Fact: At the beginning of the 20th century, all the fossils that were used to support the theory that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor could fit on a billiard table. Since then, the number of fossils used to support that theory has increased. Now it is claimed that they would fill a railroad boxcar.38 However, the vast majority of those fossils consist only of single bones and isolated teeth. Complete skulls​—let alone complete skeletons—​are rare.39

Question: Has the increased number of fossils attributed to the human “family tree” settled the question among evolutionary experts as to when and how humans evolved from apelike creatures?

Answer: No. In fact, the opposite is true. When it comes to how these fossils should be classified, Robin Derricourt of the University of New South Wales, Australia, wrote in 2009: “Perhaps the only consensus now is that there is no consensus.”40 In 2007 the science journal Nature published an article by the discoverers of another claimed link in the evolutionary tree, saying that nothing is known about when or how the human line actually emerged from that of apes.41 Gyula Gyenis, a researcher at the Department of Biological Anthropology, Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary, wrote in 2002: “The classification and the evolutionary place of hominid fossils has been under constant debate.” * This author also states that the fossil evidence gathered so far brings us no closer to knowing exactly when, where, or how humans evolved from apelike creatures.42

*: The term “hominid” is used to describe what evolutionary researchers feel make up the human family and prehistoric humanlike species.

ANNOUNCEMENTS OF “MISSING LINKS”

Fact: The media often widely broadcasts the announcement that a new “missing link” has been discovered. For example, in 2009 a fossil dubbed Ida was unveiled with what one journal called “rock-star hype.”43 Publicity included this headline in The Guardian newspaper of the United Kingdom (UK): “Fossil Ida: Extraordinary Find Is ‘Missing Link’ in Human Evolution.”44 However, just days later, the UK science journal New Scientist said: “Ida is not a ‘missing link’ in human evolution.”45

Question: Why is each unveiling of a new “missing link” given wide media attention, whereas the removal of that fossil from the “family tree” is hardly mentioned?

Answer: Regarding those who make these discoveries, Robin Derricourt, quoted earlier, says: “The leader of a research team may need to over-emphasize the uniqueness and drama of a ‘discovery’ in order to attract research funding from outside the conventional academic sources, and they will certainly be encouraged in this by the print and electronic media, looking for a dramatic story.”46

TEXTBOOK DRAWINGS AND MODELS OF APE-MEN

Fact: Depictions in textbooks and museums of the so-called ancestors of humans are often shown with specific facial features, skin color, and amount of hair. These depictions usually show the older “ancestors” with monkeylike features and the ones supposedly closer to humans with more humanlike facial features, skin tone, and hair.

Question: Can scientists reliably reconstruct such features based on the fossilized remains that they find?

Answer: No. In 2003, forensics expert Carl N. Stephan, who works at the Department of Anatomical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Australia, wrote: “The faces of earlier human ancestors cannot be objectively constructed or tested.” He says that attempts to do so based on modern apes “are likely to be heavily biased, grossly inaccurate, and invalid.” His conclusion? “Any facial ‘reconstructions’ of earlier hominids are likely to be misleading.”47

DETERMINING INTELLIGENCE BY BRAIN SIZE

Fact: The brain size of a presumed ancestor of humans is one of the main ways by which evolutionists determine how closely or distantly the creature is supposed to be related to humans.

Question: Is brain size a reliable indicator of intelligence?

Answer: No. One group of researchers who used brain size to speculate which extinct creatures were more closely related to man admitted that in doing so they “often feel on shaky ground.”48 Why? Consider the statement made in 2008 in Scientific American Mind: “Scientists have failed to find a correlation between absolute or relative brain size and acumen among humans and other animal species. Neither have they been able to discern a parallel between wits and the size or existence of specific regions of the brain, excepting perhaps Broca’s area, which governs speech in people.”49

What do you think? Why do scientists line up the fossils used in the “ape-to-man” chain according to brain size when it is known that brain size is not a reliable measure of intelligence? Are they forcing the evidence to fit their theory? And why are researchers constantly debating which fossils should be included in the human “family tree”? Could it be that the fossils they study are just what they appear to be, extinct forms of apes?

What, though, about the humanlike fossils of the so-called Neanderthals, often portrayed as proof that a type of ape-man existed? Researchers are beginning to alter their view of what these actually were. In 2009, Milford H. Wolpoff wrote in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology that “Neandertals may have been a true human race.”50

Honest observers readily recognize that egos, money, and the need for media attention influence the way that “evidence” for human evolution is presented. Are you willing to put your trust in such evidence?
...

Source: QUESTION 4: Has All Life Descended From a Common Ancestor?

“As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.”
- Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

It simply means that there is no distinct border that can be drawn between "human" and "humans' nearest ancestors" (and that's true for any species).

Here's something that is actually true/factual/certain/absolute/correct, without error/definite:

Author Richard Morris says: “Apparently paleontologists had adopted the orthodox idea of gradual evolutionary change and had held onto it, even when they discovered evidence to the contrary. They had been trying to interpret fossil evidence in terms of accepted evolutionary ideas.”37

“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story​—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”​—In Search of Deep Time—​Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, by Henry Gee, pp. 116-117

[whereislogic: Thinking about my quotation of Newton and the phrase "that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses." that I was out of space to share in its context; what Henry Gee mentions above and similar bedtime stories mentioned in my previous comment don't even qualify as a "hypothesis" under the definition that I saw for "hypothesis" in a dictionary for scientific terminologies. Going back a bit in the article:]
...
A second, more serious challenge is the lack of proof that those creatures are somehow related. Specimens placed in the series are often separated by what researchers estimate to be millions of years. Regarding the time spans that separate many of these fossils, zoologist Henry Gee says: “The intervals of time that separate the fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent.”34 *

*: Henry Gee does not suggest that the theory of evolution is wrong. His comments are made to show the limits of what can be learned from the fossil record.

[whereislogic: OK, so you can't say anything true/factual/definite about it, then why are people even listening? Has no one taught them Isaac Newton's proposed method to acquire science/knowledge about realities/facts/truths/certainties? I.e. a "scientific method" that has proven results such as the law of gravity and the fact that E=MC^2?]

Commenting on the fossils of fish and amphibians, biologist Malcolm S. Gordon states that the fossils found represent only a small, “possibly quite unrepresentative, sample of the biodiversity that existed in these groups at those times.” He further says: “There is no way of knowing to what extent, if at all, those specific organisms were relevant to later developments, or what their relationships might have been to each other.”35 *

*: Malcolm S. Gordon supports the teaching of evolution.

Long live the Great "We Don't Know (yet, but Mother Nature did it anyway)"! You may continue your neurotic speculation in complete disregard of Newton's methodology to acquire science/knowledge about realities/facts/truths/certainties now...do you need Newton's Principia to wipe your ass or mouth with when you're done pretending science, reason and rationality is on your side (sometimes even hypocritically praising Newton's achievements in the process of ignoring his advice on how to discover science/knowledge about realities rather than selling and marketing unverified philosophies, endless unverified speculative so-called hypotheses and even theories* akin to bedtime stories and mythology as if it has anything to do with science)? *: see my commentary on the so-called "Endosymbiont hypothesis" a.k.a. "endosymbiotic theory" a.k.a. "endosymbiosis theory" I've made in this subforum before (which falls under the label "biological evolution"), or concerning the so-called "chemical evolution theory of life" (quoting Haldane & Oparin) a.k.a. "the hypothesis of abiogenesis" (quoting Huxley) before making comments of the style 'evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis' or 'evolution doesn't address the origin of life' or 'we were talking about modern evolutionary synthesis or biological evolution' (with the implication one is only allowed to speak about those subjects when it's the philosophical naturalists themselves that refer to "the hypothesis of abiogenesis" as "chemical evolution" and "the chemical evolution theory of life" (nothing to see here, let's quickly change the subject as we ignore that initially, just like in the title of this thread, only the word "evolution" was used, nice and vague, no further specifications what type of evolution, therefore, it can even include cosmic evolution (which discusses the origin and further development of the universe and everything in it).

Oh... Source: same as before (the sources with numbers 37-42 are listed in the bibliography there)

Newton already ripped Darwin and all his fans and admirers a new one before they were born:

Isaac Newton's science/scientia/knowledge about reality

Cause Darwin never came up with a new idea/philosophy in the first place, and not a single significant discovery of a fact (something that is absolute/factual/definite/correct, without error/true) in the sciences akin to the law of gravity or the fact that E=MC^2 (that's where the word "significant" comes in):

The Pagan Religious Roots of Evolutionary Philosophies Part 1

And the guy in the video above still thinks of it as a 'major paradigm shift... change of thinking' (3:24), pfff. The only thing new or different about it is the marketing-jacket that says "SCIENCE" on it that Darwin wrapped around it. Like the T-shirt of the guy in this video (1:00):

a reply to: whereislogic
Nice to see a Jehovah's Witness chiming in on this discussion. I used to be one.

A question for you: why were there animals like the Ambulocetus and the Rodhocetus, which were to all intents and purposes whales (or whale-like animals) with four legs? They were somewhat poor at swimming fast and avoiding predators, and appear only in a certain period in the fossil record?

When whales had legs: www.youtube.com...


The whale-like fossils found in the later period become more streamlined and lose their hind legs, gradually becoming the whales and dolphins we know today.



And then there's the Tiktaalik, half-fish half-amphibian. It also appears in a certain geological period and is succeded by animals that look more like amphibians than fish.



www.youtube.com...


~~~

Theory of evolution isn't just some blind guess or fantasy; it's a multi-disciplinary study that has grounds in geology, paleontology, comparative anatomy, genetics, biology:

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: wildespace
I've responded to and brought up the myth of "walking whales" many times in this subforum, don't feel like doing it again. The whole notion is as ridiculous to me as a pig that flies. Stop calling them* whales please.

*: Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus for example.

I do want to ask a question about it though for which I have not gotten a satisfactory answer yet, why is it that certain textbooks or musea display or used to display Rhodocetus with flippers and a tail fluke? (or what is the reason Dr. Gingerich, who found the fossil, gives in the interview below?)

Do you have any answers for the questions in my previous comments or is there any chance that one day you might be willing to answer those questions, even if they are rhetorical or if the answer has already been given in the acknowledgements of those who market evolutionary philosophies and have made a career out of this while making no significant conclusive/factual/definite discoveries in the sciences akin to the law of gravity or the fact that E=MC^2? How about these ones (based on the facts previously mentioned in my previous comment, the bolded rhetorical question also counts for or in relation to my question about Rodhocetus):

Question: Why is each unveiling of a new “missing link” given wide media attention, whereas the removal of that fossil from the “family tree” is hardly mentioned?
...
Why do scientists line up the fossils used in the “ape-to-man” chain according to brain size when it is known that brain size is not a reliable measure of intelligence? Are they forcing the evidence to fit their theory? And why are researchers constantly debating which fossils should be included in the human “family tree”? Could it be that the fossils they study are just what they appear to be, extinct forms of apes?
...

My signature also contains a hint regarding some of the answers such as the answer to my question about Rodhocetus. note: propaganda = marketing of philosophies, false stories/myths, ideologies and particular unverified doctrines/teachings (those are the products being marketed).

2 Timothy 4:3,4

For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* [Or “healthful; beneficial.”] teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* [Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”] 4 They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.* [Greek: mythos; KJV: myths]

Also note (regarding the picture concerning whale evolution that you shared) that I agree with Dr. Henry Gee (a marketeer of evolutionary stories, ideas/philosophies, senior editor of the scientific journal Nature):

To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story​—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.

Source: In Search of Deep Time—​Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, by Henry Gee, pp. 116-117

Except for the part that says "perhaps even instructive", I don't agree with that part, well, "instructive" in a different sense related to recognizing what's mentioned in my signature and related subjects in human behaviour, both of the proponents of evolutionary bedtime stories as the fans of them (those who fall for it and think they have anything to do with science rather than ancient mythology promoted by Pagan Greek philosophers and Hindu Brahmin).

a reply to: whereislogic

They weren't "whales with feet", but the idea is that whale ancestors were land creatures with feet who, in order to escape predators and/or to find more food, spent a lot of time in the water.

As time went on, and through natural selection, the idea is that these animals began to evolve better ways of moving around in the water (feet turning into fins), and evolved noses that were higher in their head in order to be abloe to go into deeper water and still breath. Eventually after even more time and a greater amount of bautre selection, something that could be called a whale came about, whose foot bones and skin are now flippers, and whose nose is a blowhole.

The natural selection part of this is that the offspring of thise creatuires who were born with a foot that is slightly different as to be used as a fin, and their noses were slightly higher on there heads as to let them go deeper to escpe predators and eat more food, these offspring were better equipped to survive longer and have more offspring of their own -- and pass along their traits. Over time, we end up with mammels with fins, blowholes, smooth skin, and good lungs.

[

Obviously some either didn't watch it or they can not grasp it.

Which means no second human, or third, or 100th, or any human, afterwards!!www.abovetopsecret.com...


The examples you gave in the articles were describing adaption, not evolution from one species to another.

We aren't really humans.. oh well!!

It simply means that there is no distinct border that can be drawn between "human" and "humans' nearest ancestors" (and that's true for any species).

It may be true that a human today would not be a biologically compatible mate with a human ancestor species from 3 million years ago, but each individual organism along the tree of evolution leading to Homo Sapiens was biologically compatible with the organism directly before it and directly after it. They were also biologically compatible with the individual organism 10 generations before and 109 generations after....

...that is to say, they would all be the same species.

However, while evolution is so gradual that 10 generations doesn't beget whole new species, it is also very persistent. Eventually all of the small evolutionary changes in an organism -- changes that do not make for a new species in the short term -- will add up in the long term, so that a human ancestor from 3 million years ago is not a biologically compatible mate with a human today -- we are a different species.

And while we are a different species, the border between our species and the species that proceeded us is extremely fuzzy. There was no first human.




Every species has been that very same species.

It is an untenable argument to claim that every species is evolving into a different species, but the change is virtually undetectable over 10,000 years. But it still happens, over many MILLIONS of years!

Elephants are going to fly with their ears in about 10 million years, but it's impossible to identify the change over 10,000 years. But it is happening, okay?


SHOW EVIDENCE OF AT LEAST ONE SPECIES CURRENTLY EVOLVING, OR HAVING SOME INDICATION OF EVOLVING, OVER THE PAST 10,000 YEARS.


Let's consider the past 10,000 years, for any, or all, the species on Earth.

All of the species are the very same, over that period. Not a single species, among the millions of various living species of Earth, indicates the slightest change. Not one.

What would extrapolate from that in 100,000 years is no change, and so would 100 million years.


10,000 years, and millions of generations, among millions of different species, is clearly a valid sample size to indicate whether or not species are 'evolving', or not. Nothing indicates evolution is a legitimate argument.

A claim like 'humans are different from humans a long time ago' is absurd. No evidence supports this. You just say 'it happens over millions of years', somehow you think that is the answer for anything you can't prove!

10 million years is simply a year by year progression of time. It is not magical time period where apes turned into humans, so imperceptibly slow, over millions of years, it happened without any way to identify the change!!


You need to show actual evidence of it, but there is no evidence, and the only conclusion is that evolution is a complete fairy tale.



6 Animals That Are Rapidly Evolving
7 Animals That Are Evolving Right Before Our Eyes
Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island These articles do not support evolution, they support adaption, Turbonium is correct.


Excellent post ,Turbonium. Your use of logic and observation will probably not be appreciated by many, sadly.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People
I never said "whales with feet" but I've heard a marketeer of evolutionary philosophies, Dr. Annalisa Berta (Evolutionary Biology, Ph.D., Department of Biology, San Diego) refer to the subject as "...that whales had feet and actually walked on land" (synonyms for factual, adj. correct, without error: "absolute/actual/certain/definite/true/truthful"). That's what I'm referring to when I talk about the myth of walking whales. And I'm sure she's not the only one who talked about the subject that way, i.e. "walking whales". Also note from wiktionary regarding the latin word given to "Ambulocetus" and "Rodhocetus":

2. The constellation Cetus, the Whale.

Source: cetus - Wiktionary

Stop calling them whales please.

Btw, wildespace used the phrase "whales...with four legs". Along with some vagueness and other optional ways of saying it, which do not exclude or negate that phrase from the discussion. He's also still referring to Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus as "whales" in that phrase (given the context he says that in). Similar to the video he shares that says "whales had legs". While you're at it, you (as in all of you who do this) may reconsider whether you want to continue referring to humans as apes or animals while thinking you're making some kind of clever argument:
Animal: google dictionary

1. a living organism which feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.
"wild animals adapt badly to a caged life"

- any such living organism other than a human being.
"are humans superior to animals, or just different?"
synonyms: ..., beast,...

That's how I use the word "animal" to avoid any confusion, blurring of the lines (between fact and fiction) or the bolded technique from the article in my signature below:

The cunning propagandist loves such shortcuts—especially those that short-circuit rational thought. Propaganda encourages this by agitating the emotions, by exploiting insecurities, by capitalizing on the ambiguity of language, and by bending rules of logic. As history bears out, such tactics can prove all too effective.

Are you willing or is there any chance that you will answer the questions that were raised in my commentary when responding to my comments with your storylines designed to make it sound more convincing to the biased reader? Cause they aren't convincing to me, so other than influencing other readers that you're not responding to with your last comment, like the ones already entrenched in the belief in evolutionary bedtime stories, there isn't much point in responding to my comments that way. Unless you want to demonstrate a certain closedmindedness and refusal to consider the rhetorical questions for example or give a reasonable counter-argument that might have an effect on my opinion about these matters to be more in line with yours.

my previous commentary about this subject with more unasnwered questions while people are responding to my comments

Perhaps it may also help if some people can be more clear (less vague, less ambiguous) about whether or not they can say something that is truthful/absolute/definite/certain/factual about these subjects (evolutionary bedtime stories).

A second, more serious challenge is the lack of proof that those creatures are somehow related. Specimens placed in the series are often separated by what researchers estimate to be millions of years. Regarding the time spans that separate many of these fossils, zoologist Henry Gee says: “The intervals of time that separate the fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent.”34 *

*: Henry Gee does not suggest that the theory of evolution is wrong. His comments are made to show the limits of what can be learned from the fossil record. [whereislogic: Dr. Henry Gee is senior editor of the so-called "scientific journal" Nature; a man with all his fingers on the buttons of the masses, the guy who also said something about "bedtime stories"]

34. In Search of Deep Time​—Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, by Henry Gee, 1999, p. 23.

For a reference on how that works (being clear about what's factual/absolute/certain/true and what's not, not blurring the line between fact and fiction exploiting people's conditioned love of agnosticism, both convenient selective agnosticism and general agnosticism while capitalizing on the ambiguity of language and bending rules of logic and possibly even agitating the emotions and exploiting insecurities as described in more detail in the article in my signature, click previous page if you use that link):

Evolution—Myths and Facts

Whereislogic, are you going to prove evolution wrong or just keep posting long winded tirades and youtube videos that you have already posted hundreds of times in here. Make a real argument that isn't just copy pasted JW propaganda and youtube liars. Prove the evidence wrong instead of posting nothing but red herrings and straw mans.

originally posted by: whereislogic
For a reference on how that works (being clear about what's factual/absolute/certain/true and what's not, not blurring the line between fact and fiction exploiting people's conditioned love of agnosticism, both convenient selective agnosticism and general agnosticism while capitalizing on the ambiguity of language and bending rules of logic and possibly even agitating the emotions and exploiting insecurities as described in more detail in the article in my signature, click previous page if you use that link):

Evolution—Myths and Facts

Here's another reference from which one can learn how that works, allthough it does rely on some priorly developed common sense (as in ability to process facts vs unverified philosophies/ideas), for which the description of that playlist may help a bit depending on the current state of your mind (in particular the level of love for agnosticism, general or selective):

Real science, knowledge of realities compared to philosophies and stories

These references are a much more healthful or beneficial* way to spend your time on than 'conversing' with chatbots or those who respond with chatbot-like commentary (making the same accusations and using the same discrediting paint-job tactics over and over, but never a serious reasonable response that might affect my opinion, but instead have great influence on the biased readers I spoke about earlier, depending on their level of aversion to propaganda and knowledge about how it works).

*: to the mind

It's slightly funny though when chatbots or those who make chatbot-like comments still go ahead and complain about repetition shortly after one has mentioned:

I've responded to and brought up the myth of "walking whales" many times in this subforum, don't feel like doing it again.

Well, I guess now some observant people might have a clue why I didn't feel like doing it again. Who needs to encourage chatbots or chatbot-like individuals to do their thing again while they are possibly fully aware that my questions haven't been answered or reasonably responded to previously and are unlikely to be ever answered with anything that sounds reasonable to me and not a dodge or a twist of the issues with the so-called "evidence"? Vagueness still rules supreme in some circles. Is it a fact/truth/certainty that there is an ancestral relation between the fossil that has been named "Rodhocetus" and the animal that human beings have been referring to as "whales" for a while now? Is that factual/absolute/true? Or do you agree with Henry Gee's statement about what qualifies as a bedtime story and/or what he says about the ability to say anything definite/truthful/absolute/certain about these evolutionary bedtime stories presented under the label "peer reviewed science" for decades before the 'genetics' card was invented and added to the deck of Magic cards (the cardgame), while continuing to make up the bulk of the so-called "evidence" or reason for telling these bedtime stories to the kids in schools or universities? Do you have something better than:

To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story​—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific. - Henry Gee

taking a line of fossils and claiming that they represent a lineage (of evolutionary descent)? Which is what the picture that was shared about whales is partly* based on (*: the biggest part, please don't dodge with the red herring and next joker card about hippo genetics filled with its own twists and blatant lies and misrepresentation of the facts, leaving out inconvenient facts and other propaganda techniques ), that's the supposed "evidence". But it's unclear who is using this so-called "evidence" to argue that the story is "factual/absolute/true/definite" or "most likely" (in the eyes of biased beholders who like to blur the lines between fact and fiction and promote agnosticism via other channels of brainwashing).

For the moment, I'll just stick with Newton's method to acquire science/knowledge about realities/facts/truths/certainties, things that are absolute/definite/conclusive/correct, without error/true/truthful, i.e. Newton's proposed scientific method that has proven results such as the law of gravity and the fact that E=MC^2.

Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
...
Rule IV. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, 'till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions,

This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.

As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.
- Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

The Encyclopaedia Britannica on inductive reasoning:

When a person uses a number of established facts to draw a general conclusion, he uses inductive reasoning. THIS IS THE KIND OF LOGIC NORMALLY USED IN THE SCIENCES. ...

Ah well, while I'm at it, here's where Newton got his methodology from:

1 Thess 5:21:

Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine.

A note of warning:

A man may imagine things that are false, but he can only understand things that are true, for if the things be false, the apprehension of them is not understanding. - Isaac Newton

Btw, "you" in the questions in this comment are questions to the floor, all of you who are fans of evolutionary bedtime stories and consider, think or believe that they have any merit in discussions about reality or realities/facts/truths/certainties, that which is true/factual/absolute/certain/correct, without error/definite. After all knowledge/science (from the Latin "scientia" meaning "knowledge") is a familiarity with facts/truths/certainties. So you can also phrase the last point I made there as "...discussions about science/knowledge", which would end up making a similar point.

For those who can't resist bringing up or thinking about (getting stuck on) the red herring joker card concerning genetics, you might want to consider responding to or reasonably consider this behaviour first (or one day), the article about "gene tree discordance" shown at 3:08 is also quite interesting to think about when having a discussion or contemplation about science/knowledge, reality, or the facts/truths of the matter:

Of course, I have shared that one in my previous commentary about evolutionary stories.

Does anybody know if anyone has already been able to program a chatbot to respond to audial content in videos (a specific response that shows that they understand the content, not registering a keyword and then responding with selecting an argument related to that keyword or keyphrase from a database of bad but persuasive* arguments)?

*: persuasive to heavily indoctrinated and/or biased individuals, victims of propaganda, or even propaganda chatbots (such as the ones the Russians and perhaps even the Trump-team have been unleashing lately on the internet and I suspect ATS as well)

a reply to: Barcs

The evidence suggests that no whereislogic shall just keep posting non sequitur content. Perhaps one day he (?) will slip up and comment with their own thoughts

Jeesh, it's gonna be really hard to go through all those longs posts and try to reply to each question or statement.

Any chance we could keep the posts fairly short and focusing on just one or two things at a time?

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: wildespace
Stop calling them* whales please.

Why? Animals like the Maiacetus had several common features with basilosaurid whales (teeth) and modern whales (middle ear structure and ankle shape): www.youtube.com...

In fact, the whole Basilosaurus genus is interesting as an example of early whales many of which still had teeth and vestigal limbs: en.wikipedia.org...