What's new

Still don't believe in evolution? Try this!

Of course, but how is this a limit on evolutionary theory? A population of fish that have acquired lungs, legs, hair, arms, and large brains are still just fish, we happen to call this subgroup human, but they are still fish as well.

Don't you mean a population of single-celled animals that have acquired multiple cells and all that other stuff we may call them human but they are still single-celled organisms as well?
 
"Since life began on Earth, several major mass extinctions have significantly exceeded the background extinction rate. The most recent, the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event, which occurred approximately 66 million years ago (Ma), was a large-scale mass extinction of animal and plant species in a geologically short period of time."

....just what I said, Dinosaurs! What's to disagree about? Just about every thing else was the result of mismanagement of the environment!

You are so intellectually dishonest. No one could have possibly read that web sight and reached that conclusion.


Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event (End Cretaceous, K-T extinction, or K-Pg extinction): 66 Ma at the Cretaceous.Maastrichtian-Paleogene.Danian transition interval.[5] The K–T event is now officially called the Cretaceous–Paleogene (or K–Pg) extinction event in place of Cretaceous-Tertiary. About 17% of all families, 50% of all genera[6] and 75% of all species became extinct.[7] In the seas it reduced the percentage of sessile animals to about 33%. All non-avian dinosaurs became extinct during that time.[8] The boundary event was severe with a significant amount of variability in the rate of extinction between and among different clades. Mammals and birds emerged as dominant land vertebrates in the age of new life.
Triassic–Jurassic extinction event (End Triassic): 200 Ma at the Triassic-Jurassic transition. About 23% of all families, 48% of all genera (20% of marine families and 55% of marine genera) and 70% to 75% of all species went extinct.[6] Most non-dinosaurian archosaurs, most therapsids, and most of the large amphibians were eliminated, leaving dinosaurs with little terrestrial competition. Non-dinosaurian archosaurs continued to dominate aquatic environments, while non-archosaurian diapsids continued to dominate marine environments. The Temnospondyl lineage of large amphibians also survived until the Cretaceous in Australia (e.g., Koolasuchus).
Permian–Triassic extinction event (End Permian): 251 Ma at the Permian-Triassic transition. Earth's largest extinction killed 57% of all families, 83% of all genera and 90% to 96% of all species[6] (53% of marine families, 84% of marine genera, about 96% of all marine species and an estimated 70% of land species, including insects).[9] The evidence of plants is less clear, but new taxa became dominant after the extinction.[10] The "Great Dying" had enormous evolutionary significance: on land, it ended the primacy of mammal-like reptiles. The recovery of vertebrates took 30 million years,[11] but the vacant niches created the opportunity for archosaurs to become ascendant. In the seas, the percentage of animals that were sessile dropped from 67% to 50%. The whole late Permian was a difficult time for at least marine life, even before the "Great Dying".
Late Devonian extinction: 375–360 Ma near the Devonian-Carboniferous transition. At the end of the Frasnian Age in the later part(s) of the Devonian Period, a prolonged series of extinctions eliminated about 19% of all families, 50% of all genera[6] and 70% of all species.[citation needed] This extinction event lasted perhaps as long as 20 Ma, and there is evidence for a series of extinction pulses within this period.
Ordovician–Silurian extinction event (End Ordovician or O-S): 450–440 Ma at the Ordovician-Silurian transition. Two events occurred that killed off 27% of all families, 57% of all genera and 60% to 70% of all species.[6] Together they are ranked by many scientists as the second largest of the five major extinctions in Earth's history in terms of percentage of genera that went extinct.
 
Don't you mean a population of single-celled animals that have acquired multiple cells and all that other stuff we may call them human but they are still single-celled organisms as well?

The eukaryotes did indeed break up into groups that have just a single cell and those that have more. However, "single-cell organism" is not a natural evolutionary grouping, since it would contain not only some eukaryotes, but also bacteria and archaea.
 
The eukaryotes did indeed break up into groups that have just a single cell and those that have more. However, "single-cell organism" is not a natural evolutionary grouping, since it would contain not only some eukaryotes, but also bacteria and archaea.

So how did we get from single-cell animals, or just blobs of quasi-organic material to humans? At what point is a fish not a fish, in other words? So that cute little thing you said about us all just being fish, can't it go all the way back to us just being blobs of quasi-organic ooze that have just added outer cell walls, and organelles, and limbs, or fins, and lungs, and what-have-you? So everything is really just everything, right?
 
You are so intellectually dishonest. No one could have possibly read that web sight and reached that conclusion.

...what I read was that the LAST major extinction occurred in the Dinosaur era, true or false? When your trying to be "specific" in terms of what happened supposedly some 60 million years ago....well....how SPECIFIC can you ACTUALLY be???
 
You know how sometimes christians will say to nonchristians "Don't judge all Christians based off of your experience with a few nut jobs".


You are one of those nut jobs.

...obviously, the Law of God was sound and without flaw. It's not like there were thousands or even hundreds that had to be "stoned" for that particular violation. But the principle still applies today. If you don't "nip it in the bud" it spreads like wildfire....and you have, well, what you have today!
 
My caveman forehead is proof enough for me to believe in evolution. Also, it's rad believing in a god that works through science and not magic.
 
So how did we get from single-cell animals, or just blobs of quasi-organic material to humans? At what point is a fish not a fish, in other words? So that cute little thing you said about us all just being fish, can't it go all the way back to us just being blobs of quasi-organic ooze that have just added outer cell walls, and organelles, and limbs, or fins, and lungs, and what-have-you? So everything is really just everything, right?
Sounds like the teenage mutant ninja turtle theory
 
I agree with this. Because Newton wasn't born until the 17th century. :D

more mirror exercise indicated. . . . that little smilie, for example, is what I'm wearing now because, you see, you missed my point. well, I think. . . . .

the reason I compared contemporary understanding of "intelligent design" to the general understanding of Newton in the 14th century is precisely because I believe that by about 300 more years, most scientists will be comfortable with many aspects of "intelligent design" even though I don't expect them to have any consensus on what "God" is.

By then, I expect "life" to be transformed with respect to almost every living thing, by we, the scientists of today, blinded by. . . . our own so-called "intelligent" selves. We will have meddled so heavily into nature there will be only a few token "native" organisms left. . . . mostly in "life form libraries" where they can be isolated from engineered forms gone "wild".

At about that same era. . . . . the history books will be filled with horror stories of the arrogance and conceit and the horrendous impact of our current age of global thinkers who haven't the wit to question themselves before they do stupid stuff.
 
...simply because critters do not EVOLVE! They mate and have offspring within there "kind" but that's it! Extinction, with the exception of dinosaurs, is due to man's selfishness and greed and inability to care for the earth's environment! Agree?

I'm pretty sure your "exception" was not a unique event, and in fact according to geological evidence, a lot more living things went extinct virtually at the same time as the dinosaurs, and that event is only one of several known "bottlenect" events in earth's living history.

Although invoking a further thought might seem too improbable for "science" to take it seriously, I would consider it likely, that there are similar "bottlenecks" in the grander universe, on uncounted planets now existing. . . . as well as in an endless cycle of "universes", and maybe in more dimensions that we are aware of. . . . .

with statistics, even "zero probabilities" do happen given infinite time and expanse. . . .

the unique thing about "life" is "consciousness", the ability to perceive something of a context or circumstance, and with it the "intelligence" to create a plan for dealing with it. . . . . on every imaginable scale of things. . . .

and that is why, even though the scoffers today snicker at "intelligent design", they will not carry the debate. The statistics say they are dead wrong.

the reason life goes on is because life has in it's nature the "intelligence" to take effective action to increase it's survival stats. We all do this individually, and so we are all living proofs of the theorem of "intelligent design", even the scientists who argue with such stunning stupidity against it.
 
So how did we get from single-cell animals, or just blobs of quasi-organic material to humans? At what point is a fish not a fish, in other words? So that cute little thing you said about us all just being fish, can't it go all the way back to us just being blobs of quasi-organic ooze that have just added outer cell walls, and organelles, and limbs, or fins, and lungs, and what-have-you? So everything is really just everything, right?

There are some types of slime molds that alternate between living as single-celled organisms and forming a single, multi-celled organism. In humans, many types of cancer can be thought of as a cell or a few cells turning their back on cooperation, and striking out as single-celled organisms. You are approximately six trillion individual cells that, for the most part, cooperate. They all came out of a single cell, and later on come of those cells differentiated due to various proteins that were produced, but all cells come from the same thing.

The descendants of fish are always fish, even when they are bipedal apes.

Yes, everything is just really everything.
 
.. I believe that by about 300 more years, most scientists will be comfortable with many aspects of "intelligent design" even though I don't expect them to have any consensus on what "God" is.

Being comfortable with the notion of intelligent design is different from saying intelligent design is a scientific proposition (for example, Ken Brown is a scientist who thinks God created the world, and testified against intelligent design being used in a science class).
 
...what I read was that the LAST major extinction occurred in the Dinosaur era, true or false?

Both true and irrelevant to your claim that there are only two types of extinctions (1) Dinosaurs and (2) Man-made

I gave you a plethora of others extinctions and major extinction events.
 
Both true and irrelevant to your claim that there are only two types of extinctions (1) Dinosaurs and (2) Man-made

I gave you a plethora of others extinctions and major extinction events.

....however, the other "extinctions" not man made date back past the Dinosaur era, true or false?
 
Being comfortable with the notion of intelligent design is different from saying intelligent design is a scientific proposition (for example, Ken Brown is a scientist who thinks God created the world, and testified against intelligent design being used in a science class).

His name is Kenneth Miller and he just wanted a monopoly for his biology textbook.
 
I'm bored, you are hopeless.

....however, the other "extinctions" not man made date back past the Dinosaur era, true or false?

I don't mind teaching, but if you want to be my student you have to spend a little effort trying to learn and reading a bit of the material I have pointed you towards. This is tiring.

Unless you start reading, you are condemned to ignorance.

Many species go extinct all the time if you would take a few minutes to read the link I sent you.

Many species in the modern era are caused directly or indirectly by humans (e.g., giant sloth and mammoths in Americas)

Were these guys killed by humans, 2 million years ago?


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phorusrhacids
 
So how did we get from single-cell animals, or just blobs of quasi-organic material to humans? At what point is a fish not a fish, in other words? So that cute little thing you said about us all just being fish, can't it go all the way back to us just being blobs of quasi-organic ooze that have just added outer cell walls, and organelles, and limbs, or fins, and lungs, and what-have-you? So everything is really just everything, right?

We are not fish. We like fish are vertebrates.

The point that (I think) he is trying to make is that these are just categories that we have created. A prototypical fish never gave birth to a prototypical amphibian. We put a creature in the amphibian category when it has an "adequate" amount of prototypical amphibian features that we feel amphibian defines it better. The reality is the borderlands between fish and amphibians is populated by many creatures descended from a prototypical fish that through slight variation have increasingly more amphibian like features.

Race is a good example of the kind of categorical thinking we are prone to. We all know that there isn't a real line between white and black people. We all realize that we can begin in Norway and head southwest and the native people will get progressively darker as we make the turn into Syria they will get darker still through Egypt and Sudan until we eventually reach the heart of Africa. We all know that it is a continuous spectrum but we draw lines, categorize, create definitions.

It seems that our brains are wired for categorization first then for relationships.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top