The Next Leader Of The Opposition Speaks...
Politics2 mins ago
Evolution Of One Species To Another
On R&S threads, Theland often states that while evolution most definitely occurs *within* a species, (eg. Darwins finches) there is no evidence that one species has ever evolved into another. Im no scientist, (much less an evolutionary biologist) but I can see what he's saying.
Ive recently been viewing some You Tube vids from evolutionists debunking creationism....and for balance, creationists debunking evolution.... but nowhere can I find anything to suggest that there is any fossil record of one species turning into another.
Can anyone help me out here?
Thanks.
Ive recently been viewing some You Tube vids from evolutionists debunking creationism....and for balance, creationists debunking evolution.... but nowhere can I find anything to suggest that there is any fossil record of one species turning into another.
Can anyone help me out here?
Thanks.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by nailit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
OK, I'm playing the Devils advocate here...but if fish were to develop the capacity to breathe on land (in order to survive) then why do we still have fish that live in water?
Im aware that my reasoning might be askew but I just cant wrap my head around it all. Fish start to breathe air and come on to land, meanwhile other fish stay in the water...and continue to survive anyway??
It doesnt make ANY sense
Im aware that my reasoning might be askew but I just cant wrap my head around it all. Fish start to breathe air and come on to land, meanwhile other fish stay in the water...and continue to survive anyway??
It doesnt make ANY sense
What evidence are you expecting to be presented with ?
Just because one part of one species develops a mutation doesn't mean they all must invariably do so. There are many niches for life to fill. It's the same flawed question as that which asks why monkeys still exist if they have the same common ancestor as ourselves.
Just because one part of one species develops a mutation doesn't mean they all must invariably do so. There are many niches for life to fill. It's the same flawed question as that which asks why monkeys still exist if they have the same common ancestor as ourselves.
Of course it makes sense nailit. All creatures evolve for reasons. Some creature who preyed on other fish would prefer to live in the water as there was more food. Those creatures who ate flies and grubs may have decided there was more food in the muddy puddles around the waters edge, and evolved to spend more and more time out of the water looking for food. Remember there are creatures in the water that are mammals as well as 'fish', and these mammals need to breathe air. This is a very simplistic version of life on earth but unless you believe in the Book of Genesis then there is no other theory out there.
OldGeezer, yes a valid point and there is no comparison. Humans, along with all life on earth, need oxygen in some form to live ( ok there are microbes out there that don't but will ignore for this argument).
No life as we know it could survive in a vacuum and I don't think Humans could evolve to survive without oxygen as this is a hostile environment so it would not be an 'evolution' but a complete change in physiology.
No life as we know it could survive in a vacuum and I don't think Humans could evolve to survive without oxygen as this is a hostile environment so it would not be an 'evolution' but a complete change in physiology.
Lungfish are quite happy being lungfish.
Where is the EVIDENCE that they are evolving from.fish to air breathing land animals?
There is none.
Same old, assumptions, blame the gaps in the fossil record, and scratch around with absurd conjectures to substitute for hard evidence.
Same old same old.
The evolutionists have lost the argument, but the alternative is too much to bear for them.
Dig your heels in and keep your eyes and mind firmly closed.
My beliefs DEMAND that I keep an open mind.
In a spirit of friendliness try to prove me wrong.
Where is the EVIDENCE that they are evolving from.fish to air breathing land animals?
There is none.
Same old, assumptions, blame the gaps in the fossil record, and scratch around with absurd conjectures to substitute for hard evidence.
Same old same old.
The evolutionists have lost the argument, but the alternative is too much to bear for them.
Dig your heels in and keep your eyes and mind firmly closed.
My beliefs DEMAND that I keep an open mind.
In a spirit of friendliness try to prove me wrong.
//What evidence are you expecting to be presented with ?//
Well, ANY evidence would be a start.
//but unless you believe in the Book of Genesis then there is no other theory out there//
You could be wrong about that one AL. Anyway Im not interested about theories, more interested in facts and where they lead us.
Well, ANY evidence would be a start.
//but unless you believe in the Book of Genesis then there is no other theory out there//
You could be wrong about that one AL. Anyway Im not interested about theories, more interested in facts and where they lead us.
//well frankly nailit unless you can find someone who was alive in the Archean era to give you some 'facts' you are going to have to rely on theories//
Ah well, might just have to be content with the 'theory' that mankind is somehow created by aliens then?
I thought that there was some kind of evidence for evolution but according to you I'll just have to rely on theory?
Ah well, might just have to be content with the 'theory' that mankind is somehow created by aliens then?
I thought that there was some kind of evidence for evolution but according to you I'll just have to rely on theory?
The lungfish is most likely not evolving from fish to land breathing animal, but if it is you'd need to stick around and see. What they've already done is evolved from fish to air breathing fish who can be on land. Same old same old best hypotheses that are eventually accepted as theories of truth.
It's all very well asking for any evidence but one needs to define what is acceptable as evidence. One has fossil records whereby species cease to be and other similar ones come into being. Where one can obtain DNA samples one finds close relationships between older species and newer, for which the only plausible explanation is evolution. Is this not enough ?
It's all very well asking for any evidence but one needs to define what is acceptable as evidence. One has fossil records whereby species cease to be and other similar ones come into being. Where one can obtain DNA samples one finds close relationships between older species and newer, for which the only plausible explanation is evolution. Is this not enough ?
I haven't read all of this but it might help.
https:/
https:/
As indicated earlier it tends to be very long in human terms but too short to expect to come across a transition form. You see older species that disappear and newer ones that appear.
Popular science enthusiasts are probably not the best folk to ask about detail. You need professional archaeologists, paleontologists, etc..
Popular science enthusiasts are probably not the best folk to ask about detail. You need professional archaeologists, paleontologists, etc..
Same old same old.
well it isnt the same is it? we can show there has been change in the past. Darwins finches are different to the ones in Ecuador - but neither one is changing into the other at this time
by the way - I can get Creation from the bible - genesis for starters
but Intelligent Design - where do the prophets mention that ?
Please help! I need to know why the prophets and bible authors didnt realise and analyse why Intelligent Design and change over time conflicts with the bible creation stories.....I just dont understand
well it isnt the same is it? we can show there has been change in the past. Darwins finches are different to the ones in Ecuador - but neither one is changing into the other at this time
by the way - I can get Creation from the bible - genesis for starters
but Intelligent Design - where do the prophets mention that ?
Please help! I need to know why the prophets and bible authors didnt realise and analyse why Intelligent Design and change over time conflicts with the bible creation stories.....I just dont understand
