Evidence fish grew legs much earlier than thought

Aussie Pythons & Snakes Forum

Help Support Aussie Pythons & Snakes Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't believe in evolution. It's like saying that a motorbike oozed up out of the oil over millions of years, then evolved into a car, then into a truck, then into a semi-trailer.
Not to mention there's no true scientific evidence to prove the theory.
Sorry, but it's true!:rolleyes:

What do you believe in?? The Bible? Pffft ha ha ha :lol:
 
I can't see how anybody anywhere in educated society can disagree with evolution.. seriously. I won't enter this debate as it's already been entered by oh so many.. but some of the things being said here are ridiculous.. they remind me of the Medieval times and the views that people had then.

Seriously... woah. I went to a Catholic school but my school wasn't stupid enough to try and tell us evolution didn't occur. We learnt that in science, not that God snapped his fingers and bam - humans!

For all those that are entering the debate.. don't bother trying to convince God people anything else. Their eyes and ears are closed to everything except what they believe.
 
. Theory, evolution is a theory... anyone want to look up a dictionary?

The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:
Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.
Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.

The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas (Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).

Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.

If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.

Creationism is neither theory nor fact; it is, at best, only an opinion. Since it explains nothing, it is scientifically useless and intellectually feeble.
 
well I have to get on the "the world has a creator side" in this argument lol...

and I have many many reasons and I don't care much of what people think of my opinions... cause all opinions stink.

By far the biggest question is.... us? How did we get here? well Darwin thought he was smart and said "Monkeys" lol.... ok Darwin, I'll byte lol, where's your proof? Darwin:"um, there's a missing link"... Oh I see, well lets go digging.....Darwin the old boy died and till this day no link (or links) which is weird
There is a fine transition between modern humans and australopithecines and other hominids. The transition is gradual enough that it is not clear where to draw the line between human and not.

Intermediate fossils include

Australopithecus afarensis, from 3.9 to 3.0 million years ago (Mya). Its skull is similar to a chimpanzee's, but with more humanlike teeth. Most (possibly all) creationists would call this an ape, but it was bipedal.
Australopithecus africanus (3 to 2 Mya); its brain size, 420-500 cc, was slightly larger than A. afarensis, and its teeth yet more humanlike.
Homo habilis (2.4 to 1.5 Mya), which is similar to australopithecines, but which used tools and had a larger brain (650-cc average) and less projecting face.
Homo erectus (1.8 to 0.3 Mya); brain size averaged about 900 cc in early H. erectus and 1,100 cc in later ones. (Modern human brains average 1,350 cc.)
A Pleistocene Homo sapiens which was "morphologically and chronologically intermediate between archaic African fossils and later anatomically modern Late Pleistocene humans" (White et al. 2003, 742).
A hominid combining features of, and possibly ancestral to, Neanderthals and modern humans (Bermudez de Castro et al. 1997).

And there are fossils intermediate between these (Foley 1996-2004).


There is abundant genetic evidence for the relatedness between humans and other apes:
Humans have twenty-three chromosome pairs; apes have twenty-four. Twenty-two of the pairs are similar between humans and apes. The remaining two ape chromosomes appear to have joined; they are similar to each half of the remaining human chromosome (chromosome 2; Yunis and Prakash 1982).
The ends of chromosomes have repetitious telomeric sequences and a distinctive pretelomeric region. Such sequences are found in the middle of human chromosome 2, just as one would expect if two chromosomes joined (IJdo et al. 1991).
A centromere-like region of human chromosome 2 corresponds with the centromere of the ape chromosome (Avarello et al. 1992).
Humans and chimpanzees have innumerable sequence similarities, including shared pseudogenes such as genetic material from ERVs (endogenous retroviruses; Taylor 2003; Max 2003).

... cause if we evolved from monkeys then there must be thousands of links to show our evolutionary road here right? well i guess we can keep digging lol.
Some important factors prevent the formation of fossils from being common:

Fossilization itself is not a particularly common event. It requires conditions that preserve the fossil before it becomes scavenged or decayed. Such conditions are common only in a very few habitats, such as river deltas, peat bogs, and tar pits. Organisms that do not live in or near these habitats will be preserved only rarely.

Many types of animals are fragile and do not preserve well.

Many species have small ranges. Their chance of fossilization will be proportionally small.

The evolution of new species probably is fairly rapid in geological terms, so the transitions between species will be uncommon.

Passenger pigeons, once numbered in the billions, went extinct less than 200 years ago. How many passenger pigeon fossils can you find? If they are hard to find, why should we expect to find fossils that are likely from smaller populations and have been subject to millions of years of potential erosion?

Other processes destroy fossils. Erosion (and/or lack of deposition in the first place) often destroys hundreds of millions of years or more of the geological record, so the geological record at any place usually has long gaps. Fossils can also be destroyed by heat or pressure when buried deep underground.

As rare as fossils are, fossil discovery is still rarer. For the most part, we find only fossils that have been exposed by erosion, and only if the exposure is recent enough that the fossils themselves do not erode.

As climates change, species will move, so we cannot expect a transition to occur all at one spot. Fossils often must be collected from all over a continent to find the transitions.

Only Europe and North America have been well explored for fossils because that is where most of the paleontologists lived. Furthermore, regional politics interfere with collecting fossils. Some fabulous fossils have been found in China only recently because before then the politics prevented most paleontology there.

The shortage is not just in fossils but in paleontologists and taxonomists. Preparing and analyzing the material for just one lineage can take a decade of work. There are likely hundreds of transitional fossils sitting in museum drawers, unknown because nobody knowledgeable has examined them.

Description of fossils is often limited to professional literature and does not get popularized. This is especially true of marine microfossils, which have the best record.

If fossilization were so prevalent and young-earth creationism were true, we should find indications in the fossil record of animals migrating from the Ark to other continents.


Scientists/science understands sooo much of our universe... all 5% of it (actually it's 4%, but lets not get technical)
How did you arrive at 4%? Did you just pull this figure out from somewhere? I can guess where from so I hope you washed it.
 
Fuscus , you have way too much time on your hands that would have taken me an hour to type...like D3pro said people won't change till they are ready to do so. There are a lot of factors concerning proof of God but they are more intimate and personal and cannot be readily explained they are things that you need to discover yourself by seeking Him. I know it sounds corny but that's just the way it is unless you are lucky enough that He irrefutibly presents Himself to you. We could argue like this forever and normally would relish it but i'm just too busy at the moment. I wish everyone the best and i hope no one gets too offended with these arguments . If anyone is interested in finding out more about Jesus feel free to contact me :D:D:D
 
Santa didn't bring me any presents at all this year and I know I've behaved myself better than many other years so I've come to my own conclusion that there isn't really a Santa at all.I'll be absolutely devastated if I find out it wasn't the Easter bunny that soiled my boots when he came last year to stash choccy eggs all round the house:(
 
Fuscus , you have way too much time on your hands that would have taken me an hour to type...like D3pro said people won't change till they are ready to do so. There are a lot of factors concerning proof of God but they are more intimate and personal and cannot be readily explained they are things that you need to discover yourself by seeking Him. I know it sounds corny but that's just the way it is unless you are lucky enough that He irrefutibly presents Himself to you. We could argue like this forever and normally would relish it but i'm just too busy at the moment. I wish everyone the best and i hope no one gets too offended with these arguments . If anyone is interested in finding out more about Jesus feel free to contact me :D:D:D
So you are unable or unwilling to defend your previous statements about creationism using observation and logic, changed subjects and now resorted to evangelicalism?
 
Fuscus , you have way too much time on your hands that would have taken me an hour to type...like D3pro said people won't change till they are ready to do so. There are a lot of factors concerning proof of God but they are more intimate and personal and cannot be readily explained they are things that you need to discover yourself by seeking Him. I know it sounds corny but that's just the way it is unless you are lucky enough that He irrefutibly presents Himself to you. We could argue like this forever and normally would relish it but i'm just too busy at the moment. I wish everyone the best and i hope no one gets too offended with these arguments . If anyone is interested in finding out more about Jesus feel free to contact me :D:D:D


Just to throw my 2 cents in again.

I CAN give you a psychological reason why You feel there is an intimate and peersonal connection to yourself and God. And why because of this feeling, you will happily follow a philosophy short on facts, and empirical evidence to explain your "personal" feelings. To the point where you think he has spoke to you.

This is nothing more than our original mindframe, evolved for Social reasons, now corrupted with GOD.

In tribes of old, Mother Nature was God, but not called God, we were a animal of the land, who felt connected to the lands, and the food she gives us. Our social feelings about mothers and others in our family, now extend to be thankful to Mother nature for providing the tribe with food etc.
Over time this reverance and closeness to nature and seeing the earth as a provider (like mum n dad) we gave this entity an identity, God. Although he names were different, the word God, mearly covers those powers controled (by a Person entity in many cases).

SO we now have the birth of the concept of God, although the word Im sure took a while before it was to fix at God, as the word for powerful beings.

So your powerful "god spoke to me" is nothing more than evolved feelings, that our societies needed to help with the survival of Humans.

Dont make the mistake in thinking because you tink God knows you that your view of the world is any better than a true athiest. The athiest is a truth biggot, and there is wonder in a world controled by the laws of Physics.

AND please stop using the clock in a box analogy, as it sux, because life is chemistry controlled by physics, in their bonds etc, dictating what chemistry happens, in a clock in a box, there is no laws of physics to attract parts to become whole, so the example is way flawed and shows a lack of sciectific understanding.

AND this is the main problem, its a case of a little knowledge(science), V's a feeling(that god is real), the feeling will win out over logic, as we seem to think feelings are what makes events real. Sorry to say but our feelings are misguided and this is what a true truth seeker knows, that facts must win out over feelings to gain understanding of our environment. People look for evidence to confirm their "feelings", so Im not surprised religious people talk about their evidence, but in reality their reasoning is so flawed, it is boggling that one debates these people.

God (and religion really) does not open up any understanding, except to help manage peoples feelings.

I wish I could be arrogant enough to convince myself a God is the big picture, unfortunately when one looks at the world, history of religion, I cant help but get more Athiest.

Faith = feelings - evidence. In phsychology this is the start of psychosis. In religion, a right of passage.
I take hell, caused by a side dish of wonder and whimsy of science. Science, who never settled on God as the answer to anything, and rightly so.

AND PLEASE ,,, we didnt evolve from monkeys, we have a common ansestor, huge fifference, as the monkeys we see are also evolved out of this same ansestor, they (todays monkeys) didnt exist 6-10 million years ago.
It is the lack of visualisation of Darwins theory that cause many to see it as wrong. I understand why, it is an Adults theory, not a simple throry as GRAVITY to understand, there is a mosaic of info to process, that confuses the less visual of our societies (that mostly are the ignorant and religious) but they think they know it all.
 
Last edited:
You guys should go and read some of Charles Birch's work. It would ease the pain of presenting black and white arguments in a grey world. We all know that there is a continuum between black and white, so why not recognise this vast, grey world? A world where black and white are unified, and as such are no longer black nor white but an inseparable admixture.

For the sturdy creationists, humans did not evolve from knuckle-walking apes. I hope you feel better.

For the sturdy evolutionists, I am an evolutionary biologist and as such have to accept that evolution proceeds in mysterious ways, and is an incomplete explanation of natural processes. But is certainly does exist. I hope you feel better now too.

:)
 
Firstly Cris , the Bible does indicate to us that the world is round, just doesnt make a big deal about it. See Isaiah 40:22. "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth and its people are like grasshoppers"

I could run around in circles all day joining in all the fun, but I'll limit it to one post.

Spheres are three dimensional, like a ball, or, say, a planet.

Squares are flat... like, other two dimensional (that is, flat) shapes, like, oh, say, circles for example.

Whichever side you are on, you can see it like this: The other side is completely and utterly stupid and blind. So, if someone has dug their heels in on this issue, they are either correct, just like you are, or they are utterly wrong in the fact of obvious evidence. If they are so passionate about their belief that they can make and maintain such an incredibly stupid mistake for so long, there isn't much point trying to convert them to your side, you are just wasting your time. Let's all get along. Amen.

;)
 
I like to sit on the fence and say God used evolution to create the world ;)
 
I like to sit on the fence and say God used evolution to create the world ;)


Did he use evolution?....right, then perhaps answer this:

When did he "stuff" a soul into us humans, 3 million years ago 10000 years ago?. And of these first soul humans, why did their mum and dad not get a soul, were they not quite there evolutionnary wise? Seems like a bummer, being in heaven with mum and dad not making the cut.
Especially as family are the most esposed qwuality in the bible etc.

And If god used evolution, what religion is correct then to get to know God? Especially as they never mention evolution type of mechanisms to explain our arrival here on earth in space in the books religions use, proporting to be written by GOD.

So you cannot have a fence sit, it is impossible, it just means youo know little about both sides, so you cant choose one yet.
 
Last edited:
You guys should go and read some of Charles Birch's work. It would ease the pain of presenting black and white arguments in a grey world. We all know that there is a continuum between black and white, so why not recognise this vast, grey world? A world where black and white are unified, and as such are no longer black nor white but an inseparable admixture.

For the sturdy creationists, humans did not evolve from knuckle-walking apes. I hope you feel better.

For the sturdy evolutionists, I am an evolutionary biologist and as such have to accept that evolution proceeds in mysterious ways, and is an incomplete explanation of natural processes. But is certainly does exist. I hope you feel better now too.

:)

Great idea, but it breaks down. God has NO evidence, unless you include people over percieving things as devine, but this isnt proof. Proof that would be in all newspapers.

Proof is the bane of science, and it has oodles. Sciece has no pride at stake, religion does. ciece chages (evolves) religion needing to be right, is slow in this manner (look at muslims, they cant delete any part of the Koran, as apposed to the bible, rewritten after any social change picks out a flaw..eg Hell invented in 600AD. Jeasus never talked about it, evidence of man screwing with the bibles story (unless jesus gives updates).

What your GREY proposes, is that we can mix, philosophy, with hard factual science.
So we really have Black and White, no grey. God can be either proven or not, if he cant be proven its philosophy, not science. black n white only.

This athiest V's Religion is really philosophy V facts, and science Never recognises philosophy, only facts, of which proving gods existence, dont exist. Just human perception of the earths mechanics, as divine...........philosophy, not science.
 
This thread is going no where... and never will, let me explain why:

Religion runs on faith, Faith meaning; Believing in something that is there but not seen.

Science runs on facts, so only what is proven... and if something is not proven and unanswered, it runs on possible logical theories that could explain it.

So here we have Science trying to convince Religion that it's theories (so not yet proven) are right. Religion looks at science and says "there's more to it, I have Faith"

Now it take a humble person to look at religion and respect it's stand and not to look at it as something crazy.

Facts will win against Philosophy, (you hear religion still saying the world is flat?) but when science tries to prove something that it it's self has not yet made fact, then Religion won't listen, and why should it? why should religion lose sight of their belief for a mere theory, no matter how popular.

On the latter side, when Religion tries to convince Science of it's Faith and philosophy, like looking at the design of the universe and how beautiful and complex it is, arguing that it's design must be from a higher being... Science asks "where's the proof?". Faith and philosophy is not regarded to science as facts or a possible logical theory.

Lets pretend that religion and Science are two kids, and they walk by a garden on the street. Religion says to Science, "look, a gardener must of made this, look at the design, the beauty... all nicely set up" but Science looks at him and says and says "where's the proof? where is the gardener? how do we know this wasn't just a coincidence?"

This argument is going no where, you cant convince religion with Scientific theories and you can't convince Science with faith.

Respect one another, for people to come here and bring up the courage to say "I believe in a higher power" takes more courage then going with the crowd and saying "where's the proof?"

No point, save your breath, have respect and move on. Please stop flaming one another.
 
Did he use evolution?....right, then perhaps answer this:

When did he "stuff" a soul into us humans, 3 million years ago 10000 years ago?. And of these first soul humans, why did their mum and dad not get a soul, were they not quite there evolutionnary wise? Seems like a bummer, being in heaven with mum and dad not making the cut.
Especially as family are the most esposed qwuality in the bible etc.

And If god used evolution, what religion is correct then to get to know God? Especially as they never mention evolution type of mechanisms to explain our arrival here on earth in space in the books religions use, proporting to be written by GOD.

So you cannot have a fence sit, it is impossible, it just means youo know little about both sides, so you cant choose one yet.

Wow!!! way to take joke too seriously :rolleyes::shock:
I feel sorry for you :cry:
 
Wow!!! way to take joke too seriously :rolleyes::shock:
I feel sorry for you :cry:

I agree, gees people are so touchy, I don't get offended by all you people criticizing my beliefs, in fact, i think you have a right to your own belief... but when some one says different from evolutionists, all hell breaks loose.
 
Wow!!! way to take joke too seriously :rolleyes::shock:
I feel sorry for you :cry:


Well....I didnt think you were at the time, I thought you were putting in another belief set. My err.
 
Last edited:
This argument is going no where, you cant convince religion with Scientific theories and you can't convince Science with faith.

Respect one another, for people to come here and bring up the courage to say "I believe in a higher power" takes more courage then going with the crowd and saying "where's the proof?"

No point, save your breath, have respect and move on. Please stop flaming one another.


Remember Philosophy debates are great sport for some, and a potential "flaming" is the risk that brings excitment to participating.
A good debate means to accept some potential negetive feelings, especiallyt when dealing with the daddy of all personal world constructs..god or not god. If one cant handle -ve feelings about their world views, then they are better served watching from the sidelines.

So people, Tread ye carefully when sitting at the adult table, I guess.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top