Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Imperial samurai I'm not debating evolution as a theory,I'm debating those who believe it's a fact. Evolution is a theory not a fact and until proven otherwise it will remain so. Macro evolution,common ancestry, and etc are theories that have not been proven, I dunno how many times I've said this. Know one knows if evolution happened for sure,they only speculate that it did. We can debate this forever but speculation is never evidence, I don't believe evolution happened but it could have,since know one has been alive for millions we cannot observe it, we can only speculate.
Ah, amusing to see this kind of unintelligent comment still comes from people desperately wanting to knock evolution down...
As IS says, our understanding of gravity is only a theory. In fact, you will find that our understanding of just about everything is only supported by thoeries based on observable evidence, because to totally prove something scientifically is more or less impossible. All our ideas about how the universe works, how life works, even how our bodies work... they are theories.
Of course, taking gravity and evolution, they are theories that fit the facts and are massively supported by available evidence and have withstood rigorous scientific procedure, inclduing attempts to disprove them, which is a vital part of the scientific process. Yet, as with all theories, as more informatiuon becomes available, they will be modified to fit more accurately towards some form of final truth.
Calling something a theory does not take it down a peg, make it unlikely, or without value. 'Only a theory' is a nonsensical attack Science is ALL about theory, the question is about how supportable the theory is, and how well it can withstand attempts to disprove it. And this particular theory is very heavily supported. And more importantly... there isn't any better one. When you have a supported theory to explain an obsevred phenomenon and no other theory that even comes CLOSE to explaining it, what possible reason could you have to reject it? That goes against the very essence of science.
Those people saying that evolution is 'only' a theory until 'proven' are deliberately moving the scientific goalposts, trying to force evolution to be proven to a point which is not deemed necessary in any other rational branch of science. Seeing as these same people accept gravity and other theories that our day to day life is based upon, it can only be concluded that the only reason for their differing standards here is simply that the idea of evolution offends them personally. This lack of objectivity is what puts so many of these anti-evolutionists into such poor light.
Meh, i didn't feel i explained the satanic point enough since i got no responses. But hell, it's fun using scripture to argue for evolution. If opposing evolution comes from a sense of arrogance and superiority from human beings being "the highest and most loved of all of god's creatures" or whatever, didn't God cast the last creatures who said something to that effect into hell?
The article sounds like it would be a great read if I register with the New York Times website. According to their webmasters, if I become a member, I get these amazing features!!!!
• Breaking news and award winning multimedia
• New York Times newspaper articles
• Arts & Dining reviews
• Online Classifieds
Sounds great! I hope they deliver as much stuff as technology will allow them to e-mail to my account so I'll know it ALL about Award Winning Multimedia and especially the Art Reviews. Also, if I need to find someone to fix my gutters, I have the New York Times online classifieds right at my fingertips.
Doh!! looks like scientists 50 years ago beat you all to this "missing link" fish discovery
New sighting of 'living fossil' intrigues scientists
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/science/9809/23/living.fossil/
Coelacanth
SAN FRANCISCO (CNN) -- An ugly fish known as the "living fossil" has made another appearance in the ocean, surprising scientists.
A coelacanth has been found in Indonesia -- 7,000 miles (11,200 kilometers) from its only previously known location near Madagascar.
The ancestors of the coelacanth (pronounced SEE-la-kanth) date back 400 million years. Until 1938, scientists knew the coelacanth only as a fossilized relic from the dinosaur era.
"So in 1938, it was almost a shock when one showed up, that you get this, what's called a living fossil basically, this fish that's known only from the fossil record and here it is, some 80 million years later, you get a live one," said Douglas Long of the California Academy of Science.
The second coelacanth known is exhibited in 1952
A fisherman pulled the first-known modern coelacanth from the waters near the Comoros Islands near Madagascar. South African biologist Marjorie Courtenay Latimer came across it in a fish market.History repeated itself in the latest discovery. University of California-Berkeley biologist Mark Erdmann was in Indonesia on his honeymoon when he visited a fish market in Manada, Sulawesi, to look for manta shrimp, the animal he studies.
"His wife pointed out a large, ugly fish going by on a hand cart, which he looked at and immediately recognized as a coelacanth," said Roy Caldwell, a biologist at UC-Berkeley.
The fleshy fins of the coelacanth earned it the nickname of 'fourlegs'
Caldwell said the coelacanths recently found in Indonesia apparently live in the same type of environment as those found in the Comoros, caves about 600 feet (18 meters) deep along the steep sides of underwater volcanoes.
One reason for the coelacanth's ancient popularity was its fleshy fins that reminded people of human limbs, Caldwell said. Those fins led to speculation that the fish were direct ancestors of land vertebrates.The fish did not turn out to be the ancestor of humans, but did manage to outlive the dinosaurs.
Damn the Darwinist's are getting desperate..they find a freakin lobe finned fish or walking fish, probably one that is related to the same species that was found over 50 years ago and is still alive today!!!
And let us not forget to remind everyone that there are numerous amounts of walking fish that are still alive today!!
And now they're calling this new finding the "missing link"!!!
Will the nonsense ever end?!!! 😆 😆
This debate is over my friends. I look forward to seeing the retraction of this so called discovery in the coming months.
And I look forward to the gradual demise of evolutionary theory within the coming years.
One last thing to remember my Darwinian friends, when it rains, it doesn't always mean that "baby Jesus" is weeping tears of sorrow, it can also mean that our God is weeping tears of Joy from the hilarity of man's foolish attempts to disprove his existence..😉
Peace out my brothers..
Much Love,
Whob
I love how he just ignores everything posted, states walking fish are alive today and decides to never come back. YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT ENTIRELY. Missing link being the key word here, they are trying to show that this fossil although a fish is in the process of developing joints and what not so as to walk on land. Not that it is merely a fish that can walk on land, which it is not. Well done, you look like a complete fool.
Get a clue mate.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Doh!! looks like scientists 50 years ago beat you all to this "missing link" fish discoveryDamn the Darwinist's are getting desperate..they find a freakin lobe finned fish or walking fish, probably one that is related to the same species that was found over 50 years ago and is still alive today!!!
And let us not forget to remind everyone that there are numerous amounts of walking fish that are still alive today!!
And now they're calling this new finding the "missing link"!!!
I am sorry, but your logic here (or lack of) is totally confusing. The fish you pulled up just there has nothing to do with this debate at all. It is not a missing link. It is a particularly ancient type long thought extinct, which is why it was so important, as well as some of the features it posessed.
To claim it is somehow proof that evolution doesn't exist is... I don't know. Like getting a picture of a cat and using it to disprove the existence of dogs. What are you thinking? I mean you really have little respect for scientists don't you? Do you honestly think they would look at the remains of Tiktaalik and not know if they were an existing fish? Do you honestly think the scientific process is so inept that they would make such a mistake? Tiktaalik is not Coelacanth. Coelacanth does not posses the features that allow scientists to call Tiktaalik a potential example of a transitory species. You argument here, and using coelacanth as the basis, borders on the farcical.
Will the nonsense ever end?!!! 😆 😆
I wonder the same thing when I read some arguments posted...
One last thing to remember my Darwinian friends, when it rains, it doesn't always mean that "baby Jesus" is weeping tears of sorrow, it can also mean that our God is weeping tears of Joy from the hilarity of man's foolish attempts to disprove his existence..😉
Actually he is probably weeping at the poor job his supporters are doing of defending his existence. With supporters like these, who needs enemies?
Originally posted by PVSlol this guy seems to be living in his own little world where he just doesn't have a clue what is going on. I hate to insult the guy like this but, fuk, what is wrong with you whobdamandog? I mean how can you ignore all things posted in this thread, ignore all the evidence which strongly supports evoloution, laugh at the theory and find it so hard to believe in such a thing. Yet you take the word of a 2000 year old fairy tale book as gospel to how the Earth and all life was created? It seems so absurd to me but hey, to each his own 😉
he's a professional.
These threads are tough to stay neutral in. On the one hand, I've taken a class specifically devoted to evolution, on the other hand, I am a religious type.
Middle ground: I've seen more than enough data to be convinced of microevolution. I even lean to the macroevolution as far as speciation goes. The only place I really have trouble is with the beginnings of it all. there are some things that I find difficult to believe could come to pass by chance. (A fish developing a mutation that causes bony appendages isn't one of those, in fact my research paper for the class was pretty much the reverse: the evolution of whales from land animals)
Originally posted by Magee
I love how he just ignores everything posted, states walking fish are alive today and decides to never come back. YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT ENTIRELY. Missing link being the key word here, they are trying to show that this fossil although a fish is in the process of developing joints and what not so as to walk on land. Not that it is merely a fish that can walk on land, which it is not. Well done, you look like a complete fool.Get a clue mate.
Welcome to Message Board 101. The easiest way to piss people off is to ignore their insults and keep on posting and posting and posting without one single regard for what your opponents have to say. That will drive every single person, who's trying desperately to get through to them and tell them they're an idiot, insane.
Jackie Malfoy is nothing short of a genius with this tactic.
Originally posted by botankus
Welcome to Message Board 101. The easiest way to piss people off is to ignore their insults and keep on posting and posting and posting without one single regard for what your opponents have to say. That will drive every single person, who's trying desperately to get through to them and tell them they're an idiot, insane.Jackie Malfoy is nothing short of a genius with this tactic.
Comparing WhoB to Jackie is an insult to Jackie.
A modern day fish is found that can bend its neck much like the so called "missing link"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4902784.stm
African fish leaps for land bugs
Scientists have described a fish that can hunt and catch its prey on land.
The eel catfish, Channallabes apus, is found in the muddy swamps of the tropics of western Africa.
The 30-40cm-long (12-16in) fish is able to propel itself out of the water and bend its head downwards to capture insects in its jaws.
The Belgian researchers, writing in the journal Nature, hope this discovery will help to explain how fish moved from sea to land millions of years ago.
This is getting silly. How many modern species of fish with the same physical anomalies as Tiktaalik rosea does one need to find, before one starts to realize that the "missing link" is no more unique than any other fish that currently exists today?
Finding modern fish that do the same thing doesn't mean it's not a missing link. There's more than one way for a species to evolve, branching off from the original species, or members of the original species going extinct and therefore leaving only the evolved ones.
Besides, what is the count up to? Two species of fish that do the same thing? Don't overreact.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
A modern day fish is found that can bend its neck much like the so called "missing link"This is getting silly. How many modern species of fish with the same physical anomalies as Tiktaalik rosea does one need to find, before one starts to realize that the "missing link" is no more unique than any other fish that currently exists today?
What is a link? Something that connects two or more things together. You are finding living fish that are showing evolutionary signs that they could have once been moving towards land life - evolving into something else. BUT they didn't, did they. They aren't missing links as they don't connect a creature a. to a creature c. They aren't a creature b. See what I mean?
Now Tiktaalik apparently is a link between Eusthenopteron (creature a.) and Ichthyostega (creature c.) - therefore it is a link. It evolved from creature a. before evolving into creature c. in the process becoming extinct as creature b. The fish you keep bringing up didn't do these things, thus can not be considered "links", let alone missing links. What Tiktaalik might offer is allowing us to see the moment (in broad terms), the transition between two different species (families, kingdoms etc.) What your fish allow us to look at is the process leading up to such a transition. As such they are vital, but in a different way to a creature that could be called a missing link.
And you do realise you are bringing up other organisms that add to the theory of evolution, don't you? That are also supporting it? Just thought I should tell you that.