EH, the mudskipper does not answer the question. All we have is a unique species. This is not a fish becoming a land animal.

EH thank you for the reply.

Am finding the discussion most interesting.

Cannot comment much, am not qualified to do so. But reading and learning.

Ah, yes. I see. Evolution takes a long time, and if you are not there to actually watch it happen, you're not going to believe it, is that correct?

It has been pointed out, oh possibly 80 gazillion times, that there has been an immense -- read huge -- amount of scholarly study, investigation, fossil evidence, living evidence, science out the ying-yang. But anybody can come along and say, "I didn't see it happen, so it must be wrong!"

By, the way, did you know that nobody has ever seen an electron. Not ever. Not with the best instruments in the world. I will therefore presume that this electronic conversation has not happened.

__________________
evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.

EH, I don't think that comparing the process of evolution with the electron is the best of your efforts. Nor would I expect you to say that human explanations of the origins of life are necessarily correct.

To exploit an empty niche. An empty environment is also one that is empty of competitors and predators. So in some ways it can be less hostile than the existing habitat.


There is no reason why they should. As has often been pointed out, the migration & transformation of millions of Europeans into Americans did not require the disappearance of Europeans. The fact that some aquatic forms became terrestrial doesn't mean the sea became a bad habitat for those that remained. The appearance of eukaryotes did not make the earth uninhabitable for prokaryotes. In fact, most complex life forms depend on the continued existence of simpler life forms for their own well-being. So you might say that simpler life forms made, and continue to make it possible for complex forms to exist, and complex forms have in turn become a rich habitat for simpler forms to exploit for their own benefit.


Evolution is a historical process and history does not repeat itself. It is certainly possible that some less complex life form may currently, or in the future, develop into a more complex one, but it would be a completely new event, not a repetition of a past event.

However, we also have to consider that the simple life forms that continue to exist have been very successful as they are and, unlike their relatives of long ago, they would face considerable competition in the niches of complex organisms. As we see in politics, incumbents have an advantage over challengers. (Or if you prefer another analogy consider the "home field" advantage in a sporting event.)


The growth of an individual is not evolution. Evolution is a species-level phenomenon.


Because we have not given them the time to evolve. Evolution does not pick up aquatic life and place it on land. It is a long-term process of species change that provides for a gradual transition to terrestrial life over many generations. Lungs ,limbs and digits for example are all first found in vertebrates which were fully aquatic.


1. Evolution is not an explanation of the origins of life.
2. Current human explanations of the origins of life are speculative and very probably not correct yet.
3. Human explanations of the electron are not necessarily correct either. They work very well, but they are all inferred from indirect observation.
4. The process of evolution is known better than the electron, since we can see the process of evolution directly in the short term. The long-term history of evolution, like the activity of the electron, has to be inferred, but it works at least as well as theories about the electron.

But you offer nothing whatsoever in return, except to state that there are no examples of "a fish becoming a land animal." Did you expect to see that in a single generation? Maybe two? Fifty?

No, it takes much longer than that, and may I point out that it doesn't necessarily mean that the original fish species will die out, either. It is possible that some members of the species, perhaps separated from the others through geological transformations, will begin a long process of evolution, and those remaining in the original environment will not.

There is a huge amount of fossil evidence of marine animals eventually taking to land, and even more to the point, some (the whales) returning. I can't post all of that here. It would take millions of words and whole museums full of fossils. But you could, if you wanted to, study it yourself. There are lots of ways available to you.

Or you could simply insist, as you do, that we have no example of "a fish becoming a land animal." And you won't, either. There would be no such thing. Even with evolution, no generation makes such a change during its own lifetime. I already pointed you to one source, and it's still a good one. WBGH has an online resource with a great deal of information, and pointers to a vast amount more.

There are 786 articles in the library there, just for starters. I do not have the time, myself, to condense them all for you.

__________________
evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.

I don't think we should confuse a plausible explanation of how a process may have transpired, ASSUMING that the process did occur with an explanation of a process that is unequivocably known to have occurred. One cannot deny that an organism must have been viable at each stage of the process, reqardless of whether it took one million or thirty million years.

Transitions may well take millions of years in some cases. For example, it took our brain-case roughly 4 to 5 million years to double in size. With aquatic life, we see examples even today of organisms that can live both in and out of water.

__________________
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."-- Einstein

Are you suggesting we don't know that evolution occurs and has occurred?

We certainly know that evolution occurs in the present.

At what point in the past does it become doubtful that evolution was occurring?

EH...

"Ah, yes. I see. Evolution takes a long time, and if you are not there to actually watch it happen, you're not going to believe it, is that correct?"


Where the hell did you come up with that conclusion?

i have an 8th grade education, courtesy of parents who thought a education was wasted on a female.
i have informaly educated myself and spent a good deal of time not only learning things but thinking on them, but there are holes in what i had the oppertunity and resources to learn.

Evolution is one of them. So do not presume to know enough to draw conclusions about how and what i think. in capitals so you get the message...I DO NOT KNOW ENOUGH ON THE SUBJECT TO COMMENT. YET.

i really appreciated your first reply, it encouraged me. Now this.

But be warned i am not so easily chased off bubba.