The end all be all (Until the next discovery)

[TokyoDefender]

Evolution: Often thought to be the final theory by the layman, this topic often comes under scrutiny from ill guided creationists and the argument is never settled. I am here to tell you that the argument is over, and has been from the very beginning. Now you have heard this all before granted, but try to reason with this one for a moment, let it sink real deep before surfacing again.

 

When life arrived here on earth it was nothing short of a miracle. Landing with an asteroid in a toxic ocean is an impressive feat if not for the improbability of it all. Ill give you that there are some creatures that could survive it. The tardigrade is one, but that is a multi-cellular life for which would not have developed yet. Other creatures that are unicellular are bacterial extremophiles. But again this makes no sense because they could not adapt quick enough to the changing pH of the toxic ocean as it grew calm. We will overlook this as many scientists do and move forward a few million years to the first amphibious creature.

 

Fish swim in the sea, meaning they filter oxygen through their gills. Let us say that one day a fish evolves to have lungs and gills. He starts to breath and his gills work because gills are all a fish uses and there is no brain activity connecting the new lungs to anywhere. This is what we call an advanced tumor. The fish will never use his lungs because there is no need to go anywhere and get beached, even if you can breath above ground. Simply put, fish do not desire to strand themselves on land, it goes against simple survival skills. Nevertheless we move forward some years and we see that a fish has sprouted legs and a desire to walk.

 

Our fish hybrid decides to take a walk and gets hungry. He has lost his way and has no food. There is no fauna because the only life has evolved on the cellular level. the fish is amazed at how he survived this long. The plot holes start to multiply as the fish thinks about this. He realizes the only way to eat is being a carnivore. He questions how the plants that somehow exist evolved to not have a complex, reasoning brain, the obviously better choice of evolving. We continue to push on to the end of life as we knew it with the fish dying off because of over of themselves. The earth becomes barren and desolate, despite having liquid water, a rich atmosphere, and a home in the Goldilocks zone of planetary orbits in relation to the sun.

 

The fish dies. Explain how we evolved now.

 

[Delta1212]

Not like that.

[Endy0816]

Plants can react to stimuli even without an energy intensive brain. For many plants immobility is the best strategy and motor control is one of the main uses for said brain.

 

Plants colonized land rapidly, but even still our ancestors had a foot(or fin) in both worlds for the longest time. Many creatures still do for that matter.

 

 

Land, the final frontier. These are the voyages of few brave fish. Their continuing mission: to explore strange new ponds, to seek out new opportunities and new vegetation, to boldly go where no fish has gone before.

[TokyoDefender]

Like most scientists endy has missed the point. He goes for the least challenging topic and avoids the entire rest of the argument. I could not ask for a more textbook response.

[hypervalent_iodine]

Like most scientists endy has missed the point. He goes for the least challenging topic and avoids the entire rest of the argument. I could not ask for a more textbook response.

 

 

!

Moderator Note

And yet, his point remains valid. It is your task to argue in terms of science and evidence. All you have managed to do so far is write a fairly unconvincing story. If you have a hypothesis, please outline it and please provide evidence and proper reasoning as to why your idea is valid. You will be expected to support your claims.

 

This has been moved to Speculations. Please review the additional rules of this forum before posting further. Do not respond to this mod note in-thread.

[TokyoDefender]

My point is: The hypothesis we currently have for evolution is seriously flawed. This is a post to make you question what we are taught. It may be a little crazy but i believe it gets my point across: Rethink what you know

[zapatos]

What has that story got to do with evolution?

[Phi for All]

My point is: The hypothesis we currently have for evolution is seriously flawed.

 

You should try to show this, using evidence, rather than trying to wave it into validity with your hands. The preponderance so far is with the theory (not hypothesis) of evolution, one of the most heavily studied and researched theories science has ever developed. Evolution itself is a fact; the theory is our best explanation.

[Strange]

It may be a little crazy but i believe it gets my point across:

 

It gets no point across. It is barely comprehensible and appears to have nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

 

 

The hypothesis we currently have for evolution is seriously flawed.

 

It is not a hypothesis, it is a theory.

[swansont]

The fish dies.

 

 

Because your little story is wrong, unless it's retitled "How evolution didn't happen"

[Phi for All]

Like most scientists endy has missed the point. He goes for the least challenging topic and avoids the entire rest of the argument. I could not ask for a more textbook response.

 

Is this going to be one of those threads? The kind where we spend all our time providing supportive evidence for a mainstream theory, while all you do is post smug non-answers like this one, that tell us NOTHING?

 

Here we attack ideas, not people. If all you're going to do is criticize the people participating in your thread, why are we bothering?

[Endy0816]

Felt that Delta1212 expressed the main issue with the OP well enough.

 

Panspermia, is an interesting possibility but by no means certain and as Evolutionary Theory says nothing about origins, only change, it is unrelated to the discussion.

 

Much of the rest is so mistaken I don't know where to begin.

 

Generally evolution is gradual and organisms don't make sudden jumps like sea to land. Incrimental stages instead. You can see a number of animals still around that are neither one thing or another

 

On the plus side, I am a Scientist now.

[Arete]

1. Evolution, defined as changes in allele frequencies, through generations, over time, has been directly observed, many times.

2. Changes in allele frequency, leading to adaptation to environmental conditions has been observed, many times.

3. Changes in allele frequency leading to repoductive isolation between populations (i.e. the creation of new species) has been observed, several times.

 

Ergo, it is a fact that evolution, as biologically defined, happens and drives the diversification of organisms.

 

Furthermore, data is consistent with evolution being the only force involved int he diversification of organisms on Earth.

 

A notable caveat is that this, of course does not exclude to possibility of other forces being involved in the diversification of organisms, however none (aside from the uncompelling, unquantifiable suggestions of supernatural guidance) have been put forward, and none are needed to explain our current observations.

 

Your fish story, replete with inaccuracies as it is, amounts to a tale of personal incredulity - you don't understand how an aquatic ancestor evolved into a terrestrial organism does not mean it didn't happen or the explanation is inadequate. With all due respect and courtesy, it seems clear from your post that the shortcoming here is likely your understanding of evolution.

[StringJunky]

Fish walking: fastforward to 1.40..

 

[Strange]

More on that fish here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/walking-fish-1.3507464

 

And here is the weirdest walking fish I have seen: http://aequoreusvita.weebly.com/red-lipped-batfish.html (in fact, possibly just the weirdest fish)

Maybe this is what the OP had in mind: