So, since a sheep dog evolved from a wolf, a mammal can evolve from a fish? I may be stupid, but not stupid enuf to swallow a theory based on that sort of logic.
And what has gravity got to do with the price of fish?
It’s a scientific theory?
There is absolutely nothing in common between the theory of evolution and the theory of gravity. For a start one can be observed (in full) and one cannot.
Where do you get off on taking offencee? It’s nt as if anyone is questioning all science.
Can’t you see the difference between something that is fullyobservable and evolution? You cannot see the evolution of a fish to anything, let alone a mammal!
Despite watching literally millions of reproducing microbes there has yet to be a new actual creature of any type bred. They are still microbes. They may show changes in resistance to certain environments or stimuli but they are still microbes.
There is no actual proof that an amoeba can ever mutate into anything other than an amoeba, or a fish into anytig other than a fish.
The theory of a single ancestor to all life is fantasy, not fact.
This is heresy! Do you want to be banished to the outer darkness forever, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth???
But seriously, my understanding is that the fossil record reveals, not a single tree of life that connects all phyla, but something more akin to an orchard of separate trees with no connections between phyla.
Reminds me of Dobzhansky’s essay, “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution” (1973), in which he claims human embryos have “gills”, which are evolutionary remnants of our fish ancestors.
Embarrassingly for that much-revered Darwinist, it turned out that the “gills” were just folds of skin.
Embarrassingly, They are not just folds of skin, but structures that develop into other structures such as middle ear bones and jaw bones. They are never gills, as you state, but are similar to the same features that develop into gills in fish.(Learning about evolutionary history - Understanding Evolution)
You’re funny and just making things up – why? Maybe you’re desperate to retain your false belief. What makes you think I’m in the least bit desperate to believe it or that I even wanted to believe it?
Two things, no, three things combined to change my mind. I was an OEC for about three decades (and a YEC but not a noisy one for decades before that).
ID is not scientific
“…the most common mutations, transitions, are not really ‘copying errors,’ because the keto-enol transition of the base is driving them and the polymerase is working correctly. So if you’d like, that can be seen as providence more than chance.” John Mercer, molecular biologist
The obvious sovereignty of God’s providence in the timing and placing of mutations in DNA before my nephrectomy.
Add a fourth:
Five short of fourscore years of experience of my Father’s providences in my life, a small multitude of instances – I keep a log to enumerate them. Some of them fun, some are hard, some startling, but all are wonderful and all are good, even the hard ones.
It’s very cool that some who understand evolution have become Christians because of it, per @St.Roymond, and it’s not the pseudoscience, YEC-like, that @RichardG and @Buzzard make it in their incomplete understanding.
True – biological evolution is better understood: physicists still don’t know what gravity is, and they’re not altogether sure they know completely how it behaves.
The “orchard” scenario wasn’t totally ludicrous thirty years ago when I took my last university biology course, but it gets harder and harder to argue, and that’s with people out there actively looking hard for some evidence that there wasn’t just a single common ancestor.