There are fossils and living examples of said in betweens. Fish that have adapted to live on land and amphibians with various degrees of affinity to water. The reason they are less common is because evolution actually works on relatively short periods of big changes and long periods of relative genetic stability, which is due to natural events such as ice ages or the rising of a new competitor for resources, which forces either rapid change or extintion. And also because these in-betweens aren't very good at filling a niche, which, again, causes them to either go extinct or adapt quickly, leaving less chance for the formation of fossils (though it still happens).

If that is the case then why are there no in-betweens? If fish really did evolve into amphibians, and they into lizards, why don't we find fossils of half fish half amphibian or whatever. We just get separate creatures. You expect me to believe that absolutely no fossils were created of these during the millions of years that it took to supposedly evolve?

Over millions of years, genetic mutations add up to create something new. It's definitely not impossible and they definitely don't just turn into something else out of nowhere.

Basic observation can tell you that fish don't turn into lizards. That just doesn't happen

Existing doesn't mean never changing.

If this was the natural state of the universe then evolution wouldn't mean anything because the animals are already in the state they are now because it's their natural state.

Basically evolution wouldn't exist because all animals would be created in the state they are in now

Again. You are assuming existing isn't the natural state of the universe.

I honestly couldnt tell you were god would have came from and to explain how he creates stuff out of thin air? Its god bro a god can do anything. Its not the clearest answer but it makes a lot more sense than everything just somehow being in the most perfect positions with the universe only known to be 13.8 billion years old it doesn't seem likely that It came out of no where and wasnt just intentionally designed.

The reason not believing in evolution is stupid is the amount of empirical evidence there is for it. Denying it comes purely from either unfounded distrust or religious bias.

Okay so where'd God come from? And even then, if there was nothing but Him to begin with, how can you explain that he created everything out of thin air? Also you are assuming that existing isn't the natural state of the universe which is just something nobody can be sure about.

if something comes from something and that something is God then what's the thing god comes from

And I am the real Eagle

Highschool biology. Though if you want a more detailed explanation, you can read my comments on MrMeems' repost of this post.

You're implying that you believe in evolution. I respectfully ask why that is.

Why's that?

Later

What do you want to talk about?

Not did; is and has been happening. I've given multiple examples of evolution ocurring in the present day, which you very graciously decided to ignore. Fossil records are actually the best indicators of these changes. Also you are underestimating how big the universe is. There are ~250 billion solar systems in the Milky Way alone, which isn't even the biggest type of galaxy out there. And there are even MORE galaxies all over the universe. Something as rare as life is entirely possible, and actually even basically guaranteed to occur with that big a sample. And I am willing to discuss all the implications of there being no god. I've already done that.

You use DNA to "prove" that evolution did in fact happen, but I will still never understand how someone could look at how DNA is specifically coded and how impossibly complex it is, and still believe that it happened by chance. That is just not how the universe works. It isn't something that can be observed, or tested. You can't experiment on ancient animals to see if they actually evolve. Humanity has not documented the procedural changes in species for the past age, nor does the fossil record reflect that change.

And even besides all of that, there being no god has a lot of moral implications that I don't think anyone wants to get into.

But I'm not actually claiming that just based on sharing characteristics. Zoologists are aware of this fallacy, which is why they use DNA tracing to determine the closeness of species (because convergent evolution is a very real deceiver is you base yourself in only physionomy). It's like a 99.9999999999999999999999% reliability rate just because of the way DNA mutations work. The platypus example is absolutely not true and just proves you know nothing about paleontology and zoology but you think you do. What I described in the first paragraph is what would stop them from making this mistake And no, carbon dating is not based on that belief. It's based on the fact that there's a specific isotope of carbon which is unstable and slowly turns into something else at a very, very specific rate. Basing yourself on simple isotope rarity proportions you can know exactly how much of it has decomposed, and since its half life is so consistent and well documented, you can use this tool to determine how long has it been since the organism died. I would like to ask which of these books you've read because there's a good chance some may be outdated. After all, Darwin's theory wasn't perfect and has been having things added to it over the years, which is to be expected since it's over a century and a half old. Finally, I wasn't really making an argument of you not having taken this subject. It's just that you don't comprehend the basics of this topic, so I was genuinely wondering.

That's not proof, that is just observing things that exist.

I would also like to introduce you to my friend, the false equivolance fallacy. It's when you take two things, and say that because they share a similar property, they must be related.

Take the platypus for instance. I can guarantee with certainty, that if they were extinct, scientists would say that they are related to ducks or beavers or something or that they were some "missing link" in the fossil record. Now, you and I know that ducks did not come from platypuses, or that they were the ancestors of beavers, because we are fortunate enough to live in a reality where they are still alive and well. But what would stop them from saying otherwise? Other than taking note of some biological similarities, they don't really have any other way to "definitively" say that they are related. Not on the same continent? Simple! Continental drift. This really goes for any animal, but pointing out similarities is not proof of anything. False equivolance.

Before anyone brings up carbon dating, scientists already had the belief that the world was millions of years old before that became a thing. So that is the standard they used to measure carbon dating in the first place. Like using a ruler to measure a board of wood to be 3 and a half feet, and then using that board to do your measuring. Our debate is weather or not that original ruler was accurate or not.

And finally, no, I have not taken a class on evolution. But I have read several books on the subject (from the evolutionary perspective) if that makes you happy. It's a useless argument anyway, because I could just as easily say: "Have you taken an apologetics class? Or a theology class?" And it wouldn't really discredit anything you said anyway.

like that's straight up how i make life simulations if i were god

ok here's a compromise that finally come out of my head

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

the middle point of both

True, but new evidence is being found to date, and it hasn't been disproven, so it's all definitely not outdated. That's why I decided to disregard that claim.

they said no "real evidence" this means there are but they consider them as "outdated"

well that's my interpretation

What do you mean there's no evidence? Look at the animals around you and notice how they all share physionomical structures between themselves and you. Look at islands and see the wacky animals that only exist there. Not even with just animals: Plants actually have really similar reproductive systems to most other organisms! I must ask: Have you taken a class on evolution? All of this evidence is shown there. Oh, not even just physical aspects, but also similarities in DNA. We share 99% of our genetics with chimpanzees, which honestly checks out, we are very much alike. We still share over 50% of our DNA with bananas, and there's still similarities to be found between us! You know, for good measure.

I don't want to start a war or anything but I am curiously interested about your side of the table... like what's your opinion about the origins of life?

Because there is no real evidence to support it. And even besides that, I will never be convinced that even one cell could naturally form on its own given how ridiculously complex they are. Let alone a whole organizm, made up of trillions of them all working in unison.

Back in Darwin's day, it was believed that cells were just simple gelatinous blobs. And back then, the idea that a one could form over the course of millions of years wasn't all that unbelievable.

Evolution is only a theory, and an outdated one at that.

You're implying you don't believe in evolution. I respectfully ask why that is.

Unless those core beliefs involve evolution of course

I fear she never will...

unsatisfactory response

oh you mean "what do you think" ok i think bagels are good

unsatisfactory response

i like bagels