It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Theory of Evolution: The Fall from Perfection(Thanks to Grimpachi and Flyers Fan)

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 04:21 PM
link   
So as I was discussing with the two I mentioned in the title some thoughts about evolution came to me. They asked me how freshwater fish and saltwater fish could have survived the Global flood?

I have seen two theories about how this could have occurred and yet the marine life we see today still be alive.

The first(which I think is less likely) is that we see places in which freshwater and saltwater exist together without mixing.

The second(which is I believe is far more likely) is that fish in Noah's Day were closer to their perfect state(I will explain this in a minute) and could quickly adjust to changes in salinity within water.




A major change in salinity would mean certain death for most species of fish. It has been reported that only 2 percent of fish can survive in both saltwater and fresh water. These fish are able to use their bodies to regulate salt and water content. Read more: www.ehow.com...


So from what we can observed today only about 2% of fish could have made it through the Flood. Now here is where my noodle started turning. Observable natural selection shows us that species become more specialized over time. So as we go back in time we should expect to see organisms getting less and less specialized. So lets apply this theory to marine life. Today we see many fish that exist who cannot do what these more versatile fish can do, however this is because these fish have developed what scientist today call specializations to their environment, and if we reverse time these fish should become less and less specialized eventually to the point to where more fish are actually have the ability to live in both fresh and salt water. So does this not mean that life as we know it are actually in a constant state of decline, and we are observing our fall from perfection?

Lets now apply this theory to horses. If left alone should natural selection not produce the fastest and most efficient horses? Yet, we intervene with the breeding process, because we know that if we allowed horse to mate freely that it would eventually become a group of mongrels at an all time low. The same can be said for dogs, or cats, or any other animal.

Let us think of this. If genetic code for all desired traits already exist within an organism genome does that not mean that this organism was once perfect?

Now when speaking of fitness in evolution I suppose it is important to remember that fitness is defined by what gets the organisms genes to the next generation, but over time does this actually perfect the genome or distort it?

Example:


In the end, the cells carrying mutant DNA become much more common in the liver and may even take over, causing the liver to malfunction. In this case, the result of selection is a process better known as cancer. Selection at the cellular level is constantly operating within all multicellular organisms (including humans), but we rarely notice it except when it leads to such detrimental effects. Interestingly, cellular selection can work against selection at the level of the individual: what's advantageous for a cell lineage (e.g., replicating out of control) can be disadvantageous for the whole organism (e.g., causing an early death from cancer).


I feel like one could take the view that natural selection shows the decline of genetic code rather than its perfection.




posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 



Lets now apply this theory to horses. If left alone should natural selection not produce the fastest and most efficient horses? Yet, we intervene with the breeding process, because we know that if we allowed horse to mate freely that it would eventually become a group of mongrels at an all time low.


It's a human rating system that deems the fastest and most efficient horses to be the best. Horses don't give a rats ass about those things. And there are fast and slow horses. Horse being the fast one donkey being the slow one. Environment determines what is useful or not.

Human breeding is not natural selection.
edit on 28-2-2014 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 





So as we go back in time we should expect to see organisms getting less and less specialized.


Not true.

Animals were never "less specialized" before. Animals don't evolve to become perfect. Animals just keep evolving according to their current environment.




edit on 28-2-2014 by danielsil18 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


Well it would be nice if you had any fossil evidence for such a rapid change in fish however there is fossil evidence that fish have been pretty much the same since the supposed era in question when the biblical flood took place.

In the other thread you never answered the question of how could the coral reefs survive considering some date back over 10,000 years(yes that is ten thousand) and coral reefs are extremely intolerant to rapid changes in either salinity or temperature in fact they are dying off today from climate change which is happening at a rate of a half a degree over years where the Noah story takes place over 40 days. In fact coral reefs can only exist in certain depths certainly a flood which supposedly covers the entire earth would kill off all known coral reefs however we still have reefs dating back 10,000 years.


10,000 years
The geological record indicates that ancestors of modern coral reef ecosystems were formed at least 240 million years ago. Most established coral reefs are between 5,000 and 10,000 years old.




What do corals need to survive?

Sunlight: Corals need to grow in shallow water where sunlight can reach them. Corals depend on the zooxanthellae (algae) that grow inside of them for oxygen and other things, and since this algae needs sunlight to survive, corals also need sunlight to survive. Corals rarely develop in water deeper than 165 feet (50 meters).

Clear water: Corals need clear water that lets sunlight through to survive; they don't thrive well when the water is opaque. Sediment and plankton can cloud water, which decreases the amount of sunlight that reaches the zooxanthellae.

Warm water temperature: Reef-building corals require warm water conditions to survive. Different corals living in different regions can withstand various temperature fluctuations. However, corals generally live in water temperatures of 68–90° F or 20–32° C.

Clean water: Corals are sensitive to pollution and sediments. Sediments can settle on coral, blocking out sunlight and smothering coral polyps. Pollution from sewage and fertilizers increase nutrient levels in the water, harming corals. When there are too many nutrients in the water, the ecological balance of the coral community is altered.

Saltwater: Corals need saltwater to survive and require a certain balance in the ratio of salt to water. This is why corals don't live in areas where rivers drain fresh water into the ocean.link


Coral Reefs are direct evidence against any notion of a Biblical Flood.
edit on 28-2-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


Fresh water and salt water don't mix. And no it is not the same as poring a glass of salted water into a glass of fresh water.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


How do we know that Noah didnt take fish with him on the ark? It is more likely that all antediluvian bodies of water were all fresh, and the subterranian eruption introduced salinity. Therefore, ALL life outside the ark died.

When the Flood was over, Noah released the fish into lakes, and over the years, some developed a tolerance for high salinity. These new breeds then multiplied and diversified within the boundries of their classes.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by BELIEVERpriest
 


Did he take all the coral reefs with him as well?



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


Coral can be propagated and transplanted, so its probable that Noah may have done so.

The mistake we make, is thinking that we know for certain that any given coral reef is 10,000 years old, or that any given tree is 80,000 years old. We dont know that. All we can do is count layers and rings. It doesnt mean that the aging process is a constant. Adam lived 930 years, and now the average life expectancy is 70. The aging process fluctuates under stress.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 02:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


The book of Genesis is 3,416 years old. Our latest theories are a few decades old at best. Which would you say has the fresher perspective; a written record that was passed down 1,050 years after the flood, or the waivering rantings of flip flopping "scientists" 4,000 years removed?

If the story was made up, it would have been forgotten long ago. But something obviously made an impression on humanity, because the Hebrews and Mesapotamians were not the only ones that believed in the Flood. It would be stupid not to learn from it.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 05:58 AM
link   

BELIEVERpriest
Which would you say has the fresher perspective; a written record that was passed down 1,050 years after the flood, or the waivering rantings of flip flopping "scientists" 4,000 years removed?


- Noahs Ark supposedly happened 2300 BC. A written story of it wasn't until 500 bc. Thats 1500 years for the myth to take many different forms and have many different changes. Not to mention the fact that it's a rip off of the Summerian Giglimesh story.
- There is NO EVIDENCE of Noahs ark happening.
- ALL the solid evidence points to Noahs ark NOT happening.
- The scientists aren't 'waivering' or 'flip flopping'. The evidence presented is rock solid.

The information the scientists have discovered doesn't mean they are 4,000 years removed from that time period. The information puts them smack dab in the middle of that time period. The ice core samples are OF THAT TIME PERIOD. The age of the trees and coral put the scientists right there at the time period. Genetic mapping puts science right there at the time period. The scientists information is at the time period whereas your flip flopping and waivering rants of the religious people came over a thousand years after the supposed events. So the scientists have the upper hand when it comes to being 'in the time period'.


If the story was made up, it would have been forgotten long ago.

Oh stop it. The Qu'ran was made up 1500 years ago ... and it's not true ... and it's still here.
Same with the Hindu god stories. They are fiction and are MUCH older than the OT stories.
They are still here. Longevity has NOTHING to do with accuracy or truthfulness.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 06:00 AM
link   
self edited
edit on 3/1/2014 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 11:20 AM
link   

BELIEVERpriest
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


Coral can be propagated and transplanted, so its probable that Noah may have done so.




Read the links on coral I posted. The answer is no he could not have taken some with him and have it survive. Look at the conditions needed for it to survive. That is ludicrous.


link

Coral Reef Ecology

Edit; I just noticed my links were bad in my previous post. here are some better ones.

link

what reefs need
edit on 1-3-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 09:28 PM
link   

BELIEVERpriest
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


How do we know that Noah didnt take fish with him on the ark? It is more likely that all antediluvian bodies of water were all fresh and the subterranian eruption introduced salinity. Therefore, ALL life outside the ark died.


please explain why it is more likely. and if all sea life died in a world wide flood only a few thousand years ago how do you account for the massive amount of diversity that exists in todays oceans?


When the Flood was over, Noah released the fish into lakes, and over the years, some developed a tolerance for high salinity. These new breeds then multiplied and diversified within the boundries of their classes.


How would you explain 100 million year old sea water with double the salinity of current oceans then if salt water only came into existence a few thousand years ago. never mind all of the other geologic data that proves salty oceans have been the rule not the exception for 100's of millions of years.

When scientists drilled deep into the center of a huge crater beneath the Chesapeake Bay, they discovered ancient seawater that had been locked up in sediments since the early Cretaceous Period. The water, which is also twice as salty as the water in today's oceans, is thought to be more than 100 million years old. www.livescience.com...



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 09:48 PM
link   

ServantOfTheLamb
....... So does this not mean that life as we know it are actually in a constant state of decline, and we are observing our fall from perfection?................................................




The whole premise of your post starting with your title is faulty.Mankind was not "created" perfect.There is ZERO evidence of that having ever been or ever will be possible.It is the nature of ALL things that live in the physical universe to die.

The fiction of the "fall" of mankind (Adam) extrapolated from the scriptures is equally as faulty.The scriptures do not qualify any of the false statement you have made.They are twisting words of scriptures to fit your "theory" of belief.

This is the main reason most sensible people will not take you (and many who draw similar theories and conclusions) seriously.It is not based in fact from the source you are saying you are drawing from.The scriptures are NOT a source of evidence of science fact and to try to twist them into being something they aren't is intellectually dishonest.

The fact is the points you are making are futile.Only "some" of those "converted" to you herd belief system(Christianity) will find you statements plausible however science will not.

To transpose "beliefs" into "known"facts is the ultimate futility.Belief is the antithesis of knowing.I am not saying you can't believe your "beliefs however that is all they are beliefs...not knowing.The fact is the whole truth nothing but the truth can't be known about this.The overwhelming amount of evidence supports that what you believe are not facts.



edit on 1-3-2014 by Rex282 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 


How do we know that water is 100 million years old, and if it is, how do we know it wasnt locked up beneath the crust until the subterrainian waters broke free?

Civilization is about 6000 years old. Earth is much probably older.

If you have ever bred dogs before, you would know that biodiversity does not take thousands of years.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by BELIEVERpriest
 




How do we know that water is 100 million years old, and if it is, how do we know it wasnt locked up beneath the crust until the subterrainian waters broke free?



Coral Reefs do not grow in fresh water.

From my links



The geological record indicates that ancestors of modern coral reef ecosystems were formed at least 240 million years ago.


Earth has been covered in salt water for a very long time.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


How do they date coral, and how can they possibly know that it is 240 million years old? Radio carbon dating has its limitations.

I dont doubt the data, I just question the conclusions.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by BELIEVERpriest
 


For one we know the range of speed they can grow in different conditions but here are some links to some dating methods.


New Coral Dating Method Hints at Possible Future Sea-Level Changes

U-series dating of fossil coral reefs: Consensus and
controversy


Uranium-series dating of fossil coral reefs
Diagenetic rejuvenation of raised coral reefs and precision of dating.
You may want to see this as well

Milankovitch Hypothesis Supported by Precise Dating of Coral Reefs and Deep-Sea Sediments

Barbados provides a possibly unique opportunity for reconstruction of the times and elevations of late-Pleistocene high stands of the sea. The island appears to be rising from the sea at a uniform rate that is fast enough to separate in elevation coral-reef tracts formed at successive high stands of the sea. Unaltered coral found in the lower terraces enables high-precision Th230: U234 and Pa231: U235 dating. Three distinct high stands of the sea are found about 122,000, 103,000, and 82,000 years ago. New Pa231 and Th230 dates from a deep-sea core also indicate that Ericson's W-X cold-to-warm climatic change occurred close to 126,000 years ago. These data show a parallelism over the last 150,000 years between changes in Earth's climate and changes in the summer insolation predicted from cycles in the tilt and precession of Earth's axis

edit on 1-3-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 11:32 PM
link   

BELIEVERpriest
reply to post by peter vlar
 


How do we know that water is 100 million years old, and if it is, how do we know it wasnt locked up beneath the crust until the subterrainian waters broke free?

Civilization is about 6000 years old. Earth is much probably older.

If you have ever bred dogs before, you would know that biodiversity does not take thousands of years.


Again, please explain why It is more likely that all antediluvian bodies of water were all fresh.

I guess it depends on how you are defining civilization for one and second, what does that have to do with what I posted?

Theres a huge difference between it taking 10-12,000 years to get the diversity we currently see amongst dog breeds and your hypothesis that in just a few thousand years waterborne creatures evolved and adapted to living in salt water from fresh water and then became as diverse as life is in all the worlds oceans. You really think that breeding dogs is anywhere near being on the same level as what you are postulating? If there was one world wide divine flood, why then are fossils found at various strata, various depths and various dates of very ancient age if the one world wide flood wiped everything out instantly?



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join