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.

 

evolution, where is the evidence???!!! I see none

page: 11
6
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922


Mattison, why would you question that? You claim God created life from non life! What difference if he fashioned dirt like clay (physically) or did it via evolution? Problem is you take written word too literally, even to the point of silliness !


Why would I question what specifically? When did I claim God created life from non-life? I don't recall making that claim. In fact, my posts have distinctly stayed away from matters of faith and for the most part have stuck to science. Not sure which written word I take too literally, perhaps you can elaborate.


Sorry Mattison, misunderstanding mate. I was asking why (if you do) you might question "the generation of life from non life" . If you beleive the creationist argument or evolution, its essentially the same thing is it not?




posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by Ikku
No, you are just proving your ignorance. If the Big Bang theory were to be proven wrong, it would not falsify evolution. The big bang is the cosmic explosion that caused the universe. Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of the universe. Evolution doesn't even try to explain the origins of life. The only thing that evolution tries to explain the origins of is species, hence Darwin's book, The Origin of Species. Not the origin of life, not the big bang. They are entirely unrelated.

For instance, say that a god created the universe without the big bang, and he created life, but he did not create humans or other species as they are today. Then, the big bang would be false, but evolution would be true. According to you, that's impossible, while it clearly is not.


Uh...what?


LOl, i understood the first paragraph, The 2nd got a bit muddled!



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by instar

Originally posted by mattison0922


Mattison, why would you question that? You claim God created life from non life! What difference if he fashioned dirt like clay (physically) or did it via evolution? Problem is you take written word too literally, even to the point of silliness !


Why would I question what specifically? When did I claim God created life from non-life? I don't recall making that claim. In fact, my posts have distinctly stayed away from matters of faith and for the most part have stuck to science. Not sure which written word I take too literally, perhaps you can elaborate.


Sorry Mattison, misunderstanding mate. I was asking why (if you do) you might question "the generation of life from non life" . If you beleive the creationist argument or evolution, its essentially the same thing is it not?


Thanks for the clarification. One certainly can't question the generation of life from non-life... obviously life exists, thus life was created from non-life. While both creationist and evolutionist manifestos are based on creation of life from non-life, the creation stories are fundamentally different. The evolution camp feels the necessity to bash and belittle the more spiritually inclined for their faith in their 'absurd' belief system. I merely wish to level the playing field a little... despite the arrogant, in-your-face, and dogmatic attitudes of scientists and people in this forum, and people in the real world, the 'facts' of evolution are no where near as conclusive as we are led to believe. This is especially true when we come back to the 'genesis' of cellular life. No one can reasonably claim that this question is even approaching being answered. You can find websites that claim the answer is nearly fleshed out, but analysis of the references therein proves otherwise.



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 12:11 PM
link   
personally, I beleive Evolution of species makes sense from what I observe of the world around me. As posted in one of the other now (plague like) creation/evolution threads on the board, I see animals with non functioning eyes, vestigal and useless limbs, etc. and I see incredibly complex adaptions by creatures to there enviroment, and complex simbiotic relationships between creatures.
Abundant evidence that evolution makes sense. This same evidence, in my mind seems also to point to intelligent planning/will/design of a higher mind.
Weather you call that god or not is up to the individual.
I dont beleive evolution is purely fluke, that is, limited to earth alone.
I personally have no problem with The complexity of the earth being
"The work of God /greater intelligence" , I dont think evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive.
What I do have a problem with is the apparent lack of logic on behalf of those who do see them as mutually exclusive because they take/interprate the bible as literal, word for word. Faith is fine but stupidity is not!
You have only to open your eyes and look at the complexity of life to appreciate that it almost certainly Did evolve, and that evolution itself is evidence of a greater being/intelligence/God. Fluke dosent cut it in my book.
Why do stolid creationist refuse to beleive the evidence of the world around them, and dismiss outright that God might choose to create via evolution? Who are these Arrogant tossers to assume Gods means of creation. Evolution of species and the complexity of life further glorify God if anything. He "Could have simply willed it so" in 7 days, but i Beleive he chose evolution so we could understand the process and be suitably impressed!
....And humbled and appreciative so we wouldnt destroy it!

[edit on 123131p://131212 by instar]



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 12:24 PM
link   

I see animals with non functioning eyes, vestigal and useless limbs, etc. and I see incredibly complex adaptions by creatures to there enviroment, and complex simbiotic relationships between creatures.

Instar, thanks for you post. the eyes of the cave fish are actually a loss of function and IMO, don't represent evolution. Evolution's difficulties are not overcome by describing a loss of function. The cave fish is a reproductively and geographically isolated population with little need for eyes, hence those individuals with poor or non-existent eye sight are not selected against. What examples of vestigial organs and useless limbs are there? Please don't bring up the appendix. If you must discuss the appendix please at least google the concept prior to discussing.

Adaptation of populations to the environment is the result of altering of allelic frequencies in response to selective pressure... a change in the frequency of existing information, like in the cave fish. What 'complex' adaptations are you specifically referring to?

How are symbiotic relationships evidence in favor of evolution?



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922

I see animals with non functioning eyes, vestigal and useless limbs, etc. and I see incredibly complex adaptions by creatures to there enviroment, and complex simbiotic relationships between creatures.

Instar, thanks for you post. the eyes of the cave fish are actually a loss of function and IMO, don't represent evolution. Evolution's difficulties are not overcome by describing a loss of function. The cave fish is a reproductively and geographically isolated population with little need for eyes, hence those individuals with poor or non-existent eye sight are not selected against. What examples of vestigial organs and useless limbs are there? Please don't bring up the appendix. If you must discuss the appendix please at least google the concept prior to discussing.

Adaptation of populations to the environment is the result of altering of allelic frequencies in response to selective pressure... a change in the frequency of existing information, like in the cave fish. What 'complex' adaptations are you specifically referring to?

How are symbiotic relationships evidence in favor of evolution?


Indeed, the loss of function in the cave fish eyes however is change related to enviromental factors none the less, i.e evolution.
An example of vestigal limbs......The burtons legless lizard , has tiny non functional hind limbs which are indeed useless and serve no purpous, again ,yes its loss of function, but to what purpous?
Complex adaptions....heres an example
www.aber.ac.uk...

Snakes are also a great example of adaption , you might google some info about them. try "functional adaptations in ectothermic vertibrates"

[edit on 013131p://02121 by instar]



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Indeed, the loss of function in the cave fish eyes however is change related to enviromental factors none the less, i.e evolution.
An example of vestigal limbs......The burtons legless lizard , has tiny non functional hind limbs which are indeed useless and serve no purpous, again ,yes its loss of function, but to what purpous?
What purpose? Obviously the selective advantage of having legs is removed. What that selective advantage is.... I can't say. And again, IMO, de-evolution, or loss of function is hardly evidence in favor of evolution. Contraty to what is implicit in your post, evolution does not equal "change related to enviromental factors."


Complex adaptions....heres an example
www.aber.ac.uk...

I checked out this site... morphological features optimized to one's environment are not examples of complex adaptations. They are examples of morphological features optimized to one's environment. This isn't to say that natural selection hasn't played a role in the frequencies and persistance of said morphological features though. The evolution, ie: the appearance of these features over time in a progressive manner, is not addressed by the link you posted.


Snakes are also a great example of adaption , you might google some info about them. try "functional adaptations in ectothermic vertibrates"

Actually I did this exact search on google, (link) and after correcting for spelling, I got 0 hits. Check the link posted above to verify for yourself.



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 01:40 PM
link   
It was just a suggestion, try "snakes evolution" ?? I think youll find the Burtons loss of legs is an adaption to change of prey, burrowing in order to catch that prey. Ie an adaption aimed at survival = evolution.



edwardtbabinski.us...
www.nature.com...
news.bbc.co.uk...
atheism.about.com...

[edit on 013131p://59121 by instar]



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by instar
It was just a suggestion, try "snakes evolution" ?? I think youll find the Burtons loss of legs is an adaption to change of prey, burrowing in order to catch that prey. Ie an adaption aimed at survival = evolution.



edwardtbabinski.us...
www.nature.com...
news.bbc.co.uk...
atheism.about.com...

[edit on 013131p://59121 by instar]


Thanks for the links... According to the information you've posted and the information I've looked up, it doesn't appear that Burton's legless lizard has vestigial legs at all. It seems like a perfect body design to burrow and chase prey as you've mentioned. Rather than being vestigial, it seems that these appendages are perfectly suited to their particular environment... much like the evolutionary icon, the lungfish.

Morphological adaptation of existing genetic structures in response to environmental stimuli is hardly evidence for formation of complex life from primordial cellular ancestor.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 11:04 AM
link   
i'm too lazy to read the entire thread, to the original poster, you don't see evidence in front of your eyes because evolution is a process that takes place within a species, not individuals, and takes generations to occur.

this also reminds me of what OJ taught us, those who believed he was innocent accepted evidence that supported that idea, and rejected evidence that didn't and vice versa.

you don't believe in evolution, so you reject clear evidence that supports it.


look at the gazelle and cheetah. they have been involved in a battle of speed for 100's of thousands of years. the slow gazelles are lunch, the fast ones survive to breed, and pass their speeedy genes on.

and so on and so on



posted on Dec, 26 2004 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Yea I'm too lazy to read the whole post to so let me just blast your original question/challenge out of the water as I've done many, many other times this exact same question has been raised before:

The best proof the universe is billions of years old, not just 4,000 as some nuts would believe, is the time it takes light to reach our world. If the universe was just 4,000 years old, the sky would be a lot darker than it is today as only a handful of stars would be visible from earth because of the time it takes for their light to get here. With instruments such as the Hubble Space Telescope we can see for millions of lightyears, and guess what all you evangelical creationist lunatics? We can see their light! It's taken millions and millions of years (oooh you guys hate that line don't you?) to get her but it's here, so I guess that means we gots a good chunck o' time behind us.

As for seeing evolution, walk down a damned street in New York City! The rats there have been forced to go through a hyperactive natual selection process because of the realities of urban life and as such have become stronger, smarter and much larger thanks to the challenges put to them by their environment and their disturbing rate of generational reproduciton.

But there's two more points here: First, who the hell are you to expect to see something that takes millions and millions of years (ooo baby there it is again!) just happen before your very eyes because you have some silly religious claim that that one part of the natural system is wrong?

And second, you wanna see evidence of recient evolution? Walk down your OWN street! You'll see different breeds of cats and dogs, each speicalized by man through accelerated means (this is called micro-evolution) and look at your fellow man, notice how he may have a different skin color than you, maybe a larger nose or more body hair? These are all adaptations that occur within our human species due to the environment in which our ancestors lived.

Now as for life coming from nothing, well I got something for you to blow bubbles with there too! A growing number of scientists believe that life did not originate on planet Earth, but was instead depostited here by an astral body smacking the planet. This theory was given a boost with the recient discovery of colonies of microrganisms living within the rock layers at mines, in conditions that were previously thought to be 100% not conducive to life. If life can exist within a peice of solid granite, thousands of feet below the surface, in boiling temperatures, and amazing pressures the it's not so far fetched to considder the idea that life may have arived her in an astal body with simmilar atributes.

Anyways evangelicals, play nice with the Pagans, stop asking me for money to fund your fundie ministries, and drop this whole crationism thing, it's gotten old. Besides, the divine overseer theory is a much more plausible one anyways.

Blessed Be
~Astral

:Edit: Okay I've read some of the other posts now and one thing stuck out at me:

The idea that some have that morphological adaptations to suit an environment (I presume you mean microevolution) does not support the idea that all life came from a cellular base is just plain dead, decaying and disfigured WRONG!

Sorry buddy, but all those little adaptaitons and changes to suit an environment just go on to help prove evolution! Think about it, ok so assuming the world is billions of years old, and that the first life was a cellular life form that reproduced through cellular division, and then figure that for billions and billions of years (wow that one must really irk you) the process of microevolution (or as our wordy fundies like to call it morphological adaptations to suit an environment) is occuring throughout that entire time, you can bet your protestant bibles that will cause some major changes and diversity!

Do you have any clue how long a billion, hell even a million years is? Well probably not, but that is not uncomon because most people do have problems with abstractions of time, especially ones on such a grand scale. And the bible says to fogive those who are ignorant, for they do not know any better. So I'll use your own religion's moral standard and forgive your for not understanding the abstract concepts!


May The Goddess Enlighten You
~Astral

[edit on 12/26/2004 by The Astral City]



posted on Dec, 26 2004 @ 06:30 PM
link   
The Astral City... its nice uve been using yer brain here, about the stars and stuff. yes, when I first thought of the stars, I was just like, yeah, it only makes sense that a star 20M light years away is at least 20M years old. but, low and behold, If God we to have made the stars in place with the light already on the earth, then thats still not a valid assumtion for claiming the earth is millions of years old. so, when God made sun and earth, God put the light beam of sun already on earth, instead of sitting around waiting 8 minutes for it to hit earth.
And see how everyone always assumes religions without evolution, when infact God doesnt have to be associated with religions, just God.

The rat thing... well, I dont no about that, so no comment, but if what yer sayin is true, its just adaption.

And when u made the statement of life coming from nothing, I hope u no that cant happen. I assume u do, other wise yer just plain ignorant a fool, its follishness. different bredds of Cat's and Dogs, skin colors? yes... very good... but its not macro evolution. that doesnt show evolution at all son. All that shows is different breeds, still same animal, and same human no matter what skin color.



posted on Dec, 26 2004 @ 06:34 PM
link   
and oh yeah.... thats not quite my moral standards there, but ill fly along with it if ya wanna get technical about religions...

"And the bible says to fogive those who are ignorant, for they do not know any better. So I'll use your own religion's moral standard and forgive your for not understanding the abstract concepts!"

first off, since when did u start obeying the Bible??!!


secondly, that statement was for the Christian, it was NOT written for the pagan as yourself, thus your using a code of moral standards that was not even written to you! not that theres anything wrong with that though, but still.



posted on Dec, 26 2004 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Hahah, well we all see what we wish to, now don't we?

If you read my post a wee-bit more carefully you'll see that I put forward a theory on the whole generation of life on earth topic and I contend that macroevolution stems from microevolution.

Judging by how fast you dismissed my post, I could come with mountains of evidence, but in the end it is your belief. I could probably no more convince you of evolution as you could convince me that the lifeforce is not sacred.

As for the crack about judging you by the bible, well I do actually believe in judging a follower by their religious rules, but it was more just a goad, ment in the best of humor, to be sure.


Anyways, I'll keep an eye on this thread, but probably won't contribute as I've given my two cents and it's counterproductive to argue while both sides are so firmly entrenched.

May you find all that you seek in your religion, and walk a path of light and morality.
~Astral

[edit on 12/26/2004 by The Astral City]



posted on Dec, 26 2004 @ 10:59 PM
link   
i agree with astral city. U can see the proof. why don't my kids have wisdom teeth???? because humans evolve!!!!!!!!! we don't eat raw meat anymore hence they are useless!!!! many other kids don't have wisdom teeth either. the proof is in seeing. look at alligators,crocs,all reptiles....there is physical proof they have evolved. no one is dissing creationism.....but fact is fact. even if god created us...why can't we evolve with our environment? surely god would want us to adapt to where we are right?



posted on Dec, 26 2004 @ 11:48 PM
link   

the eyes of the cave fish are actually a loss of function and IMO, don't represent evolution. Evolution's difficulties are not overcome by describing a loss of function.


"imo" being the operative keywords my freind, many would disagree !



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by instar

the eyes of the cave fish are actually a loss of function and IMO, don't represent evolution. Evolution's difficulties are not overcome by describing a loss of function.


"imo" being the operative keywords my freind, many would disagree !

IMO, may be operative, but that's the scientist in me. While 'many' may disagree with my views, 'many' don't have Ph.D.'s in Molecular Biology, and 'many' haven't made 'origins' research their personal hobby for nearly a decade. I am completely comfortable standing in opposition to the 'many,' as I would say I am better informed about this particular topic than 99.99% of the world.



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 04:46 PM
link   
So your decade of study has brought you to the conclusion that this is not the result of evolutionary change?


please tell me what purpous you beleive these vestigal limbs serve?



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 07:02 PM
link   
It's clearly an animal! I'm no fruit and even I can see that.


Sorry, don't ban me. My apologies tonight.

Love,
Saint4God



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by instar
So your decade of study has brought you to the conclusion that this is not the result of evolutionary change?

please tell me what purpous you beleive these vestigal limbs serve?

Nice Pic! I don't believe I ever addressed this specific issue, but being neither an ecologist, nor a physiologist specializing in austrailian reptiles, I can't really comment on the nature of these appendages. There may be a purpose for them, and they very well may be vestigial legs.

Isn't there some sort of correlation between body length and leg 'vestigiality?' Something like longer bodies are more adapted to crevices etc, where legs would be a hinderance? The fact that this 'vestigial limb' persists implies that there is some sort of advantage in its retention. What that advantage is, I can't really comment.

I still don't see how loss of function describes the formation of complex biological systems. It's analogous to a salesman losing money on every sale, thinking he can make up the losses in volume.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join