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: 20
6
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 02:50 PM
link   
that pro-evolutionists have no answer to this question, but would much rather fire back with "oh yeah? Prove creation exists! So there
". This is a silly argument, childish and a waste of precious time. I was willing to discuss on a scientific level, not involving religion whatsoever as I did in college. Science has 'evolved' into a prideful practice that is afraid to say "I don't know". So be it then, on this topic I leave it to wallow in it's own self-glory, pretending to know and yet not knowing.

Pray, train, study,
God bless.



[edit on 11-7-2005 by saint4God]




posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 03:14 PM
link   
This thread is chock-full of evidence for evolution. The thread title was the first stone throw. Evidence was provided. Then somebody fired back at creationism, asking for some evidence. The thread has come full circle now. Please do not act as though in these 20 pages, and in the 20 pages of "is evolution just a theory/religion," there has not been ample evidence provided for evolution.

Zip



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 05:13 PM
link   
there is evidence for evolution, the thread title is stupid and pointless. the reason why there is evidence for evolution is because we still act like we are living in the wild. a dog will walk in a circle before it lays down, as their ancestors did to flattern the grass.

there are many aspects of human's lives that mirror the lives of apes. for example hierachy within social groups. the dominant apes in the group will be cared for and groomed by the lesser dominant ones in return for protection. this is the same for people. as the weaker perhaps less important people will do exactly the same in social groups. these things are inbuilt from so many thousands of years that we still have not forgotten them and still do them in our civilised day to day lives. this obviously shows that one day we were living in the wild and we lived just like apes. unless the apes have been watching tv and copying us...

[edit on 11-7-2005 by shaunybaby]



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xephyr
Proof? Have you ever taken a look at viruses? Viruses literally "evolve" right before our eyes. Did you think the flu shot you had to get every year was some kind of coincidence? And while every day science is making breakthroughs that support the theory of evolution, I see little in the way of support for the stories of the bible.

I mean, put evolution next to Jonah and the big fish....well, I'm going to say that evolution is just a tiny bit more credible.


*nods* perfect example. I watched a great documentary on Darwin once and shortly after got out a few books.

The virus is a perfect example, and there are plenty more to someone who is willing to look for it. I guess its like me trying to look for proof of Chrisitianity being true, to me it is simply made up, created by man, to serve mans needs at the time. To me, most religions are 99.9% fiction and possibly 0.1% fact.

So what other examples? Well animals -- many come from the same 'evolutionary ancestors' or something like that. For instance, Snakes are all Snakes, but each of them has a different evolutionary process, making all the different kinds of snakes.

One thing darwin had noticed was while he was on a long voyage they stopped off at all these islands -- now i remember this from the doco, basically he came accross all of these birds, that were basically identical, except that on each island they all had different beaks. Now from meory, these aren't the flying types of birds, but rather more elegant, larger ones that don't fly. Anyway, on each island they all had different beacks. He couldn't work out why, until it hit him, he realised that the food source on each island was different. One had an abudance on nuts, so the birds on that island all had strong, reinforced beaks to help crack them. Other islands had fruit, i think one of them had a thin but very long version of the beak which they used to peirce through the nuts.

Another piece of evidence which just hit me; elephants! There are elephants in Asia and Affrica, and each have slightly different characteristics that 'evolved' to help suit them best in their enviroment. Another elephant i remember hearing about is one that lives in some dence forrest, I think perhaps the Congo and all the elephants eat this large fruit that looks like a slightly squashed down pumpkin. Anyway, they bump the tree and they fall down, then they use their special tusks which are unlike normal elephant tusks, they are shorter and go almost STRAIGHT DOWN on a 90degree angle, instead of the curved one elephants generally have (when they havent been poached). They use this straight down angle of their tusk, to pierce through the centre of the friut and get it open.

Want more evidene? Hrm, there is the 3ft Hobbit, and all the different Homo-erectus etc etc, the iceman or the man in the ice or whatever his name is.

Then theres the average height of people these days vs 100 years ago, 200, 300 etc.

Then lastly, you have Human Beings. No matter how racist somebody might be, they cannot deny that weather you are from Asia, or Affrica or England -- wherever that you are all Human.

Yet we have racial prejudice etc because of 'differences'. These differences are due to evolution, and the different enviroments each 'group' started from.

For instance i remember seeing once on some show, some doctor mentioning that that Vitam you get from the Sun (i think its B) is really important, especially for Affrican[-American] people because their skin is naturally SPF-300, now when your race spent hundreds if not thousands or millions of years on the African continent, you'd probably have pretty dark skin too, just like those who made their way to the more Northen countries (such as Europe) eventually evolved to have a ligther skin, so that their bodys could actually absorb some nutrience from the sun in their new enviroment -- yes it probably took many many generations to take effect, but nontheless, do you have a better explination?



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ekul08
Want more evidene? Hrm, there is the 3ft Hobbit, and all the different Homo-erectus etc etc, the iceman or the man in the ice or whatever his name is.


Wow. compelling...



Originally posted by ekul08
For instance i remember seeing once on some show, some doctor mentioning that that Vitam you get from the Sun (i think its B)


Vitamin. And it's D. More info at home.gci.net...

By the way, there's a difference between adaptation and evolution transpeciation. DNA. Facinating study. I don't regret it being my target for study for half a decade, but do regret the arrogance of some scientific minds who proclaimed they new answers yet could provide data nor test.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 10:18 AM
link   
The Galapagos Islands, Madagascar, the list is endless

Proof of evolution can be found on thousands of small tropical islands. Similar species with subtle differences that have emerged over generations.

Lake Vostok in Antarctica

An ecosystem totally disconected from the rest of the world for millions of years, inside are totally new species that have evolved to live in the unique environment of a lake trapped under billions of tons of ice.

Naturally this wont satisfy creationists.

Every thread on this board has shown that while creation may offer no science to match that of evolution, no evidence and no elegence it will still be clung onto by those to blinkered by dogma to see that a book written 1600 years ago could not be entirely accurate.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by ekul08
Want more evidene? Hrm, there is the 3ft Hobbit, and all the different Homo-erectus etc etc, the iceman or the man in the ice or whatever his name is.


Wow. compelling...

Your point is..?

I think the hobbit is a facsinating discovery.. they are said to have still existed only a couple of hundred years ago.


www.crystalinks.com...
www.talkorigins.org...


[edit on 13-7-2005 by riley]



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
An ecosystem totally disconected from the rest of the world for millions of years, inside are totally new species that have evolved to live in the unique environment of a lake trapped under billions of tons of ice.


Stephen J. Gould, who is the pro-evolutionist demi-Darwin since Darwin himself, brought these scenarios up in his book Diversity of Life (a requirement for Bachelor's of Science degree at the university I went to and staple of modern evolutionary thought). He speaks about the necessary interdependence of diverse life in order to have a surviving ecosystem. That included everything from the food-web to symbiosis. How then can you claim both the need for diversity and the transpeciation of all organisms from a single cell?

Anyone who brings up creationism or religion gets docked 10 points on my score-sheet.


[edit on 13-7-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by riley
I think the hobbit is a facsinating discovery.. they are said to have still existed only a couple of hundred years ago.


If they existed only a couple of hundred years ago, please explain the mechanism that caused the divergence between man and 'hobbit'. Also, what differences does the 'hobbit' possess from known human conditions such as pygmies, dwarfism, microcephaly, calcium deficiency, and/or various diseases. The article says they were smart, what does that mean specifically besides the implication of the word describes a human quality less so than apes. Finally, why doesn't the picture have ape-like features?

For such a major break-through in science, these articles have very little to say.


[edit on 13-7-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Why would there only be one cell? At the time life started on Earth there could have been several sites where life was generated within a few million years of each other.

And even if there was one cell then as it multiplied it would have mutated, sections would have been cut off, evolved differently as time goes by.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
Why would there only be one cell? At the time life started on Earth there could have been several sites where life was generated within a few million years of each other.


Given the probability of a successful genetic mutation (if you believe such a thing is possible), they would be several billions of years apart. This is the problem. You're going to have a massive difference because of who got the first lucky lightning stike. How does something evolve if there's no signifcant environmental change (which is the entire basis of evolutionary theory)? There needs to be a coincidence of genetic change AND environmental change at the same time else the system doesn't function. If you're saying environmetnal change occurs to trigger genetic, then again it comes back to the probability of a surviving mutation (beneficial or circumstancial) which is very, very low.


Originally posted by Uncle Joe
And even if there was one cell then as it multiplied it would have mutated, sections would have been cut off, evolved differently as time goes by.


Then you've smashed the interdependency model. See that's the problem. Either state the need for "bio-diversity since the beginning" (as our evolutionist friend says) or back up evolution. Doing both is conflicting. To say "bio-diversity from the beginning" is also to rule out natural selection, because if one part collapses, there's not enough time for a species to 'evolve' out of the dependency of that organism and thus would also become extinct. Now we have two evolutionists to hard butting heads with themselves. I don't need to disprove anything, but they've got a lot of issues to work out before accepting what they say is fact.

[edit on 13-7-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by riley
I think the hobbit is a facsinating discovery.. they are said to have still existed only a couple of hundred years ago.


If they existed only a couple of hundred years ago, please explain the mechanism that caused the divergence between man and 'hobbit'. Also, what differences does the 'hobbit' possess from known human conditions such as pygmies, dwarfism, microcephaly, calcium deficiency, and/or various diseases. The article says they were smart, what does that mean specifically besides the implication of the word describes a human quality less so than apes. Finally, why doesn't the picture have ape-like features?

For such a major break-through in science, these articles have very little to say.
[edit on 13-7-2005 by saint4God]


the same divergence exists between the hobbit and us as it does with us and pygmies. the hobbit could be living in a rain forrest somewhere and we wouldn't know about it. hell they just discovered a new species of dolphin of the coral reefs of australia. its not unlikely that a hobbit type species, that is still alive, has gone undiscovered.

pygmies - are humans, yet a smaller, just because of their environment and lack of other human contact.

dwafism - a disease, yet has regular size head and body but smaller limbs, so this would not fit with the hobbit, which is small head, small body and small limbs.

this is why the find of the hobbit was so fascinating because altho we have small people, they still have regular heads and body, yet the hobbit was tiny all over.

the article says they were smart, but not obviously as smart as humans. but what constitutes to being smart? are monkeys smart when they use basic tools to crack open food? are lions smart when they hunt together rather than alone? obviously a lion, a hobbit or monkey can't read... does that then make them dumb? because they could do a lot of stuff we can't, so that would make us dumb if we used that philosophy.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by riley
I think the hobbit is a facsinating discovery.. they are said to have still existed only a couple of hundred years ago.


If they existed only a couple of hundred years ago, please explain the mechanism that caused the divergence between man and 'hobbit'.

There is a strong mythology in the region regarding 'little people'.. and at the turn of last century there were meant to be sitings of it.
The 'mechanism' is probably the enviroment.. being petite in stature suited the region [high, rocky with dense forest as far as I remember].

Also, what differences does the 'hobbit' possess from known human conditions such as pygmies and dwarfism.

Drawfism is actually a deformity [apologies if there are any dwarfs reading].. the charactoristics are stumpy digits and long bodies and normal sized skulls.. and [as far as I remember] they are not pygmies as they don't have the same skeletal traits either.. and also have normal sized skulls. The hobbits are in proportion.

The article says they were smart, what does that mean specifically besides the implication of the word describes a human quality less so than apes.

I haven't read the article as I researched it some while back but I'm fairly certain they found tools etc at the dig site.. and they have opposable thumbs which suggests tool making abilities.

Finally, why doesn't the picture have ape-like features?

Because it's closer to being human than ape.

For such a major break-through in science, these articles have very little to say.

Honestly.. I thought they were common knowlege and only posted the links to give credit to the images.. I didn't consider them [the articles themselves] to be a 'smoking gun' and didn't post them for immence detail.. would you like me to find a more indepth one? I'm not even sure what point you are arguing. I assume by this 'For such a major break-through in science' sarcasm that you don't consider it a great break through in science.. if you are arguing from an Adam and Eve standpoint Why is it they exist at all? for someone who is so quick to roll their eyes and dismiss other people posting scientific facts.. you haven't actually provided any evidence in support of an opposing argument.. hang on.. you haven't even given an opposing/alternative argument.
[Edited meaness. :p]

[edit on 13-7-2005 by riley]



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
the same divergence exists between the hobbit and us as it does with us and pygmies. the hobbit could be living in a rain forrest somewhere and we wouldn't know about it. hell they just discovered a new species of dolphin of the coral reefs of australia. its not unlikely that a hobbit type species, that is still alive, has gone undiscovered.


If you're saying their environment caused a divergence then what environmental conditions caused what changes and for what biological purpose? If you say there was no purpose, then wouldn't natural selection eliminate that branch else it would still exist today?



pygmies - are humans, yet a smaller, just because of their environment and lack of other human contact.


Why? What in their environment necessitates them being smaller?



dwafism - a disease, yet has regular size head and body but smaller limbs, so this would not fit with the hobbit, which is small head, small body and small limbs.


Good answer, thank you.



this is why the find of the hobbit was so fascinating because altho we have small people, they still have regular heads and body, yet the hobbit was tiny all over.


Do not pygmies have the same proportionality?



the article says they were smart, but not obviously as smart as humans. but what constitutes to being smart? are monkeys smart when they use basic tools to crack open food? are lions smart when they hunt together rather than alone? obviously a lion, a hobbit or monkey can't read... does that then make them dumb? because they could do a lot of stuff we can't, so that would make us dumb if we used that philosophy.


Exactly. It's a bunk statement. I'm skeptical of their word choice in this matter since it offers no clarification. That also brings to doubt why in fact they would say that unless it was meant to convey an emotional/persuasive appeal which has no place in a scientific article.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by riley
There is a strong mythology in the region regarding 'little people'.. and at the turn of last century there were meant to be sitings of it.


And how does this have anything to do with science or evolution?



The 'mechanism' is probably the enviroment.. being petite in stature suited the region [high, rocky with dense forest as far as I remember].


Hm, a mismatch for African pygmies then. Which is it?



Drawfism is actually a deformity [apologies if there are any dwarfs reading].. the charactoristics are stumpy digits and long bodies and normal sized skulls..


Good call, thanks.



and [as far as I remember] they are not pygmies as they don't have the same skeletal traits either.. and also have normal sized skulls. The hobbits are in proportion.


Interesting. I found a 25 page article collection on skull sizes. Looks like I have more to read.


Because it's closer to being human than ape.


Then what makes them ape-like?



Honestly.. I thought they were common knowlege and only posted the links to give credit to the images.. I didn't consider them [the articles themselves] to be a 'smoking gun' and didn't post them for immence detail.. would you like me to find a more indepth one? I'm not even sure what point you are arguing. I assume by this 'For such a major break-through in science' sarcasm that you don't consider it a great break through in science..


Any supporting evidence for the case of evolution is a break-through. As I've said, was my key area as it relates to genetics for a number of years. If we can detail mutation, understand it, and in the case of cancer prevent or reverse, the implications would be HUGE!



if you are arguing from an Adam and Eve standpoint Why is it they exist at all? for someone who is so quick to roll their eyes and dismiss other people posting scientific facts.. you haven't actually provided any evidence in support of an opposing argument.. hang on.. you haven't even given an opposing argument.. you've basically said "Well thats just stupid".


-10 points for you on my score-sheet per my post.


[edit on 13-7-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Q7: Is there any genetic relationship between a hobbit and the human condition of cretanism that effects the grown and development of normal people by leaving them stunted (not dwafism). How do earthquake aftershocks happen?
Submitted by Sheryl Cavanagh


A: No. Cretins (not "Cretans" - these are the inhabitants of the island of Crete) are modern humans (Homo sapiens) who are deficient in iodine and tend to be stunted and mentally handicapped. The hobbit is definitely a different species to modern humans, without the features characteristic of modern humans, for example, large brains and prominent noses and chins.

www.abc.net.au..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> www.abc.net.au...

I hope this explains it more adequately.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Homo floresiensis cooked food - that's intelligent.

Saint, you said a couple posts back that there is relatively little information for such a breakthrough in science. There is little information because it is such a new discovery. Science does not typically announce detailed postulations about new discoveries.

I've been thinking about your riddle from earlier, Saint (I just read it a minute ago). I'd like to say a couple things in response to it. Firstly, it is generally agreed that abiogenesis only occured once on planet Earth. We're not sure, but we think that there was only one original primordial spawn.

Second, we did not come from one cell. We came from one type of cell. The LUCA ("last universal common ancestor") was a type of cell with all of the traits of modern cells that exist in plants and animals. Prior to this cell's existence, living ingredients such as RNA probably reproduced and "grew."

Lastly, you ask, what conditions changed to allow adaptation and evolution of cells? Man, everything. Temperature. Atmosphere. Pressure. To solve the problems associated with oxygen and radiation from the sun, it is thought that the first ingredients for life came together underwater, but we're not sure about that because obviously we still haven't been able to reproduce abiogenetic processes in a lab. Science is young - especially abiogenesis theories. Attacking abiogenesis is like attacking a bulldog puppy, man, it's not developed enough to defend itself in many areas.


Anyways, a lot of this talk belongs in my
abiogenesis thread.

Zip



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by riley
There is a strong mythology in the region regarding 'little people'.. and at the turn of last century there were meant to be sitings of it.


And how does this have anything to do with science or evolution?

It doesn't. I thought it was an interesting tidbit as there is a strong probability that they co-exitsed with humans.

Then what makes them ape-like?

What makes human beings ape like?

Any supporting evidence for the case of evolution is a break-through.

All scientific evidence has supported evolution.. show me some evidence that refutes/contradicts it.

As I've said, was my key area as it relates to genetics for a number of years. If we can detail mutation, understand it, and in the case of cancer prevent or reverse, the implications would be HUGE!

Okay- I'm understanding your position a bit better now.. do you think cancer spontaneously appearing [as in mutating cells] shares ar similar mechanism with evolution mutations? Thats a very interesting take on it.. could you elaborate on that?
I'd never thought of that before. Radiation etc. can cause fetuses to be severly malformed [russia with the cyclops babies, extra limbs etc] evolution may be affected by solar radiation [eg] of generations.. you're onto something there!


I wonder if radiation causes abiogenesis? I've been trying desperately to avoid that thread [evolution is much easier to argue
].

[edit on 13-7-2005 by riley]



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
If you're saying their environment caused a divergence then what environmental conditions caused what changes and for what biological purpose? If you say there was no purpose, then wouldn't natural selection eliminate that branch else it would still exist today?


possibly that the food intake for the hobbits would be less, as they are smaller. food isn't always going to be in abundance so that would be a contrabuting factor to their height.



Why? What in their environment necessitates them being smaller?


the same as with the hobbits. however, being smaller could also be a way of going undetected. also hunting, it is usefull to be small, as if you were some clumsly 6ft person, then you'd find it hard to sneek up on any pray.



Do not pygmies have the same proportionality?


they do. their average height is something like 4ft. the hobbit was 3ft. the masai in africa average 6ft or taller. the european average would be less. just goes to show how much diversity there is between humans, just because of their surroundings. masai might be taller as they can see further along the plains, a dwarf wouldn't be able to see over the long grass.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zipdot
Saint, you said a couple posts back that there is relatively little information for such a breakthrough in science. There is little information because it is such a new discovery.


Okay, that's fair enough. I'm a patient person.


Originally posted by Zipdot
Science does not typically announce detailed postulations about new discoveries.


The article seemed to have a way of putting it's own fun tabloidal spins on things though based on the little known facts. Even from the title of 'The Hobbit' and such.


Originally posted by Zipdot
I've been thinking about your riddle from earlier, Saint (I just read it a minute ago). I'd like to say a couple things in response to it. Firstly, it is generally agreed that abiogenesis only occured once on planet Earth. We're not sure, but we think that there was only one original primordial spawn.


One big bang, one abiogenesis, got it....which loops me back to the bio-diversity questions per above.


Originally posted by Zipdot
Second, we did not come from one cell. We came from one type of cell. The LUCA ("last universal common ancestor") was a type of cell with all of the traits of modern cells that exist in plants and animals. Prior to this cell's existence, living ingredients such as RNA probably reproduced and "grew."


I'd not heard of a the super-cell theory before. How did the proto-cell bypass all the error-correction functions of transcription and translation that are observed today? Also, if there was a super-cell, then there was no function currently existing that the original cell did not have pre-programmed, correct? In which case, there is no 'mutation' or 'evolution', merely a carrying out of changes that were originally in the cell. Interesting...and what of the limited variances of DNA these days? Did the cause of the natural change 'snip' itself to no longer accept changes? I know there's never been a documented case of humans born with glowing purple eyes....that reminds me...need to play World of Warcraft tonight...


Originally posted by Zipdot
Lastly, you ask, what conditions changed to allow adaptation and evolution of cells? Man, everything. Temperature. Atmosphere. Pressure. To solve the problems associated with oxygen and radiation from the sun, it is thought that the first ingredients for life came together underwater, but we're not sure about that because obviously we still haven't been able to reproduce abiogenetic processes in a lab. Science is young - especially abiogenesis theories. Attacking abiogenesis is like attacking a bulldog puppy, man, it's not developed enough to defend itself in many areas.


Can you be a little more specific? Pick one like temperature and expand on how variable temperatures generate one specific mutation.


Originally posted by Zipdot
Anyways, a lot of this talk belongs in my
abiogenesis thread.

Zip


Er...oh...thanks.

[edit on 13-7-2005 by saint4God]



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join