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: 27
6
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 06:36 PM
link   
enkidu, individual things don't evolve

i never evolved
you never evolved
no individual organism evolves over it's own lifetime

a species evolves because members of it are unable to reproduce (for various reasons)

if god created god's self (don't understand how that's possible), and god is perfect, god has no need to adapt

god would, in no way, disprove evolution

also, there has yet to be proof that god exists, much less created everything including god's self.

one last thing, when did science ever claim to have created anything?

enkidu, get informed about the other side of when you argue with someone or don't get involved in the discussion




posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slicky1313
well, not really I dont think. but mutation or error, whatever it is, its a very vauge sense and still doesnt explain how it could lead to a different species.


I do not believe in Evolution either.. the only thing that can explain how modern humans came to be would be interbreeding of different species.

We have it now, when dog breeders breed two different species of dogs to come up with a different breed of dog. I think that is how it happend with humans.

The fossil records shows that there were many different species of humans over the many millions of years. There was a cave found and I can't remember where it was located (if someone can help me by providing a link) and inside this cave archeologists found bones of neandrathals and modern humans. Proving that the once well known theory that we evolved from neandrathals was crushed.

I hope I didn't miss someone else posting something about interbreeding on this thread.. If I did then please pardon my post and please direct me to the right page so I can read and comment on what they said. Thanks.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 11:58 PM
link   
there was a recent finding of hybridisation in butterflies that you may find interesting...


Scientists Create Butterfly Hybrid

By Ker Than
LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 14 June 2006
01:00 pm ET



Researchers have created a hybrid butterfly whose genes and color are blends of two other species.

New species typically arise from the branching of one species into two, but in the July 15 issue of the journal Nature, scientists report the first clear evidence that evolution in animals can work the other way around, too.

Hybridization is well known among plants, but scientists had thought it was rare in animals.

Wild implications

The hybrid lab butterfly was created by interbreeding two butterflies with different colored wing markings. H. cydno has black wings with white and yellow markings, while H. melpomene has black wings with red, yellow and orange markings. The lab hybrid had black wings with red and yellow markings.

H. cydno and H. melpomene can be found near each other in the wilds of Mexico and northern South America. Where the habitats of these two butterflies overlap, a third butterfly, called H. heurippa, is found. Interestingly, the color markings on the wing of H. heurippa are nearly identical to those of the lab-made hybrid.

The study supports a long-held suspicion among biologists that H. heurippa is a wild hybrid. The researchers believe it was created naturally from the interbreeding of the same two butterfly species used to create the lab hybrid.

"What we have done is to recreate the first steps in the evolution of H. heurippa," said study team member Jesus Mavarez from the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama.

www.livescience.com...


I doubt this is how homo sapiens evolved but you never know.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stari
The fossil records shows that there were many different species of humans over the many millions of years. There was a cave found and I can't remember where it was located (if someone can help me by providing a link) and inside this cave archeologists found bones of neandrathals and modern humans. Proving that the once well known theory that we evolved from neandrathals was crushed.

We've been able to look at the DNA of Neanderthals and we now know that we are not descended from them, even if any small amount of interbreeding did take place. The only remains that might prove that such interbreeding did take place were discovered in a cave in Portugal and even then the claim is deeply controversial and the interbreeding theory has few supporters these days.
We know that we co-existed with Neanderthals, but interbreeding remains unproven.
Here's a link to a piece in the New York Times about it - query.nytimes.com...

[edit on 21-6-2006 by Darkmind]



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
there was a recent finding of hybridisation in butterflies that you may find interesting...


Hybridization, as demonstrated by Gregory Mendel, does not "create" any changes that were non-existant in alleles. In other words, it creates variation according to the normal pre-programming of DNA according to dominance and recessive traits. There's no evolution in this process. Funny how scientists "created" something that already exists by genetic code. I'm open to education though.

[edit on 21-6-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkmind
Here's a link to a piece in the New York Times about it - query.nytimes.com...


In addition to the information provided here, one of the things I found most remarkable was that it was the New York Times who reported it. Historically they're not the most "conservative in thought" group in their publishing so it's surprising they'd dig in with this kind of information. Thank you for sharing, more food for thought.


[edit on 21-6-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by melatonin
there was a recent finding of hybridisation in butterflies that you may find interesting...


Hybridization, as demonstrated by Gregory Mendel, does not "create" any changes that were non-existant in alleles. In other words, it creates variation according to the normal pre-programming of DNA according to dominance and recessive traits. There's no evolution in this process. Funny how scientists "created" something that already exists by genetic code. I'm open to education though.

[edit on 21-6-2006 by saint4God]


It was interesting because it showed that hybridisation may be more common as a source of new animal species than previously thought.


As the poster suggested, there is evidence of various homo species, therefore it is not beyond the realm of possibilites that this occured during human evolution. There is no evidence of this, and I personally doubt it, but it is still a possibility.

[edit on 21-6-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
It was interesting because it showed that hybridisation may be more common as a source of new animal species than previously thought.


New or previously undiscovered? Does it generate biological change? Is there a mechanism that says hybridization causes either an evolutionary change? I'm not sure I understand.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkmind
We know that we co-existed with Neanderthals, but interbreeding remains unproven. Here's a link to a piece in the New York Times about it - query.nytimes.com...


They tested one bone from one neandrathal and decided from that one test that we could not have interbred with Neandrathals.. I would think to be scientifically sound they would need to do more testing on a variety of different neandrathal bones found at different locations. Then that would prove that it is not true.

Thanks for the link Darkmind.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by melatonin
It was interesting because it showed that hybridisation may be more common as a source of new animal species than previously thought.


New or previously undiscovered? Does it generate biological change? Is there a mechanism that says hybridization causes either an evolutionary change? I'm not sure I understand.


well it would help if you read what I linked.

but here goes - biologists found a species (1) of butterfly that looked very similar to two other species of butterfly (2 & 3). They hypothesised that species 1 could well be a hybrid of 2 & 3. So, in the lab, they tried out their hypothesis and found that they could produce an almost identical hybrid from the species 2 & 3. Now generally hybrids are infertile (in this case the female), however, with backcrossing they were able to produce a viable lab made fertile hybrid of both sexes. This is a likely a replication of what happened in the wild.

The interesting points are that they may have evolved in the wild without extensive reproductive isolation (i.e. they were in close proximity) and that the males of the new species preferred to breed with females of the new hybrids (compared to original parent species). Voila, new species of butterfly. Previous evidence suggests that a species of fruit-fly may have also evolved by hybridisation, this time parasitic host choice being the factor that overcome the need for reproductive isolation.

Therefore we may find other species that arose by this mechanism (combination of two species), rather than the splitting of a single species. It was generally thought that hybridisation was a dead end for animals.

here's a summary of the fruit-fly study from last year.

[edit on 21-6-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 07:09 AM
link   
Dup post

[edit on 22-6-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
well it would help if you read what I linked.
[Omitted rest of post, and YES I did read it]


I did, and this comment was not well deserved. Still after this explanation though, I'd like to know how a "successful hybridization" is related to evoluntionary change. According to this article, two different "species" (mind you that's a taxonomic term to help us identify one from another, not the hard and fast rule of biology that they are unable to mate) managed to mate and produce offsping. What is the significance of this? Looks like shuffling alleles, not ground-breaking news nor genetic change.


[edit on 22-6-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by melatonin
well it would help if you read what I linked.
[Omitted rest of post, and YES I did read it]


I did, and this comment was not well deserved. Still after this explanation though, I'd like to know how a "successful hybridization" is related to evoluntionary change. According to this article, two different "species" (mind you that's a taxonomic term to help us identify one from another, not the hard and fast rule of biology that they are unable to mate) managed to mate and produce offsping. What is the significance of this? Looks like shuffling alleles, not ground-breaking news nor genetic change.


sorry, didn't mean to come across as abrupt but all I did was summarise exactly what was in the article.

well, yeah, it wasn't a mouse evolving to a bat, but in reference to what the original poster suggested - i.e. possibility of hybridisation of homo species, it was completely relevant. It is interesting, it obviously isn't to you.

The fact it is hybridisation suggests it wasn't 'new' genetic change, so I don't understand what the problem is? So repeating myself, it was previously thought that hybridisation was a dead-end for animal evolution (as it was thought to just produce infertile or low fitness cross-breeds, liger etc) these studies suggest it isn't, therefore there is the possibility that this occured during the evolution of other species (including homo species).

That is it's significance. No more, no less.

[edit on 22-6-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
sorry, didn't mean to come across as abrupt but all I did was summarise exactly what was in the article.


No worries and appreciate this statement. In both cases, I don't "get" the significance/breakthrough or relationship. I'm certainly willing to admit that's my fault if it's so.


Originally posted by melatonin
well, yeah, it wasn't a mouse evolving to a bat, but in reference to what the original poster suggested - i.e. possibility of hybridisation of homo species, it was completely relevant.


Okay, I didn't realize the topic has veered from evolution to hybridization. We can hybridize things all day and study dominance versus recessive alleles, but at some point there's going to have to be a change to move this model forward. Again, looks like "shuffling the deck", not making new cards.


Originally posted by melatonin
It is interesting, it obviously isn't to you.


It is obvious? I'm not sure how I'd given that impression. I only question things I find interesting. If it were not interesting, I would have said nothing...which is starting to look like a good idea.


Originally posted by melatonin
The fact it is hybridisation suggests it wasn't 'new' genetic change, so I don't understand what the problem is?


Alright, this is the answer to my question, thank you. With the topic and discussion, it looked to me someone was trying to establish a link between hybridization and evolution. If you're saying there isn't one, I'm down with that.


Originally posted by melatonin
So repeating myself, it was previously thought that hybridisation was a dead-end for animal evolution (as it was thought to just produce infertile cross-breeds, liger etc) these studies suggest it isn't, therefore there is the possibility that this occured during the evolution of other species (including homo species).

That is it's significance. No more, no less.


Very well, thanks for your patience in clarifying this. Looks like a problem with our taxonomic definitions, not the understanding of biology.


[edit on 22-6-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Okay, I didn't realize the topic has veered from evolution to hybridization. [edit on 22-6-2006 by saint4God]


Stari mentioned hybridisation and human evolution. I posted an article related to new evidence of animal hybridisation. I wasn't claiming it was the find of the century.

Anyway, cheers. Glad to clear it up



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 01:37 PM
link   
I think its pretty obvious that completly new species dont come form hybrididasion but it could help advacne evolution say if 2 species evoled advantages then cross bred they would technically be evolving at twice the speed as normal.
P.S I am not saying that hybridisation leads to completly new species, i fully believe in evolution but im just saying maybe it does speed it up in someinstances (this is purely speculation so i cant quote sources before you ask)



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shenroon
,,,but it could help advacne evolution say if 2 species evoled advantages then cross bred they would technically be evolving at twice the speed as normal.

...im just saying maybe it does speed it up in someinstances (this is purely speculation so i cant quote sources before you ask)


Can you discuss a little more how or why it would speed up the evolutionary process? (not needing sources, just want to know the thinking/theory behind it)



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
enkidu, individual things don't evolve
i never evolved
you never evolved
no individual organism evolves over it's own lifetime

I disagree! Each individual organism is continuously replaced on a cellular level as it moves through time and can have its DNA modified by the proper influences, by which I mean thought, which has been shown to directly change physical reality on an atomic level, so it's able to change DNA, too, so we all change and yes evolve individually as well as as a species and you are definitely not the same person you were when you were a little kid, except maybe for the materials and minerals in your bones and your teeth, but everything else constantly recycles and changes through cell division and each individual cell also has a consciousness and preferences it follows, and depending on the environment can change itself and all the cells around it by either getting the things it wants or not, and that is going to have an effect on the organism even without having to go through the complicated process of biological reproduction and mutation, and if an organism could concentrate long enough and strong enough, it could change itself like those Chinese dudes who can lift huge objects or beat people up with tai-chi or jiu-jitsu people who are like twice or three times their size, because they have evolved in one lifetime from being like a regular dull person to being a kind of superperson, but it's just not recognized that way by "mainstream" science, which thinks the only way significant change can come about by biological reproduction, but not internal reproduction on a cellular level, even though it all has to do with both changing and being changed by your environment so that you maximize your chances of survival.



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Okay, I didn't realize the topic has veered from evolution to hybridization.


The topic of this thread is "evolution, where is the evidence???!!! I see none" posted by Slicky1313. And my post about interbreeding is my way of saying that I don't believe in evolution either. It's not real and there is NO evidence of it. When in fact the evidence is leaning toward interbreeding.. especially since it is all around us in nature to this very day.


Originally posted by melatonin
Stari mentioned hybridisation and human evolution. I posted an article related to new evidence of animal hybridisation. I wasn't claiming it was the find of the century.


I mentioned interbreeding.. but I guess it is the same. And thank you for that article posting.. I did read it and I just couldn't find it again when I posted earlier. Thanks again Melatonin for the posting of the article.


Originally posted by Shenroon
I think its pretty obvious that completly new species dont come form hybrididasion but it could help advacne evolution say if 2 species evoled advantages then cross bred they would technically be evolving at twice the speed as normal.


I don't see how evolution is completely obvious. Actually, I don't see how scientists say that a male of a breed of human.. let's say us.. will mate with a woman of the same breed of human, us, and one day give birth to a completely different breed of human being, not us. One that is not of his or her mother or father. That makes no sense at all. Now if you take one breed of human and another breed of human and they interbreed then it is more likely that a new breed of human would be the result.


Originally posted by Enkidu
I disagree! Each individual organism is continuously replaced on a cellular level as it moves through time and can have its DNA modified by the proper influences, by which I mean thought, which has been shown to directly change physical reality on an atomic level, so it's able to change DNA,


So you are trying to tell everyone here that the nature of human beings, which is being born and going through puberty, having kids.. which does change a womans chemistry... changes a persons DNA? I gotta see proof for this.. I'm sorry.. I hate asking for evidence or proof.. but this one is throwing me for a loop.. do you have a link?


Originally posted by Enkidu
so we all change and yes evolve individually as well as as a species and you are definitely not the same person you were when you were a little kid, except maybe for the materials and minerals in your bones and your teeth,


Ya.. this is called growing up.. not becoming a brand new species of human...

I could keep quoting you Enkidu and making a reference to what you are saying but I think this can sum it all up...

Everything you said under what I quoted you last is saying "Life".. as in we all live it. We are born and then we grow and change.. that is called being alive.. then we die.. another unfortunate part of life. It is not changing the breed of human that we are.



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Evolution just happened! Bird FLu, a new disease, evolved from a different disease. Or did God create that to with Adam and Eve but kept it a secret until now?



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join