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: 30
6
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by Prot0n
wtf?! Well why not?! Why not dispute how gravity works or what light is? We don't know 100% what either are or how they work! Why not dispute them then? Damn hypocrit.


I think an apology is owed to Stari for this. Whether you think s/he is a hypocrite or not is fine, but to damn someone is well beyond your authority and is very rude.


Look, I understand reading comprehension isn't a "must need" for member's here on ATS, but it would do you best to comprehend what your reading before you post. I didn't "damn" her, so no apology is needed. Damn you, learn to read




posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
The assumption here is that C14 dating does not lose accuracy the further you go back in time. Is this not the case? I'm asking because I've not personally worked with it. I hear a few thousand years is pretty on-point, but the further you go back, the less reliable it becomes in working with the radioactive isotope with half-life and all. My thing was Biology, not Physics so if someone wants to help me out here, I'm all ears.
[edit on 26-6-2006 by saint4God]


C-14 dating is only good for 50,000-60,000 yrs, so it is of little consequence for ToE. But yeah, it is due to the half-life of the carbon isotope.

[edit on 26-6-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Prot0n
Damn you, learn to read


Don't care if you curse me, just don't do it to anyone else.



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 05:55 PM
link   
A study of the concept of creation.

Just the type of thread I love to read, mainly because it has been an idea which has been believed in as long as humans looked about themselves in awe of the complexity and wonders of the planet we live on.

In other words, a hundred thousand years or more.

How could you look at our world, its flora and fauna, mountains, plains, rivers and seas and not be impressed at what seems so (for a better word) well organised? Each and every life form is interdependant in some manner on another, as well as on the environment within which it lives. A marvel of good planning, imho...whether that plan is bound by evolution for its success is a good question too, but I suspect that THAT is actually part of the Grand Plan.

I'm a believer in a Creator...one that had a hand(?) in the beginning of it all...the 11 (?) different dimesions, the multiverse, this universe, this galaxy and this planet. This Creator is alive in every thing that exists...atoms, quarks, molecules, water, rocks, you, me and that dog that just barked outside. In my belief, the Creator experiences the creation through all that exists, to be simplistic about it.

But there is one creation I know of which has a 'mind' of its own' in a way not seen much in nature...human beings. The very creation on this planet which professes to be aware of the Creator has a mean streak in it. They argue, they fight and they call each other names.

But not here at ATS, because the T&C's prohibit that. So...I'm putting the contributers to this thread on notice. The next insult directed at anyone here is going to create a red flag.
.



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Prot0n
So, let's cut being an arrogant little wannabe know it all and post some actual evidence for the human species comming about by interbreeding of two different species.


Here you go Prot0n,


Although hybridization influences species evolution in plants and in some animals, scientists hadn't looked for it in primates.

Given the new genetic findings, though, it's plausible that after a partial split, hominid interbreeding with chimps yielded fertile females and infertile males, Reich and his colleagues propose. Hybrid females would then have resorted to mating with fertile chimp or hominid males. Because they would have produced fertile sons only when the mothers passed on X chromosomes mostly from one of the original species, this process eventually would have led to a final split.


To read the whole article you can click the link below:

Hybrid-Driven Evolution: Genomes show complexity of human-chimp split

That article was written on May 20, 2006. It states that scientists have never even looked at hybridization in primates. Why? It is a science and it needs to be studied. Also Prot0n, I know you had to listen to what your teachers said in order to get an A, but you really need to start using your own mind, think for your self, a little out of the box. Do some research for yourself. Don't just go along with what your teachers said. You need to look into this subject a bit on your own. Don't worry about getting that A anymore. BTW, that article was written last month.


The ancestors of humans and chimpanzees may have interbred and exchanged significant numbers of genes after the initial split between the species, scientists report in the May 17 online edition of Nature.

The findings could help rethink mainstream thought during the origin of species "by suggesting there can be a quite of bit of exchange as species emerge and diverge," James Mallet at University College London, who did not participate in this study, told The Scientist.

The researchers compared the genomes of humans, chimps, gorillas, and more distantly related primates such as orangutans and macaques, yielding roughly 20 million base pairs of aligned sequence. They focused not on the average level of genetic divergence between humans and their relatives, which can reveal approximately when each species emerged, but on genetic divergence across the human genome, to see when sequences diverged.


The link to this article is located below:

Ancient human and chimps mixed

Then we have this article.


As already mentioned, one of the possible throwbacks to the past is our love of swimming. If babies are allowed to swim from a very early age, they show no fear of water. Asthma sufferers - and particularly young children - seem to become liberated when immersed in water. We show obvious enjoyment of showers, baths and the seaside. Pearl divers illustrate the human capacity to stay under water for long periods and to exercise voluntary control of
breathing. When in water, human heart rate and metabolic rate are lowered (the diving reflex), and the ability to stay under water improves with practice.

All these attributes are similar to those of aquatic mammals, but are not shared by our closest-living relatives. Professor Robert Winston, remarking on the diving abilities of babies, has said, "The truth is, we don't even understand the origins of this unusual ability. For the moment, it remains a delightful mystery." He may agree that it is reasonable to suppose that it dates back to a phase in history when our habitat was very different from that of most other primates.


Link to this article below:

The role of floods in ape evolution

This last article is an article that melatonin linked on this thread for us all to read. Which let me say before I pick these two paragraphs apart that I did enjoy reading it. With that being said I also have to say that I was amazed that scientists thought it was a delightful mystery that babies love to dive and swim. As a mom 3 times over I can assume that the babies are remembering when they lived in the womb for 9 months of their lives and that being in water gives them a sense of security. It's like my middle son, before he was born my doctor asked me if I would like to have the lambouya method done? I know that is not the correct spelling, but I could not find the correct spelling.

Anyhow, I asked the doctor what it was.. he said as soon as the baby is born we will place the baby in a tub of room temp water and that places the baby back into the environment that it has been accustomed to. I thought it wouldn't hurt so I agreed. This was also after already having one child, a son, and he was born screaming his head off and took a few minutes to calm down. So my delivery came and my second son was born and he was screaming, they placed him in the tub and he instantly got quiet and started looking around like he was so calm. Maybe that is what is going on... creatures are just more at ease with water if they are introduced to the water right away after birth. If a prolong time goes by with out exposer to water then the mind will forget and have to learn to be secure with that environment again.

All in all what I am trying to say is that science is forever changing. And when scientist found the mitochondrial Eve it opened up doors for them to start looking at other genes and opened the doors for interbreeding or another word for it hybridization.

Thanks Saint, he is very rude, and I would hope that a mod intervenes soon and puts an end to it. If not there is always the ignore button until Prot0n grows up. I have never used it. But there is a first for everything.

My Edit is to say thanks masqua



[edit on 6/26/2006 by Stari]



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by TPL
Religion and Evolution can work together, after all couldn't God have set evolution in motion.



Ahhh Finally a light in the dark... a voice of reason...

I never could figure out why people couldn't get that. God has a huge universe to run. Look thru the hubble, you will see how small a corner of the universe is ours. He has more important things to do than worry about the day to day stuff we concern ourselves with. Why is it so hard for religious people to accept that maybe just maybe he set things in motion... for a purpose only he knows? Like the natural laws that make earthquakes and storms... same logic works.


[Either that or both evolution and religion are wrong and it really WAS Aliens that messed with the genetic pool on earth
]

[edit on 26-6-2006 by zorgon]



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by masqua
How could you look at our world, its flora and fauna, mountains, plains, rivers and seas and not be impressed at what seems so (for a better word) well organised?


"Seems" is the key word there. The subjective component is always there, with the potential to attribute meanings and motives where there might be none. For instance, why do deer have white tails that stick up when they run? It seems to me that God provided those so that deer would be easier for men to shoot, either with arrows or guns. Isn't it marvelous? God knew that men would need deer to eat and survive, and gave man dominion over the animals. A simple, white tail makes it so much easier. I would say that it's a nearly perfect example of godlike design and efficiency.

See what I mean by "seems?" Feelings in general are a pretty bad substitute for reproducible scientific proof.

And as far as "well-organized" is concerned. Even I can figure out better ways to do a lot of things in this reality. Given an infinite variety of materials and infinity to figure it out, THIS is the best the designer could come up with? Pretty slapdash work if you ask me.



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stari

This last article is an article that melatonin linked on this thread for us all to read. Which let me say before I pick these two paragraphs apart that I did enjoy reading it. With that being said I also have to say that I was amazed that scientists thought it was a delightful mystery that babies love to dive and swim. As a mom 3 times over I can assume that the babies are remembering when they lived in the womb for 9 months of their lives and that being in water gives them a sense of security. It's like my middle son, before he was born my doctor asked me if I would like to have the lambouya method done? I know that is not the correct spelling, but I could not find the correct spelling.


Hi Stari,

Glad you enjoyed the article.

I think the key is that all primate fetus' develop in amniotic fluid but it seems that only human babies and humans are so drawn to, and comfortable in, water. When we add this knowledge to the arrangment of the larynx/oesephagus etc in older children and other physiological similarities to cretaceans, we see an aquatic link not present in other primates.

It's all very interesting. Thanks for the primate/homnid hybrid article, I thought I'd seen an article on that, but couldn't find it anywhere


[edit on 26-6-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
I think the key is that all primate fetus' develop in amniotic fluid but it seems that only human babies and humans are so drawn to, and comfortable in, water. When we add this knowledge to the arrangment of the larynx/oesephagus etc in older children and other physiological similarities to cretaceans, we see an aquatic link not present in other primates.


I just reread the article thinking that I missed it.. but I didn't see anywhere that said chimps and apes as babies do not like water. I am not a zoologist so anyone can jump in here with a link for me to read over.. but do chimps and ape babies not like water?


Originally posted by melatonin
It's all very interesting. Thanks for the primate/homnid hybrid article, I thought I'd seen an article on that, but couldn't find it anywhere


Your welcome, and I agree, this is all very interesting to me as well. And I welcome new knowledge and info to read.



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stari

I just reread the article thinking that I missed it.. but I didn't see anywhere that said chimps and apes as babies do not like water. I am not a zoologist so anyone can jump in here with a link for me to read over.. but do chimps and ape babies not like water?


It goes a bit deeper than just not liking water. It's in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the section you linked from the BBC article;


All these attributes are similar to those of aquatic mammals, but are not shared by our closest-living relatives.


and on page 4 of the article...


In human babies, as in all other primates and non-marine mammals, the windpipe is quite separate from the oesophagus, and they can therefore breathe and swallow at the same time. As the child develops, this arrangement changes. The larynx descends in the throat until the windpipe and foodpipe are lying side by side.

In the past, anthropologists have linked this to the evolution of speech but now most of them agree that this explanation is unlikely. In fact, a similar arrangement can be found in sealions and walruses, and its purpose from an evolutionary point of view is that it allows them - and us - to inhale great lungfuls of air through the mouth. Apes, which breathe almost entirely through their nose, cannot do this.

The advantage of the lowered larynx for a creature which was evolving to cope with a semi-aquatic lifestyle is that it would have been able to take deeper breaths and therefore stay under water for long periods. This theory is far more likely than the largely discredited idea that speech itself somehow caused a dramatic rearrangement of the larynx.

www.bbc.co.uk...

I do wonder if they have ever actually put a new-born primate baby in water...



[edit on 26-6-2006 by melatonin]


Urn

posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Prot0n
Name one species that purposefully and knowingly destroy's its natural habitat, beside's humans.


this is a VERY good point...we are most definatly the only spieces on the planet that can actually FATHHOM the ultimate results of our actions...


Originally posted by Prot0n Now given your example of sheep on a small island with no more natural predators through some catastrophy. Granted the sheep no longer have a natural predator to keep the population down and in balace with the ecosystem of a small island, the sheep would eventually outgrow the natural resources of the island. It's not so much as they're trying to destroy their island, it's that they have no choice. WE DO.



but do we really? if you were a sheep on this same hypothetical island, you could try and stop your sheep buddies from eating that last patch of grass, with the promise that it will spread and repopulate the island with ample food...but are they gonna listen?...or are they gonna barrel right through you and eat it anyways?...i figure thats where the human race is right about now...

in other words...most humans are sheeple
...

but like i said...i was just nit-picking in my origional post, so there was no need to get all snide on my ass


[edit on 27-6-2006 by Urn]

[edit on 27-6-2006 by Urn]



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

I do wonder if they have ever actually put a new-born primate baby in water...


That is what I meant as well.
Have we ever placed a new-born primate baby in water to see how it takes to the water?

I bet it would love it. And if we kept the baby in water now and then It would not forget. But then again. I do not know about baby monkeys. It is only a guess



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 02:37 AM
link   
I've always thought humans have a certain bond with water because we are made of mostly water.Just that feeling of being centered/whole while in water is amazing. We are naturally drawn to water,and naturally afraid of fire. Fire evaporates water,water suffocates fire. Duality at it's finest.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 03:07 AM
link   
OK

PROOF of evolution...

Giraffes

[ext]The long neck of the giraffe contains only the seven vertebrae typical of most mammals. This is an excellent example of how the evolutionary process tends to modify existing structures, rather than creating new ones[/ext]


Those giraffes with long necks just happened to find them beneficial as they were able to feed on the foliage of the taller trees, while those with shorter necks could not. This, according to evolutionary dogma, eventually resulted in the disappearance of giraffes with shorter necks who either died from starvation or as a result of their poor state of nutrition left fewer offspring.


Simple case of evolving to suit the environment..

I do believe we were all apes at one time but as we travelled further afield we changed with the local climate..

As you could understand a wooly mammoth would feel kinda hot living side by side with todays elephants... so they would their hair over time..



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stari
External Source


In 1522, at the age of nineteen, Nostradamus decided to study medicine and enrolled at Mont Pellier (the most famous school of medicine in France). He graduated with a bachelor degree and was soon licensed to practice medicine. As a healer, he was active in treating the victims of the "Black Plague" and developed unique and effective methods of treatment which helped to lessen the suffering of many people.


No he didn't solve the black plague, but he had a hand in making some people well again. Perhaps he had a helping hand in helping humanity evolve to be able to fight off this strain of virus. I will have to think about this and do some more research.

Us becoming resistant of the black plague, does this make us a new species? Or help us become a new species? Or does this only help us to become a better species?


Nostradamus was extremely educated - the population was not. One thing he found that was effective against the Black Plague was hygiene. He knew to wash his hands and body after coming into contact with plauge victims - that included getting rid of clothing. With his knowledge of hygiene, he took preventative action against the plague. The problem with most individuals of the time is that they knew nothing about hygiene - they were extremely unclean. That is one reason why the plague was as bad as it was. If individuals had been familiar with hygiene, it probably wouldn't have been bad as it was. One technique he used for the infected was to make sure that they were cleaned throughout the day (from what I recall) and kept cool (as much as technology/techniques of the time would allow). Food and clean water was also important - another thing most individuals of the time didn't have so readily available as we do now. I agree that he probably did have a hand in helping humanity evolve to fight the plague causing bacteria (which isn't just one type, but many types - some more deadly than others).

I would not say that becoming more resistant to the Black Plague makes us a new species, but it does help us become a better species. Although . . . over time, with thousands of new resistances and adaptations, we will probably become something very different from what we see today - possibly a new species. If we see minor changes to humans, internally or externally, on a large scale, that would be a sign that we are possibly evolving (pinky toes receding more and more, brains start showing change, body hair shows up less and less, etc.).


Originally posted by Stari
Oh I believe that we came from many different species of apes and primates. Maybe that is why people here are having a hard time grasping the interbreeding concept.

I think millions or trillions of years ago apes and other primates living in those days, mated and interbred. Over many millions or trillions of years these interbreedings came down to us. And yes I can see how interbreeding into a different species that the new species would look down on other species that could be after their food sources and then kill them off. I had not thought of that before, but reading that here in the postings on this thread that could be one explaination for the reason why there are no more of those breeds of apes and chimps.


Interbreeding most definitely helped in creating new species. It is also animal nature to kill off a competing species; but where as animals do it because of the threat, humans seem to do it from stupidity, or on the rare occasion . . . unknowingly.



Originally posted by Stari
Everything that you have said makes alot of sense and I appreciate your addition to this conversation. You almost have me believing in evolution as an only way that we can be here today except for a few things. You wrote that mice and chimps are very closely related to us, DNA wise. And I agree with this and this is what makes me think that we are here today not only from evolution (which you and other posters here that can carry on a civil conversation are starting to make me think) but mix it with interbreeding to get us where we are today.

Mice are also closely DNA related to us, not just chimps.. does this mean that we could have evolved from mice? No, scientists have not even once said or considered that. Why? Because it is much easier to believe that we came from a chimp like creature than a mouse? Not for me.. not with out some other mix in the equation at least.. like interbreeding.


Maybe our DNA is all so closely related with these creatures because it all stems from some common source millions/billions of years ago. The "source" (as I will call it), spread throughout the world over many thousands/millions of years. Over many more millions of years, the "source" changed and adapted to whatever location it was in - creating new species. If these new species met some time down the line, and were similar enough (different types of primates), they may have mated and created even more new species. The new species saw the old as a threat and killed them off. Again, because of the "source," most living things share similar DNA.

Another possiblity is that because the majority of living things share similar features (two eyes, four appendages, sexual organs, etc.), the DNA only needs minor changes for it to be something completely different. Look at eyes for example: most are a similar shape, they all have irises, cones and rods, etc. But they differ in how many cones and rods they have, the color and design of their irises (is it a slit, is it round . . .), the size of the eyes, etc. So very little change to the DNA is needed in order to take this into account, hence, that is why our DNA is so similar to mice or other creatures - very minor changes to the DNA of a creature can show drastic changes, internally and externally.


Originally posted by Stari
I'm sorry, I didn't mean you shouldn't speak your mind about God and evolution. I believe in God (what ever God is). Something created everything, and for lack of a better word, God.

I want to hear more of your thoughts on this subject. You make sense in some things that you are saying but I can find some holes in it as well. I am not trying to sway anyones opinions either. I am starting to wonder if we are both right.

Could we be here from both the works of evolution and interbreeding? Would that help fill the gap in evolutionist theories?


I think if interbreeding were brought more into the equation, a lot of key components that are missing with evolution would suddenly appear. Breeding a horse and a donkey creates a mule. A mule has a fairly good mixture of the best qualities of a horse and a donkey. Certain mules have also been found to be fertile. If enough fertile mules are found (male and female) and mated together, it would be possible to create a self-sustaining mule species (otherwise the species is only possible by human intervention or through the rare occasion that a horse and a donkey mate in the wild).

So what type of combination of species (and environmental evolution) would have been needed to create humans?

Thank you for the compliments on my previous post. Your responses to my questions have the old brain churning away. :-D



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 06:20 PM
link   


So what type of combination of species (and environmental evolution) would have been needed to create humans?


Duh, mice and chimps!


Geesh, some people are just too wierd.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 02:18 PM
link   
honestly, how can you not see the evidence?

does the evidence have to jump out in front of you and yell "I'M THE EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION!!!"

people are supposed to research a topic

how about:
intelligent design, where is the science?!?!!!!?! i see none

---------------------

evolution is a theory
it has a hypothesis
it uses evidence to support it
it comes to a conclusion

since we aren't capable of witnessing the evolution that has already taken place and will take place, it's controversial.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by newkids123

Originally posted by Slicky1313
all my life in school, in science class. "we came from apes" "The big bang" but yet, after all this drilling in of knowledge, I find a very much amount of evidence and facts, and find evolution lacking scientific facts, as well as common sense, and is 99.9% fairy tale and .1% facts......

.....Darwin himself said he made the whole thing up and repented on his death bed and became a christian. show me the evidence guys, I dont see any


Evolution taught in school wasn't suppose to be taken seriously

EDITED: By the Society for Prevention of Excessive Quoting

[edit on 26-11-2004 by Gazrok]


your right there isn't any, We were simply created by god.

(mod edit to remove off topic content from post)



[edit on 11-7-2006 by pantha]



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 04:46 PM
link   


all my life in school, in science class. "we came from apes" "The big bang" but yet, after all this drilling in of knowledge, I find a very much amount of evidence and facts, and find evolution lacking scientific facts, as well as common sense, and is 99.9% fairy tale and .1% facts......


yeah you're right.. perhaps in science we should be learning that god created adam and made eve from his rib.. because that's not 100% fairy tale


if you weren't a closed minded ignorant person then you would see that the big bang and evolution of humans are not 99.9% fairy tale.



.....Darwin himself said he made the whole thing up and repented on his death bed and became a christian. show me the evidence guys, I dont see any


i don't even want to get started on how pathetic this comment is and how wrong it is. that's utter stupidity.

you're just making up randomness and saying they're facts.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 06:01 PM
link   
I'll be damned if anyone tells me something other than the Flying Spaghetti Monster created mankind. It says so right here:

The Flying Spaghetti Monster Created Mankind


Link

No matter what evidence you think you have, TFSM already told me you were a liar and not to believe you, so there.





note: This was my attempt to sound as closed minded and hard headed as possible. Just as one shouldn't use a single web page as evidence for anything, relying on one book for all of your facts is very simple minded. WAY too simple minded for a being as complex as we are. If God didn't want us to learn about the world, and ourselves, why would he put us right in the middle of it?



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join