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: 36
6
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by fiftyfifty
I think it's possible that all of the different stages of 'man' may have been different species just as you get different species of dogs. The type of human we are may have come from another place in the universe (ive already posted that on here before) and being a particularly aggressive species, killed off the others that were co-existing on earth prior to our arrival.

Humans, spread like a plague of rats and became the most dominant species on the planet. Now we have built up this civilisation and we're having trouble controlling it because we are so destructive.

All these stories linked to aliens and our interest in 'whats out there' stems from a gene in all of us that 'subconsciously/genetically' remembers where we came from. Maybe our DNA is missing home and we're trying to figure a way to get back!


Well it is interesting that if we look at the chimpanzee species, common and pygmy/bonobo, they are quite distinct in behaviour. One is war-like and aggressive, the other peaceful and loving, solving issues through grooming and sex. They are simply separated by the congo river and diverged about 5 million years ago.

Even though we are actually more closely related to bonobo than the common chimp, it is a pity we didn't develop more bonobo traits, I guess the united nations would be a bit more interesting, haha.

I wonder if the differences in social behaviour may be due to the matriarchal basis of Bonobo society, as both species are sexually promiscuous but Bonobos moreso.




posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by mattison0922
Understood, and thanks for the clarification. As far as your statement about Gould is concerned, I believe this is a correct analysis, and I believe many, myself included would agree with this overall statement.

However, with respect to Darwin's Finches, I agree with your statement... I mean how could I not agree, it's more or less been demonstrated by the Grants, it's just our interpretation of the significance of this that differs.

So I guess what you're saying is that you're willing to accept the finch beak alleles shifting as evidence of macroevolution.



Crap. I had written a nice reply to this post, then lost it when a page opened in my working window.... I've been here for a few years now... you'd think I'd have learned by now. I don't have the energy to do it again right now, and I should actually be working anyway... will get back to you later, mel.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
I think it's possible that all of the different stages of 'man' may have been different species just as you get different species of dogs.


They are all different species leading up to man, however it's not compariable to dog species, as they're more hybrids due to cross-breeding.



The type of human we are may have come from another place in the universe (ive already posted that on here before) and being a particularly aggressive species, killed off the others that were co-existing on earth prior to our arrival.


A very nice fictional story, but lets try and keep this discussion to facts or statements we can somewhat back up.



All these stories linked to aliens and our interest in 'whats out there' stems from a gene in all of us that 'subconsciously/genetically' remembers where we came from. Maybe our DNA is missing home and we're trying to figure a way to get back!


Again lets keep on topic with evolution, rather than throwing in fictional stories and guesses about the fact that our DNA is missing home.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby

Originally posted by melatonin
I think it's possible that all of the different stages of 'man' may have been different species just as you get different species of dogs.


They are all different species leading up to man, however it's not compariable to dog species, as they're more hybrids due to cross-breeding.



The type of human we are may have come from another place in the universe (ive already posted that on here before) and being a particularly aggressive species, killed off the others that were co-existing on earth prior to our arrival.


A very nice fictional story, but lets try and keep this discussion to facts or statements we can somewhat back up.



All these stories linked to aliens and our interest in 'whats out there' stems from a gene in all of us that 'subconsciously/genetically' remembers where we came from. Maybe our DNA is missing home and we're trying to figure a way to get back!


Again lets keep on topic with evolution, rather than throwing in fictional stories and guesses about the fact that our DNA is missing home.


eeek! You made it look like you quoted me. haha.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Firstly, one thing I found of great disappointment in Ecology is that there is no really good concrete definition of evolution. If there is in Ecology, they're not teaching it at this university. They use the umbrella term to describe things that cover a miriad of very different scientific concepts.

IF they are defining evolution as "the shift of allelic frequencies with a given population" then guess what, I'm an evolutionists. This would make most 8th graders go "duh!". But, the word adaptation was also used to describe this process and I have throughout my studies there. They seem almost interchangeable...leading me to believe that nobody in Ecology knows what evolution is, really. But, I doubt that's the case, perhaps it's just poorly defined in this field.

IF evolution is the change in DNA generating a new gene that is passed on to successive generations...that's a whole other ball of wax! Then, I'm not an evolutionist. I recall in the Genetics class studying all kinds of mechanism that DNA transcribes, proof reads, double checks and checks again to make sure there aren't genetic errors. Errors can exist, but cause things like sterility and selected-against factors are even recognized in Ecology.

Ecology decides to use evolution to cover both definitions and more. I think this is a fundamental assumptive flaw.

Slider-bar. On your computer you have a nob or digital slider bar to control your volume. You can turn it all the way down, or all the way up, or any range in between. No matter how hard you wish, hope or try, it will never go above that maximum volume. No matter how necessary it may be, that slider bar won't control the lights in your house. Sorry, the programming just isn't there for that. DNA is the genetic programming for biological systems. Yes there's a range with all things in between, but no person will be born with glow in the dark purple eyes. Sorry, not going to happen, not genetically possible. There are 4 nitrogeneous bases and 4 compliments across from them in the DNA strand. Mix'em up all you want, that will not be a result. Anyone play the game Boggle? Shake that cube, you'll never have a number come up, because each dice has a letter on it.

We did learn about the allelic frequency shift to where there are variations within a species that can no longer breed due to those factors I'd mentioned before be it behaviour, chemical or physical...called Open something >_



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 12:21 PM
link   
edit *oops wrong name under quotes* ^.^

another edit *oops meant to edit my first post, not quote it*

darn computers.

[edit on 5-9-2006 by shaunybaby]



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
IF evolution is the change in DNA generating a new gene that is passed on to successive generations...that's a whole other ball of wax! Then, I'm not an evolutionist. I recall in the Genetics class studying all kinds of mechanism that DNA transcribes, proof reads, double checks and checks again to make sure there aren't genetic errors. Errors can exist, but cause things like sterility and selected-against factors are even recognized in Ecology.
[edit on 5-9-2006 by saint4God]


Well I would ask if the article from Long (2001) contains evidence of production of new genes?

Long, M. (2001). Evolution of Novel Genes. Current Opinion in Genetics & Development, 11, 673–680



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Long, M. (2001). Evolution of Novel Genes. Current Opinion in Genetics & Development, 11, 673–680


This one? bioinformatics.psb.ugent.be... "However, in general, strong evidence in favour of 2R is hard to find and the 2R hypothesis is still vigorously debated."

More questions than answers in his bio: pondside.uchicago.edu...

Maybe I don't have the right source. Mind quoting relevant portions or providing a link to what you're looking at?



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by melatonin
Long, M. (2001). Evolution of Novel Genes. Current Opinion in Genetics & Development, 11, 673–680


This one? bioinformatics.psb.ugent.be... "However, in general, strong evidence in favour of 2R is hard to find and the 2R hypothesis is still vigorously debated."

More questions than answers in his bio: pondside.uchicago.edu...

Maybe I don't have the right source. Mind quoting relevant portions or providing a link to what you're looking at?


I'll upload it to YSI in a mo and post the link here.

linky

Just save the file in the link, it's a review article

And I'm surprised you deny the importance of mutations for evolution (even just microevolution), I would have expected you to be more a proponent of directed mutation (front-loading notions) rather than the undirected required by ToE.

Edit: I think this paper also shows a beneficial mutation in blow-flies that confers resistance to insecticides...

Blowfly mutation

I'm a tad out of my depth here, so do forgive me if I have misinterpreted what these articles are suggesting.



[edit on 5-9-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Doh! Access denied from here. I'll have to try again from another computer later on. Thanks for providing the link, I'll try to do my part soon.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 11:25 AM
link   
I can't argue (Mod edit - general insult). They always win. The guy who made this topic needs to use some common sense & think before he speaks. Read more often hombre, (Mod Edit - personal insult)!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You have a U2U

From the T&C's

2) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive and/or hateful manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.

[edit on 14-9-2006 by masqua]



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by sdrawkcab
I can't argue (yadayada). They always win. The guy who made this topic needs to use some common sense & think before he speaks. Read more often hombre, for you are an (blablabla)!


This makes you look neither knowledgeable nor compassionate. On behalf of the originator, I request an apology. Also, if you would be considerate enough to read the terms and conditions regarding posting on ATS, that too would be appreciated.

[edit on 14-9-2006 by saint4God]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sorry, saint4God, but I had to edit that quote.

My apologies



[edit on 14-9-2006 by masqua]



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 05:57 PM
link   
The very idea that I am an accident is uncomprehensible to me. The idea that there is nothing more after I die is inconceivable to me as well. If these things are true then my life has no meaning whatsoever and there is no ultimate goal to work towards in life. What you are just accidently here through no divine creation and just accidently float along this short life on a whim and then cease to exist. That sux.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by deesw
The very idea that I am an accident is uncomprehensible to me. The idea that there is nothing more after I die is inconceivable to me as well.


well, just because it's incomprehensible and inconceivable to you doesn't mean it's wrong
it just means that either:
A: you don't understand
or
B: you don't wish to understand

it could just be that you're uncomfortable with the idea that we have only 1 life to live, and a finite one at that



If these things are true then my life has no meaning whatsoever and there is no ultimate goal to work towards in life.


it's called making yourself
making your own purpose in this world



What you are just accidently here through no divine creation and just accidently float along this short life on a whim and then cease to exist. That sux.


truth isn't normally something that is warm, friendly, and comfortable



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 10:24 PM
link   
And exactly who says that evolution is true? Perhaps it is you that doesn't understand Creationism. That there is something in this world bigger and more important than you. It seems arrogant to me to insinuate that we are the top, that we make ourselves. If that kind of macho ego boost is what you need then cool deal for you. The FACT remains that neither evolution nor creationism have been proven but as a Christian I choose to believe in one over the other one. That doesn't make me more right than you nor you I.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by deesw
And exactly who says that evolution is true?


the majority of the scientific community....



Perhaps it is you that doesn't understand Creationism.


i understand it far too well



That there is something in this world bigger and more important than you.


i believe in something bigger than me
humanity



It seems arrogant to me to insinuate that we are the top, that we make ourselves.


while asserting the existence of a supreme being that isn't subject to logic and whose existence cannot be proven isn't?

and i never said we are on top
if i don't make myself, who does?



If that kind of macho ego boost is what you need then cool deal for you.


actually, it's not an ego boost
the cold reality of the universe is far from a reassuring ego boost



The FACT remains that neither evolution nor creationism have been proven but as a Christian I choose to believe in one over the other one.


so, instead of looking at the science you allow yourself to be blinded by ignorance



That doesn't make me more right than you nor you I.


however, it does put me on the side of logic and reason



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
the majority of the scientific community....


1.) Have you interviewed the entire scientific community and can statistically demonstrate there is a majority in this thought?
2.) Is truth ruled by majority?
3.) Has the idea of evolution passed the Scientific Method?
....a.) Is it able to be tested?
....b.) Is there a working model?
....c.) Can the working model reproduce similar results?


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
however, it does put me on the side of logic and reason


...in your opinion.

[edit on 24-2-2007 by saint4God]



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by deesw
Perhaps it is you that doesn't understand Creationism.

Go ahead and explain it then.




saint4god
Have you interviewed the entire scientific community and can statistically demonstrate there is a majority in this thought?

There is no need to interview every member of the scientific community, evolution has overwhelming support within it, from the jews, atheists, agnostics, muslims, and christians and everything else who are scientists


Is truth ruled by majority?

This is a good point.

Its not that we are saying that science is determined by a vote and majority rules. In science the idea is called 'consensus'. Consensus is built up by having lots of people over a great deal of time work on a problem, and come up with their results, and explain their results, and having everyone else go over those results, re-test that work, find out any problems in it, etc etc. If at the end of that you still haven't refuted a hypothesis, still haven't come up with a better alternative hypothesis, doesn't it make sense to recognize that hypothesis as the generally accepted one?

And yes, that could all be overturned by a single observation tomorrow.

This is why peopel say that science doesn't get at "The Truth".


Has the idea of evolution passed the Scientific Method?

Absolutely. Darwin is practically the quintessential scientists, and natural selection, the model theory.

Is it able to be tested?

Yes. The hypothesis that evolution occurs via a mechanism of natural selection, which is based on the observations that all populations are variable, that variation in inherited, and that there is an overproduction of offspring, is clearly testable. Its been tested, repeatedly, for over a hundred years, and has never been refuted.

Is there a working model?

Consider that scientists at the begining of the last century were able to model natural selection in laboratory studies of fruit flies, and other model organisms. Also consider that they can use essential thought models (or computer models) along wiht the living ones to investigate the various aspects.

Can the working model reproduce similar results?

Absolutely, right down to having single mutations that result in new beneficial abilities, and then they can watch them passed along to offspring who have higher reproductive success and thus observe the trait spread through the population. And at the other end, they can observe speciation in the lab and in the wild.
Observed Instances of Speciation
More Observed Instances of Speciation


...in your opinion
[that is, being on the side of logic and reason]

Its not really an opinion. Evolutionary theory IS the result of logical and reasoned analysis of the natural world and our attempts at understanding and explaining it. Its not merely someone thumping their chest and saying 'me logical ook ook, me reasonable ook', its not bravado, its a sensible statement of fact. Science IS logical and is based on reason and rationality. Faith clearly is not, and its not supposed to be. Faith is irrational.

And consider how weak a faith would be if it were based on solid, rational, evidence. It'd be meaningless. What kind of chistian would you be if you were personally escorted into heaven by jesus, had a long chat with god the father, and ran around with the holy spirit, if, in other words, you have definitive proof that it all exists and that you should follow it?
It'd be nothing, compared to the person that knows nothing, suffers and labours on earth, but yet beleives.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 09:13 AM
link   
The only evidence I can find about evolution is how people have gotten taller over the years. Take a look at people from a few hundred years ago and compare them with people of today.

As far as the Big Bang theory it's just that a Theory. So is the Theory of Intelegent Design.

And Santa does run a sweat shop at the north pole, why? cause of lax labor laws!



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 10:02 AM
link   


Absolutely. Darwin is practically the quintessential scientists, and natural selection, the model theory


It has not. The THEORY has passed nothing and it certainly has never been proven.
How often are scientists proven wrong,,,, quite often. For years Scientists said definitely that the Earth was flat. Just one example.
How often has God been proven wrong? Never
Grant it, his existence has never been proven in your scientific communities eyes either. If you are going to debate on this thread I don't think that you can legitimately interject your own opinion and say it is fact. Evolution may be accepted by some, but that doesn't mean it has been proven and true. I believe that Creationism is correct, you believe that evolution is, neither of us can prove a thing, so please don't insinuate that evolution is fact just because science accepts it without proof.




top topics



 
6
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join