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: 47
6
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 04:39 PM
link   
I presented facts. Facts about natural selection working very well - which you said it didn't. Facts about new mutations and genes - which you tend to deny exist.

If you can, use your scientific connections to find this article, and the others by Long focusing on the evidence of new genes.


The origin of new genes: glimpses from the young and old.
Long M, Betrán E, Thornton K, Wang W.
Department of Ecology and Evolution, The University of Chicago, 1101 East 57th Street, Chicago, Illinois 60637, USA. mlong@uchicago.edu

Genome data have revealed great variation in the numbers of genes in different organisms, which indicates that there is a fundamental process of genome evolution: the origin of new genes. However, there has been little opportunity to explore how genes with new functions originate and evolve. The study of ancient genes has highlighted the antiquity and general importance of some mechanisms of gene origination, and recent observations of young genes at early stages in their evolution have unveiled unexpected molecular and evolutionary processes.


Morphological novelty...


Nature 424, 1061-1065 (28 August 2003) | doi:10.1038/nature01872; Received 17 January 2003; Accepted 1 July 2003

Cephalopod Hox genes and the origin of morphological novelties
Patricia N. Lee1,2, Patrick Callaerts3, Heinz G. de Couet1 and Mark Q. Martindale2

Department of Zoology, University of Hawaii at Manoa, 2538 McCarthy Mall, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822, USA
Kewalo Marine Laboratory/Pacific Biomedical Research Center, University of Hawaii, 41 Ahui Street, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813, USA
Department of Biology & Biochemistry, University of Houston, 369 Science and Research Bldg 2, Houston, Texas 77204, USA
Correspondence to: Heinz G. de Couet1 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to H.G.d.C. (Email: couet@hawaii.edu).


Cephalopods are a diverse group of highly derived molluscs, including nautiluses, squids, octopuses and cuttlefish. Evolution of the cephalopod body plan from a monoplacophoran-like ancestor1 entailed the origin of several key morphological innovations contributing to their impressive evolutionary success2. Recruitment of regulatory genes3, or even pre-existing regulatory networks4, may be a common genetic mechanism for generating new structures. Hox genes encode a family of transcriptional regulatory proteins with a highly conserved role in axial patterning in bilaterians5; however, examples highlighting the importance of Hox gene recruitment for new developmental functions are also known6, 7. Here we examined developmental expression patterns for eight out of nine Hox genes8 in the Hawaiian bobtail squid Euprymna scolopes, by whole-mount in situ hybridization. Our data show that Hox orthologues have been recruited multiple times and in many ways in the origin of new cephalopod structures. The manner in which these genes have been co-opted during cephalopod evolution provides insight to the nature of the molecular mechanisms driving morphological change in the Lophotrochozoa, a clade exhibiting the greatest diversity of body plans in the Metazoa.


That's all we need; a constant supply of new variation and genes for natural selection to act on. Add this to millions of years, and macroevolution is possible. Until you show a barrier, the evidence for common descent, along with a mechanism for new genetic novelty and selection to account for the evolutionary change over time, will suffice.

And if you knew the scientific method and approach, you would know that now we have presented a theory with mechanism and evidence (natural selection, novel variation, descent with modification, common descent), what we do is try to falsify. And experiments/observations attempt this everyday, and have done for over 100 years. Still standing though.

Evolution is in many ways a historical science, and follows the scientific method just as it should. Darwin produced a hypothesis from observations, people have tested his hypothesis and the predictions it makes, it has been modified when required, it still has not been falsified. It has a working model with mechanism, it makes predictions, it is testable and falsifiable. That's science baby!

I suppose you also suggest that, because we haven't observed a mountain range like the himalayas form in our lifetime, plate tectonics can't account for the himalayas. I suppose we have microuplift (that which we observe - a few mm at a time) and macrouplift (the really big movement we can't observe, but which we say is made up of lots of little uplifts over long periods of time). Yeah, maybe the hand of some omnipotent magic elf moulded it instead...

cheers.

[edit on 25-7-2007 by melatonin]




posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
My head hurts just from reading these two sentences next to each other. I'll just disagree and say "If it is right, then it should be taught as a science. Anything that is not proven to be right should be taught as an idea/belief/faith."


When I say 'It didn't HAVE to be right' what I mean is that when Darwin first came up with the idea, if the idea didn't make sense then it wouldn't have caught on. The fact that it did catch on, and there is now an absolute vast amount of evidence on the subject, shows that evolution does stand on it's own two feet.


Originally posted by saint4God
Is that not what this discussion is about? What is the mechanism for transpeciation?


From the fossil record we can see species that existed, and no longer exist, and also new species that now exist that didn't previously exist. What you're suggesting, if there is no possible way of transpeciation occuring, is that every single species here today has always been here. However, you only need to look back to the dinosaurs to notice how different species were back then. Some are still around, sharks, crocodiles etc, are decendents of the dinosaurs. We also have a vast number of new species today, that weren't around 65 million years ago.

Does this not show transpeciation is possible?



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Let me disprove evolution right now...

There is a law in physics that states that if an object is spinning in a certain direction (i.e. counter-clockwise, clockwise) and a chunk from that object breaks off, the chunk would also spin in the same direction.

Evolution suggests that our solar system is from the same body of gases and rocks. Then why is it that 2 planets and several moons spin in the opposite direction as the other heavenly bodies?

Check out:
www.drdino.com
and
www.drdino.com/downloads.php


[edit on 28-7-2007 by Motion-Man]



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 06:31 PM
link   
What do planets have to do with biological evolution?

And Dr. Dino is a fraud. Anything on his site is a lie, and anyone who believes it is a fool.



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Evolution begins with the big bang, resulting in everything about the universe. It leads to the evolution of man, and to the evolution of the solar system. Therefore, planets are connected to biological evolution.

What makes Kent Hovind a fraud? Or is that simply your "personal" opinion?



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 06:46 PM
link   
MMF,
Please list the "supposed lies" of Kenneth Hovind.
Besides tax evation. Anyone can be prosecuted for that.
His ministry is supposed to be tax exempt.( separation of state off the churchs neck) Name a list that unequivocally proves him as an utter fraud. Thank you MMF.



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Motion-Man
Evolution suggests that our solar system is from the same body of gases and rocks. Then why is it that 2 planets and several moons spin in the opposite direction as the other heavenly bodies?


Different gravitational pulls and pushes could easily affect planet rotation and so on. I'll have to look up that law in physics, would be better if you quoted the 'actual' law name, and perhaps the names of the planets. Maybe even a source? This has nothing to do with evolution also.


Originally posted by Motion-Man
Check out:
www.drdino.com


Start posting some 'serious' evidence and people might take you seriously. Dr Hovind is a propaganda spreading pretend-scientist, who believes dinosaurs and humans lived in utopia 4 or 6 thousand years ago. He's a man who's about to spend a very long time in jail.


Originally posted by Clearskies
Please list the "supposed lies" of Kenneth Hovind.
Besides tax evation. Anyone can be prosecuted for that.
His ministry is supposed to be tax exempt.( separation of state off the churchs neck) Name a list that unequivocally proves him as an utter fraud.


Seperation of church and state does not mean your businesses get to be tax exempt.

Frauds:

Dinosaur Adventure Land.

This is a museum/theme park place, shows dinosaurs co-existing with humans 4 to 6 thousand years ago. Also has the lock ness monster there. Enquiries have been made and shown to show the park is deceptive and purposely misleads visitors.

The Hovind Theory.

I could go in to it, but it basically says something about a big ice meteor hitting earth, just after Noah has got on his boat, which burries the mammoths on the north and south poles, all the other animals die and are buried which made the oil and coal. The grand canyon was also formed during this, (a couple of weeks), according to Hovind.

Chick Tracts.

These are basically comic strips to convert people to Christianity.

en.wikipedia.org...

Click on the little arrows, they're fun to read. Pure propaganda.

Hovind basically believes that biology is full of lies, science is full of lies, evolution is a religion full of lies, and it's not just science he goes for, he also believe that democracy is wrong because it's not in-fitting with God's Law. Hovind also disregards ALL fossil evidence.

Hovind quotes:

''Do you know chimpanzees are still having babies, why don't they make another human?''

During a debate Hovind said, speaking about Donald Johanson:

"He found the leg bones of Lucy a mile and a half away from the head bones. The leg bones were 200 feet deeper in a deeper layer of strata. I would like to know how fast the train was going that hit that chimpanzee."

Another Ignorant and totally false set of words coming from Hovind.

If you go to the Dinosaur Adventure Land and click on the link 'Our Fossils' You go to the shopping page on Hovind's personal website where you can by replica fossils. Strange since Hovinds actually disregards all fossil evidence. Yet, he's selling them so people can use them in talks and to show to kids as evidence? A total misrepresentation here.

He's also selling replica ica stones, that depicts dinosaurs living with humans. However, the originals were shown as hoaxes, let alone a pathetic replica. Again, just another way for Hovind to spread his propagana, and this time at a price.

There is also fossilized dinosaur skin you can buy from Hovind's shop. Even though skin does not fossilize. Wierd. Exactly what is this a replica of? When was the last time someone found REAL fossilized dinosaur skin!

Here's a quote supposedly from a person that bought this item:

''This replica of fosilized dino skin is great for teaching everyone! It is a very detailed fossil that is proof of Noah's flood. I highly Recommend this Item from CSE.''

I think that sums it up for Hovind.. Although this really is barely touching the surface.

It's no wonder why evolution, a logical and rational explanation of the world, doesn't get through to you.



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Motion-Man
Evolution begins with the big bang, resulting in everything about the universe. It leads to the evolution of man, and to the evolution of the solar system. Therefore, planets are connected to biological evolution.


The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the big bang, the universe, and planets.



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 08:51 AM
link   


MMF,
Please list the "supposed lies" of Kenneth Hovind.


Everything that comes out of his mouth. For example, we did NOT live with the dinosaurs, and anyone that says so is a fraud and not to be believed in anything else he says.



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 09:31 AM
link   
BTW, since people like to just throw out Hovind's web URL and say, "It's proof! Read for yourself!" I'll respond in kind.

Here is a site that thoroughly debunks Hovind.

It's real! Read for yourself!


I'm sorry, but it's not my job to teach you critical thinking. If you haven't grasped it by now, you probably never will. There are none so blind as those that will not see.

Also, I found some interesting facts on Wiki about him. Such as this great minister has performed assault and battery, as well as burglary.



In 2002, he was charged, but not convicted, with one count of felony assault, one count of misdemeanor battery, and one count of burglary with assault/battery. In December 2002, the charges were dropped by the alleged victim, Hovind's employee.


Boy, I'd like to read the police reports on that one!

The victim's dropping of the charges are NOT the same as his being found innocent. There are many reasons a real victim may drop charges other than the assumption that they didn't happen.

Hovind is a fraud and a violent one. He's a liar, a cheat, and an egotist.

Anyone that believes his line is a fool, as I have said.



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Giant, Lion-eating chimps found in Congo jungle.

Local hunters speak of massive creatures that seem to be some sort of hybrid between a chimp and a gorilla.
External Source


Local hunters who have lived in the Congo all of their lives and they are closer to the chimps and gorillas than any scientists are say that these are hybrids, not evolution at hand here.



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 09:59 AM
link   
And how would a hunter know if it's a hybrid or not? Chimps and gorillas can't interbreed.

Are you posting in the wrong thread, btw?



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Webmonkey336
Interesting, but where did you get your information. I've never heard that Darwin admitted to have made up the whole evolution thing. It sounds a little shady to me.


Oh boy is it shady!
Sounds like another religeous extremist with bizzarre theories and an axe to grind. There are far too many on this board...

J



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies
MMF,
Please list the "supposed lies" of Kenneth Hovind.
Besides tax evation. Anyone can be prosecuted for that.
His ministry is supposed to be tax exempt.( separation of state off the churchs neck) Name a list that unequivocally proves him as an utter fraud. Thank you MMF.


What we need is seperation of state - to get the church off the states back!
J.



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
And how would a hunter know if it's a hybrid or not? Chimps and gorillas can't interbreed.

Are you posting in the wrong thread, btw?


First, Hunters are around them everyday, scientists go out and spend a week or more in the field then they go home and write a paper that is excepted by the scientific gender because they have a piece of paper saying they are smarter than the people who have been around the animals all of their lives.

(Example of what I mean) I have a child and when he was younger he would get really sick every winter in the beginning of the winter, his normal doctor knew this because he had a history with my son and me and he would give him amoxicillion and my son was well again within a few days. One year my son was sick and my family doctor was on vaca so I took him to see another doctor in the same office. This doctor said that it was viral and he did not need an antibiotic. My son stayed sick until my family doctor came home and I contacted him and got the necessary antibiotics needed to heal him.

My point, people who are around the situation on a constant basis knows what is going on, someone who comes in and hangs out for a while (18 months) then takes off cannot know exactly what is going on.


Posted by MajorMalfunction
Are you posting in the wrong thread, btw?


I thought this thread was about Evolution and where is the proof? I see none as well. Especially after reading this article.



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 10:34 AM
link   
Stari, no doubt the information these Congo dudes have is important, maybe these apes are hybrids. But only real scientific analyses will be able to determine this.

Futher, even if they are hybrids, it does nothing to cast doubt on ToE.

And just a note, yeah, maybe some scientists do spend about a week in the jungle take notes and make inferences. And others spend years in the jungle, and other natural habitats, studying animals and their behaviour. Doesn't really mean much apart from research in these environments is sometimes not as intensive as it deserves to be. Likely for numerous reasons - finances, social/political stability, etc etc.

[edit on 29-7-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stari

Giant, Lion-eating chimps found in Congo jungle.

Local hunters speak of massive creatures that seem to be some sort of hybrid between a chimp and a gorilla.
External Source


Local hunters who have lived in the Congo all of their lives and they are closer to the chimps and gorillas than any scientists are say that these are hybrids, not evolution at hand here.


They call them a 'sub-species' so they're neither chimps or gorillas, and suggests they are close relatives, however much bigger and stronger than chimps. This species nest on the ground, whereas the small chimp species nest in trees. If anything this is proof that evolution happens.

[edit on 29-7-2007 by shaunybaby]



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Stari, no doubt the information these Congo dudes have is important, maybe these apes are hybrids. But only real scientific analyses will be able to determine this.


True, real study is needed. But I believe the lifetimes of the locals and their opinions cannot be dismissed.


Originally posted by melatonin

Futher, even if they are hybrids, it does nothing to cast doubt on ToE.


I believe in evolution to the point that if a person where to move from a warm humid climate to a very cold climate then perhaps if it were a man he would grow a beard and where warmer clothes to adapt to the environment not grow extra limbs over many cycles of reproduction. Everything has to adapt or evolve to their new environments but not change the overall appearance of who they are.


Originally posted by melatonin

And just a note, yeah, maybe some scientists do spend about a week in the jungle take notes and make inferences. And others spend years in the jungle, and other natural habitats, studying animals and their behaviour. Doesn't really mean much apart from researching in these environments is sometimes not as intensive as it deserves to be.


True but it can't compare to the people who spent their entire lives in the habitat and lived among the chimps and gorillas.



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
They call them a 'sub-species' so they're neither chimps or gorillas, and suggests they are close relatives, however much bigger and stronger than chimps. This species nest on the ground, whereas the small chimp species nest in trees. If anything this is proof that evolution happens.

[edit on 29-7-2007 by shaunybaby]


Correct a sub-species is what they are being called right now and correct they nest on the ground and not in trees. So how did they come to be? How close of relatives are they to the chimp and gorilla? We do not know yet. But it stands to reason that if they are close relatives to the chimp and gorilla then at some time in thier history they interbred, at least it is a possibility and I wanted to bring it up in this discussion. This is not proof of evolution but quite the opposite

It's only a matter of time before scientists latch onto this story and start investigating evolution vs interbreeding.

I'm sorry you do not see the relevance of this story to evolution. Should I have waited to post this until the scientists start investigating where this species came from?



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stari
So how did they come to be?


It would be guess work to say how they actually came to be. I don't know, I could only speculate, if you want me to I'll throw in my guess.


Originally posted by Stari
But it stands to reason that if they are close relatives to the chimp and gorilla then at some time in thier history they interbred, at least it is a possibility and I wanted to bring it up in this discussion. This is not proof of evolution but quite the opposite.


There's nothing to suggest this sub-species is the consequence of inter-breeding. It seems like a close relative, but one that has lived and evolved in complete isolation from other apes. Inter-breeding is speculation, through environmental differences, similar species seem to have evolved very differently, the sub-species somewhat being at the top of the food chain. Even gorillas aren't known to be such predatory apes, so I think what we have is a seperate species, and not a hybrid.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join