evolution, where is the evidence???!!! I see none, page 5
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5    6    7    8  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 6 times


reply posted on 2-12-2004 @ 11:31 PM by mattison0922
I can no longer sit idly by and watch this thread continue in this manner. Anyway, it appears that many of my 'friends' are here anyway. Maybe
Aeon will show up too!!

Originally posted by cheeser
ok well the foum title is *evolution, where is the evidence???!!! I see none*

so im gonna stick to that
if u dont believe is evolution, explain how there are different strains of lets say... the AIDS virus? how could this be? ofcorse because of DNA mutation. different allinments in the animo acids DNA of the virus.

Cheeser, obviously you don't know anything about HIV, evolution, or genetics. HIV doesn't even possess DNA; it's called a retrovirus. Retroviruses use RNA for their genome. While RNA is more prone to mutation than DNA, there is a specific reason actual living organisms don't use RNA genomes, because it's so prone to mutation. HIV is able to survive because of this mutability. Living organisms are hindered by large scale mutation. It works in viruses only because massive numbers of viruses are produced per infection. How does the existence of retroviruses prove evolution? Amino acids and DNA are completely separate chemical entities. Viruses don't make any amino acids. If you're so convinced that viruses are such a great example of evolution, perhaps you'd can explain for us the selective pressure that would favor viruses evolving. Why do viruses exist? What's the explanation, in evolutionary terms, for their existence?

if it happens in microscopic world the same princible would aply tothe macroscopic world? makes sense to be. But ofcorse it would take a hell of a lot longer in the macro than the micro

This statement is nearly incomprehensible. I believe what you are trying to say is that if something is observable in the microorganisms then it must occur in multicellular organisms as well.

First of all, the existence of HIV isn't proof of anything other than the existence of HIV. If you want to discuss evolution of microorganisms lets do it. Your call on the specific topic.

[edit on 2-12-2004 by mattison0922]

[edit on 2-12-2004 by mattison0922]


reply posted on 3-12-2004 @ 09:27 PM by frayed1
Whewwww......

Check out this site

or this one

You may not consider them proof, but........They both explain "evolution" with out even mentioning humans. You don't have to believe in human evolution, but that does not mean there is no evidence for evolution in other species!

How can you doubt it is a viable theory? All dogs are not wolves, yet most of the dog breeds that exist now were unheard of a couple of centuries ago. Selective breeding of livestock in order to cause changes, to cause the breed to "evolve" occurs every day.

As it has been said before, "Darwin did NOT say man came from monkey" Read his book, see for yourself.

Plus, God could have "included" the ability to evolve.....must have, or we could not alter the looks of our fellow animals.

If you believe God created everything, then just believe that he created evolution, created science, laid down the laws of the universe for all things to obey. Just because you do not understand something, does not mean God could not plan for it to work out that way. Even the Bible says it is not meant for man to understand it all.


reply posted on 3-12-2004 @ 11:55 PM by mattison0922
I doubt that this was directed towards me. But I can comment on it.

Check out this site

or this one

This is all well and good, and there is some interesting speculation re: the theory of horse evolution. Fossil evidence by its unverifiable nature, will never be incontrovertible evidence of evolution.

You may not consider them proof, but........They both explain "evolution" with out even mentioning humans. You don't have to believe in human evolution, but that does not mean there is no evidence for evolution in other species!
The fruit fly thing only represents adaptations and changing allele frequency and/or number. This doesn't represent an increase in genetic information as is required by macroevolution. Changes in morphology in no way prove evolution.

All dogs are not wolves, yet most of the dog breeds that exist now were unheard of a couple of centuries ago. Selective breeding of livestock in order to cause changes, to cause the breed to "evolve" occurs every day.

I am always fascinated that people somehow believe the dog is evidence for evolution. Dog breeds result from the concentration of specific alleles into certain breeds. This actually represents a loss of genetic diversity and genetic information in the long run. Dog breeding is not an example of successful evolution if you want to use it in that context. Many dog breeds now have significant inherited genetic disorders because of this 'evolution.' Many dog breeds are in fact propagated only with the significant eugenic assistance in the form of genetic screening by humans. Great example of evolution. Furthermore, despite thousands of years of evolution, dogs and wolves can still breed. There has been no 'speciation' via that definition of the word.


reply posted on 4-12-2004 @ 11:47 PM by mattison0922
Originally posted by Slicky1313
so since theirs been 2 completely white people giving birth to a black baby, or two black people giving birth to a white baby, which has been done before, and according to evolution humans evolved and formed different skin colors for reasons such as heat and such, that means that the white people that had black babies whoich is very rare have black genes in them, even though they are white, so why cant their be a very small chance humans could produce a dog for example since according to evolution we are all made of the same stuff, and have the same genes we evolved from in evolution.

Not sure if this was addressed to me, and.... not really sure how to address this particular question. I'll give it a shot though... The thing with skin color.... Skin color, if my memory serves me correctly is controlled by at least three genes. This results in a somewhat 'normal' distribution of possible skin colors, from completely white to completely black. So for example, two individuals heterozygous at each allele for color have kids, the parents would be 'dark' definitely not caucasian. There is a 1/64 chance (assuming 6 alleles, and that each allele produces either 'black' or 'white' skin) that a child will be very dark or a 1/64 chance that the child will be very white.

This is again, the result of different alleles, and different possible distributions of alleles within offspring.

I've thought about this dog question.... not really sure how to address it.
Human beings lack the genetic program that is capable of developing a dog. Similiarly human beings lack the genetic programs to sprout grass from their scalps. Despite all organisms having DNA, obviously all DNA sequences are different between organisms. Is this question based on the premise of 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny?' I'm sorry if your bio book still has that in there. That's actually something I look for when I review a bio text for a class. This idea is distinctly untrue. I believe that even most evolutionists have abandoned this particular notion.


reply posted on 5-12-2004 @ 05:26 PM by mattison0922
Originally posted by SpittinCobra
I will show you, the lungfish is going through it now.
Its a type of fish that breaths air. After time it will become a land animal.

mama.essortment.com...

www.aquariacentral.com...


Ahhh yes..... the lungfish. Truly a remarkable creature a monument to adaptation, thanks for bringing it up. Lets talk a little about it. Is it a monument to evolution? Lets see.

First of all, the lungfish is in no hurry to become a land animal. Many species are thought to have remained unchanged for more than 100 million years. Furthermore, the lungfish is a voracious predator, consuming anything it comes into contact with. Its ability to outcompete native fish and completely dominate ecosystems has made it an illegal exotic animal in many places. This is a fish that is in no hurry to become a land animal. In fact, to my knowledge, few evolutionists still consider any form of lungfish to be the forerunner of amphibians. This is predominantly because of skeletal differences. The lungfish has no structures suggestive of legs.

Also, why lungs? Here is there reason: Lungfish, like all fish have gills. Gills of course function via normal biochemical kinetics wherein the oxygen concentration dissolved in the water must be of a sufficient level or gills wont work. This demonstrated by dead zones in bodies of water where microorganisms have consumed excess raw materials and concurrently depleted the oxygen from the water rendering gills non-functional. The environment where this creature lives goes through seasonal fluctuations wherein the oxygen levels of the body of water it lives in drop below levels necessary for the functioning of gills. When this occurs, the lungfish begins using its lungs. After the water drys up (which would be its selective pressure to become a land animal), this creature becomes dormant until the next rainy season, thereby subverting and negating any selective pressure to become a land animal. Rather than a monument to evolutionary change, this is an animal perfectly suited to its particular environment, under no pressure to leave.
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5    6    7    8  >>    ^^TOP^^



EVOLUTION - Did YOU Know?
  Posted 19 days ago with 24 member flags
"I was raised an atheist"- Professor František Vyskočil
  Posted 9 days ago with 6 member flags
The meaning or point of existence or life
  Posted 12 days ago with 2 member flags
Sand Castles and Science
  Posted 11 days ago with 2 member flags