It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Slicky1313
creationismt doesnt concern the Bible. your mixed up there, son.
yes, it is true, that a good majority of creationist, that would referr to a religious text such as the Bible.
But creationist dont all have religions or follow a certain God, some of them, a good many, just belive God made earth and make no assumptions, that it wasnt evolved, and dont belive in religious text
your mixed up there, son
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.
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
Originally posted 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!!
Just out of curiosity, can you explain this to me. My friend told me before the Big Bang, all the data of the university was compacted into a speck less than the size of a pin head. Then all of a sudden it blew up and we now have our universe.
Originally posted by Mxyztos
Why does everything happen spontaneously? Can't the planet, amino acids and primitive cells come to be due to natural processes??
You can't argue the genetic evidence isn't completely supportive of evolution. It is clearly evident that (as other posters have mentioned) we share significant DNA code with all other life on the planet, even Trees! This clearly supports the idea that we share common ancestors and are the product of divergence at some point in the evolutionary timeline.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.