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: 5
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Hold on for one little tic. Are Christians the ones FORCING every person that attends school to be taught the rhetoric of evolution? It is very ironic actually. The same people responsible for this ruling, stop schools preaching a Christian rhetoric so they could enforce their own no Christian dogma upon people.

This topic has been covered elsewhere so I wont go into it. Remember there is always 2 sides of the story.




posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 05:52 PM
link   

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


Well, that is another whole argument of what constitutes the definition of a creationist. I guess in either context there are vast generalization that we just love to through around.



your mixed up there, son


Yes, I am very screwed up. My ancestors are primates.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 10:20 PM
link   
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.

that proves evolution to me...

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



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 11:31 PM
link   
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]



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 12:00 AM
link   

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!!


Good to have you over to this thread mattison. Good to have someone on board that actually knows what their talking about

As I just like to ask simple questions to other simple folk!


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.

How did the earth get water on it to start with? Was there water initially?

What was the first 'supposed' building block for life. Wasn’t it a protein strand?

So pretty much, if I cut my finger nail off (which has a lot more information that a protein strand) and left it lying around for a few billion years, we should see humans evolve from it?

I would have thought that over millions of years, different cancers and viruses would have 'evolved' at the same time that could have killed many of the organisms that were living, thus limiting the chance of survival. i.e. humans and animals have many forms of diseases that prevent us from living to our full capacity.



[edit on 3-12-2004 by shmick25]



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 08:54 AM
link   


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.

Schmick, a pinhead doesn't even begin to address the level of compaction that was alleged to be present prior to the big bang. There was infinite compression of matter down to what is called the 'Planck Length' which I believe is 10^-34 m.... infinitely smaller than a pinhead, and thought to be perhaps the smallest possible sizes.



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 04:32 PM
link   
" So pretty much, if I cut my finger nail off (which has a lot more information that a protein strand) and left it lying around for a few billion years, we should see humans evolve from it? "

well, I dont no bout you, but to me that sounds like a fairy tale.

anyone want to challenge the logic sense of that?
and how could this single cell we evolved from according to dis theory have come about from the gasses exploding and the universe created and all that?

basically guys, according to evolution, if u took your finger nail, placed it in space, a big boom goes off and wa la! the planets are formed and life starts going about buisness. it all makes perfect sense now guys, I completely understand it 100%
Big bang... isnt that where God said bang and the universe was formed right away?

lets all cut our toe nails off and send em in to space and see if we get an alien life coming back years from now, thanks to my big toe


[edit on 3-12-2004 by Slicky1313]



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 04:41 PM
link   
God appeared out of nothing? I learned this in science in sixth grade that living things cannot appear out of nothing. People even experimented this. Found this theory to be false and things cannot appear out of nothing.



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 04:58 PM
link   
you contradict yerself left AND right on that one. u sad sick confused child...

"God appeared out of nothing?"
no, thats silly nonsense

" I learned this in science in sixth grade that living things cannot appear out of nothing. "
yes, about the only thing I agree with in your post, true true

"People even experimented this."
partly true, u cant actually experiment getting something from nothign when we dont no what "nothing" really is, and if the "something" did come from "nothing", it would be coming from something we wouldnt no about just yet that is there,

"Found this theory to be false and things cannot appear out of nothing."
yeah, things cant appear from nothing, but God is excluded, and in the God-less minds of people, matter is excluded.
ya see, since u have just stated something cant come from nothing, that means something has to be eternal. thus, the eternal "thing" is excluded in this, since its eternal, which could be God as some say, and the stuff that existed in the big bang as others say

yer post made absolutely NO sense at all...
do some research first dawg, and some logical thinking as well if it helps

edited part:
and yes, you SHOULD be nominated for the biggest retard of the month by that post from ATS, I agree with yer signature completely

[edit on 3-12-2004 by Slicky1313]



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 05:14 PM
link   

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??


A cell gives divides into another 2 cells: that's a natural process. Natural processes give rise to known outcomes. To create something from nothing is not a natural process.



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 05:24 PM
link   


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.


No, it doesn't prove that.
Many viruses have interchangeable receptors and types of outer shells. They are just functional parts, that are reused over and over.
All that observation proves is that known solutions were reused, sometimes in entirely unrelated species. What is extraordinary to see is that organs that look externally the same can have different genetic implementations, as if the integration of extraneous genetic codes involves some kind of generic transformation to adapt the code and make it work.



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 05:51 PM
link   
" if I cut my finger nail off (which has a lot more information that a protein strand) and left it lying around for a few billion years, we should see humans evolve from it?" any disagreeance with that?

anyone disagree that a toe nail has more information to form life than the starting stuff in the big bang theory? I personally belive a finger nail would be able to create life more easier, as long as scientific jazz and how finger nails have more in em



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 09:27 PM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 11:55 PM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 10:25 PM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 11:47 PM
link   

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.



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 01:39 PM
link   
so this means theres not even a very small chance humans can produce another animal? like even if its 1 in 9999999999999999999 trillion? assuming evolution is correct, that is.



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 01:46 PM
link   
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...



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 05:26 PM
link   

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. Let’s talk a little about it. Is it a monument to evolution? Let’s 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 won’t 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.



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 06:58 PM
link   
I agree.... no hurry to evolve, and has no sign of legs, so where is the lung fish with legs since it would be stronger and more dominant. the inbetween in evolution doesnt add up for animals, only a few "reconstructed" skeletons to make look like what they want them to look like

to bad like Darwin had anticipated we never found the inbetween of to many animals, only a few which they "think" evolved, like the lung fish in between, still no major in betweens.
a missing link in the evolution theory



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join