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.

 

What's so hard about evolution?

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2014 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: MarsIsRed
Two parents conceive a child. The child is different. It's not a perfect copy of either/or both parents. This sums up evolution.

What part of this is difficult to understand?

This is a real question.


The part where two fish have a child but it doesn't have fins, can't breathe underwater, can no longer mate with its parents species and walks on legs. Yet despite being "one of a kind" without any mate or biological support, or access to the environment which spawned it, it survives to found a new species.

There is a vast difference between hereditary variation and evolutionary speciation.


That doesn't happen. Evolution works through small mutations that accrue over millions of years. A fish wouldn't one day have offspring that can fully walk on land, breathe air, and not live underwater. That is silly and a gross misrepresentation of Evolution. What would happen is that over many generations of fish, mutations would allow the species to live closer and closer to land until finally a mutation would allow the fish to go on land for a small period of time (it probably still wouldn't let it even breathe air yet). This mutation survives because this particular ability is useful in letting it live longer. Eventually over many more generations, it may evolve the ability to breathe air for a limited amount of time. More generations pass, it evolves appendages that allow it to move further onto land away from water. More generations pass, the animal slowly loses the ability to breathe water while its lungs develop into fully functioning lungs. The appendages become stronger and able to do more things. The animal proceeds further and further away from water.

Two animals don't one day have a child that is a completely different species then the parents. That is stupid and is poor reasoning against Evolution.
edit on 21-5-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 21 2014 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It has also never been shown that animals have beneficial mutations to that degree.....



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: MarsIsRed

Evolution within the boundries of a species is self evident. However, the idea that all creatures evolved from one genetic line is totally unfounded. Macro-evolution is junk science. There is no proof that reptiles became birds, or that apes became man. Only that wolves became dogs and lions became cats. If you think about it, its more of a genetic degeneration than a true evolution.


Then you should have no problem explaining what logical or biological barriers would prevent microevolutionary changes from becoming macroevolutionary changes over long spans of time.

If you can not then the only thing that is junk would be your post.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: MarsIsRed
Two parents conceive a child. The child is different. It's not a perfect copy of either/or both parents. This sums up evolution.

What part of this is difficult to understand?





This is a real question.






This? www.flickr.com...



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: greavsie1971
The hard thing for me to get my head round regarding evolution is the first cell.

In darwins time they understood the cell to be a very simple 'building block' which was created 'by chance in the soup'.



The "by chance" argument is silly.

It is as much "by chance" as that planets happen to revolve around stars, how galaxies form or why a tree (or an animal species etc.) happens to grow/develop, say, in one specific area but not in another. NOTHING happens "by chance".

Life came about since LIFE IS A FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF THE UNIVERSE. There is in my opinion no way around this simple fact. If conditions are suitable, life will evolve.

The question whether life here on Earth came about FROM ONE INITIAL CELL....in my opinion is extremely irrelevant and not interesting. What does it matter? Is it only used by anti-evolutionist people for the sake of argument?

If we assume that life is a fundamental principle in the entire Universe (which I do)...it's likely that life comes about in many o forms, it may even travel from one planet to the other traveling on comets etc. similar like a cosmic seed which may (or may not) bloom once it gets somewhere where conditions are right.

Pondering whether it all started with ONE, exactly one cell is silly & pointless in my opinion.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: MarlinGrace





When science allows us to manipulate DNA and choose gender, hair color, sexual orientation, etc. Will you call it evolution then? This is the real question f


It is still evolution... just not by natural selection... hmmm artificial selection? but it would still follows the evolution.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It has also never been shown that animals have beneficial mutations to that degree.....


Yes it has. Every life form that exists on land is an example of the process that I just described since all life originated from the ocean. But also keep in mind that MOST mutations aren't beneficial at all, probably like 99% of them (just guessing here so don't take that percentage as gospel). So most of the mutations will die out. Also some mutations just aren't useful for the species that they mutated on (a bird wouldn't need a dorsal fin if it can't swim), but if they don't hinder the animal in any from surviving, this trait my propagate on through generations. For instance, humans don't need wisdom teeth yet we still have them. As a result we mostly only see the successful mutations.
edit on 21-5-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: solomons path

I mentioned whales specifically, because I know that many evolutionist love to jump the gun on that one I'm at work so I cannot post the links just yet, but I'll give you just one problem with the information you presented. You see many changes must occur before a land mammal can change to a whale. One of these changes was a major reduction in pelvis size. The transitional animal wouldn't have been able to support itself when walking and wouldn't have been fully adapted to aquatic life either. Therefore it wouldn't be suited for life on land or in water....


Here let me help you out.

How Whales Made the Dramatic Evolutionary Shift from Land to the Sea - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

or

'Walking Whale' Fossil Discovered In Peru May Be Link Between Aquatic and Land Mammals - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...



And as for a much earlier time when our ancestors were first finding their way on land.

How We Got On Land, Bone by Bone

That should cover a lot of questions.
edit on 21-5-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: cutevixen

Oh they do? Vestigial means it has no use. In snakes and whales both the so called hind limb is something they use during sex. It's not vestigial .



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 03:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: solomons path

I mentioned whales specifically, because I know that many evolutionist love to jump the gun on that one I'm at work so I cannot post the links just yet, but I'll give you just one problem with the information you presented. You see many changes must occur before a land mammal can change to a whale. One of these changes was a major reduction in pelvis size. The transitional animal wouldn't have been able to support itself when walking and wouldn't have been fully adapted to aquatic life either. Therefore it wouldn't be suited for life on land or in water....


Your argument is a fallacy . . . false dilemma. Just because whales show changes in anatomical structure toward their current form, does not mean those changes "had to happen" before they became aquatic. The mophological change from land mammal to modern whale took millions of years and, like all species, is still on going. You are looking at a snapshot from your place in time and asserting it had to happen at once . . . that's a fallacy.

From my previous link:


These first whales, such as Pakicetus, were typical land animals. They had long skulls and large carnivorous teeth. From the outside, they don't look much like whales at all. However, their skulls — particularly in the ear region, which is surrounded by a bony wall — strongly resemble those of living whales and are unlike those of any other mammal. Often, seemingly minor features provide critical evidence to link animals that are highly specialized for their lifestyles (such as whales) with their less extreme-looking relatives.

Compared to other early whales, like Indohyus and Pakicetus, Ambulocetus looks like it lived a more aquatic lifestyle. Its legs are shorter, and its hands and feet are enlarged like paddles. Its tail is longer and more muscular, too. The hypothesis that Ambulocetus lived an aquatic life is also supported by evidence from stratigraphy — Ambulocetus's fossils were recovered from sediments that probably comprised an ancient estuary — and from the isotopes of oxygen in its bones. Animals are what they eat and drink, and saltwater and freshwater have different ratios of oxygen isotopes. This means that we can learn about what sort of water an animal drank by studying the isotopes that were incorporated into its bones and teeth as it grew. The isotopes show that Ambulocetus likely drank both saltwater and freshwater, which fits perfectly with the idea that these animals lived in estuaries or bays between freshwater and the open ocean.


The pelvis bones came much later in the fossil record, yet were merely an addition to the earlier changes. Smaller or detached pelvis aided in using the whole spinal column for locomotion.

These more aquatic whales showed other changes that also suggest they are closely related to today's whales. For example, the pelvis had evolved to be much reduced in size and separate from the backbone. This may reflect the increased use of the whole vertebral column, including the back and tail, in locomotion. If you watch films of dolphins and other whales swimming, you'll notice that their tailfins aren't vertical like those of fishes, but horizontal. To swim, they move their tails up and down, rather than back and forth as fishes do. This is because whales evolved from walking land mammals whose backbones did not naturally bend side to side, but up and down. You can easily see this if you watch a dog running. Its vertebral column undulates up and down in waves as it moves forward. Whales do the same thing as they swim, showing their ancient terrestrial heritage.

As whales began to swim by undulating the whole body, other changes in the skeleton allowed their limbs to be used more for steering than for paddling. Because the sequence of these whales' tail vertebrae matches those of living dolphins and whales, it suggests that early whales, like Dorudon and Basilosaurus, did have tailfins. Such skeletal changes that accommodate an aquatic lifestyle are especially pronounced in basilosaurids, such as Dorudon. These ancient whales evolved over 40 million years ago. Their elbow joints were able to lock, allowing the forelimb to serve as a better control surface and resist the oncoming flow of water as the animal propelled itself forward. The hindlimbs of these animals were almost nonexistent. They were so tiny that many scientists think they served no effective function and may have even been internal to the body wall. Occasionally, we discover a living whale with the vestiges of tiny hindlimbs inside its body wall.

Cetacean Evolution
But, I'm sure you have some bang-up apologetics site that will explain why all of this is wrong . . . sigh.

The cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises) are marine mammal descendants of land mammals. Their terrestrial origins are indicated by:

Their need to breathe air from the surface;
The bones of their fins, which resemble the limbs of land mammals
The vertical movement of their spines, characteristic more of a running mammal than of the horizontal movement of fish.
The question of how a group of land mammals became adapted to aquatic life was a mystery until discoveries starting in the late 1970s in Pakistan revealed several stages in the transition of cetaceans from land to sea.

Evolution of Cetaceans

ETA - some additional info on just how we know Cetaceans were originally terrestrial:

All cetaceans, including whales, dolphins, and porpoises, are descendants of land-living mammals. What do we know about their terrestrial ancestors?

We know from both studies of DNA and the anatomy of living animals and fossils that whales are part of a mammalian group known as the Artiodactyla. Modern artiodactyls include animals like cows, pigs, sheep, giraffes, camels, and hippos. Artiodactyls have many characteristics that distinguish them from other mammals, but the most distinctive of them are in the foot and ankle. First, artiodactyls reduce the number of toes such that the foot is symmetrical between two digits (a condition called paraxonic). If you think about a cow foot, the hoof seems “split” in two. These animals are often called cloven-hoofed for this reason. The foot actually isn’t split into two at all. Rather, it is actually two toes fused together. Second, artiodactyls have a bone in the ankle called the astragalus (which is found in other mammals as well), but in artiodactyls, it takes on a characteristic form with a pulley shape at each end. Early whales share these characteristics with other artiodactyls. The group of fossil artiodactyls that we think are most closely related to whales is called the Raoellidae, and they lived in Indo-Pakistan, China, and Mongolia during the early and middle Eocene. These animals were probably omnivorous, and some people think they foraged by walking on the bottom of bodies of water.

Aquatic Mammals
edit on 5/21/14 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Remind me why whales have finger and toe bones again?



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: cutevixen

Oh they do? Vestigial means it has no use. In snakes and whales both the so called hind limb is something they use during sex. It's not vestigial .


Not true . . .

Vestigiality refers to genetically determined structures or attributes that have apparently lost most or all of their ancestral function in a given species, but have been retained through evolution. Assessment of the vestigiality must generally rely on comparison with homologous features in related species. The emergence of vestigiality occurs by normal evolutionary processes, typically by loss of function of a feature that is no longer subject to positive selection pressures when it loses its value in a changing environment. More urgently the feature may be selected against when its function becomes definitely harmful. Typical examples of both types occur in the loss of flying capability in island-dwelling species.

Vestigiality

"Most or all of their ancestral function" . . . I would say legs not being visible or used for locomotion is losing "most or all" of their original function.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 04:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: greavsie1971

This happened by chance? The first cell? With all the neccessary functions? Really?????

This is why I have problems with the evolution theory. Not saying its not true or it is true. Just dont appreciate people telling me im stupid because I like to think about it for myself and draw my own conclusions.


I am not denying the complexity and the wonder of life, even all the way down to the cell, even a SEED for me is extremely fascinating since it won't into my head how a seed can have the entire plan "in it" to grow an entire tree or plant.

But it's not "by chance", whatsoever.

This is just backward logic, in the same way as saying that a lottery winner who won 200M last week is "mathematically and statistically impossible"...and NEVERTHELESS Ms. X from Ohio might have won the Jackpot last week and there is no mystery or magic involved, even when her chances that she (or any other individual) won BEFORE the draw were incredibly small.

You could argue now how incredibly not plausible it is that Ms. X filled out the lottery ticket that way..what are the chances she first choose THAT number, than another, then a second correct one...then a fourth one which will be correct...and a fifth one....what in god's name are the chances she did that..so that the ultimate result was that a week later she got six numbers right and won?

As for the "just 1 DNA link missing and wouldn't be possible". There is only ONE LOGICAL outcome, a "defective" DNA or cell couldn't have developed life, so there is no way around it that the initial one must have been "perfect" in a sense as to make life possible otherwise we wouldn't have that discussion : ) In the same way as Ms. X from Ohio, HAD TO get all 6 numbers right, if she had only one wrong she wouldn't have won the jackpot there is no way around this.

The "mysterious" comes only in when you look at it "backwards", this is why I call this "backwards logic".

You propose "intermediate" species, say with half a wing or half a foot, transitional species which WOULD likely not be abe to live.

* A flawed species CAN NOT exist and can not evolve. The question "how can a species survive?" shouldn't even come up since evolution doesn't create creatures who struggle to survive. Respective, well obviously creatures/mutations who cannot survive because of a "flaw"..well..CAN not survive, this is why they don't exist.

I f a mutation caused a change...say, the beginning stages where a limb becomes a wing...we can assume that at each particular time...the mutation posed an ADVANTAGE. How the limb then may develop further down the road, possibly into a full-blown wing with no limb left is not really of interest, what counts is whether the mutation RIGHT NOW poses some form of advantage.

You also propose that there must be a stage where a species is X...and then transitions...until it becomes Y. This is not the case. Evolution is ongoing. Even TODAY'S species are probably not "perfect", you could see them as "transitional".

In 5 million years, birds might look different and today's wings may seem "less than optimal". In 5 Million years, species will have developed further....then you could also ask..HOW could species today in the year 2014 have survived, seeing that they were still not "complete". When should this "complete" stage be? One million years ago? Today? In 5 Million years? Maybe humans are in a transition period right now, they will likely look very different in millions of years..NEVERTHELESS we survive today. Do you see what I am saying? There is no point X and then Y which is the point of completion. It doesn't exist since evolution is ongoing.



originally posted by: greavsie1971
Another thing, If an animal evolves front legs into wings or visa versa, how does the species survive during the transformation period when the limbs are half wing half leg?? how would the limbs be usefull? How would these animals possibly survive the millions of years it would take for the change to complete? If the animal survives this time without the use of the limbs....why would the limbs even change? Wouldn't they just fade away?

These are serious questions too.

edit on 5/21/2014 by NoRulesAllowed because: (no reason given)

edit on 5/21/2014 by NoRulesAllowed because: (no reason given)

edit on 5/21/2014 by NoRulesAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: solomons path

My point was they have there own specialized functions and that they aren't legs.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 06:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: solomons path

My point was they have there own specialized functions and that they aren't legs.


Only the remnants do not have "specialized functions". That is a bias towards a creationist's view of Biology. What remains is used for the same functions they were as a four-legged animal.

Just as four-legged animals use the structure of the pelvic region and the legs in the act of sex, so too do those with vestigial legs use what is left to aid in the act of sex. The difference in the species with the vestigial legs is that they lost the need for the actual legs, but still had a need for stabilization while mating.

That's the very definition of a vestigiality . . . whales lost "most or all of the ancestral function" of their hind legs, even though they "have been retained through evolution".



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 07:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Two animals don't one day have a child that is a completely different species then the parents. That is stupid and is poor reasoning against Evolution.


Yes I agree it's a gross oversimplification.

But why can you make such gross oversimplifications with impunity, in defense of evolutionary theory, and I not?

Specifically let's look at the many "tiny" evolutionary steps between fish and land verebrate. All of those 'tiny' sub-steps are, most likely, adapted neither to water or to land. They are simply invable in either environment and selection pressures will end them.

If only ONE of the 'tiny' modifications is inviable then that ends the mutation's heretability and absolutely ends that whole evolutionary path. The path doesn't skip the dud and continue, it's ended.

The mathematical probability that evolutionary theory represents the agency of biological diversity is exceptionally, preposterously small because the likeihood that a random variation will be successful is statistically impossible.

There must be other forces, as yet untheorised, that give rise to the diversity we see.

As a possibility, I theorise that there may be some mechanism where gene splicing from one host species to another may occur. This would confer complete, adapted and viable attributes to the species accepting the transfer. How this would happen, its mechanism, I have no idea.



edit on 21/5/2014 by chr0naut because: Clarification.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 09:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Two animals don't one day have a child that is a completely different species then the parents. That is stupid and is poor reasoning against Evolution.


Yes I agree it's a gross oversimplification.

But why can you make such gross oversimplifications with impunity, in defense of evolutionary theory, and I not?

Specifically let's look at the many "tiny" evolutionary steps between fish and land verebrate. All of those 'tiny' sub-steps are, most likely, adapted neither to water or to land. They are simply invable in either environment and selection pressures will end them.

If only ONE of the 'tiny' modifications is inviable then that ends the mutation's heretability and absolutely ends that whole evolutionary path. The path doesn't skip the dud and continue, it's ended.

The mathematical probability that evolutionary theory represents the agency of biological diversity is exceptionally, preposterously small because the likeihood that a random variation will be successful is statistically impossible.

There must be other forces, as yet untheorised, that give rise to the diversity we see.

As a possibility, I theorise that there may be some mechanism where gene splicing from one host species to another may occur. This would confer complete, adapted and viable attributes to the species accepting the transfer. How this would happen, its mechanism, I have no idea.




Consider the mathematical unlikelihood of you being you... First the sperm cell that carried you had to be the one to impregnate the egg, for that to happen the same process had to happen for your mother and father, and so on back across the generations... Also consider the likelihood of your parents parents parents parents and so on meeting, and mating... Mathematically the odds are so far against you being you that it is mind boggling. Thats not even accounting for the mathematical unlikelihood of life even existing on this planet. So if you can be you, despite the math, why can't biodiversity through natural selection be viable.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 10:46 PM
link   
originally posted by: Chronaut

let's look at the many "tiny" evolutionary steps between fish and land verebrate. All of those 'tiny' sub-steps are, most likely, adapted neither to water or to land. They are simply invable in either environment and selection pressures will end them.

No, they are either beneficial or simply neutral in the context of the environment at the time.

Now, here is the fallacy in your argument:


If only ONE of the 'tiny' modifications is inviable then that ends the mutation's heretability and absolutely ends that whole evolutionary path.

You are assuming a predetermined path leading to a predetermined result -- a whale or a cat or an orchid. You are assuming a process leading up to a goal.

You are assuming creation in order to prove it.

Evolution doesn't work like that. It's not leading anywhere.


The mathematical probability that evolutionary theory represents the agency of biological diversity is exceptionally, preposterously small because the likeihood that a random variation will be successful is statistically impossible.

Your favourite anti-evolution argument, which is once again based on the assumption that evolution proceeds towards a goal.

In fact the former of the evolved organism is the [I]likeliest possible result of the interaction between the genome and the environment.


edit on 21/5/14 by Astyanax because: of quotes.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 11:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

The 'mathematical probability' argument stems from a misunderstanding of the anthropic princible - they do not take selection bias into account, resulting in looking at the problem from the wrong way.

Well that and they have it in their heads this idea that evolution is a completely random process.



posted on May, 22 2014 @ 12:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
originally posted by: Chronaut

let's look at the many "tiny" evolutionary steps between fish and land verebrate. All of those 'tiny' sub-steps are, most likely, adapted neither to water or to land. They are simply invable in either environment and selection pressures will end them.

No, they are either beneficial or simply neutral in the context of the environment at the time.

A fish with legs formed from the bones and structures that were initially fins is less mobile in water than its progenitors. In a world with significant selection pressures, it would be predated out of existence.

A dead fish (with legs) has no offspring. All similarly 'gifted' mutants are similarly likely to be predated out of existence, so then the entire genetic branch that has the mutation is ended and can mutate no further.

It cannot stop at an effective stage and re-try an alternate mutation because as you noted, evolution is not leading anywhere (except from the point of view of evolutionists looking back at a supposed chain of changes leading from species to species).


Now, here is the fallacy in your argument:

If only ONE of the 'tiny' modifications is inviable then that ends the mutation's heretability and absolutely ends that whole evolutionary path.

You are assuming a predetermined path leading to a predetermined result -- a whale or a cat or an orchid. You are assuming a process leading up to a goal.

No, I was looking back at a sequence of variations that supposedly led from a fish to land creature.

Your inference that I was describing a pre-planned sequence is the product of of your assumtions, not what I was talking about. As an argument, it is spurious and beside the point.


You are assuming creation in order to prove it.

Nope, never mentioned it.



Evolution doesn't work like that. It's not leading anywhere.

The mathematical probability that evolutionary theory represents the agency of biological diversity is exceptionally, preposterously small because the likeihood that a random variation will be successful is statistically impossible.

Your favourite anti-evolution argument, which is once again based on the assumption that evolution proceeds towards a goal.

My favourite anti-evolutionary argument is that the current theory cannot explain the speed and volume of observed genetic change.

This is not Creationism.

I am now even proposing a (still incomplete) theory of how genetic change could occur at the observed rates, and which does not imply that 'God did it'.



In fact the former of the evolved organism is the [I]likeliest possible result of the interaction between the genome and the environment.


What I was suggesting was not creationism, but was in fact that there is some process that very occasionally causes gene splicing from one species to another, thereby inferring complete new attribute to an organism.

This would, perhaps, go some way to explaining things like the Cambrian explosion or, in examples of recent observed genetic changes, why it does not happen at the (generally slower) rates expected from genetic drift, mutation and natural selection.
edit on 22/5/2014 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join