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 is evolution, not what some think

page: 57
12
<< 54  55  56    58  59  60 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

You may be on to something there, but I still like to see what bat sh!t crazy nonsense these creos come up with next!
Sick I know, but entertaining none the less watching them squirm, lie and cheat.

Anyway... have another brick!




posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch


You know science has to take an issue and experiment on that issue,

Right, and the "issue" of evolution -- what someone who actually understood the first thing about science would call a "phenomenon" -- is the heritability of traits. The Lenski experiment, which has been explained to you ad nauseum in this thread, was conducted to further our understanding of a few different facets of evolution: how the rate of evolution varies over time, how repeatable are evolutionary changes in populations that are kept separate but exposed to the same conditions, and the relationship between evolution at the phenotypic and genomic levels.


the results then have to be quantified and clarified.

Which the Lenski experiment did. But you can't be bothered to read about the experiment or the results. And, just so we are completely clear, the Lenski experiment isn't even remotely the only experiment carried out in the field of evolutionary biology. Thousands upon thousands of papers are published each year in the field.


The experiment must be repeatable observable and testable.

You're conflating the phenomenon being studied by an experiment and the experiment itself. The experiment, and the phenomenon being observed during the experiment, must both be reproducible. Interestingly, the Lenski experiment was designed to show whether or not evolution was reproducible. If you could be bothered to read the results, you'd see that it was. Unequivocally. The phenomenon must be observable, which evolution is. And the hypothesis must be testable, which it obviously is. You continue to spout this misconception as if it's truth, even though it's been show to you that you're completely wrong in your understanding of the nature of science in general and evolutionary biology is particular. But you can't be bothered to read anything that might conflict with your religious faith, so you wouldn't know that.


Outside of that and you have a lame assumption at its very best

The only lame assumptions here are from the person who doesn't understand and refuses to try and educate themselves at the risk of their religious beliefs.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 07:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: iterationzero
a reply to: borntowatch


You know science has to take an issue and experiment on that issue,

Right, and the "issue" of evolution -- what someone who actually understood the first thing about science would call a "phenomenon" -- is the heritability of traits. The Lenski experiment, which has been explained to you ad nauseum in this thread, was conducted to further our understanding of a few different facets of evolution: how the rate of evolution varies over time, how repeatable are evolutionary changes in populations that are kept separate but exposed to the same conditions, and the relationship between evolution at the phenotypic and genomic levels.


the results then have to be quantified and clarified.

Which the Lenski experiment did. But you can't be bothered to read about the experiment or the results. And, just so we are completely clear, the Lenski experiment isn't even remotely the only experiment carried out in the field of evolutionary biology. Thousands upon thousands of papers are published each year in the field.


The experiment must be repeatable observable and testable.

You're conflating the phenomenon being studied by an experiment and the experiment itself. The experiment, and the phenomenon being observed during the experiment, must both be reproducible. Interestingly, the Lenski experiment was designed to show whether or not evolution was reproducible. If you could be bothered to read the results, you'd see that it was. Unequivocally. The phenomenon must be observable, which evolution is. And the hypothesis must be testable, which it obviously is. You continue to spout this misconception as if it's truth, even though it's been show to you that you're completely wrong in your understanding of the nature of science in general and evolutionary biology is particular. But you can't be bothered to read anything that might conflict with your religious faith, so you wouldn't know that.


Outside of that and you have a lame assumption at its very best

The only lame assumptions here are from the person who doesn't understand and refuses to try and educate themselves at the risk of their religious beliefs.


He'll respond by saying that the Lenski experiment only proves microevolution and not macroevolution.

You'll facepalm yourself and try to explain that those two are referring to the same processes but he'll claim your explanation is baseless and invalid.

You'll facepalm yourself again and provide a source for the correct explanation of microevolution and macroevolution. He'll say the source proves nothing.

You'll switch from facepalming to bashing your head against a wall because you can't grasp the level of denial it takes to hold such opinions.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74

Omg.. Off topic but

Your new avatar almost made me burst out in laughter!



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 07:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: flyingfish
Sick I know, but entertaining none the less watching them squirm, lie and cheat.


I completely agree.

It's also refreshing when there are some honest ones.

I have seen them around here too. They can raise good questions.

Ah.. love The Pink Floyd. Thank you.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer

I'm just hoping he brings up target food so this will all make more sense.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: borntowatch

Once again, you did not read the definition of speciation. Why don't you write a letter to authors and tell them that they're wrong. They'll come back at you with the same question that everyone has been asking you: where's your evidence that it's NOT speciation.

And please don't link to irrelevant articles. I don't accept links. Only your direct, scientific, observational evidence





Please dont read irrelevant articles, please dont be offended or think those links are for you.
I dont intend to persuade you from anything, I am not offering evidence to win an argument.

I am the one asking for evidence, if i link something or ask a question its to clarify something elseor point out where the information is lacking.

Please Phantom feel free to find another thread

As for speciation, I dont care what it means, just interested in evidence



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: borntowatch
You see evolution as a religion, just like all other religions. Baseless in their assertions, it would seem, since there's "no evidence" for the foundation of their beliefs, is that right? This only makes you guilty of the very same things you are accusing others of. Although something tells me you don't really care what others think.

If you are a Christian, as you claim, then wouldn't you believe that your god was at the beginning, and set all the laws of the universe in motion? Would this not include evolution to some extent?

There's no debate here. Your beef is not with evolution, it's with the people who attack you for what you believe in. Disproving evolution (good luck with that) is misguided, and will not in any way validate your belief system. Nor does the existence of evolution necessarily invalidate them either. The two have nothing to do with each other. You do see that, right?



Yes I see evolution as a religion, it is baseless in so much as their is enough circumstantial evidence to sway many minds, enough theory and conjecture to advance the faith beyond the common belief.

I just want to see if the common person here on ats can support those beliefs beyond talking of goats beards and fruit fly. If they can show one defining change in ecoli that would make me think that the ecoli has added new information as suggested (what new information?). If it can be explained then maybe I could embrace it, probably gone too far for me to even consider evolution is a science now.

and yes God allowed microevolution although many around here deny microevolution exists, otherwise I dont disagree with your statement about God

and then you make your mistake Photon,I am not here disproving evolution, the evolutionists are doing that.
I am just asking for detailed evidence that is not a link, that isnt a wall of text that cant be discussed, see you cant discuss a link with 10 different topics on it.

I expected something just like Phantom did, though he did disguise it in a wall of ranting that I can tend to ignore.
So I read his evidence, noted what I figured was lacking and asked for more detail. Its up to him to reply or not.

See Photon there are lots of Christians in this world who readily accept evolution and for me to be opposed to those here would make me opposed to them. I cant do that.
I am just asking for discussion and better evidence than the weeds and flies stuff I have been given so far.
edit on b2015Wed, 11 Feb 2015 20:00:34 -060022820153pm282015-02-11T20:00:34-06:00 by borntowatch because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 08:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Answer
There are mountains of evidence to support speciation.

You can't watch it happen in a lab because it takes a very long time.
Is it just me or is the second sentence explaining why there is no evidence, while we supposedly have evidence?



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 09:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: vasaga

originally posted by: Answer
There are mountains of evidence to support speciation.

You can't watch it happen in a lab because it takes a very long time.
Is it just me or is the second sentence explaining why there is no evidence, while we supposedly have evidence?


You mistake "evidence" with "watching a process happen in real time."



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 09:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
I honestly think borntowatch is just playing with you guys.

He knows there are many of you who will respond regardless,

Not for his sake so much as the sake of lurkers and whatnot.

He obviously just wants to keep you busy repeating things.

At this point, over the past months, in this thread and others,

Introductory books on evolution have been written, and rewritten.

The guy has got to be a troll to repeatedly ask the same things,

And continuously ignore, ignore, ignore..

He don't need no education, he don't need no thought control.

Unless he can start providing some counter arguments for his stance,

E.g. Give some evidence for faulty dating methods.

E.g. Provide some reason macro and micro are not the same.

Someone should alert the mods.. Just my humble opinion.



Ha! Ya Think???

I have to say the guy has been trained well. Fun anyway.

P



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 10:08 PM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

I'm going to try very hard to answer you in the way you want to be answered.

Some of the reasons I accept the Theory of Evolution as a valid explanation for the development of species:

1) Natural selection is an observed phenomenon in controlled experiments. What you term as "microevolution" has been verified and the legitimacy can not be debated. This process of natural selection of genetic mutations over many generations and a sometimes unfathomable length of time can produce entirely new species. The scientific definition of "new species" is "the new species can not reproduce with its ancestor." Through many more generations, possible branches in the tree, and many more environmental influences affecting natural selection, the "new species" can eventually produce descendants that are unrecognizable to the common ancestor. The evidence for this is presented in many textbooks and on many websites. If this process did not take so long or if the fossil record were somehow 100% complete, I would be able to show you every fossilized skeleton showing the transition from one species to another but as it stands, scientists have to apply the principles learned from observations of small changes in the lab to the giant puzzle of biological evolution.

2) Modern species share so many traits with the fossils of their now-extinct common ancestors that it's hard to deny their relationship. Typically, the modern species looks very much like an "improved" version of the ancestral species. Obviously, the "improvements" are only a benefit because of our current environment. An animal living during a time on Earth when the climate was warmer, colder, or full of much different predators would obviously benefit from traits that a modern species may or may not have. As has already been said, the species didn't choose these traits but those genetic mutations were selected by nature over very long periods of time.

3) If god created all species on Earth like they currently are, there would not be such diversity among fossilized remains and there would not be so many extinct species. There are many cases of a trait disappearing in a species because it was no longer useful. An obvious example would be human teeth. The teeth and jaw of our ancestors were very ape-like. When our ancestors learned to harness fire to soften food, this started the evolutionary path to our current tooth and jaw structure. The need went away so the mutations for thinner teeth and weaker jaws were not weeded out like they would have been otherwise.

4) Species tend to adapt to climate change or die out. If god created all species, they should be impervious to natural changes in climate. Many large species died out toward the end of the ice age as the temperatures started to rise. Experts are figuring out that this was partly due to the extinction of protein-rich plants. When the plants died out, the animals died out or survived thanks to evolution through natural selection. When the massive plant-eaters died out or started to get smaller, the massive meat-eaters died out or got smaller because their shrinking food-source did not support their body size. If evolution were not valid, those animals would not have changed during the ice age so they would be able to survive just fine without the ice-age reliant plant life. The whole system evolves simultaneously unless a dramatic outside-influence intervenes: meteor strike, volcanic eruption, etc.

You don't like reading a wall of text so I'll stop here for now and address any legitimate questions you may have.


edit on 2/11/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 10:15 PM
link   
It's obvious nothing short of watching your ducks turn into crocodiles is going to be satisfactory to verify evoution to some people (where are the crocoducks!?!?)lol.

Surely threads like this indicate that there is a lot to understand, re how religious fundamentalism and anti intellectualism (which are basically the same thing anyway) can still thrive in a modern 1st world society, despite access to things like modern education. From this pov (that this thread is really more relevant to sociology), this thread is a good one.



edit on 11-2-2015 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Borntowatch, do you believe that the earth is round? If so, can you please prove that the earth is round, using the scientific method, with no links or walls of text? If you can't, then you are a round-earthist and only believe it out of faith.
edit on 12-2-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 07:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: vasaga

originally posted by: Answer
There are mountains of evidence to support speciation.

You can't watch it happen in a lab because it takes a very long time.
Is it just me or is the second sentence explaining why there is no evidence, while we supposedly have evidence?


You mistake "evidence" with "watching a process happen in real time."
What is the evidence then (or mountains of evidence as you call it), if we can not watch the process happen in real time? Honest question.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 09:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: vasaga

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: vasaga

originally posted by: Answer
There are mountains of evidence to support speciation.

You can't watch it happen in a lab because it takes a very long time.
Is it just me or is the second sentence explaining why there is no evidence, while we supposedly have evidence?


You mistake "evidence" with "watching a process happen in real time."
What is the evidence then (or mountains of evidence as you call it), if we can not watch the process happen in real time? Honest question.


Scientists have seen evolution through natural selection in a lab setting. They have observed the processes.

Scientists have seen the evidence in fossilized remains which strongly suggests that species branch off from a common ancestor and they can extrapolate data from the surrounding strata, fossils of other species living at that time, and what is known about the world's climate during that time period to piece together a puzzle that indicates "this species developed these traits because of XYZ."

Applying what is known about natural selection thanks to observations in the lab, scientists apply that knowledge to the grander scale of speciation.

I've posted an example above but I'll repeat it: whenever fossils are found in a particular strata but they are not found in others, it suggests that a particular species developed and then went extinct during a certain time period i.e. the ice age. Obviously the ice age did not happen overnight so species adapted to the cooling temperatures over many many generations. Some species did not or could not adapt quickly enough to the cooling temperatures and they died out. Some of the species that thrived during the ice age such as large furry herbivores that relied on large protein-rich plants and large predators that preyed on the large furry herbivores went extinct toward the end and shortly after the end of the ice age because their food sources dwindled and/or they were not fit for a warmer climate. There are times when a "rapid" change in climate is the cause of extinction because the process of natural selection simply can't keep up. Keep in mind that when I use the term rapid in this context, we're still talking about hundreds of thousands of years.

The dinosaurs were not completely wiped out in the explosion from the asteroid strike. The strike threw so much material into the atmosphere that it partially blocked out the sun, causing rapid cooling of the earth which led to the extinction of vast amounts of large plant life. The huge herbivores that relied on the huge vegetation eventually died out and along with them, the huge carnivores that relied on the huge herbivores eventually died out. Many smaller species were able to survive but, over time, they branched off into new species that were better suited to their new world i.e. birds. Obviously, there are species in the ocean that have changed very little since the age of the dinosaurs because water-borne species were not as effected by climate change. We humans have slowed our own evolution because we developed the tools to control our environment. Cooking food, growing protein-rich food, using fire and shelter for warmth, etc. have completely changed the process of natural selection.

Logically, if species did not evolve through natural selection, they would all die in these various extinction events. Luckily, thanks to natural selection, certain species are able to adapt and survive. If the earth were thrown into a sudden ice age again today, the vast majority of species would die out because they've evolved to our current climate.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 09:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: vasaga
What is the evidence then (or mountains of evidence as you call it), if we can not watch the process happen in real time? Honest question.


You may want to read the last 10-15 pages of this thread to understand why it has devolved to asking for the evidence that has already been posted. Born has said we must back up our claims, but won't allow us to use links, which is kind of a joke. You know as well as I do that I've personally posted evidence for you multiple times. Fossil record, genetics, chemistry and geology all point to evolution as a fact of life. Without evolution, biology makes no sense, and still after all these years of asking, not a single evolution denier has answered the question of why genetic mutations do not add up over thousands to millions of generations, like they do in the hundred or so that we have observed. They all just say "I believe micro evolution but you'll never see a monkey turn into a human", a response that is a complete strawman, not to mention it's completely wrong and dishonest. It would be nice if somebody would finally tackle that question, but creationists / science deniers dodge the question and change the subject every time.

To answer your question, we actually CAN observe the process in real time. Speciation has been done for multiple species in a lab. Genomes have been mapped from generation to generation showing the exact differences in genes. In organisms with short lifespans, we can observe, but expecting a human that only lives 100 years to sit back and watch a process that takes 7 million years is ridiculous. If we can observe genetic mutations slightly altering a species over time, then why would you expect these changes to stop happening? Deniers seem to construct this magical barrier that prevents the changes from adding up enough to change the way we classify the organism, but there is no evidence of this limitation. It is a false limitation imposed by deniers that has no evidence to back it. Care to tackle THE question? Maybe I'll make a new thread asking it and see if any denier or creationist is willing to even attempt it. So far nobody has.
edit on 13-2-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Where were the organic elements before the formation of the earth?

"They existed, so to say in the fluidic state, in space, in the midst of the spirits, or in other planets, awaiting the creation of the earth in order to begin a new existence on a new globe."

Chemistry shows us the molecules of inorganic bodies uniting to produce crystals of regular forms that are invariable for each species, as soon as those molecules find themselves in the conditions necessary to their combination. The slightest disturbance of those conditions suffices to prevent the union of the material elements, or, at least, to prevent the regular arrangement of the latter which constitutes the crystal. Why should not the same action take place among the organic elements? we preserve for years the seeds of plants and of animals, which are only vivified at a certain temperature and under certain conditions: grains of wheat have been seen to germinate after the lapse of centuries. There is, then, in seeds a latent principle of vitality, which only awaits the concourse of favorable circumstances to develop itself. May not that which takes place under our eyes every day have also taken place at the origin of the globe?

Does this view of the formation of living beings brought forth out of chaos by the action of the forces of nature itself detract in any way from the glory of God?

So far from doing this, the view of creation thus presented to us is more consonant than any other with our sense of the vastness of His power exerting its sway over all the worlds of infinity through the action of universal laws. This theory, it is true, does not solve the problem of the origin of the vital elements, but nature has mysteries which it is as yet impossible for us to explain.


46. Do any living beings come into existence spontaneously at the present day?

"Yes; but the primal germs of these already existed in a latent state. You are constantly witnesses of this phenomenon. Do not the tissues of the human body and of animals contain the germs of a multitude of parasites, that only await for their development the occurrence of the putrid fermentation necessary to their life? Each of you contains a slumbering world of microscopic beings in process of creation."

from Allan Kardec www.spiritwritings.com...



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 12:21 PM
link   
There's another way to approach the creation argument:

If god created all animals on earth at one time and evolution does not occur, he/she/it has killed off most of them and started over again several times.

God's desk must look something like this:




edit on 2/13/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: iterationzero
a reply to: Answer

I'm just hoping he brings up target food so this will all make more sense.


Now I have to go back and re-read..LOL







 
12
<< 54  55  56    58  59  60 >>

log in

join