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.
originally posted by: stumason
originally posted by: Snarl
I've looked ... and for the life of me, I've never been able to see definitive evolutionary change "from one species to another."
Probably because of a fundamental misunderstanding about how evolution works.
It isn't the case of a dinosaur giving birth to a chicken one day - the process is gradual and for every fossil we find and place in the evolutionary tree, there are many more animals between them we will never find showing the gradual changes, although you can often find fossils of animals that are clearly closely related.
The simplest way to describe evolution to anyone is this:
Imagine you have a cactus. It's in the desert, minding it's own business living off the seasonal rains. One day, through whatever means it is Cacti reproduce, it disperses it's seeds.
Now, owing to errors in copying DNA, some of those seeds will be genetically different from their parent. Some will hold water better, some will hold it less.
Then the climate changes - the rains become less frequent. Now, those Cacti that don't hold enough water perish, those that hold more water thrive. This is natural selection.
Over the course of generations, more and more genetic mutations are introduced - some may affect the spines, some may affect the colouring, others may affect the size of the flowers. Owing to the prevailing conditions (rain, insects, herbivores etc) those with the right mutations will survive, while those who are poorly adapted will perish.
Eventually, after many generations, you will have a Cactus that is quite different from it's ancestor at the beginning of the story and is actually an entirely different species adapted to it's environment.
The same works for animals.
originally posted by: Unity_99
Well, it doesnt really matter what the schools teach, though alternative theories would be more appropriate because evolution as defined is just a theory. It has a lot of holes.
originally posted by: Verum1quaere
um, you guys, "theory of evolution" is a RElIGION...
originally posted by: Unity_99
a reply to: NoRulesAllowed
No, but it should be theories, and lots of them, and students putting on thinking caps. Not just one theory or concept.
originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Loveaduck
Well of the dude would have the common decency to turn up on time, around the turn of the millennium i imagine. Thus prove his/her/its existence I imagine praise of such would be a whole lot easier to give.
Teaching Creationism As Science Now Banned In All UK Public Schools
Creationism has never, IMO, rejected the scientific theory of evolution. Creationism deals with ORIGINS....evolution does not...they are 2 entirely separate things from my understanding....but then again, I may be a [snip]tard just like the rest of them...who knows...
originally posted by: wayforward
If a community would like to teach their children that the Earth if flat as science, well that is up to them. Not up to some bureaucrat 2,000 miles away. It is simple human nature that the people who care about a child most are its parents and then the surrounding community. People 2,000 miles away simple don't care as much. So, why are they being given the authority over the local community?
originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul
I've looked ... and for the life of me, I've never been able to see definitive evolutionary change "from one species to another."