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 realy? how?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 01:17 PM
link   
i would love for some of you to take a look at the bug called BOMBARDIER BEETLE and let me know how you think this little critter evolved, without blowing itself sky high
...this little guy mixes chemicals that put together wrong, will explode...sooooo i ask how did these little guy move up the chain?......need a place to start? WAYOFLIFE.ORG




posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Want a better start?

[Edited on 1-12-2004 by Alec Eiffel]



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 02:42 PM
link   
WANT THE TRUTH?????
read the whole page of your claim,,,i dont believe in evolution. the site prooves nothing, it only states another theory....a theory that given the exact right steps in evolution the bug would be able to evolve....i thought evolution was the survival of the fittest...there had to be some mis fortune then for your theory to work, and the bugs cought in that mis fortune would be smoked.....do you understand that what you have is a faith in a theory? the same as creationists...



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 05:38 PM
link   
I somehow dont see any evolutionist raising there hands explaining how it could be done

funny how that is



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 09:44 PM
link   
Funny how I provide a legit link refuting the OPs claim and you didnt even bother to read over it. Funny how that is. Go debate the great people over at talkorigins, they know a lot more than anyone here. Oh, thats right, they'd prove you wrong.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Actually, it's no more mysterious than the skunk spraying nasty scents and other creatures that use chemical sprays for defense. There's nothing particularly deadly about either of the components of the spray. Most living creatures that have some sort of spray-type defense mechanism will eject the chemicals from two pouches.

Examples include the skunk, the squid, the octopus, the "walking stick" insect, millipedes, vinegaroons ("whip scorpions"), stink beetles, etc, etc, etc. The mechanism wasn't invented just once... it evolved and so there are many species with this kind of defense.

(websites about some of these critters)

brgov.com...

www.nps.gov...

www.animalfact.com...

www.animalfact.com...

For those of you trying to find the source, here's how the spray works:

The beetle has a gland on the tip of its abdomen that contains two chambers. One chamber contains a mixture of hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide and the other contains a mixture of two enzymes, catalase and peroxidase. When the beetle is threatened it mixes the contents of the two chambers. www.schoolscience.co.uk...


Contrary to some published reports by anti-evolutionists, the beetle does not shoot fire.



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 12:07 PM
link   
HEY NEWS FLASH..i never said the little guy shoots fire
i said he did not evolve...he would have been eliminated by the process of natural selection....by the way of always blowing up....he was created a bug and stayed a bug....end if story....these little steps you talk about could not have taken place in this little guy without disasterous results,,,,



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 04:51 PM
link   
yes, this is true. the little guy would have been eliminated by natural selection.

and not to mention those fish dudes that are electrical and all, all of dat stuff, doesnt seem possible they survived without being eliminated.

if man kind as a whole were threatened by an "alien" species living on earth, who were better in every way, would it be wrong to kill them all off, and the stronger survives, so humans will remain dominent.

I see no reason why "groups" of man kind cant do the same, like blonde hair blue eyes, whites/blacks, Hitler, it is just all dominant species and ability to survive, or why a guy cant bring a gun to someone and shoot them, if he feels they are weaker and have no purpose, whats so wrong wit dat in evolution



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slicky1313
yes, this is true. the little guy would have been eliminated by natural selection.

and not to mention those fish dudes that are electrical and all, all of dat stuff, doesnt seem possible they survived without being eliminated.

if man kind as a whole were threatened by an "alien" species living on earth, who were better in every way, would it be wrong to kill them all off, and the stronger survives, so humans will remain dominent.

I see no reason why "groups" of man kind cant do the same, like blonde hair blue eyes, whites/blacks, Hitler, it is just all dominant species and ability to survive, or why a guy cant bring a gun to someone and shoot them, if he feels they are weaker and have no purpose, whats so wrong wit dat in evolution


EVOLUTION MAKES NO MORAL CLAIMS ON HOW TO LIVE ONES LIFE. IT DOESNT MATTER WHAT YOU THINK, EVOLUTION SAYS NOTHING ABOUT KILLING OFF THE WEAKER. We get the point, you're a closet-nazi, can we move on?



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 10:50 PM
link   
have you read the books by darwin...who married his cousin
well he said it is the survival of the fittest....i just dont think any of us are that fit my friend
we all here for a reason part of a bigger plan



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 07:41 AM
link   
why do people under estimate evolution? As long as there are new habitats/environments arising, the possibilities are just about endless.

There are over 500 species of these Bombardier beetles. They are all very similiar, hmhmm... i could just guess what principle would of governed so many different species of them and why they are yet different. Evolution.

They are beetle that emits an bad-smelling fluid from its abdomen, as a defence mechanism. This fluid rapidly evaporates into a gas, which appears like a minute jet of smoke when in contact with air, and blinds the predator about to attack.

you ask how such a creature could of arose? Why are you asking how this defense mechanisim in a insect arose when you could asked how the most complex known biological marvel evolved? the human brain.
Is it past your comprehension that with most invension of man. Usually have already been manifestated in nature somewhere. and yes, man have created chemicals that are corrosive. i would say the basic idea of napam was already invented quiet a few million of years ago... this beetle


posted by *Slicky1313*


yes, this is true. the little guy would have been eliminated by natural selection.

may i ask why a creature with such a highly effective and dangerious defence mechanism would be eliminated by natural selection? wouldnt it be the other way around? im just curious




by the way of always blowing up....he was created a bug and stayed a bug....end if story....these little steps you talk about could not have taken place in this little guy without disasterous results,,,,

im not sure if you understand how evolution even work? WITHOUT doubt this creature wouldnt of been so dangerous and have such concerntrated firepower when it first erose. It gradually got stronger and stronger. the ones that got mutations that made themselfs blow up.... blew up and they where eliminated. The ones that had slightly stronger toxins... survived because they had a more effective defence. And then the offsprings of that generation that had even more powerful toxins due to mutation would of past that trait down and so on.

posted by *ninki*


it only states another theory

ninki why would you say such a thing? just to annoy us all.
Why are you asking questions when you know that all we can give you is theories. What would your purpose of opening this Topic up when you know just about all you'll get is theories and the slight humour.




I see no reason why "groups" of man kind cant do the same, like blonde hair blue eyes, whites/blacks, Hitler, it is just all dominant species and ability to survive, or why a guy cant bring a gun to someone and shoot them, if he feels they are weaker and have no purpose, whats so wrong wit dat in evolution

Why dont you go down the street and mass kill people just because they are weaker than you? Thats the answer. In my eyes, that was a very stupid paragraph.




have you read the books by darwin...who married his cousin
well he said it is the survival of the fittest....i just dont think any of us are that fit my friend
we all here for a reason part of a bigger plan


You dont think any of us fit into *survival of the fittest*? i find that a joke!!!! Humans are on the top of the food chain buddy. We own over all organism... besides a few microbial organisms. Clearly we are such a successful entity is because we are the *fittest* and hense why we are *surviving*.... well for now atleast
Cant you see that we are the *fittest* in a figurative term. and this is why we have great survivial



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 07:43 AM
link   
ar.vegnews.org...\

here is information about survival of the fitest ninki. dont be ignorant and ignor it.



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by ninki
i would love for some of you to take a look at the bug called BOMBARDIER BEETLE and let me know how you think this little critter evolved, without blowing itself sky high
...this little guy mixes chemicals that put together wrong, will explode...sooooo i ask how did these little guy move up the chain?......need a place to start? WAYOFLIFE.ORG


I posted this in the other thread regarding evolution recently, but I thought you would be more likely to read it here.

Ninki,

Have you ever heard of the samurai crab? It is also known as the Heike crab. It is a crab that has been talked about, and written about for a couple thousand years. It is very significant too. I'll tell you why.

To start this off, this crab was a popular food off the coast of Japan during the days of the warriors and such. It always had petruding markings on its back. Today, it still bears distinct markings on its back, but there is a little more to it. These markings show the distinct, petruding features of a samurai warrior. How is it that this happened?

Here is the true story behind it. Approximately 2000 years ago, there was a battle, and I wont go into details about that. I will say that the leader of the losing army made a vow with his wife not to be taken prisoner. As hard as this may seem to believe today, those men had honor in those days. When it was apparent that his army was to be lost, he walked out into the ocean, and layed back, drowning at sea.

So, today, these markings honestly resemble his face...on the crabs back...and im dead serious! Miracle? No. It's actually simple, and somewhat documented as to how this occured. The warriors of that time were respectful even to their enemies. When the fisherman would fish for crabs, rarely a crab would be caught bearing features that ressembled the face of a samurai. Out of respect, they were thrown back into the ocean (a legend was also born, that the leader of the army was walking at the bottom of the sea as crabs)

Now you know as well as I do Ninki, that they eat ALOT of seafood in Japan. What happened as a result is simple. All the crabs had markings. Just as your child has traits resembling you and the father ("a little of both"), I can guarantee that your child has unique traits of its own. Likewise, somewhere along the line, a completely random trait of the crab showed up. The crab ressembled its parents by having distinct markings, but had a distinct pattern, unique to itself. When the fisherman saw it, they threw it back into the water. It was left to mate and breed. Mythical stories started. Now people started to look for this special crab. When they would see one that had similar markings to the shape of a Japanese samurai soldier, they threw it back. The closer to that look the crab happened to be, the more likely it was to survive and BREED. Now, its offspring would carry traits from its parents too. The more like a samurai they looked. Over a thousand or so years, the patterns developed to what they are today. The patterns are so distinct however, that similar patterns that would emerge...that a 1000 years ago would have been thrown back into the water, now are kept and eaten because the standard has gradually raised.

The environemnt of the crab made it so that it was more likely for the crabs with that face (or markings like a face) on their back to survive. That trait was fortified over many years as a result. This is evolution. Go ahead, define evolution. Look it up in the dictionary, and then compare that definition to this story. Don't believe the story? Do a google search on the heike crab, or the samurai crab. Look at the pictures. Read the legends for yourself. Do the research on your own.

Side note: many times people have argued evolution with me. They often cite the principals of entropy, and disorder in physics as a reason evolution could not occur. (these are principals stating that everything will eventually reach a chaotic and random state) What baffles me is this. This principal of entropy, is an intrical component of evolution. Without the randomness involved with life, evolution could not occur. Without disorder, evolution could not exist.



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ninki
i would love for some of you to take a look at the bug called BOMBARDIER BEETLE and let me know how you think this little critter evolved, without blowing itself sky high
...this little guy mixes chemicals that put together wrong, will explode...sooooo i ask how did these little guy move up the chain

As has already been answered it developed a natural defence mechinsim.. it had no reason to evolve further as this ensured it's survival.

Since you are challenging people to answer questions regarding evolution.. which they have been gracious enough to answer.. care to answer the one I posed several times earlier?:bnghd: Fairs fair.. if you want to steadfastly argue against evolution.. at least make an attempt to credibley debunk facts you've already been presented with.. instead of rudely ignoring them and counting on some rare obscure beatle that splits mini grenades so you can 'prove' god.

AGAIN
How can humans and chimps share the same dna.. [which proves they are related].. without sharing a common ancestor?

[edit on 16-12-2004 by riley]



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Seapeople..i do not see where in that story the samurai crab turns into another animal...they had lots of time..whats the problem? i know..once a crab always a crab...we were created the species that we are, and we can change inside that species but we cannot turn into a new species.
Riley- we share close dna with chimps and yeast...who gives a flippin hoot..i already told you that the missing 4% if it can even be called by that much similarity ( still being looked at by scientists who think their first theory might be off) that 4% is monumental it is massive amounts of information....what info does 1 dna strand hold? we cannot wrap those things around our brains...so there is your answer i have given it 2 times or more..like it ?good! dont keep asking the same thing, then tell me that i did not answer, just because you dont like the answer given.



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 08:01 PM
link   
posted by ninki


i know..once a crab always a crab...we were created the species that we are, and we can change inside that species but we cannot turn into a new species.


then clearly if you have the belief that species can change inside a species. Then that *change* in a species is *evolution inside a species. So my friend, you do believe in evolution,. Maybe you should word your posts better, you lead me to believe that you believed that evolution isnt real. You do. YOU ninki are a believer in EvOlution

And with how you believe evolution only occurs inside a speicies?... Its just human classification on what determines a species. Its just to what degree they are different, when they might be classified a different species. So your saying that a species can evolve and evolve and change to a certain point. But then it will stop, cause if it keep changing it would be a new species. The genetic mutations would just stop? which science says is impossible. What principle would govern this border?

please answer my question


[edit on 12/11/2004 by cheeser]



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ninki
Riley- we share close dna with chimps and yeast...who gives a flippin hoot..i already told you that the missing 4% if it can even be called by that much similarity ( still being looked at by scientists who think their first theory might be off) that 4% is monumental it is massive amounts of information....what info does 1 dna strand hold? we cannot wrap those things around our brains...so there is your answer i have given it 2 times or more..like it ?good! dont keep asking the same thing, then tell me that i did not answer, just because you dont like the answer given.

You earlier admitted we're related to them. You haven't given me an answer as to how we could be related to them side from 'we can't wrap our heads around it'.. and that the scientific evidence is worthless. Creationalist scientists say it's worthless anyway.. REAL scientists don't.
As for yeast.. could you please provide a source on this? I don't doubt we're share some DNA with yeast.. but we're are more similar dna wise to the chimp than an ape.. I'm sure there'd be even more difference [alot more] with.. yeast.



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 11:18 PM
link   
Where is this 4% thing coming from? Our DNA is 98% similar, not 96%.



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 11:18 PM
link   
Ninki, please explain vestigal appendages in animal and humans. Human appendix for example, if it wasnt once a functional organ why is it there?
why does the Burtons legless lizard have tiny vestigal back limbs? what point do they serve if they have always been exactly the same?
why does a girraff have such a long neck? If it was always the same? to reach tall trees which didnt exist so long ago?
why do flightless birds have wings? cave dwelling species have vestigal eyes when there is nothing to see in complete darkness? or deep dwelling ocean fish have luminous tentacles?
Evolution makes sense even if if the idea of having evolved from animals offends you because it makes you an animal and you beleive you are different, better, not an animal!



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 07:18 AM
link   
Ninki,

Once a crab, always a crab you say? I can say this in response....even though we have found whale skeletons with legs, and even though they still to this day have shoulder joints..... Even though through DNA we can conclude that some species are definitely related to other species...you know that whole gene tree thing. Even though we can see the ever changing world right in front of our eyes.....I will just come far down to your level and say that it is all lies for the sake of this argument. The crab though, it did change didn't it? Same with the bacterias I told you about. Same with the pug or miniture poodle. We have seen changes in many birds, and many other animals. They change. So lets get back to this again. Answer these questions please...(note to everyone else reading this that she will jump around it...i predict it)

1) Did your child carry on traits from you and your father? Yes or No.

2) Did your child bear traits unique to itself? Yes or No.

3) If you were unable to survive because of a trait, lets say your height, and therefore died before reproducing, would you have had a child...who would bear the genes given by you? Yes or No.

4) If certain genes made it less likely for you to survive long enough to reproduce, would you BE LESS LIKELY TO DO SO? Yes or No.

5) If you were more likely to survive given a certain genetic trait, would you be more likely to then reproduce? Yes or No.

6) Given the answers to these questions above, would a certain trait then by necessity diminish from the gene pool if it made you less likely to reproduce, and would a gene strengthen if it did the opposite? Yes or No.

7) Therefore is it not possible FOR HUMANS TO CHANGE JUST AS THE CRAB DID? Yes or No.

8) Assuming that we were created as humans, and will stay as humans, as you believe, could we not have a completely different appearance and lifestyle 5 thousand years from now based on these scenerios? Yes or No.

Go ahead Ninki, please answer these questions.




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join