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.

 

Animals appearing whole - ie anti-evolution

page: 20
31
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

Howdy,

Ah, I see. Well, don't I have a dinosaur sized amount of egg on my face. Apologies for my density in not realizing your "funnin'."
I'm glad someone is enjoying my bumbling, rambling and lengthy posts. I can honestly say, though, that it has been my pleasure reading the posts of everyone else. I like to see the logic behind it all and from different perspectives.

As for a PhD bone collector, well, there are obviously competing theories (on certain topics) even among the experts. It is the case that, logically speaking, not everyone can be correct and yet everyone can be wrong. In practice, I do feel that the experts are generally more knowledgable than I am, so that's about as much as I can say on that.

That said, no, Darwin's finches are not a straw man argument. They demonstrate speciation in finches. By definition, they are different species, even genera, so some cannot reproduce with fertile offspring. This is literally demonstrating the definition of evolution. If you have two finches reproduce and create a dog, then you have a problem with the theory of evolution. Two finches reproduce to make a slightly different finch, perfectly good.

I don't know what an evolutionist is, or what you believe one to be, so I cannot speculate on whether Darwin would or would not be one. What I will say is that Darwin would have been relieved to have seen an actual mechanism for heredity (DNA/genes), which was one of his biggest problems. Honestly, I don't think the issue is as inconclusive as you think it might be, especially in light of your misunderstanding of Darwin's finches...

Sincere regards,
Hydeman




posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 11:28 PM
link   
a reply to: hydeman11

Greetings again,

Darwin's finches _must_ be a straw man ... because, as you point out, they aren't exactly finches (and maybe never were). However, there was a more modern study of finch reproduction which produced rather interesting results. Still anecdotal, but interesting nonetheless. Had they come up with a puppy, I would be satisfied that evolution in the present environment had been proven and I was wrong in my assumptions. One could make a similar argument with jack/mare cross-breeding, yet what does it prove?

Change the chemistry of the ocean or atmosphere, or increase long-term levels of radiation in the ecosphere ... and we'll see evolution.

-Cheers



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 11:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

Howdy,

I think you have been given some faulty information on what evolution is. Basically, what you have said would prove evolution, would indeed invalidate it. The theory of evolution does not say that puppies would arise from birds. Birds give birth to slightly different birds, which give birth to slightly different birds, which give birth to slightly different birds... until the slightly different birds no longer would be capable of breeding with the original ancestor's species of birds. This is evolution.

Mules are most often (with a few exceptions) infertile offspring, so yes, this demonstrates a difference in species between parents. This is because donkeys and horses have different numbers of chromosomes. This means that mules are not their own species, but are rather considered a hybrid.

See, it isn't always about how similar or dissimilar things look that qualifies them as species. Yes, morphology often correlates with genetics, but sometimes this is not the case. For example, consider the two orders of dinosaur Saurischia and Ornithischia... Both are named for their hip structures, with Ornithischia being "bird-hipped" dinosaurs. Yet, modern birds evolved from Saurischian dinosaurs (lizard-hipped) and through a process known as convergent evolution, they developed the hip trait of birds.

I will say once more that Darwin's finches are all finches, and are different species, and even in different genera. Genus is the taxonomic rank above species level, and evolution seeks to explain speciation (the development of species). This is not a straw man, this is fact, and you can ignore it if you wish, but this does not make it go away. Darwin's finches came from an/or several ancestral finches (which can ultimately be traced back to one ancestor anyway, as they are all finches...) and speciated.

And yes, change in environment would certainly cause speciation. Like, say, isolating a species of finch on several different islands with very different food sources and then isolating them on those islands for a long period of time. This would be equivalent to... Darwin's finches.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 06:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's also just as likely that the forerunners of chickens started pecking away at an abundance of T-Rex carcasses. Subsequently, picking up some genetic traits of dinosaurs (you are what you eat) ... and voila ... everything you think is actually backwards.

Speciation does Not occur in complex organisms. Science has been around long enough that a finger would have found that pulse by now, if it existed. Science is Not going to prove evolution in our lifetimes. There is no modeling environment large enough (let alone complex enough) to develop 'proof'. This is a simple and irrefutable fact.

Arguing for evolution over creationism (or vice versa) is simply entertaining, if you like debate, and I do. I think creationists will remain in the lead 'by a nose' until the debate is over. What existed (or did not) in 'the seconds' preceding the Big Bang are actually important the 'moment' one allows for esoteric considerations. Let's simply consider that rather than drawing your thread OT.


But we know speciation occurs. We can manipulate it with dogs and cats. I think you are trying to get at macroevolution which is harder to prove. Though tons of fossil and genetic evidence line up to say that it is also true.

I'm not sure where you are getting that creationism has a nose on evolution. At least evolution has evidence to back it up, what evidence does creationism have? A gut feeling by humans?



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 07:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You can believe if you choose. Hydeman beat me up too bad to continue until I find my second wind.

I'll leave you for now with this Fun Fact.



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 07:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

You are using a fallacy with that link. One hoax doesn't prove that the entire industry is flawed. The peer review process obvious kicks out hoaxes like it did this one. That hoax also happened back at the turn of the millennium. Science has already moved past that hoax and uncovered more evidence linking dinosaurs to chickens.

Nine Links in the Transition from Dinosaurs to Birds

Science doesn't work with just one piece of evidence like theology does. Science works with TONS of evidence. So if you want to disprove a concept, you need to discount ALL the evidence that supports it, not just one or two pieces of it.



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 08:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So if you want to disprove a concept, you need to discount ALL the evidence that supports it, not just one or two pieces of it.


No, I don't. I just have to wait for science to prove evolution in the lab. Even taxonomists fail to agree on the tree of biological classification in its entirety.


Science doesn't work with just one piece of evidence like theology does.


What's this supposed to mean? Tell me your breath wouldn't catch in your throat if you went digging for a dinosaur bone and accidentally uncovered the Ark of the Covenant. LMAO



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 08:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's also just as likely that the forerunners of chickens started pecking away at an abundance of T-Rex carcasses. Subsequently, picking up some genetic traits of dinosaurs (you are what you eat) ... and voila ... everything you think is actually backwards.

Speciation does Not occur in complex organisms. Science has been around long enough that a finger would have found that pulse by now, if it existed. Science is Not going to prove evolution in our lifetimes. There is no modeling environment large enough (let alone complex enough) to develop 'proof'. This is a simple and irrefutable fact.

Arguing for evolution over creationism (or vice versa) is simply entertaining, if you like debate, and I do. I think creationists will remain in the lead 'by a nose' until the debate is over. What existed (or did not) in 'the seconds' preceding the Big Bang are actually important the 'moment' one allows for esoteric considerations. Let's simply consider that rather than drawing your thread OT.


So in one instance you state the forerunners of chickens....then state speciation does not occur. So your now in a paradox here. Either they were chickens or they were another species preceding the chicken.
edit on 11-8-2014 by Cypress because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So if you want to disprove a concept, you need to discount ALL the evidence that supports it, not just one or two pieces of it.


No, I don't. I just have to wait for science to prove evolution in the lab. Even taxonomists fail to agree on the tree of biological classification in its entirety.


Evolution in action:

Some bacteria are now resistant to antibiotics

Diseases/Pathogens Associated with Antimicrobial Resistance


A growing number of disease-causing organisms, also known as pathogens, are resistant to one or more antimicrobial drugs. A wide range of pathogens—including the bacteria that cause tuberculosis, the viruses that causes influenza, the parasites that cause malaria, and the fungi that cause yeast infections—are becoming resistant to the antimicrobial agents used for treatment. This page contains links to further information about some of the organisms and diseases associated with antimicrobial resistance.



What's this supposed to mean? Tell me your breath wouldn't catch in your throat if you went digging for a dinosaur bone and accidentally uncovered the Ark of the Covenant. LMAO


What it means is that most theologic beliefs are derived from one source. In Christianity's case it is the bible. The Bible tells you all these crazy happenings are true, yet there is no control in place to determine if the bible is telling the truth with these claims.

You are right, if while digging for dinosaur bones and I uncovered the AofC, you are damn right I'd be excited. That would vindicate the bible (at least the parts pertaining to the Ark). So finding evidence that proves the bible correct is a good thing. Though you have to be careful with this line of thought, you would need further evidence to validate that it is indeed the Ark (in other words, not having a confirmation bias).
edit on 11-8-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Cypress

originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's also just as likely that the forerunners of chickens started pecking away at an abundance of T-Rex carcasses. Subsequently, picking up some genetic traits of dinosaurs (you are what you eat) ... and voila ... everything you think is actually backwards.

Speciation does Not occur in complex organisms. Science has been around long enough that a finger would have found that pulse by now, if it existed. Science is Not going to prove evolution in our lifetimes. There is no modeling environment large enough (let alone complex enough) to develop 'proof'. This is a simple and irrefutable fact.

Arguing for evolution over creationism (or vice versa) is simply entertaining, if you like debate, and I do. I think creationists will remain in the lead 'by a nose' until the debate is over. What existed (or did not) in 'the seconds' preceding the Big Bang are actually important the 'moment' one allows for esoteric considerations. Let's simply consider that rather than drawing your thread OT.


So in one instance you state the forerunners of chickens....then state speciation does not occur. So your now in a paradox here. Either they were chickens or they were another species preceding the chicken.


Hi Cypress,

Welcome back to the party!!


I am a firm believer ... of the egg coming before the chicken. Have never denied it.


Is that evolution? Possibly. But, not until such time as there is definitive proof. There are numerous ways a lab can be set up to conduct some aspects of the required science. Have they tried? I honestly don't know. If so, what happened?



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 09:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Evolution in action:

Some bacteria are now resistant to antibiotics

Diseases/Pathogens Associated with Antimicrobial Resistance


Slippery slope ahead!!

Drug resistance in a bacterial strain, to you, is evidence of evolution?

Are black people a different species than white people? Are Asians a species different from American Indians? There _are_ physiological differences as well as the physically obvious.



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Evolution in action:

Some bacteria are now resistant to antibiotics

Diseases/Pathogens Associated with Antimicrobial Resistance


Slippery slope ahead!!

Drug resistance in a bacterial strain, to you, is evidence of evolution?


Yes, what would you call it? Also there is this study.

Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab


Mostly, the patterns Lenski saw were similar in each separate population. All 12 evolved larger cells, for example, as well as faster growth rates on the glucose they were fed, and lower peak population densities.

But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations - the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.

Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity.

"It's the most profound change we have seen during the experiment. This was clearly something quite different for them, and it's outside what was normally considered the bounds of E. coli as a species, which makes it especially interesting," says Lenski.



Are black people a different species than white people? Are Asians a species different from American Indians? There _are_ physiological differences as well as the physically obvious.


Considering the various human races of the world spread out and developed traits that helped them survive better in their environment, if the races had stayed separate for many more generations instead of all coming together to intermix, YES they would be different species. But only if they had stayed isolated from each other. Speciation is the first step before a species migrates to a different species.

You are really grasping at straws here to maintain your stance that evolution isn't real.
edit on 11-8-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

Can you outline the magical mechanism that stops genetic mutations from accumulating too far to go beyond the human construct known as "species"?



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl
Is that evolution? Possibly. But, not until such time as there is definitive proof. There are numerous ways a lab can be set up to conduct some aspects of the required science. Have they tried? I honestly don't know. If so, what happened?


Yes, they have tried and succeeded. Scientists have already witnessed the dawning of a new species in a lab.

www.talkorigins.org...

That is just the tip of the iceberg. Note the fly experiments.


Slippery slope ahead!!

Drug resistance in a bacterial strain, to you, is evidence of evolution?

Are black people a different species than white people? Are Asians a species different from American Indians? There _are_ physiological differences as well as the physically obvious.

Slippery slope is a logical fallacy and has nothing to do with the validity of evolution. It sounds to me like you have no interest in learning about evolution, only nitpicking stuff that has nothing to do with it. Black, white, asian etc are all homo sapiens, thus we can all breed together. If one particular race was isolated from another for hundreds of thousands to millions of years, they could eventually become a different species but right now they are all the same species and whether they one day make this shift or not is irrelevant to evolution in the big picture.
edit on 11-8-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

Howdy,

I do apologize if you think I was "beating you up," so to speak. It's not my intention to club anyone with a science textbook, but that was quite a pesky misconception you were working under. It's no wonder that you had problems understanding evolution because of it.

If you like experimental data, perhaps you'll like this...
en.wikipedia.org...

I don't think it gets much more "laboratory experimental" than that.

That said, you're right about taxonomy. Sometimes it's hard to place things on a species by species level. Consider the standard biological definition of species (species is the highest taxonomic unit of life which can reproduce to create fertile offspring). Well, what do we do about things that don't reproduce sexually, like a lot of bacteria? I am not a biologist, let alone one that studies bacteria, but I do know that genetic sequencing is often involved in these determinations.

Of course, cladistics has been gaining favor (I think), which seeks to use morphology and shared traits to create a better tree of ancestry not based on traditional views of the modern definition of species (biological). This is quite useful for fossils, seeing as we cannot see how they reproduce. Of course, then you step into "morphospecies" territory, where convergent evolution can sometimes produce similar hip structures, for instance. This is why multiple (as many as possible) morphological features are compared to determine IF there was convergent evolution of a similar trait. For information on cladistics, link below.
en.wikipedia.org...

I hope you can see just why so many taxonomists have differing opinions on things, but certainly you can see that this is only a problem on the lower levels of taxonomic classification. It isn't like people argue over order level identification of things. I mean, take a look at the orders of trilobites, a fossil arthropod. I'm sure with a day of study, you could probably be able to say whether a trilobite is in a certain order. With a little longer, maybe genus level identification becomes easy. Species is where it might get difficult.
www.trilobites.info...

As for the Ark of the Covenant, yes, I would be surprised to find that if I were looking for a dinosaur fossil. Dinosaur fossils are pretty much not found after the K-T (K-Pg) boundary... And no humans or hominids are found anywhere near that boundary, so to find a human artifact in an area where dinosaur fossils would be found would be shocking... And if an unconformity or other geological structural deformation had not placed younger strata immediately over the K-T boundary, that would be sufficient evidence to perhaps persuade one away from evolution.

Of course, this is not the case. And I ask you, can you explain why there are no fossil humans in the same strata as fossil dinosaurs if they had lived at the same time? Why is it that all fossil hominids are much younger (in undeformed strata above the K-T boundary as marked by the iridium anomaly...) than fossil dinosaurs?

Is the fact that certain biological taxonomic units confined to certain strata of rock not a compelling argument for the change of animals over time? Is this not evidence of evolution itself?

Sincere regards,
Hydeman



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 05:24 PM
link   
"99% of all animals on the planet are extinct"
you dont think they May have Evolved!!!
That ware the NEW ones come from !

edit on 11-8-2014 by buddha because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Hi Barcs,

Welcome back to the 'conversation'. Let me know when I'm dismissed, okay?

Slippery slope is a logical fallacy and has nothing to do with the validity of evolution. It sounds to me like you have no interest in learning about evolution, only nitpicking stuff that has nothing to do with it.


Seems to me the only thing evolving here is the theory of evolution itself. We're not getting anywhere unless speciating definitions within the theory is the goal. Seems to me, all the terms and adjectives required, just serve to confuse the layman and trumpet the 'intelligence' of a certain segment of the scientific community. But, hey ... that's just me.

I appreciated the link you left for me. Here's one for you.

Personal to Hydeman: I'll be back.



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

I'd like to let you know that your statement that the theory of evolution is evolving is true. Science builds on theories it has with no information by discarding things that it finds isn't true and evolving the theory around new information. That is how the idea of puncturated equillibrium came about from the how quickly new lifeforms evolve from the bottleneck species after every mass extinction. We learned this after uncovering numerous fossils in the time periods shortly after these mass die offs.



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 09:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl
Seems to me the only thing evolving here is the theory of evolution itself. We're not getting anywhere unless speciating definitions within the theory is the goal. Seems to me, all the terms and adjectives required, just serve to confuse the layman and trumpet the 'intelligence' of a certain segment of the scientific community. But, hey ... that's just me.

I appreciated the link you left for me. Here's one for you.


Classification of organisms is simply that. A human attempt to classify where the species lines are drawn. In reality the lines can be drawn in several places because the true biological definition of species, is when an organism can no longer breed with the original it is considered a new species. When something is slowly changing over time you can draw a species line at 10,000 years ago and 250,000 years ago. OR you can draw one at 50,000 years ago and 310,000 years ago. It's pretty relative. When we have the DNA and can definitively tell whether or not an organism can breed with the previous, it is legit, even though the lines can be drawn at any number of points. Since fossilization is rare, we generally draw the lines right during the time period they are discovered in because quite often it may be the only reference point. But again, it's just terminology, it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things, it just makes things easier to organize for scientists. Slow change over time is a constant and common occurrence in the fossil record, and modern genetic experiments have confirmed it.

I don't understand what you are trying to say in your species vs breeds link. Is there a point in there that conflicts with evolution or are you just not happy with the classification terminology?
edit on 11-8-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 01:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

I don't understand what you are trying to say in your species vs breeds link. Is there a point in there that conflicts with evolution or are you just not happy with the classification terminology?


I am unhappy with folks moving the goalposts (at either end of the field, mind you) whenever it suits them. It makes classification of 'the species' irrelevant. Might as well stop somewhere higher in biological taxonomy. What about an emerging new order or family? I mean certainly ... there must be ... some divergence somewhere. If evolution is not occurring up and down the biological taxonomy tree, did something break? Why would divergence only exist at the extreme reach? Those families had to come from somewhere. That order didn't simply spring into existence on its own, did it?

A couple of weeks back, I came across an excellent study on the breeding of finches. It was shown that through selective breeding, by the fourth generation, offspring were unable to successfully mate with the original line. I was really curious to see if that could be carried across a second line ... and the ends of the two lines could be paired and mated successfully. It was unfortunate to find them come up short there ... but they were certainly adamant about their claims of causing speciation.

I'm sorry, but slight deviations (including Darwin's finches) aren't going to convince 'critics' (like myself). I understand the concept of evolution all too well. That evolution has occurred is obvious. Is it understood well enough to be called Science? ... I think not. Ask yourself, why all this focus at the end of the line (species). I'll tell you why. Because it's easy to sucker someone into believing if you can control the focus of their attention.

The evidence of this is clear in the hoaxes I've provided links to in this thread. The evidence is clarified in the confusion of the placement of the goalpost. That clarity is amplified once one observes goalpost after goalpost after goalpost. It's at a point of utter distraction, and I'm sorry, but that's on the other side of a line I define as 'belief system' ... a comfort zone akin to religion ... hardly scientific IMO at all ... except in name.

Can we not, in good faith, accept the results of Molly Burke's work? If we did, we would be more focused on the 'causes' of evolution, and from there develop tangible proof. We are not witnessing evolution. Evolution occurred ... past tense. IMNSHO, it was brought on by radical climactic change (the causes of which are varied and remain speculative as well).

Hard to say what an embryo is programmed for in an egg. Let's look away from Darwin's finches for a moment. Let's examine something well known about the eggs of the venerable American alligator. I mentioned radical climactic change above, but what I'll address is a minimal, often temporary, condition. Link. So, if the outcome of gender can be determined based on the difference of a few degrees of temperature. If that is a consistent finding (and I assure you it is). Would it be safe to assume this outcome is genetically programmed? And what else might simply be a response to climate? The size and shape of a beak perhaps?


-Cheers



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join