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.

 

To Study Evolution, Scientists Raise Fish That 'Walk' on Land

page: 2
24
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 11:30 PM
link   
I'm not even religious but know that we didn't evolve from fish. And that fish don't make adventurous leaps onto land without scientists helping them along.

But considering how they're studying more deeply into proving the mechanics of a holographic universe, and holograms have Creator(s), this whole thing is ludicrous.

Planets don't evolve, they're all helped along. And humans didn't evolve from reptiles.

Also, just because life is flexible or plastic, you can change your DNA in real time, with words, doesnt mean that evolution occurred the way they suggest.
edit on 28-8-2014 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 29 2014 @ 04:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Unity_99

A made-up mind is also a closed one.



posted on Aug, 29 2014 @ 05:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Unity_99

Keep your head in the sand, buddy. We wouldn't want you to have to educate yourself in the topics you ignorantly attack, would we now?



posted on Aug, 29 2014 @ 05:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Harvin

You got any evidence to back up these claims?



posted on Aug, 29 2014 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Did people read the article? It said that they "raised" it, so yes, that is cheating. First, we need to know what they mean by raise. If by raise they mean pumping them a ton of oxygen and food that they wouldn't be able to get otherwise, then that's not them adapting to the environment, that's us adapting to them.

Also, I'd like to know what they mean by being able to walk on land, like how long are they able to do that? Some people are able to survive in a "hostile" environment for a while, for example, when they're trapped in a room with everything shut tight and no air can enter or leave.

How about leaving them on land for a day, a week, a month, etc.(till they can at least reproduce) by themselves and see what happens? How long do they live, and how do they find food? Basically, show us the details. If they manage to survive, then we can continue with this hypothesis further.

Also, notice that the article says that this fish gave them thoughts that fish are more able to adapt on land than "previously thought." So basically, they weren't even sure that fish are able to survive on land before, and jumped to the conclusion that evolution happened. Imagine if the testing of the double-slit experiment were to be this "loose" or not as rigorous(the double-slit experiment has been tested over a thousand times with pretty much every variable taken into account, and they still can't rule out consciousness). In fact, the speed of light and everything in Quantum Physics have to go through the same testing, that's the standards that we need to hold evolution to(now sometimes there may be an exception such as someone from the future or outside interfering, which you also have to take into account).

This means that even if they can prove that fish evolved into reptiles, they have to prove how reptiles evolved into birds.. I mean, is IS possible that God created fish and reptiles together, or reptiles and birds together(the Bible said fish, then birds), and then they have to prove how all of it happened naturally, like did their bigger lungs develop by chance, or did someone put a mechanism in there that allowed them to do that when the environment calls for it? Basically, they can never rule out Creationism altogether.



posted on Aug, 29 2014 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Honestly, watching the video, it looks like they have to struggle quite a bit just to stay alive. Did they have to put them back into the water in order for them to survive? In that case, nothing is close to proven.



posted on Aug, 29 2014 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: np6888
Honestly, watching the video, it looks like they have to struggle quite a bit just to stay alive. Did they have to put them back into the water in order for them to survive? In that case, nothing is close to proven.


note that the title says nothing about proving anything. they are studying evolution...and if studying these fish disproves evolution, so be it.



posted on Aug, 29 2014 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: np6888
Basically, they can never rule out Creationism altogether.


and that's the only thing keeping creationists going, isn't it? as long as there's that tiny little 0.000000000001% chance of being even slightly vindicated, they will hold on.
edit on 29-8-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2014 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

.00000000000001%? More like 70%. The onus is on evolution to prove their hypothesis now buddy. You might want to look back at the "Neutrino experiment disproving the speed of light" and see the amazing details that people went through to try to find the error.



posted on Aug, 29 2014 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: TzarChasm

.00000000000001%? More like 70%. The onus is on evolution to prove their hypothesis now buddy. You might want to look back at the "Neutrino experiment disproving the speed of light" and see the amazing details that people went through to try to find the error.



i wouldnt sneer at evolution if i were you. however poorly constructed you feel the theory may be, multiply that by ten and you have creationism. whatever assumptions you feel have been factored into the theory, multiply that by ten and you have creationism. whatever this study yields in terms of data, i'm sure it wont support any creationist theory.



posted on Aug, 29 2014 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

The chances of evolution without a Designer is infinisimal. The chances that we are created by a Video Gamer is much higher. It would put into the question of who created the Ultimate Gamer, and without knowing what the conditions of his dimension look like, that's hard to say. I would say that he arose spontaneously, because it's possible that the conditions that he started out are much more friendly than on Earth and are much more adaptive to informational energy than Earth, and he had an infinite time to do so.



posted on Aug, 29 2014 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: SLAYER69

Interesting topic, I used to touch on this when I taught endocrinology in grad school.


Two words. . . . Shark Nado.



posted on Aug, 29 2014 @ 07:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: np6888
Basically, they can never rule out Creationism altogether.


and that's the only thing keeping creationists going, isn't it? as long as there's that tiny little 0.000000000001% chance of being even slightly vindicated, they will hold on.


I think they have a bit more than that. But, just like many suggest their minds are closed I welcome you to explore how open yours is. If you discredit creationism completely because you see a fish that can move on land then, I'd suggest it's just as closed as the creationists you seem to dislike so.



posted on Aug, 29 2014 @ 07:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: TzarChasm

The chances of evolution without a Designer is infinisimal. The chances that we are created by a Video Gamer is much higher. It would put into the question of who created the Ultimate Gamer, and without knowing what the conditions of his dimension look like, that's hard to say. I would say that he arose spontaneously, because it's possible that the conditions that he started out are much more friendly than on Earth and are much more adaptive to informational energy than Earth, and he had an infinite time to do so.



And so many hidden accheivements! We're playing video games inside a video game. We have taken the leap in to insanity. This is the Matrix.

Aside from my facetiousness... An interesting theory and one that is scarily believable. More so than the one that states my ancestors were fish.



posted on Aug, 29 2014 @ 08:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: np6888
Did people read the article? It said that they "raised" it, so yes, that is cheating. First, we need to know what they mean by raise. If by raise they mean pumping them a ton of oxygen and food that they wouldn't be able to get otherwise, then that's not them adapting to the environment, that's us adapting to them.


Did YOU read the article? Due diligence is on you to engage in, not other posters. Some of your incredulous conclusions were discussed within the article and yet here you are flabbergasted and suggesting that nobody else read the article.


Also, I'd like to know what they mean by being able to walk on land, like how long are they able to do that? Some people are able to survive in a "hostile" environment for a while, for example, when they're trapped in a room with everything shut tight and no air can enter or leave.


As these guys are essentially an intermediary between true fish and amphibians, they had a controlled environment to keep the "land" fish moist so that they would not perish from dehydration. Its all gone into greater detail if you take the time to follow the source material listed in the article. I've linked it at the bottom of my reply to make it easier for you.


How about leaving them on land for a day, a week, a month, etc.(till they can at least reproduce) by themselves and see what happens? How long do they live, and how do they find food? Basically, show us the details. If they manage to survive, then we can continue with this hypothesis further.



The scientists raised groups of bichir on land for eight months to find out how they would differ from bichir raised in the water. They found that the land-raised fish lifted their heads higher, held their fins closer to their bodies, took faster steps, undulated their tails less frequently and had fins that slipped less often than bichir raised in water. The land-raised fish also underwent changes in their skeletons and musculature that probably paved the way for their changes in behavior. All in all, these alterations helped bichir move more effectively on land.


Its a testament to the plasticity of these fish in their developmental stages.


Also, notice that the article says that this fish gave them thoughts that fish are more able to adapt on land than "previously thought." So basically, they weren't even sure that fish are able to survive on land before, and jumped to the conclusion that evolution happened.


No, your assumption is incorrect. The tetrapods found in the fossil record highly resemble the fish used in this experiment and can be used as a rather accurate analogy. They were previously certain of the tetrapods ability to take the leap forward to creeping in landmark they just didn't realize that the process could have progressed as quickly as had happened in this particular experiment.


Imagine if the testing of the double-slit experiment were to be this "loose" or not as rigorous(the double-slit experiment has been tested over a thousand times with pretty much every variable taken into account, and they still can't rule out consciousness). In fact, the speed of light and everything in Quantum Physics have to go through the same testing, that's the standards that we need to hold evolution to(now sometimes there may be an exception such as someone from the future or outside interfering, which you also have to take into account).


Since its already been demonstrated that you have either not read the Article in its entirety or that your comprehension of the data presented is minimal, you're really reaching with a statement like this. You didn't even get the basics of this experiment correct and then have the cajones to imply that scientific standards are lacking. Its just a ridiculous outlook.


This means that even if they can prove that fish evolved into reptiles, they have to prove how reptiles evolved into birds.. I mean, is IS possible that God created fish and reptiles together, or reptiles and birds together(the Bible said fish, then birds), and then they have to prove how all of it happened naturally, like did their bigger lungs develop by chance, or did someone put a mechanism in there that allowed them to do that when the environment calls for it? Basically, they can never rule out Creationism altogether.



Why not examine the evidence for yourself as opposed to starting off with the foregone conclusion tat the bible is a legitimate blueprint for science as we know it here and now? Examine the data, look for flaws, see where it all leads but when you think you already know the. End game you can't objectively do this. Tia is entirely beside the fact that you begin your post Asking if anyone read the article and then demonstrate that you haven't done your own due diligence. The science behind this doesn't say reptiles evolved from fish, the intermediary is amphibians prior to the age of reptiles. Even a basic Wikipedia search could have given you that information. You can't pick apart the science because it doesn't meet your biblical standards, you need to examine the data itself and see if the conclusions an be validated and repeated instead of beginning with the end point you war to achieve and working backwards.

As due diligence doesn't seem to be your forte here are some additional references for you from which the NBC article is based upon.

www.nature.com...

www.livescience.com...



posted on Aug, 29 2014 @ 08:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrConspiracy

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: np6888
Basically, they can never rule out Creationism altogether.


and that's the only thing keeping creationists going, isn't it? as long as there's that tiny little 0.000000000001% chance of being even slightly vindicated, they will hold on.


I think they have a bit more than that. But, just like many suggest their minds are closed I welcome you to explore how open yours is. If you discredit creationism completely because you see a fish that can move on land then, I'd suggest it's just as closed as the creationists you seem to dislike so.


I have explored, thank you. Ats helps me to continue exploring, reminding myself why I think what I think...and on occasion, correcting what I think. Your concern is noted, although I in turn welcome you to quote me where I said fish walking on land is my sole basis for rejecting creationism.



posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 01:11 AM
link   
a reply to: np6888

# the bible.
You have already made up your mind up about evolution if you think the bible has any scientific answers in it.



posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 02:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: tsingtao
so when did they develop lungs and why are they still under water?

This is pretty interesting! It seems the original fish/tetrapod ancestor had an air-bladder connected to their throat (along with gills). The air-bladder was used for buoyancy control, and could double as a reservoir/pump for breathing air as well. Most species of fish we see today (called "ray-finned") closed this connection to the throat, keeping the former capability of the air-bladder (mentioned above), but not the latter (i.e. buoyancy, but not breathing). The other lineage, including lungfish and tetrapods (=amphibians/reptiles/birds/mammals/etc.), did the opposite, and kept the breathing but not the buoyancy (which rarely comes in handy on dry land, I'd imagine).

I've also heard it mentioned quite often on the topic of air-breathing fish, that the lungs, and ability to 'scoot' on land, are useful for fish that live in areas that are prone to drought. That way if one is stuck in a pond that's shrunk to a puddle (with oxygen-poor water to boot), the animal can 'scoot' to a bigger body of water and survive seasonal extremes.

The origin of tetrapods

So I think the short answer is: They had lungs along, and it's other fish that lost them!



posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 03:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Unity_99
I'm not even religious but know that we didn't evolve from fish. And that fish don't make adventurous leaps onto land without scientists helping them along.


See my previous post about why it would be advantageous for a fish to be able to move across dry land (or read about the lungfish, or similar species).

Also, I agree with some of the previous posters that some are misreading these results. They really don't directly support/discredit evolution, per se. As far as I can tell from the summary articles (sorry I didn't dig into the original publishings), the researchers did NOT breed the best land-dwelling specimens to observe whether their descendants were BORN more adapted to life on land! All they did was raise two groups of the fish in different environments, to see whether those who spent all their time on land were better at scurrying, as compared to water-born ones forced to make their way through the same dry terrain. So (if I have it right) these results speak to the animals' ability to adapt, but not evolve.

I think they call the implications interesting for tetrapod evolution just because it provides a window into an analogous situation that would have occurred along the evolutionary path to land-dwelling species. The adaptations seen here would be the 'raw clay' that evolution acted upon, not the actual evolved traits that made life on land possible.

Peace



posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 07:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: MrConspiracy

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: np6888
Basically, they can never rule out Creationism altogether.


and that's the only thing keeping creationists going, isn't it? as long as there's that tiny little 0.000000000001% chance of being even slightly vindicated, they will hold on.


I think they have a bit more than that. But, just like many suggest their minds are closed I welcome you to explore how open yours is. If you discredit creationism completely because you see a fish that can move on land then, I'd suggest it's just as closed as the creationists you seem to dislike so.


I have explored, thank you. Ats helps me to continue exploring, reminding myself why I think what I think...and on occasion, correcting what I think. Your concern is noted, although I in turn welcome you to quote me where I said fish walking on land is my sole basis for rejecting creationism.


I simply couldn't quote you on that - Because you didn't say it. But you used this post, which is regarding fish that can walk and breathe on land, as a forum to tell creationists that they have virtually nothing to hold on to. That's where I drew my links.

I'm glad your mind is open, but your disregard of creationism seemed like it was at least a little closed. I mean, i'm not 100% in to creationism. And i'm not a "God nutter" but I am willing to accept there are 2 sides to the coin. And I don't think that's a bad thing to think - It at leasts keeps me open to the ideas of others outside of Evolution. And yes, that even means God, Religion, Aliens, God(S). I'm open to reading and understanding all of them to the best of my ability rather than tell them how little they have to hold on to.




top topics



 
24
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join