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 is behind?

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 09:22 PM
link   
a reply to: 9ArchaBallet9

The size of the reptiles and frogs today are the size they were when they first left the water which means. They only got big because of insects.




posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: 9ArchaBallet9




Infact this theory can't be beat.


You will keep us apprised on how peer review goes and what journal you will be published in won't you.

I hope so.

BTW this was a great show.

www.dailymotion.com...
edit on 16-10-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 10:24 PM
link   
I always thought that one of the main determining factors in the size of certain organisms in the past was the oxygen content of the earth at that time. More oxygen allowed various types of animals to grow larger. I might be wrong about that, but that is what I recall.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 10:36 PM
link   
a reply to: JiggyPotamus

At one time the earths oxygen content was over a third of the atmosphere so much it was volatile and potentially explosive. That oxygen content did allow insects to grow to huge proportions however that changed and so did the size of insects before dinosaurs grew to the sizes we are accustomed to seeing.

Insects got smaller because of a change in atmospheric oxygen content before dinosaurs grew bigger. The timelines don't match up to the OPs hypothesis.



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 12:44 AM
link   
a reply to: JiggyPotamus

I'm spraying Aerosol cans outside as we speak!




posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 12:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

yeah I had heard somewhere that the length of giraffes necks were shortening up because the oxygen content of there normal altitude was dissipating.



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 01:08 AM
link   
a reply to: metalholic

I love jokes have you heard this one.

The devout zookeeper lost his favorite Bible while he was mending fences out at the zoo. Three weeks later, a giraffe walked up to him carrying the Bible in its mouth. The zookeeper couldn't believe his eyes. He took the precious book out of the giraffe's mouth, raised his eyes heavenward and exclaimed, "It's a miracle!" "Not really," said the giraffe. "Your name is written inside the cover."



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 01:40 AM
link   
a reply to: 9ArchaBallet9

I don't think its like a guideline or 'how it is meant to be'. Species change to suit their environment. When one species has an increase of a food source then it allows it to grow. Lack of food source can make the species shrink.

I posted before on another evolution topic where in Malta extinct species on the Island where nearly opposite to their modern day counter parts. Such as Dwarf Elephants and Giant rats being on the Island several thousand years ago.

Basically Elephants reduced in size since being stranded on an Island with limited vegetation and no chance of migration while sea life thrived and many species such as Swans and Turtles grew to incredible size. Ghar Dalam

Obviously one species food source affects other species. I was looking around and I found this....
Did Early Birds Exterminate Gaint Insects?



Insect numbers and sizes were growing through most of Earth's history until the bird arrived.


In my eyes it seems that once evolution turned to flight, it caused the Insect population to reduce in size due to having a new set of predators.



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 06:08 AM
link   
On Monday I saw a HUGE spider so I think that's why I gained 2 pounds this week. Next time I see it I will sit on it.



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

You'll love this one.

The elephants trunk is lowered to the ground because the oxygen content is more condensed.



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Maltese5Rhino

No birds pre dinosaur era. We are talking before reptiles owned the land masses.



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: LadyTrick
On Monday I saw a HUGE spider so I think that's why I gained 2 pounds this week. Next time I see it I will sit on it.


Body weight fluctuating between 10lbs - 200 tons is pretty normal for any species trying to intimidate a predator.
edit on 17-10-2014 by metalholic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Some inaccuracies in your OP.


originally posted by: 9ArchaBallet9
When the Earth's climate was very humid like a Tropical Rainforest allowing for exoskeletons to grow and shape very differently then they are today. Insects could be as large as man and animal.


First off, insects ARE animals. So the statement "insects could be as large as an animal" is nonsense. Second, insects NEVER got as large as a human. The largest known insect is probably the Meganeura (Giant Dragonfly) which could grow a little larger than 2 ft (25.6 inches).


Amphibious early reptiles would have saw these larger insects and been prey to these creatures.


This is true.


In the dna code of these Amphibians (Early Reptiles) A chain reaction occurred. The intelligent consciousness of our universe knew and programmed life to evolve in certain ways.


What? No. That is unconfirmed. Besides all scientific evidence is pointing that evolution is an algorithmic process which would mean that intelligent consciousness COULDN'T guide it.


Here's what I mean when these amphibians saw the insects were very much larger then they were. It opened the door for them to grow very very large until they were dinosaurs. WEATHER PERMITTING.


Evolution doesn't happen because a species WANTS to change, it just happens.


So the insects because of climate change began to shrink and die off. like Dinosaurs did aswell as evolving into birds and mammals.


While yes climate change had much to do with insects shrinking and reptiles growing bigger, this is a deviation from your original premises. You didn't mention climate change earlier...


Anywho... Evolution was actually way behind. Because those reptiles were programmed to shrink down the insect meaning. Inside it's dna it is programmed to understand that insects are very small.


This doesn't make any sense.


So when they evolved to make the giant insects tiny. And the giant insects began to shrink while the reptiles began to over grow. The evolution of nature over compensated.


No, dominance just changed hands. By the way, bigger DOESN'T necessarily mean better.


Just because they were trying to make the universe make more sense. Wait insects are supposed to be small. Bam now were too big.


That only applies to our planet. Insects on a planet with a different atmospheric and geologic makeup could potentially be the size of Titanosaurs.


Adjustment processes.

So what if our evolution is behind? Just because of what it was supposed to be back when!


Evolution isn't a race.



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Sorry I can see details here missing.


Fish, arthropods, amphibians and reptiles all evolved during the Paleozoic. Life began in the ocean but eventually transitioned onto land, and by the late Paleozoic, it was dominated by various forms of organisms. Great forests of primitive plants covered the continents, many of which formed the coal beds of Europe and eastern North America. Towards the end of the era, large, sophisticated reptiles were dominant and the first modern plants (conifers) appeared.


Amphibians and reptiles came from fish they are all the same species. They'd have nothing to eat on land except plants. Well sorry about your luck here. But most amphibians and reptiles are carnivorous.

So they was eating insects. Who was on land first Crustaceans which evolved into insects. Insects ruled the land. You just don't have abunch of frogs and crocs eating plants and growing into dinosaurs.
edit on 17-10-2014 by 9ArchaBallet9 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

After reading Archa's reply about frogs and crocs needing sustenance that's not plant. I'd like to you to rethink your thinking here and the information your reading.

Cause it looks like Blue Beam is in full effect.



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: 9ArchaBallet9

Well sure, insects probably were the first to make the jump to being the first land animals with amphibians coming after them to feed on them. Though you miss a point here, the amphibians didn't necessarily HAVE to only eat insects, they could have eaten each other. In fact, that's how most evolutionary arms races begin. One animal gets hunted by another animal and ends up evolving something to protect it better, this in turn causes the predator to evolve something that can overcome the new advantage. This cause the prey to evolve another new trait that help it survive better. And so on and so forth.

Evolution still isn't a race, it's just the result of the survivors of a prior evolutionary level. In other words, evolution is recursive.



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: metalholic

No I will not rethink my position that insects grew as large as humans, because there is no proof that that was the case.



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: 9ArchaBallet9

Well sure, insects probably were the first to make the jump to being the first land animals with amphibians coming after them to feed on them. Though you miss a point here, the amphibians didn't necessarily HAVE to only eat insects, they could have eaten each other. In fact, that's how most evolutionary arms races begin. One animal gets hunted by another animal and ends up evolving something to protect it better, this in turn causes the predator to evolve something that can overcome the new advantage. This cause the prey to evolve another new trait that help it survive better. And so on and so forth.

Evolution still isn't a race, it's just the result of the survivors of a prior evolutionary level. In other words, evolution is recursive.








I haven't seen an argument in this thread against any of that.



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

yeah I don't see any 50 yr old exoskeletons laying around. your right.



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: 9ArchaBallet9

A recursive process works best when it ISN'T guided by intelligent hand and you seemed to suggest that evolution was guided by an intelligent hand in your OP.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join