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.

 

What is the evidence for evolution?

page: 1
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 01:30 AM
link   
This video shows the evidence for evolution and lays it out clearly using certain examples. I liked the video because I hadn't seen something like it before that explained things so well.



What is the evidence for evolution?

A lot of times people are not informed enough about something - this is true in my case, too - I am not fully informed about a lot of things. In fact, I think that most of the conversations people have on a day-to-day basis are not fully informed. People still learn things from these conversations, but could do good to remember that there is always more to know.

At any rate, watch the video, it is a good one!
edit on 08amSat, 08 Nov 2014 02:14:04 -0600kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 02:13 AM
link   
a reply to: darkbake


Ne wly discovered fossil could prove a problem for creationists


Researchers report that they've found the missing link between an ancient aquatic predator and its ancestors on land. Ichthyosaurs, the dolphin-like reptiles that lived in the sea during the time of the dinosaurs



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 02:16 AM
link   
a reply to: ShadowChatter


The fact that whales breathe air does not support the fact that whales evolved from walking land animals. There are many advantages to breathing air, especially if oxygen levels in the ocean are low.


That is an example of what a creationist on Facebook said in a comment. The video I posted in the O.P. is a direct rebuttal to this. It spends time talking the evidence we have for whales evolving from land mammals.

Even the creationist himself seems to be hinting at an alternate evolutionary route, not no evolution.
edit on 08amSat, 08 Nov 2014 02:17:11 -0600kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 02:44 AM
link   
a reply to: ShadowChatter

How can they prove that this 'missing link' really is a missing link. Is there any DNA that proves these species are related. If not than all we've got to go buy is the similarity in appearance of this fossil verses the others in the supposed chain. I'm sure we can go through many animals in this day and age with similar appearance which don't share anything other than that.



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 03:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Emerald53
a reply to: ShadowChatter

How can they prove that this 'missing link' really is a missing link.


As there was nothing in the video referred to as such nor is there, in biology, anthropology or paleontology any such thing as a 'missing link' could you be be a little more specific what exactly you are referring to in that conext?



Is there any DNA that proves these species are related. If not than all we've got to go buy is the similarity in appearance of this fossil verses the others in the supposed chain. I'm sure we can go through many animals in this day and age with similar appearance which don't share anything other than that.


could you supply some examples of living organisms sharing morphological features that share no common descent? it, along with clarification on your missing link comment, would be very helpful in being able to give you more specific and appropriately correct answers


ETA- sorry, Its 5AM and didn't realize initially that you were responding to he other link not the OP's video. It's sill not a missing link, especially with fossil remains now. and there is absolutely no way to get DNA from a fossil that is nearly 1/4 Billion years old. its so degraded that there is nothing left to sequence at that age
edit on 8-11-2014 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 03:57 AM
link   

a reply to: Emerald53
How can they prove that this 'missing link' really is a missing link


well it wouldn't be the first time the 'missing link' turn out to be a hoax

The Piltdown Chicken


China seem to be the hotbed for feathered dinosaurs

Microraptor

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



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 09:01 AM
link   
pretty interesting video, and it does make it simple. But full of theories which may not be quite right. The theory that whales came from land animals has no basis. The whales could have evolved from a creature that never went on land, one that walked on the floor of a lake or sea. This video tries to convince people that we know what happened and which direction things went in. We may have some limited evidence showing this, but consensus of the time does govern how the evidence is evaluated and which evidence is discounted or allowed.

I do not believe natural selection is based on reality. A big cat can actually protect a herd of animals and take a young one to eat which it deems necessary to consume. The other animals do not fear the cat. Somehow consciousness and group thinking is involved in this, the herd splits allowing the cat to go straight to the one that seems to have been picked as food for the cat. Now, this does not show natural selection, it shows shared consciousness being involved. The cat is the Sheppard in these cases I am talking about, a sacrifice seems to be made by the herd.

More is going on than the theory of evolution is saying. Much more. Animals can make allies with other animals and this relationship is no where nearly addressed as important in the theory. All things have consciousness, some shared, and this is a very important element in how things work. It is sort of like a supreme controlling unit is in place to govern things. But of course, humans have somehow overridden the governor. Using misapplied scientific evidence to back their beliefs..

Part of the theory of evolution is correct, everything is related and everything does evolve. That is about all of it that I believe, the rest is conclusions based on belief of the time. We do not have enough evidence available to properly show how evolution occurred. Even ancestors of humans could have lived in and out of the water before they became what they are today. Evolution can happen rapidly also and does not need to occur slowly over long periods of time. There is all kinds of evidence of this popping up all over.
edit on 8-11-2014 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

Involution. Volution means to turn about a center. Involution is turning inside. Insight is seeing from within. Consciousness is the collapse of wave function in light (both particle and wave). Evolution is adaptation. Seek, Find and Adapt. It's the process outlined in this document: Part 1a - Virgin of the World

In the Bible, it is baptism (sinking into water / matter and rising to new life from the experience).

In mathematics: a function, transformation, or operator that is equal to its inverse, i.e., which gives the identity when applied to itself.

In other words, the image of the orthogonal matrix gives a reciprocal change to the other side of the reflection. Dirac's relativistic quantum wave equation verifies. So too does orthogonal unity with invariant symmetry laws. Our existence is translational symmetry, or seeking the original unity in the original symmetry.

In esoteric circles, it is involution and evolution.

WIKI: "The reason for involution is Delight - the Delight of Being (the Spirit or Absolute) moving to Delight of Becoming (temporal existence, the cosmos). Being throws itself forward into a multiplicity of forms, becoming lost in the inconscience of matter,[3] and then through evolution it partakes in the Delight of rediscovering the Spirit which had been hidden in the interim.

Evolution is thus the movement forward by which the created universe evolves from its initial state of inconscience (i.e. as matter), evolves animated life forms and mental beings (i.e. humans), and continues to evolve spiritual properties, and in that process rediscovers its Source. Such an Evolution of animated forms is only possible because at each stage of development, the developing entity contains within itself the conception of what it may become. Thus, the evolution of animated life out of matter supposes a previous involution of that animated capacity. This is akin to a seed that already has the essence of the tree that will emerge from it.

Each plane emerges from an earlier plane through the evolutionary process, which takes place in chronological time. But in a parallel construction, each of these new planes can be understood as being a descendent of its corresponding higher order plane from the Infinite. Thus, when mentality emerged in the universe, the universal plane of Mind was implanted to a degree in those beings harboring that mentality.

The evolution is the development of all entities in the cosmos, including humans, in order to attain their fulfillment, including the discovery of spiritual Delight, which was, and always is, the experience of the Source Creator."

You can't have evolution apart from a creator. Involution has a detailed explanation from religion. Evolution is the result described by science.


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



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: AlephBet

Not for nothing but this is a science forum where things are based on facts. You've got multiethnic threads in the origins and creation forum repeating the same tripe ad nauseum. Your pseudo religious rationalizations and redefining of evolutionary theory to work within said context just has no place on this particular forum. If you can't address the post apropriately and support your position with facts and citations your personal religious interpretation really shouldn't be posted here. You've already got your own playground to create your lengthy diatribes, I think the content that is your go to/default is much better suited in that forum as it has no scientific basis.



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: AlephBet

wrong forum dude. and quit fishing for thread hits, people avoid your stuff for a reason.
edit on 8-11-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Volution is fact. All things spin by a ratio of 1:1.618. Flush a toilet and prove it to yourself. You cannot evolve without revolving. Last time I checked, the planet is revolving; revolving around the sun, which is revolving; revolving in a galaxy, with the galaxy moving. When you go to work and come home, you have circled back to a starting point. Involution is the basis for evolution and involution is governed by specific and set laws that cannot be changed. They are irreducible for life to exist. Science backs me 100 percent. Take away volution and you would not have life. No evolution possible. The cause of evolution is in the word.



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: AlephBet

wrong forum dude. and quit fishing for thread hits, people avoid your stuff for a reason.


Last I checked, this is a forum for debating creation vs. evolution. Creation wins every time.



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlephBet

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: AlephBet

wrong forum dude. and quit fishing for thread hits, people avoid your stuff for a reason.


Last I checked, this is a forum for debating creation vs. evolution. Creation wins every time.


i love how you imply that this is a debate and yet imply a conclusion has already been reached in the same post. thats why i told you this is the wrong forum, because you dont want a DEBATE, you want an opportunity to PREACH.

edit: actually, carry on. this is a fabulous chance to put evolution and creation side by side. it'll be like those mac and pc commercials.
edit on 8-11-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: AlephBet

How about instead of retreading one of your own threads, you actually discuss the video and debate the science involved in the OP. Sure ,this is a forum to discuss both sides of the origins and creationism debate but that doesn't Mean you completely ignore the thread topic and try to hijack it with a watered down version of one of your multiple threads of gobbledygook. You don't even bother participating in those after several pages so forgive me if I just don't see the point in introducing the same ground you have covered repeatedly through various threads. Though I will give you a bonus point for entertainment value with trying to equate modern evolutionary synthesis with flushing a toilet.



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: AlephBet

wrong forum dude. and quit fishing for thread hits, people avoid your stuff for a reason.


Ouch I missed the Origins and Creationism forum this might have made for better discussion there. Although the video is seriously good - I wanted to share it with you guys.



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

I was confused as all hell because I remembered reading this in the science forum last night and was replying as such. Apparently your thread has been moved and is currently residing within origins and creationism so your wish apparently has been preemptively granted.



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlephBet

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: AlephBet

wrong forum dude. and quit fishing for thread hits, people avoid your stuff for a reason.


Last I checked, this is a forum for debating creation vs. evolution. Creation wins every time.


Lol.. You better check again, this time take off your creationist colored glasses. It's amazing how deluded one must be to believe "Creation wins every time", there's nothing to suggest that anything needed to be "created" beyond personal incredulity or appeals to emotion. NOTHING..
Speculation of how anything got here without any evidence of anything else is just that... speculation. The assumption that it simply is, is perfectly rational given that there is no evidence that it was "created."



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

You don't seem to understand me. I believe in evolution. It is a result of involution, which is the generative principle of a designer. If you take away letters of programming, there is no life. Father in Hebrew is Aleph Bet, and his Son is Word, or Bet (house) Nun (seed). How much more clearly can he make it? Words are written with links of letters (DNA). All seeds contain the letters generating the form. Aleph means strong and Bet means house. The Strong nuclear force IS a house for the Proton. Invariant symmetry is the wave function of light. This is not a mystery. It's right there in the science we can all read on Wikipedia.

You won't debate me that evolution is false. It is not false. It is the result of programming. Seek, Find and Adapt. Nearly every sacred scripture will tell you the process. I have spent the last few years showing this in my threads.


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



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: flyingfish

DNA comprises letters making proteins. The Father's name in Hebrew is Aleph Bet. His Son is the Word. Doubtful it will get an clearer than this. There are 23 letters in Hebrew. One letter contains all 22 of the Hebrew letters. It is the shape of a twisted rope. In Hebrew tradition,the Ghah is said to be absorbed into the Ayin (opening of the female reproductive system). Look a the symbols. Decide if the Hebrew is outlining DNA.



Aleph Bet is Strong House, or what holds the seed. This is mirrored in many forms throughout nature. The Strong Nuclear Force is the primary marker for this force of nature acting on matter.

Aleph Mem is the catalyst, or Cup, or Mater/Matrix. It is the word Mother in Hebrew. She is the water of the womb.

Bet Nun, or House of Seed is the Hebrew word Son. Note the Nun in the pictographs above.

There are 22 pairs of Chromosomes from each parent. The 2 sex chromosomes, one from each parent, then comprises all letters of the 22 from each parent. The sex chromosomes added make 46 total. When completed, the human form is a mirror of both parents. Language does the same. The OT is written in Hebrew (22 letters). The NT is written in Greek (24 letters). In total, there are two languages totaling 46 letters. Hebrew is concrete and Greek is Abstract. The human mind is both right and left hemisphere after the Chromosomes build the body. One side is concrete and the other abstract.

If you fail to see the significance of the letters of the Word written by the Aleph Bet, then you have failed to recognize truth.

John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.

The description above is the perfect description of light revealing information in a hologram.

You can argue with me, but you will not argue the science. Where do you think science is headed? Information theory. They know this is the only way to comprehend physics.

Start at 47:10. The entire video denies evolution as a cause. It is not a cause. It is a result.



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



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: AlephBet

I disagree. I understand you just fine. It's you who appears to be on the end of a misunderstanding. What you are going on and on about has no pertinence to the topic of the OP. Let's discuss that. We've already done this dance several times in your own threads. There's no need to hijack this one is what I was trying to get at. Your own threads have a great deal more information regarding your personal thesis so lets keep that discussion where it belongs. Whether I agree with it it not is also not pertinent to the OP or it's video. I'm simply trying to give a little respect to the threads author. Not disrespect you. There's a time and place for everything, you've already had the floor open to you on both accounts more than once. Let's give someone else their fair shake today. We've already taken this thing much farther off the tracks than I would have preferred. Let's discuss the merits of the OP if you don't mind and we can take up your thesis in one of your many threads.
edit on 8-11-2014 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join