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: 9
12
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 05:51 PM
link   
i'd like to illustrate a point:

Tornado at Home

Evolution Experiments at Home

things a child can do at home for a school project.

what you are saying of evolution is not even close...i could build my own Tornado in my living room right now.

save these games for someone else.




posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: michaelbrux

You have to explain how they illustrate anything.

Also you used a non sequiter again.
edit on 13-11-2014 by Noinden because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: michaelbrux

In the never ending game of creationist whack-a-mole, it's quite clear that no matter how many times your arguments are debunked and evidence presented, you will keep sticking your fingers in your ears saying "la la la can't hear you god did it".



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 06:02 PM
link   
OK, I'm sorry, but I have quite a few problems with the entire evolution theory, too many to count, actually, so I'm going to outline one:

The theory of evolution is supported by Darwinism and natural selection. However, the process of evolution contradicts Darwinism completely.

Evolution states that we are all related to all other living beings, that we slowly, over time, mutated and evolved. However, DNA takes millions of years to mutate and change. This in itself, goes against Darwinism and natural selection.

If only the best of the species survive, wouldn't you think that organisms that slowly evolve from land to water creatures, or vice versa, would be ripe for the picking. Does anyone really think that an animal limping around with a half tail, half fin, with one lung and under developed gills would really survive?

Everyone seems to forget that evolution happens in stages, very slowly over time, not overnight.

How about birds? Scientists claim that they evolved from ground animals to grow wings and hollow bones in order to fly?

Guess what? It didn't happen overnight. And I'm sorry to say, but I don't see an animal hopping on two legs with little nubs surviving too long in the food chain.

You can't just take one animal species, then find another closely related one, and claim that you found a "missing link". They're 2 different species. if evolution was true, they would be finding millions upon millions of in between species with small, systematic mutations leading to the end result.

The only example they have, is humans. And even with humans, all they have are different species of monkeys and apes.

They go "hey, this humanoid has ape like features, ape like arms, ape like feet and an ape like skulls. What strange humanoids!" No buddy, not a humanoid, it's a damn ape.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: dothedew

In all honesty have you tried to read up on evolution> Modern ideas about evolutuon. Darwin proposed one of the earliest versions, but to rely on that as the "be all and end all" would be akin to still trying to run your computer programming line by line in basic.

Darwinism (the philosophy) is something much different than the theory of evolution. Scientific theories change and refine as evidence is shown.

As for your bird example (and ignoring the outdated model it shows).... you would not see ground based animals hopping around on two legs with little nubs trying to fly now (or then). Evolution can be sudden, or it can be slow. But it must provide a genetically coded trait (ie something you can pass on to offspring) that provides some sort of benefit.

What other issues do you have?



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

you haven't even come close to disproving anything. my flag is still flying.

this is obvious to anyone with average vision.

i've given you every opportunity to take me out...but none of your shots is focused.

fire and dirt and anger isn't going to be enough to take me out.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

An example would be the coelacanth fish. 350 million year old fossils supposedly shown half formed legs and primitive lungs.

That is, until 1938 of the cost of Africa, when a live specimen was caught. No legs, no lungs. 350 million years with no evolution to be noted.

Also, I have the while dinosaur issue. We all know that they died off fairly quickly, but they also seem to have come out of no where. No traces of evolution leading up to the dinosaurs, just out of nothing, they arrive.

Don't get me wrong, in not a creationist, far from it, I have problems with the creationist theory as well.

I'm simply one of those people that need all facts, all links, all data, to completely string together something from start to finish with no question, before I consider it a viable possibility
edit on 13-11-2014 by dothedew because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: michaelbrux

Logical fallacy: "Appeal to common sense".

You are not illustrating anything in your arguments. You've yet to show a piece of evidence against evolution, or acknowledge anything that has been presented from the other side.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

I don't think english is his first language, though I may be wrong which would be sad. Anyway, yeah I am seriously having a hard time following his train of thought/questions/statements in that last post. He posts about living room tornados and goes.... ha. I am like WTF, so do you have any idea what that's supposed to be about?



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

if evolution is science...I should be able to recreate the phenomenon with items easily acquired. something in my kitchen cabinet perhaps.

when the basic model is constructed...it is refined. things that were necessary for the discovery are often found not to have been necessary to understand the phenomenon...that's why i'm communicating with people in places where only God would know without wires.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: dothedew


Finding "walking fish" alive in no way invalidates that there were "legged fish" who were a transitory state between aquatic and terrestrial living.

Also there are a number of fossil sources for pre dinosaur land (and sea) based life, so sorry yeah there is evidence.. The theory of how dinosaurs died out is also something that is constantly re-evaluated with new evidence. For example birds are descendants of the dinosaurs. So they did not "all die out".

Have you tried to do more research into evolution?



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: michaelbrux
a reply to: Grimpachi

after a dozen or so years of reading this specific type of thread on the internet...the only conclusion I can draw is that modern proponents of Evolution desire a blind acceptance by the masses that Copernicus never expected.


No one in the field of anthropology desire blind acceptance. Science doesn't have any agendas unlike religions. If you disagree with or don't believe in evolution, we don't condemn you to eternal damnation and hellfire.


you've got a long fight...and no, I don't feel bad about it. ...I won't read endless articles so as to prove you right in my own mind and other assorted b.s.


Oh, it's already quite apparent you won't read any articles or anything else regarding the reality of modern evolutionary synthesis. You've demonstrated it time and again. The science is solid and supported by an overwhelming majority of people in general let alone the scientific community. Its because of that very fact, that it is indeed a reality and not just supported but corroborated by multiple scientific disciplines, that the onus is instead upon you to dispute it and prove your case not for other posters to keep supplying you with information you won't even read let alone consider. Or as we call it around here, there's no need to keep feeding the trolls.


prove on your own that Evolution deserves its place among the giants the old fashioned way....suffer and not experience any benefit in your own lifetime. it is the only way.


Not sure what rock you've been living under but people like Darwin, Louis and Mary Leakey, Stephen J. Gould... They actually are giants in the field and have made the field of Anthropology a huge part of understanding our past as a species. The only country in the world that there is even a discussion going on by a significant minority of people is the US. Even the last few popes except the validity of modern evolutionary synthesis.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 06:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: michaelbrux
a reply to: Noinden

if evolution is science...I should be able to recreate the phenomenon with items easily acquired. something in my kitchen cabinet perhaps.


Here's a fun experiment for you to try at home: go scrape some e-coli off that chicken in the fridge and place it in a sterile petri dish torture them with citric acid. After many generations, you'll see strains resistant to this toxin. Genetic mutation->selection-speciation.

en.wikipedia.org...


when the basic model is constructed...it is refined. things that were necessary for the discovery are often found not to have been necessary to understand the phenomenon...that's why i'm communicating with people in places where only God would know without wires.


You seem painfully unaware of the actual evidence for evolution. Myself and others have posted stacks of the stuff, you seem to keep attacking this silly straw man you've constructed from your own misunderstandings.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: michaelbrux

This last post really shows your lack of understanding of how science (and evolution) work. You could NOT do most of what I do in lab or plant with "easily found items". I urge you not to try either, not for your sake but for your neighborhood.

Similarly evolution is not something you "do in the lab". If you want to detect it, go get yourself a modern next generation gene sequencing platform. Thats how you do the detective work.

You are purposefully misconstruing how science works. Its not that easy.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 06:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

I have done research into it, but I stopped looking into it once i learned that while we are supposedly decedent's of apes, we are at the same time more closely related on a genetic level to certain plants.

And since the talk of fossil evidence seems to be a primary talking point, we can't forget that the dating methods used for dating fossils can be easily tainted due to environmental aspects, radiation etc.

When it comes down to it, the majority of scientific theories are reliant upon other scientific theories, educated inferences, etc, to help the first said theory hold water.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 06:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: michaelbrux
a reply to: Noinden

if evolution is science...I should be able to recreate the phenomenon with items easily acquired. something in my kitchen cabinet perhaps.

when the basic model is constructed...it is refined. things that were necessary for the discovery are often found not to have been necessary to understand the phenomenon...that's why i'm communicating with people in places where only God would know without wires.


What are you, 7 years old? Evolutionary theory isn't the same as building a model of a volcano for science class. That's pretty cockamamie even for you based in the posts I've read in this thread.

Go ahead and reconstruct a working Internet on your own in your kitchen. Its science so you should be able to do it, right? Hit you up when you've got that up and running.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

i can't do evolution in a lab?

while constructing a Throne, I studied governments and human societies in a lab and conducted experiments in my own home with easily acquirable research subjects, an internet connection and hard liquor.

i was able to turn people of high social standing into pariahs for a term assignment.

if evolution is worth its weight...i should be able to replicate it sitting at my dining room table.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 06:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: dothedew
a reply to: Noinden

I have done research into it, but I stopped looking into it once i learned that while we are supposedly decedent's of apes,


Not sure where you learned that but NO. JUST NO. We ARE apes. We share a common ancestor with the other great apes(gorillas, chimps, bonobos, orangutan). W dot descend FROM apes, we actually are apes.


we are at the same time more closely related on a genetic level to certain plants.


Which pants would those be exactly?

quote]And since the talk of fossil evidence seems to be a primary talking point, we can't forget that the dating methods used for dating fossils can be easily tainted due to environmental aspects, radiation etc.

Which is why multiple dating methods are used to corroborate ages of items.


When it comes down to it, the majority of scientific theories are reliant upon other scientific theories, educated inferences, etc, to help the first said theory hold water.


Please, demonstrate some examples then.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: dothedew

Well we are "closely related" genetically to "some plants" because we all originated on the planet earth. Every life form uses DNA (or RNA for some virii, though they are sometimes not considered "life" ) to pass on its code to its offspring. Hence we are going to share some genetic similarities. Its just simple logic.

Sure a poorly run dating of a piece of evidence can be tainted. But thats usually carbon dating, and those are never for fossils, as fossils don't have carbon 13 in them. The other methods are much much harder to screw up. But it happens when inexperienced people run them, or try to interpret them.

Science is far clearer than any alternative, though if people approach it with a bias (not saying you are, some posters here obviously do have one) then its going to be tough.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: michaelbrux

Yeah you can't "do evolution in the lab". You can observe it. But you can't place a subject organism in an experiment and go "evolve damn it" and expect something to happen. We've observed bacterial resistance to antibiotics, but we've not just put some bacteria in an incubator, done nothing then pulled them out and found "oh look they are resistant". They have zero need to selectively breed towards resistance in that case. On more complex organisms, we have longer to wait to see them evolve. Its logic.

Your analogy is not a good one. Social vs biological.

Your opinion of "if something is worth its weight" is just that your opinion. You are welcome to it, but you are incorrect in every assumption you have made thus far.




top topics



 
12
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join