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.

 

A Question That Evolutionist Couldn't Answer

page: 7
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 10:57 PM
link   
a reply to: AngryAtTheBlindBelief




If a fish is in water and decides it wants to move to land (forced out of its element) the changes required to adapt would be far too slow and that fish would die once the habitat changed.

Yes. But that has nothing to do with evolution.


My point is, on the grand macro evolution, we all started as one thing and evolved into another is flawed on the basis that as we wanted to become that other thing we would have died out if we waits for the evolution to kick in.
Evolution has nothing to do with "wanting to become that other thing." There is no intent (or purpose) involved with evolution. Yet another demonstration of complete ignorance.
edit on 2/8/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 11:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

originally posted by: AngryAtTheBlindBelief
What an absolute load of bull. If an 8 year old that just learned about evolution and didn't understand exactly what it was showed me those examples, I would be happy and then explain the difference between adapting to a situation and turning a cat into a dog.
"A cat turning into a dog" is not what evolution means.




That article is laughable. The moth example... when you have 2 creatures. One black and one white, against a black background, the white ones get eaten and disappears because it stands out. Now their are mostly black ones.

The logical thought is that the black ones continued to mate as always, and created black colored offspring. Not that evolution kicked in and the white ones changed their clothing.



This is exactly how evolution works. Hence the term "natural selection." Evolution has NEVER STATED that the white ones turn into black ones. It states that, in this particular case, in a population of white and black moths, the white ones died out due to an unsuccessful genetic trait. Now instead of a population of white and black moths, there is only a population of black moths.



Italian wall lizards. They changed their food due to lack of options?? That's evolution??

Not a single example of an actual evolutionary process. Just adaptation, or in the case of the moths, die off.

Rediculous.


Again, this is EXACTLY what evolution is. What these are NOT examples of, is how creationists like to PRETEND evolution works.



This is exactly what MICRO evolution is. Macro, which is the what the entire argument stems from is not shown by these examples. Evolutionists have made the choice to combine the two topics, as of they can be explained by the same answers.

Macro, and macro alone, requires faith. There is no science to back it up that cannot be refuted as far as I have seen so far.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 11:02 PM
link   
a reply to: AngryAtTheBlindBelief



This is exactly what MICRO evolution is. Macro, which is the what the entire argument stems from is not shown by these examples. Evolutionists have made the choice to combine the two topics, as of they can be explained by the same answers.

Deniers have created a false dichotomy. There is no micro or macro evolution. There is evolution.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 11:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: AngryAtTheBlindBelief
a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

Actually "a cat turning into a dog" is the end result of any macro evolution stance or belief.

Micro evolution is adaptation to a creature's environment, food, air, water etc. Those that do not adapt die out and those that do adapt live on. I fully agree. It's the process that I disagree with.

If a fish is in water and decides it wants to move to land (forced out of its element) the changes required to adapt would be far too slow and that fish would die once the habitat changed.
Yes, yes it would.


The evolution (adaptation stops). If the fish went onto land for the first time, the body embraces the new surroundings, I need to change my gills to support air outside of water, grow legs etc. I'll accept that, unfortunately the fish needs to return to the water immediately or it will die. It returns to the water (natural habitat) and the evolution to move to land stops.
Firstly, nothing is trying to adapt. Your example isn't what the tenants of evolution state. Let me paint you a different picture.

Fish lives in shallow water, feeds on plant matter that grows at the edge of the water. Competition for the food source becomes stiff, but the fish are still plucking along. A fish is born that has stronger fins than other fish, and instead of darting at the overhanging plants to get bites, it darts out of the water a few inches. Suddenly this fish can reach plants that the other fish cannot, and therefore lives longer. It mates, it passes on its genes. A progeny of fish now are born with stronger fins, all of which are better at finding food than their relatives. Strong-fin fish flourish, weak-fin fish die off. Rinse and repeat until eventually the great great great etc. x 10000000 grandchild of the fish has been born that has something resembling legs. The original strong-fin and weak-fin fish are long, long dead. So are hundreds or thousands of other mutations that occurred in the interim. THAT is evolution.




My point is, on the grand macro evolution, we all started as one thing and evolved into another is flawed on the basis that as we wanted to become that other thing we would have died out if we waits for the evolution to kick in. Or we never would have evolved because we went back into the water.

Saying it takes millions of years to evolve is a cop out. No matter how many times the fish gets out of the water, it always gets back in so it doesn't die. This halts the evolutionary process every time.
The millions of years of slow, minute changes are exactly why change CAN occur, as in my example above.
edit on 8-2-2015 by AshOnMyTomatoes because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 11:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: aynock
a reply to: AngryAtTheBlindBelief



If a fish is in water and decides it wants to move to land (forced out of its element) the changes required to adapt would be far too slow and that fish would die once the habitat changed. The evolution (adaptation stops). If the fish went onto land for the first time, the body embraces the new surroundings, I need to change my gills to support air outside of water, grow legs etc. I'll accept that, unfortunately the fish needs to return to the water immediately or it will die. It returns to the water (natural habitat) and the evolution to move to land stops.


you know that there are fish that can breath air right?

mudskipper

does that help?


That was a very simple example to use as a basis for an argument. It was not actually about a fish.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: AngryAtTheBlindBelief




That was a very simple example to use as a basis for an argument.
A very bad example which demonstrated nothing but your ignorance.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 11:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: AngryAtTheBlindBelief
a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

Actually "a cat turning into a dog" is the end result of any macro evolution stance or belief.

Micro evolution is adaptation to a creature's environment, food, air, water etc. Those that do not adapt die out and those that do adapt live on. I fully agree. It's the process that I disagree with.

If a fish is in water and decides it wants to move to land (forced out of its element) the changes required to adapt would be far too slow and that fish would die once the habitat changed. The evolution (adaptation stops). If the fish went onto land for the first time, the body embraces the new surroundings, I need to change my gills to support air outside of water, grow legs etc. I'll accept that, unfortunately the fish needs to return to the water immediately or it will die. It returns to the water (natural habitat) and the evolution to move to land stops.

My point is, on the grand macro evolution, we all started as one thing and evolved into another is flawed on the basis that as we wanted to become that other thing we would have died out if we waits for the evolution to kick in. Or we never would have evolved because we went back into the water.

Saying it takes millions of years to evolve is a cop out. No matter how many times the fish gets out of the water, it always gets back in so it doesn't die. This halts the evolutionary process every time.


Now your argument makes more sense. I was right earlier about why you're having so much trouble accepting the TOE.

No creature has ever "decided" that it wanted to become something else.

Your "cat turned into a dog" argument is a gross misinterpretation of evolution.

You're misinterpreting the term "adaptation" to mean "a sudden change" or "an intentional change." In evolution, an adaptation is neither of those.

Because of these misunderstandings, OF COURSE you can't accept the TOE as legitimate. It sounds like lunacy.

The TOE doesn't say that a fish "decided" it wanted to be on land. What actually happened was that a species of fish had genetic mutations that enabled it to spend time out of the water. As this trait was chosen by natural selection, those fish... over millions of generations... developed the ability to stay out of water indefinitely.

You can't decide to be a redhead with freckles. A genetic mutation can cause you to be a redhead with freckles, but nobody decided it. You can't decide to be double-jointed but if you happen to be born that way, you can use that trait to be a performer in a circus. The Theory of Evolution is the explanation for how genetic mutations lead to new species by causing fundamental changes to the original species. It is NOT a magical force that touches animals and gives them new abilities.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 11:08 PM
link   
a reply to: AngryAtTheBlindBelief

it was a very poor example to use as the basis for your argument - and my reply wasn't about a fish either



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Yall are missing the point. Evolution or creation it really doesn't matter. If an alien species came terraformed this planet dumped us on this rock and left we wouldn't have the faintest clue given the timeline humans have existed and our uncany ability to burn destroy and lose historical records to war, desertion or the elements through time.

There is arguing over this point as much rather yet as we cannot prove there wasn't any Genetic Engineering going on here.

The argument over creation vs evolution is moot.

Because today we have already synthesized life. If we can do it, Something out there in space can too. If there are others in this galaxy (Which i know there are) or even in other galaxies. It really dosn't matter. I guess the point is that some want to argue over who gets there first, Man or life. Because man is going to bring life to where ever it goes as that is the plan of astrofanclubs that peer down at us from the posts in ISS lol. they all have one common goal. They want to explore space and colonize other planets. The people who are proevolution and deny E.T want to say humans are the creators of all life, Where as the creationists most of them if you define yourself as a creationist want to believe that someone else did that but for the entire universe and all the planets and galaxies just *Cuz*. Neither of those arguments are remotely plausable and are equally as Moot.

We don`t even know how old the Universe really is, All we are doing is basing our knowlege off of stars, galaxies that have a specific compound through the lumincent spectrums. Even if they are millions of light years away Some are billions of miles away the faintest dots ever. There are so many lights up there that arn't even there anymore. Same with incomming new light that hasn't even reached Earth yet. Serious studied into this have only been a century long. So it's a little pre-emptive to come to conclusions. Even for our day and time many of the things i described in my posts seem like science fiction. But that's the reality we are in and are advancing towards.

What will it mean for humanity once it assumes a creator role, And what will it mean for the Atheists that just want to absolve the word *Creator* from the dictionary completely? When it becomes common knowledge that we can build an organism from say the dirt on mars or any material we come across. What will the divisions of Creation and evolution do at that point? Most likely will be non existant as both will be practical knowledge. The question tho if humans were created or if this planet was created and seeded intelligently is something we simply cannot answer right now. It's fun debating it. But by any standards. Neither camps are correct at trying to invalidate the other, Well except the concept about some cosmic being poofing everything into existance and i mean *EVERYTHING* i find that a little hard to believe.

However advanced life (Like our not to distant future) Coming into contact with barren planets and turning it into lush hunks of biodiversity floating in space will always be a secondary option to how life is created.

Can't really deny that life is being manipulated, created, cloned, and seeded. Our culture relies on such concepts to even eat. Let alone, Manufacture non-biological derived materials. But i guess if some of the *Creationists* want to believe a being Poofed everything into existance. Sure believe that im not gunna stop you. But don't think that time, the ever shifting sands and the spinning of the planet with its seasons will hold onto these concepts. We either get off this rock or we die along with it. This planet is going to become inhabitable before it's destroyed most likely. So we got some big plans if we want to carry on as a species. This may make us even more spiritual, Or it may make us more brutal. I guess it's up to us how we persue our creator roles once we physically travel between the planets, And then the stars. And if man is hopefully enough the galaxies.


Some people also really really badly want humans to be a naturally made creature. A compound creature sure, Nature. I donno about that. We have tried procreating with a couple different.... or that's an understandment. We humans. Someone or rather, many individuals around the globe have tried spoinking an animal. Many types of animals. So it's not to far fetched to find a man making love with a sasquatch. And big Sas makes what should be little sassys but instead OMG neaderthals! This hypothesis can be validated by the fact that neaderthals *The product of a sassy and a human* mated with a straight up human to make a proto neaderhuman 1/4 Sassy 3/s Human. Keep breaking that down with a punnit square if you want.

I personally don't believe every single human spawned out of a monkey. To me that's a little farfetched. I'm more likely to believe we spawned from an alien species given the bizare nature that is the human being. Is so out of place on this planet to be honest lol. But i guess these questions will be answered by someone who isn't an arm chair scolar.

Yall can believe the pond water to human thing. I think humans being molded by E.T and our passed being lost to war and cataklysms is more badass than millions of years of humping and hunting.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 11:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: AngryAtTheBlindBelief



This is exactly what MICRO evolution is. Macro, which is the what the entire argument stems from is not shown by these examples. Evolutionists have made the choice to combine the two topics, as of they can be explained by the same answers.

Deniers have created a false dichotomy. There is no micro or macro evolution. There is evolution.


Actually Berkeley as just one institute defines micro evolution as a separate entity from macro. But thank you for your insight.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 11:11 PM
link   
a reply to: AngryAtTheBlindBelief

[Citation needed]



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 11:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: AngryAtTheBlindBelief

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

originally posted by: AngryAtTheBlindBelief
What an absolute load of bull. If an 8 year old that just learned about evolution and didn't understand exactly what it was showed me those examples, I would be happy and then explain the difference between adapting to a situation and turning a cat into a dog.
"A cat turning into a dog" is not what evolution means.




That article is laughable. The moth example... when you have 2 creatures. One black and one white, against a black background, the white ones get eaten and disappears because it stands out. Now their are mostly black ones.

The logical thought is that the black ones continued to mate as always, and created black colored offspring. Not that evolution kicked in and the white ones changed their clothing.



This is exactly how evolution works. Hence the term "natural selection." Evolution has NEVER STATED that the white ones turn into black ones. It states that, in this particular case, in a population of white and black moths, the white ones died out due to an unsuccessful genetic trait. Now instead of a population of white and black moths, there is only a population of black moths.



Italian wall lizards. They changed their food due to lack of options?? That's evolution??

Not a single example of an actual evolutionary process. Just adaptation, or in the case of the moths, die off.

Rediculous.


Again, this is EXACTLY what evolution is. What these are NOT examples of, is how creationists like to PRETEND evolution works.



This is exactly what MICRO evolution is. Macro, which is the what the entire argument stems from is not shown by these examples. Evolutionists have made the choice to combine the two topics, as of they can be explained by the same answers.

Macro, and macro alone, requires faith. There is no science to back it up that cannot be refuted as far as I have seen so far.


No, "evolutionists" did not make a choice to combine the two topics. They've always been the same topic... just different areas of study.

Evolution-deniers tried to separate them for their own agenda.

Macroeconomics and Microeconomics are both ways of looking at economics but they don't have different principles. It's just looking at large-scale versus small-scale.

Please read this before continuing.

Please do yourself a favor and gather a little info before continuing. You're posting a lot of untrue statements in this thread through no fault of your own.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 11:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
Just goto this thread for your answers.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Tons and tons of evidence.

Plus did they ask a biologist? or anyone in the field or just people off the street?.
Also we have seen it real time...many times.

Why is it mostly the religious dismiss the evidence? does it destroy your faith to accept that every living thing on our planet is connected? is it so horrid that we share a common ancestor with other Apes?.
Sorry dude you are wrong.

Just to add we have seen it happen...

listverse.com...


Yes, they asked biologists, several of them where PhD's. Their names and credentials were displayed in a banner along the bottom of the screen.

How did you miss that?



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 11:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: AngryAtTheBlindBelief

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: AngryAtTheBlindBelief



This is exactly what MICRO evolution is. Macro, which is the what the entire argument stems from is not shown by these examples. Evolutionists have made the choice to combine the two topics, as of they can be explained by the same answers.

Deniers have created a false dichotomy. There is no micro or macro evolution. There is evolution.


Actually Berkeley as just one institute defines micro evolution as a separate entity from macro. But thank you for your insight.


No they don't. I just linked to Berkeley's page defining macroevolution and microevolution.


Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change:

mutation
migration
genetic drift
natural selection


Source: Berkeley

You're misinterpreting the statement, again. They aren't two different types of evolution. They are two different ways to study evolution.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 11:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: AngryAtTheBlindBelief
a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

Actually "a cat turning into a dog" is the end result of any macro evolution stance or belief.

No it isn't. A population isn't going to jump from one clade to another. Two species in similar niches may evolve similar features; that's called convergent evolution. But it doesn't mean one species became the other one. The predecessor of the dolphin didn't evolve into a fish; it evolved into a dolphin. Descent moves forward in time, it doesn't move laterally across species (except for some very primitive single-celled organisms that are promiscuous with their DNA).


If a fish is in water and decides it wants to move to land (forced out of its element) the changes required to adapt would be far too slow and that fish would die once the habitat changed.

The fish isn't really deciding anything. I've owned fish for years, they're terrible decision-makers. But if you take a bunch of fish, and put them in a tidal pool or a river that overspills its banks or a marsh or whatever, the fish who can suck a little oxygen out of the air will live longer and have more fry than the fish who cannot. Among its kids, the ones who can tolerate those conditions better will lay more eggs, and so forth. Over many millennia, this process of adaptation--which you affirm exists--will produce a population of air-breathing fish who can no longer mate with their cousins who were not exposed to these conditions.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 11:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnuTyr


I personally don't believe every single human spawned out of a monkey. To me that's a little farfetched. I'm more likely to believe we spawned from an alien species given the bizare nature that is the human being. Is so out of place on this planet to be honest lol. But i guess these questions will be answered by someone who isn't an arm chair scolar.

Yall can believe the pond water to human thing. I think humans being molded by E.T and our passed being lost to war and cataklysms is more badass than millions of years of humping and hunting.


Yeah, it's a little far fetched that every single human spawned out of a monkey.

Fortunately, that's not even close to what the Theory of Evolution actually says.

Before you start believing that aliens populated the planet, you might want to actually understand the alternative.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 11:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer

Thank you for the citation.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 11:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer

I'm not saying it's not plausable. It's just really boring and dosn't make for much of a *proclaimation* we can pin into the ground as a flag for each planet we reach right.


*Planet Earth. The Ape people from pond of single cells.
We ate then mate and here we are*

In place of *Planet Earth, We don't really know who made us
But they might of been a dick, So watch out* Sounds a little more intemidating and has kinda a story behind it.
Just personal preference i guess. lol.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 11:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

originally posted by: AngryAtTheBlindBelief
a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

Actually "a cat turning into a dog" is the end result of any macro evolution stance or belief.

Micro evolution is adaptation to a creature's environment, food, air, water etc. Those that do not adapt die out and those that do adapt live on. I fully agree. It's the process that I disagree with.

If a fish is in water and decides it wants to move to land (forced out of its element) the changes required to adapt would be far too slow and that fish would die once the habitat changed.
Yes, yes it would.


The evolution (adaptation stops). If the fish went onto land for the first time, the body embraces the new surroundings, I need to change my gills to support air outside of water, grow legs etc. I'll accept that, unfortunately the fish needs to return to the water immediately or it will die. It returns to the water (natural habitat) and the evolution to move to land stops.
Firstly, nothing is trying to adapt. Your example isn't what the tenants of evolution state. Let me paint you a different picture.

Fish lives in shallow water, feeds on plant matter that grows at the edge of the water. Competition for the food source becomes stiff, but the fish are still plucking along. A fish is born that has stronger fins than other fish, and instead of darting at the overhanging plants to get bites, it darts out of the water a few inches. Suddenly this fish can reach plants that the other fish cannot, and therefore lives longer. It mates, it passes on its genes. A progeny of fish now are born with stronger fins, all of which are better at finding food than their relatives. Strong-fin fish flourish, weak-fin fish die off. Rinse and repeat until eventually the great great great etc. x 10000000 grandchild of the fish has been born that has something resembling legs. The original strong-fin and weak-fin fish are long, long dead. So are hundreds or thousands of other mutations that occurred in the interim. THAT is evolution.




My point is, on the grand macro evolution, we all started as one thing and evolved into another is flawed on the basis that as we wanted to become that other thing we would have died out if we waits for the evolution to kick in. Or we never would have evolved because we went back into the water.

Saying it takes millions of years to evolve is a cop out. No matter how many times the fish gets out of the water, it always gets back in so it doesn't die. This halts the evolutionary process every time.
The millions of years of slow, minute changes are exactly why change CAN occur, as in my example above.


This is very good. Thank you. A well laid out rebuttal. You have explained that very well.

If the fish were evolving to jump out of the water for food . The water is either disappearing, so not sustaining the plant life within or the plant life is dying off for some other reason. Either way the adapted fish would not last long enough to create a viable group of offspring. The babies would have nothing to feed on while they waited to be strong enough to jump out of the water. Thus they die off and its back to square one.

I have a few very big problems still with evolution. If we are to look at animals today and wonder how they got to where they are it doesn't make any sense to me.

Any meat eater. Plant life is still. Rooted. Never needs to be chased. There is no logical reason that any animal would evolve into chasing down another animal to eat as it is extremely inefficient.

A lion is surrounded by grass that feeds animals far larger than itself. Why would it even exist?

A giraff evolved a long neck to reach plants far above it. Why would it not climb instead or at the very least eat different foods on the ground?

Why is it that inefficiency prevails?



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 11:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnuTyr
a reply to: Answer

I'm not saying it's not plausable. It's just really boring and dosn't make for much of a *proclaimation* we can pin into the ground as a flag for each planet we reach right.


*Planet Earth. The Ape people from pond of single cells.
We ate then mate and here we are*

In place of *Planet Earth, We don't really know who made us
But they might of been a dick, So watch out* Sounds a little more intemidating and has kinda a story behind it.
Just personal preference i guess. lol.


Actually, the process by which we evolved is fascinating in its own way.

If you find it boring and have to make up insane theories to make it more interesting... well, I guess that's one way to go through life.
edit on 2/8/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join