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.

 

Can someone show me evidence of speciation, from one kind to another

page: 11
12
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 06:05 AM
link   
It strikes me, from reading the OP and subsequent posts, that this is some kind of troll attempt.

ATS is a discussion board. People present ideas and evidence, usually backed up with linked references and/or scientific texts.

If the OP simply wants to dismiss those things because they don't fit into very narrow parameters, then the point of a discussion board becomes moot.

So, OP, I suggest you discuss, or start a blog that you can dictate your own terms from, because right now I'm just reading a troll attempt, and that doesn't fly here.




posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 06:05 AM
link   
It strikes me, from reading the OP and subsequent posts, that this is some kind of troll attempt.

ATS is a discussion board. People present ideas and evidence, usually backed up with linked references and/or scientific texts.

If the OP simply wants to dismiss those things because they don't fit into very narrow parameters, then the point of a discussion board becomes moot.

So, OP, I suggest you discuss, or start a blog that you can dictate your own terms from, because right now I'm just reading a troll attempt, and that doesn't fly here.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 09:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: borntowatch

What the heck are you on about? People have provided you evidence after evidence and yet you chose to ignore them. Why the hell would scientists choose to "believe" in evolution when all they want is to know more about the life and the universe? Knowledge is evolving. Science is evolving. It doesn't stop because scientists WANT to know MORE!

I don't know or remember if you ever defined the word kind. Define it again as clearly as possible and use a scientific word closest to what it means.


Sadly the very idea of kind and species is still being debated by scientists, yet you think I can answer the question?
Or do you think science has all the answers. Just stop and think first

and again I have read that there is no evidence from some and others tell me gravity is the evidence and others like you tell me all the evidence has been told to me without posting any evidence at all.

So far though I hear nothing but talk.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: neformore

ATS is a discussion board. People present ideas and evidence, usually backed up with linked references and/or scientific texts.



Ok here is the thread, all of it, go have a look and show me where anything you suggest is, show me where in this thread People present ideas and evidence, usually backed up with linked references and/or scientific texts.

Because I havnt seen any, none, just a lot of assumption and conjecture
Now understand I didnt ask for ideas, I asked for evidence.

Ideas are conjecture.

Only 11 pages where I have only asked for evidence, please show me where its posted.


If there are trolls its those who come here and turned it into a religious argument. Where were you then?



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: neformore

ATS is a discussion board. People present ideas and evidence, usually backed up with linked references and/or scientific texts.



Ok here is the thread, all of it, go have a look and show me where anything you suggest is, show me where in this thread People present ideas and evidence, usually backed up with linked references and/or scientific texts.

Because I havnt seen any, none, just a lot of assumption and conjecture
Now understand I didnt ask for ideas, I asked for evidence.

Ideas are conjecture.

Only 11 pages where I have only asked for evidence, please show me where its posted.


If there are trolls its those who come here and turned it into a religious argument. Where were you then?



Ahahahahahaha.....replies to accusation of trolling with a troll post ahahahahahaha

Let's not forget this is the same gentleman who was making physical threats of violence against "non-believers" several months ago.

Either

A: this guy is a fundy, therefore, nothing you say or do will change his mind. Mental gymnastics will be at an Olympic level as evidenced in this threat.

B: this thread was created purely to troll, for the enjoyment of borntowatch.

I'm going with A which then blurs into B.......sad really......



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch
I didnt want to debate it, I wanted to discuss it.
I dont believe it so the onus is on those who have the evidence to prove it, to prove it.


Using your logic:

It would seem the only way to prove to you the earth is round, is to strap you to a rocket and send you up.

It would seem the only way to prove to you that the earth revolves around the sun, is to make that same rocket catapult you into the sun...

You can't just sit there and say you don't believe something just because you personally don't have proof.
edit on 3/19/2015 by EternalSolace because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

Plenty of posters have provided scientific evidence links.

Just because you cannot be bothered to read them doesn't mean that the evidence is not there.

Continually berating people for your own failing in that matter is not conducive to discussion at all.

So, if you want to discuss the issue, engage people. Otherwise this thread is pointless, and will be closed.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 06:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: borntowatch
I didnt want to debate it, I wanted to discuss it.
I dont believe it so the onus is on those who have the evidence to prove it, to prove it.


Using your logic:

It would seem the only way to prove to you the earth is round, is to strap you to a rocket and send you up.

It would seem the only way to prove to you that the earth revolves around the sun, is to make that same rocket catapult you into the sun...

You can't just sit there and say you don't believe something just because you personally don't have proof.



Here are a few good reasons we can see the world is round from the ground, these were discovered with out a catapailt

When we look at the moon during an eclipse we see a shadow, the shadow, guess what shape the shadow is? Its round, that means whatever casts the shadow is round, not flat

A tall landmark on the horizon rises the closer you get, it doesnt just appear, coincidentally the higher up a person gets the further they can see

www.smarterthanthat.com...


So there you have just two experiments you can do at home, of course there are other ones in the link.
See the link, that is part of the evidence.

No rocket needed Mr Solace, thats called empirical evidence and has been proven by science with real time experiments.

and also please note

Evidence written in a discussion explaining how and why and then backed up with a link



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 03:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

and I can make stuff up as well, just like you did.


No, I did not just make up the Linnean taxonomy


Care to explain to me how they arrived at this conclusion so I can see any counter arguments.
It sounds good feasible and interesting how about a link.


Just provided


So you are saying that genus, kind and species is all sorted out and there is no arguments or issues left in the scientific community..


The taxonomy is certainly sorted out....and there are many issues left in hte scientific community.


That word blather seems appropriate now doesnt it???


It certainly does - you are making it your own.

Along with "ignorant"



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 03:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

Sadly the very idea of kind and species is still being debated by scientists, ....


Hey look - you just invented something!!


Got a link for that?



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 04:14 AM
link   
OK. I'm going to take a stab at it. I've carefully tried my best to comply with your absolutely absurd requirements for evidence, and tried to use words and concepts that elementary school student would understand, because no offense but it truly seems as though your general understanding of basic fundamentals of science--biology in particular--are on the level of that of elementary school.

The fossil record contains many well-documented examples of the transition from one species into another, as well as the origin of new physical features. Evidence from the fossil record is unique, because it provides a time perspective for understanding the evolution of life on Earth. I will present to you some empirical evidence that displays how the species of dinosaurs evolved into the bird species.

Most paleontologists regard birds as the direct descendants of certain dinosaurs - as opposed to descendants of some other group of reptiles. Paleontologists and zoologists have long accepted that birds and reptiles are related. The two groups share many common traits including many skeletal features, the laying of shelled eggs, and the possession of scales, although in birds, scales are limited to the legs. Among modern birds, the embryos even have rudimentary fingers on their wings. In one modern bird, the South American hoatzin, Opisthocomus hoazin, the wings of the juvenile have large moveable claws on the first and second digits. The young bird uses these claws to grasp branches.
The descent of birds from dinosaurs was first proposed in the late 1860s by Thomas Henry Huxley, who was a famous supporter of Darwin and his ideas. Evidence from fossils for the reptile-bird link came in 1861 with the discovery of the first nearly complete skeleton of Archaeopteryx lithographica in Upper Jurassic limestones about 150 million years old near Solenhofen, Germany. The skeleton of Archaeopteryx is clearly dinosaurian. It has a long bony tail, three claws on each wing, and a mouth full of teeth. However, this animal had one thing never before seen in a reptile - it had feathers, including feathers on the long bony tail. Huxley based his hypothesis of the relationship of birds to dinosaurs on his detailed study of the skeleton of Archaeopteryx.
One of the leading scholars of the bird-dinosaur relationship is John Ostrom of Yale University, who has summarized all the details of the skeletal similarities of Archaeopteryx with small, bipedal Jurassic dinosaurs such as Compsognathus. Compsognathus belongs to the group of dinosaurs that includes the well-known Velociraptor, of Jurassic Park fame, and Deinonychus, which Ostrom called the ultimate killing machine. The skeleton of Archaeopteryx is so similar to that of Compsognathus that some specimens of Archaeopteryx were at first incorrectly classified as Compsognathus. Ostrom regarded Archaeopteryx as being on the direct line of descent of birds from reptiles.
New fossil specimens from Mongolia, China, Spain, Argentina, and Australia have added to our knowledge of the early history of birds, and many paleontologists now reckon that the turkey on our Thanksgiving tables is a descendant of the dinosaurs.



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 04:39 AM
link   
One concept that I'm struggling to accept that you don't yet understand after 11 pages of back-and-forth is the following: So, It's clear to me by now that what you're looking for is evidence that, for example, reptiles evolved into mammals. I've come to realize that concepts such as observing genetic drift/reproductive isolation amongst fruit flies or selective DNA alterations in populations of E. Coli are not only concepts you will not accept as evidence of speciation, but that these are concepts that you simply do not understand. They go right over your head and you cannot wrap your head around what they've got to do with evolution. So, you want to see evidence of a reptile evolving into a mammal. Now, as explained by almost everybody on this thread, this process takes millions and millions of years. The issue with that is this means the evidence comes from many different fields of science. Combined, all of the different evidence amounts to something quite profound and convincing. It paints an incredibly cohesive picture showing not only that this process of speciation happened, but also shows how it happened, and why it happened.

Unfortunately for you, the evidence is not a simple experiment you can do in your mothers basement. It requires reading, thinking, and understanding. But, you have thus far failed to demonstrate that you are aware of this fairly simple line of thinking. It's strange, because it seems as though you're the only person who isn't aware of this. It doesn't help that you refuse to actually read the links that people provide. I'm yet to understand why in god's name you would refuse to take part in something you specifically started a thread for. It's your job to read the evidence provided, evaluate it, and debate it. If you cannot do that, then you do not deserve to be in the position to begin a thread of this nature.

MODERATORS, I know you have began to notice the unconstructive nature of BORNTOWATCH, and I appreciate you stepping in and saying something. I recommend that you keep an eye out, because please keep in mind this is a person who posts under multiple different names, using the same tactics of hijacking threads, trolling, and generally being a huge bummer. I maintain that the ATS would not be much worse off with this individual banned, or at least sent to time-out.



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 05:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: kayej1188

New fossil specimens from Mongolia, China, Spain, Argentina, and Australia have added to our knowledge of the early history of birds, and many paleontologists now reckon that the turkey on our Thanksgiving tables is a descendant of the dinosaurs.



They reckon that do they, how nice, I reckon they are wrong.

I stated a set of evidence based principles showing the world was round, basic statements and then linked the
scientific evidence.
You showed me what scientists reckon.

Thanks for that



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 06:02 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

I remember once watching an evolutionist as they were opening a cave that had been undisturbed from the outside world for a long time. I don't remember if they said, thousands, or millions of years. But it was a huge find. And this woman was just shaking with excitement as she told the camera that they were going to find how the lifeforms in that area that are inside, and they had a list they knew were probably in their, how they will have diverged into completely new kinds of life forms, and that she was going to prove evolution to the world.

And they got into the cave, and she actually found some of these, insects, if I remember, that they were looking for. And she was trembling with excitement when she grabbed it to study. And it was just like all the rest.

I really wish I remember what documentary that was, I'm sure it's probably on YouTube somewhere, would be nice to have posted the video. It was awhile ago though, and I just stumbled on it turning through channels one night when I couldn't sleep.



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 06:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: kayej1188

MODERATORS, I know you have began to notice the unconstructive nature of BORNTOWATCH, and I appreciate you stepping in and saying something. I recommend that you keep an eye out, because please keep in mind this is a person who posts under multiple different names, using the same tactics of hijacking threads, trolling, and generally being a huge bummer. I maintain that the ATS would not be much worse off with this individual banned, or at least sent to time-out.


When you make accusations like that you should have evidence to back it up. I'm not saying you're right one way or the other, because I have no clue. But at least you can share your proof with the moderators in a private post, or here, for everyone. I don't' like sock puppets either, or trolls.

But I've been reading through this thread and I don't see anything wrong with borntowatch's points. No one has given him the evidence he's asked for yet.

I've been keeping an eye because I was curious as to see if anyone would be able to. And so far they haven't. My science teachers were never able too. I don't think anyone is. And that is his point. Of course If you give him the evidence he's asking for, I'm sure he'll accept it. He's said he would over and over.



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 06:09 AM
link   
a reply to: iNobody



No one has given him the evidence he's asked for yet.


They have many many many times over and over.

Somehow I feel like it's like describing colors to color blind or just blind people.

And yes he is a troll. He chose to ignore some posts.



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 06:12 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch



Sadly the very idea of kind and species is still being debated by scientists,


No. The idea of 'kind' is not a scientific term and it is not being debated by scientists. True, biologists have pretty much given up on defining the term 'species' because every time they think they have it nailed, they find another exception. It is now a useful word that has a 'loose', imprecise meaning. It is clear that scientists want to be able to say that lions and tigers are two different 'species' because, for instance, they cannot breed fertile offspring. But when they discover individual who have bred fertile offspring, then the definition is demonstrated to be wrong - but lions and tigers are, never-the-less, understood to be different species.

On the other hand, the word 'kind' is not useful, let alone precise, in any way. It is from a scientific point of view entirely meaningless. That is because when you use the word 'kind' you include zero context. Your premise is that different 'species' of finches are not different 'kinds' because they are still finches; but others say they are, in fact, different 'kinds' of finches. Both may well be 'correct' sentences in English, but when you can use the word so loosely it is worthless in discussion.

It is a fact that since the Galapagos Island Finches were first described, several populations of new species have evolved there - yes, just in that short time frame. This is indisputable. A scientists might well say, informally, that different 'species' of finches are different 'kinds' of finches. However you refuse to recognize 'different kinds of finches'. Your rules insist that the only kind of speciation event that you can accept as evidence for evolution is 'one' that changes the finch into a cat or something.

Never mind that what you ask for is not 'one' speciation event, but many thousands, mixing the Biblical term 'kind' with the scientific term 'species' is disingenuous, ignorant, and insulting.



yet you think I can answer the question?


Hey, it is your thread, and your question. If you don't know what it is you are asking for, how is anybody else supposed to know? If you can't define your frame of reference, then you are just wasting everybody's time.



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: iNobody




No one has given him the evidence he's asked for yet


Because he's asking the impossible. I'll use his language because I think I understand what he means by "kind." You will never ever find one "kind" of animal giving birth to another "kind" of animal. You will never find a crocoduck living or fossilized. Why? Because the theory of evolution doesn't allow for it.

If anyone ever does find a crocoduck, that would actually be sufficient evidence to falsify the ToE.

Speciation within a certain "kind" does count as evidence, (one life form turning into a different species of that same family or group) and has been witnessed and documented. And to be able to witness evolution in action as the OP wishes we could just *poof* show a picture of, you'd need to be able to live for a millennium or longer and have a really good camera that you can fast-forward by about a million times. Humans and our tiny life spans have no concept of one million years, never mind one hundred million or a billion and we have a hard time imagining how such small, subtle changes over generations can add up to something so different as a whale is to an ant.

Another very important thing that the OP and others with similar stances on the subject are completely failing to understand is that the ToE does not have to be proven, it needs to be falsified. That's how scientific theory works. If the OP does not wish to accept speciation amongst a group of salamanders, finches or a fruit fly as valid evidence, then he needs to show why it isn't. Not just "because I don't believe it."

So the objective here really is for the OP to read through and understand the research that supports the ToE as it stands today and provide evidence as to why it is false.

The simple fact is that everything evolves (changes over time) whether natural or man made. The thought that every life form that has ever existed or will ever exist on this planet just plopped down here as is does not compute for me.

There's only one thing that I can think of that doesn't ever evolve and while it's sort of related to this thread, it's not for this discussion.



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

Species is a taxinomic term. Speciation isnt even a word. THere is no single point in evolutionary change that determines when a species separates. This is just a round about way for the op to challenge the micro vs macro, which cannot be done because they are not process, rather they are simply taxonomic classifications.



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

Its funny DarkATI
Why I dont want to define species is because there seems to be a very broad range of species.

I think (yes assume) that we have a species called felines and they all have a common ancestor, bit like canines.
Though the feline group maybe a little too broad to say all one species.

who knows


I'm not following. How can you ask for evidence of speciation without first defining the term 'species'?

'Felidae' is the taxonomical 'family' commonly known as 'cats,' or 'felines.' So, you are correct in saying that the 'feline group' is too broad to be considered a species. 'Felines' are not a species, at least not according to the established taxonomical structure.



Who knows? Well, that's a question of epistemology. It depends on what you mean by knowledge and what sort of knowledge you're actually seeking. You asked for evidence of speciation and I think several people (myself included) have given you good evidence.

You didn't even take the time to respond to my example of the Snow Leopard. Therefore, I won't bother posting anymore in here.

If you are a Christian, hopped up on Ray Comfort 'documentaries,' then you need to get an education. Do NOT educate yourself, because you'll likely just pull information from more people like Comfort, who do not have a clue what they are talking about in regard to science. I recommend a university of some sort in your local area.

Please do not take my response as an insult or attack on you personally. You're simply not willing to have an honest discussion with me, so I'm withdrawing my presence. Best of luck to you in understanding how science works.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join