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: 2
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 12:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mandroid7
Does this work?




I have no doubt that will work very well on many levels and people but

Its a tadpole turning into a frog, its kinda what we expect a tadpole to do, if it didnt turn into a frog then that would be something.

Noice try but




posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 01:07 AM
link   
Fossils offer pretty clear evidence that over time one species can dramatically change. My question to the OP would be: what better explanation do you have? Let me guess, all the species were magically placed on Earth by a creator and now they just stay the same forever? In my mind it seems even more ridiculous to say that all species will stay the same forever because we can see species changing and adapting in real time. You might not consider those small changes to be speciation but when you let those small changes build up over millions and billions of years the end result will be something completely different from the original thing, even though it never experienced any large or sudden changes.

edit on 14/3/2015 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 01:09 AM
link   
I'll give you solid undeniable hard observable factual evidence of speciation when you give me solid undeniable hard observable factual evidence of god.

Annnnnd Go.



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 01:11 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

Hmm. Thats the best I can come up with in an observable timeframe within our lifespans.

To me it looks like a fish then a frog, regardless of the assigned name and expected metamorphosis.

It is one creature then another in all senses of observation.

Is the timeframe too short to count in your challenge?


Kind of like the erosion if the Grand Canyon taking thousands, maybe millions of years.
Unobservable timeframe.



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 01:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: sn0rch
I'll give you solid undeniable hard observable factual evidence of speciation when you give me solid undeniable hard observable factual evidence of god.

Annnnnd Go.

So you are saying believing in speciation is like believing in God? No evidence, just faith?



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 01:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
Fossils offer pretty clear evidence that over time one species can dramatically change. My question to the OP would be: what better explanation do you have? Let me guess, all the species were magically placed on Earth by a creator and now they just stay the same forever? In my mind it seems even more ridiculous to say that all species will stay the same forever because we can see species changing and adapting in real time. You might not consider those small changes to be speciation but when you let those small changes build up over millions and billions of years the end result will be something completely different from the original thing, even though it never experienced any large or sudden changes.

What he is asking for is the evidence of that. 20 fossils that show those small changes over a large period of time.



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 01:25 AM
link   
Interesting that it took me all of 10 minutes to become more educated on speciation than you. Speciation doesn't happen so much in that an organism evolves into a different organism as you want proof of. It could, but it more commonly happens when an organism travels down two different evolutionary paths and becomes two organisms that would be considered different species.

It seems it's much more difficult to spot in our everyday lives because evolution happens much more slowly with larger creatures. Microevolution can be observed quite easily though and would be your best bet if you want actual proof. Also, evolution occurs because of a necessity for survival and most species are comfortable enough in their habitats that there is no need for further evolution. Plus, any threat in this day and age would wipe them out rapidly and they would not have time to adapt.

However evolution has been proven. And because evolution exists, logically, speciation has to exist since organisms of the same specie would develop different evolutionary traits when exposed to different environments.

Granted this is based on me reading a few paragraphs of text on the subject of speciation, I do have a good knowledge of evolution to back my conjecture. But hey, I dare you to prove me wrong

edit on 3/14/2015 by scojak because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 01:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: sn0rch
I'll give you solid undeniable hard observable factual evidence of speciation when you give me solid undeniable hard observable factual evidence of god.

Annnnnd Go.

So you are saying believing in speciation is like believing in God? No evidence, just faith?


no, I understand the principal of speciation, and can see the manner in how it works. It does take an extremely long time, so to ask for immediate evidence, is futile, and OP knows this but is demanding it be provided despite the fact.

a bit like the tar pitch experiment. Now OP may claim it doesn't drip and want evidence of it dripping, but as it only drips once every ten years or so, it would take a long time to prove this. OP would suggest that's false, and demand evidence right now. We can see it appears to be in a suspended state, but very slowly it changes. and from that, we can determine that it does indeed drip, without actually having seen it drip.

But god. there is not a single shred of evidence to substantiate it. Quite simply, it is the imagination alone, that causes god. no time frame, no theory.. nada.



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 01:34 AM
link   
Newfound Monkey Flower Reveals Evolution in Action

A new species of monkey flower has been found in Scotland, the product of a tryst between two foreign flowers. But this is no ordinary love child. While almost all such hybrids are sterile — just as mules are sterile hybrids of donkeys and horses — a rare genetic duplication allowed this species to become fertile.

It's rare to discover a newly evolved species, said researcher Mario Vallejo-Marin, who found the handsome yellow flower while on a walk through southern Scotland with his family last summer.

While many new species of plants are thought to arise this way, it has only been witnessed amongst wild plants a handful of times in history, said Vallejo-Marin, a scientist at the University of Stirling. Hybrid flowers typically have an odd number of chromosomes, or enormous packets of DNA, making them unable to reproduce. But this flower somehow duplicated its entire genome.

Vallejo-Marin said he doesn't know exactly what "series of unlikely events" led to this new species, but he said he intends to study it in more detail. Insights could help explain how these new hybrids regain fertility, which could also shed light on the evolution of plants such as wheat, tobacco and cotton, which are thought to have evolved this way long ago.


Electric Fish on Verge of Evolutionary Split

Although these fish look alike and have the same DNA genetic makeup, they have very different electrical signals and will only mate with fish that produce the same signals. Researchers believe that these different electrical signals are the fishes' first step in diverging into separate species.


Caught in the act: Study probes evolution of California insect

Researchers used a combination of ecological fieldwork and genomic assays to see how natural selection is playing out across the genome of Timema cristinae, a California stick insect that is evolving into two unique species.

edit on 14-3-2015 by Blackmarketeer because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 01:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Your first link is the only one that really fits, and I think is definitely interesting to ponder how many times this has happened with animals.



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 01:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
What he is asking for is the evidence of that. 20 fossils that show those small changes over a large period of time.

Well then I suggest the OP should go back and read some of the scientific studies posted on the first page. The OP asked for a conversational style debate and that's what I provided.



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 01:55 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

Here I go clicking a topic that I thought was a legitimate request for information. Instead this is yet another post creating a topic to start stirring the pot with absolutely no intention to accept any explanation.

You don't believe it. You never will. You have no intention of accepting anything even if people pluck it out of the various sources and spoon-feed it to you. So why bother making a thread about it at all?
edit on 14-3-2015 by Ksihkehe because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 01:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
What he is asking for is the evidence of that. 20 fossils that show those small changes over a large period of time.

Well then I suggest the OP should go back and read some of the scientific studies posted on the first page. The OP asked for a conversational style debate and that's what I provided.

He read one and it did not answer his question at all. What he is interested in is someone who can say look at these 20 fossils, they show it. I have looked into it and have always wondered why there is literally zero evidence of it that I was able to find. I was completely unable to find any fossil record.

You will see 10 fossils of Species A changing. Then you see species B which is completely different, and you see 10 fossils of species B changing, but there is not one single fossil in between.

Two different species mating to produce a unique species is the only possibility I have come up with, but I don't know how plausible that is as an explanation.



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 02:42 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

I can give you evidence in the form of a thought exercise. People have mutations, right? It happens. Usually they suck but sometimes they don't. Living in the modern world, there's not that many subtle mutations that would help us (which is why bad eyesight is making a comeback). Let's take us back a few thousand years instead. Imagine your tribe was afflicted with a nasty airborne virus that was thinning your numbers drastically. You give birth to a child who happens to have a genetic mutation that gives her a ridiculous amount of super thick nose hair. As she gets older, she doesn't get sick because the nostril hair makes her almost immune to this strange virus. She'll naturally live long enough to reproduce. As generations go on, her offspring (who inherited her mutation) will continue to survive at a greater rate than the rest of the tribe. Eventually, her offspring will be the only ones left thus evolution. That is what they mean by "survival of the fittest" or "natural selection". It's a matter of waiting for a helpful mutation that encourages more successful procreative odds.

Now as far as speciation, let's use your example of dogs. Where do you think they came from? We made them. Before dogs there were only wolves. A few wolves had mutations that allowed their brain chemistry to override their fear of people. People became friends with those wolves and started selectively breeding them with other docile wolves. As thousands of generations passed, people selectively bred them according to the desired result. Every breed of dog was "intelligently designed" by people through evolution.

I think what is challenging your ability to wrap your head around it is the scale of time we are talking about. It's huge. We're talking many thousands of generations before a species becomes something distinct. When you grasp how long a few million years is, you can understand how even complex things like eyes formed and how a particular species, one mutation at a time, can branch apart into other species. It's size and scale. Anything can happen given enough time.



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 02:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Cuervo

He is asking for the fossil record that shows the changes. For example it's believed a deer like animal evolved into a whale. What are all the intermediary fossils that show this process happening. We have point A and point Z, what are points B through Y?



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 02:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Cuervo

He is asking for the fossil record that shows the changes. For example it's believed a deer like animal evolved into a whale. What are all the intermediary fossils that show this process happening. We have point A and point Z, what are points B through Y?


Same places a lot of things are from millions of years ago: lost.

I asked him to do the thought exercise because, if you take the fact we have random mutations and extrapolate that into our future thousands of generations, the only conclusion you can come to is that humans will be vastly different than we are now.

Since that's the only acceptable conclusion, why would he think the past is any different?



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 03:45 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Here'a a good start - Evolution of Whales - Berkeley

Also, it is entirely false for you to claim we "have point A and point Z, but no B through Y".

I have to wonder why I even click on these threads though, much less actually comment. It's quite clear that some people simply won't even listen to what you say and are too stupid to understand you if they do.



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 03:53 AM
link   
a reply to: stumason


In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That's why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree.


So they show a bunch of animals and say they all have common ancestors, but do not show any of those ancestors.

So they start with Point A, show Point Z .. then skip B to Y and instead show Points 1 to 10.

Your source you linked is in agreement with me.



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 04:23 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

I studied env.science bsc..When i first started i was told about a moth in the uk that changed colour over time due to pollution by the end of the course they decided it was a different species. No case of evolution.

Evolution is not empirical science you cannot put it in a test tube and observe and repeat. Evolution is a best fit story with a lot of bits missing. One day peeps wll see that theres a intelligence in nature and all these species are an expression of that thought.

purp.



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 04:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch
or should I just go on someones hunch?

Hmmm...Sort of how all creationists do?

Due to the time scales involved, it's impossible for anyone to present proof that fits within your silly parameters. But I think you knew already knew that, didn't you?

Others have already given you links to all the peer-reviewed, scientific research on the subject that one could ever want, so if you'd like to educate yourself, this is a fantastic opportunity to do so. I have a feeling, though, that you won't even bother to look at any of the research, and only created this thread to argue with others and to push your (incorrect) views. Please prove me wrong.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join