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: 3
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 05:28 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It's a simple diagram and read, for simple minds to start off from. Clearly, you failed as you couldn't even get passed the first paragraph.

It is also misleading, while they are not descended from creatures such as Pakicetus or Ambulocetus, they are transitional forms from the common ancestor to a modern whale and they are related

Read this - Achaeoceti

Much like we are not descended from Gorilla's, but share a common ancestor where our paths diverged. There are obvious similarities between gorilla's, humans and human ancestors.
edit on 14/3/15 by stumason because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 06:39 AM
link   
Archaeopteryx



Archaeopteryx (/ˌɑrkiːˈɒptərɨks/ ar-kee-op-tər-iks), sometimes referred to by its German name Urvogel ("original bird" or "first bird"), is a genus of early bird that is transitional between feathered dinosaurs and modern birds. The name derives from the ancient Greek ἀρχαῖος (archaīos) meaning "ancient", and πτέρυξ (ptéryx), meaning "feather" or "wing". Since the late nineteenth century, it had been generally accepted by palaeontologists, and celebrated in lay reference works, as being the oldest known bird (member of the group Avialae).[1] However, older potential avialans have since been identified, including Anchiornis, Xiaotingia, and Aurornis.[2]

Archaeopteryx lived in the Late Jurassic period around 150 million years ago, in what is now southern Germany during a time when Europe was an archipelago of islands in a shallow warm tropical sea, much closer to the equator than it is now. Similar in shape to a Eurasian magpie, with the largest individuals possibly attaining the size of a raven,[3] Archaeopteryx could grow to about 0.5 m (1 ft 8 in) in length. Despite its small size, broad wings, and inferred ability to fly or glide, Archaeopteryx has more in common with other small Mesozoic dinosaurs than it does with modern birds. In particular, it shares the following features with the deinonychosaurs (dromaeosaurs and troodontids): jaws with sharp teeth, three fingers with claws, a long bony tail, hyperextensible second toes ("killing claw"), feathers (which also suggest homeothermy), and various skeletal features.[4][5]

These features make Archaeopteryx a clear candidate for a transitional fossil between dinosaurs and birds.[6][7] Thus, Archaeopteryx plays an important role, not only in the study of the origin of birds, but in the study of dinosaurs. It was named from a feather in 1861.[8] That same year, the first complete specimen of Archaeopteryx was announced. Over the years, ten more fossils of Archaeopteryx have surfaced. Despite variation among these fossils, most experts regard all the remains that have been discovered as belonging to a single species, although this is still debated.

Most of these eleven fossils include impressions of feathers. Because these feathers are of an advanced form (flight feathers), these fossils are evidence that the evolution of feathers began before the Late Jurassic.[9] The type specimen of Archaeopteryx was discovered just two years after Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species. Archaeopteryx seemed to confirm Darwin's theories and has since become a key piece of evidence for the origin of birds, the transitional fossils debate, and confirmation of evolution.




The Archaeopteryx is a cut and dry example of speciation. Evolution is a process that take millions of years. Birds evolved from dinosaurs. A reptile to a mammal. Did this happen over night like you think this process works? Nope, but we have clear scientific evidence in the fossil record that this happened. Modern birds share a lot of traits found in the fossils of dinosaurs. This cannot be refuted and if it can PLEASE discuss with me op.
edit on 3 14 2015 by SgtHamsandwich because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 06:46 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

Define "kind" in a clear and objective way.



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 06:57 AM
link   
I think the OP is a closet creationist. In my opinion , he is not interested in discussing hard evidence , but is actually looking for the lack of it so he can say whats really on his mind....
watch this space



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 07:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gideon70
I think the OP is a closet creationist. In my opinion , he is not interested in discussing hard evidence , but is actually looking for the lack of it so he can say whats really on his mind....
watch this space


That's the problem with the faith and belief system. No amount of hard, scientific evidence can sway them. That's what drives the dinosaur hoaxer group. They believe one thing and not the other regardless of actual, tangible, put it in your hands and feel it, facts. They can troll all they want but facts are facts. They take the bible as fact when in reality they don't have much to back it. A few factual locations maybe, but in reality it could be just as credible as say the Lord of The Rings.



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 09:24 AM
link   
Mammals exist now. They did not exist 200 million years ago. It is logical to assume that they evolved from a different type. Not to mention we can follow the fossil record and see the small changes that took place to account for the huge variety of mammalian life on the planet today.

a reply to: borntowatch



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

The word 'evolution' just means 'change to the genetics of a population over time'. So dog breeding is absolutely an example of evolution in action. More specifically, it is the act of humans manipulating evolution by controlling the reproductive environment.

So if one were to design a scientific experiment to test the theory of evolution by natural selection, it would look like this:

1. Pick a species and divide it up into separated populations.
2. Subject each sub-population to different selective pressures. I.e. pick certain traits that determine which individuals get to reproduce more.
3. Allow this to continue for many generations.

If the theory of evolution by natural selection is false, then there would be no visible changes to the population even over many generations. If the theory of evolution by natural selection is true, then the different populations will show noticeable differences in their physical traits ... traits that continue to be passed on through inheritance.

People who reply that "a dog is still a dog" are missing the point. Dog breeding demonstrates conclusively that genetics can change dramatically in even a tiny amount of geologic time, if there is a strong enough selective pressure. That IS evolution, as defined by the people (i.e. scientists) who support it. It is irrelevant how people who disagree with evolution want to re-define the word 'evolution' in order to reject it. What matters is how people who accept evolution define the concept. So dog breeding demonstrates evolution in action as the word 'evolution' is defined by those who accept it as a fundamental principle of biology. Dog breeding is an *EXPERIMENT* that confirms the basic principles of the theory. It demonstrates conclusively that even a short amount of time can produce a significant amount of evolution if the selective pressure is strong enough.

So this explains why huge amounts of time can produce huge amounts of evolution if there is *selection*. Dog breeding explains why this can happen but is not the only evidence that it has happened. That is where all the other evidence (fossils, DNA, proteins, genes, embryology, morphology, bio-geography, etc. etc.) comes into play.


People who oppose evolution can't just separate cause from effect by fiat. Selection is the cause. Evolution is the effect. You can't just declare by fiat that X amount of evolution is a reasonable effect, but 2X or 100X amount of evolution is not.


edit on 3/14/2015 by N3k9Ni because: typo



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 09:32 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.


No this is not about religion and starting a religion verses science conflict, its about evidence for speciation leave the religion out of it



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: SgtHamsandwich

originally posted by: Gideon70
I think the OP is a closet creationist. In my opinion , he is not interested in discussing hard evidence , but is actually looking for the lack of it so he can say whats really on his mind....
watch this space


That's the problem with the faith and belief system. No amount of hard, scientific evidence can sway them. That's what drives the dinosaur hoaxer group. They believe one thing and not the other regardless of actual, tangible, put it in your hands and feel it, facts. They can troll all they want but facts are facts. They take the bible as fact when in reality they don't have much to back it. A few factual locations maybe, but in reality it could be just as credible as say the Lord of The Rings.



Strawman? I believe in Dinosaurs, seen the bones, the evidence, cant deny it, good scientific evidence

I also agree that the bible is not something people can take as a fact, hence why It calls for faith

Now as for evidence to speciation?

Why are so many people turning this thread in to a creation evolution, religion argument.
That is off topic and should be moderated severely.
I am just asking for evidence and discussion for speciation.

Please keep religion out of this thread, keep it on topic


PLEASE



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 09:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Mammals exist now. They did not exist 200 million years ago. It is logical to assume that they evolved from a different type. Not to mention we can follow the fossil record and see the small changes that took place to account for the huge variety of mammalian life on the planet today.

a reply to: borntowatch



Indeedy - Mammals and Reptiles share a common ancestor in an amphibious creature way back. Through speciation, they evolved two separate lineages. Both shared an ability to lay eggs on land - thanks to the membrane their ancestor evolved to retain water in the egg - but the mammalian ancestors differed in the position of the limbs and some skull differences. Over time, other features crept in, hence the difference between Mammals and Reptiles.



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

How is it possible that you "believe in dinosaurs" yet do not believe in speciation? How do you explain they came about (along with all the other types of fauna?)



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 10:20 AM
link   
You ask for evidence and when it's presented you refuse to accept it. Not just once, but multiple times. Why make a thread if you refuse to accept the evidence? You knew you wouldn't accept it to begin with.



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: SgtHamsandwich

originally posted by: Gideon70
I think the OP is a closet creationist. In my opinion , he is not interested in discussing hard evidence , but is actually looking for the lack of it so he can say whats really on his mind....
watch this space


That's the problem with the faith and belief system. No amount of hard, scientific evidence can sway them. That's what drives the dinosaur hoaxer group. They believe one thing and not the other regardless of actual, tangible, put it in your hands and feel it, facts. They can troll all they want but facts are facts. They take the bible as fact when in reality they don't have much to back it. A few factual locations maybe, but in reality it could be just as credible as say the Lord of The Rings.



Strawman? I believe in Dinosaurs, seen the bones, the evidence, cant deny it, good scientific evidence

I also agree that the bible is not something people can take as a fact, hence why It calls for faith

Now as for evidence to speciation?

Why are so many people turning this thread in to a creation evolution, religion argument.
That is off topic and should be moderated severely.
I am just asking for evidence and discussion for speciation.

Please keep religion out of this thread, keep it on topic


PLEASE


I never said you didn't believe in dinosaurs. I was replying to Gideon70 about creationism. The reference to the dino hoaxers was to the faith and belief system that they live by that supports creationism.

My first post was for your OP and I said nothing about religion.

Although my first post is incorrect in my haste. Birds are not mammals. I was referring to the reptile being cold blooded and a bird being warm blooded.
edit on 3 14 2015 by SgtHamsandwich because: I am an idiot.



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

Hi OP ...Well a tad poll to a frog or the metamorphic stages of butterflies might have a picturesque sequence to observe it falls short in my minds eye . I would suggest that there is one species," man" that has the observable change into the other species we call "woman" :>) ....I do wonder how long of a time frame evolutionist would have to use to accommodate such a change and what kind of mechanisms were involved ?

I also wonder if they could or have suggested as to where the future will take man and woman into the future ? A bit off topic but ,"Science or dogma at the National Geographic Society?" wattsupwiththat.com... Could it be that even science can evolve into religion ? I think so .



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 10:59 AM
link   


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


Typical creationist, pretending to ask a scientific question with biblical terms.



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 10:59 AM
link   

edit on 14-3-2015 by Prezbo369 because: devilish double post



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

There is a book titled The Urantia Book and in it has what I consider the most plausible and consistent account of the establishment of life on our planet, which is said to be named Urantia. The process described applies to all planets in the universe that harbor material life. Life is not an accident, it is purposely established on the worlds of time and space. The technique ordained by God is what we call evolution (progressive creation). Very much is dependent on the elements and environment of the given planet. A sodium-chloride type of life was projected for our planet so they had to wait until the water was sufficiently briny and then life was established in the warm waters of three inland seas.

The germ-plasm was then enlivened by the spirit of God and evolution (progressive creation) was initiated on this planet. The future potential for all possible forms of life were present in this germ-plasm.

Quotes from The Urantia Book (www.urantia.org...): From paper 58: "It should be made clear that Life Carriers cannot initiate life until a sphere is ripe for the inauguration of the evolutionary cycle. Neither can we provide for a more rapid life development than can be supported and accommodated by the physical progress of the planet."

From paper 65: "Very few species of the early types of marine vegetation that participated in those epochal changes which resulted in the animallike borderland organisms are in existence today. The sponges are the survivors of one of these early midway types, those organisms through which the gradual transition from the vegetable to the animal took place. These early transition forms, while not identical with modern sponges, were much like them; they were true borderline organisms — neither vegetable nor animal — but they eventually led to the development of the true animal forms of life."

From paper 58: "Although the evolution of vegetable life can be traced into animal life, and though there have been found graduated series of plants and animals which progressively lead up from the most simple to the most complex and advanced organisms, you will not be able to find such connecting links between the great divisions of the animal kingdom nor between the highest of the prehuman animal types and the dawn men of the human races. These so-called “missing links” will forever remain missing, for the simple reason that they never existed.

From era to era radically new species of animal life arise. They do not evolve as the result of the gradual accumulation of small variations; they appear as full-fledged and new orders of life, and they appear suddenly."
edit on 14-3-2015 by UB2120 because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-3-2015 by UB2120 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

You said you don't believe it.

So what do you believe. How did modern humans come to be? Where did we come from then?



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 11:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: borntowatch

How is it possible that you "believe in dinosaurs" yet do not believe in speciation? How do you explain they came about (along with all the other types of fauna?)


Thats what I am asking evidence for, HOW?



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: amazing
a reply to: borntowatch

You said you don't believe it.

So what do you believe. How did modern humans come to be? Where did we come from then?



I am asking for evidence, not assumption, I have an assumption that I am happy to forego if I can see valid evidenc for.

What I believe is irrelevant if the evidence is valid.......back to you




top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join