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: 6
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 02:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Gideon70



Brontowatch is a master baiter.


Hey, you can't just take my title from me and give it to somebody el....

Oh...

Nevermind.




posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 04:23 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch



Can someone show me evidence of speciation, from one kind to another
Just want a little evidence of speciation, changing of kind.
No I dont mean a weed turning into a weed or a bacteria turning into a bacteria, a dog turning into a dog
No assumption, guesses or theory, hard evidence

Can we see any evidence anywhere of one species evolving into another.
Now i know that I will get a lot of it takes millions and millions of years, thats not evidence.

I want scientific evidence not assumption.


Your question is impossible to answer because the term 'kind' is not a scientific term. It makes the question meaningless and your exercise pointless. Because 'kind' has no scientific definition or meaning, no matter how many demonstrable examples of speciation that are presented to you, you can merely reply 'but that is not responsive to my question' because the word 'kind' means what ever YOU want it to mean at any time.

That you are not genuine in your challenge is demonstrated by the phrasing of your title: "...evidence of speciation" and then demanding that you don't want evidence of speciation, but of some transition from some 'kind' to another 'kind'. Which is it you want evidence for? Speciation? There are many, many scientifically observed speciation events. Presumably you will reject that evidence because a population of Bacteria 'Species A' evolving into a population of Bacteria 'Species B' doesn't meet your requirement of kind evolving to some other kind. Why is not Species 'B' NOT and different KIND of bacteria than 'Species A'?

Your entire premise is bankrupt and intellectually dishonest. No matter what speciation event is demonstrated, you'll just add it to the list of 'forbidden answers' and keep yelling 'LALALALALALALALALA I can't hear you'.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Put yourself in the 14th century mindset. As far as those people could tell, there was evidence to support their theory of creation. They didn't realize it, but they were stuck waiting for new observations to be made so that a new and better theory could be formed - just as we are today.

Pleae don't make assumptions about what I do or do not 'want' to see. It only stifles debate, and in this case you could not be more wrong. I was a student of science long before I began to entertain any notions of spirituality or creation. If you were to read my post history, you would see that I slways approach these topics from a scientific viewpoint and not a faith-based one.

The fact of the matter is the OP points out a significant shortcoming to current evolutionary theory. He is not the first to do so, as the same query has been posed by lettered scientists. Contrary to popular belief, science is not 'settled' when 51% of the academic community agrees on something. Need I mention the tired flat Earth cliche?



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Pretentiousness will not change the fact that you're following an ideology presented to you by the modern scientific community. That ideology was revolutionry and intriguing back in the 20th century, but the modern synthesis you refer to is really a euphemism for assumptions made in order to preserve the integrity of the theory.

You are free to try and discredit based on semantics. It's no more foolish than calling evolutionary theory a "pretty simple concept."



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Put yourself in the 14th century mindset. As far as those people could tell, there was evidence to support their theory of creation. They didn't realize it, but they were stuck waiting for new observations to be made so that a new and better theory could be formed - just as we are today.


People living in 2015 don't have that excuse.


Pleae don't make assumptions about what I do or do not 'want' to see. It only stifles debate, and in this case you could not be more wrong. I was a student of science long before I began to entertain any notions of spirituality or creation. If you were to read my post history, you would see that I slways approach these topics from a scientific viewpoint and not a faith-based one.


Creation from a scientific viewpoint? in other words ID?

Many scientific breakthroughs recently? at all? ever?


The fact of the matter is the OP points out a significant shortcoming to current evolutionary theory. He is not the first to do so, as the same query has been posed by lettered scientists. Contrary to popular belief, science is not 'settled' when 51% of the academic community agrees on something. Need I mention the tired flat Earth cliche?


51%? where did you pull that number from?

The scientific community overwhelmingly accepts the theory of evolution, contrary to hopeful and dishonest creationist's claims.

What you and the OP are perpetuating the false claim that speciation has not been observed, he wants to see a monkey shape-shift infront of his eyes into a mustache wearing modern man, or something similar.

The OP's attempts at spreading disinformation on this topic is par for the course and they're continually smashed by a wall of facts and evidence.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: thepitpony

Almost everything you said is true.

Modern evolutionary theory (which hasn't changed all that much from the writings of Darwin) still stands because no one has yet provided an acceptable alternative. But that doesn't automatically make it correct.

The OP is pointing out one of the major gaps in theory: if all species evolved by natural, random mutation, why don't we observe this in action? We do see minor mutations from time to time, but we have yet to actually observe a mutation which could lead to speciation. Not even close.

These kinds of thoughts are what brought me to question evolution as the sole explanation for the diversity of life on our planet. We have worms that roll like a wheel, squirrels that fly, and water bears that live in artic ice and lava pools...and that's only a hint to the variety of life on Earth. Scientists have guestimated that it would take billions upon billions of years for random mutation to result in the world around us. Even then, the odds that trillions of random mutations would end up as a positive for millions of different species are so slim it would be appropriately called a miracle.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 11:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Prezbo369


What you and the OP are perpetuating the false claim that speciation has not been observed, he wants to see a monkey shape-shift infront of his eyes into a mustache wearing modern man, or something similar.



Prezbo that comment is a lie, I have asked for any valid evidence, shapeshifting monkeys?
Have you nothing valid at all to offer, why even say that

A bacteria turning into a bacteria is not speciation, a weed turning into a weed is not speciation, its micro evolution.

From The Father of 20th Century evolution theory; (“Ernst Mayr, the world’s greatest living evolutionary biologist---Stephen Jay Gould)...

One of the most authoritative Darwinists, Ernst Mayr of Harvard, defined microevolution as “evolution at or below the species level” and generally “refers to relatively minor variations that occur in populations over time.” Conversely, he defined macroevolution as “evolution above the species level; the evolution of higher taxa and the production of evolutionary novelties such as new structures”. (Emphasis Mine]
Mayr, E., One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the genesis of modern evolutionary thought; Harvard University Press,Cambridge, MA. pg. 182, 1991
evolutionfairytale.com...


If you cant answer the question please dont bother adding anything here.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

Prezbo that comment is a lie, I have asked for any valid evidence, shapeshifting monkeys?
Have you nothing valid at all to offer, why even say that


Because you (famously now) reject the evidence showing this, so a shape-shifting monkey is all that's left....


A bacteria turning into a bacteria is not speciation, a weed turning into a weed is not speciation, its micro evolution.


According to who? you?


From The Father of 20th Century evolution theory; (“Ernst Mayr, the world’s greatest living evolutionary biologist---Stephen Jay Gould)...

One of the most authoritative Darwinists, Ernst Mayr of Harvard, defined microevolution as “evolution at or below the species level” and generally “refers to relatively minor variations that occur in populations over time.” Conversely, he defined macroevolution as “evolution above the species level; the evolution of higher taxa and the production of evolutionary novelties such as new structures”. (Emphasis Mine]
Mayr, E., One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the genesis of modern evolutionary thought; Harvard University Press,Cambridge, MA. pg. 182, 1991
evolutionfairytale.com...


LOL are you really sourcing evolutionfairytale.com??

Oh gawd what are you thinking?


If you cant answer the question please dont bother adding anything here.


It's been answered many many times, you just refuse to acknowledge it and everyone knows this.

I'm just pointing out your dishonesty......again.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: Krazysh0t
The fact of the matter is the OP points out a significant shortcoming to current evolutionary theory. He is not the first to do so, as the same query has been posed by lettered scientists. Contrary to popular belief, science is not 'settled' when 51% of the academic community agrees on something. Need I mention the tired flat Earth cliche?


No he hasn't. This is just a rehash of one of many of his science denialism threads where he pretends that evidence is lacking for a certain part of science that he disagrees with then proceeds to ignore all arguments and presented evidence to the contrary. If you knew anything about the OP's post history, you'd know this. There is plenty of evidence for speciation otherwise it wouldn't be a thing that science talks about.

Threads like this shouldn't even exist, because the answer to these queries is a simple Google search away. See. It would be great if the OP would ask for evidence, read it, then ask questions on things he didn't understand; but instead he just dismisses it as not valid.

Also, you mention 51% of science having a consensus, you couldn't be more wrong. It's actually closer to 99% consensus. In the scientific community there isn't a debate on if evolution is real or not. It is already accepted as real. We may not know EVERYTHING there is to know about how it works, but that doesn't mean that it isn't happening. For instance, the entire science of Genetics is based on evolutionary theory. Much of modern medicine is also based on evolutionary theory. To discount evolution is to discount modern medicine because you break the chain of evidence that allows it to be true. So I don't know what kind of scientific viewpoint you entered this thread with, but from all accounts you appear to be ill equipped to discuss it. If you were truly a person of science, you'd actually know what you were talking about before trying to refute it.
edit on 15-3-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

I've been following this thread, and the answer to your questions is so simple, but politically incorrect. Most people that don't accept evolution lack the mental capacity to understand evolution. Yep, I said it!

It takes time, dedication, an open mind, and some serious brain muscle to grasp what evolution truly means. After our ability to do genome sequencing, it's a slam dunk. It's the final nail in the coffin of the creationists!

It's much easier to be lazy and dumb than spending hours doing some serious research. Unfortunately, in the age of social media the uneducated can also get on the bullhorn and spew nonsense.

It just irks me that ATS members took their time and showed you many examples of speciation. You, in your utter ignorance, won't even look at the evidence.

Of course you'll run to the mods and accuse me of ad hominem, but somebody had to write the ugly truth …



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 01:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: peter vlar

Pretentiousness will not change the fact that you're following an ideology presented to you by the modern scientific community. That ideology was revolutionry and intriguing back in the 20th century, but the modern synthesis you refer to is really a euphemism for assumptions made in order to preserve the integrity of the theory.

You are free to try and discredit based on semantics. It's no more foolish than calling evolutionary theory a "pretty simple concept."


Actually, I didn't say evolutionary broth was a pretty simple concept. The pretty simple concept was grasping the fact that Darwinian Evolution is an anachronism that hasn't been the paradigm since the late 1930's. I wasn't utilizing semantics to discredit anything except your utter ignorance. If you feel that 'Darwinian Evolution' is the approach taken then I stand by my earlier statement. You're willfully ignorant and don't have a grasp on what the theory actually encompasses.

The difference between a Monday morning quarterback like you and someone like myself is that I've actually got a legitimate background in Anthropology so I'm not just regurgitating anything spoon fed to me by the media , scientific community or whoever else it is you think peddles falsehoods. Ive done the research myself, I've handled the remains, I've measured the attachment point scars, I've done the endocranial casts, I've scoured the peer reviewed journals trying to find faulty data to discredit that would advance my own work. I'm sorry but the MES is a sound fact based scientific theory. Evolution is indeed a fact. If you want to start bandying around numbers lets go with real ones, 700 out of 480,000 US scientists who work in the earth and life sciences do not believe in evolution. That is .0015% just to be concise.

The modern evolutionary synthesis is in no way shape or form a euphemism or coverup or poor science utilized to preserve the integrity of evolutionary theory. The only thing required to maintain the integrity of evolutionary theory is the evidence that has been compiled for over 150 years now from the fossil record to experiments like Dr. Lenski's to the recent advances in genetics that have allowed us to fully map the genomes of modern humans and their closest relatives. The only way to find fault in MES is to choose to ignore the evidence. Of that's your bag then more power to you but it doesn't change reality.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Put yourself in the 14th century mindset. As far as those people could tell, there was evidence to support their theory of creation. They didn't realize it, but they were stuck waiting for new observations to be made so that a new and better theory could be formed - just as we are today.


People living in 2015 don't have that excuse.

You're right - you have no excuse not to learn from history, which shows us that lack of a better theory is no reason to cling to a flawed/incomplete theory. Like peasants of centuries past, you put all your faith in scientists (priests) and the scientific community (church) while forming very few thoughts on your own. After all, the church...err, scientific community...could never be wrong!


Creation from a scientific viewpoint? in other words ID?

Why do you assume I believe in creation? Simply because I don't buy into modern theories of random evolution? Only fools deal in absolutes. Theories are not limited to what you have heard before. There are alternatives to creation and evolution.


51%? where did you pull that number from?
The scientific community overwhelmingly accepts the theory of evolution, contrary to hopeful and dishonest creationist's claims.

Think before you post and maybe things won't fly over your head as often. 51% is the minimum for a majority. With that in mind, you should be able to understand what I meant. Science is not a democracy; theories do not become laws due to majority rule. This would not be the first time a majority of scientists have been wrong nor will it be the last.


What you and the OP are perpetuating the false claim that speciation has not been observed

Either you don't know what speciation is or you're the one spreading disinformation. Not one case of random mutation significant enough to create a new species has been documented.

I'm sure you read the OP...just like I 'read' To Kill a Mockingbird in elementary school.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

What you call evidence of speciation, I call microevolution. There is no doubt that mutations occur and species can change slightly over many generations. That is all we have proof of in regard to evolution. Science 'talks about' speciation because it has become obvious that without rapid, major genetic changes occurring from time to time, evolution does not explain the diversity of life on Earth. Kind of like the big bang concept, speciation is an assumption made from the few observations we can make. The assumption is necessary to maintain the integrity of the theory, so everyone just accepts the whole thing because a majority of the scientific community puts their stamp on it. This, despite no one having ever documented a natural mutation significant enough to be called speciation.

All your talk about genetics and medicine has me a bit confused. These sciences have a basis in heredity, not evolution. You seem to be conflating a lot of concepts with evolution.

Personal attacks and calls for censorship?? I often agree with you, Krazy, but dude...you're being very un-dude.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

Since you don't believe in evolution, what is your explanation?



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 03:01 PM
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


Because those who believe the mainstream EVOLUTION, fill in the blanks for the missing links in the SAME WAY that people do who believe in religions.

They just cannot understand that the theories they follow are just as stupid to those of us who have made it outside of the box that has been created for them.

It is amazing watching them EVOLVE into the same thing they claim they are against.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 03:04 PM
link   
This friday the Daily Mail brought an article on how scientists have been able to show that our DNA is not completely linear..... as in, we did not evolve directly from one species of apes to the next to the next again.

In fact, our DNA has been experiencing horizontal evolution as well as linear.

These DNA changes would take place through our contact with fx. bacteria, vira or fungi......

Yes, we can actually change the way our building blocks manifest themselves simply by exposing us to the conditions we are in or endure. So a whole lot of part apes, and a part here and there of other things.
I like the fungi part the best. Makes sense why we connect with them so well



So in regards to your need for having evidence: you will NEVER find the classic missing link, because that line of evolution is not the case. It's a mix...
edit on 15/3/15 by flice because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: borntowatch

Well, people have already provided links for you to go away and read, but you've just dismissed them out of hand. The evidence for evolution and speciation exists, in great quantities, but it would appear you're simply not interested.

You can take a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink.

It is up to you whether you drink or not


I strongly suggest you embark on some extensive reading on evolution and see the evidence for it. It seems nothing I or anyone else say's will sway your opinion.


Ahhh, but you are evading the REAL question, which is HOW do these things change, WHAT IS THE MECHANISM and why is no one actually looking for it ??

The answer seems likely, they are not trying to find the cause, because they do not know HOW. LOL.

The fact is, without seeing HOW it works, it is NOT scientific !! AT ALL !!

It cannot be reproduced PERIOD!! So believing that it has happened without knowing HOW, means WHO CARES !!

Tell us when someone will actually find the way things work, and then ask us why both religions and science were created to make sure no one can find out what is REALLY going on.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 03:08 PM
link   



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: danielsil18
I find the irony very funny, a creationist asks for "evidence and not assumptions".

Here we have a person that bases his whole life on the assumption that the bible is the word of god, but then when it comes to science... "show me 100% undeniable proof or i wont believe it!!"


Why is that ironic too you ??

It should show you that what YOU believe in actually goes to the same place, NOWHERE.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gideon70
Brontowatch is a master baiter.

He is baiting everybody into falling for his poorly hidden agenda and that is to stir up ill feeling between the camps .

I called it on page 3 and he didnt dispute my assessment of him.
He should be barred from starting threads until he learns to kerb his bigotry.





So you admit that you were baited and you belong to a camp.

You fail , for being politically owned, and not seeing that SCIENCE, in this case is NOT SCIENCE.

NO EVIDENCE FOR HOW, means it is NOT SCIENCE!!!



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join