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: 9
12
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 06:08 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

I think we are never going to agree on anything regarding this topic as you have a strong faith in what you hold as truth as I have in mine. I think we have both made cases from different ends of the spectrum and obviously none of us will change our minds so I will doff my hat to you and bid you good day as I don't want to end up in a tit for tat argument which will detract or derail this thread.




posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 06:35 AM
link   



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 07:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Maybe I have been unclear; I think Darwin was right about most of his observations and conclusions. I question some of the assumptions made by him and his successors. From my view random mutation and natural selection go a long way toward accounting for the diversity of life on Earth, but there has to be more to it.


That is the key. Question some of his assumptions. That is what scientists do too. For instance, Darwin posited that all evolution evolves at the same rate. Today we know that isn't the case and organisms evolve depending on their need in the environment.

There is always more to it. Here is a good way to picture a scientific theory. Consider that a mechanism such as evolution in the universe is a circle. Now image that the theory that science has posited about this mechanism is a square. Scientists then try to round our the edges by changing things with new evidence, until they can get as close to the circle as possible. But the entire time this process occurs, the core of the idea (in this instance evolution) remains the same.

There is nothing wrong with questioning certain mechanisms how evolution works, but to use those uncertainties as proof that evolution is wrong is not the way to go about doing it.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 09:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Prezbo369
a reply to: borntowatch

So a complex or essential function for the whales vestigial limbs has been shown to exist?

Can you produce a verified source for this?

Maybe one that isn't a creationist/ID/anti-evolution page?


Nahhh, I just made it up for a bit of fun, see I am so clever I can make up great sounding theory that is persuasive and scientificy

I am not selling anything or trying to persuade people to accept my beliefs.
if you want science to explain the truth you can do your own research.

I am not here to win a war or argue.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch




Why are so many people turning this thread in to a creation evolution, religion argument.


Its because the only objections to evolution are religious ones. The whole anti-evolution debate is one started by people who don't like the thought of evolution usurping the creation story. If it wasn't for religion there would be no serious objections to evolution.

I mean, you never hear people demanding proof of germs. That's 'just a theory' too - the Germ Theory of Disease. But you never hear people saying 'show me actual testible, observable evidence of germs passing on a disease.' And that's because germs don't pose any threat to religion.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: msallo

I have no idea where you're getting that idea. Evolution means change. Micro means small. Macro means large. Microevolution is a small amount of change, not changes that are small in physical size (and therefore only seen under a microscope). Macroevolution means a large amount of change.

From TalkOrigins: "In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species." Source: www.talkorigins.org...



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

You are comparing written words and colors to evolution and think your argument is logical.

Stop and think, just a little, only a tiny bit before posting another reply.


Since you didn't come right out and say why you think my example is illogical, I can only assume.

I will assume that you think I'm an idiot because I am using words, written and then colored by an intelligent being, in order to demonstrate the theory of evolution, a natural process without the support of an intelligent being.

If this is the case, you are quite mixed up. I did not post that picture as an example of biological evolution. Rather, I was using the picture to demonstrate what gradual change (i.e. evolution) looks like in general.

Again, there is no problem here. In order to talk about and understand natural processes, humans have to use intelligence. This does not mean that the processes being intelligently discussed are therefore intelligent processes (or have intelligence behind them).

Next time, please be direct and explain your reply. Otherwise, you're wasting everyone's time. If I'm being an idiot, all you need to do is show me how I'm being an idiot; I will then accept it and we can both move on.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Sea Anemones Are Half-Plant, Half-Animal, now the question is why would something be like that ? can it be taken as an evidence for evolution of one species transforming into other ?



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: DarkATi

originally posted by: borntowatch

You are comparing written words and colors to evolution and think your argument is logical.

Stop and think, just a little, only a tiny bit before posting another reply.


Since you didn't come right out and say why you think my example is illogical, I can only assume.

I will assume that you think I'm an idiot because I am using words, written and then colored by an intelligent being, in order to demonstrate the theory of evolution, a natural process without the support of an intelligent being.

If this is the case, you are quite mixed up. I did not post that picture as an example of biological evolution. Rather, I was using the picture to demonstrate what gradual change (i.e. evolution) looks like in general.

Again, there is no problem here. In order to talk about and understand natural processes, humans have to use intelligence. This does not mean that the processes being intelligently discussed are therefore intelligent processes (or have intelligence behind them).

Next time, please be direct and explain your reply. Otherwise, you're wasting everyone's time. If I'm being an idiot, all you need to do is show me how I'm being an idiot; I will then accept it and we can both move on.


No you are not being an idiot, you are showing colors changing, I am interested in seeing life changing from one species to another.
I think using colors to show change is fine, to use colors to show change and compare the change to evolution is a little simplistic.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 12:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xaphan


You are a sick #!



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 12:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: borntowatch

Looking for scientific evidence of speciation ?

Here you go.

Hope you have a good pair of reading glasses and a bottomless cup of coffee on hand...



Sorry cranial sponge, I want a discussion not a link to a vague substanceless website.

Please copy and paste your points and then link the site.

Its a discussion not a link fest

I do hope you are not offended and understand?
You want an education or a debate? Educate yourself. That is how science works.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 12:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: Krazysh0t

From my view random mutation and natural selection go a long way toward accounting for the diversity of life on Earth, but there has to be more to it.


Why? Those two are very powerful parameters!



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 03:49 AM
link   
Here is the entire issue with the OP in a nutshell. I'm going to break it down. This was your quote from a couple posts back:

"Nahhh, I just made it up for a bit of fun, see I am so clever I can make up great sounding theory that is persuasive and scientificy I am not selling anything or trying to persuade people to accept my beliefs. if you want science to explain the truth you can do your own research. I am not here to win a war or argue."

Notice what's in bold. It's the most telling part of this thread--it screams that you are an absolute joke. There is SO much research and evidence out there supporting evolution. It is not our job to convince you. Please, take your own advice and "if you want science to explain the truth you can do your own research." If you actually do your due diligence, and still not convinced, then that's that. There's nothing more to say. You have a difference of opinion, and it is not our job to convince you, nor do any of us care what you believe. Just know that your at odds with just about 99.9% of all scientists. Instead of going on about what that means about us, maybe you should focus more on what that means about you.

I highly highly recommend that this thread be neglected. I also suggest that any moderators reading take a careful look at Borntowatch's post history and ineffective/unproductive style and STRONGLY consider banning him or removing his privileges. He is a very poor representation of what ATS is all about.
edit on 18-3-2015 by kayej1188 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 04:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: roth1

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: borntowatch

Looking for scientific evidence of speciation ?

Here you go.

Hope you have a good pair of reading glasses and a bottomless cup of coffee on hand...



Sorry cranial sponge, I want a discussion not a link to a vague substanceless website.

Please copy and paste your points and then link the site.

Its a discussion not a link fest

I do hope you are not offended and understand?
You want an education or a debate? Educate yourself. That is how science works.


Science doesnt work by someone telling someone else what they have to believe, science works by discussion and questions and answers

You just dont have any answers only vague links to sites that tell people what they have to think

I have educated myself, there is no evidence to be seen only wild assumption over millions of yeras.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 04:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: kayej1188
Here is the entire issue with the OP in a nutshell. I'm going to break it down. This was your quote from a couple posts back:

"Nahhh, I just made it up for a bit of fun, see I am so clever I can make up great sounding theory that is persuasive and scientificy I am not selling anything or trying to persuade people to accept my beliefs. if you want science to explain the truth you can do your own research. I am not here to win a war or argue."

Notice what's in bold. It's the most telling part of this thread--it screams that you are an absolute joke. There is SO much research and evidence out there supporting evolution. It is not our job to convince you. Please, take your own advice and "if you want science to explain the truth you can do your own research." If you actually do your due diligence, and still not convinced, then that's that. There's nothing more to say. You have a difference of opinion, and it is not our job to convince you, nor do any of us care what you believe. Just know that your at odds with just about 99.9% of all scientists. Instead of going on about what that means about us, maybe you should focus more on what that means about you.

I highly highly recommend that this thread be neglected. I also suggest that any moderators reading take a careful look at Borntowatch's post history and ineffective/unproductive style and STRONGLY consider banning him or removing his privileges. He is a very poor representation of what ATS is all about.



What?
I am the absolute joke because what?
I am not silly enough to argue?
That I can see that what ever I say will go over the heads of those I say it to.
That no amount of scientific truth is going to make some people realise whale pelvic bones are not vestigial, that they have a purpose, but wait I HAVE to link to a journal article to PROVE myself.
What? I have to prove myself
here is a tip,its not a journal article because i dont care to prove myself to those who think journal articles are the gospel truth
Promiscuous Whales Make Good Use of Their Pelvises

Hips don’t lie: Whale pelvic bones are not vestigial but instead evolved to help the marine mammals maneuver better during sex

Read more: www.smithsonianmag.com...

Hey Kayej, dont convince me, just walk away

Others are happy to discuss it.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 04:16 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

Oh yeah? You've done your own research. Then you should at least be able to give us what your theory is, since this is the question you have been actively avoiding every single time it's asked. What is your alternative theory? In the scientific community, evolution is all but fact. There is NOTHING you can do about this...however, it means that the burden of proof is no longer on us to prove it to you. The proof is out there. If you are not intelligent enough to find it and understand it, you should be questioning yourself. Maybe you don't have a solid enough foundation in basic biology. Personally, I'd guess this was the case. IN FACT, the way in which you speak about " vague links to sites that tell people what they have to think," is proof positive that you have absolutely zero experience in the field of science, and have exactly zero experience with writing or reading peer-reviewed scientific publications. It's quite sad. You are attempting to debate with people who are at such an incredibly higher level of understanding than you, it's truly like an adult arguing with an infant.

How about you also tell me what the difference between DNA and RNA is. Tell me in your own words how proteins are made. And tell me how genetic mutations play a role in protein synthesis. If you cannot answer these 3 questions as second nature, you have absolutely NO right making any claims about the validity of ANY scientific theory.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 09:39 AM
link   
No I wont answer it because I dont have to prove myself to you.

No I'm not going to tell you what my theory is, its not scientific so its not a theory. I am after a scientific evidence to prove the theory that I think is a crock of crap
Evolution maybe all be but fact, but the lack of evidence proves its a fairy tail.

You spout off like a hot kettle but offer no evidence, seen that done around here lots.

Thanks but no thanks.

and finally if I am the infant then isnt the onus on you to prove what you believe is true, glad I am not your child. Dictator much?



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch
No I wont answer it because I dont have to prove myself to you.

No I'm not going to tell you what my theory is, its not scientific so its not a theory. I am after a scientific evidence to prove the theory that I think is a crock of crap
Evolution maybe all be but fact, but the lack of evidence proves its a fairy tail.

You spout off like a hot kettle but offer no evidence, seen that done around here lots.

Thanks but no thanks.

and finally if I am the infant then isnt the onus on you to prove what you believe is true, glad I am not your child. Dictator much?


Do you see how your standards of evidence are so poor that your opinion of evolution is pretty much worthless?



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

I am interested in seeing life changing from one species to another.


Are you wanting to see this happen before your very eyes? Since that amount of change usually takes a large amount of time, you probably wouldn't be able to see it happen in your lifetime. Forgive me if this is not what you are asking; I mean no offense.

Otherwise, take a look at the Snow Leopard. It is 'obviously' a cat, but it does not produce offspring with other members of the 'panthera' genus. (Whereas tigers [panthera tigris] can produce offspring with lions [panthera leo]. However, the male offspring are infertile.)

In fact, I think cats in general make for a good example of how life changes from one species to another. Take a look:


edit on 18-3-2015 by DarkATi because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: borntowatch
No I wont answer it because I dont have to prove myself to you.

No I'm not going to tell you what my theory is, its not scientific so its not a theory. I am after a scientific evidence to prove the theory that I think is a crock of crap
Evolution maybe all be but fact, but the lack of evidence proves its a fairy tail.

You spout off like a hot kettle but offer no evidence, seen that done around here lots.

Thanks but no thanks.

and finally if I am the infant then isnt the onus on you to prove what you believe is true, glad I am not your child. Dictator much?


Do you see how your standards of evidence are so poor that your opinion of evolution is pretty much worthless?




Do you see how your standards of evidence are so poor that your opinion of evolution is pretty much worthless?




top topics



 
12
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join