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.

 

Why Fossils May Appear To Support Evolution.

page: 3
19
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 11:23 AM
link   
These new "Super Termites" are interesting. They have evolved into a more aggressive and destructive termite after the two began mating. So, perhaps the same happened to us. This is not the only species that has evolved by mating with other species of their kind. There is a missing link in the evolution of man. Something similar to what happened to these termites happened in order to create us.

www.npr.org...


edit on 22-4-2015 by FearYourMind because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: rockpaperhammock



What always pisses me off about this stuff is that evolution is a theory...its a good theory..and the best the scientific community has. But it isn't the Law of Evolution....its a theory. Religious nuts like to jump in and bash it anyway they can to prove their god....


They (the nuts) often use the 'its just a theory' argument asthough it's just a guess, an idea. That would be called a hypothesis in science, while a scientific theory is a comprehensive explanation of a phenomenon. It's basically the highest standard in science.



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33


If that did happen there would be millions of missing link skeletal remains of both species and genders in between.

Yes, theres that gap thing again…

rears its ugly head to be denied furiously, you just watch.



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Unless you define and describe god, divine creation will never be a theory.

Suppose god is the emerging propety of life in the universe and suddenly science and religions say the same thing.

Religious fundamentalists just want to be antagonist for the sake of it. They don't really want to unravel the mystery of creation like science does



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: FearYourMind

There is no missing link. It's a false argument



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 11:29 AM
link   
That's part of what I was getting at. To my knowledge, we lack fossil record, but we have genetic evidence to suggest that. I also added an edit to my last post at the end regarding genetics, might be a little off, but still just my understanding....

I'm not the best person to be throwing my hands up over this, I personally lie somewhere between science as we know it, and ancient religion having all the answers (I'm not talking bible, I'm talking much older), so I more or less have my own "theories" for everything, but that's half of the reason I joined this site. To learn. Each time I engage in a debate like this, I feel like I gain a little more, do some more research (don't worry, not from infowars or YouTube) and reevaluate my standpoint. And for this, for everyone arguing for me, and against me, I thank you



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: JUhrman

You sir have no clue what I am talking about as your answer is totally false

Most , if not all, phylum appeared during the cambrian explosion

Nothing new since

Please show new phylum explosions after any mass extinction
edit on am420153011America/ChicagoWed, 22 Apr 2015 11:30:59 -0500_4000000 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Another_Nut

Who ever said new phylums must be created? Evolutions happen on more than one classification level. Your point is moot



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Another_Nut
a reply to: Krazysh0t

and that doesnt give u pause?

the fact some species havent changed for 75+ million years but some (like most mammals) have all evolved since then?

never mind the Cambrian explosion where most ,if not all, Phylum originated

think about that . there have been no major changes since lifes first "explosion"

doesnt that strike you as odd ?





Saying they haven't evolved over those millions of years likely is not true. What is more likely is that mutations occur, just like in all other species, but those mutations all lead to a disadvantage in the resulting animal. It's the advantages and disadvantages in the specific environment that these animals live in that leads to species-wide evolution. They either live longer, hunt better, hide better, reproduce faster... or they don't, and are overtaken by those that do.

In the case of the Komodo Dragon, why would they have changed if all mutations led to disadvantages? The mutations would die sooner than the others, and not have as much opportunity to pass on the weakness.



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 11:38 AM
link   
To all the folks throwing out the Cambrian Explosion nonsense as some sort of disproof of Evolution...

You DO realize that the "Cambrian Explosion" took place over a period of ~20 million years, right?


The “Cambrian Explosion” refers to the appearance in the fossil record of most major animal body plans about 543 million years ago. The new fossils appear in an interval of 20 million years or less. On evolutionary time scales, 20 million years is a rapid burst that appears to be inconsistent with the gradual pace of evolutionary change. However, rapid changes like this appear at other times in the fossil record, often following times of major extinction. The Cambrian Explosion does present a number of interesting and important research questions. It does not, however, challenge the fundamental correctness of the central thesis of evolution.



The Cambrian Explosion is often posed as a challenge for evolution because the sudden burst of change in the fossil record appears to be inconsistent with the more typical gradual pace of evolutionary change. However, although different in certain ways, there are other times of very rapid evolutionary change recorded in the fossil record -- often following times of major extinction. The Cambrian Explosion does present a number of challenging and important questions because it represents the time during which the main branches of the animal tree of life became established. It does not create a challenge to the fundamental correctness of the central thesis of evolution, the descent of all living species from a common ancestor. This important period in the history of life extended over millions of years, plenty of time for the evolution of these new body plans (phyla) to occur. Furthermore, the fossil record provides numerous examples of organisms that appear transitional between living phyla and their common ancestors. The ongoing research about the Cambrian period is an exciting opportunity to advance our understanding of how evolutionary processes work, and the environmental factors shaping them.


Please read this before spouting nonsense about the Cambrian Explosion.

Furthermore, it's not as though all current species suddenly arrived during the Cambrian Explosion as some of you seem to suggest. Just a TINY BIT of education would go a long way in these discussions.



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: JUhrman

the question is

why wouldnt they?

you want my point to be moot because you have no response

there is no reason why new phylum would stop according to evolution

none

but they did

why?



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 11:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Another_Nut
a reply to: JUhrman

You sir have no clue what I am talking about as your answer is totally false

Most , if not all, phylum appeared during the cambrian explosion

Nothing new since

Please show new phylum explosions after any mass extinction


It is you, sir, who have no clue what you're talking about.


The major animal body plans that appeared in the Cambrian Explosion did not include the appearance of modern animal groups such as: starfish, crabs, insects, fish, lizards, birds and mammals. These animal groups all appeared at various times much later in the fossil record.

The forms that appeared in the Cambrian Explosion were more primitive than these later groups, and many of them were soft-bodied organisms. However, they did include the basic features that define the major branches of the tree of life to which later life forms belong.


Same source as my previous post.



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Answer

" The Cambrian Explosion does present a number of challenging and important questions because it represents the time during which the main branches of the animal tree of life became established."

there is no reason for this according to evolution

none

how can evolution "establish" anything?

you cant just say this problem doesnt exist because you dont like it

edit on am420153011America/ChicagoWed, 22 Apr 2015 11:44:31 -0500_4000000 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Another_Nut

Who said they stopped? Can you see 50 millions years in the future and show us no new phyla ever appeared?

Like I said, you guys don't really want to understand how it works, you just want to prove science wrong.

It's silly, only religious fundies would do that. Even the Vatican accepts the theory of evolution and it doesn't hurt their faith.

Maybe you read the bible wrong?



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Another_Nut
a reply to: Answer

" The Cambrian Explosion does present a number of challenging and important questions because it represents the time during which the main branches of the animal tree of life became established."

there is no reason for this according to evolution

none

you cant just say this problem doesnt exist because you dont like it


Posting all the reasons why your nonsense is nonsense amounts to "saying the problem doesn't exist"??

Please read the page I linked and stop pretending to know something which you so clearly don't.



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Prezbo369
a reply to: rockpaperhammock



What always pisses me off about this stuff is that evolution is a theory...its a good theory..and the best the scientific community has. But it isn't the Law of Evolution....its a theory. Religious nuts like to jump in and bash it anyway they can to prove their god....


They (the nuts) often use the 'its just a theory' argument asthough it's just a guess, an idea. That would be called a hypothesis in science, while a scientific theory is a comprehensive explanation of a phenomenon. It's basically the highest standard in science.


It goes Observation, Hypothesis, Theory, Law.....it is not the highest standard....but I'll admit there is a lot of supporting data when it gets to theory.

And I think you didn't read my post past the first line...I believe in evolution.... and if i'm a nut then you just attacked a guy on your side because I stated a fact lol.
edit on 22-4-2015 by rockpaperhammock because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: FearYourMind

Then go create a thread about the BBT, or better yet, post in one of the numerous already existing threads on the topic. If you did that, maybe you would have discovered that the singularity is being discarded.

No Big Bang? Yes, Big Bang


You can't understand evolution without first understanding the creation of the universe.



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: JUhrman

i own no bible and have no religion

i am just honest

" While differing significantly in details, both Whittington and Gould proposed that all modern animal phyla had appeared almost simultaneously in a rather short span of geological period. This view led to the modernization of Darwin's tree of life and the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which Eldredge and Gould developed in the early 1970s and which views evolution as long intervals of near-stasis "punctuated" by short periods of rapid change"

en.wikipedia.org...

you sir have no clue

edit on am420153011America/ChicagoWed, 22 Apr 2015 11:51:44 -0500_4u by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: FearYourMind

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: FearYourMind

Then go create a thread about the BBT, or better yet, post in one of the numerous already existing threads on the topic. If you did that, maybe you would have discovered that the singularity is being discarded.

No Big Bang? Yes, Big Bang


You can't understand evolution without first understanding the creation of the universe.


Complete nonsense.

We can understand evolution because we have physical evidence to study.



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: FearYourMind

come on that is a horrible argument....do over?

That is like saying I can't understand how to make a ham sandwich without being a butcher.



new topics




 
19
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join