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.

 

Is There Evidence for Evolution? Show it to us.

page: 17
20
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 06:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Peeple

Read again and see that doubt is healthy
It is in the questioning of something that leads to answers

Evidence is not indisputable proof and ultimately we may find our present understanding of how all came to be to be flawed

You may believe in the theory of Evolution as to answering the age old question of how all came to be
But I do not hold that belief I prefer to question it as I have doubts

Now if you know the theory of evolution answers this question you know more than any scientist does

For me the jury is out and I remain open minded to other ideas also



edit on 22-8-2015 by artistpoet because: add

edit on 22-8-2015 by artistpoet because: Typo

edit on 22-8-2015 by artistpoet because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 08:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: avgguy
Bachelor of science here. There is no absolute proof of macroevolution. It cannot be tested using the scientific method. Microevolution however can be replicated.


Ph.D. here. Sounds like you received a very poor education.



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 08:52 AM
link   
"A time lapse video of evolution."

You're joking, right? This incredibly simple-minded request proves why you cannot grasp the theory.

Apply your same criteria to creation. As you said, "extraordinary claims demands [sic] extraordinary evidence".



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: artistpoet

The "theory of evolution" has been backed by facts... a theory, in terms of science, does not mean a guess... it is scientifically backed with supporting facts.

A scientific theory attempts to explain a broad set of phenomena by positing a mechanism... in the case of evolution, one of the mechanisms is natural selection (among other posited theories). You are misinterpreting the term "theory" here... a classic anti science mistake.

The examples in this link, Observed Evolutionary Events, are fully supported observable facts... undeniable... and each supports the "theory of evolution".

You having doubts is your prerogative, but that is based on a lack of education... if you want to argue the point, you either have to accept the status quo of scientific knowledge, or present an alternative. If you're not presenting an alternative you are just coming across as stubborn and unknowledgeable.

So, what's your alternative theory to the existing scientific facts?

If you have no alternative, accept the current facts, or grumble in the corner away from informed discussion like an angry, stubborn old man.



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: puzzlesphere




The "theory of evolution" has been backed by facts... a theory, in terms of science, does not mean a guess... it is scientifically backed with supporting facts.

A scientific theory attempts to explain a broad set of phenomena by positing a mechanism... in the case of evolution, one of the mechanisms is natural selection (among other posited theories). You are misinterpreting the term "theory" here... a classic anti science mistake.


Please do not put words into my mouth
I have never said scientific theory is guess
I would not say such a thing as I understand the scientific method ... well at least from a laymans perspective as I have friends ( In real life) who are scientists in the field of DNA, Astro Physics and Biology with whom I often share a pint of beer.
They welcome my questions and doubts also as it gives them opportunity to explain complicated things simply.

You can not expect everyone to have a scientific background
The same way I can not expect everyone to have my knowledge of Art and other studies of mine

If you wish to deny ignorance then you should explain in a manner in which others without your field of knowledge can understand IE simply
Would you expect an apprentice boat builder to understand all that is required to build a boat or would you explain in simple steps

But to your credit your link does explain some facts which go towards proving the theory of evolution
But if you are honest with yourself you would admit that the theory has not been proven 100 per cent or there would not be ongoing work and dedication to that theory

As for you accusing me of being angry ... I am not sure where you got that idea from as my posts have remained civil whilst others have cast insults




edit on 22-8-2015 by artistpoet because: Typo

edit on 22-8-2015 by artistpoet because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-8-2015 by artistpoet because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-8-2015 by artistpoet because: Typo



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: puzzlesphere




If you have no alternative, accept the current facts, or grumble in the corner away from informed discussion like an angry, stubborn old man.


Grumble in the corner like an angry old man
Really ... please do not paint a picture of mockery of one you do not really know ... it is unbecoming and immature and personal when all I have really stated is my doubts ....
Doubt being not 100 per cent sure of something



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 04:29 PM
link   
I'm all for open-mindedness and questioning beliefs in society. Yet, how can anyone take a creationist who demands concrete proof for evolution seriously?

They don't uphold their beliefs to ANY scrutiny, why should anyone give them the time of day when it comes to scientific debate? Or even just philosophical debate.

They need everything to conform to their religious mindset because they never got over what dad and mom told them when they were growing up.



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: blueman12

I am not a creationist btw
But until I know something is 100 per cent correct
I remain doubtful



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Still waiting for "RealTruthSeeker" to respond directly to any of the evidence presented with something other than "it's too long and boring for me to bother to read".



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 05:27 PM
link   
originally posted by: peter vlar
originally posted by: vethumanbeing

vhb: Why is it only the 'human' evolved? and did so in only 3.4 million years if you recognize "Lucy" to be the breakout bi-pedal hominid. The 350 million year old shark specie should rule the planet.



peter vlar; Where exactly do you come up with only humans or hominids evolved? It simply isn't the case. Lucy wasn't even the first bipedal hominid, Ardipithecus Ramidus, while not fully bipedal like A. Afarensis, was still fully capable of bipedalism and is more representative of a transitional form from our more chimpanzee like ancestry whereas A. Afarensis had a gait, foot and walking style nearly indistinguishable from our own as evidenced by the Laetoli Footprints. Your timeline is a little off though as "our" lineage diverged from the lineage that gave rise to Chimpanzee and then Bonobo at least 8MA so more than double your timeline based on Lucy( who wasn't even the first Australopithecine species either). Take it back another step further and primates have been evolving their way towards what we see today for at least 55 MA and possibly as long as 70-75MA. It's not nearly as simple as the arbitrary line you are drawing in the sand with a question mark next to it.

Common sense. Have you seen the perported evidence of primitive horses? Laughable weak creatures. Most of these emerging species failed for a reason and were replaced with a better model that had no time for the millions of years of your 'evolutionary' process largely made up. Where is the missing link between humans and apes? There is none. They were both non-divergent species. Why has the ape not evolved?

petervlar: I think it's fair to say that in their own ecological niche, the more aggressive Sharks do in fact rule their domain. We would not and do not fair very well in their territory judging by the increasing number of surfers who lose limbs. Nor will they do very well on land. You make it sound like evolution has a goal or an end game it is trying to achieve. It's only goal is in preserving and passing on genetic codes. There is no such thing as more evolved or less evolved or devolution for that matter

Why not? Sharks may be angry the human is making money off of their predatory prowess (being lame brained fishes and all) the B rated movies make money at their expense. The smarter sea mammals don't help the sharks at all (see them as being lame brained fishes with many rows of teeth and seem not to give them any encouragement). Sharks, DNA wise are at the bottom of that ocean pool. Evolution is an end game (survival of the fittest); those that don't cut it die. The human did not have the 45 million years the lemur did to evolve into more of the same specie: a lemur (unless you argue a raccoon is an evolved lemur); great shakes here, a lemur remains just what it was; a bridge specie that came about from (between the great lizards to the small mammal). No one has adequately explained this phenom as for me seems very important. New discoveries in a small mammal that has no (lemur-like) tooth comb or grooming nail is interesting; some speculate it is the first monkey ever. Far cry from you or I.
edit on 22-8-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: artistpoet

I wasn't aiming the post at you. Nothing wrong with being doubtful though
. Or questioning evolution. Yet, most things will never be 100 per cent correct or real. Science can't be done at only 100 percent correct. I remain doubtful that I am this "ego", but I operate off that identity because it'd be insanity to just stop living life because I'm not certain of my very existence.

Just my thoughts.. Not trying to argue against anything you've said before.



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: artistpoet

I really wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, but after reading the post quoted below it does indeed seem you are referring to the "theory of evolution" with the colloquial use of the word "theory"... because a scientific theory is indeed a scientific fact, with evolution being one of the most reliable, rigorous and comprehensive of the existing scientific theories... in general science doesn't deal in absolutes such as the word "proof", but the amount of facts supporting evolution are staggering.


originally posted by: artistpoet
I am saying that the theory of evolution is a theory
Theory's are based on evidence
Until indisputable proof is provided it is not a fact it is a theory

If you believe evolution is a fact that is merely belief

It would be more honest to say here is some evidence for our theory which is yet to be proven fully
It would be disingenuous to say it is a fact

Evolution is also not a "belief" (as you suggest), it is backed up by many facts, that all agree with each other, and in hundreds of years no viable alternative has ever been presented, and ever more facts have been found in support of the theory, which is indeed predictive and falsifiable, as a good scientific theory should be.

In the end no knowledge can ever be proven 100%, and it is good to always question, but honestly, evolution is pretty rock solid, and has been reliably applied to many paths of enquiry in many different fields of science for hundreds of years, without being shown to be false.

What exactly is it that you doubt about the theory of evolution? That it happens? That species drift from each other based on environmental factors? That given time, vastly different species can arise from a common ancestor? That at some point in the past an early quadruped diversified into other quadrupeds, that then further diversified into bipeds with their fore-limbs being used for different purposes than walking, and some of those bipeds had their fore-limbs develop into arms, and some had the fore-limbs develop into wings?

Also, apologies for the snide remark... it was indeed uncalled for. I wasn't actually calling you angry as such, I was more drawing an analogy to the type of person who refuses to accept facts (ie. a grumpy, stubborn old man), and trying to be funny, in a mocking kind of way... which obviously didn't work... lol... I am usually very civil, but do get frustrated with creationists, who refuse to accept proven facts, (not saying you are a creationist, but you are suggesting evolution is a belief, which is a classic creationist quote), and that my frustration can slip out in the form of condescending words sometimes.

Apologies again… ;-)

It is fine to have doubts, but there comes a point where doubting without learning the facts, and positing a viable counter argument just seems obtuse or ignorant of knowledge, like many creationists.

Cheers

edit on 22-8-2015 by puzzlesphere because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: iterationzero
I just want to know does anyone here (reading this thread) know what the first mammal ever to exist was? This was a planet overrun with giant lizards that ate all the vegetation available (out of control gluttony) and had to be extinguished otherwise would destroy the planets natural ecosystem. You realize the mammal had to be introduced at some point; when, where and what was it? It has to have evolved right? naturally from gigantic dinosaurs that are not mammals in only 15 million years. Makes total sense.


edit on 22-8-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: blueman12

Apologies for my mis understanding of your post
I do agree that most things will never be 100 per cent proven
I am not against the theory of evolution

I know first hand that a physical body can naturally change in relation to it's environment
Just never really had the "Eureka" moment regarding evolution

I admire true science btw
But in all honesty it is not my field of expertise by a long way

I am always willing to learn but will always question when I have doubts



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing

This was a planet overrun with giant lizards that ate all the vegetation available
They did? There is evidence of this?

Mammals were contemporaries of dinosaurs.

edit on 8/22/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing




Sharks, DNA wise are at the bottom of that ocean pool. Evolution is an end game (survival of the fittest); those that don't cut it die.

Tell me, other than other sharks or people, what preys on sharks?



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99
There is some evidence that orca do so, on occasion.
www.prbo.org...

And there are, of course, many predators of humans.


edit on 8/22/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: puzzlesphere

I am glad we have come to an understanding
Let me say this ... I respect that others are far more knowledgeable than I regarding Evolution
And my views have been tainted by ignorance of the subject

As I stated in another response ... It is far from my field of expertise ... hence doubts due to lack of information

So thank you for valuable insights into this subject

I guess my real question is how all came to be is unanswerable
IE what caused the Universe to come into existence
What was the spark rather than the affect
By cause let me use The Big Bang Theory as an example
What caused it
Hence the cause of life is a mystery in that respect

But I digress



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Had heard that in the past that orcas sometimes will hunt sharks, but that isn't their typical diet. Also, I wasn't saying things don't prey on humans, I was saying humans prey on sharks as well as other sharks.



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 06:12 PM
link   



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join