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: 3
20
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 09:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Specimen
A better example, from my two cents, would be that Birds came from DInosaurs due to dinosaurs are believed to have feathers, but there is no actual proof the development, and to the mechanical minds of scientists it just seems more then a coincidence.


Well that is wrong, firstly. The evidence that birds are the evolutionary descendants of dinosaurs is based on the structure of the bones. The structure of fossilised dinosaur bones are structurally the same as those of modern day birds, and not like any reptilian or mammalian bone structure.

they dont just go "Maybe it had feathers, lets run with that!"




posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: spygeek

I have better things to do than troll the Internet.

I don't buy their specious deduction, because it reeks of problem solving on a microbial level.



Add to the fact it's completely irrelevant to the OP and speciation it's a wonder you thought you'd get away with such a slippery attempt at derailing the point of the thread.
edit on 19-8-2015 by CharlieSpeirs because: Spelling.



Not to mention natural selection and survival of the fittest is mumbo jumbo.
edit on 19-8-2015 by CharlieSpeirs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 09:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: sn0rch

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

I never saw God create a new species either, guess we can rule out creationism.


You cannot have proof.



So let me get this straight. Basically your saying, it's ok to believe in evolution with no proof, but if someone believes in some form of God without proof then that person is some kind of loony toon?



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 09:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: sn0rch

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

Are you saying you are incapable of reading what I posted, seems pretty straightforward to me, what part do you not comprehend? Common sense is necessary to understand.

Did I stutter?


So instead of answering the question you want to get snotty, ok. Common sense would tell you that this thread is about Evolution, you know, the kind that many claim is the proof of man coming from apes. Or are you confused by the title?


There is your entire problem, the same stupid problem all the other OP's of this sort of topic have.

The theory of evolution is not proof. Never claimed to be.

Thank you for allowing us to educate you on this matter.. Also, we never evolved from apes.. jfc..


My bad, you have overwhelming evidence right? If we didn't come from apes then were did we come from? Let me guess, a common ancestor right? And who is that ancestor and what did they evolve from?



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing

I think it would know it existence, if it twere the Alpha and Omega.



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 09:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
a reply to: spygeek

Ok, but that's not proof of evolution from one species to the next. At the end of the experiment the E. coli was still E. coli right? It didn't change into anything new, such as salmonella or anything now did it?


Of course not, for it to become a new species of bacteria would require it's isolated development and observation over a period beyond our current capability. Bear in mind this evolution was observed during a 20 year study. One trait in 20 years, in a bacteria with comparatively fast generations.

We evolved from the same 'proto-ape' ancestor as modern day apes, but it took a lot longer than 20 years for us to become the homo sapiens sapiens we are.. More like 2.2 to 11.8 million years..

Arguably, all species are "transitional species", we simply lack the ability to observe the evolution from one to the next without reliance on things like the science of archeology and the fossil record.

On a long enough timeline, speciation is not only inevitable, it is necessary.



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: sn0rch

I ain't running with it, I'm flying with it.

Maybe, but most Dinosaurs where considered large, and there were various types of dinosaurs of sizes and structures.

I just flew into the google nest, and as I laid my droppings on some rich mans tuppee, I saw this.
askabiologist.asu.edu...

Up Up an away...Pppphhhrrr
edit on 19-8-2015 by Specimen because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 09:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: spygeek

I have better things to do than troll the Internet.

I suggest you go do those things then.


I don't buy their specious deduction, because it reeks of problem solving on a microbial level.

Evolution observed in microbes is not evolution? Do you know why this study was performed with microbes? Because of their generational period. They are alive, they reproduce, they evolve. Theory proved. Again. Your argument is rather specious.



Add to the fact it's completely irrelevant to the OP and speciation it's a wonder you thought you'd get away with such a slippery attempt at derailing the point of the thread.


Not to mention natural selection and survival of the fittest is mumbo jumbo.


The title of the thread asked for proof of evolution. I provided some. How was that not relevant?

What do you believe is not mumbo jumbo? Creationism?
edit on 19-8-2015 by spygeek because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 09:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Specimen
a reply to: vethumanbeing

I think it would know its existence, if it twere the Alpha and Omega.

Grand joke played upon us all as it is both (absolute creation cycle material birth and death). As an aside; why does a polarity have to exist at all between Darwinists and Creationists regarding the growth of this systems inhabitants. Why are not both correct and complementing each others weaknesses.



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 09:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Specimen
a reply to: sn0rch

I ain't running with it, I'm flying with it.

Maybe, but most Dinosaurs where considered large, and there were various types of dinosaurs of sizes and structures.


I heard they ate themselves out of existence (problem! they are denuding the rain/hardwood forests faster than the vegetation is able to replenish itself) *destroy this experiment*. My concern is where are the 14 foot feathers (someone will find the perfect limestone specimen).
edit on 19-8-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

Nope, just not stick your head in the sand. Do you have anything to refute it?



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 09:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: spygeek
Of course not, for it to become a new species of bacteria would require it's isolated development and observation over a period beyond our current capability.


If we can never observe it happen then how can honestly say that is how it was done? This whole idea of one species changing into another is just hogwash, how we can take this stuff seriously without a shred of evidence? Just because some animals look the same as others does not mean they must have evolved from each other, but that seems to be the main evidence for evolution.



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 09:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

Nope, just not stick your head in the sand. Do you have anything to refute it?


You can't refute something that has never been proven can you?



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 09:59 PM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing

That would more or less have to do with history I suppose, and just their clashing of views. It more like asking why don't the Christians get along with the Muslums unite as one when battling evil, when Satans going to devour them all.
edit on 19-8-2015 by Specimen because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 10:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

So in other words, you believe everything has to be created first right? That's all I was asking, it was a yes or no question.


No species generation to generation is the exact same.

You never asked a yes or no question, you asked for proof, which is far from a yes or no question.

If everything was created first then why are there new species now that did not exist when they were created? Evolution? Natural selection is proven. Evolution is not proven. Creationism is far from ever being proven.

If you found out your creator was another species of higher intelligence, would you still believe in a higher power that is metaphysical?



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Wolf -> dog -> chihuahua

Arguably, Chihuahua cannot mate with a common wolf anymore due to the size difference therefore can be considered another species completely (not from the DNA standpoint yet).



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

Gravity is a theory.

Just say'n



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

You can refute something that has a scientific theory.

People like to play the "it is not proven" game but that isn't what science is there for. It is to expain ans currently evolution is the best possible explanation. What would yours be?



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 10:09 PM
link   
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

I already explained it to you and you keep insisting for more proof, what gives?



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 10:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: spygeek
Of course not, for it to become a new species of bacteria would require it's isolated development and observation over a period beyond our current capability.


If we can never observe it happen then how can honestly say that is how it was done? This whole idea of one species changing into another is just hogwash, how we can take this stuff seriously without a shred of evidence? Just because some animals look the same as others does not mean they must have evolved from each other, but that seems to be the main evidence for evolution.

Point in fact Raccoons cannot be 47 million year old Lemurs, although resemble one (have a ringed tail, do they have a tooth comb and grooming nail) otherwise THEY HAVENT EVOLVED AT ALL. Why has the 350 million year old shark specie never evolved? Too perfect a form or just not enough time on the planet to change itself into something with legs. Perhaps they would have if they knew the jokes that would come about regarding their specie; "Shark Week" Discovery Channel- the "Sharknado, Sharknado, the second one, and Sharknado Hell NO # 3". Oceanographers (or at least Sea World) should be up in arms about the exploitation of a specie that CLEARLY does not know HOW to evolve and has no advocate to defend it.
edit on 19-8-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
20
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join