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.

 

I will answer every question about evolution you have

page: 2
24
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2015 @ 08:25 AM
link   
My example to you is the chichlid fish. This species became land locked from the ocean and is only found in a few African lakes they are Lakes Victoria, Malawi, and Tanganyika. These fish went on to fill every niche that would otherwise be dominated by other marine life. Their bodies became very diverse and they did it all in a very short time by evolutionary standards.

Don't just take my word for it either. Reading is your friend.


a reply to: piney

edit on 27-11-2015 by Athetos because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 27 2015 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

I've also read somewhere, that around the time of the dinosaurs or before that, the larger growth of any flora & fauna was also caused by a higher amount of oxygen in the atmosphere, compared to more modern times.
(from the giant ferns, to extremely large insects)
I don't know if this is true, I just wanted to throw that in here.



posted on Nov, 27 2015 @ 08:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: johnrobca
a reply to: Ghost147
would the light sensitive cells be similar to heat sensitive cells but just have a different function?


Sort of. In the very earliest stages of the mutation into sight, was just photoreceptor proteins that could sense light. The use for these was essentially to allow for a biological clock. Sensing when it's day or night can help with metabolism, feeding patterns, and regulating specific biological activity (such as brain activity). Even many unicellular organisms have photoreceptor protiens.

A slightly more developed eye, such as one with the onset of a cup, would allow the organism to sense the direction of light. Clearly, this allows for the ability to spot food and shelter, and more opportunities to develop even more functional eyes in the future, because the population would then be more open to more varied environment.


originally posted by: johnrobca
a reply to: Ghost147
Would we have once been covered in light sensitive cells in the same was as we are covered in heat sensitive cells now?


To my knowledge there is no such incidence where light sensitive cells were to cover an organism. Evolution can be thought of as trying to conserve as much energy as possible. Sure, we could have 2 more sets of arms, and it would seem helpful, but in reality, that's a lot of extra energy needed to produce those limbs, let alone work their functionality into our neurological system. It's just not necessary to have that adaptation, when one pair will do the trick.

It's the same reason there are vestigial limbs and organs. Men have absolutely no use for nipples, but we still have them because in the womb we always start off as female, and it's just easier to keep a vestigial feature if it's not doing any harm to the survival of that organism.



posted on Nov, 27 2015 @ 08:54 AM
link   
1. Why did the random and non-intelligent "force" create male and females?
How did "nothing" dicern that it will create trillions of biological vessels, and have them evolve to create to perfectly fitted vessels of eachother (male/female biological components).
What "logic" did it use to create this "decision"?

2. This force behind the creation of the universe; where did consciousness arise, and how? How did "nothing", create "something" , that is aware of its own experience and existence within the universal creation?
Why would 'matter', have thoughts, if it were just inanimate and came from nothing.

Assuming something can come from nothing of course.

3. During this evolution theory; how did nothing create dreams within the biological vessel?
How is there another space, another part of "us" (as consciousness living in something that came from nothing) that our consciousness can; travel, think, feel, decide, reason, hear, touch, taste, and communicate in this space?

(The space I'm referring too is the paralell dream space. Which no doubt, one can be awake in this state and do what thou wilt; travel, converse, hear, taste, touch, smell, touch and feel).

Given your reasoning behind the dreamscape and landscape that spawned from random nothingness, let's get into the metaphyaical.

4. How is it, that consciousness can dream, Astral project- which is projecting your own awareness/consciousness into a paralell space- have visions, hallucinations, day dream, see into the past or future of "time"?

HOW AND WHY, did nothing create it's own paralell space? That is fully navigational and filled with experiences limited only too thought and imagination?

5. What is imagination? Why is it in everyone at some level, can think outside of its known experience as a human or animal?

6. Why did nothing, that has no form of intelligence, create thought, and how could something that cant think, create something that can?

Of course using the logic that something can come from nothing, can explain #6. But in my honest opinion, that is faulty and distrustful logic when talking about life. In other words, invalid and just a theory.

Well Sevan is my favorite number, I'll just make something up now to add a seventh point.

7. If the universe created itself from nothing, and it's near limitless and expanding, then why are one of possibly few or none, entire SPECIES of intelligence, in this huge evolved universe, controlled and manipulated by a few people on a tiny blue and green rock?

Was that part of evolution too?


Would like to see some feedback on these points please. :cheers

ETA: one more point; how did said nothingness with no intelligence... create all the sciences, maths, geometries, symmetries, textures, systems from biological, chemical, ecosystem, water, air, gravity, physics, fire.
How were these fields of thought and intelligence (or science as we call it) created from nothing?

I think it's more reasonable and honest if we say, we just don't understand how things were created, hence we only have a theory to push to this species.

Honest approach is the best one usually.


edit on 27-11-2015 by Elementalist because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-11-2015 by Elementalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2015 @ 09:01 AM
link   
This is a short audio interview with Stephen Meyres dealing with Intelligent Design and the Cambrian Explosion . Information is always key . Asking the best questions should lead to the best explanations based on the information you observe . If you are observing intelligent information it can be inferred to go back to a intelligent source .

edit on 27-11-2015 by the2ofusr1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2015 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: UniFinity


It is wired to me, that there can be suddenly a whole new species which evolved from previous. But I know there is some logical explanation. Please teach me : )


You have to understand that there isn't "suddenly" a whole new species. New species evolve over the period of millions and millions of years with very small, gradual changes. Think of yourself when you were a child and yourself now. You've grown so gradually that it's fairly hard to notice the difference unless you're presented with a photograph or try to think about it in particular. By comparison, evolution is like holding a rock in your hand and watching it be eroded by the wind.


also how come there is a certain balance between all creatures so we can all coexists? Although we are destroying that balance, but animals are all in perfect harmony, all over the earth by themselves from ancient times. Everything is so miraculously connected.


Creatures tend to adapt to fill evolutionary "niches" that give them the best chance of survival and reproduction. If they all tried to fill the same gap, they'd die out. In fact, that did happen. You can sort of see it with Humans and Neanderthals (even though we're tecchniicallly the same species), though in that case I think we might have genocided them or something.


It is a biggest miracle we are here, if it is by chance.


Actually, try thinking about it this way: Rather than "The conditions were made perfect so we could be here", instead think "We are here because the conditions are perfect. Otherwise we wouldn't even exist to have this conversation in the first place."
It's sort of weird logic, but should be fairly easy to comprehend. It's like you being born at all. The only reality you know is the one in which you are born, because that is the only reality you can know, even if thinking about it objectively the chance of you actually even being born at all is something like 0.1 x 10^10^100^100. Just an incomprehensibly small chance, but it doesn't seem so strange. Because for us to be here talking about this, you have to have been born.


From my understanding evolution is fine and dandy, but to just say that evolution progression is by random chance is something which I cannot grasp.


Evolution isn't really by "chance." To use massive hyperbole, imagine that you could read minds. That would give you a HUGE advantage, you'd be rich and probably able to get lovers and stuff, and if it was passed onto your kids, they'd have that massive advantage, and it would spread over a long period of time until eventually almost all members of the species had that trait. (Assuming you weren't killed for being a witch or something, which is also part of evolution. The traits are selected for based on the environment at the time.)
It's sort of like that, but a lot more subtle.


I think that everything can be explained logically! But we are far from seeing the whole picture. our senses and mind are deceiving us, big time. There are other realities which are not perceived by senses and the complete answer to evolution lies there. Evolution of the universe and evolution of life is the same thing, but just on different level. One is about material, the other is about life, which comes later after appropriate conditions are set. But there is a deeper level, a level from which everything is designed somehow...


That's possible, it can't really be denied any more than you can deny God. Can't prove a negative, after all. Still, as our current understanding permits, Evolution works pretty much perfectly as an explanation of how life came to be.
If you want to argue for intelligent design, don't talk about evolution, talk about the creation of the universe itself. At the very least, please don't say that the Earth is 7000 years old (not talking to you specifically, just a general note to creationists.) Maybe God gave us a kick-start and left us to our own devices. I can go along with that.
edit on 27/11/2015 by Eilasvaleleyn because: Reasons

edit on 27/11/2015 by Eilasvaleleyn because: Reasons



posted on Nov, 27 2015 @ 09:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: UniFinity
Hi, I am evolution newby : )

Lets talk about mutations for a bit, shall we?


Sure!


originally posted by: UniFinity
what are changes or mutations?


Basically, a mutation is a permanent change to an organisms DNA. It could really be a number of things. It could be some sort of damage to the DNA itself (which isn't repaired), it can be an accident when the DNA is replicated (such as through reproduction), and it can also be an insertion or deletion of segments of DNA (which can happen through environmental factors)



originally posted by: UniFinity
How does evolution explains progress by them?


Well, Evolution simply means that genetic variation occurs through reproduction. When two organisms of the same species reproduce, the offspring isn't 100% identical. There's a mixing of the two DNA that came from the parents. Some of the DNA that is mixed will be carried on in the offspring, but some of the DNA from either parent can actually trigger a sort of on-or-off switch that has a chance of creating something new.

For example, some people carry a gene called CCR5 that really does nothing by itself. But, if they were to reproduce with another person with that same CCR5 gene, the gene double-up in the offspring, making a new mutation all together. That new mutation is called Delta32, and if you have that mutation you are 100% immune to contracting HIV.

Not all genes work like this one did, some are dominant genes and take over (such as brown eye color) and some are recessive genes that kind of hide back through the family and pop up at different times (such as red hair).



originally posted by: UniFinity
Did progress suddenly appear for all over the earth? For instance when we were changing to homo sapiens. How did that go exactly? Is this just one lucky mutation from which all other humans inherit dna or smt? Or did this appear on a global level at around the same time?


Evolution occurs, not on a species-wide scale, but on a population scale. So lets look at humans for our example. We're all the same species, however, different human populations lived in different environments for thousands of years. Each population adapted to each different environment and developed features that would help each population within that environment. Wider nostrils and a higher red blood cell count for high altitude places would be a great example of that.



originally posted by: UniFinity
It is wired to me, that there can be suddenly a whole new species which evolved from previous. But I know there is some logical explanation. Please teach me : )


It certainly isn't sudden. Think of it this way:

If we were to take one species, and separate the population, placing the -now- two populations in different environments, mutations would occur to each of the populations over the generations that would allow those organisms to adapt to the different environments around them. This would be an example of Microevolution. Given enough time through successive generations, both of the populations (even though they were the same species to begin with) would accumulate different mutations and eventually their genes would drift so far from each other that the two populations would not be able to breed anymore. That’s one indicator that they’ve become a new species.

Let’s say we pretend a second in time, is equivalent to a mutation. As time goes on, more seconds are added. Just like in our first example when the two populations accumulated mutations. Eventually we gather so many seconds that we can define new term in time, 1 minute. Using our example from before, there were so many accumulated mutations that we could define an entirely new species. Just like a bunch of seconds can create a minute, a bunch of mutations can create a new species.

If we continue this process, more seconds are added and new minutes occur, eventually we have so many seconds that we can make a new definition, an hour. We could view the same thing in taxonomy, where an hour would be similar to a genus. We could go further to say that a day is a family, a week is an order, so on and so on.

They all came to be from the same process of accumulation, just viewed at a larger time scale.


originally posted by: UniFinity
also how come there is a certain balance between all creatures so we can all coexists? Although we are destroying that balance, but animals are all in perfect harmony, all over the earth by themselves from ancient times. Everything is so miraculously connected.


Well, we can actually see how we're all connected through the fossil record and through DNA. We have shared DNA with everything around us, from tomatoes to chimps to pigs to flowers. The fossil record is a great way of showing a detailed history, and gradual divergence from species to species.

As for the balance of life around us, I'm not quite sure it is. Everything is fighting to survive, and there are many species each year that go extinct from natural selection.


originally posted by: UniFinity
I think that everything can be explained logically! But we are far from seeing the whole picture. our senses and mind are deceiving us, big time. There are other realities which are not perceived by senses and the complete answer to evolution lies there. Evolution of the universe and evolution of life is the same thing, but just on different level. One is about material, the other is about life, which comes later after appropriate conditions are set. But there is a deeper level, a level from which everything is designed somehow...


I would say that the universe only seems like it's made for us because we're looking at it from our perspective. However, we're actually quite a fragile species. We can't breath underwater, nor float around in space and live, and we're basically stuck here on this planet with no control over it, and no real way to explore beyond it (at this point in time).



posted on Nov, 27 2015 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Oops. I was worried you were responding to that one, but oh well. Too late. I think I went with a bit more of a philosophical approach with my answers, so it should be fine.


way to explore beyond it


*Puts on tinfoil hat.*
That's what TPTB want you to think.

edit on 27/11/2015 by Eilasvaleleyn because: Reasons



posted on Nov, 27 2015 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tyrion79
a reply to: Ghost147

I've also read somewhere, that around the time of the dinosaurs or before that, the larger growth of any flora & fauna was also caused by a higher amount of oxygen in the atmosphere, compared to more modern times.
(from the giant ferns, to extremely large insects)
I don't know if this is true, I just wanted to throw that in here.


Yes, that's a very good point, but it wasn't actually the high level of oxygen that cause them to grow larger, it was the amount of light and carbon dioxide that did. The oxygen levels rose higher and higher once the plants began to grow more dense.


originally posted by: Elementalist
1. Why did the random and non-intelligent "force" create male and females?


This is a great question. The very origin of sexual reproduction is quite difficult to test through experimentation, however, we can determine what fitness advantages organisms get when that organism has multiple genders. Essentially, Sexual reproduction's benefits come from the fact that there are two parents which 'reorganize' their genotypes. This allows for greater diversity in genetic mutations, and an easy way to adapt to varying environments over time.

Asexual reproduction basically leaves the offspring as identical to the parent.


originally posted by: Elementalist
How did "nothing" dicern that it will create trillions of biological vessels, and have them evolve to create to perfectly fitted vessels of eachother (male/female biological components).
What "logic" did it use to create this "decision"?


I think you're personifying Evolution a bit too much. There's no logic or thought involved. Environment and reproduction creates variation within the genes of all organisms. The mutations to these genes which are beneficial will have a higher chance of being able to reproduce and pass on those genes to it's offspring. organisms which do not have beneficial genes, or at the very least 'less beneficial' tend to get weeded out of the gene pool by predation, or environmental factors.

Keep in mind that this isn't on an individualistic level, it's on a population level. So when a population develops a mutation that is highly beneficial to it's suitability and adaptability the environment around it, that mutation then has a greater chance of being passed on to successive generations, and more varied environments, allowing for further development.

Sexual reproduction allows for this further development.


originally posted by: Elementalist
2. This force behind the creation of the universe; where did consciousness arise, and how? How did "nothing", create "something" , that is aware of its own experience and existence within the universal creation?
Why would 'matter', have thoughts, if it were just inanimate and came from nothing.


Biological Evolution doesn't describe anything about the start of the universe. Biological Evolution is a phenomena that occurs once life exists.


originally posted by: Elementalist
Assuming something can come from nothing of course.


You're actually talking about the Big Bang Theory with these questions, not the Theory of Evolution. But, just as a side note, the big bang theory doesn't claim that something came from nothing, it claims that the matter that makes up the universe today was once a very dense singularity that suddenly and rapidly expanded. It didn't come from nothing.


originally posted by: Elementalist
3. During this evolution theory; how did nothing create dreams within the biological vessel?


Again, I think the foundation of your questions aren't totally accurate, but we do know that dreams stem from high brain activity while unconscious, almost mimicking a conscious state. One hypothesis surrounding the question why some organisms developed the ability to dream is that dreams serve to play out scenarios so that we may be better prepared when they occur in reality.

It's well documented that sleep maintains and even enhances memories, from declarative to procedural, verbal to spatial. It's been shown that mice visually replay running through a maze they've been trained on. They're consolidating and practicing the neural connections from when they were awake.

So why is mental rehearsal of the past evolutionarily important? It allows us to reinforce what we've learned while also playing out actions and events that may happen next. We can act on those events without consequence and see their results.


originally posted by: Elementalist
4. How is it, that consciousness can dream, Astral project- which is projecting your own awareness/consciousness into a paralell space- have visions, hallucinations, day dream, see into the past or future of "time"?
HOW AND WHY, did nothing create it's own paralell space? That is fully navigational and filled with experiences limited only too thought and imagination?


I believe my earlier response answers this



originally posted by: Elementalist
5. What is imagination? Why is it in everyone at some level, can think outside of its known experience as a human or animal?


Again, my previous comment answers this


originally posted by: Elementalist
6. Why did nothing, that has no form of intelligence, create thought, and how could something that cant think, create something that can?


This too is answered previously.


originally posted by: Elementalist
Of course using the logic that something can come from nothing, can explain #6. But in my honest opinion, that is faulty and distrustful logic when talking about life. In other words, invalid and just a theory.


No scientific theory has claimed that something came from nothing


originally posted by: Elementalist
7. If the universe created itself from nothing, and it's near limitless and expanding, then why are one of possibly few or none, entire SPECIES of intelligence, in this huge evolved universe, controlled and manipulated by a few people on a tiny blue and green rock?


This question doesn't make sense, and also it's founded on a false premise Evolution has some say on the Universe. which it does not.


originally posted by: Elementalist
ETA: one more point; how did said nothingness with no intelligence... create all the sciences, maths, geometries, symmetries, textures, systems from biological, chemical, ecosystem, water, air, gravity, physics, fire.
How were these fields of thought and intelligence (or science as we call it) created from nothing?


Read above.

(continued in next post)



posted on Nov, 27 2015 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Elementalist
I think it's more reasonable and honest if we say, we just don't understand how things were created, hence we only have a theory to push to this species.


Actually, we have a lot of evidence that surrounds both the Big Bang Theory (which I would like to discontinue talking about, as it is off topic to this thread) and most definitely Biological Evolution.

You're confusing the word 'Theory' with 'Scientific Theory'. The two terms are not interchangeable. For something to become a Scientific Theory it is an absolute requirement that there be a substantial amount of evidence that is thoroughly tested and confirmed by multiple sources.

The Theory of Evolution is actually one of the most verified scientific study ever.



posted on Nov, 27 2015 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: johnrobca
What is the evolutionary path of the eye?


I think the more intriguing question is to explain how, say, the camera eye evolved in completely unrelated branches of organisms. For example, in vertebrates vs invertebrates.



posted on Nov, 27 2015 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

Of course, the mutation will only further develop if the organism continues to live in an environment where sight is a favorable mutation. It doesn't need to continue on and on if the mutation is beneficial to the organism in it's current state.



How do/can the same (or different) 'random' mutations occur over so many different classes of life to arrive at the same complex solution, like the eye; or wings, or the behaviors (instincts) associated with such things?

You know, since evolution is blind and all... no pun intended here.
edit on 27-11-2015 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2015 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrCrow
I'll ask a question. Homo sapiens: what will our next step be evolution-wise?


I like Juan Enriquez' thoughts on this

He calls the next species Homo-Evolutis

www.ted.com...



posted on Nov, 27 2015 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

While I understand the "science", I've never quite gotten my head around this. How can a creature at some point in time, that has no eyes and can't see...develop an eye? Their body doesn't know there is anything to see...their world could be pitch black. How does the eye know to develop for a certain light frequency? I'm just wildly guessing here but if the eye was a "chance of luck"...how many mutations would have to occur (let alone WHY it would occur) before we ended up with a eye that is useful in our specific location in the universe. Billions? Trillions?

I'll never quite get that.
edit on 11/27/2015 by WeAreAWAKE because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2015 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147
The Theory of Evolution is actually one of the most verified scientific study ever.

Not ONE single particle of scientifically provable piece of evidence has been found in support of it.

At the same time there are literally mountains of fossil evidence that clearly indicate that Darwinian gradualism is 100% BS.

It is COMPLETELY contradicted by evidence and science...


Evolution is positively anti-science. Science deals with things that are testable, observable, and demonstrable and evolution has none of those qualities. To call evolution "science" is to confuse fairy tales with facts. True, evolution has been mixed with science for the last thirty years, but that does not mean that it is the same as science.

Beer is often advertised during sporting events but the two subjects have no logical connection, and evolution has no more to do with science than beer has to do with sports.

Cult of Evolutionism

Modern media often refers to the creation/evolution debate as a conflict between “science and religion.” In fact, there is no science to support evolution. The word science refers to knowledge gained through observation. A scientist (through experimentation) observes events as they happen, and then chronicles the details of those events.

The evolutionist has faith that these things happened, but he has not seen them and neither does he have any way of proving them. Therefore, the Evolution vs. Creation debate is not a matter of science vs. religion – but rather, religion vs. religion.

DARWIN DEBUNKED

There are several fundamental characteristics that identify a field of study as being "scientific".

• Genuine science is objective and invites scrutiny and investigation. It does not ridicule the critics of its conclusions, but instead silences their criticisms by setting forth the evidence from which those conclusions are drawn.

• Genuine science seeks the truth that explains the observed evidence. It does not prejudice the investigation by ruling out, from the start, hypotheses that may very well provide the best explanation for the observed evidence.

• Genuine science rejects any hypothesis that consistently fails to fit observed scientific evidence. It does not persistently assume that the fault lies in the evidence rather than in the hypothesis itself.

On all three counts, the commonly-accepted "Theory of Evolution" fails the test of being scientific. With the passing years, proponents of this failed theory are behaving more and more like religious dogmatists in their unwillingness to submit the foundations of their theory to open inquiry and discussion. Instead, they heap scorn and ridicule on their critics, insisting that anyone who has the audacity to question the truth of their sacred theory must be either stupid, insane or evil.

At the heart of the problem is the fact that Evolution, disguised as a viable scientific theory, is actually a tool of religious propaganda and cultural domination, used by those who hold to the religion of Naturalism.

When the Evolutionist says that life originated without the intervention of a supernatural Being, he is making a religious assertion, not a scientific one. The fact that he may be a scientist by profession, or that he conducts his science in light of this presuppostion does not change the fact that it is a religious claim. It is no more "scientific" than the Creationist's assertion of an intervening Creator.

members.toast.net...

The theory of evolution can never recover from the obvious objection to it, that there are no credible (in other words ones that have not been proved to be fake or which require a huge dose of faith) transitional fossils in the fossil record when there should be billions of them. If evolution's continuous morphing were really going on, every fossil would show change underway throughout the creature, with parts in various stages of completion. The gradual morphing of one type of creature to another that evolution predicts is nowhere to be found.

There should have been millions of transitional creatures if evolution were true. In the "tree of life" that evolutionists have dreamed up, gaps in the fossil record are especially huge between single-cell creatures, complex invertebrates (such as snails, jellyfish, trilobites, clams, and sponges), and what evolutionists claim were the first vertebrates, fish. In fact, there are no fossil ancestors at all for complex invertebrates or fish. That alone is fatal to the theory of evolution. The fossil record shows that evolution never happened.

“The Darwinian theory of evolution has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of the imagination.” Dr. Albert Fleischman, Professor of Zoology at the University of Erlangen in Germany

“… the general scientific world has been bamboozled into believing that evolution has been proved. Nothing could be further from the truth …” ~ Dr. Samuel L. Blumenfeld

“Evolution is a ‘metaphysical myth … totally bereft of scientific sanction.” ~ Mathematics professor Wolfgang Smith

“What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen—belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works.” ~ Arthur N. Field

“ `Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.' A tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling.” ~ T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission








edit on 27-11-2015 by Murgatroid because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2015 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Excellent thread ghost! Very informative, unbiased and we'll written responses, S+F!

It's a shame there are those who would rather blindly reject the theory than attempt to learn and understand it..


originally posted by: Murgatroid

originally posted by: Ghost147
The Theory of Evolution is actually one of the most verified scientific study ever.

Not ONE single particle of scientifically provable piece of evidence has been found in support of it.

At the same time there are literally mountains of fossil evidence that clearly indicate that Darwinian gradualism is 100% BS.

It is COMPLETELY contradicted by evidence and science...

Linky linky quotey quotey blah blah blah



Murgatroid, you have bought wholesale rubbish from anti-intellectual propaganda merchants. Leave it out, it is off topic and complete and utter horseradish.

Go and take a course on modern evolutionary synthesis, and stop postng this nonsensical garbage.

"Evolution is a theory, and it's a theory you can test. We've tesed evolution in many ways. You can not present good evidence that says evolution is not a fact" -Bill Nye

"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." -Scott D. Weitzenhoffer

"Religion that is afraid of science dishonors God and commits suicide." -Ralph Waldo Emerson


Keep up the excellent answers ghost! I have a question for you..

What do you think of the future of human evolution, being driven more now by human's own hand through the likes of genetic manipulation technology and sexual selection than natural selection? Do you think we may be heading for an increase in evolutionary pace and subspecies variety? In your opinion, could transhumanism and digital neurobiology liberate us from natural selection altogether?

Sorry, that's like three questions.. Just curious to read your opinions on these possibilities.

edit on 27-11-2015 by spygeek because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2015 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Murgatroid

Not ONE single particle of scientifically provable piece of evidence has been found in support of it.

At the same time there are literally mountains of fossil evidence that clearly indicate that Darwinian gradualism is 100% BS.

It is COMPLETELY contradicted by evidence and science...




the only thing contradicted by evidence and science is your blubbering inability to comprehend what MES actually states, let alone the science supporting it. At least you're consistent in your wall of ant-intellectual quote mines and limited ability to discuss the science on your own. Well done! Anytime you want to actually discuss the evidence without relying on quote mining, let me know.



posted on Nov, 27 2015 @ 05:13 PM
link   
What is the evidence for the origins of mitochondria?

What's junk DNA good for?

If Aliens had a hand in creation of what we know today, can both sides be right?

Can unanswered/unanswerable questions be counted for the creationists' side?

(These are what I consider to be some agnostic thoughts. I totally believe evolution plays a large part, but I won't discount something else contributing.)



posted on Nov, 27 2015 @ 05:45 PM
link   
What came first
Male or female and why



posted on Nov, 27 2015 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

originally posted by: johnrobca
What is the evolutionary path of the eye?


I think the more intriguing question is to explain how, say, the camera eye evolved in completely unrelated branches of organisms. For example, in vertebrates vs invertebrates.


This is a very good point. Photoreceptor cell have independently evolved somewhere between 40 and 65 times in biological history. So, why would the same mutation evolve over the span of all these different species? Simply because it is an effective, low-cost (in terms of energy) mutation.

We see similarities in various organisms because the mutations are effective and allow an advantage in an environment. Once an advantageous mutation arises, it allows the organism to have the chance at entering a larger variety of environments, which is why there is a further development of those mutations.


originally posted by: PhotonEffect
How do/can the same (or different) 'random' mutations occur over so many different classes of life to arrive at the same complex solution, like the eye; or wings, or the behaviors (instincts) associated with such things?


A great explanation is through large-scale biogeographic patterns and community ecology. It's called 'convergent evolution'. Bassically, not all environments are totally different in every way. We can have a virtually identical environment in the waters of north america and the waters around some parts of Russia, for instance. We've seen quite a few traits that have developed multiple times over different clads of organisms. This is mainly due to simply developing an 'easy answer' to an advantage in a specific environment. Photoreceptor cells would be one of those mutations that's advantageous, and but without an excessive amount of energy required to have it form (at least, in it's most primitive state)



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join