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.

 

Anti-Evolution Legislation Shows Descent With Modification

page: 3
19
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 11:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

More strikingly, however, he found that one of the 12 bacterial lines he has maintained has developed into what he believes is a new species, able to use a compound in the solution called citrate — a derivative of citric acid, like that found in some fruit — for food.

Theres a huge swath of science studying evolution in real time.

There's that qualifier again--"what he believes to be" a new species.

Well is it, or isn't it? Or is it just a strain of bacteria that prefers a stiff screwdriver?

The transition from species to species (and not just from English bulldogs to French ones or something similar) is where they don't appear to have coherent explanations.
edit on 12/18/15 by NthOther because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 11:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: NthOther
There's that qualifier again--"what he believes to be" a new species.

Well is it, or isn't it? Or is it just a strain of bacteria that prefers a stiff screwdriver?

The transition from species to species (and not just from English bulldogs to French ones or something similar) is where they don't appear to have coherent explanations.


So for you huge number of races of dogs and cats (first one sharing common ancestors with wolfs) over past ~10K years is not example of selective evolution? Really?? Care to say why??

At this point, there are few possibilities, either you are trolling or you really are misinformed to that extent that you believe chimps are out ancestors?! We do belong to the same branch, but except for sharing common ancestors with some of great apes, that is about it...

So, which is the case? Troll or just simply misinformed?? (Trust me, you don't like to ask for 3rd option
)



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 11:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

No. And this proves your arguments are disingenuous. Humans did not evolve from apes (chimps), and anyone arguing the subject should know that, or stop arguing.

Nor did Bigfoot come from a swordfish. You're missing my point.

It's too late for a gangbang anyway...



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 11:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: NthOther
a reply to: spygeek

Did E. coli ever evolve into anything other than E. coli?


Over hundreds of thousands or millions more successive generations it is conceivable that it might, building from this genetic trait.


No. It mutated (predictably).


Long term beneficial mutations solidify into 'species defining' traits over successive generations. The results of evolution are the build up of beneficial mutations over time. You can not point at one mutation and claim that carried by the generations over time it could not eventually propagate the creation of a new species.


Not the same as a tyrannosaur turning into a hummingbird. It's suggestive of the possibility, and nothing more.


A tyrannosaur never turned into a hummingbird. If this is the level of evolutionary understanding you have, I respectfully suggest reading a couple of textbooks..

There is more than the "suggestion of the possibility of evolution" to back up the thoery; that would make it "The Hypothesis of Evolution", not "The Theory of Evolution". Hard evidence leads to the findings of modern evolutionary synthesis, not simple "possibilities".

Evolution is the bedrock, or cornerstone, of medical science and to call it incorrect is to claim that the majority of current material physical science is wrong.
edit on 18-12-2015 by spygeek because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Yeah, just pile on. I explained the analogies. Don't bother entertaining a contrary viewpoint that questions your coveted science religion. Just keep hammering on one inarticulate statement.

Deny ignorance, but not evolution. Nope.

Night, guys.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 12:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: NthOther
Yeah, just pile on. I explained the analogies. Don't bother entertaining a contrary viewpoint that questions your coveted science religion. Just keep hammering on one inarticulate statement.

Deny ignorance, but not evolution. Nope.

Night, guys.


What contrary viewpoint? I've asked repeatedly to point out what you feel are flaws in MES with no response. I've also repeatedly asked you what your counter hypothesis was and what evidence there was to support it. Again... Silence. You can't keep whining about others revisiting similar or the same points while simultaneously refusing to address legitimate queries while repeating the same statements. It gives the appearance that you're not actually interested in learning anything let alone having a dialogue regarding any counter hypothesis to MES. I'll leave my offer once again... Anytime you want to address my points or at the very least discuss what your stance is and the evidence in support of it, please do so and I will be more than happy to address such with appropriate respect and citations. Otherwise the tone and attitude give the appearance of trolling.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 02:00 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Oh very, very droll, made me roar with laughter.

I have to admit any attempt to impose religious views on the masses disgusts me. People should be free to make up their own minds as to the credibility of not only the principles but the facts in religious education - and we all know 'blind faith' plays in no other area of life like it does with religion.

I honestly don't believe religion in any shape or form should be taught to children until their formative years are over and they can reason for themselves. Otherwise its merely brainwashing the 'ridiculous' into their heads and, if they have fanatically religious parents who demand their obedience to parental beliefs then kids don't stand a chance to be free and unencumbered to decide for themselves.
edit on 19-12-2015 by Shiloh7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 02:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

More strikingly, however, he found that one of the 12 bacterial lines he has maintained has developed into what he believes is a new species, able to use a compound in the solution called citrate — a derivative of citric acid, like that found in some fruit — for food.

Theres a huge swath of science studying evolution in real time.

There's that qualifier again--"what he believes to be" a new species.

Well is it, or isn't it? Or is it just a strain of bacteria that prefers a stiff screwdriver?

The transition from species to species (and not just from English bulldogs to French ones or something similar) is where they don't appear to have coherent explanations.


I am critical of evolution because of the speciation issues. Too many gaps for one species to evolve to another, with no intermediate species, such as fish walking on the beach, or talking monkeys, or some anomalies that can be observed. Where are these intermediate snapshots of half evolved creatures. As evidence of evolution, science offers up proof of what they consider evolution in bacteria and vegetation which seems to fit the description of genetic mutation rather than evolution. Why do we not see humans evolving physically? Seems if this were true, we would see animals in various stages of evolution, rather than all species evolving at the same rate. We have millions of species on the planet, yet no fish walking out of the ocean, and not likely the millions of species all came from a single common ancestor. Maybe someone can explain how we get from primordial ooze to millions of species living on land and water? Whatever we evolved from, must have been much more diverse than what mainstream science teaches. I am all for the next theory "unified biology" or whatever reconciles all the big questions.

Can't claim any expertise in these areas, but I think what is being passed as Ancestry DNA is disappointing rip. The things I was taught in Biology class in the 80s, turned out to be not so true. I am sure DNA decoding is a though thing to do, but I was under the impression that genetic traits (eye/hair/skin color) could be found in DNA, but apparently not the case. Very little public info about the Human Genome Project success stories, so they came up with a number of markers which they provide migration pattern statistics which is not very useful information. At first I put alot of weight in DNA science, but am learning they either can't or won't give you and genetic/trait data in the results. They even go so far as to collect personal info so their results fits certain demographic patterns.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 03:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: mapsurfer_

I am critical of evolution because of the speciation issues. Too many gaps for one species to evolve to another, with no intermediate species, such as fish walking on the beach, or talking monkeys, or some anomalies that can be observed. Where are these intermediate snapshots of half evolved creatures.


There are not now, never have been in the past and won't be in the future, any of these magical half and half species in the midst of transition. At least not the way it seems like you are imagining it to be. Every single organism is technically a transitional organism. Every fossil, a transitional fossil. But as people want to see something of the nature you describe, here is a list of transitional fossils- en.m.wikipedia.org...

I encourage you to look especially at the lineage that gave us today's whales. It's one of the best examples in the fossil record. Also, for the record, there are fish that can leave the water temporarily. There are others that still have archaic features. We have an extensive fossil record documenting hominid evolution from the last several million years going back almost to the time that the human lineage split from that of our relatives in the genus Pan, nearly 8 MA


As evidence of evolution, science offers up proof of what they consider evolution in bacteria and vegetation which seems to fit the description of genetic mutation rather than evolution. Why do we not see humans evolving physically? Seems if this were true, we would see animals in various stages of evolution, rather than all species evolving at the same rate.


What exactly do you think we should be seeing in humans? How quickly do you believe evolution works if you think there should be mutants running amok? The fact is that we do see animals in various stages of evolution and all species do NOT evolve at the sake rate. We see plenty of evidence of this in the fossil record and now that the genomes of H. Neanderthalensis and H. Altaiensis in addition to our own, we know that there is another still unidentified hominid species based on evidence of genetic ingression.


We have millions of species on the planet, yet no fish walking out of the ocean, and not likely the millions of species all came from a single common ancestor.


It's a definite that we all share common ancestry. The genetics proves this. There's nothing remotely unlikely about it at this point.


Maybe someone can explain how we get from primordial ooze to millions of species living on land and water? Whatever we evolved from, must have been much more diverse than what mainstream science teaches.


Why must it have been more diverse than what you were taught? You're talking about eukaryotes and prokaryotes from roughly 3.8 bn years ago and possibly even older.


I am all for the next theory "unified biology" or whatever reconciles all the big questions.


It's been here since the late 1940's. It's called Modern Evolutionary Synthesis.


Can't claim any expertise in these areas, but I think what is being passed as Ancestry DNA is disappointing rip. The things I was taught in Biology class in the 80s, turned out to be not so true. I am sure DNA decoding is a though thing to do, but I was under the impression that genetic traits (eye/hair/skin color) could be found in DNA, but apparently not the case.


I'm not sure where you're getting that from but not only can you determine morphological traits but as a result of the HGP, we now know where and when certain mutations appeared such as the gene for blue eyes and red hair. We can determine that both H. Sapiens and Neanderthal both had red hair but it wasn't the same gene that coded for it in each species. Same with skin tome, we now know that Caucasian skin is a relatively new development and that darker skin was the norm for the entire history of the genus Homo, nearly 3 MA.


Very little public info about the Human Genome Project success stories, so they came up with a number of markers which they provide migration pattern statistics which is not very useful information. At first I put alot of weight in DNA science, but am learning they either can't or won't give you and genetic/trait data in the results. They even go so far as to collect personal info so their results fits certain demographic patterns.


I think you're confusing HGP with organizations like Ancestry.com and 23&me. All of your concerns regarding what genetic testing can, can't or won't do simply aren't grounded in reality.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 05:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: NthOther
Yeah, just pile on. I explained the analogies. Don't bother entertaining a contrary viewpoint that questions your coveted science religion. Just keep hammering on one inarticulate statement.

Deny ignorance, but not evolution. Nope.

Night, guys.


To deny evolution is ignorant, especially when you do not understand scientific method.
We are denying ignorance by denying the ignorant position that evolution is not tested and substantiated science.

"Science religion" does not exist and is, ironically, an ignorant oxymoron.

edit on 19-12-2015 by spygeek because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Shiloh7


I honestly don't believe religion in any shape or form should be taught to children until their formative years are over and they can reason for themselves. Otherwise its merely brainwashing the 'ridiculous' into their heads and, if they have fanatically religious parents who demand their obedience to parental beliefs then kids don't stand a chance to be free and unencumbered to decide for themselves.

Exactly.

You and I and millions of other educated people think so, too.




posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: mapsurfer_

I am critical of evolution because of the speciation issues. Too many gaps for one species to evolve to another, with no intermediate species, such as fish walking on the beach



We have millions of species on the planet, yet no fish walking out of the ocean



Can't claim any expertise in these areas





posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 08:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: spygeek

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Oh there there

It can't be a science if it's above criticism,

It's kind of like global warming, nobody can question it


They can question it with evidence proving otherwise and accounting for current evidence, or accept the consensus and direct their criticism elsewhere.

Simple as that.


It can't be questioned
Look at the evangelical evolutionists around here who bash people with their Darwin bibles if they disagree

The grand pooh bahs of all things pertaining to evolution won't even entertain the idea evolution may be wrong.

It's not a science if it's protected like a fundamentalist religious belief

Scientists are cowering away from the challenge of dissecting evolution. Every bone ever found now is another proof of evolution, every new discovery is worked into being a proof of evolution.
Never hear anymore, we have found something we don't understand and we are confused, all we hear is, it's proof of evolution



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: mapsurfer_

I am critical of evolution because of the speciation issues. Too many gaps for one species to evolve to another, with no intermediate species, such as fish walking on the beach



We have millions of species on the planet, yet no fish walking out of the ocean



Can't claim any expertise in these areas






So you can explain the gills lungs transformation with evidence, cool.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 08:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
It can't be questioned


BS. One of the corner stones of Science is that it is always open to questions and independent verification. If you have a legitimate challenge then go challenge it. Nobody is being stopped from challenging it. Nobody is cowering or afraid of a challenge either. The fact is that you have no legitimate challenge that's why you bitch and complain but don't do anything to change it. Because you can't because all you have is your complaining.

Show some solid evidence to someone who's in whatever field it is your challenging and take them on. Prove them wrong if you think you can. Nothing is stopping you. The people here that argue with you aren't in the wrong. They are simply showing you their evidence to support their side. That IS the challenge. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that alone is enough to change it. You have to have something to back it up. So go back up your stance. But don't just bitch about it and think that is enough to change anything.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 08:24 PM
link   
Mexican Tetra

this is an eyeless fish that has been isolated in a dark cave for generations. stop the madness now.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 08:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
So you can explain the gills lungs transformation with evidence, cool.


a reply to: Raggedyman

Actually yes, we can follow evolution of many parts of body...
www.nature.com...
evolution.berkeley.edu...
www.paleolibrarian.info...

Some endemic species can show us how different they can evolve from their family of species. For example, about 3 decades ago I went to see Olm, kind that grows in caves and in contrast to most amphibians, it is entirely aquatic - it eats, sleeps, and breeds underwater. Because they live deep in cave, their eyes are not developed and they are blind, but they developed different kind of senses, unlike other kind of salamanders.

Please note word - developed - as that is key word and points to evolutionary step, adaptation that changed species to the point that can't interbreed with other from the same family/tree branch.

~~~~

One thing to note on this topic - some folks are missing complete level of education in biology. You know, if you really like to learn more, you can take free classes that cover evolution and learn bit or two before getting into pointless ignorance and discussions where with every post you actually show absence of knowledge and education, not some valid points.
edit on 19-12-2015 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 08:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

So you can explain the gills lungs transformation with evidence, cool.


More than you can for your imaginary friend that's for sure...



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Actually, the professor (who will be finishing up his last teachings semester this Spring because of almost a dozen complaints from students and TAs) is almost always late to his classes, contradicts himself (and the content of the material) frequently, and in it's a Science Education class, but his topics of discussion are usually badmouthing our country and non-blacks, and even claiming that Einsteins theory of relativity is a load of crap.

He's pompous and changes his own stance on various topics. He's got a chip on his shoulder and shouldn't be teaching Science to university students if he can't even keep his beliefs straight. I think you're mistaken with your analysis based on these other details (and the manner in which he said Evolution is likely not real)... but we can agree to disagree.



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: NateTheAnimator
a reply to: FamCore

There is proof of evolution, the evolution of morons who come up with ever increasingly stupid reasons over generations as to why people should deny the sciences of their choosing.



very well-said

2nd



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join