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.

 

"The origin of species"

page: 10
10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Damn good question my friend...


I wish there more like them on ATS honestly.

Working right now though, will respond later.




posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

So the grasshopper evolves into a grasshopper, like a fly into a fly, a virus into,a virus

Don't you get bored repeating all this

Don't you think the problem described lies elsewhere



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 07:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
So the grasshopper evolves into a grasshopper, like a fly into a fly, a virus into,a virus


The question was on speciation. The example is of speciation.

Speciation isn't grasshopper to another genus all together. Speciation is the divergence from one species to another species (or several others)



All of those birds came from one species and have since diverged into other species. That would depict speciation.

Yes, it is bird to bird. If it was bird to some other creature, that would actually disprove evolution, and it certainly would not be speciation

This topic is on speciation. If you want to make a topic on your question of how a species can diverge so far as to become it's own family, or genus, or phylum, you're more than welcome to do so



originally posted by: Raggedyman
Don't you get bored repeating all this


Not at all. If showing how Speciation effects species alone in 1000 different explanations is what it takes for someone to understand it, I have no problem explaining it 1000 times in 1000 different ways.


originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
Don't you think the problem described lies elsewhere


The only problem is the rejection that speciation is involved when a species diverges into another species.

The very name "Speciation" should clarify that we are dealing at a species-based level with this concept.

Speciation is the evolutionary process by which reproductively isolated biological populations evolve to become distinct species.

If you think speciation is anything other than that, then it's not the description of speciation that is invalid, it's your idea of what describes speciation that is invalid.
edit on 4/3/16 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol



The first B can't breed with either As and is offspring of As.


I know. That is what I said.

Only there isn't really a 'first B'.

There is only A', A'', A''', ...,A'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' (oh to heck with counting the primes, lets just start calling it B).

Somewhere in that list of primes the critter could not (or WOULD not!) breed with the original parent. But we can never know because we don't know when it occurred. If the population remixed before the could not/would not inter breed point was reached, then you'd probably have something like the Human Race - isolated long enough for differences to evolve, but not long enough for to differentiate into different species.
edit on 4/3/2016 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: GreenGunther


a reply to: Murgatroid My good sir, David Attenborough has done some fantastic work in showing the examples of evolution, from fossils, to insects to animals. I suggest you start there.


a reply to: TerryDon79


So we should believe in a talking old dude in the sky because there's soooo much evidence for that.



Wait... Isn't David Attenborough a talking old dude in the sky?




posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 09:51 PM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

I'm happy I wasn't drinking my coffee when I read your reply.

Can't afford to buy a new laptop this weekend lol



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol



Seems to me that being blind does not offer an advantage as far as surviving and reproducing in the dark goes.


Visual processing takes a lot of 'computing' power. Energy used for processing visual information is just wasted in the dark.

Animals that don't have to bother with processing the signal from their eyes can 'spend' that saved energy on improving other senses that can actually help them locate food and mates in the dark. That little bit of advantage means their 'kind' will eventually dominate the population. That is one of the simplest examples of natural selection.



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle



That is scientifically false...
because only a mature hen has the material required to construct the egg shell itself...
So the chicken came before the egg and not only was the Hen a prerequisite so was a Rooster... And neither of them could come before the egg... period...


Actually, if you want a scientifically accurate answer, the egg came many millions of years before the chicken.

Egg laying animals were around for millions of years before there was any kind of bird, let alone a chicken.



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 10:08 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol



No. Wtf for? Even #ing it wouldn't produce offspring and plain duck is tastier.


How do you know if you haven't tasted one.

I tasted both duck and crocodile and I think a cross would be delicious.



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 10:16 PM
link   
a reply to: vjr1113




But seriously, another crucial point of fish become people that makes no #ing sense: big animals survive better than small ones


Then how come there are so many darn insects?

And in the insect world how come there are so darn many small insects and not so many big insects?

How come there can be a thousand small spiders on a single bush by the river, and only a couple of dozen large spiders per acre in the forest just a few feet away?



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Murgatroid

Methinks thou doth complain too much.
edit on 4/3/2016 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 11:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: 5StarOracle



That is scientifically false...
because only a mature hen has the material required to construct the egg shell itself...
So the chicken came before the egg and not only was the Hen a prerequisite so was a Rooster... And neither of them could come before the egg... period...


Actually, if you want a scientifically accurate answer, the egg came many millions of years before the chicken.

Egg laying animals were around for millions of years before there was any kind of bird, let alone a chicken.


I've always liked this explanation of the chicken and the egg.

Ever since the mapping of DNA and the evidence that DNA does not change over the course of a species life, we now know that the chicken HAD to come first because whatever it laid in the egg was not a chicken. Or, if it was, the parent was not.



Personally, I find evolution to be garbage science.

Fossils of transitional animals should be everywhere, but we don't have a single example that I'm aware of. And don't tell me all beings are in transition because we are clearly able to set demarcation points between species today. And these demarcation points should be EASILY identifiable between transitional fossils.



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 11:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Tempter

That's entirely false.

Here's a perfectly good example....

200 years ago the human race was shorter than it is now. Where's the transitional fossil/corpse? They're in all the graves (the ones that haven't been cremated), but none of them were suddenly 6 feet tall.

I don't suppose you have another idea with any evidence? Like science does for evolution.
edit on 042904/3/1616 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 11:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Tempter



Ever since the mapping of DNA and the evidence that DNA does not change over the course of a species life


That is absurdly false.

'lifetime of a species' is an extremely clumsy turn of phrase.

There are DNA changes (mutations) with EVERY generation. Every. Single. Generation. There are even DNA changes (in some cells, not all) during the life of an individual.

If a change (say due to cosmic rays, or environmental pollution) happens to be copied into a sperm or an egg, then the individuals DNA change will be passed to the offspring. If there are errors created during the act of fertilization the change will affect the offspring. If an error is caused by some environmental 'contamination' early in the zygote stage, the change will affect the offspring.

There are many many opportunities for changes to occur in the DNA as generation passes to generation. Natural Selection filters out those that are no good and rewards those that promote an advantage. Mutations that are relatively neutral just sorta hang around and maybe they'll be useful some day.
edit on 4/3/2016 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 12:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Tempter




Fossils of transitional animals should be everywhere, but we don't have a single example that I'm aware of.


There are actually lots of examples. You do realize that fossilization is actually kind of hard don't you? And you do realize that you might have two closely related species that might look a lot alike by their fossilized bone structure but in reality have been two different species?

Look at all the Finch species on the Galapagos - different species that would be nigh on impossible to tell apart if all we had to go on was a fossilized skeleton.

Here is a discussion directly disputing your claim Claim CC200: There are no transitional fossils. Evolution predicts a continuum between each fossil organism and its ancestors. Instead, we see systematic gaps in the fossil record.

Here is a discussion of why fossils aren't as abundant as you might like: Claim CC200.1: Given all the species that exist and have existed, there should be billions of transitional fossils in the fossil record; we should have found tens of thousands at least

And here is a discussion in more detail about just a few of the actual examples of transitions that are known: Prediction 1.4: Intermediate and transitional forms: the possible morphologies of predicted common ancestors

Having read those links, you no longer have a basis to claim that "we don't have a single example that I'm aware of." You are now aware of many.



And don't tell me all beings are in transition

All organisms are continually evolving. Viruses, Amoebas, Flowers, Snails, Ferns, Crocodiles, Trees, Birds, Bears, Mushrooms, Humans, Moss, Algae...

Further discussion and references here: Claim CB100: Evolution requires mutations, but mutations are rare.



because we are clearly able to set demarcation points between species today.

Mostly yes, but not always 'clearly'. The definition is that two different species cannot breed fertile offspring, yet there are some plant species that can, and possibly some animals. It just isn't so cut and dried as you imagine.

But how does that have anything to do with whether or not organisms are continually evolving?

I'm not sure what you are trying to say with this assertion. Or perhaps its just more stuff about transitional fossils existing or not.

Or perhaps you are trying to imply that Claim CB610: The first individual of the new species would be very unlikely to find a mate. Hybrids are infertile, so a newly evolved individual would not be able to breed successfully with the original species. The mutation that caused that individual to be a new species would also have to occur in an individual of the opposite sex.



And these demarcation points should be EASILY identifiable between transitional fossils.


Who says so and why do they say it?

What you appear to be wanting is a fossil record from every generation of every organism that has ever existed on Earth. Do you realize how rare fossils actually are? The conditions have to be just right.

And how could you ever tell which is which in the right order? And how would you even see the differences if the differences involved soft tissue changes. Would you try to sequence the DNA from every fossil (oops, no DNA there) and map exactly where the DNA changed from generation to generation?

Here is the fact:

EVERY FOSSIL IS A TRANSITION FOSSIL - ALL BEINGS ARE IN TRANSITION ALL THE TIME.


edit on 5/3/2016 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 12:50 AM
link   
hats off to the people giving a free biology course online.

and yea fossils are very rare and usually encased in rock. fossilization only occurs in very specific conditions, its really a "miracle" we have any fossils at all. we're not going to blow up the whole earth with dynamite in search of every fossil just to disprove alternative supernatural claims. we can do that from our comfy chairs.
edit on 5-3-2016 by vjr1113 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 08:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Tempter

That's entirely false.

Here's a perfectly good example....

200 years ago the human race was shorter than it is now. Where's the transitional fossil/corpse? They're in all the graves (the ones that haven't been cremated), but none of them were suddenly 6 feet tall.

I don't suppose you have another idea with any evidence? Like science does for evolution.


Size doesn't change the species. Dogs are a great example of what some refer to as "genetic shift", but no dog has ever, EVER, despite incredibly intense breeding and cross-breeding, ever given birth to anything other than a dog. And this cross-breeding exposes it to a much higher level conducive to mutation than sunlight.

We have no examples of a species giving birth to another species. EVER.



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 08:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: Tempter




Fossils of transitional animals should be everywhere, but we don't have a single example that I'm aware of.


There are actually lots of examples. You do realize that fossilization is actually kind of hard don't you? And you do realize that you might have two closely related species that might look a lot alike by their fossilized bone structure but in reality have been two different species?

Look at all the Finch species on the Galapagos - different species that would be nigh on impossible to tell apart if all we had to go on was a fossilized skeleton.

Here is a discussion directly disputing your claim Claim CC200: There are no transitional fossils. Evolution predicts a continuum between each fossil organism and its ancestors. Instead, we see systematic gaps in the fossil record.

Here is a discussion of why fossils aren't as abundant as you might like: Claim CC200.1: Given all the species that exist and have existed, there should be billions of transitional fossils in the fossil record; we should have found tens of thousands at least

And here is a discussion in more detail about just a few of the actual examples of transitions that are known: Prediction 1.4: Intermediate and transitional forms: the possible morphologies of predicted common ancestors

Having read those links, you no longer have a basis to claim that "we don't have a single example that I'm aware of." You are now aware of many.



And don't tell me all beings are in transition

All organisms are continually evolving. Viruses, Amoebas, Flowers, Snails, Ferns, Crocodiles, Trees, Birds, Bears, Mushrooms, Humans, Moss, Algae...

Further discussion and references here: Claim CB100: Evolution requires mutations, but mutations are rare.



because we are clearly able to set demarcation points between species today.

Mostly yes, but not always 'clearly'. The definition is that two different species cannot breed fertile offspring, yet there are some plant species that can, and possibly some animals. It just isn't so cut and dried as you imagine.

But how does that have anything to do with whether or not organisms are continually evolving?

I'm not sure what you are trying to say with this assertion. Or perhaps its just more stuff about transitional fossils existing or not.

Or perhaps you are trying to imply that Claim CB610: The first individual of the new species would be very unlikely to find a mate. Hybrids are infertile, so a newly evolved individual would not be able to breed successfully with the original species. The mutation that caused that individual to be a new species would also have to occur in an individual of the opposite sex.



And these demarcation points should be EASILY identifiable between transitional fossils.


Who says so and why do they say it?

What you appear to be wanting is a fossil record from every generation of every organism that has ever existed on Earth. Do you realize how rare fossils actually are? The conditions have to be just right.

And how could you ever tell which is which in the right order? And how would you even see the differences if the differences involved soft tissue changes. Would you try to sequence the DNA from every fossil (oops, no DNA there) and map exactly where the DNA changed from generation to generation?

Here is the fact:

EVERY FOSSIL IS A TRANSITION FOSSIL - ALL BEINGS ARE IN TRANSITION ALL THE TIME.



Cool links, thanks. Look, I'm not an idiot. I look for empirical evidence and until you can give me an example of a species giving birth to another species your THEORY is baseless and just as ridiculous as a skylord.



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 08:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: vjr1113
hats off to the people giving a free biology course online.

and yea fossils are very rare and usually encased in rock. fossilization only occurs in very specific conditions, its really a "miracle" we have any fossils at all. we're not going to blow up the whole earth with dynamite in search of every fossil just to disprove alternative supernatural claims. we can do that from our comfy chairs.


I didn't make any supernatural claims. And it must be nice, conducting this "science" without proof or methods to actually test. Neverending the fact you can't show me ONE EXAMPLE, lab-created or not, of a species giving birth to another species. Ever.



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tempter
I didn't make any supernatural claims. And it must be nice, conducting this "science" without proof or methods to actually test. Neverending the fact you can't show me ONE EXAMPLE, lab-created or not, of a species giving birth to another species. Ever.


Observed Instances of Speciation





top topics



 
10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join