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: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Blimey, I sure wish someone would try to answer the OP's question.

Maybe more spam would have the same effect?

Probably not




posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol



Cool. Someone is on the ball. Thanks Nate, for being on topic.


No problem.

I recommend you actually take some courses on evolutionary biology,it would pretty much clear up any misconceptions and preconceived notions you currently have on just the concept alone. Soliciting opinions on the internet is fun,but probably not the best idea if you intend to learn anything.

I don't have much to add as Ghost147 pretty much summed it up for me.



posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

Holy balls!

You love you outdated quotes, don't you?

Sir Franklyn Harold
Born 1885
Died 1963

I guess none of the sciences has improved since then?



posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Well if it has progressed enough you should be able to provide an explanation...

Can you share with us Darwins birth and death dates?



posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147

Glad you can also admit you are no expert...


And continue to not claim to be. But I will provide you with more than enough reputable sources and information, that even you could go out and test yourself in order to confirm their results.


originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147
How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate? 
How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence...


I will be more than happy to explain that to you, just as soon as you can show me you understand what the basics of evolution, mutation, Natural selection, speciation are, in your own words.

No sense explaining a complex concept when the basics of the entire theory aren't first understood.



originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147
I see you have been digging into your friends list...


What are you talking about? nice detraction from the conversation though


originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147
That's even more desperate then your false accusations...


Yes, I'm quivering at the magnitude of your ignorance.


originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147
Shouldn't be trying to make an example of me then whine about thread being derailed...


I never whined about a derailed thread. Feel free to quote where I did.

What I did do was show that you've admitted to being a troll. Specifically one who trolls the "evolution crowd"



posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 03:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: wisvol
Blimey, I sure wish someone would try to answer the OP's question.

Maybe more spam would have the same effect?

Probably not


I've replied to your OP, your statements within your OP, and your following comments which reference the OP several times now.

Can you please respond to those responses?



posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: TerryDon79

Well if it has progressed enough you should be able to provide an explanation...

Can you share with us Darwins birth and death dates?


Charles Darwin
Born 1809
Died 1882

You also fail to grasp that the theory of evolution has changed since Darwins death.



posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 04:04 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Why?
didn't he know what he was talking about either?
edit on 3-3-2016 by 5StarOracle because: .



posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: TerryDon79

Why didn't he know what he was talking about either?


He was going on what evidence was available to him at the time. Just as we are going with all available evidence we have at this time.



posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle




“we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations


I notice all the creation websites that have are sporting this quote leave out the part before it. Where he says you would have to out of principle reject the idea that it was intelligent design.
I am not sure if they can say for sure how the eye came to be, but I highly doubt it is just wishful speculation at this point.

Shoot we don't even have the best eye's in the animal kingdom, guess god cared more about the animals then us.



posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: NateTheAnimator




I recommend you actually take some courses on evolutionary biology


I have taken evolutionary biology classes in HS and UC. Disagreement isn't always based solely on ignorance.



Soliciting opinions on the internet is fun,but probably not the best idea if you intend to learn anything.


Seems that way sometimes. Internet was meant to be a little bit different imo.



I don't have much to add as Ghost147 pretty much summed it up for me.


I don't read from that author any more, but glad to know he summed it up for you.
If you'd be so kind as to share your own version of his light I'd be most obliged, assuming it does address the thread's point.



posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

So you don't read the replies from someone who gave you answers to your questions?

You know that shows you have a bias, which is not a scientific way to look at things.



posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

I'm trying to not be involved here anymore I'm not trying to derail this thread...
So now you want to attack God?
If we all evolved from the same ancestor...
why are all of our eyeballs not as good?
And if we are at the top of the evolutionary ladder...
Why are our eyeballs not the best eyeballs?
edit on 3-3-2016 by 5StarOracle because: word



posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

Because ours didn't need to be.
They are as good as they have to be, evolution isn't about evolving into a super species.

I am not attacking God at all, my point was that where I found that quote being used as you are to try and doubt science was all creation websites that omitted that part of the quote. If I am 'attacking' anyone it is the dishonest people that want to try and twist the quote into saying something it is not.



posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

It's the only part that is relevant...his admission of wishful speculations... the fact he can't admit to intelligent design does not change this...
edit on 3-3-2016 by 5StarOracle because: word



posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 04:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: NateTheAnimator
I have taken evolutionary biology classes in HS and UC.


If this is true, I don't understand how you can make the claims you have and the statements you have in the OP.

They all stem from a direct lack of understanding of even the most basic concepts of evolution.

I don't mean to insult you, but much of what you've posted are things that someone with no understanding of evolution would say simply because they are so very opposite of what is taught and understood in the theory of evolution.


originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: NateTheAnimator
I don't read from that author any more, but glad to know he summed it up for you.


LMAO


originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: NateTheAnimator
If you'd be so kind as to share your own version of his light I'd be most obliged, assuming it does address the thread's point.


So you want him to copy and paste my response? they are the same....



posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol




I have taken evolutionary biology classes in HS and UC. Disagreement isn't always based solely on ignorance.


Well at least you gave it a chance,I just don't understand your lack of understanding on such a basic concept...It's...Perplexing to say the least.



I don't read from that author any more, but glad to know he summed it up for you.
If you'd be so kind as to share your own version of his light I'd be most obliged, assuming it does address the thread's point.


In regards to your question in the OP.
When you say origins of species are you referring to Darwin's book or the hypothesis of abiogenesis?
If it's the latter than you're off base again.

Ghost147 is probably the go to guy on ATS for everything Science related, so shutting him out because you dislike his responses is incredibly obtuse on your part.
I'm not even sure anymore what your intent was in opening this thread...Did you intend to learn anything or merely just troll like 5tarOracle.
edit on 3pm31America/Chicago3105America/Chicagopm355 by NateTheAnimator because: Edit



posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: wisvol
From a purely objective standpoint, the issue of an organized group seeking to diminish or replace a widely accepted scientific topic with one of pure philosophy and faith fits the description of a "conspiracy".

one of this website's owners

Species are correlated to each other, and may not be causal to each other.





No sane person would ignore the evolution of an individual, a group, a species, a phylum, a theory, or anything else : everything constantly changes and evolves in various ways, and none of it shows speciation to me so far.


A couple things here... First, you're including examples that do not fall under the auspices of biological evolution which is the actual subject being discussed. With that said, I must be insane because I will deny that evolution of an individual doesn't occur. Evolution is measured across populations, not individuals. Phylum, theory... Aren't really a part of the discussion. Perhaps I'm wrong but it cokes off as if you don't really understand Modern Evolutionary Synthesis as well as you feel you do but evolution is a change in allele frequency over time leading to a change in traits across a population. It doesn't alter the phylum the organism is in based on taxonomic characterization.


I doubt that the origin of all species is primordial soup, and I doubt that our ancestry include fish. Here is partly why:

The idea that the origin of all species is primordial soup, and that species become other species over time, are pushed by public services and their convinced students, and serve key social purposes from inception.


Here you're conflating the Hypothesis of Abiogenesis and/or Panspermia into MES. These are two separate discussions. MES is a biological process whereas abiogenesis/panspermia is a chemical or biochemical process. Two separate fields of study conducted by different specialists. The premise that sound science is pushed as part of a social engineering plan, to me, is ludicrous. You haven't demonstrated any flaws in the science despite your acerbic attack on it.


The idea that species become other species, but so slow you can't see it, when presented as fact to youth, can and does have lasting consequences including and unfortunately not limited to -either consciously or not- logically following this idea into its consequences for our own, assuming perennity.


Except the fossil record and even more importantly, recent advancements in genetics alongside long term experiments like Dr. Lenski's ecoli experiment all support MES. Despite your protestations, Evolution itself is an indisputable fact. The theory as outlined in MES serves to explain HOW evolution works.


To say this differently, people do not incrementally become different species, which is a racist's and an authoritarian's wet dream.
divide



Other consequences of the idea that fish become people over time include justification of empires as naturally selected to do what empires do, which coincidentally also serves "tptb"'s goals.
conquer


The 2 quotes above do nothing to support your contention. Tell me whee the science is incorrect instead of giving opinion as if it's fact. Social Darwinism is anathema to e actual science being conducted and is completely unsubstantiated. It was a late 19th century advent that at the time, yes, the above quotes would have applied.


Every child differs from their parents in ways not inclusive of the child's species.

A species is defined biologically as "a group whose offspring is fertile". This is from my university's textbook, any better definition is welcome.
How do you think an animal would have mutant offspring both unable to breed with the herd (a new species) and able to breed with their own new species, examples of which are available somehow?


And this is where we get into your misunderstanding of how evolution works. Evolution doesn't occur from one generation to the next. It is usually a gradual process though there are instances of punctuated equilibrium such as after a genetic bottleneck event. As I mentioned earlier, evolution is measured on the scale of populations and not on the individual level. Let's look at the recent appearance of the OCA2 gene 6-10 KA which codes for blue eyes. Even without an extensive genetic study, we know that this began recently and with a singular individual because there is very little variation in the melanin expressed in people with this mutation as compared to MtDNA studies of people with brown eyes. All blue eyed people have the same exact switch in the same exact spot in a gene adjacent to OCA2. This is an example of a neutral mutation as it is neither beneficial nor detrimental to the organism. Even after 6-10 KA, this mutation is still not rampant population wide. Compare that to the morphological differences between Homo Sapiens Sapiens and Neanderthal which are the result of 600 KA of genetic separation from our common ancestor. Like HSS, they also exhibited traits such as blue eyes and red hair but different genes code for these mutations in our cousins than in us.


If the herd's environment prompts similar ATCG syntax change deep enough to preclude interbreeding in enough young, what environments prompt this on people?
In other words, if "junk DNA" activates in fish in times of drought to turn them into frogs (some guy sold books about this), what does the human junk DNA do? Science-fiction has "fiction" in it and it's still cool.



Again, every child differs in some ways from its parents, but giving birth to a different species? Really?


Nobody gives birth to a new species. The entire population evolves slowly. While the differences may not be noticeable even over the course of tens of thousands of years, the change in allele frequencies occur at a somewhat predictable rate. HSS and Neanderthal were separated by 600 KA from their mutual common ancestors, H. Heidelbergensis and we were still able to produce fertile offspring with them. We are still genetically distinct from one another though and share a direct common ancestor. As genetic changes are passed on throughout a given population, the population as a whole changes together thus there is no "new" mutant species born from parents genetically distinct enough that the offspring are incapableofbreeding with therefor their population.


Because in order for fish to become people incrementally, quite a few mothers would have had to give birth to different species, so that would be a recurring thing, which come on.


I guess we should be thankful that this process took over half a billion years then.


This theory on the origin of species cut into the popularity of a previous view, according to which people originate from the source of everything else (call it bang if you must, this too shall pass) and definitely not the contrary as opening quote suggests.


But what is your evidence to support this? You have made several statements of fact that are relegated to the realm of personal opinion and have not supported any of the statements.



posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: NateTheAnimator




In regards to your question in the OP. When you say origins of species are you referring to Darwin's book or the hypothesis of abiogenesis? If it's the latter than you're off base again.


Referring to the origin of species, as in the source of animal, vegetal and fungal variety we enjoy.




Ghost147 is probably the go to guy on ATS for everything Science related, so shutting him out because you dislike his responses is incredibly obtuse on your part.


I do this irl too and can only recommend it: for some teachers' opinion of a tampon commercial I'd cut their wood for five winters with a rusty axe, and some people I wouldn't piss on to extinguish. Saves time in overcrowded situations.

I see you haven't brought his/her point to your response.

To keep the ball rolling, here is the most interesting answer I came across so far, from Dr Claude Debraine, who teaches evolutionary biology in Brussels, Belgium (paraphrased)

"Speciation is axiomatic"

I expect some people to have even better answers and maybe ghost has one, it just seems too unlikely to go through his writing. Again I'd appreciate you proving me wrong, in which case I would apologize to ghost and use springwater were he to catch fire in my immediate vicinity.



posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

I don't understand this post at all.

The quote "speciation is axiomatic" doesn't exactly do anything for an argument against evolution. Do you know what axiomatic means?
edit on 032303/3/1616 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join