"The origin of species"

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Dude... your talking about mutations and genetic deviations. AS STATED BEFORE, the testosterone imbalance will only become part of evolution if it helps with survival.

There can be tons and tons of mutations and deviations within a species, but if it does not help with survival it will only be relevant to the individual suffering from the condition and perhaps their offspring specifically if it's a genetic mutation.

Please do research.

a reply to: GreenGunther

ah very nice lol.

animals adapt to their environment by natural selection. Blind mexican tetra

a reply to: GreenGunther

A platypus would be a poor example for reptile to bird crossover species...
an odd one for sure the only mammal that lays eggs...
I gave you a star for making me laugh though...

a reply to: vjr1113

Yea, everything you say is mostly true in my opinion, just to clarify though:

dude are you seriously looking for a crocoduck or some kind of halfbreed of every species and family that we have now?

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

there is no other option besides the laughable claim that some god when, poof, penguins, poof polar bears, poof giraffes

No. there are many cosmogonies that don't imply the turbo retarded claim that fish become poof people and giraffes and polar bears and penguins bud, cause even Vishnu has more superpower than #ing fish have.

we dont have to prove where life came from only reject supernatural claims and flawed theories.

They asked me on this thread where life came from and I answered that my opinion is what ever Idi Amin's opinion is, because that's funny and reflects on the poor life choice consisting of believing what ever some retarded # tells you.
Obviously proving cats don't become dogs does not have to include telling them whether I think allah of jesus would win at volleyball wtf dude

a reply to: GreenGunther

It is still irrelevant and not indicative of a mutation at all...
It is an inherent ability to produce more testosterone when stressed out...

a reply to: Murgatroid

We now know the term 'junk DNA' is not relevant as it took the first monkeys only 5000 years to develop color vision. What you refer to as 'junk DNA' is what allowed them to do this so quickly since they already had the genes, they just weren't in use. When color vision became necessary the 'junk DNA' was able to be reincorporated very quickly since the creatures preceding mammals had color vision.

a reply to: wisvol

no one should have asked you where life came from. know one can know. a better question would have been, what process best explains the diversity of life?

a reply to: vjr1113

Ya that's true enough because evolution in no way equates to the origins of life.
That's what evolutionists do when they are struggling and believe individuals can only disagree with evolution because of a belief in God...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Indeed, but is this a common trait throughout the species?

a reply to: GreenGunther

thats a good point. youd have to look at the dna of all life present right now to see if there is any common genetic make up. im not an evolutionary biologist, but ive heard we have dna in common with even plant life. i have no idea if life ever started more than once on this planet, but it really doesnt matter what i know, only what i believe given the evidence.

a reply to: GreenGunther

That would have to be an...
only if thier testosterone levels are increased.
It's a side effect of testosterone levels...

a reply to: vjr1113

That question was asked by the same person actually.

Same caveat though.

Also Gunther said something about why elephants have trunks and giraffes have long necks before a semi glorious mike half drop, but since all atsers look alike to me there we go

Wondering about things is great, and start you own #ing threads to ask the world all about it, or even do it here when you're done with the customary positive and civil experience of answering the question in the OP, because I'm trying to figure out what in the world would make reading-age people convinced that species turn into other species, so all your ramblings about god and platypus and even epigenetics are great after party.

Spit it out, is it just the fact that "life is diverse" that prompts you to go "yea sure eventually my cat will lay raptor eggs because why the # not?"

If so, life is indeed diverse, and not because gramps is a fish, but because everything is diverse, even the things that don't breed at all. The tough question is gonna be in two weeks or so when the last cow is dead from water poisoning or some such and some kids asks why is there only people?
Then we'll be all like, hey people are diverse too, which is true.

What isn't true is that the link between "wow everything is diverse but also united" and "gramps is a fish" has any logical, scientific, moral, or any other value in the large historical variety of values.

a reply to: wisvol

If you believe that humans are the result of a normal evolution. I think you are wrong.
If you believe humans will evolve in the same way other earthly creatures evolve, I -again- think you are wrong.
No offense though. I respect your meaning.

Humans are created by an alien race.

Boring, there we go again, but so what.

Consciousness is the key.

It made the gap between humans and animals a billion miles wide (so to speak). Humans are a created being, created from apes, pigs and maybe the dna of some other creatures.

Alfred Wallace (greater than Darwin if you ask me) knew something that many geniuses know (knew). He said that everything could be explained by Darwin’s law … except human consciousness.
www.evawaseerst.be...

a reply to: vjr1113

It's fairly safe to assume that the dinosaurs died off due to an extinction level event...
Assuming that is true how can other life have survived the same extinction event? And how can the dinosaurs then be the supposed ancestors for things like the first bird known as Archaeopteryx...
I am obviously in agreement with the OP and I believe the only changes that can be seen is the hybridization of given animals birds become other birds dogs become other dogs fish become other fish etc and that's as far as evolution can accurately be portrayed so then it's no longer evolution it's simply hybridization...

a reply to: zandra

Raw, refreshing, zandric even.

I don't believe humans are a special mix of pig and monkey, any more than I believe they're a mix of just monkey and recess.

It's a nice addition to the topic though, gives perspective.

thanks!

a reply to: zandra

human consciousness is a product of the human brain, even some dogs have better consciousness than some humans. many animals have different levels of consciousness, some animals like mammals have the same types of consciousness and behaviours that humans have. and its no surprise most mammals have some common traits and behaviour. mark my words, thousands of years from now, if were lucky, hundreds of thousands of years, humans as we know them now will no longer exist, we would have evolved and gained consciousness, that is if our species values intelligence above all else.

a reply to: 5StarOracle

nope, it's a side effect of either something caused by the environment or a unique genetic deviation. Doesn't matter, it's a deviation and not part of the 'normal' baseline for the species.

a reply to: 5StarOracle

And, dearest Oracle, I'd like to add:

A lot of species are extinct, starting with the legged armed serpent as we know since at least before Darwin.

Other extinct species apparently include weird looking birds (archaeopteryx is a great example) which today wouldn't breed with of become toucans any more than turkeys or eagles would, so why in your view, are these otherwise seemingly sound brothers and sisters insisting that species turn into other species, an idea neither observed nor verified nor even theorized by them? It's easy to fact check this! thought experiments are enough, but the hardy can spend thirty years irradiating drosophilia for a thousand generations and still have drosophilia, or say, cut their foreskins off for thousands of years to see if evolution will make them be born without or something, but no, just repeating public school programming.

School also told you your country was the good guys during the war (unless your country lost it and was issued textbooks).
And even if your country lost the war, they told you they're the good guys now, which is equally ludicrous mostly because & c.

School lied to you on many things, subtle things, like proper mathematics, chemistry, biology (obviously) and even the geography is so biased it's not funny. The one school class most linked to what you're doing now is probably the most obvious if your life's work goes beyond being a public servant or a supermarket greeter.

a reply to: 5StarOracle

well right off the bat there were no dogs after the dinosaurs, or cats or any of the species we have now. all mammals have a common ancestor that was none of the species that live now.

simple life seems to be very hard to completely kill. there is life in the most volatile of places including nuclear reactors, we call them extremophiles. the only reason dinosaurs when extinct is because their environment changed drastically, but even then fish, some mammals, and some reptiles survived. the rest is history.

im not a teacher or a scientist, id refer you to youtube or wikipedia for basic education on the history of life and evolution.

a reply to: zandra

It's like stumbled into the most uninformed f-ing twilight zone ever. If you want to talk about these things, please do research on your own and ask questions to fill in the gaps. I'm done spoon-feeding. Animals have conscienceness you are probably just not familiar with the varying degrees of conscienceness.

Have you people ever looked into science? I apologize for my rant, but I thought people on ATS were informed and I suspect you are all just trolling... I seem to have stumbled into the wrong crowd... excuse me *runs out without ever looking back*