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.

 

Man didn't evolve from fish or monkeys

page: 5
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2016 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: danielsil18

I've got a post graduate qualification in Bioinformatics (to go with several in Chemistry) and the crux of the OP is that Creationists (tm) don't get that there is a difference between "common ancestor" and "animal in question".

Now it could be said we evolved (if one goes far enough back) from a fish of some sort, before that some less evolved aquatic species and all the way back to a single celled organism etc, but thats not what the creation/ID mob accuse evolution of saying now is it?




posted on Mar, 7 2016 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

No the crux is that evolutionists get ancy if creationists suggest our common ancestor is monkeys or fish.

When in fact evolutionists believe our common non biological ancestor is the big bang

I find that absurd



posted on Mar, 7 2016 @ 08:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Noinden

No the crux is that evolutionists get ancy if creationists suggest our common ancestor is monkeys or fish.

When in fact evolutionists believe our common non biological ancestor is the big bang

I find that absurd



The wonderful thing about science is, it doesn't care what you think.



posted on Mar, 7 2016 @ 09:56 PM
link   
a reply to: RoScoLaz4




if monkeys were the prototype human,


They aren't. The relationship is not one of grandfather, father, son - it is one of cousins (several times removed). Monkeys and Humans have a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins have a common ancestor (your grandparents).



why are they still around?


Why wouldn't they be? Why are your cousins 'still' around?



is nature in the habit of maintaining the earlier generations of a species,


All life evolves continuously, generation to generation to generation. Some species go extinct, some just keep on keeping on.



concurrent with the most modern one?


Don't your cousins exist concurrent with you?

This is a question that has been asked and answered so many times that asking it again is bordering on trolldom. I hope that you question was an honest one and not an attempt to poke at nest of hornets.

Assuming your question was honest and you really need to understand evolution in order to break out of the cultists anti-science echo chamber that lead you to ask it, I highly recommend you read and strive to understand the information here: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent


Universal common descent is a general descriptive theory concerning the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, universal common ancestry entails the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, macroevolutionary history and processes involving the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences.

This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated.


It really is an excellent read.
edit on 7/3/2016 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2016 @ 10:07 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm



Science is what we learn, not what we believe

It doesn't care because its governed by unexplainable laws.

The act of experimentation is manipulated by those with the authority given them by those with the money.

You can make comments to the cows come home, just lack evidence to call it science



posted on Mar, 7 2016 @ 10:11 PM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

Talk origins, really

That's a pseudo religious site, doesn't deserve any recognition at all

Look at its intro
"Universal common descent is the hypothesis that all known living"

Look at the word hypothesis

hypothesis
hʌɪˈpɒθɪsɪs/Submit
noun
supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
"his ‘steady state’ hypothesis of the origin of the universe"
synonyms: theory, theorem, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presumption, presupposition; More
PHILOSOPHY
a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.
"the hypothesis that every event has a cause"

The whole article is bunk, its assumption, that's not science

Deny ignorance or embrace it.

If you believe that its by faith only



posted on Mar, 7 2016 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Evidence for speciation (which proves evolution) happening within the last 100 years (+-)......



For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.


from scientificamerica.com
edit on 073607/3/1616 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2016 @ 10:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Noinden

No the crux is that evolutionists get ancy if creationists suggest our common ancestor is monkeys or fish.


No, the crux of it has nothing to do with getting antsy, it has to do with repeating a self fulfilling fable ad infinitum which shows the true depth of the ignorance and scientific illiteracy of whomever is posting buffoonery and equating common descent with man evolving from fish or monkeys. If you can't be bothered to learn about what you loathe well enough to use the correct terminology, let alone your inability to actually show what is wrong with the science and then resorting to ad hominem fallacies, then you can't expect anyone to take your uninformed opinions seriously.


When in fact evolutionists believe our common non biological ancestor is the big bang



Again with the extreme ignorance of any science period here. The entire premise that you base your position on is what is absurd here. When an Anthropologist, Evolutionary Biologist or Paleontologist studies aspects of their chosen discipline, we are in no way at all bothered about or considering Cosmological events that are described by Physics, a mostly unrelated field of study in regards to evolutionary theory. Likewise, we don't concern ourselves with the debate of Abiogenesis, Panspermia or "god" did it in regards to the origin of life on Earth. The only thing we are studying or focusing on is in relation to changes in allele frequency over time, how this occurs and which mechanisms were involved.

You've premised your entire position on a nonexistent but somehow self sustaining strawman that only lives in your insular little world. Francis Collins, a devout Christian and former head of the Human Genome Project, seems perfectly comfortable with the current models and has supported them with his work in genetics. And yet he remains devoutly faithful to the message attributed to Christ.



posted on Mar, 7 2016 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

I completely agree.

For all we really know, something/someone could have created life. Life being the very first organism.

Evolution doesn't contemplate the beginning, it's what happened after life had already begun. I don't understand why some people think that evolution disproves, or tries to disprove, the existence of a higher being creating life.



posted on Mar, 7 2016 @ 11:13 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

How it started was never a factor into my research. I was far more interested in why the Neanderthal died off, whether or not there was admixture and what role anatomically modern humans played and why we survived when all other members of our genus were unsuccessful in that matter. Keep in mind that this was before the HGP and NGP and the discovery of Denisovans and the coverage and ability to extract information from DNA was still a toddler compared to what we know almost 20 years later. Either faith not religion was ever a factor or even a topic of discussion. The quality of the work and adherence to the scientific method was all that mattered then and still holds true today.



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 12:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar



Again with the extreme ignorance of any science period here. The entire premise that you base your position on is what is absurd here. When an Anthropologist, Evolutionary Biologist or Paleontologist studies aspects of their chosen discipline, we are in no way at all bothered about or considering Cosmological events that are described by Physics, a mostly unrelated field of study in regards to evolutionary theory. Likewise, we don't concern ourselves with the debate of Abiogenesis, Panspermia or "god" did it in regards to the origin of life on Earth. The only thing we are studying or focusing on is in relation to changes in allele frequency over time, how this occurs and which mechanisms were involved.

Francis Collins, a devout Christian and former head of the Human Genome Project, seems perfectly comfortable with the current models and has supported them with his work in genetics. And yet he remains devoutly faithful to the message attributed to Christ.




Antsy, thanks!

So you get to choose what I get to think, thanks again.

I bow down to your superior bullying tactics

Not really, I have an issue with evolution, please feel free to dismiss my issue because it treads on your toes

It seems the only thing studied is the bias, don't concern yourself with anything that throws your subjects into a grey area, dismiss what doesn't suit
Again you are trailing off, my issue is the petty complaining about fish and monkeys when there seems to be a larger issue at stake. The simple fact that we are a product of dirt and water.

Please feel free to sound your trumpets of derision, my issue is that our common non biological ancestor is the big bang, according to evolution.

I will repeat that sentence because you seem to want to chorale me into your direction of argument, no thanks

my issue is that our common non biological ancestor is the big bang, according to evolution.


and good on Mr Francis Collins, he is welcome to believe anything he chooses, me I have questions that never get answered, nor ever dealt with


maybe you are in the wrong thread preaching the wrong sermon PV, its about origins.

If Christians are ignorant about monkeys and fish then your ignorance is staggering in relation to origins before

This is a silly game



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 12:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

So evolution says we originated from the big bang?

I don't see how that's possible as evolution is what happened AFTER life came to be.



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 12:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
It seems the only thing studied is the bias, don't concern yourself with anything that throws your subjects into a grey area, dismiss what doesn't suit

You're an ignorant fool, and you know nothing of science or the scientific method, that much is clear.


...my issue is that our common non biological ancestor is the big bang, according to evolution.

Utterly preposterous. The theory of evolution makes no such asinine claims, and by its' very definition, is not concerned with origins, only the process that occurs afterwards.



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 01:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: peter vlar



Again with the extreme ignorance of any science period here. The entire premise that you base your position on is what is absurd here. When an Anthropologist, Evolutionary Biologist or Paleontologist studies aspects of their chosen discipline, we are in no way at all bothered about or considering Cosmological events that are described by Physics, a mostly unrelated field of study in regards to evolutionary theory. Likewise, we don't concern ourselves with the debate of Abiogenesis, Panspermia or "god" did it in regards to the origin of life on Earth. The only thing we are studying or focusing on is in relation to changes in allele frequency over time, how this occurs and which mechanisms were involved.

Francis Collins, a devout Christian and former head of the Human Genome Project, seems perfectly comfortable with the current models and has supported them with his work in genetics. And yet he remains devoutly faithful to the message attributed to Christ.




Antsy, thanks!

So you get to choose what I get to think, thanks again.


I never said anything about telling you what you can think. However, if you're posting uninformed and willfully ignorant positions regarding a science you clearly have an elementary school knowledge of then you should be prepared to get called out on it.


I bow down to your superior bullying tactics


I'm sorry. I didn't realize I was talking to a 12 year old. Nothing I said was remotely in the realm of bullying.


Not really, I have an issue with evolution, please feel free to dismiss my issue because it treads on your toes


I'm dismissing it because you have provided nothing aside from ad hominem attacks based on strawman arguments. My toes are just fine.


It seems the only thing studied is the bias, don't concern yourself with anything that throws your subjects into a grey area, dismiss what doesn't suit


Unlike you, I approach this issue with zero bias. I follow the evidence with no regard to where it ;leads.


Again you are trailing off, my issue is the petty complaining about fish and monkeys when there seems to be a larger issue at stake. The simple fact that we are a product of dirt and water.


That is the most dumbed down version of any hypothesis I've encountered in decades.


Please feel free to sound your trumpets of derision, my issue is that our common non biological ancestor is the big bang, according to evolution.


No it isn't. That position stems solely from your scientifically illiterate and willfully ignorant point of view. If you want to discuss the Big Bang, there are people on ATS with backgrounds in physics and this silly diatribe of yours would be much better suited in discussing it with them as BB Theory has no part in Modern Evolutionary Synthesis.


I will repeat that sentence because you seem to want to chorale me into your direction of argument, no thanks

my issue is that our common non biological ancestor is the big bang, according to evolution.


No, your issue is conflating to entirely separate fields into one issue because you don't actually understand the science you are attempting to bash.



and good on Mr Francis Collins, he is welcome to believe anything he chooses, me I have questions that never get answered, nor ever dealt with



Your questions have been answered 1000's of times at this point and by many people. You simply choose to remain ignorant instead of educating yourself. and for the record... It's Dr. Collins, not Mr. He is a world renowned geneticist, not some hack from a community college.


maybe you are in the wrong thread preaching the wrong sermon PV, its about origins.


You might think that's what it's about but your posts tell a very different tale.


If Christians are ignorant about monkeys and fish then your ignorance is staggering in relation to origins before



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

If you don't agree with the talkorigins site, you should be able to debunk them and show where they are wrong, conclusively. Arguing semantics will get you no where. Please break down just 5 of the 29 forms of evidence and explain where it's wrong and why. No creationist has ever done this. Maybe you can be the first? Or maybe you can keep trolling and using fallacies. It's up to you. You are the one that seems adamant about debunking evolution. Well, start debunking already.

You haven't made a single argument in the thread that has anything to do with evolution itself or the science therein. It's just straw man after straw man. And before you respond calling me sick or angry or depressed, just read some of the stuff you post. For people that understand the science, your arguments are cringe worthy, they don't even make sense.

Big bang, abiogenesis, primordial soup, etc is not part of evolution. Straw manning and equivocating it like that only proves you are getting really desperate to promote your worldview. Fortunately, anybody with half a brain can see through your tactics like a freshly cleaned vindow.


Please feel free to sound your trumpets of derision, my issue is that our common non biological ancestor is the big bang, according to evolution


This is your primary straw man. Big bang is not an ancestor, nor does evolution say anything about it. When you make up a lie like that and claim "according to evolution" it is a dirty illogical fallacious tactic that is only used by folks trying to intentionally deceive. Is this what you are doing here or are you going to discuss what evolution actually is? You can't have biological evolution without the presence of life, so all of your arguments about a soup or big bang are fallacies. You should actually learn about a theory before you criticize it, because it makes you look like either a dumbass or a troll. I lean to troll because I don't think you are that dumb or that anything you are posting was a mistake. It was an intentional straw man constructed solely to misrepresent what evolution is, in order to further your agenda. If it was just a genuine misunderstand you would have corrected yourself by now, but willful ignorance comes to mind here.


edit on 3 8 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Very well said, Peter. You nailed it like usual. If I could give it more than 1 star, I would.



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman


Evolutionists get upset if a creationists suggests that evolutionists think man evolved from fish and monkeys

Well, why shouldn’t they? It’s a slander. A purposeful misrepresentation of what ‘evolutionists’ actually hold to be true.

If somebody went telling lies about me, I’d be upset too.



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

This is so boring
"Universal common descent is the hypothesis"

Done



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

We evolved from dirt and water from the Big Bang

Isn't that your beliefs, that's not slander, that is what science teaches



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Done

Finally.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join