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.
originally posted by: TerryDon79
originally posted by: ssenerawa
It was no first that did it, anything that does it had to already been that way in the beginning, can't evolve to lay eggs
originally posted by: smirkley
All procreating animals create eggs.
The question might be, which was the first animal that laid eggs as opposed to carrying their embryos inside themselves.
Yes, something can evolve to lay eggs. That's the whole thing with evolution, it changes what was to what is.
originally posted by: ssenerawa
a reply to: Barcs
Micro and macro or very different as are evolution and mutation. One depends on external factors and the other depends on internal factors and genes responsible for the structure of an animal.
This is the arguement for evolution. And let me know if it's 100% correct in your honest opinion.
"In other words, beaks changed as the birds developed different tastes for fruits, seeds, or insects picked from the ground or cacti. Long, pointed beaks made some of them more fit for picking seeds out of cactus fruits. Shorter, stouter beaks served best for eating seeds found on the ground."
news.harvard.edu...
Yes I agree, when the context of evolution is used accordingly and not as if it was a derivative of external and/or environmental factors.
originally posted by: peter vlar
originally posted by: ssenerawa
a reply to: peter vlar
They haven't been "evolving". They've been mutating.
And mutations are one of the mechanisms of biological evolution. Therefore if something has mutated across every single taxonomic rank, for hundreds of millions of years, then these things have evolved.
Exactly, I agree but only tend to call it micro to engage in a different veiw because evolution in it's on regard is looked at mostly entirely different along with a faulty perspective
originally posted by: Cypress
originally posted by: ssenerawa
a reply to: Barcs
Micro and macro or very different as are evolution and mutation. One depends on external factors and the other depends on internal factors and genes responsible for the structure of an animal.
This is the arguement for evolution. And let me know if it's 100% correct in your honest opinion.
"In other words, beaks changed as the birds developed different tastes for fruits, seeds, or insects picked from the ground or cacti. Long, pointed beaks made some of them more fit for picking seeds out of cactus fruits. Shorter, stouter beaks served best for eating seeds found on the ground."
news.harvard.edu...
No they aren't otherwise you would be able to show the specific mechanism that prevents a divergence of species and explain why some species can disregard boundaries and successfully crossbreed (which would be impossible if micro and macro were separate processes.) Not only that but if macro was it's own process, all divergence between populations in a single generation. This is contrary to what has been proven.
originally posted by: ssenerawa
Information in the same context as when you used it to prove your point prior
originally posted by: Barcs
originally posted by: ssenerawa
a reply to: Barcs
The fact that you can't answer the information question without dancing, indirectly proves my point.
What about the fact that you ignored the majority of my post, including where I asked you to define the word "information"?
If the answer is unknown, I can give you an opinion, but can't state with any certainty when the first "information" originated. I mentioned the brain because the majority of information is learned and created using it. Until you give me a clear definition of information, I can't really do much but speculate.
Yes I agree, when the context of evolution is used accordingly and not as if it was a derivative of external and/or environmental factors.
Exactly, I agree but only tend to call it micro to engage in a different veiw because evolution in it's on regard is looked at mostly entirely different along with a faulty perspective
originally posted by: ssenerawa
originally posted by: peter vlar
originally posted by: ssenerawa
a reply to: peter vlar
They haven't been "evolving". They've been mutating.
And mutations are one of the mechanisms of biological evolution. Therefore if something has mutated across every single taxonomic rank, for hundreds of millions of years, then these things have evolved.
Yes I agree, when the context of evolution is used accordingly and not as if it was a derivative of external and/or environmental factors.
originally posted by: ssenerawa
a reply to: peter vlar
And by accordingly I meant how it was being used in our conversation, Many of the earlier posters didn't regard the perspective of the theory of evolution in the same light
...I couldn't think of a different way except using micro and macro in my bold attempt to prove my point..
originally posted by: ssenerawa
a reply to: Barcs
What is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things,
originally posted by: cooperton
The logistics of evolving neural systems through the proposed mechanisms of the theory are a logical impossibility.
1) How could a DNA mutation lead to an increase in neural tissue involving neurons and their required support cells?
2) How could this same mutation also orchestrate the organization of these hypothetical new neurons and support cells during embryonic development?
3) How, also, could this same mutation increase cranial capacity to allow for the increase in brain size?
With one of the above missing, the mutation is lethal at worst and erroneous at best. ... There are around 100 billion neurons in the brain and around 1 trillion glial cells in the brain all working in an intricate and interdependent manner which is adaptable and self-healing and can perpetuate without failing for over 100 years - how the hell could this evolve, according to your perverse theory?
originally posted by: barcs
1. Evolution
2. Evolution
3. Evolution
“God-of-the-Gaps”?
Some object that God is arbitrarily inserted “as an explanatory fix” wherever there is no provable scientific explanation. In other words, the claim is that such a divine Designer becomes the “God-of-the-gaps,” as if “God” were a magic word to use whenever men cannot figure things out. But what are the gaps referred to here? Are they merely small and insignificant gaps in our knowledge? No, they are real chasms of plausibility that exist in Darwinian evolution. They are fundamental breaches in aspects of biology that the theory of evolution has been incapable of bridging. In all fairness, evolutionists who rely on unsupported assertions effectively make the Darwinian theory their “God-of-the-gaps.”
originally posted by: Barcs
Why can't RNA world hypothesis have merit? What about DNA self assembly experiments and the likes? ...
It's based on what you want to be true.