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.

 

Living proof of change in species or evolution : An underwater breathing cricket

page: 2
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: nOraKat

Cool little creature, thanks for the post!
I'll check back in a few million years to see if he adapts a more crab like appearance.





posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 06:02 PM
link   
I don't know anyone that doesn't believe species adapt. Everyone buys micro evolution - even hardcore young earth creationists - because we see it all the time. Domestication of plants and animals for example.

Macro evolution is where people get hung up.

Neat discovery, though. But that picture gives me the creeps.
edit on 26-7-2016 by VegHead because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: VegHead

Macro and Micro-evolution are the same thing. Macro-evolution is just a term for the cumulative effect of lots of micro-evolution.

The equivalent of saying a swimming pool of water is the cumulative effect of lots of buckets of water.



posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 04:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: VegHead

Macro and Micro-evolution are the same thing. Macro-evolution is just a term for the cumulative effect of lots of micro-evolution.

The equivalent of saying a swimming pool of water is the cumulative effect of lots of buckets of water.


Yeah but macro has never been seen to happen so it's a faith not science



posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 06:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

The program was aired on NHK World, which is an English version of the major Japanese network NHK. The show was called The Great Summits, where they go to various places around the world usually climbing mountains.

The episode was on Angel Falls in the Guiana Highlands of South America (Venezuela).

They said this species is known to exist in only one place - the Guiana Highlands. And mentioned, "crickets usually live on land but this one has something that look like gills."

Maybe the absence of any Google-able articles show that not many people know about it yet.

Maybe the idea in Kevin Costner's movie Waterworld was not so far fetched where humans of the future developed gills.



posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 06:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: redmage
If the cricket is getting oxygen from the water, then that could suggest it leaves hydrogen as a byproduct.


Like fish etc. animals that live underwater get their air from dissolved oxygen, not the Oxygen in H20



posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 07:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: VegHead

Macro and Micro-evolution are the same thing. Macro-evolution is just a term for the cumulative effect of lots of micro-evolution.

The equivalent of saying a swimming pool of water is the cumulative effect of lots of buckets of water.


Yeah but macro has never been seen to happen so it's a faith not science


LOL! Fundies using the word "faith" as form of derision and at the same time pretending to know what science is!?

If you bother to understand what evolution actually says, you would know we observe evolution occurring every day in living species and what we are observing is the ongoing process of both "micro" and "macro" evolution, as they are one in the same process.

Your opinion, like any other opinion, is woefully inadequate at affecting reality outside your fictitious, self-imposed delusion.



posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 10:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

No... "creationists" say macro-evolution has never been seen to happen... the scientific community doesn't distinguish between micro and macro-evolution other than as an arbitrary distinction of scale (even just 2 micro-evolutions make a macro-evolution, or 100, or nth number of micros can all be classified as a macro).

The scientific community, in general, understands that evolution is a cumulative effect of lots of small changes... not a dog turning into a cat in a single generation (as creationists would like to have you believe that evolution is saying).

Is a cricket living under water, and developing some semblance of gills not enough of a macro-evolution for you? What else is required for this cricket to achieve this elusive macro-evolution you speak of? Maybe some pincers?



posted on Jul, 28 2016 @ 12:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: Raggedyman

No... "creationists" say macro-evolution has never been seen to happen... the scientific community doesn't distinguish between micro and macro-evolution other than as an arbitrary distinction of scale (even just 2 micro-evolutions make a macro-evolution, or 100, or nth number of micros can all be classified as a macro).

The scientific community, in general, understands that evolution is a cumulative effect of lots of small changes... not a dog turning into a cat in a single generation (as creationists would like to have you believe that evolution is saying).

Is a cricket living under water, and developing some semblance of gills not enough of a macro-evolution for you? What else is required for this cricket to achieve this elusive macro-evolution you speak of? Maybe some pincers?


I am sorry, did you say a cricket with gills, care to explain those gills I can hardly wait for an answer, if I do get an answer it wont be an answer that is in anyway relevant to the thread at all

Like a baby in an amniotic sac, the baby has gills, yeah?
it doesnt work like that
edit on 28-7-2016 by Raggedyman because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-7-2016 by Raggedyman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2016 @ 12:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: flyingfish

LOL! Fundies using the word "faith" as form of derision and at the same time pretending to know what science is!?

If you bother to understand what evolution actually says, you would know we observe evolution occurring every day in living species and what we are observing is the ongoing process of both "micro" and "macro" evolution, as they are one in the same process.

Your opinion, like any other opinion, is woefully inadequate at affecting reality outside your fictitious, self-imposed delusion.


LOL a fundie bagging a fundie,

If you bother, nah you wont.

Your opinion, like any other opinion, is woefully inadequate at affecting reality outside your fictitious, self-imposed delusion.

Just a little evidence, not theory and you win, I can wait, but I got a feeling I wont ever hear from you again, if I do it wont be an answer that is in anyway relevant to the thread at all
edit on 28-7-2016 by Raggedyman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2016 @ 08:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman



On cue! Boorish behavior is expected from you and your ilk.

Your plea for evidence is touching, but most posters are on to you trick! and know evidence is a mere option for you depending on what fallacy you can spin out of it.

You need evidence in order to validate a scientific theory, it's not like a layman coming up with a theory about were Taco bell cheese comes from.
But you know this! and this is why you have zero credibility.



posted on Jul, 28 2016 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: flyingfish

So you offer a paragraph of words with nothing to validate the science of crickets with gills
You call me boorish because I asked for evidence

I think your comments are not just boorish but pointless

I searched the cricket, crickets with gills, all that and got exactly what I got from your post, nothing

Taco Bell, smoke and mirrors
I just want to see proof these crickets have gills, not what cheese Taco Bell uses, what is that about, deflection?

Why even comment FF, you offered nothing but belligerence to a genuine question, it's like you have nothing so attack with nothing, it isn't a good look



posted on Jul, 28 2016 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: VegHead

Macro and Micro-evolution are the same thing. Macro-evolution is just a term for the cumulative effect of lots of micro-evolution.

The equivalent of saying a swimming pool of water is the cumulative effect of lots of buckets of water.


Yeah but macro has never been seen to happen so it's a faith not science


Have you seen nuclear fusion happen? So it's a faith not science, right?

Have you seen oxygen? Must be faith based that you can breathe.

edit on 7 28 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2016 @ 06:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: VegHead

Macro and Micro-evolution are the same thing. Macro-evolution is just a term for the cumulative effect of lots of micro-evolution.

The equivalent of saying a swimming pool of water is the cumulative effect of lots of buckets of water.


Yeah but macro has never been seen to happen so it's a faith not science


Have you seen nuclear fusion happen? So it's a faith not science, right?

Have you seen oxygen? Must be faith based that you can breathe.


What, Taco Bell and now we bring up nuclear fusion

We are talking about a cricket with gills, there is a post talking about a cricket with gills, no evidence, and then we go down taco bell and fusion

Barcs, you have lost all credibility

Tell me, be honest, do you believe that there is a cricket with gills, that, that cricket has gills?

I should post a picture of a whale launching out of the water and start a thread that whales fly, proof in a picture



posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 03:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: VegHead

Macro and Micro-evolution are the same thing. Macro-evolution is just a term for the cumulative effect of lots of micro-evolution.

The equivalent of saying a swimming pool of water is the cumulative effect of lots of buckets of water.


Yeah but macro has never been seen to happen so it's a faith not science


Have you seen nuclear fusion happen? So it's a faith not science, right?

Have you seen oxygen? Must be faith based that you can breathe.


So evolution is water put in a a pool by the bucket, thats very good.

Now Barcs

No Taco bells, no fusion, no faith, no buckets of water on the cricket



Tell me, be honest, do you believe that there is a cricket with gills, that, that cricket pictured, has gills?

yes no maybe
be scienterrific



posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 04:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: flyingfish
a reply to: Raggedyman



On cue! Boorish behavior is expected from you and your ilk.

Your plea for evidence is touching, but most posters are on to you trick! and know evidence is a mere option for you depending on what fallacy you can spin out of it.

You need evidence in order to validate a scientific theory, it's not like a layman coming up with a theory about were Taco bell cheese comes from.
But you know this! and this is why you have zero credibility.


after that rant at me, surely you can answer my question
Asking about a crickets gills, barcs might put in a few cents worth, appreciate anything

Cricket gills, thats the issue, no cheese



posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 09:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: VegHead

Macro and Micro-evolution are the same thing. Macro-evolution is just a term for the cumulative effect of lots of micro-evolution.

The equivalent of saying a swimming pool of water is the cumulative effect of lots of buckets of water.


Yeah but macro has never been seen to happen so it's a faith not science


Have you seen nuclear fusion happen? So it's a faith not science, right?

Have you seen oxygen? Must be faith based that you can breathe.


What, Taco Bell and now we bring up nuclear fusion

We are talking about a cricket with gills, there is a post talking about a cricket with gills, no evidence, and then we go down taco bell and fusion

Barcs, you have lost all credibility

Tell me, be honest, do you believe that there is a cricket with gills, that, that cricket has gills?

I should post a picture of a whale launching out of the water and start a thread that whales fly, proof in a picture


Um, you are the one that suggested something was wrong because it hasn't been witnessed first hand. Welp at least that eliminates god based on your logic.

The OP did not say the cricket had gills either. It was said in the OP based on the show that it was a similar type of mutation, not that they were literally gills. Look, I'm skeptical about this find as well, because there is literally no information out there about it. I'll wait for the scientific research before passing judgement.

Please take your off topic anti evolution rants, somewhere else.


edit on 7 29 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: VegHead

Macro and Micro-evolution are the same thing. Macro-evolution is just a term for the cumulative effect of lots of micro-evolution.

The equivalent of saying a swimming pool of water is the cumulative effect of lots of buckets of water.


Yeah but macro has never been seen to happen so it's a faith not science


Have you seen nuclear fusion happen? So it's a faith not science, right?

Have you seen oxygen? Must be faith based that you can breathe.


What, Taco Bell and now we bring up nuclear fusion

We are talking about a cricket with gills, there is a post talking about a cricket with gills, no evidence, and then we go down taco bell and fusion

Barcs, you have lost all credibility

Tell me, be honest, do you believe that there is a cricket with gills, that, that cricket has gills?

I should post a picture of a whale launching out of the water and start a thread that whales fly, proof in a picture


Um, you are the one that suggested something was wrong because it hasn't been witnessed first hand. Welp at least that eliminates god based on your logic.

The OP did not say the cricket had gills either. It was said in the OP based on the show that it was a similar type of mutation, not that they were literally gills. Look, I'm skeptical about this find as well, because there is literally no information out there about it. I'll wait for the scientific research before passing judgement.

Please take your off topic anti evolution rants, somewhere else.



It has nothing to do with evolution and creation
It's about people lying that it is anything but a cricket underwater

fusion, oxygen, what a winner



posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
It has nothing to do with evolution and creation
It's about people lying that it is anything but a cricket underwater

fusion, oxygen, what a winner


I'll wait until we get some sources and/or scientific research before claiming anything about this find. Remember, I'm skeptical about things by default. I don't just give them the benefit of the doubt because they agree with "my side". You, on the other hand will stop at nothing to continue the war on evolution with the same old fallacious arguments that have been debunked for 20 years already, regardless of what the research shows.

edit on 7 29 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 12:17 PM
link   
interesting stuff for sure!

good thing that fleas cant breathe underwater!

i have 2 cats and sometimes when i wait too long too treat them with flea medication they will pick up a few fleas and i swear they love hiding in the carpet so they try to bite at my ankles...but i keep a bowl of water by my bed so that when they jump on me i can stick them in the water and drown them. so much fun lol

i love watching those suckers take their last breath!!



new topics




 
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join