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.

 

Creation v Evolution argument can end

page: 6
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: pthena

Not exactly. As it can still be bred with any of it's relatives and produce fertile seeds. Although they might now exhibit the Ruderalis autoflower trait. As a hybrid.
To me. This is evolution in progress.
Although these 3 different but of the same plant haven't yet become a specie in their own right. Question really is. Will they?
Unfortunately. We won't live long enough to see.




posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

i.imgur.com...

Axolotl is a good example of a transition species.



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: blackcrowe

Thank you for clarification.


This is evolution in progress

And if I understand it correctly, much of Darwin's observations were also of "in progress". And no one is likely to live long enough to witness a complete evolution.
edit on 9-8-2016 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: blackcrowe

Thank you for clarification.


This is evolution in progress

And if I understand it correctly, much of Darwin's observations were also of "in progress". And no one is likely to live long enough to witness a complete evolution.


Exactly as i see it.
We'll never see an end product. It's all evolution in progress.
In my example. The main differences are seen between the northern Ruderalis and the equatorial sativa. Totally different in many ways. Yet, still the same too. The real split will be when these 2 relatives can no longer breed together.



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Good gravy boys.....
if evolution is true then God invented it.......good gravy men.....



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: sycomix
a reply to: Raggedyman

i.imgur.com...

Axolotl is a good example of a transition species.

So is Tiktaalik.



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: pthena

Hmm, a debate concerning human caused climate change.

I would have liked to listen to that, of course there is evidence for both camp's, one point on that is that the sun itself has variance over time in the amount of energy it output's and therefore how much heat the earth receive's from it, there is the whole argument about temperature not just on the earth but other planets in the solar system apparently increasing in the time since they placed senor's on them but I am only re-quoting and do not know the source of that data, then there is the fact that when Chingis Khan and his band of buddy's committed mass murder the then depopulated region apparently suffered a period of cooling which is evidenced by the tree ring's but once again that is dodgy date to say the least and of course we were heading for the period known as the little ice age, a time it got so cold that the canal's of Venice froze over solid and which killed off the formerly fertile and vibrant viking community of Greenland which was so named because when the viking's found it the landscape was verdant and rich.

We are still actually coming out of that cooling period and indeed are about half way through a inter-glacial period as of course the earth is in a relatively cool geological epoch, go back before the ice ages and there were no polar cap's or very small one's, go back 750 million years and you are looking at the end of a period called the snow ball earth period, this lasted from about 2.2 billion years ago to approximately 750 million years ago and consisted of a series of ice ages that make our recent one and it's predecessors of the past several million years look tame, think Hoth from star wars the empire strike's back, that was earth in that period as it is believed the oceans froze over right to the equator hence the name snowball earth theory.

Now there WOULD have been inter glacial period's in that 1.45 billion year period, how long they lasted and how warm the inter glacial period was would be instrumental as to weather life could thrive during those period's or not but whole Cambrian event's such as the one theorised (And not challenged by the discovery of earlier multi cellular fossil's) could have occurred several time's over with entire and perhaps to us alien ecosystems having arisen and then been wiped out by the successive ice age period's, not only that but any evidence of pre existing life form's from prior to the snow ball earth period would be difficult to prove, argument's about the atmosphere not being suitable fail to take into account other form's of life that may have been less dependent upon oxygen and more importantly that the chemical composition of the atmosphere for that period is not proven, samples claimed to show what the atmosphere had in it by there isotope's were probably deep rock and buried so there atmospheric exposure is questionable and of course had they been exposed erosion would have disposed of those rock's long ago.

Actually your climate change debate plays into this very nicely, I have nothing against evolution as a principle but for it to just spontaneously occur, no way it had to have a cause and that cause had to be very complex and that complexity makes me believe it was no accident or random happenstance event, indeed as one physicist said it defies the very law's of conservation of energy and is like water flowing up hill (At it's very basic before the formation of self replicating cell's that is).

Even for they whom do not believe in God Life is still a miracle as it is simply so unlikely and yet it exist's, of course if it exist's here then maybe (almost definitely) it exist's out there and maybe it is more universal than people might believe but if so what then does that say about the nature of the universe itself.

I really think that most here are NOT debating Evolution they are debating RELIGION and the evolution argument is a handy tool to use to try to undermine one another, now the hillarity of that pointless exercise is that the only reason they need to undermine one another's point of view is to support there own through a kind of psychological feed back like giving themselves a pat on the back.

But back to your debate and it's link to this thread, now if evolution is taken as a theoretical model then of course global temperature variance and niche ecological temperature variance would provide hurdles and spurs for adaptation but they would also provide suitable changes for already formed life to take advantage of.

I think there is a good bet that we human's have indeed caused a serious increase in global temperature, we are not going to turn earth into another Venus however, also the burning of fossil fuels though in the short term potentially ecologically catastrous is actually merely putting back what has been taken out of the carbon cycle by lower geological activity and the carbon sump of the then buried remnant's of the past ecosystem not being released back into the atmosphere.

So in essence the Anthropocene as geological and anthropological scientists are now calling it has been a period in which the chemical balance of the atmosphere has been artificially taken back in time by releasing these compound's which were held in fossil rock's such as coal and oil deposit's but of course to our ecosystem and climatology which is a symbiosis of the just before current period of the earth's history this rolling back of condition's artificially or naturally is potentially catastrophic and we may be facing an ELE far sooner than we would like to think as a result, bleaching of the reef's is a sure warning sign that something very dire is afoot and of course that affect's the entire ecological food chain of the sea's since reef's are the main hatchery's for many fish and other sea life as well as supporting human population's that are dependant upon them for food sources whom will then face falling fish stock's, this will in turn cause over fishing of the remaining stock's leading to accelerated extinction and of course the collapse of that food source.



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: ParanoidCovKid
a reply to: Raggedyman

Their is no proof of missing links of humans evolving over thousands of years, the missing links that have been shown have at a later date been proven to be forgeries.


Missing Link isn't a scientific term so no, you're not going to find any reference to them in any of the literature, books or papers pertaining to evolution. Can you name an alleged "missing link hoax" that has occurred in the last 100 years? I have to assume, since you cited no examples of what you were actually talking about, but I have to assume you're referring to Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man? Of the 2, only Piltdown was a hoax. Nebraska Man was a misidentification. In both exa mples though, it was other Paleontologists and Anthropologists who pointed out the flaws and errors. Piltdown Man was called a fabrication from the very beginning and this case is actually a better example of how Peer Review actually works than it is for a "Missing Link" hoax or forgery.

Back to your original point though, there is a substantial amount of fossilized remains demonstrating changing morphologies and multiple hominid lines over the past few million years and that's just sticking to the genus Homo. It doesn't bode well for your argument when you start off with a lie and a complete misrepresentation of the evidence available.



I have looked into evolution and their is not a shred of evidence to prove it, the big question being why has nothing evolved since we have been observing the planets creatures.


The bigger question than that is why are you so gleefully unaware that the implied statement behind your question is entirely false? We have seen organisms evolve from flowering plants on through a multitude of organisms.

A recent example is the Algerian Mouse who has developed an immunity to the most potent rodenticides in use today.

20 years ago, in NYC, after barely being seen, bed bugs made a rampant comeback and have proven to be MUCH harder to kill than the ones infesting NY apartments a half century earlier. They have developed chemical blockers for pyrethroids, a thicker, waxlike exoskeleton that repels insecticides and a faster metabolism that enables them to more quickly create their chemical defenses against all toxins used by pest control.

Cane Toads, when introduced to Australia to control the indigenous Cane Beetle, ended up being as big a nuisance as rabbits in Australia and ate everything in sight. Within just a couple of generations, these toads began to exhibit rapid mutations of the legs making them longer and much stronger which also granted them greater speed and endurance. This allowed them to vastly increase their range at unprecedented rates and increased their chances of mating.

Another recent example is the rootworm that became immune to the pesticides genetically bred into Monsanto's "pest resistant" corn.

And in a bit of irony, a fish in Mexico was evolving a resistance to religious practices(until the Mexican govt. banned the practices). Every year, the Zocque people of Southern Mexico, used to dump a toxic paste made from the root of the Barbasco plant into their local sulfur cave. It was part of a religious ceremony that was supposed to help them get rain to fall. The Paste is toxic to the Poecilia Mexicana, a small cave fish related to guppies. The fish die, the Zocque eat the fish and hopefully the rain comes. Some of the fish had developed a resistance to the toxin and some others were able to survive longer in the toxins presence. The ones that developed the immunity were able to pass those genes along to subsequent generations, increasing the number of fish in the population with the immunity with each subsequent generation. Comparison tests were done on members of the same species that did not live in the cave and the cave fish were developing a resistence while those outside the cave who were never exposed to the toxins had no immunities.




Evolution uses science to explain evolution without a shred of evidence,


This statement doesn't even make sense in the English language. Evolution is a biological process, it doesn't use anything to explain itself. Anthropologists, Paleontologists and Evolutionary Biologists for example, use science and the tools of the Scientific Method to explain how evolution works.


and those that beleive in evolution (because it is a beleif and takes faith to beleive it) is no different to someone beleiving in god.


Not even close, though it is a common fallacy pushed by scientifically illiterate people. It doesn't take faith to look at the evidence and see how overwhelming it is. Conversely, it takes a great deal of willful ignorance to pretend that the evidence supporting the facts of Evolution do not exist. Ignoring every bit of physical data, all one has to do is look at the Universal Genetic Code to know that all life has a common ancestor.

DNA is never replicated 100% faithfully. Differences always creep through, even in "perfect clones". These differences get amplified in successive generation, and it is not limited by any factors, and it's irreversible. We can follow these changes and observe them and their effects, and thus we know that these changes in the DNA lead to the changes morphology, behavior, physiology, etc. of organisms.

Therefore, we know that this variability in DNA that gets inherited by daughter generations, is the root cause of evolution. End of story.



Seriously ive researched it and read the books, ive read books of scientists saying why its real and yet others saying why it is impossible.



If this were true, you wouldn't use strawman statements like "missing link" and "it's a "theory" not yet proven.


continued...



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: ParanoidCovKid

continued from above...



Evolution is a beleif sytem and a "theory" not yet proven, so those that beleive in it are hypocrites to mock people that beleive in god. Just thought id add that as people love denying ALL the scientific evidence against evolution.


What is ALL the scientific evidence against evolution? I'm very interested to see what evidence for it is shown to be incorrect by falsifiability or what direct evidence you have seen proving evolution to be untrue. All you've offered so far is misrepresentations, blanket statements and what would appear to be lies.

For the record though, the whole "it's just a theory" statement is BS. Gravity is also "just a theory". We likewise can't "prove" Einstein's theory of relativity, quantum theory, tectonic plate theory, cell theory, game theory, or any other scheme for explaining observational data. That's not the goal of science. The goal of science is to understand the observable universe and make useful predictions. The theory of evolution by natural selection meets this criteria as well as any other theory in science you can name. Are you saying gravity doesn't exist as well?

See, in science, the term Scientific Theory doesn't mean the same thing as Theory does in layman's terms. In science a Theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena and must be based on careful examination of facts. For example, it is a fact that fossilized skulls have been found that are intermediate in appearance between humans and modern apes. It is a fact that these fossils have been found in geological strata of measurable age. It is a fact that no skulls or other remains from older strata have ever appeared in more recent stratigraphic levels. i.e. the older fossils are always found in older levels and younger fossils are always found in levels corresponding to and dated, to a more recent date. The fossils have been dated(with a known margin of error) and the geologic strata have been independently dated. The dates always match up(within the known margin of error). Back to the original point, to say it is "just a theory(or whatever variation on the theme is en vogue at the moment)" does not mean that the Scientific Theory is analogous to when Scooby, Shaggy, Fred, Daphne and Velma get a hunch while eating Scooby Snacks in the back of the Mystery Machine. As for the proven part of your brush off, this isn't Math. Only Mathematics will provide proofs.



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Your source for creation is a book that was written and changed several times. How old is the Earth again? And how many times has the biography of Christ been written in countless religions BEFORE the advent of your book?



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767


I think there is a good bet that we human's have indeed caused a serious increase in global temperature, we are not going to turn earth into another Venus however, also the burning of fossil fuels though in the short term potentially ecologically catastrous is actually merely putting back what has been taken out of the carbon cycle by lower geological activity and the carbon sump of the then buried remnant's of the past ecosystem not being released back into the atmosphere.

Here's what I wrote over there


Back in the old days of dinosaurs there was a certain amount of gross carbon and hydrogen on the surface of the planet and in the atmosphere. It was unlikely that humans would have evolved or lived long in that environment. Some cataclysm caused a vast amount of the gross carbon and hydrogen to be buried under the earth, removing them from the net above ground quantity. Humans evolved in that environment.

By pulling the hydrocarbons from the earth and burning them, humans are effectively returning the Earth's surface and atmosphere to pre-human conditions. Perhaps those pre-human conditions will not be conducive to human existence.
originally posted by: pthena

The guy I was debating immediately jumped on hydrogen, twisted everything into a strawman of hydrogen being claimed as greenhouse gas then proceeded to make the strawman look like an idiot. With myself being an idiot by association.

Hydrogen is a component of organic chemistry, found in all living things.



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

So, you say the book of faith isn't science. And you say the theory of evolution isn't science. What is the theory of evolution? What is faith?
edit on 9-8-2016 by VP740 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 06:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: Raggedyman

So, you say the book of faith isn't science. And you say the theory of evolution isn't science. What is the theory of evolution? What is faith?


Vp740
I accept you don't believe in my book of faith, please don't accept it.
It's not science, it is irrelevant to you and this conversation.
It has no relevancy here.

I believe in climate change, I argued against it, didn't believe it, fought it.
Then I noted the fish I was catching were more pelagic, tropical than when I was a boy
I realized my argument wasn't against climate change, my argument was about blaming it directly on people.
See I believe in climate change, indont know if it's caused by nature or men or both.

So, I don't care if you believe in thr bible, I asked for empirical evidence for evolution, leave your pet problems at the door and discuss the science of evolution

Why is it the average atheist will do anything possible to change the nature of the question, the thread, ignore the main point, side track at every possibility, leave silly comments and ignore the subject completely.

This thread isn't about the bible and faith, it's about evolution and evidence



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheKnightofDoom
a reply to: Raggedyman

Why do you assume everyone who disagrees with you are atheist? you throw that around like an insult btw.


That's a valid point
SeeTKD, I am addressing people in the thread, people who have responded to me or other posts
I havnt to my knowledge identified christians, most people are generally the fundamentalist atheist with an axe to grind and a lie to cultivate
So I address those who address me



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 06:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

So, I don't care if you believe in thr bible, I asked for empirical evidence for evolution, leave your pet problems at the door and discuss the science of evolution

Why is it the average atheist will do anything possible to change the nature of the question, the thread, ignore the main point, side track at every possibility, leave silly comments and ignore the subject completely.

You have asked and I have provided you with evidence. Our discussion honestly reminds me of the discussion that Richard Dawkins had with Wendy Wright.

Wendy Wright: Show me the evidence..
Richard Dawkins: Here is the evidence...
Repeat, essentially, for the entirety of the following video.


Why do you intentionally ignore evidence that people provide for evolution? Is it because you really don't want evidence for evolution? How you could continue asking for evidence of evolution after all of the people that have responded to you WITH EVIDENCE is astonishing to me.


edit on 9-8-2016 by logicsoda because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-8-2016 by logicsoda because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-8-2016 by logicsoda because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

I was raised Christian, though now I would be more accurately characterized as an agnostic inclined towards deism. I have gained much from your book, and the community joined by it.

The nature of your dialogue made me wonder if you were a bigot impersonating a Christian to make them look bad; though if that's what you are, you've been remarkably persistent. Whatever the case, you are reflecting badly on Christianity and you should be ashamed of yourself.

You are either unfamiliar with the terminology you're using, or you're deliberately twisting the meaning. Science is not limited to direct observation, it extends to reasoning based on facts. Evidence is not the same as proof. When clarification has been offered to you, you have rudely refused it.



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Let's play a game, here are the rules: I have one trick coin with heads on both sides. I also have a fair coin equally likely to land on heads or tails each flip. I will make no effort to make it land on one side or the other. I'll pick a coin, and just flip it and let it land however it lands. I'll tell you how it landed each time I flip it. That's all you get to know about the coin I'm using, whether it landed on heads or tails.

Here are the results:

Heads
Heads
Heads
Heads
Heads
Heads
Heads
Heads
Heads
Heads


Can you guess if this was the trick coin or not?



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: VP740

It's impossible to tell. Even if you flipped it 1000 times with heads coming up each time it would still be impossible to determine. The chances of getting this kind of result, of course, is ridiculously low... but certainly not impossible.
edit on 9-8-2016 by logicsoda because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-8-2016 by logicsoda because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: logicsoda

Correct!


However, if someone said it's as likely to be the trick coin as the fair coin, they would be wrong.


This illustrates the distinction between evidence and proof.
edit on 9-8-2016 by VP740 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 08:23 PM
link   
a reply to: pthena

Indeed it is, you make good point's, personally though I know it is upsetting to a clean and orderly view of the past I believe the Paloxy track's to have been genuine before they were of course vandalized, now that does NOT mean they were left by human's but something that had feet very much like a human.

As for the atmospheric chemistry, there have indeed been time's when our form of life would have struggled, both time's of oxygen deprivation and atmospheric toxicity (to us) but there have also been time's of over oxidization which though we would have no problem with that imagine the mosquito's (just for fun) for example during this pre vertebrate period the creatures that dominated were the insect's, arachnid's and other arthropods and they grew managed to grow to truly monstrous size, two foot and more wing span's for dragon flies for example, spiders the size of a human head that would lay snare's and even preyed on early vertebrate's and they may even possibly have grown larger, in an even earlier period scorpion's the size of a car and this as you know was in part due to the way that insect's and other non aquatic arthropod's metabolize oxygen from the atmosphere, they absorb it through there carapace and the higher oxygen level's during these epoch's made it possible for them to grow to such large size's, aquatic arthropod's also benefited as the ocean was also correspondingly more oxygenated.

The real danger of what we are doing to our planet is not so much that we would not be able to live in that environment, our lung's if given enough time (Actually just a few generations) would develop more or less alvioli (the cell's in the lining of our lung's that help us to pass oxygen out of the air we breath to the blood cells where of course it is chemically stored in our hemoglobin and also help to strip out the carbon dioxide in this chemical exchange) and more or less red blood cell's in our cirulatory system to compensate but the real danger is that we are literally creating a set of climactic condition's that are not conducive to the well being of the current eco system upon which we ARE dependent and of course this is breeding the condition's for a severe ecological collapse which then poses a far more serious threat to our existence than simply oxygen variation.

Though we also have to add to this artificial and toxic chemical compound's and gases which we are indeed spewing into the atmosphere (not to mention pcb's (and a whole raft of other toxic chemical's) in our water table's that mimmick female hormones in males and male hormones in female's with the corresponding behavioral changes (They are also mostly carcinogenic and toxic in a large number of other ways including causing genetic damage).



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join