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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Modern proof of evolution.

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 11:12 PM
link   
is it a new species of elephant? I read an article where there was explained a difference between for example a beetle that changes colors versus a beetle that is becomes smaller. the change in color is an example of genetic mutation whereas the size is an example of environmental influence. The former is evolution, the latter is not. unless these elephants with smaller tusls are a new species...




posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm


WTF are some of you even talking about???

Essentially: I don't understand the science, but I know it's contrary to my religious beliefs, therefore Adam and Eve were made from mud and a rib.

They are incredulous towards evolution, but have no issue believing dinosaurs were created on the same day as humans.

I think I will always love this Sam Harris quote:

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?"

It's just amazing how they can entertain the notion they are employing logic and reason when arguing against evolution, but at the same time hold Creationism as absolute truth.



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 11:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Yes it is evolution but it didn't happen because the elephants needed smaller tusks to survive.

It happened because the larger tusk elephants were dying and smaller tusk became a dominant trait



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 11:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: mOjOm


WTF are some of you even talking about???

Essentially: I don't understand the science, but I know it's contrary to my religious beliefs, therefore Adam and Eve were made from mud and a rib.

They are incredulous towards evolution, but have no issue believing dinosaurs were created on the same day as humans.

I think I will always love this Sam Harris quote:

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?"

It's just amazing how they can entertain the notion they are employing logic and reason when arguing against evolution, but at the same time hold Creationism as absolute truth.


You're a weak-minded, bigoted prick. Every time this subject comes up you attack people's religious beliefs as if that's the only reason someone wouldn't swallow your whitecoat Gods' BS hook, line, and sinker.

It's getting really old dude, no one even mentioned their religion.



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 11:35 PM
link   
a reply to: omniEther

Right. Although saying they needed the change to survive vs. they large tusked elephants weren't surviving long enough to breed is just a matter of semantics. It means the same thing basically.

They needed small tusks to survive because we keep killing the ones with large tusks. So in a way they do need that change to survive. Because we keep killing them when they have large ones. It's all just in how you want to look at it.

It's not like they're making the choice to have baby elephants with small tusks or something. That's just all that there is left that are still alive to breed and pass on their traits.



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 11:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Bone75

I think they're saying that because it's not the first time this kind of debate has come up. Especially with a certain member who does in fact push that agenda sooner or later in every debate of this kind.

You also can't deny that typically that is where the anti-science/anti-evolution argument has it's roots in. So it's sort of a given.



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

If it has a definable cause it is not the random of random mutations.

Random of random mutations are like the chaos of chaos theory: "there is no definable cause."

What they can't see, or simply don't want to admit, is that the "forces" that inhabit them is effectively their will or spirit. That is, the animals' will changes, and so their translations of their will changes (their bodies change with the change in their will)...

Think of it like the changes that took place in your body due to the changes in your will as you made your posts -- it is something in the same neighborhood of that that is causing mutations or changes.

Hopefully, the more scientifically minded will soon admit to it all being a product of will, as they're already starting to admit that some intelligence is passed on as instincts and will is just one step beyond that.


Will of a secure entrance:


Or in animals that try to disguise themselves like in Bone75's post: their bodies are clearly their will to hide translated into dna/form/instincts.

etc. and so forth.

It's not random.



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 11:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Bone75

I think they're saying that because it's not the first time this kind of debate has come up. Especially with a certain member who does in fact push that agenda sooner or later in every debate of this kind.


Then he should grow some balls and address that member directly.



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 11:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Bone75

Somehow I doubt that directing it specifically to that member would have made you any less angry about it.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 12:08 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

Yes mojo, that's correct, let me get my box of stars, find you a winners blue star

Now carefully explain how it proves mankind came from space dirt and space water empirically

Good effort, I am very proud to see you having a go, there are no losers, effort counts
Good moji



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 12:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie
a reply to: Bone75

Either way, the process remains and is pretty easily observable.


Yes and this is a very compelling example, but even if poachers started killing elephants for their trunks, and deformed elephants who are born without trunks become the dominant version, they'd still just be elephants without trunks. They'll always be elephants and there's zero evidence to prove otherwise.

Just like the grasshopper that looks like a dead leaf, it'll never actually give birth to leaves. No matter how crazy the thing looks, it'll always be a grasshopper.


edit on 27-11-2016 by Bone75 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 12:13 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

I note some people are to terrified to show the science so try not to deal with the issue

Let's debate the science
Elephant are known to be born without tusks, nothing new.
Now more are being born without tusks, maybe someday many elephants will go back to more tusks, bigger tusks because of bigger hearts because of males fighting for females
Wow, big tusks, more proof of evolution

Evidence, not likely
edit on 27-11-2016 by Raggedyman because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 12:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Now carefully explain how it proves mankind came from space dirt and space water empirically


When I make that claim I'll be happy to show you proof for it.

However I've never once made such a dumb claim or statement so why do you expect me to show you evidence for it???

Nor does that have anything to do with this thread topic.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 12:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Ok. Let's say that. Big tusks again. Yay. Yes that is evolution too.

It doesn't have to be unique. Every alteration or difference, even if it's just more changes of the same trait is still considered part of the evolutionary process. Each little step of change is still part of evolution.

When you were born you had traits from your mom and dad. You weren't exactly like either of them but you are very very similar to them. Because you got your traits from each of them. That was evolution. You're not an exact copy. You're slightly different. You're a mixing up of traits that were already there, just organized in a different way.

It's not magic and you didn't get born as some completely unique creature or anything. But that is still considered the process of evolution.

That is what evolution is defined as. It's not me making any claims. It's just how it's defined. Nothing new or unique or amazing has to happen. Just breeding and mixing the dna to result in changes is still the process of evolution.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 01:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Bone75

no one even mentioned their religion.

Every member so far that's been arguing against evolution in this thread, including yourself, has a history of expressing religious beliefs and its account for how life came to be. Are we to believe there is no correlation there?? It didn't need to be explicitly expressed, it's so obviously the underlying reason. It was my response to mOjOm's question and I am confident in it. I care not that you think it makes me a prick.


as if that's the only reason someone wouldn't swallow your whitecoat Gods' BS hook, line, and sinker.

I have no idea if god(s) exist or not. I don't believe i've claimed that on ATS. What I say is that religious gods are BS. When the descriptions written in scripture fly completely counter to what we observe in reality then it's more than reasonable to take that position. So for instance, evolution not being compatible to Genesis stating birds were flying around before all land animals.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 02:03 AM
link   

edit on 27-11-2016 by cre8chaos because: new and leaening how the site works




posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 02:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie

originally posted by: omniEther
a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

So you believe because elephants with larger tusks are targeted that as a matter of survival the elephants are now being born with smaller or no tusks

You're not understanding evolution correctly


No, I believe that elephants with big tusks are killed. Elephants with smaller tusks, or better yet-no tusks, survive to breed. Elephants with small or no tusks breed with other elephants with small or no tusks. Thus, an increasing number of elephants with small to no tusks. Evolution.

Evolution.

Couldn't have explained this better if I tried.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 03:24 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

Ok so how is an elephant losing its tusks developing into something different
Let's not worry about pedantics hey

With tusks or without, it's an elephant and it's not developing into anything other than an elephant, it's not evolving
It's a ludicrous premise and if you can't see that you are being disingenuous
You are grasping at faith straws



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 03:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

evolution [ biology ] :

the change in frequency of alleles in a population over time

the OP is spot on - it is not ludicous - it does not require faith and the only straws being grasped are by you



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 04:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

The animal in your avatar evolved from the large and reptile-like temnospondyls. Small continuous changes over millions of years and you get that adorable froggy.


it's not developing into anything other than an elephant, it's not evolving

When enough changes occur over time they will no longer be able to breed with their 'parent' population and will then become a distinct species as far as we classify.
edit on 27-11-2016 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join