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: 8
13
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

So long as they can all still interbreed it's not evolution.

All those incremental steps that take place for speciation to occur is part of the evolutionary process.




posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: Teikiatsu

So long as they can all still interbreed it's not evolution.

All those incremental steps that take place for speciation to occur is part of the evolutionary process.


We've been doing those "incremental steps" for 40,000 years with dogs and they can still breed with wolves that have undergone entirely different environmental factors for the same amount of time. At some point we have to admit we don't know everything about biology and our theory of evolution still has holes.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

Thanks for posting this.

It is absolutley an example of evolutuon.
Predators in the environment(humans) are applying a selective pressure(choosing elephants with larger tusks, there by removing them from the gene pool).
, allowing animals with small or no tusks to gain a breeding advantage. Given enough time, this population of elephants will evolve into a new species of tuskless elephants, just like the early tuskless elephants evolved into elephants with tusks.
Humans are part of the environment, just as are other predators are.
The remarkable part of all this, is that we get to actually see the process in action within a documentable time frame.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Wow.I have often looked for modern evolution. Great article.really great



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 08:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
We've been doing those "incremental steps" for 40,000 years with dogs and they can still breed with wolves that have undergone entirely different environmental factors for the same amount of time. At some point we have to admit we don't know everything about biology and our theory of evolution still has holes.


Wolves (Canis lupus) and domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) can still interbreed. True. But there's increasing problems with such offspring, with issues related to sexual maturity, temperament, etc. Interesting article There are also theories that American dog breeds have canid ancestors similar to foxes, which actually makes way more sense when discussing breed such as Chihuahuas. And at this point in dog breeding history we have such issues as English Bulldogs and French Bulldogs needing C Sections to deliver their pups...which obviously is NOT a natural example of evolution.

So yeah, saying wolves and domestic dogs are the exact same thing isn't entirely correct. But technically they could still interbreed (although I would hate to see a wolf try to breed with a Chihuahua or an English Bulldog dying in pup-birth for lack of a c-section). If you look at current states of species it's a big ol' mess, of course the further back you go the messier it gets. So, it's not some clean perfect line that you can plot out.
edit on 27-11-2016 by ladyvalkyrie because: everything was italicized



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 09:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: Raggedyman

Now I just disproved the scientific method, made evolution a pseudo,science

So I guess it's you, armed with religious faith, and no understanding of evolution, against 98% of biologists that utterly disagree with you. Good luck!



No
Its just me and the lack of scientific evidence
100% of biologists have 000000% of empirical evidence

Ever wondered why there is so much fighting and bitching in the scientific community about evolution

Didnt think you would have


You know pretty cats and smart arse comments dont prove your point, it doesnt prove science either.
best you get the empirical evidence

You know, repeatable, observable and testable stuff

Quick run along



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 09:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: Bone75
I'm pretty sure that I said He created us after creating the animals.


Nope, you said:



I believe God created primary lifeforms and we've evolved/gone extinct from there.


Which brings us back to my original questions.


When I said we, I was talking life in general. That wouldn't be such a mystery if you had read the very next sentence of that post... you know, where I laid out the order in which we were created.

Darn I just did it again didn't I ?



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 10:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: Teikiatsu

So long as they can all still interbreed it's not evolution.

All those incremental steps that take place for speciation to occur is part of the evolutionary process.


Prove it....



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 10:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: Bone75


then sea creatures and birds, then land dwellers, then us.

Genesis doesn't say it was other land dwellers then humans, though. It says all land animals were made together. Same starting point. So do you disagree with Genesis? If so, why?



24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.


Funny how it says "according to their kinds" 5 times in that one paragraph, then it's repeated again in the account of Noah's Ark so that we would know he was referring to the primary lifeforms and not all of the different subspecies that had evolved up until that point. It's almost as if whoever wrote that knew this was going to be a major issue in the future.


So you believe in evolution, but you would say it's a naturalistic mechanism that the creator put in place after he made the initial lifeforms?


No I'm saying it was built into us upon our creation.


This still doesn't reconcile that Genesis has birds flying before all land animals, and dinosaurs arriving on Earth at the same time as homo sapiens, and that none of that matches our evidence.


Genesis clearly states that dinosaurs came before man.


So what gives? All the science is bogus? Lucifer is planting bones to confuse us?


I wouldn't go that far, but I do believe Satan is guiding your interpretation of the evidence.


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

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



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Bone75

Yes, and all those passages took place on the same day. Day 6.

So is one day representing like millions of years in your interpretation then?

That's full circle back to the other issue. That would imply birds were flying above the oceans for millions of years before all land animals...


but I do believe Satan is guiding your interpretation of the evidence.

Of course he is



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 10:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Ever wondered why there is so much fighting and bitching in the scientific community about evolution


What you're saying is utterly untrue. I posted the Pew Research for you. You just refuse evidence that is presented. Hell, even most adults when surveyed show they think the scientists are in agreement about evolution (rightfully so).


Quick run along

Which is something I can do on two legs. Thanks, evolution

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



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 12:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: Raggedyman

Ever wondered why there is so much fighting and bitching in the scientific community about evolution


What you're saying is utterly untrue. I posted the Pew Research for you. You just refuse evidence that is presented. Hell, even most adults when surveyed show they think the scientists are in agreement about evolution (rightfully so).


Quick run along

Which is something I can do on two legs. Thanks, evolution


Yeah they all agree on the end position of evolution not the journey to get there, I wonder why?
I bet you dont wonder why

so far no evidence that supports your religious belief other than a pew pole, pew poles dont constitute as a true empirical guide to evidence, not since when I last heard anyway. No empirical evidence, its just faith.


You are drowning in assumption, quite rightly mello yellow



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 12:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy

So is one day representing like millions of years in your interpretation then?


Either that or your dating methods are seriously flawed, or a combination of the two. Peter did have this to say... ‘But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.'


That's full circle back to the other issue. That would imply birds were flying above the oceans for millions of years before all land animals...


Bird bones don't make good fossils, so it stands to reason that there won't be much evidence to support such a claim. Although there is the case of Protoavis, which if ever authenticated with a better specimen will at least debunk the notion that birds are the descendants of dinosaurs.


edit on 28-11-2016 by Bone75 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 12:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Why do you demand an opposing theory, that's just silly


The reason I ask is because you keep claiming how wrong evolution is in what it presents as it's theory. Yet IMO it's absolutely, without question the best answer we have.

Now, I personally don't know enough to answer your questions. But I know most of your questions if not all could be answered if you simply bothered to look them up or ask someone who could answer them. But you won't.

You also claim it's 100% wrong. Not just partially but all of it. While also sticking to your choice which you admit is just faith in some other theory with zero evidence to support it.

So that being the case I'd like to know what it is. If it's such a great answer and so much more believable and impressive than everything that is provided from the theory of evolution I'd like to compare them.

Because anyone can believe anything they want based on faith. That doesn't take any effort at all. Evolution has mountains of material to back itself up. Some is probably wrong or not complete but it still has infinitely more examples than Nothing which is what faith is and is what you currently believe to be true.

So let's hear it.

Again, I personally don't know enough about evolution to KNOW it's true. But it's better and more complete than anything else. Certainly more than Nothing or Faith. So if that's not correct then let's see what you got.



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 01:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
The reason I ask is because you keep claiming how wrong evolution is in what it presents as it's theory. Yet IMO it's absolutely, without question the best answer we have.


It is absolutely, without question the best answer we have I agree, doesnt mean its science or its correct.
Silly assumption


originally posted by: mOjOm
Now, I personally don't know enough to answer your questions. But I know most of your questions if not all could be answered if you simply bothered to look them up or ask someone who could answer them. But you won't.


I have, still do, havnt seen the answers, none, ever.
You are wrong, there is no empirical evidence, just assumption, thats a fact



originally posted by: mOjOm
You also claim it's 100% wrong. Not just partially but all of it. While also sticking to your choice which you admit is just faith in some other theory with zero evidence to support it.


Based on many reasons I think its wrong, "I think its wrong" me. I dont deny its right for you, believe in your fairy tales by all means. I dont mind, well done you
Big Bang, abiogenesis, two reasons evolution is wrong.
I do believe elephants may evolve without trunks but they will always be elephants



originally posted by: mOjOm
So that being the case I'd like to know what it is. If it's such a great answer and so much more believable and impressive than everything that is provided from the theory of evolution I'd like to compare them.


Just because its your only choice doesnt mean its the right choice
If thats your argument its silly




originally posted by: mOjOm
Because anyone can believe anything they want based on faith. That doesn't take any effort at all. Evolution has mountains of material to back itself up. Some is probably wrong or not complete but it still has infinitely more examples than Nothing which is what faith is and is what you currently believe to be true.

Mountains of material, well here I am asking for you to show it to me.
No drawings of frogs
www.spreadshirt.co.uk...
Proves nothing



originally posted by: mOjOm
So let's hear it.


No, its irrelevant to tusks and elephants


originally posted by: mOjOm
Again, I personally don't know enough about evolution to KNOW it's true. But it's better and more complete than anything else. Certainly more than Nothing or Faith. So if that's not correct then let's see what you got.


What you have said is not scientific, its emotional
I even agree with what you have said

originally posted by: mOjOm
it's better and more complete than anything else.


But thats not science
edit on 28-11-2016 by Raggedyman because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 01:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman


It is absolutely, without question the best answer we have I agree, doesnt mean its science or its correct.
Silly assumption


...lol?




posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 01:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Bone75

Either that or your dating methods are seriously flawed

What? I was asking you. What time frame is Day 6? Is it what we now call 'a day' or is it a much greater length of time?

You seemed to be suggesting it was a great length of time (Peter's 1000 years is very problematic as well) as a way of suggesting humans were made after dinosaurs. While it all took place on Day 6, that day consisted of all the time needed for evolution of dinosaurs and later humans. Is that not what you meant?

If it is, then my point was that this means Day 5 birds were flying around for millions (or thousands) of years prior to land animals and that's not at all congruent with the evolution of birds according to modern evidence.

As far as I got from your post you believe Genesis is accurate that birds came before land animals. Hopefully you acknowledge that's not compatible with the evidence we do have. So, this boils down to faith versus reason.

You did mention you believed in evolution earlier, at least, in some sense. I'm just trying to understand if what you mean by evolution is what we mean by it. If so, why wouldn't it concern you that these Biblical accounts don't match the findings.
edit on 28-11-2016 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 01:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

You need to look up the definitions of the words you use because you don't understand what they mean.

Empirical evidence IS what they have.

Evolution isn't about the Big Bang or how life begins. Only how it changes once it's here.

It's not me saying that either. It's how things are defined. Nowhere in Evolution is it going to talk about the Big Bang or explain it.



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 01:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Yeah they all agree on the end position of evolution

*face palm*

You flip you position constantly. You say it's all BS and biologists have 0% evidence and that there is no scientific consensus concerning evolution. Now it's that they do agree on evolution but not necessarily the exact mechanisms taking place within evolution. So which is it?? Perhaps if you were at all consistent we would know how to properly address things....


so far no evidence that supports your religious belief other than a pew pole

Good grief! The Pew Research poll was to refute your claim there wasn't a scientific consensus on evolution. That's it. Yes, that is evidence for that.

As far as me giving you all the 'empirical evidence' to satisfy your pretend interest, I already addressed that. Enroll in a damn course. It's how I learned.



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 01:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy



You are silly, I am sorry

Listen

There is plenty of evidence, circumstantial and assumed, , circumstantial and assumed is not scientific , get that simple message
Yes most in the scientific community agree on evolution, few agree on its course.
"We believe in evolution but disagree how it works" is what most in the scientific community think



A scientific consensus is when they all agree, your pew pole shows they all dont agree, its not a consensus

You addressed my concerns, NO, you did not, you said go study evolution. I have

From you the person who thinks a consensus is when some agree (
Empirical evidence is real science, not assumption and imagination

Go study evolution, if it was the science you claim it to be why are scientists still squabbling about it
edit on 28-11-2016 by Raggedyman because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-11-2016 by Raggedyman because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join