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.

 

Can someone explain a part of evolution to me?

page: 1
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Have a friend that's open to scientific evidence, and actually really intelligent in a myriad of scientific topics, but evolution is one where he won't yet follow modern science thought. He believes in the 6000 year old earth, etc...

One main topic I need help with is he desires proof of species changing, any species really - have we found fossil records showing the transition of our ancestor into both humans and primates?

Also, he will bring up that there's a lack of proof that species can entirely change over time. Such as oceanic species becoming land species.

Then, I bring up neanderthal and cromagnum(sp) and he mentions that we share some of the same genes but the DNA is entirely different...

Is he correct or on the evidence based side in any of this?

I can't really refute him because I have no good example of a swimming dinosaur becoming a flying creature after millions of years, etc, and I don't know enough about human evolution.

Google searches are not as helpful as I had hoped, so here I am.




posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 11:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
Have a friend that's open to scientific evidence, and actually really intelligent in a myriad of scientific topics, but evolution is one where he won't yet follow modern science thought. He believes in the 6000 year old earth, etc...

One main topic I need help with is he desires proof of species changing, any species really - have we found fossil records showing the transition of our ancestor into both humans and primates?

Also, he will bring up that there's a lack of proof that species can entirely change over time. Such as oceanic species becoming land species.

Then, I bring up neanderthal and cromagnum(sp) and he mentions that we share some of the same genes but the DNA is entirely different...

Is he correct or on the evidence based side in any of this?

I can't really refute him because I have no good example of a swimming dinosaur becoming a flying creature after millions of years, etc, and I don't know enough about human evolution.

Google searches are not as helpful as I had hoped, so here I am.


have you tried the abovetopsecret search engine? dozens of threads already exist pertaining to your questions, i strongly recommend you use it. it is the little magnifying glass icon next to your inbox at the top right.
edit on 30-4-2017 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

Every fossil is a transitional fossil. Your friends problem is that they aren't thinking about it over a long enough timeline.


+2 more 
posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 11:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: deadlyhope
Have a friend that's open to scientific evidence, and actually really intelligent in a myriad of scientific topics, but evolution is one where he won't yet follow modern science thought. He believes in the 6000 year old earth, etc...

One main topic I need help with is he desires proof of species changing, any species really - have we found fossil records showing the transition of our ancestor into both humans and primates?

Also, he will bring up that there's a lack of proof that species can entirely change over time. Such as oceanic species becoming land species.

Then, I bring up neanderthal and cromagnum(sp) and he mentions that we share some of the same genes but the DNA is entirely different...

Is he correct or on the evidence based side in any of this?

I can't really refute him because I have no good example of a swimming dinosaur becoming a flying creature after millions of years, etc, and I don't know enough about human evolution.

Google searches are not as helpful as I had hoped, so here I am.


have you tried the abovetopsecret search engine? dozens of threads already exist pertaining to your questions, i strongly recommend you use it. it is the little magnifying glass icon next to your inbox at the top right.


Why even post if you wont answer the mans question? Not everyone wants to or knows how to use your broken search engine feature (that yes, NEVER works).

There is no conclusive evidence to support evolution as is at present, only a theory.



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope



have we found fossil records showing the transition of our ancestor into both humans and primates?


Humans are primates. Primates are mammals.

How are all living things related?



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: SR1TX

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: deadlyhope
Have a friend that's open to scientific evidence, and actually really intelligent in a myriad of scientific topics, but evolution is one where he won't yet follow modern science thought. He believes in the 6000 year old earth, etc...

One main topic I need help with is he desires proof of species changing, any species really - have we found fossil records showing the transition of our ancestor into both humans and primates?

Also, he will bring up that there's a lack of proof that species can entirely change over time. Such as oceanic species becoming land species.

Then, I bring up neanderthal and cromagnum(sp) and he mentions that we share some of the same genes but the DNA is entirely different...

Is he correct or on the evidence based side in any of this?

I can't really refute him because I have no good example of a swimming dinosaur becoming a flying creature after millions of years, etc, and I don't know enough about human evolution.

Google searches are not as helpful as I had hoped, so here I am.


have you tried the abovetopsecret search engine? dozens of threads already exist pertaining to your questions, i strongly recommend you use it. it is the little magnifying glass icon next to your inbox at the top right.


Why even post if you wont answer the mans question? Not everyone wants to or knows how to use your broken search engine feature (that yes, NEVER works).

There is no conclusive evidence to support evolution as is at present, only a theory.



people are continuously bringing such concerns to these forums no matter how many times they are answered in previous exchanges. i was attempting to avoid the pattern that can be observed in the previously mentioned dozens of threads that are almost literally carbon copies of each other. Im already suspicious that this thread is also a trap, an exercise in futility like so many before it. people dont want to learn, they just want to be right.

deuces.



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: SR1TX

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: deadlyhope
Have a friend that's open to scientific evidence, and actually really intelligent in a myriad of scientific topics, but evolution is one where he won't yet follow modern science thought. He believes in the 6000 year old earth, etc...

One main topic I need help with is he desires proof of species changing, any species really - have we found fossil records showing the transition of our ancestor into both humans and primates?

Also, he will bring up that there's a lack of proof that species can entirely change over time. Such as oceanic species becoming land species.

Then, I bring up neanderthal and cromagnum(sp) and he mentions that we share some of the same genes but the DNA is entirely different...

Is he correct or on the evidence based side in any of this?

I can't really refute him because I have no good example of a swimming dinosaur becoming a flying creature after millions of years, etc, and I don't know enough about human evolution.

Google searches are not as helpful as I had hoped, so here I am.


have you tried the abovetopsecret search engine? dozens of threads already exist pertaining to your questions, i strongly recommend you use it. it is the little magnifying glass icon next to your inbox at the top right.


Why even post if you wont answer the mans question? Not everyone wants to or knows how to use your broken search engine feature (that yes, NEVER works).

There is no conclusive evidence to support evolution as is at present, only a theory.



people are continuously bringing such concerns to these forums no matter how many times they are answered in previous exchanges. i was attempting to avoid the pattern that can be observed in the previously mentioned dozens of threads that are almost literally carbon copies of each other. Im already suspicious that this thread is also a trap, an exercise in futility like so many before it. people dont want to learn, they just want to be right.

deuces.


if you don't like it stop posting.



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 11:49 AM
link   
One of the best cases is from dinosaur to bird species change.

Archaeopteryx





posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

So I suppose here's a question - does such a family tree exist that goes back all the way, and has a lot of proof and almost no gaps? If such a website exists, it'd be super helpful.



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: SR1TX

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: SR1TX

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: deadlyhope
Have a friend that's open to scientific evidence, and actually really intelligent in a myriad of scientific topics, but evolution is one where he won't yet follow modern science thought. He believes in the 6000 year old earth, etc...

One main topic I need help with is he desires proof of species changing, any species really - have we found fossil records showing the transition of our ancestor into both humans and primates?

Also, he will bring up that there's a lack of proof that species can entirely change over time. Such as oceanic species becoming land species.

Then, I bring up neanderthal and cromagnum(sp) and he mentions that we share some of the same genes but the DNA is entirely different...

Is he correct or on the evidence based side in any of this?

I can't really refute him because I have no good example of a swimming dinosaur becoming a flying creature after millions of years, etc, and I don't know enough about human evolution.

Google searches are not as helpful as I had hoped, so here I am.


have you tried the abovetopsecret search engine? dozens of threads already exist pertaining to your questions, i strongly recommend you use it. it is the little magnifying glass icon next to your inbox at the top right.


Why even post if you wont answer the mans question? Not everyone wants to or knows how to use your broken search engine feature (that yes, NEVER works).

There is no conclusive evidence to support evolution as is at present, only a theory.



people are continuously bringing such concerns to these forums no matter how many times they are answered in previous exchanges. i was attempting to avoid the pattern that can be observed in the previously mentioned dozens of threads that are almost literally carbon copies of each other. Im already suspicious that this thread is also a trap, an exercise in futility like so many before it. people dont want to learn, they just want to be right.

deuces.


if you don't like it stop posting.


speaking of not contributing...


a reply to: deadlyhope

im serious about the search engine. reviewing previous discussions will be a little less complicated and wearying than recreating the same old tired back-and-forth that these forums have all but turned into an artform. and not a very good one at that. and yes, the search engine is functional. i just got back from using it. it takes a bit of legwork but then, all good research does. good luck.


edit to add: I would also strongly agree with mysteriousstranger below. your friend does not sound like they want to be convinced or swayed, and forcing the issue will likely do more harm than good.
edit on 30-4-2017 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

If he's a believer in a 6,000 year Earth ....there will be no convincing him of anything other than what he thinks.

No sense giving yourself an ulcer trying to sway someones opinion and belief system if they are that closed minded.*

*1 thing that may help...(probably not)...is using Google Earth as a tool to see the former outlines of our continents...all underwater...yet evident they were once the coasts as they follow current outlines. Evolving is how they changed....by erosion...but still...they evolved....



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: SgtHamsandwich

Thank you for the link, my friend won't accept speculation as much though - he wants to see absolute proof that this thing eventually turned into a chicken or what not. Wouldn't their be tens or hundreds of changes over time that we could find evidence of?

I read all the article I could in the time I had, but it doesn't seem to definitively show its link to modern birds, just similar characteristics.



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: mysterioustranger

He believes in mutation and adaptation - he just doesn't believe one species can become another. Such as something from the ocean eventually being in the sky.

And I somewhat agree with your statement, it's tough to argue with those that think this earth is so young to begin with.



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: SgtHamsandwich

Thank you for the link, my friend won't accept speculation as much though - he wants to see absolute proof that this thing eventually turned into a chicken or what not. Wouldn't their be tens or hundreds of changes over time that we could find evidence of?

I read all the article I could in the time I had, but it doesn't seem to definitively show its link to modern birds, just similar characteristics.


...yeah, this smells like a trap. ive watched this game happen a dozen times over. a battle of being more right than the other party, "i can prove im smarter by not letting you teach me anything". brickwalling at its finest. ciao~


edit on 30-4-2017 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

Try watching the new Cosmos show, episode 2 explains the evolution of the eyeball extreamly well. I think they chose to explain the eye because it's the one religious types always use as a "to complex to have evolved" argument, which as with all anti science religious arguments,stems from a lack of understanding.

The fact is that the evolution of species is hard to observe micro step by micro step when all you have is fossils, but overall it is observable.



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: SgtHamsandwich
One of the best cases is from dinosaur to bird species change.

Archaeopteryx




Actually that's the worst example you could use as it proves that birds existed alongside dinosaurs rather than dinosaurs evolving into birds.



edit on 30-4-2017 by Bone75 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

I just try to research and expand on as much information as I can, but I also include what reflection and meditation tells me... equally.

It might sound odd, but meditation indicates to me, that DNA from 2 distinctly different animals was combined to hold a DNA that was altered to hold a DNA that was not previously equipped to handle Earth's atmosphere. I kind of take it to mean, a race of miners of minerals was created from DNA that already existed on Earth to pull reserves from areas that would kill the creator(s)...

It's an area where conflict is quite easy, like you say... because there is just no solid proof to provide any valuable statistical analysis. When I add my odd theories to the mix, there's just too many variables to provide a full truth to.

Cool subject though... it's fascinating because no side of the debate is wrong nor right... both are at play.



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

The problem is that your friend wants proof. There will never be proof because an extreme evolutionary change takes a lot of time... like, A LOT of time. We could dig up all the bones on earth and it will still just be theory.

That being the case, your best bet is to convince him that microevolution exists. There is plenty proof of that. You cannot deny that a species can change physically to improve its ability to survive. If you can convince him of that, then his eyes will at least be open to the fact that species can change over time.

And if, over a few generations, a species can evolve on a small scale, how can you deny that a species can evolve to a more extreme degree over hundreds or thousands of generations?
edit on 4/30/2017 by scojak because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Okay taking your suggestion...

Threads say macro evolution cannot be proved.

One of the most popular replies says it's not a fact, but the best we can come up with .

Very popular thread showing evolution might be proven wrong..

Yet another popular thread saying evolution is a farce

Many threads saying "I have the answer and it's evolution" but then turning into a crap show

Many, many posts saying "this has been done a thousand times before let's just not"

Okay I'm lost at what you want me to find.

Please, if you can, link me a website that shows a species to species transition proving evolution to be fact?

For the record, I'm an atheist - I don't believe in creationism.

I do enjoy debating creationists, and everyone refuses to give or just doesn't have solid proof of evolution that I can use against them.. only possibly valid maybe kinda evidence that some thing that lived long ago has some commonalities with modern day animals.

I still believe in evolution as there's really not many other answers other than creationism... I just don't have the evidence supporting my position yet, and apparently most others don't either.



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: scojak

I'm curious as to why the fossil record doesn't show a 99 percent dinosaur, 1 percent chicken, followed by a 98 percent dinosaur.. Etc? So we could just follow the evidence straight to the ancestor of something?

Wouldn't there have to be huge amounts of everything between ?



new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join