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: 5
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 10:36 PM
link   
The processes of CREATOR Creations evolution are electrical process associated with the activities and or functions of the CREATOR Creations within their environment/habitat. These physical electrical processes are governed by neuro electric activities within the brain and gut enteric nervous systems and heart and circulatory system of which bio materials flow through genrerating friction and electro static activities between blood cells and the organs they flow through.
As the habitats change over time the CREATOR Creations adapt to the new habitats food source available and the possible layout changes. As CREATOR Creations ingest less or more available existing or new foods and then begin to travel around their new habitat those processes alone begin to alter the generation primarily exposed to the changes physically and neurologically as their bodies & minds process new food energies and have to adapt to possible terrain changes and or predators.
It appears that after the primary generation is exposed and habits of eating & survival are passed down the following generations forms are molded more each generation down the line...
This is where 1 feels the neuro activities within the genetics are most in play during the evolutionary processes after primary generation is exposed. Eating habits are passed down as are other survival mechanisms that tell new generations bodies how to form and grow.
Example primary generation living at lower elevation, but were forced to higher grounds. And so begin to develop larger lungs to adapt to atmospheric changes in higher elevations. And generations afterward would begin to naturally be born with larger lungs to suffice...

NAMASTE*******
edit on 4/30/17 by Ophiuchus 13 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 10:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147
a reply to: Snarl

I don't understand. You believe mutations occur, you believe speciation occurs (at least once some catastrophic event occurs), what drives mutations and speciation from your perspective?

Mutations are changes which occur 'inside' of a species. They're usually noticeable only to a 'trained observer' and they occur over definitively measurable periods of time.

A speciation event is something altogether different. We're talking the rise of cats and dogs ... whales and fish ... eagles and elephants. We're not talking about the differences between Polar Bears and Grizzlies. You want change on this scale ... you change the entire playing field. When the playing field stabilizes so does your speciation. After that, one starts measuring extinction rates.

It's ridiculously simple. People complicate the matter so they can be the ones with 'say so'. There's nothing more to it than that. They want to call it Science, but because they can't reproduce it ... you'll have to settle for consensus science. And that is apples and oranges. It should be the difference in earning a BS as opposed to a BA.

Believe me, it's always consensus science people who are trying to shut people up/shut down the argument ... hardly ever the guys working in labs.



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 10:47 PM
link   




High-altitude adaptation in humans is an instance of evolutionary modification in certain human populations, including those of Tibet in Asia, the Andes of the Americas, andEthiopia in Africa, who have acquired the ability to survive at extremely highaltitudes. This adaptation means irreversible, long-term physiological responses to high-altitude environments, associated with heritable behavioural and genetic changes.While the rest of the human population would suffer serious health consequences, the indigenous inhabitants of these regions thrive well in the highest parts of the world. These people have undergone extensive physiological and genetic changes, particularly in the regulatory systems of oxygen respiration and bloodcirculation, when compared to the general lowland population.[1][2]



en.m.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 10:51 PM
link   
The OP is trolling ALL of you.



posted on May, 1 2017 @ 12:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope

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.



Obviously crabs live in the ocean but there are crabs that are freshwater and crabs that even live in forests this would be a great example of an oceanic species leaving the water and evolving to live on the land.





posted on May, 1 2017 @ 12:57 AM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

This thread is on the wrong forum.



posted on May, 1 2017 @ 01:04 AM
link   
You don't even need to consider really old things like fossils. Just showing an example that is, say, 12,500 or so years old and you have doubled that silly claim of Earth's age, thus nullifying it.

Due to precession, the stars (as seen from Earth) follow a 26,000 year cycle, so they were not in the same positions that they are today.


12,500 years ago, at the same time that the Great Pyramids were lining up with Orion, the Sphinx was lining up dead East on the spring equinox, thousands of miles away Angkor Wat was lining up with the constellation Dracos, and it's cones lining up with the Sun on the Spring and Winter equinox, at the same time that Tiwanaku was also lining up with the Sun on the Spring and Winter equinox.
The Rabbit Hole

No need to look much further than how the megalithic ancients aligned their incredible structures. Pretty impressive for people that did not have an Earth to build them on.
edit on 1-5-2017 by charlyv because: content

edit on 1-5-2017 by charlyv because: spelling , where caught



posted on May, 1 2017 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
He believes in the 6000 year old earth, etc...


It doesn't matter to me. I still believe in a Grand Architect. The age of the earth or possible existence of the earth millions of years before these unfolding plans for man makes sense to me. The whole idea of allowing a biome to gestate things like fossil fuel for war purposes to suit the Architects needs to refine the system. 6,000 or billions of years in unimportant to my beliefs.



posted on May, 1 2017 @ 12:18 PM
link   
It is real simple,no way to prove all these evolutionist theories they try to pretend to prove.
Gotta love how they throw something existed between 20 and 30 million years ago.I guess the 10 million year massive period of time nothing was going on at all.



posted on May, 1 2017 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

Hey DH,

1) Modern scientists call Evolution a "theory" and still do so bc there is no verifiable proof of evolution, only adaption such as chickens being the closest DNA relative to the T-rex.

2) Nobody knows the Earth's age. Radioactive Carbon dating is flawed according to actual scientific blind studies, but also for logical reasons too, therefor to claim the Earth is millions or billions of years old is just as ignorant as the 6 thousand year old Earth theory.

p.s. Christians don't know how long Adam was in the garden before Eve came along, nor do we know the length of time from the advent of eve to the first sin. Also the garden was sectioned off from the rest of the Earth according to Scrip so it's entirely plausible that Earth is not only older than 6 thousand years but also that Dinos were around at the same time, at least for this Christian and degreed scientist it is.



posted on May, 1 2017 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: HeFrippedMeOff2

2) Nobody knows the Earth's age. Radioactive Carbon dating is flawed according to actual scientific blind studies, but also for logical reasons too, therefor to claim the Earth is millions or billions of years old is just as ignorant as the 6 thousand year old Earth theory.





There are other types of radiometric dating besides Radioactive Carbon dating.



Potassium-argon dating method

Potassium-argon dating This involves electron capture or positron decay of potassium-40 to argon-40. Potassium-40 has a half-life of 1.3 billion years, and so this method is applicable to the oldest rocks. Radioactive potassium-40 is common in micas, feldspars, and hornblendes, though the closure temperature is fairly low in these materials, about 350 °C (mica) to 500 °C (hornblende).


radiometric dating



posted on May, 1 2017 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
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.

Hasn't your friend ever heard of an amphibian? Also, whales and dolphins are examples of animals that evolved to live on land then evolved again to be water animals. That's why they are the only mammals in the sea.

PS: I know you like the guy, but...

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...

Those two things are mutually exclusive.
edit on 1-5-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2017 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: Bone75

Hmm looked up carbon dating again for a refresh, interesting.

Just to give you a heads up. Carbon dating is a red herring when it comes to evolution. The half-life on C14 is too short to measure the time spans that evolution takes place over. So if an evolution denier comes at you about the inconsistencies of C14, ignore him. Scientists use isotopes with much longer half lives to clock evolutionary time spans.



posted on May, 1 2017 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

Between you and I,

1) Seriously, actual scientists still call it a "theory" for a reason. There is no evidence.

2) Radioactive Isotope dating has serious flaws but don't take my word for it, research it yourself.



posted on May, 1 2017 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: HeFrippedMeOff2


In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.
notjustatheory



posted on May, 1 2017 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Are yall done hating on me for being right? this thread went nowhere, as predicted. its like half of you werent paying attention to the first 150 reruns of "creationism vs evolution: the endless squabble". got nothing better to do but pretend that you havent seen this episode before. i saw how many stars that other guy got for putting me in my place, even though it turns out I was spot on the whole time. this is a troll thread and i get razzed for pointing it out first. yer welcome.

...also, Christ Pratt for Prez 2020. because this thread needs something worth reading. I AM GROOT!


edit on 1-5-2017 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2017 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Kandinsky

Substantiate, and provide actual verifiable, documented evidence for Evolution.

I won't hold my breath



posted on May, 1 2017 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: HeFrippedMeOff2
a reply to: Kandinsky

Substantiate, and provide actual verifiable, documented evidence for Evolution.

I won't hold my breath


Come up with a better rebuttal than standard evolution denier argument #16325.



posted on May, 1 2017 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Kandinsky

I think you're misunderstood also because science can neither prove or disprove; only provide evidence for or against an issue whereas in math we have "proofs" which prove the physics behind the science. Theories are just hunches in science. Math is the proof.



posted on May, 1 2017 @ 03:36 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join