It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: Raggedyman
Here is a PRA from berkeley dealing with the topic of cetacean evolution.
The evolution of whales
The first thing to notice on this evogram is that hippos are the closest living relatives of whales, but they are not the ancestors of whales. In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That's why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree.
Hippos are large and aquatic, like whales, but the two groups evolved those features separately from each other. We know this because the ancient relatives of hippos called anthracotheres (not shown here) were not large or aquatic. Nor were the ancient relatives of whales that you see pictured on this tree — such as Pakicetus. Hippos likely evolved from a group of anthracotheres about 15 million years ago, the first whales evolved over 50 million years ago, and the ancestor of both these groups was terrestrial.
These first whales, such as Pakicetus, were typical land animals. They had long skulls and large carnivorous teeth. From the outside, they don't look much like whales at all. However, their skulls — particularly in the ear region, which is surrounded by a bony wall — strongly resemble those of living whales and are unlike those of any other mammal. Often, seemingly minor features provide critical evidence to link animals that are highly specialized for their lifestyles (such as whales) with their less extreme-looking relatives.
originally posted by: Raggedyman
Where did I say I didn't believe in germs
I assumed a probability based on evidence you were a flat earther
Just showing you what it's like to have to deal with immature people, guess because you don't believe in germs, you believing a flat earth as well was logical
Do you acknowledge some scientists differentiate micro and macro evolution
And no, not interested in hypothesis, theories and law, I asked for evidence for macro evolution, if it's a fact then there should be rock solid scientific evidence
If evolution is a probability, how can we t also be a fact?
asked that you prove evolution on a macro scale with repetable observable and testable science
originally posted by: Incandescent
The opening post can be settled by comprehending the following statement:
Evolution is a scientific theory, not a scientific fact.
Everyone can realise that is an accurate and truthful statement.
originally posted by: Barcs
Nonsense. Scientific theories are compilations of scientific facts, so to say it's not a fact is absurd. Evolution as a process is fact. The theory as a whole is not because there are certain things we don't know yet and are working on, but based on how much evidence we have the likelihood of it being true is at least 99.999% No theory ever reaches 100% because we don't have complete knowledge of everything.
originally posted by: Incandescent
What "certain things" don't scientists know and are working on?
Logically, you cannot claim something as true if it is 99.999% true. It is either true or it is not true.
Lastly, can you explain why Evolution is not classified as scientific fact?
Nature is a British multidisciplinary scientific journal, first published on 4 November 1869. It was ranked the world's most cited scientific journal by the Science Edition of the 2010 Journal Citation Reports and is ascribed an impact factor of 40.137, making it one of the world's top academic journals. It is one of the few remaining academic journals that publishes original research across a wide range of scientific fields.