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.

 

What bugs me about the theory of evolution

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2018 @ 05:25 AM
link   
If you cant look passed blood and bone filled examples of growth on earth, evolution is just right for you!

We all came from soil. What is dirt and sands common ancestor? Rock? How did rock evolve? Who cares about reptilians and mammals. How did plants evolve their responses to natural stimuli, without a brain or nervous system? Why does a Venus fly trap spit out what it can't eat? Not how, but WHY? Wouldn't it be the path of least resistance to just not exist?

The path of least resistance.. Is unadulterated unlimited speed and movement. We are an electric Bi-verse. Things cannot evolve in this system, only revert to what they once were.. As resistance against omnipresent omnipotent dynamic life fluctuates throughout the dynamic galaxy.

The human conciousness has been manipulated by this fluctuating resistance to life, to embrace stagnation, while promoting change. The feel good message of Luciferianism, that stillness is somehow synonamous with creation and peace, that the speed of Gravity defines our creator...
edit on 5-2-2018 by AdKiller because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 5 2018 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Even Darwin thought his theory should be taken with a grain of salt.
reply to: wildespace



posted on Feb, 5 2018 @ 08:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
I fully agree. I'm not the one saying we are witnessing evolution in bacteria and plants, etc.


We are witnessing evolution in bacteria and insects in lab experiments. We see small changes, which is exactly what is expected and predicted by evolution. We just aren't going to see BIG change because big change is just an accumulation of lots of small changes over much longer time periods. One does not need to witness long term change to validate evolution. We have fossils and such for that.
edit on 2 5 18 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 02:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: gimcrackery
Even Darwin thought his theory should be taken with a grain of salt.
reply to: wildespace

It seems many people replying to this thread think I'm doubting the theory evolution (or just want to express their own doubt). That's not the focus of this thread; I think theory of evolution is very well-founded. I'm just curious as to why we're not seeing fossils that were the definite ancestor of subsequent species, rather than just the "ends of the branches" that are depicted in images.

Would be nice to see someone actually address this.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 02:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: AdKiller
If you cant look passed blood and bone filled examples of growth on earth, evolution is just right for you!

We all came from soil. What is dirt and sands common ancestor? Rock? How did rock evolve? Who cares about reptilians and mammals. How did plants evolve their responses to natural stimuli, without a brain or nervous system? Why does a Venus fly trap spit out what it can't eat? Not how, but WHY? Wouldn't it be the path of least resistance to just not exist?

The path of least resistance.. Is unadulterated unlimited speed and movement. We are an electric Bi-verse. Things cannot evolve in this system, only revert to what they once were.. As resistance against omnipresent omnipotent dynamic life fluctuates throughout the dynamic galaxy.

The human conciousness has been manipulated by this fluctuating resistance to life, to embrace stagnation, while promoting change. The feel good message of Luciferianism, that stillness is somehow synonamous with creation and peace, that the speed of Gravity defines our creator...


Wow your elevator got stuck between floors. First rock didn't evolve they are made. The three main types, or classes, of rock are sedimentary, metamorphic, and igneous and the differences among them have to do with how they are formed.

Sedimentary Gneiss and obsidian rock samples
Types of Rocks
Rocks are not all the same!
The three main types, or classes, of rock are sedimentary, metamorphic, and igneous and the differences among them have to do with how they are formed.

Sedimentary
Sedimentary rocks are formed from particles of sand, shells, pebbles, and other fragments of material. Together, all these particles are called sediment. Gradually, the sediment accumulates in layers and over a long period of time hardens into rock.

Interactives -- Rock Cycle Pick another interactive:

Go


Introduction | Types of Rocks | How Rocks Change | The Rock Cycle Diagram | Test Your Skills


Gneiss and obsidian rock samples
Types of Rocks
Rocks are not all the same!
The three main types, or classes, of rock are sedimentary, metamorphic, and igneous and the differences among them have to do with how they are formed.

Sedimentary
Sedimentary rocks are formed from particles of sand, shells, pebbles, and other fragments of material. Together, all these particles are called sediment. Gradually, the sediment accumulates in layers and over a long period of time hardens into rock.

Metamorphic
Metamorphic rocks are formed under the surface of the earth from the metamorphosis (change) that occurs due to intense heat and pressure.

Igneous
Igneous rocks are formed when magma (molten rock deep within the earth) cools and hardens. Sometimes the magma cools inside the earth, and other times it erupts onto the surface from volcanoes

Plants and animals aren't made if rock nor do they come from rock that theory died in the middle ages what they realized life didn't just pop in to existence.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 08:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: wildespace
I accept the theory of evolution, and strongly advocate for it, but something's been bugging me recently about the graphical depiction of the evolutionary trees


I have an alternative. Creationism.





Creationism. Always the right choice.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 09:23 AM
link   
What bugs me about Evolution is that now everything is in a natural state of decay. But somehow for a long time everything was getting better and improving drastically.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: jjkenobi
What bugs me about Evolution is that now everything is in a natural state of decay. But somehow for a long time everything was getting better and improving drastically.


Natural state of decay? In what way? Life isn't immortal, sure, but it's not just decaying, we are reproducing prior to this decay (death), so that's irrelevant. The earth gets new energy from the sun every single second of the day, so where is the problem with complexity increasing over time? "Better" and "improving" are relative terms. There is no conflict at all with things "decaying" and dying. We gain new energy on a daily basis.
edit on 2 6 18 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 02:53 PM
link   
www.bbc.com...
Thing is all the gens animals have had over millions of years are still there just dormant this is true in humans as well .
by reactivating the gens the animal starts reverting to a more primitive form like dino chicken .

A humans embero ( aka baby ) goes through every stage of evolution wile in the women .
First one cell stage then multi cell the specialized cells .
For instance in the first few weeks of time the unborn baby HAS GILLS which are reasurbed then has a tail which is normally reasurbed then covered in hair which falls off right before birth .

Show the stages humans went through to Become human . Now a scientist could find the gills gen and reactavate it and wala a human with gills .
Now dont go thinking AQUA-MAN The gills would be regressive and not work but it does prove the gen is there and proves at one time million of years agaio our ansters had and used gills ( aka FISH )

cant ingnore the proof forever or maybe you can ?



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: wildespace

You seem to be getting hung up on an artists representation of the Phylogenetic trees. In reality they are very detailed, you can NOT represent that in an artistic manner.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 08:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Teikiatsu

So nothing with apples, snakes and ribs?


No, but I believe there is some design involved in the process.



I don't think evolution discounts God at all.

I'm not a hard line creationist but I believe in creation/plan and our Lord.

Things are what they are for the times.

To everything...

Turn turn turn.






posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 08:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs

originally posted by: CharlesT
I think the most evident proof of evolution would probably be found in the mutations witnessed in bacterial strains as they become increasingly resistant to antibiotics. Wouldn't you call that process evolution? Take TB for instance, it is becoming ever more resistant to antibiotics over time.


A broader vocabulary would gravitate more to the word adaptation.


If I punch one kid every friday at the school bus stop, how long will that kid take not to show up on a friday?




posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy

No you are correct. AS evolution says nothing about how life started, God or Gods, could be involved. That is one option.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 09:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: burgerbuddy

No you are correct. AS evolution says nothing about how life started, God or Gods, could be involved. That is one option.





Gods?

Do you believe in aliens?




posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Nope I am a polytheist, therefore I believe in many Gods.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 09:59 PM
link   
I believe that having DNA forming on its own is about as likely as the big bang theory. (At a time when there was no time and there was no things nothing exploded and created the universe) Do creatures evolve? Ofcourse they do.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 10:28 PM
link   
a reply to: wildespace

You've reminded me of Terry Pratchett when Rincewind goes back in time and early seas are full of eyes staring at him. 😊

You're more an astronomy man. Think Olbers paradox and how we can draw conclusions from reflection and induction.

Evolutionary science has worked out probable strands based on existing evidence and extrapolation. It aggravates people to see scientists filling in gaps with imagination.

Righteous questions anyway. We want better pictures.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: wildespace



I've never seen a graphic depicting direct species to species evolution.


1) In most if not all cases we don't actually know all of the species

2) Every single species is transitional

3) A lot of times these depictions are representative of entire genus' or family's because we only have a few fossilized examples of what we're dealing with.

Keep in mind that fossilization is quite rare, it would be insane to have examples of every single species and especially weird if we had enough examples to see a species gradually change into another. Speciation has been observed in the real world in both the lab and the wild but typically it takes a long time especially if the organism is quite complex and/or breeds slowly but the fossil record is a bit harder. I like to think of it like a comic book, we can study each panel and figure out in what order they go. Scientists have to be very careful about it which is why it takes so long for a consensus to be reached.


edit on 6-2-2018 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 11:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Nope I am a polytheist, therefore I believe in many Gods.




Ok, fair enough.

So who was in charge of evolution?






posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 12:42 AM
link   
a reply to: wildespace



I accept the theory of evolution, and strongly advocate for it, but something's been bugging me recently about the graphical depiction of the evolutionary trees: prehistoric species are shown as descending from a common ancestor, but the actual common ancestor is never shown.


Have you seen this one?

OPEN TREE OF LIFE

I suspect you will find more detail there than you want.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join