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.

 

Evolution captured on video courtesy of Harvard Medical School

page: 2
12
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash

Exactly. Show me a video of a bacteria evolving into a more complex being and then I will be impressed.




posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Our species is evolving even thous who lived 50,000 years agaio were NOT the same as us and wile we could still breed with them another 200 k years it would not longer be possible .
Our appendix has gotten to the point we no longer need it and it has been getting progressively smaller .
The tonsils as well 50,000 years agaio we used both these organs now we dont and very soon people will be born who dont have them at all .
Adaption IS evolution . Adapt and adapt again and so one to the point were the species has adapted so many times it is no longer able to breed with its relatives form 100 k s of years agaio .
This is long term evolution .
short term is when a BIG earth change happens then a species MUST evolve or die .
Like a forest becoming savanna all the tree dewaling species ether evolve or go extinct .
But i wont wast my breath on people who have not evolved past the primitive stage of need father Christmas to understand the world .

See even our tech is evolution it is science evolution the more we learn the more we know the less we need a boogy man or god to explane how and why the world works .

In closing ill say this maybe your right and a GOD did it BUT IT DID NOT NEED A GOD to do it .



posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 05:06 PM
link   
Simple mutations. The bacteria have the codes for each genes rearranged at random when they are stressed by a lack of food. The same happens with mammals; gene repair and regulatory systems shut down, allowing for rapid development of mutations; bacteria are reproducing every few minutes.

Similar experiments have been done with yeast and different types of sugar. Scientists would regularly take colony samples of yeast from a tank with their favorite sugar, then gradually replace that sugar with something different. As time goes by, those bacteria that could make use of the new food would become dominant. The scientists could identify the exact moment when one lucky strain managed to make the break-though to make use of the new food.

With evolution of species, it's more the case that one species splits up into two groups, and for whatever reason, those two groups can no longer co-mingle and exchange genes. Maybe some individuals get caught in a tsunami and are transplanted to or from an island to another continent. Then the natural mutations that happen to govern things like size, active hours, food sources and breeding times are affected by local conditions.



posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 05:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: midnightstar
Our species is evolving even thous who lived 50,000 years agaio were NOT the same as us and wile we could still breed with them another 200 k years it would not longer be possible .
Our appendix has gotten to the point we no longer need it and it has been getting progressively smaller .
The tonsils as well 50,000 years agaio we used both these organs now we dont and very soon people will be born who dont have them at all .
Adaption IS evolution . Adapt and adapt again and so one to the point were the species has adapted so many times it is no longer able to breed with its relatives form 100 k s of years agaio .
This is long term evolution .
short term is when a BIG earth change happens then a species MUST evolve or die .
Like a forest becoming savanna all the tree dewaling species ether evolve or go extinct .
But i wont wast my breath on people who have not evolved past the primitive stage of need father Christmas to understand the world .

See even our tech is evolution it is science evolution the more we learn the more we know the less we need a boogy man or god to explane how and why the world works .

In closing ill say this maybe your right and a GOD did it BUT IT DID NOT NEED A GOD to do it .


Appendix is still in use. It's a reservoir used to provide a breeding place for our natural digestive bacteria.



posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Wrong better go relook that up wile bacteria do reside there they them selfs can cause a needed surgery .
scientist are fairly sure it was like a chickens gizzard and helped with the massive amounts of wild seeds we ate at the time .
when humans invented farming our food got much softer and we no longer need it .



posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 07:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: midnightstar
Our appendix has gotten to the point we no longer need it and it has been getting progressively smaller .
The tonsils as well 50,000 years agaio we used both these organs now we dont and very soon people will be born who dont have them at all .

Darwinism is nothing less than a MASSIVE form of mind control masquerading as true knowledge....


One curriculum even resuscitates long-debunked claims that the coccyx, appendix, tonsils, and many other functional organs are “vestigial,” failing to mention that these organs are now recognized to have important functions (e.g. appendix, coccyx, tonsils, etc.) or are not generally regarded as evolutionary holdovers (e.g. male nipples).

Textbooks often present purportedly vestigial organs as evidence for common descent. The appendix is probably the most commonly cited organ which is purportedly an evolutionary holdover from our quadruped ancestors. Other allegedly vestigial organs that appear in textbooks include tonsils, the coccyx, or male nipples. These popular arguments for evolution from vestigial organs are highly inaccurate.

Vestigial Arguments About Vestigial Organs Appear in Proposed Texas Teaching Materials

In the early 1900's nearly 180 organs in the human body were thought to be useless. These include tonsils, the appendix, body hair etc. Doctors and Scientists never took the time to learn about these organs because evolutionists had told them they were useless. This part of the Evolutionary theory was detrimental to the health of many people, and held up the progression of modern medicine for many years. Doctors would often remove these organs not knowing that they served a vital role in everyday bodily functions.

What are tonsils for? Tonsils once thought to be useless actually help prevent disease. Those who have had their tonsils removed are actually 4 times more likely to develop Hodgkin’s disease.

There are no such things as a Vestigial Organ

The tonsils, too, were long branded by evolutionists as useless and problematic. Throughout much of the 20th century, medical practitioners removed appendixes, tonsils and other “dangerous” organs as routine operations. The appendix is far from useless, and removal of a healthy appendix under most circumstances today is considered medical malpractice...

Evolution's 'Unnecessary' Organs



posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: trollz

The term "evolution" is short and simple.

As genetic engineering advances, and new applications of the product are implemented, the very basis of capitalism will cause companies to compete in the industry.

Genetically engineered lifeforms that are the product of competing industries will inevitably hard-code into the DNA of their product, something akin to a "DYNAMIC ADAPTATION"

Meaning: DNA coded with whatever is necessary in order to efficiently trigger MUTATION when exposed to certain environmental variables, known,and unknown.

These genetic products will fare more successfully than those without such coding.

If we're eventually going to implement this, then why wouldn't someone else?
Given the Fermi Paradox, Dr Craig Venter creating life front scratch, and the AGE of the universe...

The dull term "evolution" seems a lil bit ... Last century, imo.



posted on Feb, 5 2018 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash

Actually, it may be that you have misunderstood the situation here...

On the human scale, even on the scale of complex multicellular life of the smaller variety, evolution is a relatively slow process, with small degrees of variance, taking a great deal of time to become ubiquitous throughout the species, or at least within a certain group, exposed to a certain stimulus. For example, those of Northern European stock are less prone to illnesses relating to cold weather and so on, not only because their preparation level for those is better than that of Southern Europeans, but also because their genetic preparations for that circumstance are better.

But those variances are encoded genetically, they are not simply adaptations which the individual lifeform learns, but are coded into them.

If the test is as I believe it to be, the results as explained indicate that the individual bacteria within the different bands in the experiment, had to encode new generations of bacteria with new information, not simply adapt, but evolve in order to resist the new stimulus.

Bacteria are not like unto humans. They cannot use tools, they cannot study things and learn ways to do things in the normal sense. But they can evolve PAST problems. When we humans need to go someplace hot once in a while, we do not change our genetics in order to survive heat. We either wear sunscreen, or we have to clamber into a heat proof suit, depending on the degree of danger the heat presents and what its source is. But bacteria live on much smaller scales, and cannot manipulate their environments except in the most limited of ways, but they DO have the ability to change their structure on the genetic level, rapidly. Remember, generations of bacteria can be born within very short spaces of time, which is another great difference between them and most complex life. Most bacteria divide between every 12 minutes at the short scale, and every 24 hours at the long scale. That means that as an average, the life span of a bacteria is around the 12 hour mark. Thats an awful lot of life and death, and if you were to be using bacteria of the shorter life span (which this experiment almost certainly has), then you get generations of change in very few days. A bacteria which divides every twelve minutes, will divide five times inside an hour, 120 times in 24 hours. There are 168 hours in a week. 840 divisions inside a week. Over a colony of millions of bacteria, thats a staggering number of potential moments for genetic advancement to occur.



posted on Feb, 5 2018 @ 09:21 AM
link   
I do not have a dog in this fight really but there are some things that I find baffling.

One example are dragonflies. They spend years underwater as nymphs that look like something out of Alien and then turn into a completely different creature that flies.

I have often watched the nymphs emerge from ponds and lakes and wondered about this.

I have never understood why or how such a thing can happen naturally.

Can anyone help me out here?



posted on Feb, 5 2018 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash

"debate".

This debate was solved over 150 years ago. The only people still clinging to it are those who can't reconcile their fundamentalist religious beliefs with reality.



posted on Feb, 5 2018 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

I give an example and nothing.
I don't know why people bother, Peter and Barcs, get hyped, phantom and others deserve a medal tbh attempting to show people evidence while those people ignore it.
A true thankless task may as well bang our heads against a wall.



posted on Feb, 5 2018 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Andddddd he's gone.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Crumbles

It’s par for the course when someone gets caught commenting without reading any of the citations in the OP.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Why do ancient specimens have more?

Like the ancient spider they found, tail and all that? Giant lizards roamed the earth, giant bats, giant chickens.

Seems evolution is the losing of information.

Shouldn't that be called devolution? Shouldn't a bacteria losing its arms to avoid being hand cuffed by antibiotics be considered for what it is?
edit on 6-2-2018 by AdKiller because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 07:30 AM
link   
a reply to: AdKiller

Ok, its not as simple as that.

We have fewer pieces of information required for our construction than did the ancient mega fauna and the flora of older times, its true. But what we achieve with the information we have is greater. I suppose its very similar in some ways to the evolution of computational ability in technological circles.

Ask anyone who was around at the time, who worked with those machines, what it was like working computers in the fifties, sixties, and seventies, even the eighties to an extent. Everyone will tell you that even in the more recent decades I mentioned, computers were, by todays standards, HUGE, with many hundreds of moving parts, and many hundreds of static parts as well. Even with all the material resources involved though, the most powerful computers of ages past, are put to shame by the computing power involved in a mobile phone, or even an Apple watch. Hell, some calculators these days have more grunt and storage in them, than some of the old machines.

Then you have to consider not just the material weight and energy requirements of those old machines, but also the amount of information that was required to create them in the first place. The position of every rotating segment, its balance and how true its motion could be made to be, the precise measurements required to ensure that arcing could not occur, the detailed elements of not only the construction, but the design of these huge, massive, room sized behemoths, that we would now consider nearly prehistoric from a computing point of view.

And now consider the humble mobile telephone. In the palm of one hand, with many thousands of times less weight of material, fewer components, less volume in physical terms, we can do more than any one of those old computers, any twenty of them linked together, could ever hope to have achieved.

Less information does not mean less function. What it means is greater efficiency, less waste of materials, less waste of information, a sturdier and more reliable, and more functional and adaptable design. Code can be that way, whether its genetic, or computer code, or even the amount of information necessary to build a machine. Less does not always mean lesser. Smaller does not always mean worse.

We are not losing information in a negative sense, but genetically speaking, life is becoming more elegant, less wasteful, more well adapted to the environments it encounters, such that it does not require to carry the baggage of previous iterations of the species, in order to meet the future with a design for itself which has fewer things to go wrong with it, than did the original structure.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Delete
edit on 8-2-2018 by Crumbles because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
12
<< 1   >>

log in

join