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.

 

You want proof of evolution at work, here it is.... Enjoy! (Observable and testable).

page: 7
14
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2019 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: LSU2018




Seems to me, the further into the past science tries to go, the further downhill they go.


As I said to someone previously, with that type of thinking we wouldn't have flushing toilets.

You're commenting on my "theory" without even knowing whether I have a "theory" or not! You apparently don't like science whether it's forward or backward. You resent people who do invest their lives in scientific discovery because you don't understand it - you don't understand the science and you don't understand the scientists. What's more - you obviously have never made an effort to understand how science works. Indulge in willful ignorance. That way you never have to worry about learning something.





posted on Jul, 2 2019 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

You keep making this contention:


This is clearly not the most efficient route and clearly would not be “designed” this way…


Why? What is inefficient and why would it be a bad design that one would shy away from? I mean, it has worked for millions of years, so it can't be that poor of a design can it? Also, you seem to be assuming the purpose of the design is to be efficient. I'm not saying it's not, I'm just saying how is it possible to know that efficiency would be the motivation behind the design?

Also, doesn't your analysis of the vocal chords strengthen the argument against evolution, in the form of irreducible complexity?
edit on 2-7-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2019 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Do you believe in the theory of evolution? If not then I apologize for misunderstanding you. If you do, then my original statement stands.

I love science, but just because I love it doesn't mean I swallow everything it feeds me.

So you think we wouldn't have flushing toilets if we didn't dig up bones and think of something to tell everyone about what we were in the past? Ah well, what's the point in arguing. You're the pompous type that can't stand to be questioned when you give an answer, you like for people to think you're always right no matter what you say. I guess you also think there was a big energy ball in the universe that blew up and created all these perfectly round planets and stars and somehow each star got its own planets to orbit around it.



posted on Jul, 2 2019 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

Your claim this would not be designed this way is a claim, not evidence, not testable. Your actual post and your headline have nothing to do with each other. Observable would be watching this common ancestor evolve, so I rate your post a 0/10 false. Whether evolution is real or not real really has nothing do with your post being a 0/10.



posted on Jul, 2 2019 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

Your claim this would not be designed this way is a claim, not evidence, not testable. Your actual post and your headline have nothing to do with each other. Observable would be watching this common ancestor evolve, so I rate your post a 0/10 false. Whether evolution is real or not real really has nothing do with your post being a 0/10.


I think PA is posting what he can't convince himself of.



posted on Jul, 2 2019 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: LSU2018

If you want to understand evolution the first steps are to obviously understand the driving forces behind it, secondly how basic genetics work and how genes are passed on or taken away.

And third if you want to get deeper into the subject you need to grasp the concepts and sciences behind taxonomy. It's the study of classifications:


In biology, taxonomy is the science of naming, defining and classifying groups of biological organisms on the basis of shared characteristics.


if evolution were a false theory the study of taxonomy would be completely wrong, yet time and time again it paints the bigger picture. That evolution is a slow, drawn out, process, but the more fossils, the more evidence found, strengthens the theory. When I gave the example of the Pakicetus, it was to give an intermediate sort of corner stone to show that a creature that walked on land shared similar characteristics as modern whales, if you theoretically took all direct ancestors of say a white whale, and map them all the way back to the time when Pakicetus was roaming around and jumping into lakes and oceans for food or what have you, you'll see a gradual change over time.

When you went off on a little rant about sharing characteristics, genetics, etc, etc. from your direct ancestors, that is evolution working, in theory if you kept those genetics isolated from the rest of the human population long enough, not hundreds, not thousands, but hundreds of thousands your family genetics and what ever 'group' or pod or clan whatever, will eventually become a new species of hominid.
edit on 2-7-2019 by strongfp because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2019 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp




if evolution were a false theory the study of taxonomy would be completely wrong, yet time and time again it paints the bigger picture.


Wait, explain this further. Maybe it's my misunderstanding what you're getting at, but to me it seems you're saying that our grouping things with like characteristics together, proves evolution. That seems like a pretty absurd contention.



posted on Jul, 2 2019 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: strongfp




if evolution were a false theory the study of taxonomy would be completely wrong, yet time and time again it paints the bigger picture.


Wait, explain this further. Maybe it's my misunderstanding what you're getting at, but to me it seems you're saying that our grouping things with like characteristics together, proves evolution. That seems like a pretty absurd contention.


Do you not question as to why our skeletal structure is basically the exact same as a Chimpanzee just with slightly different densities and placements? Or that some tree frogs, pandas, koalas, possums, have thumbs?
That Pakicetus has hoof like features and so do modern cows?



posted on Jul, 2 2019 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp

Questioning why is fine, it is not conclusive proof of anything.



posted on Jul, 2 2019 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Then explain why there are so many similarities. Remember, you have about 400 some odd MILLION years to digest here.



posted on Jul, 2 2019 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp

I get all of that, but again it's just a theory. Other than a characteristic or two, we can't even accurately trace back to a white whale's "grandfather" unless it was a family of whales raised in an aquarium. In reality, we can't trace the Pakicetus back through time to find out how accurate the findings are. This leaves us with a lot of hope and nothing more. Carbon dating isn't accurate so how do we know the Pakicetus didn't exist just ten thousand years ago or so? We know what we think we know, but what do we really know?

If the genetics were isolated from the rest of the population, wouldn't that lead to inbreeding? That would certainly be a different species over time, or genetically mutated, I don't think it would lead to an eventual animal or fish though. But what I was saying is that I don't think humans breeding with humans is going to lead to another species over time and we have no way to prove that it will.



posted on Jul, 2 2019 @ 05:04 PM
link   
So why aren’t dinosaurs still around if it’s that easy

How could you believe a sea creature evolved to breathe air, any species that needs water to survive wouldn’t evolve and adapt like that they would die and go extinct and not magically develop genetic mutations



posted on Jul, 2 2019 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: sselemaN

All living creatures, whether they are plants, bacteria, etc, need oxygen in some shape or form to live.

Whether they are 'breathing' or not. But whales, sharks, fish, dogs, cats, humans, flying squirrels all technically 'breath' in oxygen.

The question you are asking, or what I think you're asking for one, dinosaurs still exist, they are flying around you head, pecking at the ground, fighting wars against humans (Emu's in Australia), and are symbols of power (eagles). They are birds.

The dinosaurs you are thinking of roams this planet for millions of years. But met their extinction event, which is a big part of evolution, especially mammals and ours. Extinction is part of evolution, it's brings forth rapid decline, and rapid change. Species become isolated, some survive, some don't. At the event of a mass extinction, the main driving force of evolution, survival of the fittest comes into play.



posted on Jul, 2 2019 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp

Like a cat and a bear? Same structure minus the skull shape and size. And much closer than a human and chimp.

I'm just not seeing the similarities other than the normal stuff... Ribs, legs, arms, spine, a skull...




posted on Jul, 2 2019 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: LSU2018

The point you are getting at now is where it becomes complicated.

Lets take a species of whale again for example. They are very social creatures, and travel in pods, not only are the driving forces behind the pods survival are sexual selection, but also selective breeding. There's multiple pods roaming the oceans, if one pod is genetically superior to another it's survival will ensure that what ever made that family of whales more prone to survival will pass on their genes. This might mean, male whales are larger, more aggressive, who knows (I'm not a whale expert), but even if a male whale shows more dominating traits it might be what the females look into a bull whale.

If you continue this trend over thousands of generations, those whales will evolve into something else.
blue whales for example again, evolved for basically just adapting to environment, they travel in small pods, but the larger the whale might just mean the more he or she can eat and sustain a healthy diet, which then brings in another driving force, sexual selection.

Mammals are time and time again shown to have two main driving forces, sexual selection, and basic survival of the fittest.



posted on Jul, 2 2019 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: LSU2018

If you can't see similarities you're blind, or lack an imagination to put it all together...



posted on Jul, 2 2019 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp

No. Just like I don't question why most V8 engines are basically the exact same. But that's not what I asked about. I asked about why humans grouping like objects together is proof of evolution.



posted on Jul, 2 2019 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

V8 engines were built by a designer.

Human 'parts' weren't. They evolved over time.



posted on Jul, 2 2019 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp

Well in some ways, yes. But there's no evidence that the original design was not indeed a design. Evolution does not address the origins of life, simply what happened once it was here.



posted on Jul, 2 2019 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Then explain why there are so many similarities. Remember, you have about 400 some odd MILLION years to digest here.

Most planes are similar too. Why is that?



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join