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 happened this decade.

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 01:40 AM
link   
Evolution is defined by a creature changing over time to adapt to changes around it.

We've all seen the dog-like creature that became the dolphins and whales of today, Right? And AIDS didn't exist in humans only 50 years ago, right?.

AIDS mutated and evolved to adapt to the human body, as would a dog like creature mutate and evolve to adapt to water over land. The two are the same, just on a different scale. like it or not, it's evolution.

Bird flu didn't effect humans a decade ago either. A new species formed that effected human genealogy just last year.

Any comments? Have I proved that evolution is ongoing and still happening today?




posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 02:23 AM
link   
you missed the part where aids was created in a lab.



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 02:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


AIDS is a race specific bioweapon which has an affinity for a certain portion of genetic code that is most common to Africans. While this idea and other ideas can debated ad nauseum, I give it credence especially in regard to the utterances of the execrable Dick Cheney of the USA.

But there is a huge problem with all bioweapons touted by the USA's Vice-President as the next best thing in warfare. The makers of such bioweapons forget that humanity has mated across all ethnic and racial lines so that many people who think they are strictly 'white' may in fact have significant portions of their DNA that come from other races.

I'm sure they would be more than happy to kill a redheaded green eyed Hapa like me.



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Meatclown
you missed the part where aids was created in a lab.


Their are 2 very popular theories on where HIV came from.

"Most experts believe that HIV probably transferred to humans as a result of direct contact with primates, for instance during hunting or butchery."

"A more controversial theory known as the OPV AIDS hypothesis suggests that the AIDS epidemic was inadvertently started in the late 1950s in the Belgian Congo by Hilary Koprowski's research into a polio vaccine."

No one knows which one for sure though.

Source



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Uniceft17
 


HIV isn't the same thing as AIDS.



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 01:11 AM
link   
First of all, I do believe in "evolution" to a degree. I believe that we change to our surroundings and may inherit certain qualities from birth,for example: obesity, certain physical attributes, low vitamin intake from lack of whatever, etc. but I think the appropriate term would be "adaptation". We may over several adaptations become very different from the original factor but we do not evolve. Points to back up my refutation will be posted in my next reply. And I trust you will read them unless:
1. You are to narrow minded to take other views into consideration.
2.You subconciosly know the truth but will not admit it.(No offense)



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 02:15 AM
link   
Refutational points
under the circumstances that the evolution process has been over millions of years) First lets start with a work of "evolution",the giraffe.The mature bull giraffe is approx. 18 ft. tall. To pump blood up its neck it would need a powerful pump. It is so powerful that if the animal bent its head down to get a drink the pressure would rupture the blood vessels of its brain! Given the evolutionist facts that the creature can evolve itself without conciously doing so, I have two facts to debunk this "fact": 1. The creature would have to have the problem to know to correct it, but by the time it realizes its default it would already be dead! 2. The change must happen rapidly to prevent the extinction of this animal, but given the evolutionist facts, it would have to substain from drinking for thousands of years before the "evolution" was complete. To be continued in the next reply.



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by bookworm333
Points to back up my refutation will be posted in my next reply. And I trust you will read them unless:
1. You are to narrow minded to take other views into consideration.
2.You subconciosly know the truth but will not admit it.(No offense)


Never make assumptions as to how people think or feel till you have given members the benefit of reading and posting their own views. You will find that for the most part you will get well educated replies or well thought out arguments to any thread. No one should shoot from the hip without due consideration to yours or anyone else's posts.



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 02:29 AM
link   
Continuation of giraffe refutation: 3. To prevent the bursting of the brains, the giraffe has valves in the arteries in the neck that begin to close, allowing only a small amount of blood to remain at the head while the rest is held back by the closed barrier. But suppose a lion came by and the giraffe raised its head quickly. It would immediately passes out. The lion eats the giraffe. By the time the giraffe realizes its deficiency it is dead. And we all know a dead giraffe cannot fix or evolve anything about itself. T.B.C...



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by bookworm333
We may over several adaptations become very different from the original factor but we do not evolve.


Call it what you like, but you're using two different words to describe the same thing, while at the same time you are arguing that one occurs and the other does not. However, it sounds like what you mean to imply is that you understand and accept micro-evolution but don't believe in the idea of macro-evolution. Sure, they are technically different, though it seems strange to accept one and not the other. (Don't let the word evolve scare you.)

Anyhow, to the OP, I agree, we are evolving. Actually, I'm not sure we're not devolving, as technology is evolving at an unprecedented rate. Well, at least take a look at the chart below and I think you'll understand what I mean. Keep in mind, this data is 4 years old...



...in other words, it seems as though technology is finally outfoxing us, physically that is

edit: add info

[edit on 2007/9/3 by evilod]



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 02:46 AM
link   
Thanks for the hint. I just know how people will cling to their views so tightly and I thought that might get them to be open minded. Refutation continuation:Now here are some undeniable facts: 1. If evolution took place over millions of years then how come there are no fossil remains? One might argue that during the evolution process the chemical imbalance could cause the bones to deteriorate more quickly. In that case, given the evolutionist facts that evolution is any ongoing process we would not have found the dinosaur bones becuase they would already have decayed. To be continued...



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 03:02 AM
link   
Thanks for the tip, but still it doesnt matter what i call it, the facts still remain: evolution not possible!(Ps. Are you arguing for or against evolution) and im not afraid to use the word evolve, most people just have a prejudiced definition when they hear that word.
Refutation facts: if evolution were to happen quickly the chemical imbalance would prob. Cause difficulties. 3. You cannot get a lifeform from nothing! Explanation in next reply



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 03:16 AM
link   
Refutation facts: you cannot get any type of life form from nothing! We always hear how cells evolved into this into this...but where did the cells come from? Where did the universe in which the earth was "created" come from? It had to have some intelligent design! And not up until the beginning of the cells transformation do we hear anything of intelligence! It is not like creationism where there was no time until God made it! The priciple of creation didnt even exist until He created it(unfathomable as it seems)



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 03:34 AM
link   
If you would like to know more undeniable truths of creation like the giraffe, I have lots more examples. And now that I got you to listen to my opinion, I would like you to know that I am a 14 year old boy (I didn't tell you before becuase you would have found all the more reason to take me with a grain of sand) that loves to read and debate the truth (and seek more truth becuase I realize that just because any opinion is mine does not automatically make it right
I only hold onto ideas that I know are right, and then I still question them becuase even the wrong think they are right. But I know for a fact that Jesus Christ is real just as His word is the truth (and I personally don't care if that pisses you off)



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 03:43 AM
link   
Gaining fat from overeating, more carbohydrates, lack of exercise is NOT evolution, it is simply getting fat. Simply a process of having too much input energy compared to output energy causing the body to metabolise that extra energy into fat storage cells. It's not evolution, just well fed. It's like a dog eating too much. ot evolution, just getting fat. too much food. needs to diet.



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by bookworm333
But I know for a fact that Jesus Christ is real just as His word is the truth (and I personally don't care if that pisses you off)



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 03:57 AM
link   
I did not say it was evolution, I said it was any example of the way things will change. I was saying that if a dog's mother, grandmother,great-grandmother,etc. ate a lot, that the dog will probrably be fat even if he doesnt eat excessively. Just giving any example of how things change instead of evolve.



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 03:57 AM
link   
Evolution is the evolving of new genetic code that wasn't there before, such as new genes that didn't exist in the previous species. Not just genes that have become active and therefore changed the look of a bird or something like that. But actually having a gene that wasn't there before in total.

That is what i consider evolution. creating new genes from nowwhere or having a gene that existed to somehow mutate into a new egen that has never existed before in that animal ever. that simply wasn't a turned off gene that is somehow turned on, but something totally new.



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 04:11 AM
link   
I think of evolution as something that happens in little stages but over time, can create a powerful change. For instance, I read that some people seem to be immune to the HIV virus. It's a small percentage of people. If HIV was spreading like the flu and killing everyone just as fast so that only the immune ones survived, all of humanity would have an immunity since everybody else would be dead. I believe catastrophic events can speed up evolution in this manner. In other words a mass extinction would occur except for those with the surviving trait. A more gradual evolution might occur if a trait was highly desirable but not necessary.

I have noticed many slight differences in physical features among humans. I for instance seem to be a lot more tolerant of the cold than many other people where I live at even though I lived in the southern US most of my life. Apparently I have some genes from northern colder climates. If a slight difference meant the difference between life and death or freezing and staying alive, many would die and most of the survivors might have the genes that allowed survival. Makes you wonder what happened in our long ancient past that did not allow survival. I thought I read somewhere that there may have been different forms of humans around at the same time in our more recent past. These are just my thoughts on the subject.



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 04:14 AM
link   
This is an issue of evolution vs. creation. The author of evolution was the human race, and the author of creation was God. I am not bringing any irrelivant issue into this. Just becuase someone states the name of the book and then mentions the author does not mean they are rambling on any irrelavent tangent. That would be illogical to say that. And I said what I mean: Jesus Christ IS real wether you admit it or not. Talk about poor kid; you'll be one miserable man when you die if you don't figure out the truth. And Im sure youve read the bible becuase unlike me you are open minded and "unbrainwashed".



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join