Does the "Eye" and "Brain" kill Evolutionary Theory?, page 9

privacy

Pages: << 6 7 8 9 10 11 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 6 times

reply posted on 18-3-2009 @ 09:10 AM by Byrd

Originally posted by B.A.C.
I DON'T agree with their explanations. What's the point in arguing about it. Why would I believe in God and think he didn't create us?

So...then... let me ask two questions for your consideration:

How do you explain the blind cave fish (which are the same species as regular "in the stream fish" only they have lost the ability to see because they live in darkness)? If you have no mechanism for animals to change for an environmental advantage (which is evolution) do you then propose that a deity shows up and says "Hey, you're living in caves! Lemme zap those eyes for you!"

In other words, is the deity constantly creating new animals and new species at various times -- showing up and salting the earth with things that look a bit like other things but are radically different in important ways?

And how do you explain that African elephants and Asian elephants aren't the same genus or species (and can only very rarely crossbreed?) Does the deity simply go around creating similar looking things because elephant-like things are a preferred form?

(the last question came up because I'm doing some research on Pleistocene (last Ice Age and before) mammals and I was astounded by the number of elephant types there are.)

I'm simply curious. I always wondered how non-evolution believers managed to correlate those items... or if it's something they don't think about and aren't aware of.

reply posted on 18-3-2009 @ 12:13 PM by B.A.C.

reply to post by Byrd

Hey Byrd,

Good questions. I've made it very clear in my threads that I do believe in the fact of Evolution (as far as adaptation goes, MiE, etc). It's Evolutionary Theory that explains the verifiable observable fact of Evolution that I don't agree with.

Of course I can't speak for all Creationists.

Hope this clears it up

[edit on 18-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

reply posted on 18-3-2009 @ 02:10 PM by Donny 4 million

reply to post by Byrd

I think genetics coupled with the fossil record is proving the actuality of evolution.
The total acceptance of an individual or group idea will never happen.
I really do not know if there are others or not, that think they can prove mutation (and I don't mean random) in humans eyes, brains or otherwise. It should be possible and I have done a lot of research and have some interesting views. Another thread would mostly be the best way to explore them.
BTW if I can figure out U2u I will try to send you something on Ancient elephants I have some of them in my Miocene collection.

reply posted on 18-3-2009 @ 02:34 PM by spy66

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by spy66
Originally posted by jfj123
Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by jfj123

Might as well just show you this. Its quite beautiful.

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

And what does this have to do with the topic?

If you're not interested in explaining your posts and keeping them on topic, why bother posting here at all?

Seems very pointless.

Well not entirely. There was some landscape and animals for you to look at. I have the impression you dont really know what it looks like out side. So i thought i should show you.

By this statement, I tend to believe your impression are about as sharp as a bag of wet mice

We have to start somewhere. Right?

Maybe we should start with not trying to provoke and insult me and try explaining your statements in an adult manor??? That would be a wonderful place to start, don't you think???

But lets just leave it. You know what you know and i am fine with that.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Frankly, if you're going to make statements directed toward me, I do expect an explanation. It's very childlike to make vague accusations then hide behind your computer screen.
Either don't make the accusations or at least be adult enough to stand behind them and explain yourself.

Ok have you looked at your own replies!

I cant make any sense out of them.

reply posted on 18-3-2009 @ 02:39 PM by spy66

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by Byrd

I think genetics coupled with the fossil record is proving the actuality of evolution.
The total acceptance of an individual or group idea will never happen.
I really do not know if there are others or not, that think they can prove mutation (and I don't mean random) in humans eyes, brains or otherwise. It should be possible and I have done a lot of research and have some interesting views. Another thread would mostly be the best way to explore them.
BTW if I can figure out U2u I will try to send you something on Ancient elephants I have some of them in my Miocene collection.

Can you see if science have ever proved a DNA actually change from one kind to an other!

Or can sciences just show you two separate DNA with mERV's and then just match them.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

reply posted on 18-3-2009 @ 03:39 PM by Donny 4 million

spy
I am not sure who you are addressing in your last post.
Let me try this---
Speaking for myself, I beleive complex dna change takes a way long time. And as you should know, forced change in rats and flies is not a proper science for evolution. That to me is like believing in random mutation. A problem in the use of dna in long dead bio-mass is the lack of the proteins. They just don't preserve well.
But I do think I have a novel theoretical way to be able to use existing human dna to see some evolutionary change
As I say it is an idea best left to another thread.

reply posted on 18-3-2009 @ 05:02 PM by Byrd

Originally posted by B.A.C.
reply to post by Byrd

Hey Byrd,

Good questions. I've made it very clear in my threads that I do believe in the fact of Evolution (as far as adaptation goes, MiE, etc). It's Evolutionary Theory that explains the verifiable observable fact of Evolution that I don't agree with.

Hope this clears it up

Not entirely, so I hope you will forgive a further question. The theory of evolution says that species adapt and change over time and the most successful survive. Over hundreds of millions of years, the end result is a creature that is so different from its original that they are no longer the same species or even family or even class.

At what point do you say that "the thing has stopped evolving and a deity has stepped in to create something entirely new?"

Let me give you a concrete example.

I'm working on a dinosaur skeleton (Alamosaurus). We have just bits and pieces (when we get our bits and pieces together with the material held in Austin and the material held by the Smithsonian, we will have enough bits and pieces of several dinosaurs and can reconstruct a set of bones based on "this hip bone from Austin" and "this series of neck bones from Dallas" and "this series of jaw fragments and toes from Smithsonian" (etc, etc, etc.)

Now... big dinos (titanosaurs) like this lived in North America some 200 million years ago. After that time, they die out in North America but continue to live in South America and China. About 70 million years ago, the Rockies start forming and a land bridge (Mexico and Central America) starts forming from South America to North America. About this time, the Alamosaurus appears. It was originally thought to be descended from a South American dinosaur but the work I'm doing on the neck now shows that it appears to be descended from a very different dinosaur from China.

The forebearer species died off long before Alamosaurus shows up.

Evolution says that the bones I am working on are the descendants of a long line of titanosaurs (and they are very different from original dinosaur family (in the order of the titanosaurids) although to the untrained eye, they would look "just the same" (bigole' longneck dinosaur is how they look if you don't know anything about dinosaur anatomy. But their legs are different and they walked differently and there's a large number of differences.)

So... at what point do you say "things died and a new life form was created"?

...and is it (honest question, here -- not making fun but asking because I *don't* know how people think about this) that a whole herd of them just "poofed" into existence or what?

reply posted on 18-3-2009 @ 05:04 PM by Byrd

Originally posted by spy66
Can you see if science have ever proved a DNA actually change from one kind to an other!

Or can sciences just show you two separate DNA with mERV's and then just match them.

Yes, on the microbial level. Microbes adapt and evolve very quickly (MRSA is a good example.) But we've only been able to study genetic material from the recent historical period. Genetic material decays very quickly and it's unusual to find anything readable beyond a few thousand years.

reply posted on 18-3-2009 @ 05:07 PM by Byrd

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
BTW if I can figure out U2u I will try to send you something on Ancient elephants I have some of them in my Miocene collection.

I'd love that. I'm also looking for mid-to-small mammals and reptiles in North America that lived during the time period. I find oodles of elephantoids and so forth but almost nothing on the smaller critters. But I do need more info on elephant species, particularly in North America, Siberia, and (possibly) Beringia.

reply posted on 18-3-2009 @ 05:34 PM by spy66

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by spy66
Can you see if science have ever proved a DNA actually change from one kind to an other!

Or can sciences just show you two separate DNA with mERV's and then just match them.

Yes, on the microbial level. Microbes adapt and evolve very quickly (MRSA is a good example.) But we've only been able to study genetic material from the recent historical period. Genetic material decays very quickly and it's unusual to find anything readable beyond a few thousand years.

Ok. So a human DNA changes from year to year ! On a micro level naturally? Now mark my words naturally.

But dont we just call that ageing?

If something changes it has to go through X amount of steps.

If i show you this with number you can see that its quite impossible for something to change naturally from one kind to another.

Lets say you have a kind +1 and it evolves to Kind +2.

There is a time space between +1 and +2. We call that millions of years.

I would call it infinite. +1 one can never change.

Example of changes.

For +1 to become +2.

+1 has to change to 1,0000000000........... on and on and on

then to 1.00000000009 and so on. To 1.00000019999999999

How can a change happen naturally in this way? If a kind just eats and breath air. And mate with its own kind.

This just shows ageing if you ask me.

PS. Question: How many times would a human who has 97.5% of a chimps DNA have to mate to create a new kind?

They would have to mate for ever. Because there is 2,5% of matter missing from the equation. And not to mention the X amount of causes missing.

PS. I also have to add. If a human is to reproduce doesn't it have to do it within the same Kind. Kan a human naturally create another Kind my mating with another Kind?

And if a Kind mates with its own Kind dont just the DNA structure get passed on from the two Kinds. How can that produce a new Kind. You only produce a new offspring with mixed DNA that has a new shape just like you dont look exactly like your mom and dad.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

reply posted on 18-3-2009 @ 08:36 PM by Welfhard

reply to post by spy66

Poor example because numbers are abstract mathematical concepts whereas DNA is physical, real, stored information that is always changing.

Everytime it is transcribed, mistakes are made (50% of which get changed back) and for the most part these changes do nothing.

Mistakes are all throughout the body but when the occur in germ cells, the may be inherited. Since mistakes compound, the difference between individual A and their descendant, individual Z is very great compared to that of individual B relative to A.

reply posted on 18-3-2009 @ 08:57 PM by Donny 4 million

reply to post by Welfhard

Neat reply to spy.
Similar to tracing mitochondria back mathematically to confirm origin.
Not unlike dropping a dart from a random point during a moon mission and having it hit the cork at O' Mal lies on St. Pats Day in a particular year. The eye evolved to do the dart thing and the brain to keep it from sticking it in someone.

reply posted on 18-3-2009 @ 09:03 PM by spy66

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by spy66

Poor example because numbers are abstract mathematical concepts whereas DNA is physical, real, stored information that is always changing.

Everytime it is transcribed, mistakes are made (50% of which get changed back) and for the most part these changes do nothing.

Mistakes are all throughout the body but when the occur in germ cells, the may be inherited. Since mistakes compound, the difference between individual A and their descendant, individual Z is very great compared to that of individual B relative to A.

Of course there are mistakes. But this dosent pass for anything. The offspring will still be a human. If it is created by a human.

If you want to produce a offspring. You would expect it to be a human right. I bet you would be quite surprised if it was something else.

If it has a handicap, hart or skin problem you could probably blame it on your self and your friends DNA or even your grandparents past on DNA. And that's about it.

And you can put that in to an equation as well.

Because only one kind can produce the same Kind. Humans can only produce Humans, Because the only way they can do that naturally Is by letting a female Carry it to birth.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

reply posted on 18-3-2009 @ 09:04 PM by Donny 4 million

reply to post by Byrd

My buddy in NJ has a mastodon in his pond in a glacial bog,
I have found Gompthothere material in springs and pits in Fl. I found a capybara tooth in one of the FL pits. Gator, llama, camel, huge armadillo and a slew of marine fossils I collected there also.
I met some real neat paleontologists in Florida while snooping around the APAC pit back in 86 and 87.
Check out Frank Garcia, a regular guy and his one time buddy ( he past quite awhile ago ) Ben Waller (sp).
Ben was Lloyd Bridges nemesis on a under water TV show from the 50's, Sea Hunt. It was filmed at Silver Springs,
Ben took me to his house that he had turned into a museum.
His bone collection ran the gamete from mammoth skulls and tusks and the Clovis points that were used to kill and butcher them to-----mouse sized feline teeth. A lot from the dark waters of the Santa Fe and Suwannee River and numerous underwater caves. I traded my caby tooth to the owner of The Ice Age Museum in Sarasota. Neat lady.
All of these creatures are very recent in the evolutionary chain. I think the eye developed on the trilobite to protect it from the newly evolved proto squid or fish. The eye even evolves on the species during it's 250 million year existence. Longer than the Dinos The brain was developed by the first life form and has evolved somewhat differently in all of us posters. There is something to seeing is believing.

reply posted on 18-3-2009 @ 09:44 PM by Welfhard

Originally posted by spy66
Of course there are mistakes. But this dosent pass for anything. The offspring will still be a human. If it is created by a human.

Sure it does. Whilst one individual's child will be fundamentally the same thing (you would say kind) as the parent, it's still different. Every individual is unlike any other (with the arguable exception of identical twins). If everyone is different then what makes them the same becomes the definition of what they are (in this case humans). But what makes them the same changes gradually over many generations and the mistakes pile up and new traits emerge out of the redundant ones.

We all fit under the title 'Homo Sapian Sapian' as will be our descendants for a time, but at some stage they will become something ever-so-slightly, but fundamentally not 'Homo Sapian Sapian' just as if you look back you see we get less like what we are now the further back you go.

If you want to produce a offspring. You would expect it to be a human right.

Sure, but it's not going to be identical to me, it's going to have genetic "mistakes" which were made in me, yet absent in our ancestors. This could mean that the child has the beginnings of a new/different trait, or they could completely negligible differences. Either way multitudes of of generations compound changes that are invisible between two generations. Change is inevitable.

If it weren't for the mistakes in DNA there wouldn't be a slow, unapparent but consistent change. Nor would there be any variety in us at all.

[edit on 18-3-2009 by Welfhard]

reply posted on 19-3-2009 @ 05:26 AM by jfj123

Originally posted by spy66

Of course there are mistakes. But this dosent pass for anything. The offspring will still be a human. If it is created by a human.

If you want to produce a offspring. You would expect it to be a human right. I bet you would be quite surprised if it was something else.

If it has a handicap, hart or skin problem you could probably blame it on your self and your friends DNA or even your grandparents past on DNA. And that's about it.

And you can put that in to an equation as well.

Because only one kind can produce the same Kind. Humans can only produce Humans, Because the only way they can do that naturally Is by letting a female Carry it to birth.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

so are you saying that everything "popped" into existence as they are now and there were never any "transitional" species?

reply posted on 19-3-2009 @ 02:32 PM by Xtrozero

If mammals were not related to each other a long the evolutionary tree why then is all their DNA so closely related, with apes the closest at about 98%.

The Hemoglobin of a horse is 88% similar to humans and even the cytochrome C of dogs is about 90% similar to that of humans. This to me shows there is a common history to mammals, so instead of debating differences I would think the big question is why are there and similarities at all?

With the “god creation” theory I would also think that even god would have a plan that was not just waving a magic wand to create humans, so what is the argument here? Evolution is an ongoing process and humans are reaching the point where we will create our own evolution as we clean out our genetic trash. Can anyone argue the point that humans in 1000 years, much less a few million years, will be exactly as they are today?

Some also suggest that breeding between like species is not capable, and so we are all locked within our own species, but that is not true. Cross breeding is not uncommon and a quick Google search proves this, so this just so that crossbreeding is there and distance along the evolutionary branch slowly reaches a point that it doesn’t work anymore.

Even with Adam and Eve we can have god’s magic wand once again, or they could represent the point that man became man and the Garden of Eden could be the innocence of the animal world. The forbidden fruit is just the point that man became self aware, and in doing so put on cloths and now have the ability to choose to do good or evil acts.

reply posted on 19-3-2009 @ 06:23 PM by Byrd

Originally posted by spy66
Ok. So a human DNA changes from year to year ! On a micro level naturally? Now mark my words naturally.

But dont we just call that ageing?

No, and no, and that wasn't the question I was asking.

The DNA of cells can change from year to year and that can produce all sorts of things, including cancer. DNA changes are more complex than that.

The DNA of humankind is changing slightly as we live in a technological environment. Right now we eat too well and we're all getting fat and sluggish... at least many of us are. That will lead to reduced breeding for that population as well as early deaths (so not as many children.)

One individual doesn't turn into another species in a lifetime. Three generations isn't enough to produce a new species. One thousand, yes. Things with very short lives can be seen over a decade or so to change to something completely new (the equivalent of thousands of their lives.)

If something changes it has to go through X amount of steps.

A good question would be "how many is 'x'?" What are we talking about modifying -- bones? Internal organs? Number of DNA strands? Blood cell shape? If it's a single mutation then (sickled-type blood cells which don't infect with malaria) that's a single person and a single lifetime. Over generations the trait that lets them survive better (at a cost) is the one that becomes dominant because more of those survive to a breeding age.

PS. Question: How many times would a human who has 97.5% of a chimps DNA have to mate to create a new kind?

It's 98%, and it was about 1 million years to 1.5 million years because homo erectus was very successful in the environment. About 40,000 generations.

If you look at the bones of our ancestors, you see diversification and change, particularly around the area of the skull from the first homo sapiens to modern homo sap.

PS. I also have to add. If a human is to reproduce doesn't it have to do it within the same Kind. Kan a human naturally create another Kind my mating with another Kind?

I have no idea what you mean by "kind" but homo sapiens successfully crossbred with Neanderthals and I'm pretty sure there are crosses between archaic homo sap and homo erectus. In modern times there hasn't been any confirmed cases of human-anything (probably great apes would be closest possible) crossbreeds because of the ethical cries of outrage over it. Stalin attempted to set up such a thing but it never came about.

But that wasn't my question.

My question is: What is your idea of the mechanism that brought Australopithecus into being? And homo erectus? Scientists say that over the 4 million year period, Australopithecus divided into two groups (robustus and gracilis) and A. gracilis eventually evolved into h. erectus and thence to h. sapiens. In any case, we have three very different looking humanoids that appear in sequence from 4 million years ago to modern times. Beyond that we have a number of human forebearers that were far more ape-like (but weren't apes) going back to Ardipithecus and Saehelanthropus which may have been a knuckle-walker like the gorilla.

My question is "how do you think they came to be?" Did they just "poof" into existence or what?

reply posted on 19-3-2009 @ 06:29 PM by Byrd

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by Byrd

My buddy in NJ has a mastodon in his pond in a glacial bog,
I have found Gompthothere material in springs and pits in Fl. I found a capybara tooth in one of the FL pits. Gator, llama, camel, huge armadillo and a slew of marine fossils I collected there also.
I met some real neat paleontologists in Florida while snooping around the APAC pit back in 86 and 87.

Okay... it's official. I'm jealous!!! All I do is prep fossils. Never found anything cool, myself.

reply posted on 19-3-2009 @ 06:52 PM by spy66

reply to post by Byrd

Thanks this made more sense.

Just to start out!! I dont think everything just appeared out of thin air. I know its a proses. Starting at a very small level and becoming bigger.

I believe in science its just that some things are better explained then others.

I know we are apes but our own species of ape. If you take away the razor and scissors you would start to see how ugly we could be.

I also know that DNA changes and that we do pass it on to our children. But what i am having a hard time of adding up is that we shape shift into something that looks totally different because of DNA transfers.

We might become smaller, taller,colored, white, loos hair, have more hair and become less resistant or more resistant because of DNA transfers. But it won't change who we are.

Does science define intelligence and appearances as a change of species just because they have started to shave, cut their hair, become fat because of the way they live or have evolved a system of learning ?

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]