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.

 

Darwin's 'evolution' moth changes back from black to white!

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by octotom

Creationists have a problem with marco-evolution, which there is no evidence to backup.



Really? There's no evidence for macroevolution?

I think the vast majority of the scientific world would disagree with you:

One

Two

Three

Here is a list of transitional fossils



Before you come out and say something as foolish as 'there is no evidence to back up macroevolution', perhaps a quick search would be in order?

Your example of the pineapple evolving into a hippo is completely idiotic, they are from different kingdoms! Have you ever taken a biology class? Hippos and pineapples probably shared a common ancestor in a prokaryotic cell 3 billion years or so ago, but as soon as the animal kingdom diverged from the rest of the eukaryotes the similarities ended. Please at least try to make sense when you put forth an argument against evolution.




posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 



I'm never able to understand why a belief in the Old Testament God, precludes an acceptance of natural selection and the engine that drives evolution. Why can't you or others believe in both? There's a great loophole in Genesis whereby you can speculate exactly what a 'day' represented. Maybe a 'day' in the experience of God constitutes a billion years? Belief in God is based on Faith so evolution should have no impact on the devout.

The Day-Age theory stems from a verse in 1 Peter, I believe, where Peter says that a day with with Lord is like a thousand years. This verse isn't used in the context of creation but to show God's eternality.

Evolution isn't compatable with the creation story for two reasons. The first is that the world for "day",in Hebrew, in Genesis is also used in Exodus. This word refers to a 24 hour period. The second being that God said that he created us as is. He picked up dust and fashioned Adam. If evolution is true, God is a liar and he can't be trusted.


Creationism also espouses life from non-life.

Not exactly true. Creationism says that God created everything ex nihilo, or "out of nothing". Nothing existed when God created the universe. Evolutionism says that life just came out of non-life by chance. Even if we were to say that God created life out of non-life, he has something that evolution doesn't have. He is God, he can do what he wants. Life, from the evolution point of view, just happened.


You do yourself an injustice with the pineapple=hippo gag. You're either arguing from an uninformed position or using ridicule in place of a reasonable argument

I said, "hippo from a pineapple" because a previous poster used that analogy to say that's what creationists believe about evolution.



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   
We should be reminded as in everything we observe or experience of this World, comes in pairs. Left and Right, Up and Down, Black and White...

Any one of these does Not exist on its Own!

History both past and future, is a bit like the contents of a complex story book.

There is both the contents we refer to, as History and there is the writer of that story or the foundation behind the happening or story.

I do Not mean, a person up there, with perhaps a white beard, Controlling things as though a puppeteer....

I do Not follow or belong to any religious order!

But by referring to the Writer of the story, I mean what is responsible for both the Laws in everything, the Direction of the story (history) and its Purpose.

We often, can only see what happens in the story, but don't understand what, or how it is produced or where it has come from.

There is a story behind what we experience. We should Not just experience this, but seek for the meaning behind it.

Something has produced the rules or Laws behind everything we experience, whether material in nature or not.

These Laws for example "The Laws of Physics" can Not be Broken or Changed, but reach beyond all belief and Interpretation and humankind can Not change anything by simply adopting a belief either way.

Our Interpretation of a story or happening is Not the Truth but is only part of what we ultimately discover later.

There is reason behind everything we experience, and it is the enquiring nature of the mind, that if allowed to follow leads us to a greater understanding of ourselves through the experience of this Universe.

The conformity of humankind, is a bit like "Fashion". As we get further through the story, our beliefs and thoughts Change, and this is an indisputable fact.

We will only be able to consider the story, when we have read the whole book and see the story in its true light, as we will then have all the information required.

It is the reading of the book (experiencing this World) that draws a much greater understanding to us.

There will always be the Opposites as our very universe is structured on this.

But behind everything you see or experience, is One, and only One, Common theme and that is Creation whether we accept this or not!

Even this post I am answering to, has been Created by the mind.

And my desire that causes me to write back is also the mind.

And the Story presented in this world, concerning this Moth, is to make us ask more questions, about this rather than arguing over our beliefs.

Why the moth is changing back, has nothing at all to do with the desire of the Moth, but rather the content of the Underlying Story, that Controls what is being observed by us.

If we move forward and look into this more, instead of arguing or discussing the philosophy of Evolution, or the other philosophy of humankind, we may be able to come to understand the nature of the control system, behind the history of the Moth in question.

The Truth remains as a solid and immoveable mountain, irrespective of our beliefs, in us all trying to make our own stories fit, rather than understanding what actually is.

See the World as it is And Not as you/we, desire it to be according to or based on our Ignorance...



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by octotom
 



Creationism says that God created everything ex nihilo, or "out of nothing". Nothing existed when God created the universe.

I guess we're just splitting hairs then? I see no difference in the essential question that something came from nothing.



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by drwizardphd
 


The "evidence" of transitional forms isn't universally accepted. Many evolutionists readily admit the absence of transitional forms. Even if there are some animals that resemble others in some way, that doesn't prove macro-evolution, or the change from one kind to another, because many of the "transitional forms" still are obviously the creature that they're said to descend from. A sea creature with a smaller round shell is still a sea creature with a round shell.

It's interesting that the fossil record, which isn't as uniform as science books make one think, has abrupt ends between the different kinds of creatures. We don't see anything that is obviously half of one kind of creature and half of another. Each of the "transitional forms" errs on one side or the other.

Since evolution has more to do with genetics than appearance, isn't it kinda silly to be pointing to fossils anyway as proof of evolution? I mean, we can't get genetic make ups from them.



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   
So does this mean we need a predatory species hunting us for the human race to evolve??

Thats what the article seems to portray..



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


While the difference is subtle, there is a difference. In any event though, creationism still has a higher being that is able to manipulate that nothingness in order to create something. Evolutionism still has to leave it up to blind chance to turn nothing to life. It also doesn't explain the origin of everything--where did the singularity come from that resulted in the Big Bang?



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


While the difference is subtle, there is a difference. In any event though, creationism still has a higher being that is able to manipulate that nothingness in order to create something. Evolutionism still has to leave it up to blind chance to turn nothing to life. It also doesn't explain the origin of everything--where did the singularity come from that resulted in the Big Bang?


Evolution is driven by natural selection...it isn't blind chance. The question of where did God come from is as difficult and profound a question as where did matter come from? The depth of wonder I imagine you feel for God is also felt by many scientists when they look at the wonders of the Universe. Epiphany is rooted in religion, but is also felt by atheists when they ponder the universe or the intricate beauty that natural selection represents. It's a point that's often lost in the debate between Creationism and evolution.



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 



Evolution is driven by natural selection...it isn't blind chance.

Natural selection can't drive non-life into live. So, in that respect, some freak accident of blind chance had to somehow make non-living material living in the previous eons.



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by octotom
 


Perhaps the beginning was, when "Nothing" became aware of its Own Existence and from there on, it started to learn about itself.

But what actually is Nothing??? (I do Not mean, what our beliefs and Interpretation is of Nothing)

But what is the True existence of Nothing. Perhaps it is Not Emptiness as it requires something to contain this otherwise (in the form of at least 2D) how do you find emptiness ie locate it.

Nothing can only exist, if there is somewhere for it to exist!

Perhaps Awareness is the Place it Exists.

Perhaps All things can only exist in the Place of Awareness.

Perhaps All is only "Organised Concepts" in the form of Rules or Laws regarding those Concepts that produce the Manifestation of Interactive Geometry.

Without Awareness there is No knowledge of anything.

So back to the Question of what Nothing actually is.

The Opposite to "Nothing" is "Something", so perhaps in a stranger way Nothing is Something which is a Conceptual Component in its Self.

By the very fact we can describe the meaning of The Word Nothing implies that The Word Nothing is in fact Something (Which is describable)

But this can only take place if we are Aware of anything...

There are some fixed steps that can take place involving Geometry that involves Awareness and Concepts..

These Steps can only occur if Awareness is there to start off with.

In fact by considering such an event of exploration there is only One Story that can come out of this!

The first that Awareness would discover is, "The Opposites"

Second; a To & Fro Action (Conceptual)

And Three; Rotation of this To & Fro Action. (Conceptual)

It is Interesting to Note, that anything of this Universe or Perception is either Curved, Straight, or a combination of these Two forms and try as you will you/we will never find another form.

Perhaps the first building blocks involves the concepts of Opposites, To & Fro, and Rotation.

From this we can produce any Concepts that we are aware of or arrange a sequence of instructions that can cause us to experience a manifestation which we call so called reality.

But perhaps it is only like a program that we play with that is governed by "Strict Rules" in the form of Concepts.

So do we get the feeling that The Mind is Awareness, and The Brain is a Decoder/Encoder that links the Mind (Awareness) to its Experience???

If this is in fact the case then how should we Look at this Universe and Ourselves???

How do we interpret what the Story of this Moth is, and what it means to us???

Perhaps what we are looking for (The Answer) is much more simple that we imagine and we are over engineering our perception of Why and how???





[edit on 21-6-2009 by The Matrix Traveller]



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by Kandinsky
 



Evolution is driven by natural selection...it isn't blind chance.

Natural selection can't drive non-life into live. So, in that respect, some freak accident of blind chance had to somehow make non-living material living in the previous eons.


But what is Life???

Is it The Material substance so called or is it the Awareness present experiencing the material.

The Action of the Images within our Environment is just that Movement but is this Life or does Life Motivate and cause these actions to take place.

It is My Life, Awareness, or Mind that causes my body to write this.

Material on its own can not do anything unless something makes it or causes it to apparently move.

It is Not the Movie on a screen that causes the action but instead a line of processes or events that allows us to watch the movie.

First, is the production of the movie Which is determined by Awareness and the organisation of the Ideas or Concepts of the Story and workings of the whole procedure of producing the movie and the presentation of the movie to be experienced by others.

Second, is the displaying of the movie ie the projector etc.

And thirdly the Observer that is Aware of seeing the Movie.



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by heyo
reply to post by RuneSpider
 


"basically what evolution is". Right. And a tire is basically what a car is. These moths are still "after it's kind".
which is basically what creationism is.

I think this example is evidence of a system that is in place for better survival, Call it what you will, but i don't think it indicates either way the source of the system.
two cents.



Evolution is not strictly natural selection, but it is driven by it. Consider it a component, as a tire would be to a car, however, a better comparison would be a motor.
Evolution does not dictate that the moth becomes a new species, neither does natural selection. There are a number of t.rex skeletons, for example that have a mildly different structure, that varies through time periods. This would be evolution withing a species.


@ OctoTom

You are discussing two desperate fields of studies. Evolution is a study of life that is already present. Abiogenesis is the study of how life got it's start, and has many different proposed theories. It's a interesting field of research, though I've only caught the studies that made the discovery channel.



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   
natural selection does not equal evolution. So the whole moth thing doesn't mean much to me.

I don't buy into a purley naturalistic view of evolution.
And I don't think God used evolution as a mechanism to get to us. I think the ONLY reason anyone would have to look to evolution as the mechanism for current life is to support a personal philosophy of naturalism.
But the Bible does not precludes its possibility.


For example
From verse 1 to verse 2 may represent a huge gap in time.

In Gen 1:1 it said God created the Heavens and Earth from nothing prior.

But after that, God didn't activley do that much but simply said "Let there be..."

God didn't explicitly say that he formed life from nothing.. in fact it came from its environment.
Gen 1:20 "let the water swarm with living creatures..."
Gen 1:24 "let the earth bring forth..."

Gen 2:7 "the the Lord God formed the man out of the dust from the ground..."

Of all the creatures man is the only one in which God "breathed" into. Perhaps the spiritual dimension of man.

I certianly see a good biblical case for God created in the universe and its natual laws "In the beginning" (Gen 1:1) and creating such laws with the intention of getting to where we are (he allowed those laws to work, "Let there be"). Then we he gets to man, he provides him with the distinction of breathing his life into him.

As most on this forum know, the word for "day" (yom) could represent an unspecefied period of time as well.

Personally I think the point of Genesis, and other verses describing creation, is that God is ultimatley responsible for it all and he should recieve his due honor and glory. The mechanisms used in how he created what we see today are only minor issues, IMO.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by octotom
 



Natural selection can't drive non-life into live. So, in that respect, some freak accident of blind chance had to somehow make non-living material living in the previous eons.


You miss my point. I'm not saying that natural selection created life. I'm saying that the origin of life is as profound a question for science as it is for the religious. Inanimate to animate is a conundrum at the heart of your faith as it is in science.

If I ask where God came from, you'll explain that He has always been and abides beyond the Laws of Time and Space. Perhaps? He must have come into existence somehow and that returns us neatly to the Creationist's argument that 'Evolution' is built on a 'something from nothing' fallacy. Do you see?



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
The moths didn't change color.

As a frequency distribution of a set of genes - that is to say, as a species - they did. This is precisely how evolution works.

You make an excellent contribution to the thread by explaining the mechanism governing selection in this instance so clearly. You have understood the process well, even if for some reason you do not grasp what it implies.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join