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.

 

a question for evolutionists

page: 9
5
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by OhZone
 


Ok ok ok, it is not exactly an example of Evolution but it kind of is.

Evolution and natural selection select traits that are essential (or not so) for the continued survival of the species, sometimes creating a new species.

Thousands of variations come out, a few of them stick.

What we did with dogs is change their outer appearance through selective breeding. We basically accomplished a version of what we see in nature.

Yes they can still interbreed but so can different species in nature. (grizzly bears and polar bears. Tigers and Lions.)

It's not exactly the same, but the point came across




posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 07:07 PM
link   
[edit on 16-11-2009 by IrnBruFiend]



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 




You are absolutely correct on evolution.
We will never see one single animal evolve.
DNA evidence proves this, you just won't be a mainstream scientist.
You'll get a wishy washy response to that because there is and never will be evidence to corroborate with Darwin's theory.

However, religion is another belief system imprisoning human intellect.
You should consider the Sumerian seven tablets of creation BEFORE the Bibile buthcered up events.
They had full knowledge of all the planets orbiting our sun long before we did.
They talk about the Annunaki coming down from the heavens, they would've been depicted as God's most certainly in those times. You can see this on the tablets.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by IrnBruFiend
 



You know, saying "this is impossible, this is fact" doesn't actually mean it is. I'd be interested to see where you're getting that from. For some reason, a man sitting on a lakeshore and holding a banana comes to mind.


Well if you want to continue believing in evolution. You will have to also believe humans have this fused chromosome - that every single other primate does not have - is a mysterious result of nature. If you do your research on the chromosomes of humans and all other primates you will learn this is impossible. You will need to find a way of justifying this peculiar fusion in our band of chromosomes. And, that answer is entirely illusive.

However evolutionists enjoy an extremely large time scale to adjust their theory or wait for non-existent evidence.


Next up, genetic evidence is the strongest evidence of evolution we have. It does not counter the theory of evolution, it bolsters it far beyond anything Darwin could have dreamed. If we could timetravel the dude to the modern day and show him what we know now, he would die in the throes of a joygasm.


Where? Tiny little spiders, frogs and geckos that were not known to us previously is not an example of evolution.

The answer is, there is no evidence.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by IrnBruFiend
Tiny little spiders, frogs and geckos that were not known to us previously is not an example of evolution.

The answer is, there is no evidence.


Its not species that were not known previously. Its species that didnt exist before the speciation.

Observed instances of speciation:
www.talkorigins.org...

Here is the laboratory PROOF that speciation is possible:

"Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972)."

If you think speciation cannot happen, then tell me, what synchronises the changes in the two isolated populations? And of course, explain the evidence..



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 11:32 AM
link   


Firstly how does evolution explain things changing from reproducing asexually to reproducing sexually...what did the first thing that reproduced sexually mate with..

It was in gradual point of time that Darwin and Mendel recoginised that germcells seperated and that they put forth the law of segregation and independent assortment to understand more about the transform of asexual reproduction to the sexual one.




how did it come about that various species give birth in different ways..inside the body, outside the body

Lemarcian and darwinian postulate states that every organism have a natural tendency to produce more offsprings and so fishes and frogs at that time where unable to do so.the urge for it gave them external fertilization often seen in frogs and fishes as the experiment indicates.




the first human-esque creature, did it have an umbilical cord, if not how did the offspring get the nutrient rich blood

You are aware of the fact that we have infact evolved from apes.the growth of the umbilical chord was gradual and thet still then we had the same mechanics as that of an ape

Thanks
B???



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 11:39 AM
link   


Where? Tiny little spiders, frogs and geckos that were not known to us previously is not an example of evolution. The answer is, there is no evidence.

Obviously there is.i will give you a small example
Two sub-population of beetles where separated by a large geographical feature like river or mountain.in the passage of time the gene flow was prevented becuse it was impossible for them to cross the mountain.So that in the passage of time they differentiated themselves giving rise to new adaptability capable sex organs.so if the other group of beetles meet also they cant mate because they may have chromosome change and many other factors hindering mating giving rise to a new species.

Genetics is a vast subject

Thanks
B???



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   
OH! OH! OH! I know this one!

First, things reproduced asexually.

Example- Amoebas. They undergo mitosis and cytokinesis.

Then, organisms reproduced asexually AND sexually.

Example- Sponges release gametes into the water column (sexual). They either release sperm and filter it towards the ova and release offspring, or the sponges release both sperm and ova into the water column where they create planktonic larvae. Sponges ALSO can reproduce asexually by budding or creating gemmules!

Another example (my fave)- Cnidarians (jellyfish) reproduce sexually in the medusa stage, and asexually in the polyp stage! Yayyyyy!

Another- Some echinoderms can reproduce asexually through fission as well as sexually.

More complex organisms have evolved to only reproduce sexually, such as arthropods and vertebrates, except in cases of parthenogenesis.

And that is a true fact.

Love,
The zoology fairy.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Maslo, they are still flies aren't they.

Now if you will show me where they turn into ants or spiders you will have a convincing case.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by OhZone
 


That is not what evolution is.

An existing organism cannot evolve into an already existing orgasm. Mutations lead it to evolve into something new. Not something that already exists, especially in a different phylum or class or family or anything like that.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 





I certainly could believe in a God, any God really, should any evidence ever be produce for such an entity. As since no evidence has been brought forth for any deity, I find it hard to blindly believe in one out of thousands.

The fool says ,"There is no God" then comes death then judgement.
On that day every knee shall bow and every tongue will confess,
"Jesus Christ is Lord".
I believe in many cases the bible has been way ahead of mans
sciences. I will have to quote someone who I give my humble respects.
Though I have a number of years on him, his knowledge to this
topic greatly surpasses mine.

Agree to disagree
" From the book of " Fairytales and The invisible man"

It is fairly recent that science has found that the wind has weight?
( Job 28:25 ) When he imparted weight to the wind and meted out the waters by measure.

Man once believed the earth was held up by Atlas?
( Job 26:7 ) He spreads out the northern skies over empty space, and
suspends the earth over nothing.

Man once believed the earth was flat?
( Isaiah 40:22 ) He sits enthroned above the circle of earth, it's people as grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, spreading them like a tent
to live in.

It has been very recent that man even knew the Pleiades and Orion
were out there. Not to mention they are two gravitationally bound star systems.
( Job 38:31 ) Can you unbind the beautiful Pleiades, loose the chords of Orion?"

Just a few examples from just two different books.




[edit on 18-11-2009 by randyvs]



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Thank you for those kind words randyvs.


While I haven't read this entire thread I have read the last few pages to catch up on what exactly has been transpiring. There are many things that encompass the total package of "evolution". While one may dispute that evolution is simply what transpired after life already existed that is completely false. Evolutionary theory also pertains to stellar evolution and planetary evolution. To say otherwise is to concede that there was in fact a "guiding hand" that cooled the supposed-molten earth many years ago. Which, of course, leaves numerous questions unanswered.

I will get back to my point a little later in the day. As of right now I must leave. Thanks again randyvs.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by OhZone
Maslo, they are still flies aren't they.

Now if you will show me where they turn into ants or spiders you will have a convincing case.


The point is, they are a different species, unable to cross-reproduce and "synchronise", so its only a matter of time before they start to look different.. After reproductive isolation, its inevitable..



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


Basically, evolution is a neverending art that seeks perfection.

But on the other hand, this thread was started as a 'I'm the one who's right!' flag and not because there's real need for an explanation. Christians will continue to be stubborn, atheists will continue to disbelieve because there isn't a single proof of that god christians talk about. Not a problem, it'll be as it always used to be: some believe even if there's no evidence, and some won't. As long as people are happy; long live bliss.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by alpha-erectus
A question for followers of organised religion.


Why are you all so ignorant?


Where is that coming from? No mention of religion by the OP and you spew that off? Guess who looks like the ignorant?



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 05:57 AM
link   
reply to post by OhZone
 


It would help you to know what the theory of evolution states before launching into a tirade against it, showing everyone just how little you know.

Just a hint.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by IrnBruFiend
reply to post by DaMod
 

You are absolutely correct on evolution.
We will never see one single animal evolve.


Anything non observable is religion based.



Originally posted by IrnBruFiend
DNA evidence proves this, you just won't be a mainstream scientist.
You'll get a wishy washy response to that because there is and never will be evidence to corroborate with Darwin's theory.


Hence, macro evolution will forever remain (until magical proof shows itself) a religion.



Originally posted by DaMod
reply to post by OhZone
 

Evolution and natural selection select traits that are essential (or not so) for the continued survival of the species, sometimes creating a new species.


We all know the definition!



Originally posted by DaMod
What we did with dogs is change their outer appearance through selective breeding. We basically accomplished a version of what we see in nature.


Thats called micro evolution!



Originally posted by DaMod
Yes they can still interbreed but so can different species in nature.


So what?


Originally posted by Behaviour???


Firstly how does evolution explain things changing from reproducing asexually to reproducing sexually...what did the first thing that reproduced sexually mate with..

It was in gradual point of time that Darwin and Mendel recoginised that germcells seperated and that they put forth the law of segregation and independent assortment to understand more about the transform of asexual reproduction to the sexual one.


umm...can you answer the question please...

"What did the first thing that reproduced sexually mate with?"


Originally posted by Behaviour???
You are aware of the fact that we have infact evolved from apes.


I wasn't aware of that fact, perhaps you could enlighten me with some, um... "proof" ...?



Originally posted by Behaviour???
the growth of the umbilical chord was gradual and thet still then we had the same mechanics as that of an ape


Hell, we have the same mechanics as that of an elephant...which mechanics were you referring to exactly?


Originally posted by Behaviour???



Where? Tiny little spiders, frogs and geckos that were not known to us previously is not an example of evolution. The answer is, there is no evidence.

Obviously there is.i will give you a small example
Two sub-population of beetles where separated by a large geographical feature like river or mountain.in the passage of time the gene flow was prevented becuse it was impossible for them to cross the mountain.So that in the passage of time they differentiated themselves giving rise to new adaptability capable sex organs.so if the other group of beetles meet also they cant mate because they may have chromosome change and many other factors hindering mating giving rise to a new species.

Genetics is a vast subject

Thanks
B???


First of all, if you could tell me which beetle you were refferring to, that'd be great!

Secondly...the result at the end of your whatever you call it, is still...MORE BEETLES...lol


Originally posted by Maslo

Originally posted by OhZone
Maslo, they are still flies aren't they.

Now if you will show me where they turn into ants or spiders you will have a convincing case.


The point is, they are a different species, unable to cross-reproduce and "synchronise", so its only a matter of time before they start to look different.. After reproductive isolation, its inevitable..


The point is, they are still, ants or spiders.



Originally posted by habfan1968

Originally posted by alpha-erectus
A question for followers of organised religion.


Why are you all so ignorant?


Where is that coming from? No mention of religion by the OP and you spew that off? Guess who looks like the ignorant?


yes,
many people who have problems in life blame religion, when blaming in general won't solve any problem.


Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by OhZone
 


It would help you to know what the theory of evolution states before launching into a tirade against it, showing everyone just how little you know.

Just a hint.


It would help you to know that the definition of evolution has been defined over and over.

I could define a process that turns a yellow frog into a purple giraffe, that still doesn't mean the defined process is observable nor factual, anything non-observable is religion based.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 10:34 AM
link   


The point is, they are still, ants or spiders.


But they are different species.
Ant and spider are man-made definitions. The only thing nature cares about is if two organisms can produce fertile offsprings. If they cannot, they are different species, and a new species is born, just like observed.

You are right that even though we have observed creation of different species, we have not directly observed bigger changes, simply because it happened in the past, during a long time.
But we have so many indirect evidence (anatomical similarities, genetic similarities, fossil record, it is a logical thing to expect...), that there is no doubt about evolution among scientists.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 10:47 AM
link   
lmao, alright, quick question before my next one...

"About" what is the oldest human ancestor?

1 million years ago?
50 million years ago?
etc...

Just give me something, anything so I can use for my next question please.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 10:49 AM
link   
You don't need to tell me the name of the species or whatever, just give me a number for the age difference please.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join