Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Evolution is FACT!

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 05:54 AM
link   
I really can't understand how so many people can call evolution a "myth" or "unproven theory"...is it that they just lack any scientific knowledge or are so religiously devoted that anything challenging their beliefs is "blasphemy"? And why does evolution have to go against religious beliefs anyway?!?

If we look at the evidence we can see evolution has been WITNESSED IN ACTION and the changes in species HAVE BEEN RECORDED. How is that not 100% proof of evolution?!? Or am I missing something? Why is it still a theory when it's been observed?

www.actionbioscience.org...


Evolution in action. Evolutionary change continues to this day, and it will proceed so long as life itself exists. In recent years, many bacterial pathogens have evolved resistance to antibiotics used to cure infections, thereby requiring the development of new and more costly treatments. In some frightening cases, bacteria have evolved resistance to every available antibiotic, so there is no longer any effective treatment. In the case of HIV, which causes AIDS, significant viral evolution occurs within the course of infection of a single patient, and this rapid evolution enables the virus to evade the immune system. Many agricultural pests have evolved resistance to chemicals that farmers have used for only a few decades. As we work to control diseases and pests, the responsible organisms have been evolving to escape our controls. Moreover, scientists can perform experiments to study evolution in real time, just as experiments are used to observe dynamic processes in physics, chemistry, and other branches of biology. To study evolution in action, scientists use organisms like bacteria and fruitflies that reproduce quickly, so they can see changes that require many generations.
AIDS is in fact the result of evolution and adaptation...what else would explain that? Did God do it to mess with us?

Then we have the rabbits imported from England...they became a huge pest over here and began multiplying rapidly:
www.skepticfiles.org...


The rabbits were eating much of the sparse
vegetation that supported Australia's huge sheep and cattle industry, and
the graziers were suffering enormous financial losses.

The only solution was biological control. After much testing,
government biologists introduced a mosquito-borne virus called
myxomatosis. This virus caused a nonlethal disease in its natural host,
but the disease was deadly for the European rabbit and completely harmless
to all other Australian wildlife, domestic animals, and humans. To all
indications, the solution had been found.

The disease did indeed take hold in 1950, and by 1952 it had produced a
nationwide epidemic in the rabbit population. The mortality rate reached
99.9%, BUT A GOOD EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGIST COULD PREDICT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN
NEXT. A parasite that invariably kills its hosts before ensuring its own
survival would be selected against (all of its individuals would die).
And that is what inevitably happened to the myxomatosis disease. The
viruses had been randomly mutating, and the mutations that produced less
virulence were selected (because the more virulent strains died with their
hosts). The rabbits, too were mutating, and they were being selected for
greater resistance to the disease. The result was a milder disease and
stronger rabbits-therefore more rabbits. Today the mortality rate is down
to 40 percent. There are still annual outbreaks of myxomatosis in
Australia, but the disease is less effective in controlling the rabbits.
This is evolution in action, instigated by humans, and occuring through
natural evolutionary forces: IT IS NOT EXPLAINABLE BY ANY OTHER CONCEPT."
We have also noticed visible physical changes in the rabbits in order for them to adapt to the harsh Australian climate and environment. There are so many examples of EVOLUTION IN ACTION that it's hard for me to understand why it can be an idea still denied by people...it's so crystal clear and obvious...so logical and makes so much sense...it's almost impossible for me to understand how evolution couldn't take place!!!

[edit on 21/12/09 by CHA0S]




posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 06:26 AM
link   
You have posted some really great examples of natural selection AKA environmental adaptation AKA micro-evolution.

But I'm sure you believe that somehow proves that amphibians developed into reptiles and dinosaurs into birds, which it certainly does not.

You have not posted any proof of macro-evolution AKA the development of any new irreducibly complex structure.

Those viruses remained viruses, and the rabbits remained rabbits.

Macro-evolution is a theory full of holes, and spontaneous biogenesis is nothing but the atheist/agnostic's completely made up doctrine that affirms his spiritual denial.

It takes a whole lot of faith in the face of a tremendous lack of evidence to believe in the religion of spontaneous biogenesis and macro-evolution.

BTW, I have no problem believing that lions, tigers, leopards, and housecats could have developed through micro-evolution from a common ancestor. They are all cats.

But 4 legged land mammals turning into whales without intelligent genetic manipulation?

You might as well believe a man could walk on water.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 06:28 AM
link   
reply to post by CHA0S
 



So what's the problem then?
Evolution is a plausible theory.
My question is:
Is this adaptation? That's the question on the molecular level. Could these rabbits be adapting to their changing environment by inheriting and strengthening their immune system? Then the lower form of life, the virus, could be adapting too. To the stronger immune system in the rabbits.
I always wondered if evolution took place over millions of years. Not decades. Adaptation would be much quicker, thus explaining the quick changes in both the organisms immunity.


Or is this a rant about why people deny evolution?
If so, excuse my ignorance.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 06:29 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by CHA0S
 



What lack of science knowledge do we have to say there is no proof what so ever, that any species ever jumped to another species.

Man might evolve while we are man, but we never came from apes.

you have no evidence what so ever for evolution. You guys talk about how there is no evidence for god, then come out with evolution.

Hypocrites.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by havok
 


I agree. Evolution is a plausible theory. I will even go as far as to say Evolution is real and it is a tool used by God. There is enough evidence that something akin to an evolutionary process does happen in some plants and animals. But I do not believe this is true of Man in the sense that we evolved from ape like creatures.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 06:46 AM
link   


You have not posted any proof of macro-evolution AKA the development of any new irreducibly complex structure.


There is no such thing as irreducibly complex either in evolution or anywhere else.

Your "AKA" is also false. Macroevolution does not equal irreducibly complex.



In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch", see Fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted [note 1]). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels.


Birth of a new species or Macroevolution Observed


On one of the Galapagos islands whose finches shaped the theories of a young Charles Darwin, biologists have witnessed that elusive moment when a single species splits in two.

In many ways, the split followed predictable patterns, requiring a hybrid newcomer who’d already taken baby steps down a new evolutionary path. But playing an unexpected part was chance, and the newcomer singing his own special song.

This miniature evolutionary saga is described in a paper published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. It’s authored by Peter and Rosemary Grant, a husband-and-wife team who have spent much of the last 36 years studying a group of bird species known collectively as Darwin’s finches.


If any of this is too irreducibly complex for you, like a human eye, I will be more than happy to reduce it and the human eye for you.


BTW, I have no problem believing that lions, tigers, leopards, and housecats could have developed through micro-evolution from a common ancestor. They are all cats.


Then you believe in macroevolution. You just think its micro. Read the definition.

[edit on 21-12-2009 by watcher73]



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 06:50 AM
link   
reply to post by CHA0S
 




Evolution is FACT!


I personally have no doubt that life forms evolve and adapt to their environments... perhaps even for no other reason than to test a new design against the rigors of survival.

Where I disagree is with the current models and evolutionary time lines. And it's not that I have a better theory... I just don't feel the the one being applied is the correct one.

It's my belief that we don't know far outweighs what we do know, so to latch on to the current theories as being undeniable fact, seems a little foolish.

It wasn't that long ago that science was absolutely positive the powered, heavier than air flight, was impossible.

[edit on 21-12-2009 by redoubt]



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 06:51 AM
link   
reply to post by andy1033
 



What lack of science knowledge do we have to say there is no proof what so ever, that any species ever jumped to another species.
We didn't "come" from apes...apes are a common ancestor...and we don't "jump" from one species to another...we slowly adapt and evolve through minor mutations that happen over time...we slowly morph into more advanced life forms over time...becoming better adapted to our environment and more efficient over time...


Man might evolve while we are man, but we never came from apes.
We might evolve while we are man?!? So in a million years we will be fairly different?!? Almost like a different species to what we are now? But we didn't "jump" there did we?!?




you have no evidence what so ever for evolution. You guys talk about how there is no evidence for god, then come out with evolution.

Hypocrites.
Haha...are you serious?!? We have masses of evidence showing evolution actually takes place all the time...we also have fossil evidence and other things...what evidence do you have of God eh? And don't hold up a bible...

reply to post by redoubt
 



Where I disagree is with the current models and evolutionary time lines. And it's not that I have a better theory... I just don't feel the the one being applied is the correct one.

It's my belief that we don't know far outweighs what we do know, so to latch on to the current theories as being undeniable fact, seems a little foolish.
I absolutely agree...there is something amiss...and I have a gut feeling ET's have something to do with it...call me crazy...but that's what I think...

reply to post by Chainmaker
 



But 4 legged land mammals turning into whales without intelligent genetic manipulation?
Give it a few million years and all those minor mutations and adaptations add up...

[edit on 21/12/09 by CHA0S]



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 06:59 AM
link   
reply to post by andy1033
 


You and Chainmaker both display that neither of you know much about hte subject. Allow me to help you out with that, personally, rather than just linking you to the (what feels like) five thousand other threads where others and myself have explained this in detail.

(If you're curious, you can go look of course)

Evolution does not work like you seem to think it does. There is no point where a chimpanzee mother heaves out a human baby. There are no drastic moments where a wholly new species springs from another like Athena from the skull of Zeus.

Rather, there is a steady progression of parent and child generations. Each is a little different from their ancestors, just as you are different from your parents. Let's start with you, a (I presume) typical everyday human. You're different from your parents, both genetically and in terms of appearance. Not nearly different enough to be another species (though they may have wondered while you were a teenager, I'm sure) but still different. In the same way, they were different from their parents, so on and so forth.

Traveling down the line of your ancestry, I'm sure you can accept that eventually you'll happen upon people who don't really look much like you - for me, this is about three generations back, your mileage may vary. But at some point, you'll find yourself realizing that your ancient ancestors don't look an awful lot like yourself. But you'll also notice that they're awfully similar to their own parents and children, just as you are to yours.

Evolution is much the same, but on a species rather than individual level. If you start with a rabbit and go back, you will never find a "break", some drastic point where "rabbit" stops and something else begins (actually it would be the something else stopping and the rabbit beginning, bur you get the idea).

Rather you would find generation after generation that all look very much like the generation ahead of and behind them, that are clearly the same species, and capable of breeding together to make a new generation, even. However, although you never see a break point where the species changes, if you're standing next to proto-rabbit from the Miocene, and look back to the front of the line at the modern rabbit... you're going to see that proto-rabbit is a very different creature than the modern rabbit.

Your and chainmaker's "macroevolution" argument is meaningless babble. it springs from the same piss-poor understanding of science that gives us the "missing link" crap that keeps popping up. There are no sudden and drastic points where one organism becomes a wholly new species from its parents. it just doesn't work that way. Evolution has never proposed that it did.

In short, you're trying to knock over a strawman.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


The trouble with think it's a tool used by god, is that you then have to explain this god. This is the big, big, big problem with intelligent design - explaining the designer.

If evolution is a fact - as you agree it is - then it is a much simpler and streamlined fact that works much better if you don't bother including an entirely hypothetical and unexplainable entity.

Might as well say "Yes, there's Gravity, but it's because god wills things to be drawn to mass" - it just makes much more sense for gravity to not have an omnipotent invisible critter of some sort micromanaging every single instance of gravity in hte universe, don't you think?

And we didn't come from an apelike creature. we came from a very humanlike creature. Which came from a humanish creature. Which came from a hairy biped, who's ancestor is probably some ape's grandaddy to the power of seventy. Hilarious thing? it's entirely possible that our nearest relative, the chimpanzee, is actually a descendant of some sort of proto-human, rather than humans being the descendants of a proto-chimp. Interesting thought, no?

[edit on 21-12-2009 by TheWalkingFox]



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by CHA0S
 





I absolutely agree...there is something amiss...and I have a gut feeling ET's have something to do with it...call me crazy...but that's what I think...


That theory is as good as the next. In fact, given the possibility that our current religions may well be based on gods that are some form of advanced, energycentric ET life, then all roads lead back to Eden.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Chainmaker
 



It takes a whole lot of faith in the face of a tremendous lack of evidence to believe in the religion of spontaneous biogenesis and macro-evolution...

...But 4 legged land mammals turning into whales without intelligent genetic manipulation?
You might as well believe a man could walk on water.


Hm, perhaps the required leap of faith to accept the evolution of whales from a 4-legged ancestor is something which does not require that much effort. A google-search is all you need to find convincing fossils, which document the evolution of whales.

Here links to research on the evolution of whales.
www.bringyou.to...
www-personal.umich.edu...

The following steps in the evolution from an artiodactyl ancestor to a modern whale have been found:

Pakicetus – lived 55-40 million years ago – found in Pakistan
Ambulocetus lived 49-50 million years ago – found in Pakistan
Basilosaurus – lived 40-34 million years ago – found in Egypt and Pakistan
Dorudon – lived 41-33 million years ago – found in Pakistan, Egypt and North America

And here googled pictures of reconstructed skeletons and actual fossils:

Skeleton of Ambulocetus and Pakicetus
commons.wikimedia.org...:Ambulocetus_et_pakicetus.jpg
Skeleton of Basilosaurus
www.geol.umd.edu...
Skeleton of Dorudon
upload.wikimedia.org...
Modern whales with atavistic hind legs
www.talkorigins.org...

So there exists a clear line of animals which lived in the same geographic area (Pakistan) and showed a step by step adaptation to an aquatic environment. The skulls became elongated, the necks and hind legs became shorter and the tails became longer.

Additional reading:
www.geol.umd.edu...
www.bringyou.to...

[edit on 21-12-2009 by Drunkenshrew]



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 07:41 AM
link   
The one problem I have with evolution is the lack of all the "missing link" fossils. In other words, from the process of ape into man, there had to have been a decent amount of time and creatures that were half and half.

Evolution does not mean going to bed as an ape and giving birth to a human. Evolution is a very long, complex process that would undoubtedly have to produce many "mistakes" and such before the "perfected" species we see now.

If we can find dinosaur fossils, dating back to before humans existed (I'm sticking to the text book history), then we should certainly be able to find fossils representing upright walking half ape / half man. Just as there should be fossils representing Earth-bound walking creatures with wings. In order for birds to have evolved, there would have had to be a long period of "wing" development. Where are all of these creatures with too small to fly wings? They should be as plentiful as all of the fossils predating their existence at the very least.

I just find it difficult to accept as fact without the necessary fossilized evidence to back it up.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 07:47 AM
link   
I have no problem with evolution, however I do have a problem with 'missing links'. It's like 'adjusting' metorological temperatures to give a factual output.

Edit: speaking of evolution, I saw a cat with 3 paws having 5 toes on each paw and a 6th, larger 'gripping' toe which it seemed to use with an advantage over normal cats.. very weird!

[edit on 21/12/09 by GhostR1der]



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 07:49 AM
link   
If man lasted long enough, we could probably prove that the theory of evolution is indeed fact. And I believe it is, personally. But does that effect my spirituality? No. The issue here, is with people so ingrained in their belief systems, that they'll refuse to see the steps that life takes, naturally. Like the individual on the corner, screaming that the world is only 3,000 years old (or whatever). You're not going to convince them that evolution is a real process, no matter what. Even if you accelerated the process exponentially, and showed them how they adapted...they'd make a claim that "Jesus" did it, or whoever they believe in. That's how powerful beliefs are.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 08:06 AM
link   
A few questions about what you're saying:

My mom's genes felt that since we live in the cold that it should tell the baby genes to be better suited to the cold? Can mother's genes "teach" the fetus genes?

And where did the gene for abstract thinking suddenly pop in there? What benefit does this provide to become the "fittest"?

And why aren't humans so well "adapted" that other animals can exist in much harsher environments than us?(extreme heat,cold,darkness)

And what benefit would it be that bacteria would start the evolutionary trend toward a larger creature?

And how did the evolutionary tree start the trend to birds?

And why did humans live for 100,000 years in small caves and tribes with minimal advancement, then suddenly around 4000bc great civilizations sprang up and built stone henges and pyramids?

Why is every culture since 4000bc suddenly desperate to understand a god who made them?

Why has every Athiest/Agnostic I have ever met evolved to be totally preoccupied with trying to prove there is no god?

How can we be 100% sure that the forces upon the Earth were exactly the same as they are now?

How can you tell that your perception of reality is the truth? Why do you care if others accept your reality?

Why is the universe so orderly? What determined the laws of the universe. What keeps them from changing?

If you throw a smashed up rolex watch into a dryer and turned it on, how long would it take before the watch would reassemble itself?

Just wondering.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 08:29 AM
link   
In order to change from one kind, not species, to another, new irreducibly complex features would have to occur, and they don't.

All you have is variation on themes, and no proof of transition between the distinct themes.

Macro-evolutionary theory is a joke, it is a crutch for non-believers. But since we are arguing religious beliefs, not science, it is very hard for people to objectively look at the evidence.

We are arguing whether or not God actively had a hand in designing creation, and a lot of people have a strong aversion to believing in God so they will ignore the lack of evidence and call their godless creation theory fact simply for their own religious comfort.

The platypus has mammalian, avian, and reptilian DNA, and that blows your theory out of the water right there.

Supposedly mammals evolved from reptiles and birds evolved from dinosaurs which evolved from reptiles. How is DNA from 2 completely divergent lines avian and mammalian present in the platypus?

Oh, I know, all that DNA was present in the common ancestor. Bullcrap. Avian and Mammalian DNA did not exist until it evolved according to your theory. Now you will tell me that DNA evolved 3 directions simultaneously in one reptilian common ancestor?

A Billion gazillion generations of single-celled organisms have been grown in labs for hundreds of years. Not once has any new irreducibly complex feature been observed forming, much less a multi-cellular organism. You show simple adaptation of a virus to its environment and claim that as proof that man came from an ape. Ridiculous.

If over millions of years organisms are only rarely fossilized maybe every few tens or hundreds of thousands of years apart, then we should never find the same species twice, every fossil found should be in a distinct phase of evolutionary flux. It should be a rare event to find a fossil that matched perfectly any previously discovered fossil as a recognizably same species. Instead we find 50 Triceratops skulls, same exact species, and I could go on and on with examples.

And all we have is big wide gaps whereever there are your really wild theoretical transitions, the kinds of fossils that are your Holy Grail, the kinds that would show crystal clear unarguable transition, the so-called missing links. Transitions for whales, bats and humans come to mind. But there's nothing there except for a long record of frauds and hoaxes, Piltdown Man comes to mind. And still we have "scientists" picking up shards of bone and creating "reconstructions" of missing links literally based on nothing but their imagination and declaring this to be proven fact. These men are artistic sculptors and their works should be in art shows not museums.

And then there's your worst enemy, the mathematics of chance.

All biological life and the fossil record SCREAMS design to produce the intricate and unbelievably complex machinery all the way down to the cellular level.

But despite all this, despite the obvious design all around us, you will deny deny deny and persist in believing your theory and declaring it to be the infallible Word of Scientific Gods, and your faith in the theory is for purely spiritual reasons, because you don't want to accept that hated idea of a judgemental God.

I know, because I believed in the macro-evolutionary religion for many years. I thank God he woke me up.

"And they have changed the truth of God for lies, and worshipped and served the created things more than their Creator to whom belong glory and blessings for ever." Romans 1

"But now ask the beasts, and let them teach you; and the birds of the heavens, and let them tell you. Or speak to the earth, and let it teach you; and let the fish of the sea declare to you. Who among all these does not know that the hand of the Lord has done this, in whose hand is the life of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind?” Job 12:7-10



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Drunkenshrew
reply to post by Chainmaker
 




Hm, perhaps the required leap of faith to accept the evolution of whales from a 4-legged ancestor is something which does not require that much effort. A google-search is all you need to find convincing fossils, which document the evolution of whales.


I could spend lots of time cutting and pasting and showing you how bunk all that whale stuff is, but it wouldn't change your mind.

"Reconstructions" galore. Here let me hold up this bone shard to the light and if I cock my head to the right and squint real hard I believe I can envision the entire skeleton of a whale missing link and now I will go sculpt a fake skeleton and put it in a row with some more "reconstructions" and I just proved evolution.

lol.

[edit on 21-12-2009 by Drunkenshrew]



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by CHA0S
 


your missing one thing though; an ADAPTATION is a CHANGE in FEATURE NOT a CHANGE in FORM-NOT EVOLUTION.





new topics




 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join