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.

 

Some questions of evolution that hopefully some of you can clear up.

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Maddogkull
 


" But I am content with the knowledge I have. "

I truly believe their are different types of humans and some are not as advanced. So they invent nothing, just live off other peoples efforts without ever appreciating the kind of intellectual evolution that creates things, and instead choose to believe the simplest explanation for everything.

There is no way you could be over 10, be on the internet, and not know about and fully understand at least the concept of evolution.

Unless you don't want to know or you lack the IQ to understand. So yes I have a problem with self professed ignorance.




posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Maddogkull
 


We DID NOT evolve from apes! I dont know for certain that Sitchin has it with his Annunaki alien cloning theory(although I tend to believe this more than most theories), but we ARE NOT a natural part of this planets ecosystem. The vastness of infinity leaves all possibilities open, but god, evolution, and alien cloning are all just theories. If space is indeed forever then we can never get to a beginning or an end of any quest of knowledge, but it is our "human" nature to want explanations and answers to all. This quest will be as the universe in its entrancing gaze into tomorrows never realized.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Maddogkull
 



Maddogkull.....

If you did come on here to expand your horizons, and instead got treated like and idiot. Next time try not to use a very popular misleading question used by religious nutters as your leading question.

" If we came from apes why do we still have apes "?

Just some friendly advice in case you were being genuine and feel abused.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maddogkull
Why does a giraffe have a huge neck to grab food when animals that lived in the same area that don’t have big necks get food fine?


I'm curious as to how that question is even logical to you?

You are basically asking "Why would you grab food from the top shelf when EVERYBODY ELSE is grabbing food from the bottom shelf?"

Personally, I'd grab food from the top shelf because there is a lot of competition and fighting for the limited supply of food on the bottom shelf.

Aside from that, drop the assumption that a Giraffe evolved a long neck to get food. Evolution doesn't work like that. It doesn't start with a reason and end with a solution.

Reason: need to get food up high
Solution: grow neck longer

That would be completely absurd to think. It's as if people who don't understand evolution are injecting the idea with a creator-being who is helping the animals get want they "want".

Evolutionary process concentrates on how an animal fits in with its environment.

It should be self-evident that Giraffe's and it's ancestors have been successful until now, based on the sole fact that they are alive as a species today.

They've been successful in the sense that they have survived and reproduced. The shortened phrase is "Survival of the fittest". The correct phrase is "Survival and reproduction of the fittest".

Giraffes today are not a product of evolution today, but an ONGOING PROCESS of evolution beginning far, far, far back in time.

Remember, species die out when they hit an evolutionary roadblock. Just because they were very successful in the past, does not guarantee that they are successful today, or will be successful tomorrow... in order to not die out when they do not "fit in" with the environment, they must either evolve through beneficial mutations passed through to offspring or die out, or move to some environment where they "fit".

Where they are "fit" to survive.

Where they fit.

Like the piece of a puzzle.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 06:57 PM
link   
So you are saying to have a high IQ you need to know the theory of evolution? Just because not everyone doesn’t know the theory of evolution does not make them stupid. That is why I asked. You should also know I am a firm believer of the panspermia theory? Would you call me dumb because I believe that even though a lot of scientists believe in the abiogenesis theory? What is the point in ridiculing a easy question, instead of just answering it simply like the first poster did instead of writing useless crap saying that I do not have a high IQ. Seriously.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Maddogkull
 


Sorry to be a buttinski...


You should also know I am a firm believer of the panspermia theory? Would you call me dumb because I believe that even though a lot of scientists believe in the abiogenesis theory?


Actually, panspermia is a very plausible scenario. It will be a long time before we get an answer, either way, on that...will ahve to travel to many, many other worlds and compare the forms of life we find to see if there is commonality, at all.

But, abiogenesis also has to have occured, at some time, some when, and some where, you see?

Even if it was in another star system, somewhere, and was transported and sprouted here (some 3 1/2 billion or so years ago).

So, as to the OP heading....I'm sure this was covered already, but once again (?): There are many branches on the tree of hominids. WE are but one.

That is why monkeys (and apes, who actually are closer related to us) still exist. MANY of their cousins and related species have gone extinct, just as many of our forebears have too.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Thank you, see that is all i wanted, a normal post. I agree with you but, i am strictly was talking about abiogenisis on earth, not the universe.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Maddogkull
 


OK. Well, I feel it most likely that abiogenesis occured here, as well on many, many other planets, over and over and over again. It is an old Universe, with lots of diversity.

There is a very good video that is posted on YouTube that explains. Have you seen it? Not hard to find, just search 'abiogenisis'.

In a nutshell, this is how it goes: Life is really, when you break it down, nothing but a bunch of chemical reactions. Chemicals react, every day, all around us, all of the time. With that mixture, and the addition of more and moe chemicals, and TIME --- lots and lots of TIME --- amazing things can happen, and ther is no need for any 'divine' intervention, or any other kind of intervention.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


And when you break it down more, all life is just energy, atoms, quarks. thats when it gets really interesting



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maddogkull

Why are there still apes on this earth if we evolved from them?


Humans are Apes. That's not a moral indignation of humanity; that's just the fact of the matter. We belong to the taxonomic family Hominidae (Great Apes) along with Chimps, Gorillas, and Orangutans. This is based on the frequency pattern of similarities and differences in comparisons of our morphology, behavior, genetics, etc, against other forms of life (Homologies). We are related by a common hominoidea ancestor basal to Hominidae. We further belong to the Hominin tribe which shares all of the diagnostic characteristics of Hominidae - but itself contains traits which our other Great Ape relatives do not. Our own specific branch is the Genus Homo - species Sapiens, which we share with Neanderthal and Idaltu. We are a subspecies called Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

So we are apes for the same reasons that we are vertabrets. All mammals are tetrapoidal (four legged) chordate (we have a spinal column), but not all chordate are mammalian or tetrapoidal, and not all tetrapods are mammals. All humans are apes, but not all apes are human.


This is not a hate speech towards evolution


Obviously. But it's not quite on the up and up either. If you were asking an honest question, I wonder why you would feel the need to start off with such a statement. The only people I see who start off like that are most always trolls or those utterly oblivious to the concept of subtly. That's one tip creationist websites should pass around with their dusty archaic "top secret devastating info on how to fight evolutionists" that is so cornball in it's misconceptions... I have to wonder if the webmasters are actually playing a joke on these poor souls who wield those tired canards as if they were doomsday weapons.


I believe in it


No you don't. If you have to ask the question in the title, then you don't know what evolution is. Or at least, what you claim to believe in isn't evolution.


Why do we still have apes if we evolved from them?


I already explained partially. Basic history of animal husbandry should imply to you that extinction is not a prerequisite for speciation. Speciation is typically marked by the inability to breed viable (fertile) offspring. Once two populations can no longer interbreed and share their acquired genetic variations, then those two populations will continue to diverge in their morphology as subsequent genetic variations within each population continue to accumulate.

Certain environments favor similar motifs, but the similar adaptations that develop will be modifications of the existing morphology which define that population. For example, wings. Birds, insects, fish, and mammals (to name a few) have all developed adaptations within known species to take advantage of an environment which has a substantial atmosphere. Bats and Birds both have wings, but the structure of the bones in the wing are quite different.



The common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees belonged to a population of a single parent species which was neither chimpanzee or human. We don't know the exact species our two lineages split from, but there are a few good contenders for a close match - such as Ardipithecus (who is just slightly too young). Since the alleles accrue at a fairly predictable rate, we can count them back to about 4.7 million years ago for the LCA.



Why does a giraffe have a huge neck to grab food when animals that lived in the same area that don’t have big necks get food fine?


Because mutations are random, and spread throughout a population via reproduction. Speciation prevents the spreading of genetic material from closely related species, even if the descendants of the populations again share the same local environment at a later date. This can cause very different strategies for survival to develop even in closely related species given enough time.

Also, it shouldn't be necessarily assumed that the Giraffe's neck is long for the purpose of reaching food other animals could not. Giraffes typically spend the same amount of time feeding from lower foliage as they do the tops of trees... even during dry seasons. It's quite likely that other factors contributed to the neck's extraordinary length. For example, sexual selection of females favoring longer necks in the bulls as a marker for health and attractiveness.


Certain questions like that i hope people can answer. Thank you.


If you want your questions answered, you'd be better off asking in a biology or zoology forum. Go to places you know there will be students and professors who have degrees in evolutionary biology. They'll be able to give you far more comprehensive answers and provide more fruitful dialog.

Why ask such a question at ATS? That's not exactly this forum's forte, so you're rolling the dice on whether or not anyone even familiar with biology and evolution will be able to give you the best possible answer. ... and if you don't know much about evolution to begin with, how can you even begin to tell the BS from the Substance?

Meh... I guess "Why not", or "I was already here" is enough of an answer... but I'm still calling this one a creationist fishing expedition using very, very, very old bait.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   
It is pretty prejudice of you to say I do not believe in evolution when I do. I know of enough theories to believe in what ones I want. If you see my other threads you would no I am not a creationist. So before you stick words in my mouth, I would think about what you are saying. But thank you for the information



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Lasheic
 


It is actually funny you think I am a creationist, because that is the opposite of what I am. Seriously. If I was a creationist I would be defending my position not opposing it.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 07:38 PM
link   
I have several animal questions.

can some one explain the evolutional history of a star fish?

Can someone explain a semiaquatic mammal that lays eggs ?

One more, can someone explain a cheetah ? Is it really half dog and half cat ? The facts say yes.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by OLD HIPPY DUDE
 



One more, can someone explain a cheetah ? Is it really half dog and half cat ? The facts say yes.


Is that true ? Source ?
It doesn't look doggish.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 08:07 PM
link   
I'd like the aquatic ape theorie in here. Because it would alter our perception of our evolution a lot.

Or is it debunked already ? Any one ?



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by nightrun
 


We already live longer.
look at this life expactancy.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Maddogkull
 




It is pretty prejudice of you to say I do not believe in evolution when I do.


I also suggested that you might simply be a troll posing as a creationist, hence the stressed lack of subtlety. That's the impression I get from your OP, and it feels like it's a deliberate intention.



I know of enough theories to believe in what ones I want.


Lovely. It's not about believing whatever you want, but about following the evidence to the best available conclusions. If you want to believe whatever you want, then why bother with evolution? Just make it up as you go along, slapping together whatever most appeals to your fancy. Then start a religion from it. That's how L. Ron. Hubbard made his fortune.



If you see my other threads you would no I am not a creationist.


I don't do background checks and personality profiles on everyone I respond to. The main point still stands, even if you reject creationism, that you don't accept evolution because as of the OP of this thread - you displayed no discernible understanding of it. If you believe evolution without at least a basic understanding of how it works... then what exactly makes you any better than a creationist?



So before you stick words in my mouth, I would think about what you are saying.


Well, I suppose one of us has to.



Seriously. If I was a creationist I would be defending my position not opposing it.


Yeah, the whole "undercover evolutionist" act in a sad attempt to sabotage science or stir up drama is a well played card. And a very comically obvious one at times, since they don't understand you can't BS your way through evolutionary theory the way they do with the bible. If someone doesn't have at least a good basic functional understanding of the theory - then they're not going to be able to feign understanding or construct logical convincing implications.



But thank you for the information


If sincere, then you're welcome. I hope it gives you a starting point to work with.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Maddogkull
 


Howdy Maddogkull and welcome to the wacky word of ATS answers. You will notice that this is not always the best place to go for science questions as some will go off on a tangent, and others will try to tell you how your whole question is wrong, but with patients you can get good information.... sometimes.

It looks like the Ape question has been covered fairly well so lets have a go at Giraffes.

Imagine if you will a herd of antelopes out on the African plains. Like people some will be taller, others shorter and they will all have a bit of variety to their shape, color and size within the herd. Their goal is to eat well, not get eaten themselves, and to have offspring. Some of those antelopes may have necks which are ever so slightly longer than the others, and they can eat the sweet and nutritious young leaves from the lower branches, that the other Antelopes can not reach. This gives them an advantage. Perhaps they can also see lurking predators better than their fellow antelopes. Again, this gives them an advantage. Now the females wish to make sure their offspring has the best chance of survival so perhaps the male who is taller has an advantage there as well. In time these environmental pressures and advantages could result in an antelope population that is a bit taller than previous generations.

Sure, there would still be normal height antelope herds as they would have other advantages, like being able to run faster perhaps, or hide better, or other benefits, but the Taller herd continues to prosper for its unique physical form. Being even taller they continue to take advantage of the leaves higher up, perhaps now eat more leaves and less grass than before. This is how environmental pressures can lead to small changes over time turning into big changes over a great deal of time. In hundreds of generations you can have an antelope with a VERY tall neck that can see a great distance and look out for predators, and can eat the leaves that no other animal can get at. They have a food supply without competition. They are no longer like their Antelope ancestors and are now giraffes, a unique species.

Does this make sense or do you still have questions?



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Terapin
 


Makes Perfect sense thank you. Only if there were posters like you on ATS, then people who put words in your mouth.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


I loved the aquatic ape theory when I heard about it long ago, but the science community has pretty much killed it off as erroneous. Cool concept, but bad science that was pretty much disproved. You can look at Wiki to see more.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join