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.

 

Evolution? The Full Monty?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 01:48 AM
link   
I can see how natural selection would work when it comes to variations such as fur color. Yes, Arctic fox that have white fur were going to be the survivors because predators couldn't see them as easily.

But the radical evolutionary changes are harder for me to understand.

I question how the first fish that walked out of the water pulled off its amazing feat.

You either breathe through gills in the water, or you breathe air out of water using lungs. How could there be a gradual progression over thousands of years between these two? Partial gills and partial above water lungs doesn't seem possible to me.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not traditionally religious. I just don't understand how the very first fish walked out of the water. How is that natural selection? The fish with gills and nothing else should have been selected by nature.




posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by droid56
 


Maybe because the first fish that walked the earth was not really a fish.
It was an amphibian which have descended from fish and learned their eggs were saver on land, since there were no actual predators on land to eat the eggs yet.

Of course this soon changed.

Take a look here

For a better explanation then I can offer.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by droid56
 


Maybe because the first fish that walked the earth was not really a fish.
It was an amphibian which have descended from fish and learned their eggs were saver on land, since there were no actual predators on land to eat the eggs yet.

Of course this soon changed.

Take a look here

For a better explanation then I can offer.



We don't evolve due to nature; we evolve to adjust with nature, which is conscious.

Everything in regards to evolution looks conscious to me. Not saying that GOD is involved, but just pointing the obvious.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


That could very well be the case.

Also, evolution is not a system nature follows to adapt. Evolution is an explanation that explains the adaptations that have happened in nature for countless of millions of years.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 02:22 AM
link   
But if an amphibian was the first "fish" that walked out of the water, it had lungs that breathed air out of water.

I'm trying to figure out how a fish that breathes through gills could evolve into an animal that does not have gills.

Natural selection says don't go there because you will drown.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by oozyism
 


That could very well be the case.

Also, evolution is not a system nature follows to adapt. Evolution is an explanation that explains the adaptations that have happened in nature for countless of millions of years.


Agreed

The problem is that they are saying it is not conscious: it is errors and accidents mixed with nature = evolution.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by droid56

You either breathe through gills in the water, or you breathe air out of water using lungs. How could there be a gradual progression over thousands of years between these two? Partial gills and partial above water lungs doesn't seem possible to me.

The fish with gills and nothing else should have been selected by nature.


Take a look at the lungfish

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 02:48 AM
link   
reply to post by droid56
 


There are still amphibians alive today that have external lungs. Like this one.

I'm sorry I'll post the picture on a later time. The ATS page doe not open.

There are even now fish that can survive for long periods of time.



See the pink stuff next to its head ?



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 02:53 AM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


Well... that is probably still one of the reasons we are still talking about a theory but the very thing that causes or triggered evolution does is not really the discussion. The theory simply explains the evidence we have found. Still if conciseness is responsible than it takes an awful amount of time to get the job done.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 05:36 AM
link   
There's no evidence for evolution being a conscious act. It may look fantastic in retrospect but the changes happened over hundreds of millions of years. Plus, we're only seeing the species that 'made it'.

A common misconception about evolution is that it's about constantly evolving, and some people ask "when will it stop?" or "what is the final state the creatures are evolving to?". The short answer is none: evolution only happens when there are environmental pressures that cause mutated/dormant features to be beneficial. Some creatures haven't changed for hundreds of millions of years because there haven't been any pressure to give mutated/dormant features a chance to shine.

Another misconception is that evolution strives for efficiency. This is not so, we humans alone have many legacy features that offer no practical benefit but still consume energy to grow/maintain. Sometimes these latent features that are part of some legacy species might become beneficial when the environment changes. Otherwise, they could be passed down from species to species and still be there offering no practical benefit. In short, evolution isn't about streamlining creatures to 100% efficiency, it's about making do with what you've got, because the creatures that can't will die.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 05:53 AM
link   
Fish would be able to breath out of water if their gils didn't stick together when they are ouf of the water, when in the water the filaments seperate and oxygen rich water can enter.

If the gills would stay open out of the water the fish would be able to breath, the fish suffocates around 5 minutes when in open air, it would be the equivalent of squeezing your lungs together so only a little bit of oxygen gets in, eventually you will die from suffication.

AS for sea mammals, they die from suffication in open air because they are heavy, they crush their own lungs because they are so heavy.

[edit on 8-8-2010 by Mythic Chris]




top topics



 
0

log in

join