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.

 

Debunk evolution once and for all

page: 39
13
<< 36  37  38    40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 02:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller
I agree but that is only for the now and it will no doubt change due to evolution…
I guess in the more distant future as our understanding of investigating skills will evolve as all things do …


In the immortal vein of Morbo the Annihillator, "EVOLUTION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!"

Evolution is not a ladder or any other sort of point-to-point progression. Our "investigating skills" will not "evolve" - unless perhaps, some factor in our environment attributes breeding success to those with magnificent investigative skills, and does so on a population level.

In other words, unless Sherlock Holmes becomes the stud-muffin role model of the global population of H. sapiens, this simply isn't going to happen.

The notion that evolution is about "improvement" is a fallacy. It's simply change in a population in response to environmental pressures.




posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft
 



Originally posted by Joecroft
(1) Why have insects not evolved much, considering they have had thousands of year’s head start, over most other species?


Well, you're being vague, which is the first problem that often arises with opposition to evolution. How much change has there actually been to insects?

Now, let's just take it at face value. Well, for one thing, there is a lot of variety, and I'm seeing few examples of many extant species of insects in the fossil record, but I'll take an example of one group of insects, dragonflies.

Why? Well, because dragonflies are a great example to use, as they're popularly known to have been massive during the time of the dinosaurs. One big change is that change in size. And yes, a change in size is a massive issue, as you can guess if you have any idea of the square-cube law, as systems don't scale up well, and scaling down can also lead to issues. If your structures are designed to operate at one scale, and then you go down several magnitudes, those systems can become cumbersome.



(2) Why have crocodiles not changed much since the Jurassic period to the present day?


They have. It's a common misconception that there is little change, however it is possible that the relative lack of change is due to success. If you're incredibly successful and lack selective pressure, sexual selection takes over.


------------------------------



Question.

How did the original organisms develop the ability to copy their DNA, bearing in mind, that in their early stages they couldn’t have evoleved into having that ability through a process of mutation, because they couldn’t have mutated into a mutationable species yet?


DNA inherently replicates, it's a function of the molecule itself. There is no known instance of non-replicating DNA. Also, the question is also pointless, as replication is the point at which evolution starts. Anything prior falls into the category of abiogenesis.



How did organisms go from the simple to the complex, before they even had mutation capability?


They weren't 'alive' before they had mutation capability, as they wouldn't have had DNA or RNA. DNA and RNA, self-replicating molecules, are thought to be that which life is centered around, thus anything that doesn't have self-replication is not alive. You're basically asking how non-living things could have evolved, when that's really just an elaborate way of asking about abiogenesis, which is not the topic of this thread.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 




They have. It's a common misconception that there is little change, however it is possible that the relative lack of change is due to success. If you're incredibly successful and lack selective pressure, sexual selection takes over.


There is no such thing as selective pressure since the principle behind the evolutionists natural selection is survival of the fittest. Natural Selection does not equal Selective Pressure nor does it involve Selective Pressure. Its all based on whether or not it can survive it its environment which still makes the question asked before relevant since the environment has changed over the course of "millions of years".



DNA inherently replicates, it's a function of the molecule itself. There is no known instance of non-replicating DNA. Also, the question is also pointless, as replication is the point at which evolution starts. Anything prior falls into the category of abiogenesis.


so going from a non-dna organism to a dna/rna organism is totally off limits and should not be questioned?
I think evolutionists exclude that vital portion of the process and evolution of the earth, evolution of life and evolution of the universe purposely to avoid the huge hole in the entire theory when looking at it in the big picture.

so the question avoided was.. how does dna start itself or self create or self organize in order to become the core of the machine?



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Methuselah
There is no such thing as selective pressure since the principle behind the evolutionists natural selection is survival of the fittest. Natural Selection does not equal Selective Pressure nor does it involve Selective Pressure. Its all based on whether or not it can survive it its environment which still makes the question asked before relevant since the environment has changed over the course of "millions of years".


This is precisely what Selective Pressure is. Selective Pressure is a variable that drives Natural Selection. For instance, say there's a new disease introduced into a population of people. That disease reduces the Fitness level (the ability of an individual to produce offspring) of some individuals (death basically equals non-existent Fitness.) This causes Natural Selection; those who have traits that are better suited to surviving the disease will survive to pass on their traits.

Here are rough definitions of terms I have used, just for clarification:

Selective Pressure - A variable that drives Natural Selection.
Fitness - The ability of an individual to produce offspring.
Natural Selection - Individuals that are better suited to their environment are more likely to survive and pass on their traits.

edit on 13-1-2011 by PieKeeper because: Clarification.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Methuselah
There is no such thing as selective pressure since the principle behind the evolutionists natural selection is survival of the fittest. Natural Selection does not equal Selective Pressure nor does it involve Selective Pressure. Its all based on whether or not it can survive it its environment which still makes the question asked before relevant since the environment has changed over the course of "millions of years".


This is like saying that the color "purple" does not exist, and that grape jelly is actually a clever blend of red and blue coloring that makes it look like the color which does not exist.

"Survival of the fittest" is a bit of an antiquated term, since it implies a general sort of "fitness" and the concept of overall improvement. Imagine, if you will, bonobos. A male bonobo who is weaker and less effective at gathering food than his fellow males would seem to be "unfit." Let's make him stupid, too,so we have this scrawny little chimp in a bike helmet. However, if by some quirk of genetics, his testes produce mongol hordes of sperm, then he is most likely to father future generations, owing to the mating habits of this particular species; Thus the stupid monkey is more "fit" than the smart one because he literally has more balls than brains.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 






Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
Well, you're being vague, which is the first problem that often arises with opposition to evolution. How much change has there actually been to insects?


Remember, I’m playing devils advocate here, regarding evolution and I was just getting the ball rolling. I believe in change over time i.e. “evolution”



Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
Why? Well, because dragonflies are a great example to use, as they're popularly known to have been massive during the time of the dinosaurs. One big change is that change in size. And yes, a change in size is a massive issue, as you can guess if you have any idea of the square-cube law, as systems don't scale up well, and scaling down can also lead to issues. If your structures are designed to operate at one scale, and then you go down several magnitudes, those systems can become cumbersome.


Yes I read somewhere that during the Jurassic period, that there were cockroaches the size of cats! Scary thought, the next time your stroking your neighbors cat lol

But is a change in the insect’s size, really a change at all. I mean the insect has essentially remained the same in design or/and structure. It doesn’t appear to have gone through any other changes and it must have lived through a large number of changing environmental habitats, when compared to the timeframe of other species.



Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
They have. It's a common misconception that there is little change, however it is possible that the relative lack of change is due to success. If you're incredibly successful and lack selective pressure, sexual selection takes over.


Well, I do go along with your explanation but how do we know for sure that the crocodile’s environment has never changed? For example, we know that there was some kind of environmental catastrophe, which acted as the catalyst that wiped out the Dinosaurs.



Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
DNA inherently replicates, it's a function of the molecule itself. There is no known instance of non-replicating DNA. Also, the question is also pointless, as replication is the point at which evolution starts. Anything prior falls into the category of abiogenesis.




Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
They weren't 'alive' before they had mutation capability, as they wouldn't have had DNA or RNA. DNA and RNA, self-replicating molecules, are thought to be that which life is centered around, thus anything that doesn't have self-replication is not alive. You're basically asking how non-living things could have evolved, when that's really just an elaborate way of asking about abiogenesis, which is not the topic of this thread.


It’s seem to me that it’s already been decided where life begins and where life ends.

If prior to the point where an organism somehow develops, or evolves the ability to self-replicate itself is not classified as life, then I guess it’s off topic and the discussion ends here.


- JC

edit on 13-1-2011 by Joecroft because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


Yesterday I went to the Natural History Museum, you should go sometime. You get to see how, from beginning to end, life came to be through evolution. Explanations of the Big Bang. The tree of evolution, that included dinosaurs, their extinction, the survival of the mammal and then its evolution into the monkey and then man over millions of millions of years.

There is a scientific explanation for anything. Some are yet to be found. My question about the dinosaurs is that they do not fit in with Genesis' explanation of how the universe was formed and how life began as well as how long ago it all happened. There are several gargantuan flaws that your God made when he wrote the Bible. For one, he did not illustrate clearly the billions of years it took to create the universe, every solar system, light, oceans, caterpillars, sea creatures, everything that he said took six days. (Just several thousand years ago. Hell, we saw a tree older than that!)

These things evolved over time. Are you going to claim that every single animal that is alive today was also around back then? Day 4 when creatures were created? Is this how narrow your vision is? There are new species of insects formed every single day, its hyper-evolution in the insect world! How can you ignore the reality of evolution? It must take great effort. And keeping this all in consideration, it is not very difficult to accept the metamorphosis of a caterpillar into a butterfly as another stage of evolution.

For some reason you're completely ignoring everything Science & Evolutions says. It's really difficult to have a conversation when someone does that. I thoroughly explained the theory of how life began and evolved and continues to evolve.

After visiting the Museum of Natural History yesterday, I grew even more bewildered and disgusted by the sheer ignorance of the religious who are telling me this all isn't so. That the Earth did not form over billions of years and life does not evolve and there are no logical explanations for anything except for God and Jesus Christ. It's so angering to see someone so oblivious that this fact that a caterpillar can metamorphose is proof enough that we have an afterlife.

Right now I am looking at a Cladogram (The Tree Of Life).
It is not a coincidence that everything here matches up logically. It makes perfect sense when you look at this tree, how evolution works. It does not make perfect sense that a living Supreme Being who loves us all created us to love him because he was a lonely God and cast Satan into Hell, who is now his eternal arch nemesis while he illogically made every living being all at once in the Garden of Eden none of which have progressed or evolved, all of whom were led astray to a world of sin by a talking snake. This is why the Museum of Natural History exists, and the Museum of Creation History does not exist.

You are ignoring these blatant inconsistancies.



edit on 13-1-2011 by ac3rr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ac3rr
reply to post by oozyism
 

Good post, but, (just a heads up,) you're answering a 5 month old post from a banned poster.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by rogerstigers
 




basically, it is that computers do not self-replicate, thus cannot be considered life.


Ohh really ..
What century are you living in? .


Ever seen those massive computer arms which puts your cars together? Computers producing computers, like human beings producing human beings


So have you ever seen a car reproduce a car before?



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   

As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth?
Why is all nature not in confusion instead of being as we see them, well-defined species?
The explanation lies, however in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.


Origin of species Charles Darwin

Like Darwin said, innumerable transitional forms must have existed but here we are 152 years on, and the early transitional gaps remain the same.



The fossil record – in defiance of Darwins whole idea of gradual change – often makes great leaps from one form to the next.
Far from the display of intermediates to be expected from slow advance through natural selection many spieces appear without warning, persist in fixed form and disappear, leaving no descendants.
Geology assuredly does not reveal any finely graduated organic chain, and this is the most obvious and gravest objection, which can be urged against the theory of evolution.


Almost like a Whale Prof. Steve Jones p.252

Finding no transitional chains appears to be the strongest objection, against the theory of evolution.



…the Cambrian strata of rocks vintage about 600 millions years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they we just planted there, without any evolutionary history.


The Blind Watchmaker Richard Dawkins, p. 229

It was originally thought that no transitional species had been found because they were soft bodied and therefore might not possible form, but soft bodied creatures have been found fairly recently, although so far, no transitional species have been found.


- JC



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft
 



Originally posted by Joecroft



As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth?
Why is all nature not in confusion instead of being as we see them, well-defined species?
The explanation lies, however in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.


Origin of species Charles Darwin

Like Darwin said, innumerable transitional forms must have existed but here we are 152 years on, and the early transitional gaps remain the same.


Joe, don't be victim to this sort of idiocy. We've found all sorts of transitional fossils. Here's a slightly outdated list regarding the transtional fossils with regard only to vertabrates.

The gaps are far from the same as they were back then, especially with regards to human evolution.





The fossil record – in defiance of Darwins whole idea of gradual change – often makes great leaps from one form to the next.
Far from the display of intermediates to be expected from slow advance through natural selection many spieces appear without warning, persist in fixed form and disappear, leaving no descendants.
Geology assuredly does not reveal any finely graduated organic chain, and this is the most obvious and gravest objection, which can be urged against the theory of evolution.


Almost like a Whale Prof. Steve Jones p.252

Finding no transitional chains appears to be the strongest objection, against the theory of evolution.


We do have transitional chains, we just don't have incredibly gradual chains in the fossil record, due to the rarity of fossilization.

Anyway, this is an argument against gradualism, not an argument against evolution as a whole. Unfortunately, I cannot find a full quote from the book, but this looks suspiciously like a quote mine. In fact, simply looking up the full title and noting that this is a book in support of evolutionary biology as an updated version of Darwin's book to include understanding of modern evidence.





…the Cambrian strata of rocks vintage about 600 millions years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they we just planted there, without any evolutionary history.


The Blind Watchmaker Richard Dawkins, p. 229

It was originally thought that no transitional species had been found because they were soft bodied and therefore might not possible form, but soft bodied creatures have been found fairly recently, although so far, no transitional species have been found.


Um...no, soft bodied creatures cannot fossilize, though they do incredibly rarely leave imprints. And this is actually a quote mine.

And the absence of transitional fossils, even the complete absence of the fossil record would still not disprove evolution. We have evidence that it occurs here and now. We have evidence of a shared genetic lineage between many, many creatures. We have evidence of vestiges and atavisms.

Last point. Whenever science finds a new transitional form (which happens more often than people think), we get creationists pointing out that we've just created two new spaces that we need to fill with newer transitional forms. Those who criticize the fossil record won't be satisfied until we have a fossil of every single living thing that ever died as a fossil record...unfortunately, a lot of stuff doesn't fossilize. The gaps are caused by the rarity of fossilization.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft
 


What madness said, and also that it isn't nice to copy and paste entire posts.

In explanation of fossilisation: Fossilisation of hard parts happens when the remains are buried in just the right substrate (typically deep enough to exclude oxygen and limit access to the remains by living animals) that elements of said hard parts react with various minerals until all the original, decay-sensitive bone or shell (etc.) is replaced with stone. On the Dorset coast, a lot of ancient (Jurassic) ammonite and nautilus shells have turned to pyrite (iron sulphate - fools' gold) as they fossilised in the iron-rich sediments, and the inner chambers have become filled with crystals of calcite - which i would suspect is partially derived from the calcium carbonate components of the original shell.

Soft bodied animals, and the soft parts of all animals, tend to rot away before they can mineralise, even in deep, anaerobic sediments where the only decomposers are single-celled protists and bacteria. However, if the sediment has enough structural integrity, the gap left behind by the decomposing animal may, in rare circumstances, remain, and into that gap, minerals may seep to leave a faint watermark of the living creature. Not only is this rarer than fossilisation, it is often also much more fragile, and tends to erode away before it is found. In very, very rare circumstances, just the right minerals may arrive at just the right time, and fill in the gaps with something a little more durable.
edit on 17/1/2011 by TheWill because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 





(One study estimated that we may have fossils from as little as 3% of the species that existed in the Eocene!) This, obviously, is the major reason for a break in a general lineage. To further complicate the picture, certain types of animals tend not to get fossilized -- terrestrial animals, small animals, fragile animals, and forest-dwellers are worst. And finally, fossils from very early times just don't survive the passage of eons very well, what with all the folding, crushing, and melting that goes on. Due to these facts of life and death, there will always be some major breaks in the fossil record.

Note that fossils separated by more than about a hundred thousand years cannot show anything about how a species arose. Think about it: there could have been a smooth transition, or the species could have appeared suddenly, but either way, if there aren't enough fossils, we can't tell which way it happened


Thanks for that link

I thought the above extract, summed up the situation quite nicely.



Originally posted by Joecroft
It was originally thought that no transitional species had been found because they were soft bodied and therefore might not possible form, but soft bodied creatures have been found fairly recently, although so far, no transitional species have been found.




Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
Um...no, soft bodied creatures cannot fossilize, though they do incredibly rarely leave imprints. And this is actually a quote mine.


What I meant was that scientists didn’t really expect to find any soft bodied animals fossilized, but they have recently found imprints, as you have rightly pointed out.

From what I can gather about the imprints discovered in pre Cambrian era, there haven’t been any transitional forms found. Although admittedly, this may be because of an overall lack of numbers due to the rare formation of boneless species imprints.



Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
And the absence of transitional fossils, even the complete absence of the fossil record would still not disprove evolution. We have evidence that it occurs here and now. We have evidence of a shared genetic lineage between many, many creatures. We have evidence of vestiges and atavisms.


Yes, I agree, we have evidence of changes taken place.


- JC



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft
 


We do have evidence of pre-Cambrian transitional forms. I'll be able to dig into this later (I'm incredibly swamped this week with University, exams are next week and I have a lot of assignments, please excuse my lack of time to devote...hell, I probably shouldn't even be posting now) and provide you with some evidence of transitions prior to and within the Cambrian.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 





Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
We do have evidence of pre-Cambrian transitional forms. I'll be able to dig into this later (I'm incredibly swamped this week with University, exams are next week and I have a lot of assignments, please excuse my lack of time to devote...hell, I probably shouldn't even be posting now) and provide you with some evidence of transitions prior to and within the Cambrian.


Great, I look forward to seeing your next post.

Good luck with, Kafka, Nietzsche and Democritus



- JC



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 03:11 AM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


good points



posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Something that most people don't realize is that fossilization is an extremely rare process, even for "hard bodied" creatures. We'll never know every creature that ever lived on earth and there will always be some kind of "gap" in the fossil record. This doesn't prove anything, however about transitional species, as there are tons up on tons of them. When most people seek transitional fossils, they do it dishonestly claiming that there should be should type of hybrid, exactly half man / half monkey, or half salamander half fish. That's not even close to how evolution works. Essentially creatures become their environment do the favorably changes and genetic mutations. Environmental changes lead to creature changes. So a creature could go through a series of changes over a 7 million year period, in one direction, then the environment drastically changes, and over the next few million years, so does the creature. You're not going to find a hybrid or half and half creature, you'll find a creature that has adapted and changed over the years.

The fact that some creatures haven't changed that much also proves nothing. Change is not required if they can survive the environment. Creatures like certain turtles and crocodiles might not have changed drastically over the years, but it's because they didn't need to for survival.



posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 

First of all;
I accept "Evolution", (but perhaps in a slightly different way than some others...)

The human species had an enormous desire to Fly, as from what we can see plainly today, by how many aircraft are in our world, but in spite of this enormous desire to fly, we did Not sprout wings...

Why ???

Is it because "Desire" does Not change our genetic code?

Some of the human species have an enormous desire to explore the depth of the oceans, yet they did not Change over millions of years.
So we had to discover how, and develop machinery to allow us to do this.

Why ???

Why do we have to discover and manufacture things, which allow us to perform certain acts, as a result of our Species Not changing in the way we often desire ?

We desire so much Not to fall ill or even die, yet we can't change this through adaptation...

Why ???

In spite of all the children being born with genetic defects, we still haven't / can't eradicate this through Evolution...

Why ???



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by The Matrix Traveller
 


Why.... does any of that matter? Aren't we talking about evolution? Desires don't create genetic mutations. It's about survival, not wanting to sprout wings and fly away. I'm not really sure what your point is and what it has to do with my post.
edit on 18-10-2011 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 



Desires don't create genetic mutations.


What does then ???



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 36  37  38    40 >>

log in

join