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.
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 …
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?
(2) Why have crocodiles not changed much since the Jurassic period to the present day?
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?
How did organisms go from the simple to the complex, before they even had mutation capability?
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.
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 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".
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".
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?
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by ac3rr
reply to post by oozyism
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
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.
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.
…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.
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.
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.
(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
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.
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.
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.