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.

 

Ask me any questions you have about evolution

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 12:01 AM
link   
I have a question, why do you have to inflate your over evolved psyche by asking such inane and base questions? If you evolved from some lower or more less advanced life form, why do you need to stroke your own ego with bravado?




posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 12:11 AM
link   
*raises hand*
If we evolved from apes why are there still apes around. From my understanding and just looking around. All species that have evolved have no ancestors so to say kickin around where as we have all sorts of monkeys that we evolved from still hanging out.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 


Eyes really aren't that complex. In fact human eyes are really rather primitive compared to, say, birds or turtles (we only have trichromatic vision, for crying out loud. That's like having a hand-cranked cathode ray tube TV in the age of LCD and plasma)

Here's a simple experiment you can do at home to give you an idea of how they may have gotten started.

Go to your stove, turn the range on. Hold your hand over the coil as it starts to heat up (a safe distance, of course!). You will feel the heat coming off of the coil, right?

That's nerve cells in your skin are detecting infrared radiation; heat.

Your eyes work in the same fashion; they simply react to different notches on the electromagnetic spectrum. Your eyes are nothing but a cup of electromagnetic detector cells "tuned" for what we rather dumbly call "visible light" (it's dumb because our "visible light" is different from many other organism's visible light, and if we had the ability to perceive radio waves or gamma radiation, that would be our visible light instead)

As had already been explained, there are many varieties of eyes out there. And even the really primitive ones, the eye spots on some very simple organisms, are still perfectly good at what they do; they detect electromagnetic radiation within a certain wavelength.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Nosred
 


Well the shocker isn't the shocker with out the pinky



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by BlastedCaddy
 


Somewhere in Ireland there is a family that I am related to. At some point in, I dunno, the sixteenth century, some long-distant uncle of mine married into some other family amd started a homestead of his own. Now, five hundred years and two continents later, his descendants and my family don't know anything about one another. We probably look nothing at all alike. But we still have that same common ancestor; that uncle's own father, who fathered his brother, the patron of my family.

We did not "come from" anything. We share a common ancestor with everything from chimpanzees to E. Coli.

That is, the monkey's uncle founded a line that led to humans, not that all monkeys did.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Nosred
 


Hi Nosred,

Do you think Abiogenesis/Autogenesis is a totally different topic to evolution?
If so why?

Do you think the questions relating to the origins of life, which remain unanswered, are valid reasons to remain skeptical of evolution?

Considering that theological opposition to evolution as a process can claim this flaw in our understanding also relates to all other forms of evolution in terms of Cosmic, Chemical and Planetary evolutionary processes. This provides a large and broad platform from which doubt about evolution can grow.
In reference to creationists etc. Are these not valid criticisms used by creationists inspired by theological beliefs that account for life by attributing these processes to an abstract God or Force? Simply because Science cannot account for these beginning process that develop by evolution, at all.

That we can describe life developing by a process like evolution is great, sure, but we cannot explain how or why, or what started it. This leaves us to add in "Chance" were others add in "God".


Pushing all the asinine arguments relating to Creationism vs Evolution aside, I feel that we need to address these important issues relating to the origins of life and evolution. Until then, these smaller arguments will always have a fall back position from which to regroup, and so it will always remain.

I look forward to your thoughts.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


Well, I can't speak for him, but I can still give you an answer.

The origin of life is not pertinent to evolution, simply because evolutionary study focuses on what life does. If there is evolution to study, then life is already present; if there is no life, there's no evolution to study.

You might as well be asking why Music theory does not discuss the origins of the universe.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Me also, the Irish thing. We could be from the same clan even. In regards to your answer, I like it. I do not know what side of the fence i am on im regards to us evolving from primates but your "selective" theory works. I still have a hard time with that tho because I guess I just don't think we came from apes. I guess the minute I have the ure to fling my poop at another I'll concede but till then...



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by BlastedCaddy
 


Again, "came from" is a very shorthanded way of saying "share an ancestor with."

Evolution is not some sort of transmogrification, turning one critter into another. There is no evolvo-ray. Rather it's more like a cluster of organisms, some of which are more related than others, all going their own way according to the pressures of natural selection and mutation.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by atlasastro
 


Well, I can't speak for him, but I can still give you an answer.
Thank You.



The origin of life is not pertinent to evolution,
You believe Abiogenesis has no precise or logical relevance to the matter of Evolution?


simply because evolutionary study focuses on what life does.
Evolutionary study is the study of processes of change in inherited traits of a population of organic life over successive generations. At one point, there was the evolution of matter into organic life or the first generation, that would be origins, but we call the study of that Abiogenesis.

A field of Biology is evolutionary biology(although evolutionary biology is the foundation of all biology) which is concerned with the study of the origins of species, the change in that species over time, diversity and replication or multiplication from a common descent.
So why does this not include a concern with the origins of the first species of life, again this is labelled as Abiogenesis and distanced from Evolution.


But anyway, I understand your point. But Abiogenesis involves the evolution of non-organic material that "evolves" to become biological life. Abiogenesis is the very point at which Evolution began.
The origins of life are certainly pertinent to evolution. And this is critical to the foundations of the criticism that evolution suffers from.
I understand the concepts and the differences, but my question relates to whether these issues should be separate, given that Abiogenesis is used to create doubt about evolution.

We think life evolved from a state of non-life to biological life. That is why people are studying the evolution of chemical processes believed to be essential to all life in order to explain this. Papers I have read actually have the titles like "How did evolution start" etc and they deal with what is essentially abiogenesis.


If there is evolution to study, then life is already present; if there is no life, there's no evolution to study.
Really. That is an amazing observation.


If there is no life, then we don't have to worry about how it started or how it led to the processes we observe, like evolution!



You might as well be asking why Music theory does not discuss the origins of the universe.

Are you saying that Music theory is a process that explains the development or evolution of the Universe that we observe, after the universe was created?
You analogy is quite frankly ludicrous, if not asinine.

Evolution is a process, I am simply asking the OP if the very EVOLUTION of that process itself should be distanced from Evolution as a theory in general and I am also asking if the lack of our understanding is a valid criticism used by creationists. As it is a popular one yet rarely discussed with depth in many threads I read.
Philosophically speaking, we can reduce all criticisms of evolution down to this cornerstone that theological ideologies use constantly.

As I elude too in my reply to the OP the term evolution does not only relate to life on earth, but indeed every aspect of the material universe.
There is a constant criticism aimed at evolution and it has broad implications based on theology referring to origins simply because science has distanced the description of processes like evolution from our origins.

I believe that compartmentalizing topics the way we do does not simply ensure that these theories are not related or that gaps in our knowledge become insignificant in relation to topics that a reliant on each other but that we distance with labels like evolution and abiogenesis.

Further more I comment that, simple and flawed arguments against evolution aside, this is a major foundation of creationists arguments and science is aiding it by creating two different topics that are fundamentally and scientifically reliant on each other.
Lets get that straight, evolution is reliant on the process by which life developed and originated, the very process of evolution began at a point.
We just do not know how. By saying that we will simply call that a different topic makes it obvious, and so it is used as a flaw.

Philosophically speaking, this is the foundation of many arguments against evolution although they will appear otherwise.
I think we should embrace abiogenesis as part of evolution, we know that the process of evolution is solid and so if reductionists want to bring it down to what we do not know by siting a lack of knowledge, anyone can simply point to the solid observed facts of the overall process and the success with which new knowledge is constantly discovered.

Currently, it seems you are happy simply say that a label of "evolution" renders that evolutionary process with no theoretical or scientific link to abiogenesis. I think that is absurd.
Rather, I would reverse it, and link Evolutions credibility to abiogenesis and reducing that to point out that observations are sound and eventually we will observe the same trend in results from the study of evolution for the whole spectrum of the debate. From Origins to now.

Thank you for the reply.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 02:46 AM
link   


Do you think the questions relating to the origins of life, which remain unanswered, are valid reasons to remain skeptical of evolution?


I know this question wasn't directed towards me, but I hope you'll allow me to chime in.

I would answer no, not knowing the exact mechanism of life's origins is not a valid reason to remain skeptical of evolution. The only valid reason to remain skeptical of evolution would be if there was no evidence for it.

While there is no definitive answer to the origin of life, the evidence for evolution is undisputed by virtually all reputable biologists investigating the matter. The reams of data supporting evolution makes the question of knowing or not knowing the origins of life irrelevant.

As an analogy, we don't know what happened before the Big Bang, but that doesn't provide a valid reason to be skeptical of the basic idea of universe expansion.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 03:30 AM
link   
I always wondered why we are able to excavate dinosaur remains that are millions of years old, early mamals, primitive beings such as the neanderthal/homo erectus.....but have never been able to find the missing link, surely there must be millions of remainds scattered throughout the globe, at a relatively shallow depth? Since they are supposedly newer species than the listed.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Serizawa
I always wondered why we are able to excavate dinosaur remains that are millions of years old, early mamals, primitive beings such as the neanderthal/homo erectus.....but have never been able to find the missing link


It's far more complex than that--there is no "missing link", there are "missing branches". The pathway(s) of evolution suggests a tree, not a chain. And to say that something is "missing" does not suggest doubt of a connection, it just means that there can be indefinitely numerous transitional species between any two documented species. As it stands, there are more than enough transitional species to support hominid evolution.



...there must be millions of remainds scattered throughout the globe, at a relatively shallow depth? Since they are supposedly newer species than the listed.


Fossils of any kind are not that easy to come by. Several conditions must be met in order for a dead plant/animal to become preserved as a fossil. For example, animals that lived in more swampy/boggy habitats are more likely to be fossilized than those that live in more inland/drier habitats. Any perceived lack of fossils is more of a function of the difficulty in fossil formation/preservation than in lack of species that once existed.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 04:15 AM
link   
My question is:

I have heard this argument and have never really seen an answer for it. How can genetic information by added by natural selection ie making things more complex, isnt this impossible? Mutations do not account for this as they do not add genetic information infact i thought mutations destroy information?? So how did the most simple organisms get more complex and add more genetic information to the information they had?

This point always baffles me and im not creationist or evolutionist i am not making up my mind till it is proven either way beyond my doubt. But as i said new genetic information must come from somewhere and it cannot come from mutation?

Maybe somebody will enlighten me
i hope so



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 05:07 AM
link   
My Question: If humans have evolved from monkeys ...i dont know 500 000 years ago? how will humans look and behave like, in the same time span since we evolved from monkeys,in the future?

[edit on 28-8-2010 by nagabonar]



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 06:19 AM
link   
Explain CSF fluid dynamics, the role of consciousness in bio feedback and the 223 chromosomes in Humans with no evoultionary ancestery.

Please all do not fall into the Americanisation in debates likes this where it either has to be this or that. In this case evolution or creationism. Considering we don't even understand time, space, consciousnes or even the geological activity under our feet, it's a bit rich to be arguing about our puny pathetic constructs of how we deign to constrain mother nature and of what she is capable.

Both creationism and evoultion are correct by the way. Just not in a religious or a scientific way.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 07:03 AM
link   
Platypus.

Life from before the Permian- Triassic extinction approximately 250 million years ago, that created th opening for dinosaurs to inherit the earth, the dominate species were critters like this one: Dimetrodon which were actually reptiles with mammal like similarities. Some of them were actually more mammal then they were reptile. Unfortunately for mammals, Dinosaurs got their chance to thrive first.

The platypus is most likely one of the surviving relatives that was the owner of these first mammal like reptiles.
 


The most complex eye in the world is found in the Mantis Shrimp


Reply to post by Atlasastro
 



Do you think Abiogenesis/Autogenesis is a totally different topic to evolution?
If so why?


Yes. Evolution explains how live developed, no how life changed over time and got to this point.
Nothing to do with creation all together.



Do you think the questions relating to the origins of life, which remain unanswered, are valid reasons to remain skeptical of evolution?


Nope !

Because one does not, in any way effects the other. For all we know they are both true... Creation and Evolution. The only doubt still lies with Creation tho. Evolution is a proven fact.


Cosmology and the evolution of the universe is not explained with the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution only focuses on life already in existence on earth.


To many people do not have a clue what they are talking about in the Creation -
evolution issue.
This can be easily identified because they present arguments like:
An example of everything outside of the planet earth, Where did life come from ? = Abiogenesis not evolution.
 


the idea of missing missing links.

A missing link does not exist ! Every species ever found is a fully developed one.
Changes throughout time happen so slow and over such a large amount when at the same time it is almost impossible to even become a fossil, because it requires a very specific and rare process to actually happen.
Species will either have never gained a totally different build up that can be identified as from one species and fossils found are only 1 % or something of all species that have ever lived on earth.

Why do we not find other human like species a lot ?

Because almost all have been eaten, burned, decomposed ( Normal when someone goes 6 feet under )

For a species to get fossilized it has to die and almost immediately needs to get covered in a substance or surrounding that is without oxygen. This will prevent micro organisms to fest on the corps or cadaver.

This can happen in ice, submerged within an anoxic layer of water or covered with a substance that prevents air from reaching the remains.

 


Humans did not evolve from monkeys !

Humans evolved because they have been confronted with different problems then monkeys ran into. We have been able to overcome these problems because we were fit to survive them or adapt to them. Monkeys are survivors of species dat remained in the trees and for example did not face the problem of Savannah predators and the need to capture Savannah prey.
Monkeys that do roam grass lands today have adapted a different strategy. They travel by numbers like a heard of sheep.

PS:
I know answers were given but I still wanted to share my points of view and understanding because a different explanation of the same thing can make someone understand where he did not understand from another.

Although... In this case I could be very hard to to understand, since I', not really teacher material.


Anyways...

Kind regards



C



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Monsieur Neary
 


Originally posted by Monsieur Neary


Do you think the questions relating to the origins of life, which remain unanswered, are valid reasons to remain skeptical of evolution?


I know this question wasn't directed towards me, but I hope you'll allow me to chime in.
I do not mind at all. In fact I welcome you're reply.


I would answer no, not knowing the exact mechanism of life's origins is not a valid reason to remain skeptical of evolution.
I agree, yet there is skepticism specifically directed at Evolution for this reason and I think people need to understand why because it is fundamental to the OP topic.
What you say in the above statement works in the reverse and leaves the door open for the process of evolution to be simply labeled intelligent design.
Now, if we agree that not knowing the exact mechanism of the origins of life is not a valid reason to be skeptical of a process we describe as evolution, then neither is it for others that describe evolution as a process of intelligent design and this is what I have seen in debates before.
I hope you can see where I am coming from. This is why I believe abiogenesis should be embraced by evolution.


The only valid reason to remain skeptical of evolution would be if there was no evidence for it.

And what evidence is there that life began and developed evolution as a process naturally? Evolution as a process had to evolve, no matter what part of the scale it is on. We simply cannot account for that,
It is this gap that is filled in with arguments for intelligent design. It is always the fall back position once the simple or oft repeated arguments are dealt with.

And so this debate will keep going in circles.


While there is no definitive answer to the origin of life, the evidence for evolution is undisputed by virtually all reputable biologists investigating the matter. The reams of data supporting evolution makes the question of knowing or not knowing the origins of life irrelevant.
But you are missing the point. As this debate is about Creationist arguments the reams of data only support a description of a process that creationists or intelligent designers can simply attributed to an intelligent designer unless you can account for origins as a process of evolution.
Can you see my point.
You can say that Origins are irrelevant to the known aspects of the process being a reality, because we know them, but what we are talking about is the overall picture against evolution as used by intelligent design and creationist advocates.
That is that evolution cannot account for its own origins as a process. It is a process, yes. We can show that, in spades. But ultimately creationists and Intelligent design advocates have an out in this debate which is why it goes round and round.



As an analogy, we don't know what happened before the Big Bang, but that doesn't provide a valid reason to be skeptical of the basic idea of universe expansion.

If we use your analogy then expansion would equate to evolution(as we observe both processes) and the big bang would equate to origins of life(these are both unobserved events).
It is the reversal of isotropic expansion of the universe that leads us to a singularity and it is from this that we get support for the Big Bang.

We cannot use evolution in this manner in order show of how life started or even to a point when it did. Evolution is a process, no time reversal of this process will lead to a spontaneous organic life from non living matter moment or singularity.
At best, all we can do is get snap shots from life, fossils and other material and by other various methods like building cladograms or using statistical methods in order to build a time lines of the evolutionary process, these themselves have gaps in them or need assumptions made or are based on presuppositions and also have competing explanations (say like in Paleornithology and spats regarding the evolution of birds from guys like Storrs Olsen etc.).
So to be fair, I think your analogy is unfair.

In fact if we do time reverse evolution, we hit walls, all the time. One big wall is the origins of life.
Again, we then change that to another topic called abiogenesis and Evolution Theory sneaks of to shrug and mumble, but its irrelevant to me as to how it all began.
That is why people are skeptical, regardless of the validity one side of the argument bestows on its opposition.
That is why the debate is still going.
Round in circles.
Round again.
And again.


I hope you can see my point. I have asked the question you answered for a specific reasons and it is to point out that this debate will never end until evolution can include abiogenesis into its theory by showing it as a process of evolution.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 09:55 AM
link   
My point of asking the questions I did, is to point out that there is no solid fact. You may have an educated guess to answer these questions, but no fact to back up your claim.

This entire thread is nothing more than an excersice in educated BELIEF. You believe it to be true, just as a creationist believes God made us. Who's right and who's wrong? I don't know. But I think that it's misleading to start a thread like this and not add a disclaimer that says..."Ask me, I'll give you my best guess but I can't prove it."

By the way, I am not a Christian.

Thanks again



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlastedCaddy
*raises hand*
If we evolved from apes why are there still apes around. From my understanding and just looking around. All species that have evolved have no ancestors so to say kickin around where as we have all sorts of monkeys that we evolved from still hanging out.


Thank you for asking this. The reason apes are still around is because technically we didn't evolve from apes. At least not modern apes. Somewhere along the line homo sapiens and other apes both took seperate evolutionary paths from a common ancestor. So todays apes are merely our cousings, not our ancestors. The chimpanzee is our closest living relative.




top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join