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: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   
thanks, that explains a lot




posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by Nosred
 


Thank you for sharing your knowledge. If there is one thing I have learned from this thread it is this: There is absolutely no consensus of facts in the theory of Evolution. We are no closer to learning the truth about life through Evolution than we are through religious belief. At least there is somewhat of a consensus that we were genetically engineered in the writings of ancient civilizations.

I think the truth will eventually be found in cultural facts, not scientific. No one can explain how man learned to write and form the written language. There is no evolution of writings or languages. They just popped up. Almost as if someone taught us, in which it is clear that the teacher already knew.


What makes you think there's no consensus? Because one person here can't answer a few questions?

We know things evolve, and we are MUCH closer to the truth than religious belief because we have evidence that things evolve.

I like how you think there's no consensus for evolution but a consensus that we were somehow genetically engineered because of ancient writings.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Davy Jones
 


Is that a Duck Billed Platypus!!!
The extinct one....



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


I posted a reply because it may be two different animals, that feed the same way, but is in no way attributed to evolution in any way.

Humans and piranhas eat meat in a particular way. With their mouth. Does that mean we have evolved from the same ancestors?

If so, prove it.

Edit: add comment



[edit on 28-8-2010 by sheepslayer247]



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by FritosBBQTwist
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 



A belief to me is an idea that is not widely adopted by a very large percentage of people.

But as we can see, evolution is gaining ground and religion is losing ground.


A belief is anything that one person finds to be true. It could be anything at all, no matter the number of people who share that belief or not.

Evolution may be gaining ground and it is fact that religion is slowly going way, but isn't that just swapping one un-proven belief for another?

The truth may lie somewhere in the middle, but I will not commit to one or the other until there is fact to back it up. To believe or the other does not make sense to me if there are no facts.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


I posted a reply because it may be two different animals, that feed the same way, but is in no way attributed to evolution in any way.



Ahh... There you have it.

I posted as a reply to this :

My question is: When a species evolves, is it possible for that same exact, or within very close similarities; of species to evolve on a different part of the planet?


You do not have to make a stand for or against evolution. I was only sharing two very different animals, with striking similarities.

You said this :

Evolution may be gaining ground and it is fact that religion is slowly going way, but isn't that just swapping one un-proven belief for another?

The truth may lie somewhere in the middle, but I will not commit to one or the other until there is fact to back it up. To believe or the other does not make sense to me if there are no facts.


I've underlined the first part to give a comment on it.

The problem here is that in that piece of text, it's either this or that. Unless you believe has been created in 6 days or 6000 years ago...
There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to choose. They can easily coexist.

I agree with you, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

I think you are misinformed or are overrating evolution. Evolution is as real. Not only can we explain and understand how life has changed since it firsts started to be.
Theoretical I know.
We have actually observed it happening, not only on a micro scale but also at a macro scale.

Unfortunately our lives are to short. The changes we've seen are observed within species and it's called speciation. We will never ever see a complete turn from one species to another. We simply do not live long enough.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


Perhaps I should not have commented on a discussion between yourself and another member. It's clear that I misinterpreted the purpose of the pic. I do apologize.

As far as both coexisting, it's very possible and I am open to that theory. I am simply stating that evolution, as well as religious creationism, is not the end all-be all of how the world works. As I said before, I reserve taking a firm stance until the facts are completely clear. Which probably means I will be waiting a while.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 


No need to stay out of the discussion IMO. Just read the post where the reply is a comment on.

I very much agree with agnostic way of staying in the middle. How many times were we wrong before ? A lot probably.

Anyway... The religious flat earth
... Ancient Greek already figured out the earth was round.

Did you study the theory of evolution ? Cause IMO there is a lot of evidence to back it up. Also a lot of observation that does the same. New discoveries are made regularly.

Evolution might be not entirely correct, but the subject that we call evolution is very real and has already happened in the past. It is not telling how things work or should work, it gives an explanation of what we know has taken place.
Only the way it did happen could be wrong.

Kind regards

~ Sinter

[edit on 8/28/2010 by Sinter Klaas]



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 11:39 PM
link   
Just popping in to give OP props for actually taking the time to make and maintain this thread.


I would have got this far ...



If we evolved from apes why are there still apes around. From my understanding and just looking around


Before I told someone to die in a grease fire.


P.S
We are apes !!


(sorry op on the beer tonight
)



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 04:05 AM
link   
OK here's one.

Evolution is all about change through adaptation. Fine.

That being the case, why does the human brain have MUCH more capacity than what amount of it is being used? Our brains are being used at about 5 to 10%. How could the human brain 'evolve' all of it's capacity without actually being used or having the need to use it?



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlakeMaker
OK here's one.

Evolution is all about change through adaptation. Fine.

That being the case, why does the human brain have MUCH more capacity than what amount of it is being used? Our brains are being used at about 5 to 10%. How could the human brain 'evolve' all of it's capacity without actually being used or having the need to use it?


humans only using 10% of there brain is a myth.

en.wikipedia.org...



[edit on 29-8-2010 by nophun]



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 04:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Nosred
 


My problem with evolution is this.

Who or what started the first process?

If nothing was there before, because nothing was, obviously, unless it was a creator.



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 05:01 AM
link   
reply to post by catwhoknows
 


That is the beauty of evolution. It only starts from the moment of creation / first spark of life. The problem you have is actually a non- existent one.

Reply to post by FlakeMaker
 


Yup Nophun is right You kind of use all of your brain all the time.



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 05:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


so where did the first spark of life come from - it had to come from somewhere - and if there was a somewhere, where did that come from?

You have not answered my question, you have ignored it.



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by catwhoknows
 


No I did not ignore it. I told you that the origin of life is not explained with evolution.

There is another theory for it, but to be honest we don't know how life actually came to be.

This is what we think happened. Abiogenesis



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 05:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


I still say, for there have been anything to happen in the first place - where did it come from?

It didn't come out of nowhere, because nowhere was nowhere and nothing.

Sorry, gotta be a creator of some kind.



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 06:13 AM
link   
reply to post by catwhoknows
 


I'm not arguing about that. IMO some sort of a creator is very likely.



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by moosevernel
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?


I think there's a negative connotation to the word "mutation" that's somewhat unfair and, in terms of this discussion, misleading. A mutation is a change, not destruction. Some mutations are favorable in the context of fitness, some are neutral, some are lethal.

Within the same organism, genetic insertion or duplication can occur between chromosomes which adds to the amount of "information" present. Gene transfer is one way to account for the addition of "information" between two different organisms.

There are some excellent resources at the site I've linked that will explain, better than I probably can, why the "conservation of information" argument against evolution is a very poor one.

home.nctv.com...



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 09:51 AM
link   
any question on evolution? hmm

I didn't think the film was that good. The guy outta the x-files was pretty lame.

So, are they gonna do sequel?



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 10:21 AM
link   


Originally posted by moosevernel

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?


www.talkorigins.org...

www.talkorigins.org...

www.talkorigins.org...


The theory of evolution includes a number of ideas that some people find difficult to accept intuitively. One of the most difficult seems to be the notion that the intricate and interdependent structures we observe in modern plants and animals arose through random genetic mutations selected over time. For some people it is much easier to believe that the beautiful and functional features of the human eye, for example, were designed by an intelligent creator than to imagine how they could have been generated through random events. Creationists capitalize on this conceptual difficulty, presenting several arguments that appear to demonstrate that random mechanisms could never lead to even a single functioning protein, let alone an eye. These arguments can be refuted by theoretical counter-arguments; yet many people have difficulty accepting these counter-arguments at an intuitive level. What might be persuasive would be a clear example in living organisms that shows how random mutation plus selection can lead to improved "fitness." Some time ago I realized that just such an example was provided by experiments related to my own laboratory research, which concerns the genes encoding the immune system proteins known as antibodies. Because antibody genes are not well known to the general public, I decided to write this article in the hope that it might be useful for readers perplexed by the creationist arguments.


www.sciencedaily.com...



[edit on 29-8-2010 by Maslo]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join