It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by CanadianDream420
Is this in retaliation of the other thread that sparked major debate?...
Evolution happens, Micro-evolution.
Scientists cannot create life in labs even today...
Even if THEY DID, wouldn't that prove it takes intelligent life to create life??
Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
There are two points to this thread..one is obvious, the other you will have to speculate on.
Which brings me to the continuous Creationist canard (no, it's not a duck): Why are there still monkeys if humans evolved from monkeys?
There are two sides to this question: one is whether any modern view of evolution requires that there only be one instance of a "type" and once it has been evolved out of, it should go extinct. This is a silly belief that itself is based on ideas that predate even Linnaeus - that each "position" on the "scale of nature" once occupied by a lineage, must become empty when that lineage moves upward. No theory of evolution has held this view for at least 200 years, even before Darwin. If we did evolve from monkeys, then monkeys do not all have to go extinct just because another kind of monkey (i.e., us) has evolved.
There are basically two ways to classify things in biology. One is by identity - if group X is the same in some important manner to Y, then X + Y form a group based on that identity. The biological term for identity of characters here is homology, a term proposed by Richard Owen in 1843. It means the same organ under all variations of form and function. All organisms that have a heart form a single group - no matter if the hearts are single chambered, double chambered, or four-chambered. But organisms that have some kind of pump that is not "the same" as the heart are not in that way homologous - if, say, the "heart" in that species develops out of the anus or something, and not in the thoracic part of the body.
The other way is to classify by similarity. Something is in the same class as another thing if it resembles the other. Similarity is not identity - the anus-heart would be classified as similar to the thoracic heart in virtue of a similar task or even activity and structure. To say that humans are not like beasts is to classify by what seems important to use as a similarity measure to us. The biological term for a trait that resembles others because of form or structure is homoplasy. Bats', birds' and insects' wings are homoplasious - similar because of what they do, not because they are the same parts used. "
Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
So you knew from the outset that when you asked for evidence you wouldn't accept anything as proof? Then what was the point of asking?edit on 14-12-2010 by Xcalibur254 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
Here is the question...should "evolution" be considered a sign of ignorance ? un-guided ignorance ? Should teaching children in a scholastic environment be considered willfully be teaching a known falsehood...
Devolution presumes that there is somehow a preferred hierarchy of structure and function, and that evolution must mean "progress" to "more advanced" organisms. For example, it could be said that "feet are better than hooves" or "lungs are better than gills", so that change to the "less advanced" structure would be called "devolution". A modern biologist sees all such changes as evolution, since for the organisms possessing the changed structures, each is a useful adaptation to their circumstances. For example, hooves have advantages for running quickly on plains, which benefits horses, and feet have advantages in climbing trees, which ancestors of humans did