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.

 

A Reason why evolution will no longer continue.

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 06:50 AM
link   
Because man, has decided he is the keeper of mother nature, and actively works against it.

example

6 Legs of Lamb

The report said Maurice Peeters, a Belgian farmer, noticed there was something different about the lamb born on his ranch over the weekend. "The vet immediately put his hand on it, and asked me if I'd seen it," Peeters told reporters who visited his home. "I said I'd seen it and I said I'd seen it has way too many legs." Text


Who is to say that this was not the first step in Sheep Evolution, yet man (like with so many other sheep) strives to keep things the same, decides it's not right, and amputates what mother nature has seen fit to bestow on the little sheep!

The lamb was healthy why not let if get stronger and see what happens.

At least it would be an easy way of increasing meat output by 50% without using man made genetic engineering.

Nature knows what it is doing. Leave her be!




posted on May, 11 2011 @ 06:58 AM
link   
You are assuming that Darwin's theory of Evolution is the correct one. Where as some (myself) disagree in evolution driven by millions of years of progression.

It's hardly progress when the sheep "cannot walk."
edit on 11-5-2011 by Tephra because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by JakiusFogg
 





Nature knows what it is doing. Leave her be!


Nature makes mistakes and that's the other driving force behind evolution. Nature doesn't just magically make something perfect, as there are so many variables, different combinations provide different results, some branches on the tree of life are dead ends.

I suppose we shouldn't separate conjoined twins? Probably shouldn't do reconstructive surgery on babies with deformities either.

now if you want to get into genetic modification I kinda agree, we're not capable to stopping evolution, no sir, but we sure can throw a wrench into the mix.




Where as some (myself) disagree in evolution driven by millions of years of progression.


Are you disagreeing with evolution entirely, or just one driven by millions of years of progression? Those of us who subscribe to Darwins model have plenty of fossil records and genetic material to prove our assertions.
edit on 11-5-2011 by phishyblankwaters because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-5-2011 by phishyblankwaters because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 07:03 AM
link   
I would say it was more like a random sheep mutation, probably sparked by hormones put into their food, and while I see where you're coming from in regards to mankind taking the roll of mother nature, thus changing the course of "natural" evolution, I would have to quote IIian Malcolm from 'Jurassic Park'; "Life finds a way.". The lack of natural effects on humanity will still trigger another form of evolution, though its impossible to say what changes these will be. The variables are endless. There are also possibilities of evolution through the form of DNA altering viruses. Just a thought.

abovetopsecret



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 07:06 AM
link   
There is a lot of radiation in the environment these days
It is said that radiation is causing rampant genetic mutation
They say one of the symptoms of radiation poisioning is dementia...

No offence OP
I am just wondering what catagory "wanting" "more" of "that" would fall into


I wouldn't eat 6 pack lamb if I knew it came from a movie set monster
Leg o lamb comes in sets of four..

just like a hooker with a double bill(ing) feature
some how more isn't always better
edit on 11-5-2011 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by JakiusFogg
Because man, has decided he is the keeper of mother nature, and actively works against it.

example

6 Legs of Lamb

The report said Maurice Peeters, a Belgian farmer, noticed there was something different about the lamb born on his ranch over the weekend. "The vet immediately put his hand on it, and asked me if I'd seen it," Peeters told reporters who visited his home. "I said I'd seen it and I said I'd seen it has way too many legs." Text


Who is to say that this was not the first step in Sheep Evolution, yet man (like with so many other sheep) strives to keep things the same, decides it's not right, and amputates what mother nature has seen fit to bestow on the little sheep!

The lamb was healthy why not let if get stronger and see what happens.

At least it would be an easy way of increasing meat output by 50% without using man made genetic engineering.

Nature knows what it is doing. Leave her be!

Nature has mistakes as well. Presumably a siamese twin is natures way of getting two brains for one set of organs ie an efficiency saving! I don't think so. Cleft palates are natures way of accommodating straws in cups!

You need to understand what is genetically possible and what is a mistake.

So fixing the lamb is not working against nature but helping nature when it cocks up!

FYI - siamese twins are due to a mistake when a fertilised egg incompletely divides and cleft palates are due to the face not completely forming as each side fuses over (from fish ancestry - deal with it creationsts!) .



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 07:12 AM
link   
If the extra legs were some sort of evolution then cutting them off wouldn't make a difference, if I cut out my eyes my children wouldn't be born without eye's for example.
edit on 11-5-2011 by roughycannon because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
...just like a hooker with a double bill(ing) feature
some how more isn't always better
edit on 11-5-2011 by Danbones because: (no reason given)


I don't need the details of how you know that, sir, but...


I wouldn't eat 6 pack lamb if I knew it came from a movie set monster
Leg o lamb comes in sets of four.


Hahahaaa... I couldn't agree more. I think I heard a few years back that they were trying to make a race of chickens with either 4 wings or 4 drumsticks, I don't remember which, and it doesn't really matter, because I wouldn't want to dine on something that Stan Winston cooked up either.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 07:22 AM
link   
There needs to be people left to evolve, that is what you are forgetting......



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Six legged lambs would evolve if this six legged lamb was successful and passed on its six legged-ness to its offspring. People seem to think of evolution as having some sort of goal of animals getting better and better but it's not a linear progression it's just adaptations which may have advantages.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   
evolution happens in response to change in environment

since man controls his environment, evolution (in that sense) will cease

If it's too hot, we have A/C. Not the people with better built in cooling mechanisms surviving while others who don't, perish



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by JakiusFogg
 


Everyone seems to keep using the term evolution incorrectly. Evolution is still a theory. Meaning it is yet to be proven. There isnt any proof that a species will evolve into an entirely different species. Adaptation however is a reality and present in nature including humans. Humans are constantly adapting through the ages. Some geneticists research speculate that human genetics are becoming resistant to HIV since its rise in the early 60s and 70s. Some humans are even completely immune, many of which are european descendants who dwelled in the areas and era of the black plague. Just because humans aren't expressing visible physical genetic adaptation does not mean its not happening.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by JakiusFogg
 




Who is to say that this was not the first step in Sheep Evolution


For it to be the first step in sheep evolution, it would have to give the sheep an advantage allowing it to survive longer and in turn reproduce. It says in the article that the sheep could not walk, so that to me immediately comes across as a disadvantage.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by AzoriaCorp
 



Evolution is still a theory.


The scientific definition of the word theory means something completely different to the colloquial term. The colloquial definition of theory is an idea or an assumption. The scientific definition is a collection of concepts, observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties together with rules that express relationships between observations of said concepts.

I presume by that logic you also reject germ theory, the idea that microscopic pathogens are responsible for many diseases? Or cell theory, the idea that cells are the basic unit of structure in every living thing?


Meaning it is yet to be proven.


Where have you been hiding for the past 150 years? Evolution is very much proven.


There isnt any proof that a species will evolve into an entirely different species.


That is not what evolution is. Evolution does not state that a dog will magically evolve into a cat.


Adaptation however is a reality and present in nature including humans.


Which is exactly what evolution is

Check out my thread for more info on what evolution is:

This Is What Evolution Is
edit on 11/5/2011 by Griffo because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Griffo
 


I, in part, agree. However the context in which the OP is using the term evolution is incorrect. Adaptation would be the correct scientific term for the discussion. We're not discussing semantics ....



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Tephra
 


I concur.

I'd hardly call six legs on a lamb an "evolution", atleast not a practical one, lol. If it's one extra leg we're talking about here, then that proves my point even further.

Poor lamb =)
edit on 11-5-2011 by ZikhaN because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griffo



I presume by that logic you also reject germ theory, the idea that microscopic pathogens are responsible for many diseases? Or cell theory, the idea that cells are the basic unit of structure in every living thing?


you're just putting words in my mouth....



Where have you been hiding for the past 150 years? Evolution is very much proven.


Oh really?? Where? Please post sources.


That is not what evolution is. Evolution does not state that a dog will magically evolve into a cat.


Yes it is. The theory of evolution theorizes that a species can and will evolve genetically from one species to another if its environment calls for it. If a species does not evolve it will die out and the newly evolved species will survive. This is ridiculous theory. The theory of evolution also purports humans evolved from apes or ape like species. This is contradictory considering apes and ape like creatures still exist. Plus there is no scientific proof or fossil record supporting this.


Which is exactly what evolution is


Nope. Adaptation and evolution are totally different concepts. Adaptation is when a species genetically forced to tweak its genetics in order to survive in the changing environment however still remaining the same species

edit on 11-5-2011 by AzoriaCorp because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-5-2011 by AzoriaCorp because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by AzoriaCorp
 




Oh really?? Where? Please post sources.


Observed instances of speciation
Some more observed instances of speciation

The peppered moth is probably the best example of evolution by natural selection

The peppered moth's dark genetic past revealed




Yes it is. The theory of evolution theorizes that a species can and will evolve genetically from one species to another if its environment calls for it. If a species does not evolve it will die out and the newly evolved species will survive.


No, it does not. Evolution is not a conscious process. The animal does not think "I think I'll decide to become a frog today". A dog will not evolve into a cat


The theory of evolution also purports humans evolved from apes or ape like species. This is contradictory considering apes and ape like creatures still exist. Plus there is no scientific proof or fossil record supporting this.


We didn't evolve from apes, we share a common ancestor with them. You should give these a read

Frequently asked questions on evolution
Top 10 evolution myths (PDF)


Nope. Adaptation and evolution are totally different concepts. Adaptation is when a species genetically forced to tweak its genetics in order to survive in the changing environment however still remaining the same species



Adaptation is the evolutionary process whereby an organism becomes better able to live in its habitat or habitats.

Adaptation is one of the two main processes that explain the diverse species we see in biology, such as the different species of Darwin's finches. The other is speciation (species-splitting or cladogenesis), caused by geographical isolation or some other mechanism.


Adaptation
Evolution

Please explain how they are two different concepts.

Here's a link to a thread I made few days ago, explaining what evolution is

This Is What Evolution Is
edit on 12/5/2011 by Griffo because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 08:23 AM
link   
I believe we have, through technology and modern medicine, circumvented natural selection. This, to me, explains the growing number of desiese in our population. Even as early as 100 years ago, illnesses that are now controlled with medications, would kill a person. Given longer lives the genes are able to be spread to more children. So with this in mind I would suggest we have entirely reversed . We are now devolving. It is no longer survival of the fittest. Couple this with environmental control, and it only doubles this probability of devolving.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by AzoriaCorp
 


you're just putting words in my mouth...

No, he’s making an inference based on your rejection of a particular scientific theory. You’ll reject evolution out of hand, but do you reject theories formed at a similar time in history with a similar weight of evidence behind them?


Oh really?? Where? Please post sources.

Is there any degree of evidence that can be provided that will change your mind?


Yes it is. The theory of evolution theorizes that a species can and will evolve genetically from one species to another if its environment calls for it. If a species does not evolve it will die out and the newly evolved species will survive. This is ridiculous theory. The theory of evolution also purports humans evolved from apes or ape like species. This is contradictory considering apes and ape like creatures still exist. Plus there is no scientific proof or fossil record supporting this.

You’re relying on a model for evolution that simply doesn’t exist. Creationists typically try to use a linear model, sometimes referred to as the ladder model for evolution. But it’s a model that doesn’t correspond to reality – species A doesn’t “turn into” species B which then leads to the extinction of species A. The model for speciation via evolution is a tree, it shows where species diverge. For example, populations of species A become geographically isolated. Species A diverges into species B and C based on environmental pressures in their relative environments.

Oh, and this branching hierarchy is predicted by the common descent facet of the theory of evolution. So there’s one piece of evidence that supports evolution for you.


Nope. Adaptation and evolution are totally different concepts. Adaptation is when a species genetically forced to tweak its genetics in order to survive in the changing environment however still remaining the same species

Adaptation is an evolutionary process, so I’m not sure how you can say that a concept that is inherently part of another concept can be totally different from that concept. You also seem to be asserting that genes “know” to change in response to environmental pressures. You’re somewhat backwards on this – mutations occur and then are selected for based on their ability to make an organism more or less fit for its environment.

You should try to better understand what claims are made by the theory of evolution before asserting that its wrong.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join