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.

 

Another Proof of Evolution and Problem for Creationism: Ring Species

page: 6
14
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by dusty1
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Thanks edmc^2
Isaiah 50:7-9


In this particular thread the evidence presented in favor of evolution was a little slim.



Have you ever had someone else take credit for your hard work?

Or have you ever had someone belittle or marginalize your hard work, because they had no clue as to what actually went into completing the task?

I have.

If you've had that happen as well, then we've both received a small glimpse of what the Creator goes through every day.


Just restating what I said - I'm with you on this. Been there and I agree that the Creator himself goes through it every single day and yet his is patient towards us.

For example - this porported "Proof of Evolution" - the Ring Species. It's so inconclusive that it's a streach to use it as proof.

Just because a few of the birds did not reproduce during the study doesn't mean that they are new species. Like I said, If they entermixed these intercontinental wardblers, they will in time breed according to their own "kind".

tx
edmc2

---hopefully this will not be removed by the mod--



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   
I can't remember what off topic post was removed.

But Ring Species is no proof of evolution at all. It shows adaptation takes place with different geographical and ecological variables in place. Also certain species can breed and others can't, if they have too much genetic deviation from the original.

edit on 6-7-2011 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
I can't remember what off topic post was removed.

But Ring Species is no proof of evolution at all. It shows adaptation takes place with different geographical and ecological variables in place. Also certain species can breed and others can't, if they have too much genetic deviation from the original.

And how is that *not* evolution?



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Thain Esh Kelch
 



The significance of an adaptation can only be understood in relation to the total biology of the species. — Julian Huxley



Adaptedness is the state of being adapted: the degree to which an organism is able to live and reproduce in a given set of habitats.



An adaptive trait is an aspect of the developmental pattern of the organism which enables or enhances the probability of that organism surviving and reproducing.


And this is the difference between adaptation and evolution, big difference.


Evolution has led to the diversification of all living organisms from a common ancestor


Adaptation has it's limits, and is a reality of basic biology, evolution has no such limits, and is not a reality but conjectural in nature.



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 

If an organisms ability to adapt can not be explained through Mendeleen principles than what other mechanism can explain an organisms developmental flexibility? If you have an answer I can assure you a Nobel Prize is in your immediate future.



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by uva3021
 


The difference between the perspectives is this, creations adaptations in reality ultimately has limitations, but evolutionary adaptations in theory does not.



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Can you somehow rephrase what your point is? As far as I can gather, you're telling us that adaptations and evolution are completely different, and that evolutionary adaptations have no limit. Is this correct?

To start, a new trait is produced by mutation. If the new trait is beneficial, it's an adaptive trait. If the trait is retained and increases within a population, this is evolution. Because the trait is adaptive, this is process is a specific type of evolution: adaptation.

Adaptation is evolution, but evolution isn't always adaptation.

Also evolutionary adaptations do indeed have limits, mainly physics. In what way could they be limitless?



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 
Creationism adaptation can defy the laws of physics, evolution is constrained by the laws of physics.

Be more clear at what you are trying to get it. If you don't believe the ability to adapt is tied to the genic level, then what other mechanism endows an organism with the ability to adapt.



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by PieKeeper
 


Did you guys ever research what scientists hoping to look for evolutionary cycle did to fruit flies, they did ever test and mutation possible, in the end they were still always fruit flies, to much mutation and they couldn't mate, or even when they did the DNA self corrected itself. DNA/RNA has limits that it can adapt within.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join