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.

 

Evolution and heres your Proof!

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
Well, I don't believe in god and I believe in the evolution, does that make me dumb or only make me someone with a different opinion?


That doesn't make you dumb ... that means that you and the Pope agree
on something. Obviously he believes in God. He has also said that
evolution is acceptable for Christian belief as long as it is acknowledged
that GOD is the guiding hand in evolution.

Some fundamentalists squawk at this, but theologically, it is in tune
with Christian thought. As long as God is involved in the evolution process,
it is still Him doing the creating.

Christians CAN believe in evolution, as long as it is God guiding it,
and still be 'good' Christians.




posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 08:12 AM
link   
The study indicates that one species of fish could evolve into "two genetically distinct varieties in less than 20 years" -- when aided by an outside human source.

Does that prove Evolutionism?

No.

The premise of the founder of evolutionary theory, Charles Darwin, was that given enough time, a whale could evolve into a bear. However, toward the end of his life, he threw out that supposition simply because he could not find any evidence to support it.

There still isn't any evidence to support it, which is why the infamous missing link was never found.

Which is not to imply that the Judeo-Christian god started humanity.

Interventionism/Colonialism is what really happened. The missing link was probably in an alien laboratory.

Which is not to imply that The Original Creator didn't start everything in the first place with The Big Bang.




posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 09:23 AM
link   
I'm thoroughly UNimpressed with that link. (Although, I appreciate the fact that you shared it for discussion)

What the article shows is simply how variety occurs WITHIN the parameters of a certain species. In this case, these fish. Darwin observed the same thing when looking at all the different finches. So......a fish is still a fish. Even admitted in the article, the two different types aren't separate species. They just THINK that they will be in 20 years. Well, maybe so, but they're jumping the gun in my opinion.

My question is, how in the world does this show the current concept of evolution as it is believed to work on a massive scale? I mean, come on. I concede that this article may lend very good evidence for micro-evolution (which is changes within a species if I'm not mistaken) but does nothing for macro. You can't say that it does. IF, in 20 years, or in any amount of time, someone checks in on these fish and see that they have become a sea turtle, THEN, and only then my friends, will you be able to claim legitimately, what you can only claim illegitimately now.

Mutations that harm or may benefit a newborn creature obviously DOES happen. Take a look at the rabbit. There are different colors of rabbit throughout temperant zones, but it is strictly white in arctic zones because it blends in. So sometime along the way, a rabbit, or a few were born white, and therefore could survive much easier and therefore were the ones who matured enough to reproduce, while any browns or grays etc would be picked off by some predator until all that was left were the whites. I have no problem with this process. This is adaptation through mutation and natural selection working. But a rabbit evolving into another species such as a wolf or whatever you want to think is entirely different. Here's why:

In order for evolution to work, a species goes through changes via mutation once every long while which slightly changes it. The changes are extremely small, but given a massive amount of time, they all add up. So in the scope of things, you would see a new creature emerge. Now each and every change must benefit the organism enough, so that, it's survival rate is increased over the rest of it's fellow species. Now, with this information, let's try to apply this to, say, some sort of fish eventually changing so that it is fit for moving on land and actually living on land. i.e. walking and breathing air through lungs.

Here's the issue. Evolution would state that this fish would gradually obtain legs over many, many small changes over time. Going by evolutions own rules, an early change would maybe include a fish that develops normally, except that this one has little nubs on it. But this doesn't make sense BECAUSE nubs would NOT give this fish and edge over others or increase it's rate of survival, therefore it would not become the new constant in the species. Therefore, there is no base for more mutations and changes to work from. The chain is broken before it can even start. Something like the development of legs would be too gradual for any one step to enhance the fish. This is so common sense! The only other way to explain this is that this same fish would be born with sudden legs and/or lungs in one generation and, in this way, fish could become land-dwellers. But this would then contradict evolution, wouldn't it? And has ANYONE, EVER found an example of this in reality? A fish that has such an incredible mutation that it has a set of legs and lungs, or anything akin to that in ANY species??

This is why evolution holds no water. At least interspecies evolution. An even better example than the above is how the development of the eye in the first species that could see would have to happen if evolution is correct. It's impossible. I'll explain that if anyone needs more evidence.

Now, looking at what the bible says. It states that God created every creature according to it's own KIND. This is in line with what we can observe today and what we actually have evidence and proof for. We can see changes of a creature within it's OWN kind like I said earlier. There is NO proof of large scale evolution. And we will NEVER be able to prove it anyway, because we'd need to observe over many thousands of years, which is well beyond anyone's life time. Just because we see one organism, and another different one, and then discover a third that looks to be in between the first two in appearance and structure does NOT PROVE that one came from another. That's like saying that we have blue, and yellow. And oh! Look at this other color called green!!!! It's inbetween the two of them! Hark! Proof that yellow evolved to blue or vice versa!!

How about that maybe they are all three separate? But that may be too simple to be right. Just as God created light in a gradual spectrum of colors, He created life in a spectrum of type and category at once WITHOUT a cell having to change into everything else.

For all of you evolution supporters, you may think that creationism is stupid or simple or primitive or a fairy tale, but at least when I walk outside and see an ant, I don't see it as my relative, my kin, my blood. I don't really identify with the tree in my yard, and I'm not too sad when my long lost "relative" worm shrivels up on the cement after it rains.

PS: Misfit, caterpillars and tadpoles changing into butterflys and frogs have nothing to do, and contain no proof of, evolution.



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by godservant
There is no way evolution is responsible for our existence. I do believe we have evolved slightly, but we were created originally.

For evolution to be true, we would have had to have come from a single cell in the beginning. A single cell doesn't have eyes, ears, arms, ect. As this cell 'evolved', it must have at one time begun to see a need to detect light and color - so it developed an eye over a period of time. Then it saw a need to develop depth, so it developed another eye over a period of time. So unlikely that does sound. Also, if that period of time it took to 'evolve' those eyes, it would, at some point, have a half-evolved eye, why is it then that there is nothing today that is at that 'half-evolved' state.


Actually, there are half eyes out there. There are also quater eyes, eight eyes, and everything in between. If one studies the distribution of eyes, one finds that more primitive organisms do infact possess the more primitve eyes. You are correct in your assesment of what to expect, and it is in fact found.

If we evolved from a single cell, we should be like a jelly fish today.


godservant:
Atoms don't touch their neighbor, so there is empty space between atoms and they are held together magnetically.


Atoms are not held to one another thru magnetics


godservant:
We are mostly empty space. How then[..]can we think, feel, love, hate,


Are you arguing that evolution doesn't occur or that matter is not composed of atoms?


paul richard:
The premise of the founder of evolutionary theory, Charles Darwin, was that given enough time, a whale could evolve into a bear.


Darwin noted that :

  1. Populations of organisms are variable and this variation is inheritable
  2. More organisms are produced than will survive to reproduce


given that, how can evolution not occur? Any organism with a slight advantage over its competitors within the population will tend to produce more offspring, offspring that will resemble it. This is evolution. Its a science. There is no such thing as 'evoltuionism', only evolutionary theory and evolutionary biology.


paul richard:
However, toward the end of his life, he threw out that supposition simply because he could not find any evidence to support it.

You have been terribly misinformed. Darwin never 'recanted' his theory of natural selection and didn't reject evolution on his death bed.


There still isn't any evidence to support it, which is why the infamous missing link was never found.

What 'missing link'?

[below added in edit]

simpletruth:
I concede that this article may lend very good evidence for micro-evolution

Then you also concede that 'macroevolution' occurs, because they are effectively the same thing. Change between species is the same as change within species.


simpletruth:
an early change would maybe include a fish that develops normally, except that this one has little nubs on it. But this doesn't make sense BECAUSE nubs would NOT give this fish and edge over others or increase it's rate of survival

Mudskippers occupy a niche not occupied by other fish. They have fins that are modified slightly so as to give them an advantage and new abilities. Are you also contesting the existence of lobe-finned fish? These are fish with fins that are different from 'normal' ray based fins. It allows them to operate differently. Their swimming motion is more like a walking motion. Seems to allow this fish to maintain an advantage over other fish.


simpletruth:
This is so common sense!

Nature can be mighty clever


simpletruth:
An even better example than the above is how the development of the eye in the first species that could see would have to happen if evolution is correct. It's impossible. I'll explain that if anyone needs more evidence.


I suggest you research the ontogeny and zoological distribution of the eye before you start telling people that intermediates wouldn't be functional. Not only would intermediate stages in the evolution of the eye be functional, they are functional and do exist in currently living organisms.


simpletruth:
God created every creature according to it's own KIND. This is in line with what we can observe today and what we actually have evidence and proof for.

Whats a kind. How does one delimite it? Are man and ape in the same kind? Kiwis and falcons? Frogs and caecillians? Or are caecillians part of snake kind? Are african and american anteaters of the same kind?


Proof that yellow evolved to blue or vice versa!!

If colors were reproductive entities with inheritable traits, and we saw yellow in one area blue in another and green in between, and they could interbreed, would it be silly to say that they are breeding? Colors, i hate to tell you, aren't living reproducing organisms with inheritable traits, so this analogy is cute, but meaningless.

[edit on 10-8-2004 by Nygdan]



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 11:42 AM
link   

quote: simpletruth:
I concede that this article may lend very good evidence for micro-evolution

Then you also concede that 'macroevolution' occurs, because they are effectively the same thing. Change between species is the same as change within species.


.............uhhhhhhh, ok........and how is it the same? Is "effectively the same thing" exactly the same as, "the same thing?"
Sure, that's why they have DIFFERENT TERMS for them. Micro and Macro are the same, of course, how could I be so stupid? Haha, change within species and between are different. It's not too hard to figure that out. I can't BELIEVE we even have to debate THAT point.


quote: simpletruth:
an early change would maybe include a fish that develops normally, except that this one has little nubs on it. But this doesn't make sense BECAUSE nubs would NOT give this fish and edge over others or increase it's rate of survival

Mudskippers occupy a niche not occupied by other fish. They have fins that are modified slightly so as to give them an advantage and new abilities.


Ah, so are you saying that these mudskippers represent the ONLY step between legless fish, and an animal that DOES have legs?? If so, then you're not being consistent with evolution because there are MANY steps. Does it seem logical to you that a normal fish would hatch through as the egg as an instant mudskipper. Then later, another generation has full fledged legs?? If you're not implying that the mudskipper represents the ONLY step between a fish and walking creature, then you're ignoring all the other steps that should come before and after the mudskipper stage. So which way is it, and I will take the debate from there.


Are you also contesting the existence of lobe-finned fish? These are fish with fins that are different from 'normal' ray based fins. It allows them to operate differently. Their swimming motion is more like a walking motion. Seems to allow this fish to maintain an advantage over other fish.


Seems to huh? If they have an advantage, why do the other fish still persist as well?




quote: simpletruth:
This is so common sense!

Nature can be mighty clever

Oh, but not as clever as you, huh?

Clever nature designed by our clever God.



quote: simpletruth:
An even better example than the above is how the development of the eye in the first species that could see would have to happen if evolution is correct. It's impossible. I'll explain that if anyone needs more evidence.

I suggest you research the ontogeny and zoological distribution of the eye before you start telling people that intermediates wouldn't be functional. Not only would intermediate stages in the evolution of the eye be functional, they are functional and do exist in currently living organisms.


Hmm, you must be referring to light-sensitive patches (one of the simplest forms) I take it? Would you agree that they seem to be an early eye, or a simple eye? If you do, then consider this: Even for an organism to develop one of these simple patches, the mutation would have to be more miraculous than anything you could come up with. Let's say we're focusing on a sponge organism. It has no eyes at first. Then, it's offspring is born, and woola!, it has a light sensitive patch. Even this supposed "crude and beginning form" would have to include not only the patch, but for the patch to even be effective, in that same mutation, the sponge would need to develop a new section of brain that knows how to interpret the data of light, and then all the hardware connecting that patch to the brain as well. Do you ACTUALLY believe that this all happened in one step? If you know of a simpler eye that came before a light sensitive patch, bring it up and we will debate it on from there.


quote: simpletruth:
God created every creature according to it's own KIND. This is in line with what we can observe today and what we actually have evidence and proof for.

Whats a kind. How does one delimite it? Are man and ape in the same kind? Kiwis and falcons? Frogs and caecillians? Or are caecillians part of snake kind? Are african and american anteaters of the same kind?


Fair question. I would be referring to a kind as finches being a kind, and toucans being a kind. I'm not going broadly like all birds are one kind. So a kind would be every species as they are defined in mainstream science.


quote: Proof that yellow evolved to blue or vice versa!!

If colors were reproductive entities with inheritable traits, and we saw yellow in one area blue in another and green in between, and they could interbreed, would it be silly to say that they are breeding? Colors, i hate to tell you, aren't living reproducing organisms with inheritable traits, so this analogy is cute, but meaningless.


Aren't you familiar with analogies or similes? I appreciate you assuring me that colors are not organisms, but it seems you won't look past the deeper meaning of what I was saying. Instead, you are focusing on the surface and taking it literally and not figuratively as analogies are meant to be taken. What I was trying to get at was at the inlying logic of looking at two things, seeing a third that has traits of the first two, and therefore automatically deducting that there is some sort of progression between the three. Now, maybe you will understand. My point is that this logic, although it COULD be an explanation, is NOT the sole and only answer to why there are similar species of animals/species out there. My contention is that it's in fact something different from the logic of evolution, which is flawed, and is what you use.

[edit on 10-8-2004 by SimpleTruth]



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 12:33 PM
link   
You people just need to get over the 7 day thing and you will see that God's creation and evolution are the same thing. For all we know those 7 days are not over and we are still becoming like god. He did create us in his own image right? So we cannot possibly be done evolving.

In fact learning about the universe and how to live forever may be the very path to become one with god? Someday we may become so much like gods image thaqt we can bring our ancestors back from the dead. Perhaps living like christ asked us to is the fastest path for humanity to finish becoming like gods image (Like God) instead of killing and wars.

Gods creation is being created and we are just a part of it. Evolution is very real. Your witnessing Gods power. Why deny it? It is right before your eyes in everything as the bible says.

The only real debate is wether god was an inteligent being who started creation on purpose or was god a particle, energy etc..(something not inteligent) that caused creation =).

Yet, even when you can answer that, one has to ask what caused/created god or the particle


God is creation and creation is on going process ?

X



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

paul richard:
The premise of the founder of evolutionary theory, Charles Darwin, was that given enough time, a whale could evolve into a bear.


Darwin noted that :

  1. Populations of organisms are variable and this variation is inheritable
  2. More organisms are produced than will survive to reproduce


given that, how can evolution not occur? Any organism with a slight advantage over its competitors within the population will tend to produce more offspring, offspring that will resemble it. This is evolution. Its a science. There is no such thing as 'evoltuionism', only evolutionary theory and evolutionary biology.


paul richard:
However, toward the end of his life, he threw out that supposition simply because he could not find any evidence to support it.

You have been terribly misinformed. Darwin never 'recanted' his theory of natural selection and didn't reject evolution on his death bed.


There still isn't any evidence to support it, which is why the infamous missing link was never found.

What 'missing link'?

[edit on 10-8-2004 by Nygdan]


Nygdan,

How can you propose to debate about evolutionism if you don't even know what the 'missing link' is?

In answer to that inquiry, here is a site that explains it succinctly:

Missing Link & Evolution

To briefly quote that page:

"The "missing link" refers to the gaps in the knowledge base of the sequence of what type of being existed between homo sapiens (smart man or modern humans) and the presumed beast from which we evolved (be it ape, monkey or orangutan)."

The term "evolutionism" is widely used as meaning "the theory of evolution." It is even listed in the Encyclopedia Britannica!

Additionally, here are some sites that use this term:

Thermodynamics versus Evolutionism

Historical development of cultural anthropology

Truth Evolutionism

Evolutionism's Flaws & Holes

Christian compromises with evolutionism

Charles Darwin didn't officially recant his theory of evolution or evolutionism before he died. But he did decide to omit his supposition that a whale can evolve into a bear -- which is the very foundation with which evolutionism is based in the first place!

My source?

A progressive scholar that has studied the works of Charles Darwin extensively, Richard Milton, who is not a Creationist:

Richard Milton, Scientific Censorship & Evolution

Richard Milton -- Shattering the Myths of Darwinism

Milton/Foley Debate

Richard Milton is also one of the scientists in the documentary The Mysterious Origins of Man.

Additionally, I knew and worked with a biology teacher by the name of Dr. Tom Borkowski who espoused that there are three theories for the origin of humankind: Evolutionism, Creationism and Colonialism (also called Interventionism). I side with Interventionism because it makes the most sense and there is evidence to support it, like the works of Zecharia Sitchin in deciphering ancient Sumerian and Akkadian clay tablets, the testimony of the US Air Force through Linda Moulton Howe in the above documentary, the discovery of 223 alien genes in Homo sapien DNA, etc.

The failure of evolutionists to provide the public with a study that proves that a whale can evolve into a bear (or something equivalent like the 'missing link') is the reason why so many people poke holes in the theory of evolution.

You are the one who is terribly misinformed.

Or is it simply that your conclusions are based on prejudice?

You sure come across that way.




posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 04:41 PM
link   
i find it odd that to dissporve evolution you go to a site that says

All matters of physics, chemistry, and biological processes known to man, are universally subjectwithout exception


when in the beginning was just god and this god geezer decided to create a #load of a universe out of nothing = breaking the first law of your silly theory right away

go and think about it


ps - i think i will get the "known to man" bit thrown at me - if this is the case , what if fish know more than man and can break the first law because they are not man and might know of a method ?



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paul_Richard

Originally posted by Nygdan

paul richard:
The premise of the founder of evolutionary theory, Charles Darwin, was that given enough time, a whale could evolve into a bear.


Darwin noted that :

  1. Populations of organisms are variable and this variation is inheritable
  2. More organisms are produced than will survive to reproduce


given that, how can evolution not occur? Any organism with a slight advantage over its competitors within the population will tend to produce more offspring, offspring that will resemble it. This is evolution. Its a science. There is no such thing as 'evoltuionism', only evolutionary theory and evolutionary biology.


paul richard:
However, toward the end of his life, he threw out that supposition simply because he could not find any evidence to support it.

You have been terribly misinformed. Darwin never 'recanted' his theory of natural selection and didn't reject evolution on his death bed.


There still isn't any evidence to support it, which is why the infamous missing link was never found.

What 'missing link'?



Nygdan,

How can you propose to debate about evolutionism if you don't even know what the 'missing link' is?

I have not proposed to debate anything. I am merely here to discuss the issues. I wrote 'what missing link' because some people mean by that the 'missing' link between man and ape, whereas others just mean transitional types of fossils in general.

In answer to that inquiry, here is a site that explains it succinctly:

Missing Link & Evolution

To briefly quote that page:

"The "missing link" refers to the gaps in the knowledge base of the sequence of what type of being existed between homo sapiens (smart man or modern humans) and the presumed beast from which we evolved (be it ape, monkey or orangutan)."

So you are saying that the missing link is a species between homo sapiens and monkeys/orang etc? The australopithecus (and the numerous species contained in that genus)is an excellent cadidate, as are kenyathropus, homo erectus, neanderthal, and there are even sahelanthropus and ardipithecus and the genus orrorin.

Even the site you used to define 'missing link' notes that its been found, look at how it uses it:

the site:
The reason there is still a missing link is because as evidence
is unearthed further back in time then we can start looking even farther back
in time. Also (arguably) the gaps in the record get smaller with new finds.
This is like much of science, there is always something that is unknown yet
hypothetically knowable. In the case of human evolution, the unknown is
referred to as the "missing link."

What they are saying is that, initially, there was thought ot be a gap between man and chimp. The organism that would fill it was the 'missing link'. Then a transitional was found. Now there are two 'missing links', one between the transitional and man, and one between the transitional and chimp, and so on and so on.


The term "evolutionism" is widely used as meaning "the theory of evolution." It is even listed in the Encyclopedia Britannica!


Fair enough, you are using the word differently than i have seen it used, and apparently merely mean 'evolution' by it.


Additionally, here are some sites that use this term:

Are you citing these sites to demonstrate that 'evolutionism' is a term that people use or did you beleive anything that these sites had within them?


Thermodynamics versus Evolutionism



the page makes this as its main arguement:
"1) Evolution calls for the development of life itself and subsequent life forms from a purely natural process. Life does not function without the strictly controlled conversion of raw solar energy into useable energy. What are the specific, empirically evident original mechanism/process and pathway of specific, empirically evident mechanisms/processes that led from zero such conversion capability in raw matter to the multiple and varied mechanisms and processes that are inherent in every living organism as we know them?

[...](2LOT certainly allows for the needed entropy changes)[...]

so by the author's own statement, the 2lot doesn't in and of itself pose a problem for evolution. The author merely wants answers to every possible question. Unfortunately, evolutionary theory and in particular abiogenetic experiments haven't been able to determine the step by step stereochemistry and reaction coordinates of every chemical process invovled in every stage of the production of life from non life. Is this supposed to be a reason to reject the logic of darwin's arguement?

Truth Evolutionism
This is just someone's geocities page that jabbers on about something, and the other link was an encylopedia article that had the word in it. I can only assume that you are infact citing these as proof that the word exists. Agreed, the word exists, i have heard it before, its not normally defined as 'the theory of evolution', but thats irrelevant since that is how you state you are using it.



Charles Darwin didn't officially recant his theory of evolution or evolutionism before he died. But he did decide to omit his supposition that a whale can evolve into a bear -- which is the very foundation with which evolutionism is based in the first place!


The theory of evolution is not founded on the idea of a whale changing into a bear. Its founded on the observations that i noted above. Also, why did you write 'or evolutionism' if by it you merely mean the 'theory of evolution' when you just wrote that?


My source?

Richard Milton, Scientific Censorship & Evolution
Richard Milton -- Shattering the Myths of Darwinism
Milton/Foley Debate

The second link isn't working. Please point out where milton states that darwin made the statement you are attributing to him, and if milton provides sources please include those sources. I would be very interested to see this.

Additionally, I knew and worked with a biology teacher by the name of Dr. Tom Borkowski


Where was this? What school? What sort of work did the two of you do? What was his doctorate in, do you know who awarded it to him? I am not saying this to 'express disbeleif', i have no reason at all to doubt you, i merely am curious, and, after all, you are the one who brought him up.


I side with Interventionism because it makes the most sense and there is evidence to support it, like the works of Zecharia Sitchin in deciphering ancient Sumerian and Akkadian clay tablets, the testimony of the US Air Force through Linda Moulton Howe in the above documentary, the discovery of 223 alien genes in Homo sapien DNA, etc.


So as evidence of alien involvment with human genetics and evolutionary history you site the translation of sumerian texts, an interview, and these '223 alien genes'. The first two are going to require a little more explanation. The last one is intersting. Here is what the article states
" At a relatively recent time as Evolution goes, modern humans acquired an extra 223 genes not through gradual evolution, not vertically on the Tree of Life, but horizontally, as a sideways insertion of genetic material from bacteria"

Also note that this is also from Z. Sitchin. So two out of your three 'evidences' for this alien intervention are from the same person. Ok, there's nothing ludicrous about that, but its just noteworthy. Gettign to the gist of this 'alien' dna argument. The dna is not alien. Its mereley bacterial. Its interesting that Sitchin uses the term 'horizontal', since this is a process in evolutionary biology called just that; 'horizontal transfer'. Its certainly not evidence for aliens itnerfereing or interveneing with our genome. Bacteria contain portions of their genome in 'plasmids'. These plasmids are -known- to incorporate themselves into the dna of other organisms. Heck, a virus exists by doing this, and there is even a type of dna called a 'transposon' that does this of its own. Its simply the property of the organism, virus, or even the sequence of genetic material. Its weird, and really interesting to be sure, but its obviously not evidence for aliens. The bacteria , the viruses, and the transposons do this on their own. There is no need for 'aliens'. The worst part about this citation is that it leads one to expect (at least i did upon reading it) that there would be actual extraterrestrial -alien- genes involved, not genes found in bacteria.



The failure of evolutionists to provide the public with a study that proves that a whale can evolve into a bear (or something equivalent like the 'missing link') is the reason why so many people poke holes in the theory of evolution.


Unfortunately you have failed to poke any holes in evolution, and you don't even seem to be reading the web pages that you cite, since its clear, from the webpage that you cited, that the 'missing link' has been found. Again, they merely said that when one 'missing link' is found, there are now two more gaps in which we can expect another 'missing link'


You are the one who is terribly misinformed.


Unfortunately it remains you are are misinformed.


Or is it simply that your conclusions are based on prejudice?
You sure come across that way.


I have refrained from insults and random speculations as to your prejudices and motivations and now you come out with them anyway. I thought you were supposed to be an enlightened leader of a new age religion? Why do i only appear to come across some way, can't your 'spirit' guide tell you whats going on?

Or would you rather refrain from insults like these and continue to discuss the issues?



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 09:26 PM
link   
Would anyone care to refute my latest post? I believe I made a strong case against evolution so if people want to still continue to support it on this thread, I hope you don't just ignore my case because I think I touch on vital points. Thanks



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 12:27 AM
link   

I believe I made a strong case against evolution so if people want to still continue to support it on this thread, I hope you don't just ignore my case because I think I touch on vital points.

Errr, okay.

Originally posted by SimpleTruth


quote: simpletruth:
I concede that this article may lend very good evidence for micro-evolution

Then you also concede that 'macroevolution' occurs, because they are effectively the same thing. Change between species is the same as change within species.



and how is it the same?


They are effectively the same when one considers what you are talking about, the change of species. They do differ in that macroevolution is the process of microevolution over the extremely long span of geologic time. Its patterns, its the perception of trends, its species sorting and possibly species selection. Underlying it all and driving it is the statistical processes of population genetics, which, when considered in the short term is 'microevolution'. So yes, they are in fact effectively the same for the purposes of this discussion.


quote: simpletruth:
an early change would maybe include a fish that develops normally, except that this one has little nubs on it. But this doesn't make sense BECAUSE nubs would NOT give this fish and edge over others or increase it's rate of survival

Mudskippers occupy a niche not occupied by other fish. They have fins that are modified slightly so as to give them an advantage and new abilities.


Ah, so are you saying that these mudskippers represent the ONLY step between legless fish, and an animal that DOES have legs??


No. Like I mention below, there are other organisms that have different 'intermediate' fin-legs.


If so, then you're not being consistent with evolution because there are MANY steps. Does it seem logical to you that a normal fish would hatch through as the egg as an instant mudskipper.


So now the transitional type with intermediate legs isn't transitional enough for you? Does it or does it not seem logical that, since populations are variable and the variability is inheritable and there is an overproduction of organisms, that organisms will tend to adapt to their environment?


So which way is it, and I will take the debate from there.

The answer to this was given in the original post. I do not understand why you did not see that I was talking about more than just the mudskipper. Do you not know what lobe-finned fish are? THey too are intermediates in this respect and are most definitely not mudskippers. Why do you think that every species that ever existed must be alive today? That is the implication of your arguement of 'where are each and every of the many many steps required'. They are extinct. Some were preserved as fossils, some were not, and others managed to survive. How is this supposed to be a problem for evolutionary theory?


me:
Are you also contesting the existence of lobe-finned fish? These are fish with fins that are different from 'normal' ray based fins. It allows them to operate differently. Their swimming motion is more like a walking motion. Seems to allow this fish to maintain an advantage over other fish.


Seems to huh? If they have an advantage, why do the other fish still persist as well?


You mean why aren't lobe-finned fish super fish that have taken over the planet? Why is that relevant? They are adapted to their niche and other organisms can not get into that nich. They hold the advantage in their niche. Other fish hold their advantages in their respective niches. This is what adaptation via natural selection does.





quote: simpletruth:
This is so common sense!

Nature can be mighty clever

Oh, but not as clever as you, huh?


Clever nature designed by our clever God.


Are you not understanding what adaptation is and why it should infact look superficially like design?


quote: simpletruth:
An even better example than the above is how the development of the eye in the first species that could see would have to happen if evolution is correct. It's impossible. I'll explain that if anyone needs more evidence.

I suggest you research the ontogeny and zoological distribution of the eye before you start telling people that intermediates wouldn't be functional. Not only would intermediate stages in the evolution of the eye be functional, they are functional and do exist in currently living organisms.



Hmm, you must be referring to light-sensitive patches (one of the simplest forms) I take it?


Only? No.


Would you agree that they seem to be an early eye, or a simple eye? If you do, then consider this: Even for an organism to develop one of these simple patches, the mutation would have to be more miraculous than anything you could come up with. Let's say we're focusing on a sponge organism. It has no eyes at first. Then, it's offspring is born, and woola!, it has a light sensitive patch. Even this supposed "crude and beginning form" would have to include not only the patch, but for the patch to even be effective, in that same mutation, the sponge would need to develop a new section of brain that knows how to interpret the data of light,


This is incorrect. You need to study up on what nerves are and what photosensitive cells are. A centralized nervous system is most certainly not a requirement. Neither is a miracle required to to make photosensitive pigments.


Do you ACTUALLY believe that this all happened in one step?

If you aren't going to pay attention to anything I say, why are you having this discussion with me?


If you know of a simpler eye that came before a light sensitive patch, bring it up and we will debate it on from there.

I am not interested in debating anything. I am interested in having a discussion. Your explanation of the evolution of the eye is clearly not based on adequate research on the topic. Why do you wish to discuss it?



simpletruth:
God created every creature according to it's own KIND. This is in line with what we can observe today and what we actually have evidence and proof for.

Whats a kind. How does one delimite it? Are man and ape in the same kind? Kiwis and falcons? Frogs and caecillians? Or are caecillians part of snake kind? Are african and american anteaters of the same kind?


Fair question. I would be referring to a kind as finches being a kind, and toucans being a kind. I'm not going broadly like all birds are one kind. So a kind would be every species as they are defined in mainstream science.

Then speciation is inter kind evolution. Speciation is known to occur, its been observed. Therefore even inter kind evolution is observed.

Also, what makes a species a kind then? Biologists generally define species according to the Biological Species Concept. YOu apparently are saying 'whatever biolgists say is a species is actually a kind'. Does this mean that every species that has ever existed was created ex nihlo?

You also said that this is in accord with what we observe today. So what is the non evolutionary biological evidence supporting the delimitation of 'kinds'? Whats the 'Baraminological Species Concept' then?



Proof that yellow evolved to blue or vice versa!!

If colors were reproductive entities with inheritable traits, and we saw yellow in one area blue in another and green in between, and they could interbreed, would it be silly to say that they are breeding? Colors, i hate to tell you, aren't living reproducing organisms with inheritable traits, so this analogy is cute, but meaningless.


Aren't you familiar with analogies or similes?

Yes, and in order for them to have any meaning they must bear some resemblence to the objects they are compared or likened to. Colors and biological organisms are clearly not similar, and a biologist wouldnt look at blue yellow and green peices of paper and say that they represent evolving reproducing units.


I appreciate you assuring me that colors are not organisms, but it seems you won't look past the deeper meaning of what I was saying.

I looked, and the analogy was found very shallow and terribly wanting. Its hardly my fault that you chose a poor analogy.


Instead, you are focusing on the surface and taking it literally and not figuratively as analogies are meant to be taken. What I was trying to get at was at the inlying logic of looking at two things, seeing a third that has traits of the first two, and therefore automatically deducting that there is some sort of progression between the three.


Ok, that would be a bad thing to do. However this is not how biologists operate in reality, so this analogy remains a meaningless and horribly inaccurate characterization of how they operate.


Now, maybe you will understand.

Apparently it is you who is failing to understand.


something different from the logic of evolution, which is flawed, and is what you use.


Since its obvious that your analogy is not anything like how evolutionary biology operates, perhaps you would care to explain what the problem with the logic of darwin's theory is? In particular, please explain how, given :

  1. Populations are variable
  2. variability is inheritable
  3. there is an overproduction of offspring


    that a population will not become adapted to its enviroment, whether that means developing nubbins of slightly more resilient material in fish fins or slightly elongate scales in a reptile?


    [edit on 10-8-2004 by SimpleTruth]



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Creation, is one thing.

Evolution, is another completely different thing.

As a Life manifestation, Human specie was created, like every other manifestation of a Life Thought. Everything in the Universe HAS to be first Created. (this is a FACT)

But then... after a Thought provides a manifestation of Life (the greater the hierarchy of Existence, the greater the power of the Thought), from a single cell, to the greatest known Nebula (so far), everything single manifestation of Life, has to evolve, trought the process of continuous experiences, that we call ... Evolution!

HARAK.




posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Azza
so badkitty your saying that the dinosaurs with wings are a freak of nature?.....all of them? and the similarities between birds and ancient lizards


Not at all. Dinosaurs with wings are no more freaks than bats (basically rodents with wings). But bats are still bats - they aren't birds. These dinosaurs with wings are just examples of different types of creatures - no proof of evolution. As for the similarities between birds and ancient lizards, there are also similarities between man and chipms but that is not proof of evolution. It is an indication that there may be a link and this is reason to consider and research (try to proove) evolution but it is not solid evidence.



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by jp1111

Originally posted by badkitty
I still have a hard time buying that all forms of life began from the same single celled organizm.


I think you should read on "endosymbiotic theory," if not already. It explains it well.
Here are some links:
Endosymbiotic theory
Endosymbiosis and The Origin of Eukaryotes
There are better links on that subject, just do a google on similiar terms!


[edit on 8/7/2004 by jp1111]


Thanks for sharing these links JP. I have a few questions though. The first link regarding symbiotic theory indicates that prokaryot cells were basically invaded by bacteria and the two learned to depend on eachother thus forming a more complex organism? Is that correct? If so, how did the bacteria evolve?



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Evolution:

Imagine you have two cactus's in the desert. Two of the same species, but one is slightly different to the other, in that it can hold more water. No in a period of drought, that more-water cactus is more likely to survive than the other one, thus passing on the superior genetic makeup to its offspring, whilst the other cactus dies and fails to pass on its genes. Over time, this cactus could well develop other mutations that would enable it too survive whatever the "weather", or equally condemn it too extinction, ie; a new animal could move into the area, and really likes cactus, but that species could, completely by accident, develop a mutation that gets rid off its spikes, thus making it easier for said animal to eat it.

This is how evolution happens. random mutations that may give an animal a slight advantage (or disadvantage) in the given environment. Over time, more mutations will appear, and offer advantages/disadvantages to the organism. Evolution is random, but self correcting. It is quite simply survival of the fittest animal in that given environment, but that very same animals offspring could develop a mutation that enabled them to be better, and therefore, over time, slowly change into an entirely different organism. Alternatively, that organism may develop a mutation that is no help whatsoever, like a slightly different coloured fur that wasn't quite so good at camoflage, thus making the animal easier pray, and inhibiting its chances of survival, therefore making the chances that that particular mutation surviving slimer. Thats why evolution appears ordered, as any mutations that dont fair so well tend to be snuffed out quickly (usually by something with bigger teeth)


I buy all this. Adaptation and natural selection are evident in every species. Where I have a hard time buying in (and maybe it is due to my lack of scientific knowledge) is going way back, to the beginning of the earth - how could one single cell spawn all the different mutations that exist. If evolution is based on adaptation and survival of the fittest (along with the occastion mutation by mistake) how could all these different adaptations have occurred when it all starte with one cell in one place? How did the first fish reproduce?



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by badkitty

Originally posted by Azza
so badkitty your saying that the dinosaurs with wings are a freak of nature?.....all of them? and the similarities between birds and ancient lizards

These dinosaurs with wings are just examples of different types of creatures - no proof of evolution.


They are organisms that show progressively more and more 'bird like' features. There are offshots from this 'progressive line torwards birds' in many different directions, some more succesful than others. But the bottom line is that one has populations of organisms that are evolving all the same characteristics of modern birds slowly thru time, ultimately to the point that one can't distinguish between 'dinosaurs' and 'birds'.



As for the similarities between birds and ancient lizards, there are also similarities between man and chipms but that is not proof of evolution.


What do you think it indicates then? If the traits organisms posess are inheritable and variable thruought the population, then is there any reason to think that these organisms, otherwise extremely similar, have not evolved from one another? I mean, one -knows- that organisms can change in evolutionary time via adaptations. The features that these organisms differ in are adaptive traits. Is it such a leap to propose that they in fact have an evolutionary relationship?


It is an indication that there may be a link and this is reason to consider and research (try to proove) evolution but it is not solid evidence.


And what does it mean when the morphological data, genetic data, and fossil data all indicate that the organisms share a close relationship? Are all these independant sets of data, lines of evidence, insufficient? What would be 'solid' evidence in your opinion? You indicate that this data isn't good enough to serve as 'proof', but that there would be something else. What are you saying that something else is?



badkitty:
If evolution is based on adaptation and survival of the fittest (along with the occastion mutation by mistake) how could all these different adaptations have occurred when it all started with one cell in one place?


Let me start by saying that, mutations are the source of variation. Natural selection is the process by which advantageous mutations increase in frequency in teh population (iow, idividuals with the advantage will produce more offspring with that advantage, thus the population as a whole comes to have more and more individuals with that advantage/mutation/trait).

Now, given that, why should it be a problem that it started with one cell?


badkitty:
How did the first fish reproduce?


I take it you mean, the first fish, it was alone, how could it reproduce, no?

The thing is, there was no first fish. Evolution is a populational phenomenon. By the process described above, the whole population moves (and this is not a directed process, I would just have a harder time than now trying to explain it without these terms) torwards 'fishiness'. All the traits of 'fishiness' don't have to be reached at the same time or anything like that either. One population of 'proto-fish' exists. This population has variability in multiple directions. Some idividuals have skin that isn't so smooth or is more wrinkled, others have a slightly higher concentration of this protein or that mineral in their muscles than other members of the population, and so on. If these traits are an advantage, then in the long run they will outbreed the others and the population as a whole will have this 'slightly higher concentration of this or that', this formerly uncommon trait, as a very common trait.

If the 'selection pressure' is strong, then the population, thru the same process repeated, with the individuals whom have a higher concentration of this protein, mineral, skin wrinkles (whatever) will be more successful, outbreed the other members of the population, and now the population as a whole has again become even more wrinkly/minerally/whatever.



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 08:28 PM
link   
We are all made from stardust and that's the bottom line. Were made of the same stuff as the moon and stars..



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Nygdan - thank you for your response. I appreciate your sharing.
I have a few more questions though:



But the bottom line is that one has populations of organisms that are evolving all the same characteristics of modern birds slowly thru time, ultimately to the point that one can't distinguish between 'dinosaurs' and 'birds'.

Could you please clarify this for me. Maybe it is the late hour but I'm not completely clear on this. Are you saying that there is some evidence that dinosaurs and birds are genticially indistinguisable? I'm not being sarcastic here - rember I said in a previous post I am working with a very limited knowledge on this subject.



The features that these organisms differ in are adaptive traits. Is it such a leap to propose that they in fact have an evolutionary relationship?

No, it is not at all. This seems logical to me it is futher back where I get hung up. (see next notes)



And what does it mean when the morphological data, genetic data, and fossil data all indicate that the organisms share a close relationship?

Again, this is not a leap for me - I can buy the evolution through adaptation and I'm sure you are aware of much more data than I am - it would be nice if you would provide me with specifics (i.e. links, names of studies and researchers, etc) so I can see it. Remember, we are supposed to be sharing knowledge here - if you have some that I don't, please let me in on it so I can develop an informed opinion.



Let me start by saying that, mutations are the source of variation. Natural selection is the process by which advantageous mutations increase in frequency in teh population (iow, idividuals with the advantage will produce more offspring with that advantage, thus the population as a whole comes to have more and more individuals with that advantage/mutation/trait).

Here's where I get hung up. Let's take this back to the very beginning. The first single celled organizm to evolve - there had to be a first right? Or did millions spontaneously appear? So if it all started with one cell which may have spawned another cell and another etc. We end up with a whole bunch of cells. Then one mutates and produces more mutants. One of those mutants mutates again and produces more mutated mutants. But somewhere down the line there had to have been a single mutation that started complex organisms, the kind that must mate to reproduce. There had to have been a first right? Or wrong. If wrong please try to explain to me how a herd of sheep just popped up one day.

As I said, I can understand how creatures can evolve through mutation, adaptation and natural selection what I am having trouble grasping is how the whole thing started. If as you say, there was no first fish but rather it is a population process - how did that population form in the first place?



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by badkitty
Thanks for sharing these links JP. I have a few questions though. The first link regarding symbiotic theory indicates that prokaryot cells were basically invaded by bacteria and the two learned to depend on eachother thus forming a more complex organism? Is that correct? If so, how did the bacteria evolve?


Are you asking where did the bacteria come from?
Simple chemical reactions evolved into simple cells. Now how did that happen? That's one of the biggest questions! It has been theorized that self replicating RNA is responsible for creating early life since it can encode genetic information and also act as a catalyst, a ribozyme.
Read more here: www.accessexcellence.org...
A bacterial cell is the simplest cell we know, so its valid to say that bacterial cells were the first cells. Also, simple viruses don't qualify as the first cells because they are parasites and they need a host. So, viruses evolved later on in the timeline.


Originally posted by Raphael
We are all made from stardust and that's the bottom line. Were made of the same stuff as the moon and stars..


Absolutely correct! We are all made of atoms created by nuclear fusion inside stars!

[edit on 8/11/2004 by jp1111]



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by badkitty


But the bottom line is that one has populations of organisms that are evolving all the same characteristics of modern birds slowly thru time, ultimately to the point that one can't distinguish between 'dinosaurs' and 'birds'.

Could you please clarify this for me. Maybe it is the late hour but I'm not completely clear on this. Are you saying that there is some evidence that dinosaurs and birds are genticially indistinguisable?


If you look at the most bird like 'dinobirds' and the most primitive 'birds', well, right there is the problem. You have to draw an arbitrary line between them (obviously, a t.rex is pretty obviously not a bird, along with other dinosaurs tho). Some would say that everything after and including archaeopteryx is a 'bird'. But there are organisms that are extremely archaeopteryx like that aren't considered birds. In modern times, there is this concept of 'birds'. They are feathered animals. All animals with feathers are birds. One sees 'birds' as a pretty distinct group. However, with the longview of the fossil record, one sees the continuum between birds and dinosaurs, and even more 'primitive' reptiles. The only reason 'birds' appear to be so distinct is because the 'primitive' dinosaurs have gone extinct. The same goes for mammals, more or less. There are very 'primitive' mammals out there, like the platypus (heck, it actually lays -eggs-). Succesively more and more 'primitive' mammals would appear less and less mammal like, and along the way you'd be saying to yourself, 'is this still a mammal? Is this one here still a mammal?'.

Genetics wise, there isn't any info on dinosaur genetics, so thats kinda a moot point.




nygdan:
with the advantage will produce more offspring with that advantage, thus the population as a whole comes to have more and more individuals with that advantage/mutation/trait.
badkitty:
Here's where I get hung up. Let's take this back to the very beginning. The first single celled organizm to evolve - there had to be a first right? Or did millions spontaneously appear?


I suspect that whatever abiogenetic process resulted in the first lifeforms resulted in just that, many multiple ones. An entire 'cell' or even 'bacteria' wouldn't have formed spontaneously and wholly. There are these things called 'micelles'. They form naturally, they are chemicals, one end of which avoids water, the other end of whic seeks out water. This means that if you throw a measure of these chemicals into water, they will, spontaneously, form little self contained speheres:



Now, of course, this is a long way off from a living organism. But you do have some of the essential characteristics. You have a lipid (these chemicals are lipids) bi-layer with an internal environment that can have different concentrations of chemicals than the external environment. I am not saying that abiogenesis (the production of life from non life) is this simple and straightforward, but you can see that a chemical process can create many of these sorts of things at once, rather then building an entire single functioning organism ad hoc with each event. Its much like considering the spread of an adaptation thru a population instead of a single individual giving birth to an altered organism. Except instead of an actual breeding population of organisms, here its a 'population' of chemicals.



But somewhere down the line there had to have been a single mutation that started complex organisms, the kind that must mate to reproduce. There had to have been a first right? Or wrong. If wrong please try to explain to me how a herd of sheep just popped up one day.


Sexual reproduction is merely the exchange of genetic material. Bacteria conjugate, they exchange parts of their genome with one another,


and also reproduce via regular asexual 'splitting' or 'division' or 'fission':


There isn't really a cut and dry division between sexual and asexual organisms. The first of these simple unicellular organisms to reproduce exclusively thru sexual exchange of genetic material would be able to participate in this exchange with the other members of its population, and merely not be able to undergo division.


If as you say, there was no first fish but rather it is a population process - how did that population form in the first place?


Well, if you are talking about abiogenesis, I don't want to give the impression that the actual process thru which life originated has been discovered. There is a large literature on the subject tho. Most of it involves lots of organic and inorganic chemistry and genetics.

But keep in mind that anything, whether alive or not, that has the ability to replicate itself, to produce copies of itself, will be able to 'participate' in natural selection. So a chemical process that results in a bunch of compounds that are able to replicate themselves will 'undergo' selection. The ones best able to make copies of themselves will, well, make more copies than the others, and as such will come to monopolize whatever resources are being used up in order to make the copies. Slight errors in copying (analgous to genetic mutations) are going to occur. Some will be neutral, others detrimental, and still others beneficial (iow, some will give the 'replicator' the ability to make even more copies of itself than the others without this benefit). That 'beneficial trait' will spread throughout the population just like in living populations of organisms, by 'outcompeteing' the others for the resources, the actual chemicals in the environment needed to build them.

So this will allways be a populational phenomenon, whether its inanimate chemicals undergoing selection, bacteria competeing for a resource, or 'proto-sheep'. A 'proto-sheep' will not give birth to one lone sheep. The popluation, as a unit, will slowly and diffusely become more sheep like. Its a continuum, not distinct units with gaps inbetween.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join