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.
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?
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.
godservant:
Atoms don't touch their neighbor, so there is empty space between atoms and they are held together magnetically.
godservant:
We are mostly empty space. How then[..]can we think, feel, love, hate,
paul richard:
The premise of the founder of evolutionary theory, Charles Darwin, was that given enough time, a whale could evolve into a bear.
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.
There still isn't any evidence to support it, which is why the infamous missing link was never found.
simpletruth:
I concede that this article may lend very good evidence for micro-evolution
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
simpletruth:
This is so common sense!
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.
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.
Proof that yellow evolved to blue or vice versa!!
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.
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.
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.
quote: simpletruth:
This is so common sense!
Nature can be mighty clever
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.
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?
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.
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 :
- Populations of organisms are variable and this variation is inheritable
- 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]
All matters of physics, chemistry, and biological processes known to man, are universally subject�without exception�
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 :
- Populations of organisms are variable and this variation is inheritable
- 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?
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."
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
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)[...]
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?
Richard Milton, Scientific Censorship & Evolution
Richard Milton -- Shattering the Myths of Darwinism
Milton/Foley Debate
Additionally, I knew and worked with a biology teacher by the name of Dr. Tom Borkowski
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.
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.
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??
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 which way is it, and I will take the debate from there.
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?
quote: simpletruth:
This is so common sense!
Nature can be mighty clever
Oh, but not as clever as you, huh?
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,
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.
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.
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.
something different from the logic of evolution, which is flawed, and is what you use.
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
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]
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)
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.
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.
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?
badkitty:
How did the first fish reproduce?
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'.
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?
And what does it mean when the morphological data, genetic data, and fossil data all indicate that the organisms share a close relationship?
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).
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?
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..
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?
badkitty:
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.
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?
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.
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?