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 Paul_Richard
If you know what the term "missing link" is, then why did you ask what it meant?
>
The supposition of Charles Darwin that a whale could evolve into a bear (that he later omitted from his works because he couldn't substantiate it) was stated by Richard Milton in the documentary, The Mysterious Origins of Man. I am sure that he states it on the web somewhere, do a search.
>
The interview is on the second part of the documentary. The books of Zecharia Sitchin are widely known. Do a search.
>
If the "missing link" was found, then evolutionism (AKA the theory of evolution) would be espoused as FACT and no longer a THEORY.
I know you would like to think of it as fact, but the fact remains that it remains only a theory! A very bad theory at that.
Furthermore, you have failed to present any argument to convince us
that Richard Milton and the other scientists and archeologists in The Mysterious Origins of Man, as well as the US Air Force through Ms. Howe and Zecharia Sitchin are all wrong and that you are right.
They simply make much more sense than you do.
>
Dr. Borkowski was an adjunct biology instructor at Northern Virginia Community College, the Woodbridge Campus. He passed away in June of 2001. He espoused that there are three theories for the origins of humankind: Evolutionism, Creationism and Colonialism/Interventionism. He sided with the last theory. I know this because I worked at the school in administration at the time. If you need to confirm his existence and his credentials, I suggest you call the school.
Speaking of which, do you have any credentials? If you have any credentials, then from what college or university are they from?
Furthermore, if you do have any credentials, what makes them greater than or even equal to the scientists and archeologists in Origins (like Richard Milton), as well as Zecharia Sitchin?
Originally posted by junior_smith
and religion's only argument is that lall of that stuff that says the world is too old , is saying that the devil put it there
Originally posted by James the Lesser
The fact that the Earth goes around the sun is a theory. The fact that the Earth is round is a theory.
jakko:
: This is not a proof that macro evolution exists, this a proof micro-evolution exists. It does not proof evolution as a proces that created all life on earth, neither does it explain where life itself is coming from. The topic starter should probably first learn about micro-evolution and macro-evolution and abiogenesis before making such bold claims that turn out to be based on nothing in the end.
jamesthelesser:
The bible says creation, meaning that if microevolution is correct, then the bible is wrong.
jakko:
The dolphin-whale thing may prove something, but not that macro-evolution is real.
bartholomeo:
Yes it is undeniable proof of evolution in that particular kind of fish, but not on humans.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
Are you not understanding what adaptation is and why it should infact look superficially like design?
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.
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?
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?
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 :
- Populations are variable
- variability is inheritable
- 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?
Originally posted by SimpleTruth
My main contention is that every minute change by itself, as evolution requires, in most cases would not benefit an organism to the degree that it becomes the new constant within its own species.
So, if we are talking about mud-skippers, let's try and map out the progression of its evolution from when it was part of the fish community and contained only fins for swimming, to the actual mud-skipper. And then we could try and map it from there ahead to how and when mud-skippers eventually became a constant land-dwelling organism.
Certainly, the mud-skipper is not the first stage in transition from a fish that strictly swims.
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?
Of course! I do not have a problem with adaptation. Your pattern of logic you just stated is true. We see adaptation all around us. However, again, you can't use that to paint so broadly and say that a sponge is an early ancestor of the dog and many other current organisms. And no, you can't just touch on one intermediate step. There is no proof in just that one step. That's not how evolution is supposed to work anyways. So it's not enough for me, nor should it be for anyone else.
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?
Wow, you are actually starting to help me out here. As you admit, we don't know the whole fossil record yet, and you say that not all stages were fossilized. Well then, how can you take evolution beyond the status of theory and say there's proof?
Are you not understanding what adaptation is and why it should infact look superficially like design?
I know and understand adaptation. You are saying adaptation should look like design? You mean intelligent design or what?
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.
I know about nerves. So are you saying that photosensitive cells are most likely the very first stage in the development of the first eyes? Just curious.
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?
Could you map out the evolution of the eye? I would love to see how you explain the appearance of a more advanced eye with all the infrastructure from photosensitive cells.
Then speciation is inter kind evolution. Speciation is known to occur, its been observed. Therefore even inter kind evolution is observed.
No, that is an assumption.
How can we have observed inter kind evolution when it needs vast amounts of time to happen,
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?
I would say that the different categories of species were all created, and then from there on, there has been continual variety change within each different species.
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?
Admittedly, I don't know what that concept is. If you could define it for me, then I will be able to assess it from my point of view.
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 :
- Populations are variable
- variability is inheritable
- 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?
Again, I have no problem with the logic in your list.
Originally posted by DZMOBROWN
Here's something to think about. What if that long time ago, there were humans that evolved as suggested and then God/Gods/aliens however you want to put it did what some suggest and created a more perfect human. What makes me wonder about this is the Christian bible Genesis where it says something about the Sons of God saw the daughters of blah, blah that they were beautiful. To me that makes me picture one group of humans looking down their noses at another group of 'humans' they generally thought were not their equal and thinking to themselves...hmm, she maybe white, or black, or wasn't created by blah, blah, but ya know she has a great figure.
Originally posted by James the Lesser
Or as said, the flu virus evolves every year. I know it is microevolution, but the bible says creation, not Creation and Microevolution, so bible wrong. And you can interpret the bible to include microevolution. I could interpret it to include aliens raping monkeys and humans growing out of monkey feces. But it isn't what is written, what is written is creation.
Originally posted by Simcity4Rushour
www.sciencedaily.com...
So you say evolution isn't real, well here's a studied case starting from one type and ending with a totally new genetically different type.
There can be no denyng this Proof.
[edit on 10-8-2004 by John bull 1]
Originally posted by James the Lesser
With I think Nyden(sp?) the fact that Earth revovles around the sun is still a theory. Why? Because we don't know why it revovlves in the exact spot and exact way, why doesn't it move faster? Slower? More/Less round/oval revolution?
Or Round Earth, why is it round? What is in the middle? Some people think that the earth is hollow and centrifigal(sp?) force, not gravity is at work on the planet. Deepest we've ever gone is what? 5-10 miles?
Survival OF THE FITTEST IS THE MAIN PART of evolution. Reason Apples can survive in colder weather now than they could in 1800 is because they evolved resistances to cold, and those apple trees flourished in area where others died, and so the cold abled trees survived, the non cold abled died.
And you can interpret the bible to include microevolution. I could interpret it to include aliens raping monkeys and humans growing out of monkey feces.
But it isn't what is written, what is written is creation.
ad5673:
That[the original article] prooves absolutley nothing