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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Nygdan,

If you know what the term "missing link" is, then why did you ask what it meant?

I listed the sites to demonstrate that the term "evolutionism" is widely used because you stated that there is no such thing as "evolutionism." I do not necessarily agree with all the information on the sites mentioned.

>

>

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. But I also suggest getting the two-part video, as it addresses related topics.

>

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! *L* 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.

Regarding Dr. Thomas Borkowski...

>

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?




posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
If you know what the term "missing link" is, then why did you ask what it meant?


Some people use 'missing link' to mean a transitional between man and chimp. Others use it to mean any transitional. Lots of different people use it in lots of different ways. I didn't want to assume that you meant one or the other.



>


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.


I did, he didn't


>

The interview is on the second part of the documentary. The books of Zecharia Sitchin are widely known. Do a search.


Do a search for what? I haven't asked for any information in the above. Horizontal transfer is a process that goes on today, without alien interference. Alien involvment is not a good explanation for the pressence of bacterial genes in the human genome.



>

If the "missing link" was found, then evolutionism (AKA the theory of evolution) would be espoused as FACT and no longer a THEORY.


The very page you sited for you definition of 'missing link' specifically stated that it had been found. What they were getting at was that, say you have man and a distant ancestor. One expects a link between them. That fossil hasn't been found yet. Now we find it. Now we have man, a more recent ancestor, and a more distant ancestor. We also can still have a 'missing link', infact, we expect two missing links now, one between man and the recent ancestor and one between the recent ancestor and the distant ancestor. I explained this in the previous post.
On the fact/theory issue. This is a common misunderstanding. The occurance of Evolution is a fact. Populations of organisms change over time. There is also a 'Theory of Evolution'. Darwin's Theory of Evolution was the the primary mechanism by which evolution occurs is Natural Selection. Most people (technicians researchers and laypeople) unfortunately get sloppy in their usage an refer to the "Theory of Evolution", whereas the "Theory of Evolution thru Natural Selection" would be less confusing and more accurate.


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.


You can think of it as fact because its a fact that alleles change over time. Also, theories never become facts. They don't graduate into facts or anything like that. An hypothesis will be refered to as a theory if its well corroborated, hasn't been refuted/falsified, and is generally accepted as being accurate. But a theory does not, no matter how many experiements confirm it, ever becomes a fact. Nothing can change the fact that the allele ratio in organismal populations changes over time. However the theory of evolution occuring thru natural selection can be falsified by experiment. Evolutionary biologists have, effectively, been trying ever since darwin published The Origin of Species to falsify and refute his hypothesis. None have succeeded in nearly 200 years. Tommorrow someone might suceed.


Furthermore, you have failed to present any argument to convince us


Who is 'us'? I am not trying to convince you of anything.


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.


All you have presented so far is that

  1. Sumerian tablets are evidence that aliens have interefered with human history
  2. that someone in the airforce thinks aliens exist
  3. That there are alien genes in the human genome


Of these three items, the first two you didn't elaborate on at all, you merely made statements. Thats not much to go on. On the third, the link indicated that Sitchin thinks that the pressence of bacterial genes in the human genome indicates that aliens put them there. I have already explained that this process is known as horizontal transfer and that it occurs without alien interference. Since aliens aren't required to do it, why do you think aliens did it?


They simply make much more sense than you do.

How?






>

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.


I am merely asking out of curiosity. You seemed to indicate you did research with him. What kind of research?


Speaking of which, do you have any credentials? If you have any credentials, then from what college or university are they from?


I have a Bachelor of Science in Geology and a Bachelor of Science in Biology both of which I received from SUNY Albany in NY. What credentials do you have?


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?


Absolutely nothing. What difference would it make if they did?





posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Nygdan, Paul, theory, in the scientific sense, does not mean guess, not known, or an idea, it is fact. The fact that the Earth goes around the sun is a theory. The fact that the Earth is round is a theory. Theory does not mean guess, no facts, or acid trip gone bad. Or another theory, the Theory of Gravity. We all know gravity exists, but how? Why? Why are some things effected more than others? How does a black hole work? If gravity only works on things with mass then how does a black hole suck in light photons, something with no mass? That is why it is Theroy of Gravity. It is fact we know it exists, we know alot about how it works and what it does, but we don't know everything about it, do we?

Paul, microevolution has been proven. Why do you think the 1998 flu antivirus doesn't work on the 2004 antivirus? Evolution. Why do you think apples now aday can live in colder areas today than they could in the past? Evolution. And when did Darwin say Whale into a Bear? Evolution is not that! A wolf into a dog? NO! It went wolf, dif. animal, dif. animal, etc etc until we got to dogs. If I wanted to i could get into the detailed names of the scientific names of the transitional animals of the wolf to dog, but I don't feel like using google for the next hour to get all the names. A wolf did not become a dog, a wolf became something else, which changed into something else, etc. until it became a dog.



posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 07:52 AM
link   

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


Another ignorant generalising statement from a Christian basher.
I don't think I have to explain myself.

On topic: 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.

[edit on 14-8-2004 by Jakko]



posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Jakko, you can't say microevolution exists but that the bible is right. The bible says creation, meaning that if microevolution is correct, then the bible is wrong. And no proof of macro evolution? Uh, wasn't it stated several times about whales and dolphins that have gone from land to water? The fossil records show it happening, there is no missing link witht at for they have the fossils that show the land animal becoming a water animal. That is macroevolution.



posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Once again, macro evolution has not been proven.
The dolphin-whale thing may prove something, but not that macro-evolution is real. As for the bible coexisting with micro-evolution, yes it is very possible, but I think you do not know enough about the bible to say anything about it anyway.



posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Yes it is undeniable proof of evolution in that particular kind of fish, but not on humans.



posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Uh, dolphins and whales are mammals, not fish. And Jakko, the bible does not say Creation and Microevolution, it says creation, which means anything else proves the bible wrong. Microevolution proves that creation is wrong because the bible says creation, not creation and something else.

And what then does the evolution of a land mammal evolving into a sea mammal prove if not Macroevolution? Instead of whale becoming a bear it is the bear becoming a whale.



posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 10:40 PM
link   

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.


This is incorrect. A theory is, amoung other things, something that further experimentation and more data can, at least potentially, falsify. A fact can not be falsified, even potentially. Gravity occurs, this is a fact. There are theories about how and why it occurs. In modern physics, I think the consesus theory is that spacetime is curved. Evolution is a fact; meaning populations of organisms do change over time. Darwin's theory is that this occurs thru natural selection. Its not a 'guess', its an hypothesis, 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.


Macroevolution is merely microevolution over an extremely long period of time. It isn't, necessarily, operationally different. IOW, it occurs thru the same mechanism, and is explainable via the same mechanism. If you want to say that this isn't proof of macroevolution (which is also called speciation in some formulations) then you (or whoever) need to explain why these microevolutionary processes aren't sufficient.


jamesthelesser:
The bible says creation, meaning that if microevolution is correct, then the bible is wrong.


A particular interpretation of the bible says that organism were created whole at the begining, so that interpretation isn't compatible with modern biology, but the bible, on its own, can clearly and reasonably be interpreted in several ways.


jakko:
The dolphin-whale thing may prove something, but not that macro-evolution is real.


So you are saying that land animals evolving into dolphins and whales is not evidence for macroevolution? What definition of macroevolution are you thinking of in this discussion?


bartholomeo:
Yes it is undeniable proof of evolution in that particular kind of fish, but not on humans.

But the same process, the same mechanism, the same types of genetic changes, are observed in human populations. Is there some reason to think that these processes magically are able to occur in humans, but that its somehow not evolution?



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 08:42 AM
link   


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.


Yes, but I'm trying to focus on one example here; one of the many branches on the evolutionary tree. I just wanted to trace the progression of the mud-skipper and talk about the different stages of transition it supposedly went through of it alone. (But maybe you're saying that mud-skippers and lobe-finned fish are in the same progression? i.e. mud-skippers are a later version/development of lobe-finned fish or vice versa? That would help clarify to me what you're saying better.) 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. And, if we are to follow evolution, it would not be the second step or third or even fourth step. So, with the many steps, we can say that each step must be very small. And you can insert my whole contention at this point. Could you describe the exact, or what you would think to be, theoretically, the very first step in the progression of a fish to a mud-skipper? And then please justify as to how this one minute step gave it an edge over the rest of its species?




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 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.


Fair enough, that statement wasn't relevant. My apologies.




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?


Since you seem to be much more privy on the information, please enlighten me. 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. Besides, I didn't describe the whole evolution of the eye, all I did was focus on a potential stage.



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, and the idea of evolution is so brief in the scheme of things and therefore we have only been paying attention to this idea for about the equivalent of a milisecond in all of time?



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 :

  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?


Again, I have no problem with the logic in your list.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 08:49 AM
link   
the only PROOF of evolution that I will accept is when.. .

God, Jesus or the Holy Spirit comes to me, face to face and says :

I ( we ) didn't create you, you come from evolution !

only then will I beleive in it !

Oh wait, that statement contradicts itself doesn't it..



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 01:46 PM
link   

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.


And what data do you have that supports this? If the slightly different fins that mudskippers have can give them a selective advantage, why are you saying it can't give another organism and advantage? And How much more minute and 'steplike' does a transformation have to get than that between ray fins and lobe fins?


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.


Mudskippers
I am not proposing that they are part of the evolutionary lineage from fully water borne animals to terrestrial animals, and I don't understand why you would as the last sentence. I am citing them because you are saing slight changes can't be helpful and that selection can't be cumulative.


Certainly, the mud-skipper is not the first stage in transition from a fish that strictly swims.


Please explain why. Tho, I am not stating that the mudskipper itself is that organism. It does demonstrate that these minor variations are possible and can be beneficial, which is what you were questioning.




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.


If you accept that adaptation occurs, and you accept that the fossil record exists, then how can you possibly state that more is required? We have the ability for organisms to change in nearly anyway, adaptation. We have examples in the fossil record of intermediates. No, there isn't a complete record, some species appear to have not been preserved. And yes, the actual progression itself is often debateable. What isn't debated is whether or not adaptation just magically stops at some imaginary 'kind' barrier.




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?


Again, evolution is the change in the allele frequencies of a population over time. It is a fact that this occurs. Then there is darwin's theory of evolution, which is that it occurs thru a mechanism of adaptation. You have stated that there is nothing wrong with the idea that adaptaion occurs. So what is the issue here? Unless you can propose some way, some mechanism, some barrier, that prevents adaptation from changing an organism substantially, then this is something of a non starter.




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?


I am saying that adaptation thru natural selection is expected to produce traits and even entire organisms that will appear designed.




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 said that photosenstive pigments are involved in the most primitive eyes that we know of.





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.


[edited to add:
ok here are a few references on the evolution of the eye. I haven't read al of these, but they should serve you well.

  1. Lythgoe, J. N. (1979). The Ecology of Vision, Oxford University Press, Oxford (and also Clarendon Press, New York).
  2. Goldsmith, T.H. (1990). "Optimization, Constraint, and History in the Evolution of Eyes", Quarterly Review of Biology, 65(3):281-322.
  3. Nilsson, D.-E. and S. Pelger, 1994. A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 256: 53-58.
  4. Land, M. F. and D.-E. Nilsson, 2002. Animal Eyes. Oxford University Press
  5. Dawkins, Richard, 1996. Climbing Mount Improbable, New York: W.W. Norton, chpt. 5 [this i can personally recommend, its written for the general public and deals with lots of different issues in evolution]
  6. Don Lindsay, How Could An Eye Evolve?
  7. Fernald RD,The evolution of eyes. Brain Behav Evol. 1997;50(4):253-9.


It would be best if you read some of these sources, the various authors can definitely do a better and more detailed job of this than i could. I would also recommend taking note of the sources they use for the more technical papers on the subject. If you actually have a specific criticism of the process, then I'd like to hear it, but it looks like you are just asking me to present my scenario for how eye evoluion has gone about, and then want to challenge particular point on it. I am afraid that wouldn't be very useful, because I am certainly no expert. The best thing to do is look at the literature on the subject, come up with some criticisms, and then try to find out if those criticisms have been addressed.




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.


The paper in question demonstrates that speciation occurs. You have defined kinds as equivalent to species. Thus interkind evolution occurs. Its not an assumption, its a necessary statement. Kinds are species, speciation has been observed, therefore 'interkind' evolution has been observed to occur.


How can we have observed inter kind evolution when it needs vast amounts of time to happen,


The how is irrelevant. We simply have observed it. How we observed it doesn't change having observed it. Besides, the how is in the papers on observed instances of speciation.




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.


Earlier you stated that a kind is equivalent to a species, but now you are saying that they are different. Are you or are you not saying that every species that exists now and exists in the fossil record existed at creation?




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.


I can't imagine what the baraminological species concept is ( Baraminology is what some people like to refer to the study of kinds as, to make it sound scientific), since kinds don't exist in the first place.




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?


Again, I have no problem with the logic in your list.


The above list is the entire basis for darwinian theory and logic. Given the above, its a logical immposibility for evolution to not occur. Unless there is some sort of natural barrier to adaptation, or a supernatural entity miraculously prevents it from happening.

[edit on 16-8-2004 by Nygdan]



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Personally, I think Misfit's examples of a butterfly and a frog sum it up quite simply.


Of course, you could always look at vestigal leg bones in whales, etc. but hardly necessary...



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Has anyone noticed that it appears to be both creation and evolution on this planet. An example of evolution is, I'm only 29 but in my short life time i've noticed how human babies born now are born with their eyes open, plenty of hair and a lot more active. When I was a young child I remember the norm was babies were born with their eyes closed and less hair. So yes there seems to be evol. At the same time speaking for creatism when I look at Animal planet and they tell me things such as a snakes venom evolved, or a whales sonar navigation evolved, or other little things that if you think about it doesn't make since. I just can't see where saliva can evolve into venom. No matter how many millions of years pass. Actually the only way I can accept that is if, most organisms on this planet, somehow thru will or necessity can i....never mind cause that doesn't explain it.

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.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 03:03 PM
link   

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.


i agree dzmo..a fine example was laid to me by a good friend of mine(and i dont want peeps to think it is offensive bcause i dont mean to be)
the general populace of the world has its own form of male/female beauty..i.e in the samoan islands they like their women large so large women flourish and small women die out...i think this applies worldwide but in different tolerance`s....i.e western women think that thin is the ideal
so eventually in different locales,humans will evolve in2 the human that will breed and survive the best
i think we are all inbuilt with an instint that makes us look for suitable mates so our dna can carry on...if your choice of mates is diminished...i.e a thin girl in the samoans...maybe 2 out of 10 thin girls wont breed so that leaves a smaller dna pool to choose from...eventually all the thin girls on the samoans will die out
if i remember correctly they have tracked that the last true blonde in the world will be born in norway in about 50yrs i think
i think that proves evolution
just to note peeps...i believe in god and jesus...but i also believe he is leaving us to our own devices until the s**t really hits the fan...that is y evolution is happening...IMO



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 03:40 PM
link   
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?

But again, Jakko, what do you consider Macroevolution? If Bear into whale isn't Macroevolution, then what is?(It wasn't a bear, but people go "Well then a whale can become a bear" because they don't understand evolution)

For those who don't realize it, evolution is not a whale into a bear because they want/think it has to happen to prove evolution right. It would be a whale into a bear in the case where evolving into a bear would be the best for survival. 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.

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.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 03:59 PM
link   

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.


Your approach on what the bible says about creation, as well on micro and macro evolution is quite a simplistic one.
I do not think you know enough about the bible, and common interpretations to say anything about it.
"the bible says creation, the bible is wrong" maybe you, with your enlightened mind, can share with us how life on earth came to be?
And don't start with the whale dolphin bullsh*t, that does not explain how we can have thousands of different species on earth.

Also I'd like to see some links on the whale thing, do you have any?



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 04:42 PM
link   

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]

That prooves absolutley nothing.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 06:44 PM
link   

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?


But none of that changes the fact that it is round. Facts are very different from theories. Its factual to say that such and such document was signed on such and such day, or that my house is this colour or my address is such and such. There is the factual aspect of evolution; that it occurs, and the theoretical, the 'why' that you pointed out above. Darwin thought it was primarily thru natural selection. Some scientists have opted for 'mutationism' (c.f. saltationism) and other ideas. Creationists, on the other hand, can't even come up with scientific theories about how it happens


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.


Precisely.


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.


That would make an interesting psalm....


But it isn't what is written, what is written is creation.


I really do think that you have to keep in mind that a person doesn't have to take a literal reading of genesis. One could very obviously take it to be divinely inspired and still be an allegory, rather than history; ie. man came from dust can be intended to keep us humble, rather than mean man literally was moulded out of lumps of dust.


ad5673:
That[the original article] prooves absolutley nothing

Why?



posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 03:10 AM
link   
lol, thats micro evolution not macro evolution.

Creationists generally have no problem agreeing that if you keep breeding fish you'll get fish.

Creationists know that if you keep breeding fish you will never get a dolphin.

When they show me a former fish along with bodies for all the evolutionary steps that now uses lungs to breathe, feeds its young milk and is warm blooded then I might start to entertain the fact that its not impossible to get from molecules to man by random chance processes.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join