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.

 

Question for Evolutionist's

page: 20
13
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Hydroman
 


AMEN




posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
DD
edit on 15-9-2011 by Donkey_Dean because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   
I didn't read the entire thread, since you guys got into quite the religious argument here.. I thought I would link to an article that answers the OP.



A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait. And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events. Twenty years ago, evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski of Michigan State University in East Lansing, US, took a single Escherichia coli bacterium and used its descendants to found 12 laboratory populations. The 12 have been growing ever since, gradually accumulating mutations and evolving for more than 44,000 generations, while Lenski watches what happens.

Full Article
Scientists have indeed watched evolution take place in the lab.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   
news.nationalgeographic.com...

Micro evolution is well know, most creationists only like to argue macro evolution because of how long it takes to occur making it more difficult to prove. So again i show you the lizard that evolved in just a few decades after its introduction to an island.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Dreamer99
 


Completely discredited old saw alert: I predict the stale nonsense about "micro" vs. "macro" evolution will be trotted out now.

The Lenski experiments are really cool, though.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by sacgamer25
reply to post by seabhac-rua
 


The bible is the only book of all religions that has yet to be proven false. Even if we prove that the earth is more than 6000 years old, which we have not and cannot through science faith, This would not be proof that the bible is incorrect as the bible clearly states a day to god may not be the same as it is to us. Science also theorizes that time may not be a constant throughout history and the universe. So the same science that may one day prove an old earth may also prove time may not be a constant. Most if not all of the other books actually disprove themselves by conflicting passages, or math that is inaccurate.


Hahaha, yeah right.

Intelligence doesn't seem to be your strong point, so I'll say it simply: the bible is not factually accurate.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by Zeer0
 


Thanks but the Fossil Record is not scientific method science, it's purely speculative because its not observable, repeatable, or refutable and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory. Sounds like a faith to me?


But you are basing you notions on a book, written back when a wheel was considered
high technology. This scientific community is smart enough to create something that can
fly to other planets. In fact, biblical wisdom did not lead to you be able to transmit this,
the scientific community did.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   
There are mutations in a species, like over time losing a toe or getting bigger but there is no proof of evolution from one species to another, like fish to human or whatever. I think the bible or any religion are nice fairy tales, again no proof. So I don't believe in evolution or religion, so what am I left with? Aliens or spontaneous appearance or?



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by sacgamer25
reply to post by izero
 


I don't vote because we don't live in a democracy and I am a well educated business man whose decisions impact hundreds of people. And not one of them believes I am crazy. And I believe in a young earth that neither I nor science can explain.



You don't vote because you don't live in a democracy?

In my country you have to vote it's the law! Now that's not living in a democracy.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Xcalibur254 says:
“Not really. Some of the most basic forms of mutation have names like Amplification (also known as Duplication) and Insertion. In both of these cases new nucleotides are added to an individual's DNA.”

We see lots of mutations. Most common are color, such as albinism. I can’t think of any other that don’t have negative consequences for the individual.
You might also do some real research on “setting” that mutation into the particular creature. It is difficult even in a controlled environment. In the wild it would be the rarest happenstance. First the individual must survive to breeding age. Then his offspring must survive and breed either to the parent or to each other.

UniverSoul, Albinism definitely takes something away.

Nosred, The reason Danes & Chis can’t breed together has nothing to do with compatible fertility. If all of today’s dogs were turned loose in the wild, it would only take a few generations for them all to look like wolves. Nothing in their appearance today has anything to do with evolution.

Yes dogs and wolves are the same Genus…Canis.

iterationzero says, “Given that evolution doesn't occur in individual organisms, your reply is meaningless. You should at least take the time to understand the concepts you're trying to discuss.”

If it doesn’t occur in an individual, how does it replicate?

iterationzero, I don’t think any of are thoroughly adept at all these steps in these scientific terms of the classification of life. I had considered species as above genus. Regardless, we are saying that there is no evidence that plants become animals or vice-versa. Or even that they came from the same forbear.

So we can create new “species”, which still is not evidence of evolution that would take it beyond being in a different classification. “Species” is as far as they get.

If there were no donkeys in existence today, would they look at fossils of donkeys and declare them to be a forbear of the horse?

Both Evolutionists and Creationists base their beliefs on faith. One has a book, the other has a pile of old bones. The old bones that looks similar are not evidence that one creature changed into another. They are similar creatures that lived at different times.
In fact, many of them lived at the same time. They don’t want you to know this tho and not much is ever said about it.

It was once thought that Neandthal man was predecessor to the Cro-Magnon. Oops, they walked the Earth together, even bred together. It was also thought that Cro-Magnon was a simple brutish savage. Wrong again; he was in fact a very sophisticated human. He wore clothes, with tailored collars, hats, pants with cuffs, shoes. There is even evidence that he built houses.

s8int.com...



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeussusZ
 


I think you have a misconception of evolution. Each species evolved independently from each other. A fish doesn't turn into a human, and humans aren't evolved chimpanzees. Evolution doesn't happen like it does in Pokemon.

Mutations occurring over many many generations can radically change a species. Like scales turning into feathers, or light sensitive cells developing into an eye. After many generations of mutations adapting to the multitude of conditions and environments, a diverse array of species can develop.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


First start with some of Darwins work on other species such as birds, it will give you a good base on how evolution works and how enviroments effect how things adapt and change..



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by Zeer0
 


Thanks but the Fossil Record is not scientific method science, it's purely speculative because its not observable, repeatable, or refutable and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory. Sounds like a faith to me?


But you are basing you notions on a book, written back when a wheel was considered
high technology. This scientific community is smart enough to create something that can
fly to other planets. In fact, biblical wisdom did not lead to you be able to transmit this,
the scientific community did.


You had better not spout that nonsense in front of mr. Perry he might deal with you like a real Texan.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Logic is funny Logic says that if there was once an Ice Age and humans naturaly gravitatate to warmer temps and coastlines then many civilizations must be submerged. Logic would also dictate that if scientist are correct and humans have evolved from ape then some humans must, by necessity, be less advanced than other humans. Take the reptile alligator, as example, or the shark, we hear that they are practicaly the next best thing . Where is the human example? If reptiles predate human then the human is less advanced. Where are the examples. Logical answer. They never existed,we are what we always have been.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by sacgamer25
Well if I believe God created everything, its not that great a leap of faith that he got them all in the ark now is it.
Then you should ask, "If he's going to go through that trouble to get all those animals to safety on a boat, why not just build the boat himself instead of having an old man and his sons do it?" Or "Why doesn't he just teleport them to another inhabitable planet while he kills everyone on this one?" Or "Why doesn't he just snap his fingers and kill everyone that he wants dead instead of using a natural phenomenon such as a flood, where there could be survivors?"

I mean, if he's going to bring all the animals to safety himself, why stop there?

EDIT: Connector beat me to it.
edit on 15-9-2011 by Hydroman because: (no reason given)


Gen 7:2 Of every clean 2889 beast 929 thou shalt take 3947 to thee by sevens 7651 7651, the male 376 and his female 802: and of beasts 929 that [are] not clean 2889 1931 by two 8147, the male 376 and his female 802.

Gen 7:3 Of fowls 5775 also of the air 8064 by sevens 7651 7651, the male 2145 and the female 5347; to keep 2421 0 seed 2233 alive 2421 upon the face 6440 of all the earth 776.

remove words with no number after them as they are not in the original text

clean beast take seven male female, beasts unclean two, male female
fowls of air seven, male female keep seed alive face earth.

so that's
7male + 7female clean beasts =14
1male + 1female unclean beasts=2
7male + 7female fowls=14

for a grand total of 30.

edit on 15-9-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by Youji69
 


So there's nothing actually observable? We have to just believe that one fossil became another without seeing it happen? I know its supposed to take "millions and millions of years" but if that's the case wouldn't we see animals even today evolving and becoming a knew kind? How come we never see this? I think it takes alot of faith to believe one animal genus became another with no one ever seeing it happen.


All it takes is acceptance that you don't live long enough to see the process occur. There's evidence all over the planet of evolution. Taking into account all that evidence, if you decide to ignore it, then that is entirely your choice, but it's an accepted science and does not require your belief to work. If you're questioning evolution, then drug resistance in microbes is a good place to start for VISIBLE proof.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by MissingRonnieR
 


Not much logic there.

We did not evolve from apes we share a common ancestor.

Evolution is not about the next gen being more advanced but more able to survive in their enviroment.

There are many variations within a herd/group it is a strength not a weakness because if sudden change comes some will be more able to survive than others to pass on their genes. That is how evolution works.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 06:30 PM
link   
Sigh...There is so much dis-information in here that I'm sitting here just frustrated out of my mind because I have no way of addressing it all.

The main argument I see here by the Creation supporters is focused on an aspect of Evolution that does not even exist because it is incorrect. They are basing their entire argument on a misinterpretation of Evolutionary theory.

First of all, there have been countless examples of micro and in even some cases, macro-evolution within the last generation. It is exceedingly rare, however, and it is very unlikely that we will see any examples of significance in terms of macro evolution within our lifetimes.

Why? Well, evolution happens over thousands of generations and is always in response to a drastic change in the environment. Say, extreme climate change, or massive changes in the ecosystem. Because we as a species have reached a point where we do not necessarily need to adapt on a biological level to survive (due to technology and medicine), there is no need for us to evolve. And in most cases, humans try to maintain the environment and ecosystems around us, so the drastic environmental changes brought on by something like an extinction level event or an ice age are not something we regularly encounter.

Evolution is not like how you see it in Pokemon. A lizard doesn't turn into a dog overnight. An organism that is already born and living will not evolve. It is the future generations, over thousands and millions of years, that will change to adapt to environmental changes. The strongest survive, and live on to reproduce. From time to time there are slight mutations in the offspring of a certain species. Sometimes these mutations are bad. Sometimes they are good, and they allow that species to prosper. These traits are passed down through DNA, and over many generations, they eventually become very different from the original species they once were. But please understand, they do not go from one species to another completely different species in one step...Along the way, over those millions of years, they change slowly, to very similar versions of the parent species.

The common domestic Dog is decended from the Wolf. But a Wolf didn't just give birth to a Dog one day...The domestic Dog was actually created by humans, through forced breeding of certain Dogs with certain traits they wanted to pass on. By ensuring that only certain traits were able to be passed on through generations, we managed to create many different species of dogs. That's why some dogs are big, some are small, some are good for hunting, some are smarter than others, some have long snouts, short snouts, etc...

Now, if you want to see a fish turn into a cat, you're going to have to introduce a drastic environmental change that lasts for thousands and millions of years, AND live that long to see it. It's not that we CAN'T observe macro evolution...It's just that it takes so long, it isn't possibly unless you live forever. Fossil records ARE observable AND repeatable, if you can live long enough to see it. Just because it isn't in our capacity to see it ourselves, doesn't mean it doesn't happen!



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Sorry for the double post but I just want to add a few things...

One of the common mistakes I often see Creation supporters make is that they treat evolution and science as a religion. This is incorrect.

You need to understand that evolution is not a belief. It is not routed in faith. It is an explanation that scientists have been able to put together based on all the evidence collected on the subject. It is not some fixed, unchanging belief. It is CONSTANTLY changing based on new information we are able to gather as our understanding of the world increases. And guess what? These changes don't disprove evolution...They reinforce it!

Trust me...Memebers of the scientific community would be THRILLED if evolution could somehow be disproven. Research scientists and theorists work their entire lives to be "the one" that discovers some new amazing scientific theory...To be the next Einstein or Newton or Darwin. If evolution COULD somehow be disproven, it already would have been. The problem is that the more we understand the world around us, and biology, and the history of the planet, the more we see instances of evolution having taken place.

Science is not a belief system. It is a way of explaining what we see around us based on evidence. When new evidence presents itself, scientific theories changes to reflect that.

This is the fundamental difference between science and religion. While science adapts to new evidence. religion instead tries to deny the new evidence in a poor attempt to do everything it can not to change.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   
I re-read the OP's question, it does not ask for any disproving of any other theory, just asks for real proof of evolution. Posters then brought in religion because they really have no way of proving evolution so slag something else to get other posters to agree with them. The OP did not bring religion into the debate, it is not needed to prove evolution is not provable. Adaptation is provable. If evolution is true, where are the dinosaurs, they should still be here, there is plenty of vegetation all over the world for them to survive on.




top topics



 
13
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join