It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 01:21 AM

Originally posted by ztruthseeker

Heres a video i found with a quick search. there is tons of information, enjoy

thats a good video..
hiv is an incredibly random and violent virus..
its testament to the future we are heading for. super bugs are around and it wont be long until a new virus appears that will adapt drug resistance and wipe the population out.
its a when not if thing, and we are making this a more realistic outcome everyday.
edit on 15-9-2011 by UniverSoul because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 01:24 AM
Wow..After a few pages I just had to stop reading...I have a feeling anything I say will not be enough but I'll give a go anyway...

Hopefully I posted that right. Intresting read. These human beings appear to be becoming a different type of human and time can only tell what the continued result will be or what could be from their genes being put with the general population at its currently evolved state. Evolution is not instant.It takes time. I learned this in grade school in the bible buckle of the bible belt.I beleive we were created and that we evolved.Its fact because I am sitting here breathing.My great ancestors did not have the immmunity to things I have,looking at family photos, I evolved to be much taller than all those who shared my genes before me.That how we evolve.Through environment and procreation and this thing called natural selection. Your genes are passed through DNA which joins with some of your significant others genes(dna) and the result is a new baby which was born of your genes but has become totally different from your other halfs genes.This keeps happening until(yes..dare I say...) a mutation occurs latter down the line and what started with you may be a human with gills able to breathe under water.Depending on ones environment and genes inherited is what determines the evolution of a species..its not instant..though you can,with a little patience,see this thing called evolution take place in your children and grandchildren if you look close enough. Really trying not to come accross sarcastic...
Be Blessed my friend.
edit on 06/08/2011 by cyberboiraves because: workin on link

edit on 06/08/2011 by cyberboiraves because: stubborn link

edit on 06/08/2011 by cyberboiraves because: finally!

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 01:43 AM
reply to post by UniverSoul

no more replies?

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 01:45 AM

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?

God / religions of the world doesn't fit this criteria either. I have more faith in the fossil record than I do in a book that was compiled by an emperor of Rome and his drinking / orgy buddies.

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 02:25 AM
God is so boring. Why do all vertebrates have four limbs and one head with two eyes and one mouth below the eyes? Yawn.

If I was an omnipotent being, you would see a whole lot more variation. And I mean a lot. Beings your puny impotent minds couldn't even begin to conceive of.

Ah but then I wouldn't be working in mysterious ways or testing my creations faith, the ultimate cop out clause. Yes, I think I'll stick with being a mysterious entity in the background wanting people to worship me from faith alone, but only communicating my wishes to a tiny number of people in one desert region 4000 years ago. Let's hope they write down those wishes in some book which is spread around the world by empires. Yup. That's the way to go. Now off for a power crazed fap. That Mary chick looks nice.

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:04 AM

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.
Profound change

Mostly, the patterns Lenski saw were similar in each separate population. All 12 evolved larger cells, for example, as well as faster growth rates on the glucose they were fed, and lower peak population densities.

But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations - the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.

A team led by bioengineering researchers at UC San Diego report in the November issue of Nature Genetics rapid evolutionary changes in a bacterial genome, observed in near-real time over a few days. Scientists have previously published static "snapshots" of the genome sequences of more than 100 bacterial species, from the harmless to those that cause plague, but this new report shows how these genomes are moving targets.

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:13 AM
You share 99% of your genes with a chimp... isn't that some evidence that at least get's you thinking? If not, alligators are more or less living fossils, unbelievably closely linked to dinosaures, more or less the same is true for birds. I consider that pretty convincing...

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:16 AM
reply to post by constantwonder

That's an interesting study. But, the bottom line is that it is still e. coli even though it developed the ability to use a nutrient that it couldn''t previously metabolize. It is still e . coli and not some new and different baterium or higher order organism. All it proves is that a species can change and adapt within itself.

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:35 AM

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by Nosred

They are different species of the same Kind = same genus.

He wants proof that dogs can evolve into fish... Spiders into mammals... He just doesn't understand that instead of spiders evolving into mammals they slowly evolve into better spiders with better traits until they are no longer distinguishable as spiders. The reason you have to look closely to see it is because its subtle.

He is ruled by blind faith. In his world evolution and god cannot co exists... You can't believe in both... But why... A god that just slaps together an amazing universe puts one insignificant planet in one hell of an insignificant place and then plans to take it all away before we have a chance to behold its marvels in full. That just sounds silly...

If there is a god (personally I can't say if there is or isn't ) I think it would be much more impressive much more god like to give rise to a changing intricate evolving in every way universe. An evolutionary system that can produce something as complex as a person is far more plausible and far more god like than just slapping together a huge waste of space and shmearing a minute spec of it with biological scum...

A god would not waste his time with something so mundane and fruitless.

And on a side note if god is infinitely just as it is told then he would surely understand that an eternity in hell is not a justifiable punishment for 80 human years of being a degenerate... An infinitely forgiving god would not do this either... So either your god is not so kind and just or hell is an imaginary place...

Ewww.. My side note is kind of sickening... I can not offer any evidence that god exists or not so automatically my point your points and this thread are ignorant... Ignorant of facts...

Just saying you have less evidence than the "evo heads"
edit on 15-9-2011 by constantwonder because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:40 AM
Look evolution is a theory that has layers of supporting evidence that may not be solid concrete proof it fits,corroborates and makes coherent sense.A fish over time can adapt thru natural selection to it's enviroment even being able to adapt to a part on land existance.

What doesnt make sense that 5000 can make a meal of one fish n few slices of bread.

God is a fantasy,creationism a joke n the bible a waste of good toilet paper.

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:45 AM
reply to post by dubiousone

Right and over time these changes render new species... The point is the changes over time result in a genetic code so different from the original that it can not be called the same type of organism.

The subtle changes are proof enough. Over time even subtle changes add up... This concept is not that hard...

If evolution is not occuring then why do these changes occur...

Noun: The formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution

"The mechanism of sympatric speciation has been experimentally verified for many plants. One example is a group of species, collectively called hemp nettles, that occurs in temperate parts of Europe and Asia. One hemp nettle, Galeopsis tetrahit (2n = 32), is a naturally occurring allopolyploid thought to have formed by the hybridization of two species, G. pubescens (2n = 16) and G. speciosa (2n = 16). This process occurred in nature but was experimentally reproduced. Galeopsis pubescens and G. speciosa were crossed to produce F1 hybrids, most of which were sterile. Nevertheless, both F2 and F3 generations were produced. The F3 generation included a polyploid plant with 2n = 32 that self-fertilized to yield fertile F4 offspring that could not mate with either of the parental species. These allopolyploid plants had the same appearance and chromosome number as the naturally occurring G. tetrahit. When the experimentally produced plants were crossed with the naturally occurring G. tetrahit, a fertile F1 generation was formed. Thus, the experiment duplicated the speciation process that occurred in nature."

(Biology: Fifth Edition, Eldra Pearl Solomon, Linda R. Berg, and Diana W. Martin, Saunders College Publishing, 1999, p411-412)

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 04:11 AM
reply to post by Sailor Sam

Question - where is the SCIENTIFIC evidence for the existence of the alleged creator, that being called GOD by creationists?
I don't mean your "stories" and "passages' from the the bible, I mean Scientific Method science.


Well, here's my scientific proof...
For every single thing in the Universe there is a "creator".
The moon creates the tides, the waves moving over dead shells creates the sand etc...
So if you picture in your mind every single creation process and all creations in the universe for infinity and eternity both inwards and outwards woven together as "one whole thing" then you see the creator of all things or "God". God is but one name given to the creator who seems to enjoy great diversity which is evidenced by the universe itself and which is also in all probability why God has chosen to be known in so many different ways.

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

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 04:28 AM
reply to post by jeramie

A case could be made for the reverse:
LOL Wow, a whole lot of posts, but not one single real answer!

Oh yeah, I forgot... it's hard to provide proof for something that isn't true.

I always find 2 things funny when a subject like this comes up (sad, but funny):

1.) People still try to use the bible as an actual argument.

2. Creationist are always so quick to anger.

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

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 04:39 AM

The Peppered moth lie, are you kidding?
A little knowledge and research Pulease.
Just quickly, do you know the difference between Macro and Micro evolution.
A moth evolving in to a moth. Wow

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 04:45 AM

Originally posted by UniverSoul

Originally posted by boony
As hard to believe as evolution is, its only made impossible by the fact that a male and female evolve at the same time, and that their respective sperm and egg are in synch.
Only those with a faith far outstripping that of a creationist, could accept that happened.

thats simply not true
mutations are passed down from one parent to the baby not both. if you look at how chromosomes work youll understand.

It is true. Evolution must have had a male and a female evolve at the same time, that had reproductive organs that worked together, and the information had to pass between both the male and female chromosomes respectively, and be interpreted and then acted on. Over the whole life of the being. From cell to cell.
A messenger from one side to the other, that both sides knew the messengers code.
edit on 15-9-2011 by boony because: fun

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 04:54 AM
reply to post by boony

diseases can pass down from a single sex..

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 05:20 AM

Originally posted by Youji69
reply to post by RevelationGeneration


Pakicetus was a small four legged dog like mammal. I like how they blow the skull up to make it look similar in size to a whale 20X larger. This is considered evidence???? No wonder Casey Anthony and OJ are free.

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 05:26 AM
reply to post by RevelationGeneration

Nice try, but your answer is still a cop-out. You're obviously engaging in "moving the goalposts" by alternately asking for evolution on a species, genus, class, and kingdom level and never clarifying which one you're asking for. Hardly an honest activity for someone who claims to be a Christian.

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 05:31 AM
First off, do you actually want to learn something or are you going to respond to everything with patently false creationist claims?

Claims like a distinction between macro and micro evolution. These are things that evolution doesn't make a distinction between, only in the mind of creationist and other people who don't understand or don't want to understand evolution. Macro evolution, as used by scientist, does not mean what you think it means. It means evolution at the species level or above and you have been shown multiple times that speciation has been observed in a lab enviroment and then repeated and observed again and again. Are you actually looking for a crock-a-duck?

Or perhaps you will respond with the pseudo science of irreducible complexity. That gem of an argument from incredulity that creationist love to pull out but only demonstrate their ignorance.

Or maybe you will say no transitional fossils exist when there are numerous transitions.

Your posts demonstrate a total ignorance of the philosophy and method of science. Now I ask again, do you want to learn or do you want to cling tightly to your dogma while ignoring or misrepresenting anything that may challenge your BELIEF?

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 05:39 AM

Originally posted by GmoS719
I think it's a valid question.
It's funny that no one has an answer, only insults.
Grow up children of science.
You are lead by blind faith.
Just as much as Christians.

Science is evidence based and requires zero faith.

Nice try though.

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in