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.

 

Can you prove evolution wrong?*

page: 204
31
<< 201  202  203    205  206  207 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





I assume you mean apes as in gorrillas, chimps etc.

Back to the little thought exercise.

If you were to perform that experiment with us, you would eventually come to an APE LIKE creature.

Perform the same experiment with a chimp, and you would eventually come to an APE LIKE creature.

Compare the two rows of photographs, somewhere along our line, and somewhere along the chimps line, would be the same APE LIKE creature.

Remember the timescales involved, MILLIONS of years. Remember nobody claims the humans evolved from apes. All of this you are thoroughly aware of.

Stop pretending to be so dense, I've read your other posts, I've appreciated your musical creativity and I've seen your linked in profile. I know your not stupid, which leads me to the conclusion that this is just sport for you.
Thank you for the compliment, and no I honestly feel that people are making some pretty bold assumptions that just because these changes have been seen in some small organisms and viruses and bacteria. There is nothing that says we have ever seen any of it in humans. Why is it we can see small changes in fruit fly's but not in humans. Additionally how do we not know that those just weren't allowable changes within that species to begin with.

This theory is held together by so much Bondo, that it looks like an accident waiting to happen. There is a very good reason why we don't find fossils and bones connecting species together, a very good reason why we only see speciation in a few things, because that's how it is. Why isn't it accepted the way it is?




posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





Absolutely, its in the bible, it clearly states that man created god in his image
WTH. I think you got all misscomboobilated.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by idmonster
 

I tried making a similar point earlier in this thread by saying that, in general, every offspring is the same species as its parents, meaning that the minor genetic changes that occur between parent and offspring can result in speciation when aggregated over time. But, of course, this fell on deaf ears. Creationists continue to prove that they don't understand what they're so vehemently arguing against by asking to see proof that that a chimp gave birth to a human.


Yup, its a symtom of a small mind, the inability to concieve of anything greater than yourself. Creationist fail to realise the time scales involved, or how tiny a specific change needs to be.

The problem is, they believe that their god created everything for them, they have the arrogance to believe that they are the most important thing in the universe. They have the audacity to slate anybody with a differing point of view, Religion invented god, then religious people made themselves god most important creation.

Its pathetic. They say they see the beauty of gods creation everywhere, but they can only appreciate that beauty by assuming that is is below them. Only with the clear mind of the athiest, can you truly appreciate the natural world.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 


I think Flagellum explains diversity. I think it has creator written all over it. There is no way you can look at it and not believe that a creator made it.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


From previous posts, I think its clear that you accept evolution as has been observed in bacteria, correct?

Now single cell bacteria arent that different to any single cell in our body, they are more complex than our cells, but not THAT different.

The kind of change you see in bacteria, also quite offten occur in human cells, but human cells live longer and have less of an effect on the overal body. i.e a small change in bacteria would be noticed almost straight away as it would have an immediate effect on the creature, where as a genetic change in any cell or cell type might have no immediate effect in a human.

The mutations that occur to human cells that may have an effect on physiacal appearance are cummulative, they build up over time...looooooooooooong periods of time.

Sometimes we notice theses changes after the fact, such as average heights, which has fluctuated over the centuaries, but would a 10th centuary average height man realise that the species was in a period where avearage heights were going to drop by 5 inches over the next 500 years, or would the 15th centuary avearge height man realise that his decendants would average out at a whopping 5' 8".

I am not claiming that the above is an example of evolution, the reason I mention it is to show how slowly these changes take place and small the effect can be.

It would be foolish to claim that a the only proof that a 5 foot man born in 1000ad and a 6 foot man born in 2000ad could be related, would be by producing a 5 foot 6 inch man who was born in 1500ad, yet this is eactly what creationist demand. (and as previously stated, they would even then deny untill a man of 5 foot 3 born in 1250 and a 5 foot 9 man born in 1750 were produced.)

Yes, we look very different to our primate cousins but both of us would look very different to our common ancestor. But there are a huge ammount of similarities between us.

If the text above is going to be quoted I insist that the post is quoted in its entirety, this will prevent accusations toward you of quote mining and will ensure that what I am offering is taken in context..



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster
 


I think Flagellum explains diversity. I think it has creator written all over it. There is no way you can look at it and not believe that a creator made it.


Not entirely sure how flagellum can explain diversity!

But this is where we differ, you see a creator and I see a marvellous example of evolution, I see a protein control and depositing mechanism adapted to provide locomotion. There is no way YOU can look at it without drawing youre conclusion, as for me, I look at it and marvel at how the chaos of evolution can sculpt organs of extreme specialisation.

BTW, I am not going to talk about irreducible complexity. If thats what youre hoping, end this discourse now. Ths flagellum is not irriducibly complex, and I provided the explanation to you manyt many pages ago. I may enter a debate with you regarding that IF you read the artical i posted, and i will test you on it



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 


Well the problem is that your making assumptions that those changes, were out of the legal limits of the species to begin with, while they may not be.
Going from a 5' man to a 6' man in generations today is nothing, and fully acceptable. Only because we have accepted 6' people as a normal height.
There is nothing that tells us if it is in fact normal aside from our own acceptance.
Its the same way if we ran into an 8" man, our own acceptance tells us that something is wrong, but we are only basing it on what we assume. Granted we hardly see people that tall, so we go with the assumption that it's not normal. There could be a difference between what we call normal and whats actually normal for any species. The fact is we don't know, and as far as I know there is no way to figure it out.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


To answer both your posts, they are not the same species. If they were the same species they would be able to mate with members of the previous generation and produce viable offspring. However, in these cases they can't. However, they can mate with some members of their own generation, who also can't produce viable offspring with the previous generation, and produce viable offspring. That is the definition of speciation. If your theoretical human with purple eyes can reproduce with another human then they are human. If they can't do that they are not human.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





Not entirely sure how flagellum can explain diversity!

But this is where we differ, you see a creator and I see a marvellous example of evolution, I see a protein control and depositing mechanism adapted to provide locomotion. There is no way YOU can look at it without drawing youre conclusion, as for me, I look at it and marvel at how the chaos of evolution can sculpt organs of extreme specialisation.
And I suppose you think this all happens without direction or intelligence, just sort of a crap shoot if you will?



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 





To answer both your posts, they are not the same species. If they were the same species they would be able to mate with members of the previous generation and produce viable offspring. However, in these cases they can't. However, they can mate with some members of their own generation, who also can't produce viable offspring with the previous generation, and produce viable offspring.
Ok but thats not proof. In fact we have a lot of humans that are unable to reproduce with other humans, are they a different species too? At best it could prove a different species. So whats the name of the new species? Got any pics?



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quadrivium
Colin,
Do you remember the conversation we started way back when I joined this thread? Must have been back in the early 150's. Those were the good ol' days, lol.

Anyway,
I know that many people just take the Bible as a book of fairytales.
I wish they could see it through my eyes.
Science is actually proving the Creation story in Genesis.
Complex life on earth in the order that they more than likly appeared.
1. Plants
2. Fish and birds (the evidence is starting to show this)
3. Complex life on land.
4. Humans.
This is of course an abbreviated chain of events but compare it to what biology teaches.
See any resemblences?
Yet this book was written at least 2500 years ago.
Quad


Sorry about delay in answering but sometimes I must go out and earn some money

If I were to totally accept the information you supplied (I will need a lot more persuading) I dont think it quite shows your list is correct unless I have missed something.
1. Simple life probably begining in water of some kind ie ponds, lakes seas oceans.
2. Fish like and certainly not modern fish like. Plant life (put here on list because there had to be a reason to move onto land. Food. Nearly forgot molluscs.
3. Movement from equatic to land
4. Precursor to a common ancestor of 'dinosaurs'/bird like/mammal and different group, insects, early fish
5. dinosaurs, birds mammals insects plants and flowering plants, fish.

A whole lot of surviving and enviromental change driving from 1 onwards

I see humans evolving along with and from other mammals.

I have only read the bible when I was forced too. May explain my reluctance in latter life but I truely believe it has nothing to offer me that I cannot learn myself and has little to teach me about love and respect for others that I have seen very little of in practice from religions or at least no more common in the religious than it is in the non religious.

I do not see the many bibles as fairy tales but many that quote from them appear to believe in them as if they were. They are a work of genius in fact because you see the workings of god, others see the intervention of aliens. I see the attempt to control through fear. Each generation interprets them differently from the last and find a meaning that suits them. Vengeful god to god of love and so on.

I mean look at the owners of those books. Dripping in gold yet they tell me that if I am poor and suffer quite a bit I will go to paradise when I am dead and dont ask questions. It could have been written by the tories. We are all in this this together and then they wave goodbye from their rolls royce on their way to a slap up meal.

I am not an atheist because I have no need for a god in my life I refuse to carry a label given to me by those that do.

Two people sit on a rock and watch the sunrise. They listen to the dawn chorus together, they see the sky brighten from dark through red to blue. They observe the nighshift go to bed and the day shift wake up. One marvels at the work of his god and the other marvels at the work of nature. Then they knock 6 bells out of each other because they dont agree on who or what did it. Now that is the most unbelieveable thing I have ever encountered.
edit on 26-1-2012 by colin42 because: clarity

edit on 26-1-2012 by colin42 because: clarity 2

edit on 26-1-2012 by colin42 because: Annoying typo

edit on 26-1-2012 by colin42 because: Molluscs

edit on 26-1-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 04:57 AM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 



Yup, its a symtom of a small mind, the inability to concieve of anything greater than yourself.
How can this be idmonster?
God is greater than me, so what you state is false.


Creationist fail to realise the time scales involved, or how tiny a specific change needs to be.

I think many Creationist understand the time scales you are referring to, the problem with your line of thinking is that there is no proof for these small changes. In many cases it's just "BAM!" fossils show up in the fossil record with not predecessors. The "theory" is widely based on assumption and speculatio



The problem is, they believe that their god created everything for them, they have the arrogance to believe that they are the most important thing in the universe. They have the audacity to slate anybody with a differing point of view,

Id, I have tried very hard not to "slate" anyone with a differing point of view as you seem to be doing.



Religion invented god, then religious people made themselves god most important creation. Its pathetic.

Slate much?
Religion did not create God. Man in their greed use religion and the name of God for their own wickedness. Many times in history we see things we do not agree with done in the name of religion when it actually has nothing to do with God or religion but greed.
Do you honestly think that if there were no religion then none of those things in history would have happened?
Many and more times the wars and killing would have just been carried out anyway, mans greed was the
driving force.


They say they see the beauty of gods creation everywhere, but they can only appreciate that beauty by assuming that is is below them. Only with the clear mind of the athiest, can you truly appreciate the natural world.

? ? ? Clear mind?
How did God piss you off idmonster?



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 05:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Quadrivium
 
I see you two have sat and watched the sun rise and are now about to duke it out.

Could I suggest we all remain seated on the rock. Observe that we see at least twenty species of bird, many different insects. Worms, squirrels. Look towards the pond and see many species of fish and amphibians. A lizard basking and a huge variety of plant life.

Still seated we now discuss the divesity we see without refering to evolution.

I purposely never asked for god to be left out because that may very well be your explanation I only ask that 'god did it, end of'. Is not the only description given.

So let me kick it off. If you believe that only adaption within the species happens then by default I can only think that would mean that 100% of all known life was present on day one and we are now at 1%. That does not bode well for a creator or the longevity of his creations.

Btw. In the distance, about a mile away. I can see Down House. (Darwins Home where he worked on his theories) and a church spire just above the trees. Yes, I have a lovely garden.


edit on 27-1-2012 by colin42 because: Down House



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


I don't want to "duke it out" with id. But I dislike it when someone calls me "simple minded" because of my faith.
I have tried sitting on the rock, time and time again someone has tried pushing me off. I think that those that do so are the truly simple and closed minded. It shows a lack of confidence in what they hold to be the truth.
I would just like to put it on record that all of the links I provided thus far have been from science books, science web sites or science related articles. I intentionally did not pull from creation based sites or books to prove my points. (I did quote the Bible on one post while explaining my beliefs).
Why did I do this?
So I could sit on the rock, look at the beauty of creation and discuss it with you in terms we both may understand.
So I would not offend and close the discussion between you, I and others.
So we both might learn something.
Peace,
Quad



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quadrivium
I think many Creationist understand the time scales you are referring to, the problem with your line of thinking is that there is no proof for these small changes. In many cases it's just "BAM!" fossils show up in the fossil record with not predecessors. The "theory" is widely based on assumption and speculation


This is why it is difficult to take you seriously. You don't even understand fossils. The first point is that fossilization is extremely rare and difficult to occur, because of the various ways that the organic life is being replaced by other things which last throughout the ages such as stone. Our fossil record begins with extremely simple microbial life embedded in stone that is ridiculously aged. By natural process, it couldn't have been there without having been extremely old. Through various radio-isotope dating, we can get an approximate date for the formation of the fossils.

They did not just "BAM!" show up with no predecessors. Organisms simply tend to change a bit in the extreme time between fossilizations, and not just fossilizations, but fossilizations that we've been able to dig up. It's theorized that 99% (citation needed) of fossils haven't been found. I got that from an archaeology class. If you've ever read any of Charles Dawkins' work, you would know that fossils aren't even necessary to prove evolution. They're a bonus.

The Bible is a book written and edited by man. God is a concept, and it is a concept which makes many people lead good, healthy lives. That's fine. Thing is, a 2000 year-old, multi-century edited edition of a book compiled of men who told their own stories with their own alterations (even modern history gets altered, so why would they be an exception?) should not be considered a source for any kind of science. God is not testable. God's work has no evidence left behind of magically causing everything to come into being.

And one final note. Evolution having been tested and found to be an active effect of change over generations; why couldn't God have simply created things and set evolution in motion? I'm not the type to think humans are special in any way, but supposing God created it all so we could exist, wouldn't evolution be the most logical way to go about creating? It would just take a little magical push here and there to make sure we develop properly along the way. Introduce our minds to fire and fishing, increase our tool usage, and make us live in larger and larger groups with each other so we must develop culture and social structures and language. God is supposedly all powerful, so this is not out of his power, no?



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 
I agree that there is no reason why a god would not know of and use evolution. In the same breath I cant see why life cannot use evolution either.

We are told god is eternal so time for an eternal thing means absolutely nothing, it only has meaning to something that begins and ends like us.

So if you step back and squint a little couldnt the world today and the diversity we see be the continuos process of creation in action and our science has called it evolution and used the asembled parts to show what has been built so far?

Those that believe humans are the chosen and gods special thing and creation stops at us would have to concede we are little more than a component in a bigger project and that very thing is why I believe many have problems with us sharing a common ancestor with other primates

So what has more truth evolution that says as long as there is life there will be changes to all life or religion that says we have reached the top and our only function is to worship and die.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


No one ever answers when I ask what the name of the new species is, makes me wonder if your just pulling my leg.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Quadrivium
 
I have witnessed you being patient and also being at least nudged to the uncomfortable edge of the rock.

The links you have given as you say have evidence that can be discussed and I personally find interesting.

I aslo agree your quote was in context and a fair comment, one you should not have to defend.

If you do get knocked off the rock the lawn is pretty comfortable if a little damp

edit on 27-1-2012 by colin42 because: Your quote



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


So could you please explain to me why we never hear about the new names that are given to those new species that are being found in speciation? I call BS on the whole thing because we would be dishing out names like crazy if it were true. I really would like to know what happens to these new species, are they let go in the wild, or are they killed for some reason.

Our species has always been a lover of life, not that we haven't killed anything, but at the same time there has to be some information that tells us whats going on with these alleged new species.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


So could you please explain to me why we never hear about the new names that are given to those new species that are being found in speciation? I call BS on the whole thing because we would be dishing out names like crazy if it were true. I really would like to know what happens to these new species, are they let go in the wild, or are they killed for some reason.

Our species has always been a lover of life, not that we haven't killed anything, but at the same time there has to be some information that tells us whats going on with these alleged new species.


To help answer your question a bit, there is debate among scientists about when a new species begins and another ends. Sometimes they are too close to one or another, and so they are classified as kind of a half-n-half. That's just semantics with human classification though.




top topics



 
31
<< 201  202  203    205  206  207 >>

log in

join