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.
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.
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.
WTH. I think you got all misscomboobilated.
Absolutely, its in the bible, it clearly states that man created god in his image
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.
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.
And I suppose you think this all happens without direction or intelligence, just sort of a crap shoot if you will?
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.
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?
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.
Sorry about delay in answering but sometimes I must go out and earn some money
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
How can this be idmonster?
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.
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
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.