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: 223
31
<< 220  221  222    224  225  226 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


We have nothing to show for the later periods in time, because it gets destroyed, lost to time. They weren't planning on, or even knew how to make their so called "records" last.




posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Okay explain that line to me the way you understand it completely.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by andersensrm
 





We have nothing to show for the later periods in time, because it gets destroyed, lost to time. They weren't planning on, or even knew how to make their so called "records" last.
Thats a cop out. If we lost all of our records today, we would still know how to build things, and make clothing, and still do 90% of the things we do, as well as knowing where these things came from to begin with prior to the missing records.

We have nothing like that from earlier times, we brought nothing to the table, and there is a very easy reason for that, we weren't here.




Okay explain that line to me the way you understand it completely.
Watch Lloyd Pye's video on human genetics (cause you should anyhow) and you will get the whole picture.
The only thing you need to keep in mind while your watching it is that Pye believes that all of this damage in our DNA is from our species being an engeneered race. It looks more like it was gods method on all of the punishements that he handed down to us.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Yea but that information doesn't get passed throughout civilizations because of the Us vs. Them mentality, as well as the fact that they aren't connected to each other like we are now.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

Tooth,
I have not replied to any of your post except to offer a quote from darwin.
You made a statement, that I will now comment on.


food that we aren't stealing from other animals as well.


I will probably get flamed for this but we do not have to "steal" from animals.
Most times they make more just for us.
Two examples:
Honeybees and chickens.
Honeybees make more honey than they can possibly use and chickens lay eggs year round whether they are fertilized or not.
I would have also mentioned dairy cows but there has been enough said about them already.
If you look at nature you can find many, many examples of animals that were made for the types of food they have available. One of these that you have cited many times is the anteater.
This is not so for humans. Why?
Because some animals were made (programed) to do it for us.
You say we were not made for this world, I say your right. This world was made for us.
Quad



edit on 11-2-2012 by Quadrivium because: Changed wording in the last sentence.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Quadrivium
 
Hi Quad

There are also many examples of symbiotic releationships where one plant/animal produces food for protection, polination for another. Tooth maintains this is only unnatural when it includes humans because he is a tool that will not accept anything. He needs no links to confirm this. He could confirm this by going outside.

I noticed he did not reply to my response to him when he wrote 'we had nothing in common with ants'


How ants and humans are alike (received no answer)

What could we learn from ants

Here is tooths link he believes says Humans depend on milk (received no answer)

After he told me I was lying when I told him that link says humans depend on cows for his main source of milk and not man depends on milk. I asked for a paste from that site to prove me a liar. He did not supply one because he could not. I would not expect him to admit error as he has not every other time he has been shown wrong and he has been shown very wrong many times. Dont ever remember him being correct.

In summary he is not here to discuss he is here to preach his nonsense which destroys any chance of others having a reasoned discussion. He is in fact an new species, forum Aids
edit on 11-2-2012 by colin42 because: tea break

edit on 11-2-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-2-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 06:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Quadrivium
 
Anyhow back to the real discussion

Before we start.

I see again you expected to be flamed when what you posted is based on truth. I see no reason for that expectation but know it happens. You have also shown that you have researched and chosen your beliefs based on that research so I urge everyone not to accuse anyone else on either side of blind faith.

I think it’s time to address the part of this subject where I know we disagree. Speciation.

Using water as an example again. Water at times of extremes is without doubt very powerful and storms, tsunamis show that only too well. Water is also very powerful over time and shapes the planets crust both above and below ground level. Water erodes mountains makes valleys and in its ice form has sculpted many environments in which we live. Fish and whales both have been shaped by it to a point where many believe whales are fish. Seals also show its influence.

Life as we know it would not exist without it.

I see water as a great analogy for the influence evolution has in shaping the diversity we see. This includes at times of extremes and gradual change over time.

A common phrase on this thread is ‘A dog is always a dog’ as a defence against speciation.

A dog is always a dog, unless it is a Tasmanian Tiger

Here is an example of a completely different species (marsupial) that shows convergent evolution. Its closest relative is the Tasmanian devil.

The tiger performed the same role as the wolf and as the article shows was sometimes classified as wolf. Evolution had shaped this animal and its similarities to the wolf are not coincidence. It is evolution.

So to me, just as water shapes the planet, evolution shapes life on the planet and I see no reason why this would not include speciation given the correct stimulus and time.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 

Nice example colin,
I look at it this way:
A dog is always a dog and a marsupial is always a marsupial.
Once again I believe this example shows adaptation in the group (marsupials).
It might have been a different species of marsupial yet it was still a marsupial.
My guess is it adapted to the form due to it's environment and food source.
The fact that it looks like a wolf only strengthens my theory that they were created and given all the information, on the day they were created, to adapt as needed.
The same language was used to create all life. Even though it was a marsupial, the blueprint was there, in it's DNA to adapt to the best possible shape to take advantage of it's surroundings which in this case was the shape we now know as wolf like.
Now if we had evidence that a marsupial turned into a placental, that would be something interesting.
Quad

Eta: This is one of the aspects of evolution that I find annoying. When the theory can not explain something it springs off into a whole new theory i.e. convergence evolution.
edit on 11-2-2012 by Quadrivium because: Added content



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Quadrivium
 
It may seem like splitting hairs but in your reply, a dog is always a mammal as well.

Where your explanation makes no sense as a defence against speciation is if they, both marsupials and mammals were given the information on the day they were created this would also mean the first mammal also had all the information to evolve into a mouse or a mammoth and all other mammals.

It also means the first complex life had the information to become mammal, marsupial, reptile, plant, fish and bird.

I do not see from a creation standpoint why the first spark of life being created with the potential for the diversity we see today and in the fossil record is any less amazing. In fact from a creation standpoint if god created life on this planet to be able to thrive no matter how the planet changed over time it would to me show a god that values life.

Edit



Eta: This is one of the aspects of evolution that I find annoying. When the theory can not explain something it springs off into a whole new theory i.e. convergence evolution.
I made the mistake of not making it clear that evolution does not shape life. The forces and processes described by something we have called evolution. Divergent and convergent is also just words used to describe parts of that process. So I do not see evolution springing off into a whole new theory. It is just an explanation of what has been observed. Wolf/Tasmanian Tiger



edit on 11-2-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by Quadrivium
 
It may seem like splitting hairs but in your reply, a dog is always a mammal as well.

Yes I believe that a dog will always be a mammal.


Where your explanation makes no sense as a defence against speciation is if they, both marsupials and mammals were given the information on the day they were created this would also mean the first mammal also had all the information to evolve into a mouse or a mammoth and all other mammals.

It also means the first complex life had the information to become mammal, marsupial, reptile, plant, fish and bird.

All complex life share similarities in our DNA. It is the language of creation. The tazmanian tiger might look like a wolf but it is still a marsupial.
I have stated before that I believe all basic groups of animals were created, from there they adapted and speciated, but we still have the basic groups. A mammal can not turn into a fish, ext., ext.
As far as I can tell the tazmanian tiger and it's close kin have looked basically the same from the earliest fossils they have found of them. It was not a wolf or dog or any kind of k9. It has always been a marsupial, it just adapted traits similar to the wolf in order to survive.


I do not see from a creation standpoint why the first spark of life being created with the potential for the diversity we see today and in the fossil record is any less amazing. In fact from a creation standpoint if god created life on this planet to be able to thrive no matter how the planet changed over time it would to me show a god that values life.

Think about it, how many times would evolution have had to occur "naturally" in the same exact order each time, to produce just one breeding pair of complex life? Now how many times would this have had to happen for us to see the abundance and diversity of life all around us?

And to think, some people find it difficult to believe in God.

Quad
edit on 11-2-2012 by Quadrivium because: Fixed some of the awful typos I had



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Quadrivium
 
So that is cleared up. You accept adaption of species within the group’s mammal’s reptiles etc but not before these classes.

Firstly ‘mammals cannot become fish’. This is the description of convergent evolution because mammals have become fish like as has the penguin that has lost the ability to fly but evolved to fly underwater. Birds in the sky and the active mid water fish live very similar life styles.

I agree that there would be no oblivious advantage to a mammal to evolve into a fish or the fish a mammal. These niches are already filled by animals that are expertly adapted for survival and would out compete any newcomers.

I still do not understand the logic that says all these classes were created and can only adapt one way. Whales show that not to be true. The old saying ‘There is more than one way to skin a cat’ comes to mind.


Think about it, how many times would evolution have had to occur "naturally" in the same exact order each time, to produce just one breeding pair of complex life? Now how many times would this have had to happen for us to see the abundance and diversity of life all around us?
But that is not how evolution works anyway. It works in the exact same way as it does with adaption within the classes.

I thought we had already agreed that very early life contained the building blocks for all life so why create the potential in this early life just to bypass it to create the classes from scratch? There is something I am not grasping obviously.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


Hmmmm..........
Prehaps I am missing something as well. You said that the comment I made when I said "think about it.....", is not how evolution works anyway.
Can you prehaps explain how it worked in the beginning if what I stated was not correct?
I am curious about the other side of the argument and I think you would be the one person who might be able to explain it. I am able to discuss this subject with you without having to defend my beliefs every other post.
That is rare and greatly appreciated.
Thank you,
Quad



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Quadrivium
 


Heres the problem I have with, theres no way evolution could happen because the % chance that it would happen is too small. Now lets say we're an outsider somehow looking in to a universe being created. By some miracle of events, random events lead to a universe much like our own. All the intelligent beings would come to the same conclusion that there is no way their universe came about the way it did, becasue the % chance is to small. But theres still a chance, and the reason we're talking about it, is because we fell into that tiny % that came into existence.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Quadrivium
I think I figured out where the confusion is coming from, Quad. It is on the classification of organisms in biology. There are actually many different classifications. I'll explain in detail below.



But what the link actually states in section 3.0 is:


The literature on observed speciations events is not well organized. I found only a few papers that had an observation of a speciation event as the author's main point (e.g. Weinberg, et al. 1992). In addition, I found only one review that was specifically on this topic (Callaghan 1987). This review cited only four examples of speciation events. Why is there such a seeming lack of interest in reporting observations of speciation events? In my humble opinion, four things account for this lack of interest. the literature. etc etc

www.talkorigins.org...

Who cares if it's not well organized. It happens, and it's been observed in a lab in the link with the flies I posted in my response to you. Clearly it happens, and one of the main arguments that creationists use against evolution is that you can't observe speciation. Well technically we did, so I'd prefer that we drop this argument from here on out.

plato.stanford.edu...

You used that as link in the post I responded to. It is from the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy. That's why I said it was philosophy.


What I mean by "species"-All animals defined as a group. Example: The group classified as flies. With in this group are many, many species of flies but they are all flies.

And that definition is not accurate. By that you are saying that all primates or even all apes are the same species. They are not. They might be the same ORDER, or same family, but not species. A bonobo cannot breed with a gorilla, which is why:


Here is a textbook example.


Species
Species Definition
noun, singular or plural:
species (taxonomy)

(1) The lowest taxonomic rank, and the most basic unit or category of biological classification.
(2) An individual belonging to a group of organisms (or the entire group itself) having common characteristics and (usually) are capable of mating with one another.

As I said above.

This is the only biological definition, and ONLY acceptable one to use in this discussion.


There are many different species of fly.
Can a horse fly mate with a fruit fly? No, but both are still considered to be flys.
They are different species, yet both are still flys.

Just as I said above. "Fly" is just a layman's term. What you are looking for is the order Diptera, which includes most flies and what is commonly known as a fly. Biologically, a species is a much lower classification.
en.wikipedia.org...
You might want to refer to that. Species is the lowest on the chart. You can be broad or specific using these classifications, but only the same species can breed with one another.

So which classification are you really talking about? Let's be specific.
edit on 11-2-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by andersensrm
 





Yea but that information doesn't get passed throughout civilizations because of the Us vs. Them mentality, as well as the fact that they aren't connected to each other like we are now.
what is the US vs?



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Quadrivium
 





Tooth,
I have not replied to any of your post except to offer a quote from darwin.
You made a statement, that I will now comment on.


food that we aren't stealing from other animals as well.


I will probably get flamed for this but we do not have to "steal" from animals.
So then I can only presume you are prepared to explain why we do.




Most times they make more just for us.
Now I assume you have proof of this as well or are you confusing the fact that we steal, causing an imbalance, causing them to make more as ok.




Two examples:
Honeybees and chickens.
Honeybees make more honey than they can possibly use and chickens lay eggs year round whether they are fertilized or not.
Are you trying to justify us eating chicken eggs as being natural? Would you think the part where you cook em on a stove is natural too?

All mammels drop eggs, its just that chicken eggs, when cooked, we eat.




I would have also mentioned dairy cows but there has been enough said about them already.
Ya sorry man, you will never convince me that we are suppose to drink cows milk. I know some people claim we don't have to, so the question keeps coming back to why did we decided to in the first place. There is only one logical answer that that no one can dispute. It's because we felt for some reason that it was needed.




If you look at nature you can find many, many examples of animals that were made for the types of food they have available. One of these that you have cited many times is the anteater.
And I fear that my point about the anteater was overlooked. The ant eater belongs here, humans don't.




This is not so for humans. Why?
Because some animals were made (programed) to do it for us.
And in part, you are correct, but failing to realize that its us that did the programming to begin with.




You say we were not made for this world, I say your right. This world was made for us.
Quad
We are doing our darndest to make it that way, yes I agree.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





There are also many examples of symbiotic releationships where one plant/animal produces food for protection, polination for another. Tooth maintains this is only unnatural when it includes humans because he is a tool that will not accept anything. He needs no links to confirm this. He could confirm this by going outside.

I noticed he did not reply to my response to him when he wrote 'we had nothing in common with ants'
Colin I allready answered this, I told you we DONT have anything in common with ants, you missed my point alltogether.

What could we learn from ants, well we instantly learn that they are part of a cycle of life here on earth, a part that humans are NOT a part of.

"Milk has been an important part of a healthy diet for generations"
thedairymom.blogspot.com...
Is a quote from a different site. If your not smart enough to read between the lines and realize what they are saying in that sentance, then I can't help you.

The importance of milk can be ignored, and frequently overlooked by people taking in other products that are in fact made from the very same milk. Such as cheese, which ranks highest on the RDA list. As an example, I don't drink milk, but I do eat cheese.




After he told me I was lying when I told him that link says humans depend on cows for his main source of milk and not man depends on milk. I asked for a paste from that site to prove me a liar. He did not supply one because he could not. I would not expect him to admit error as he has not every other time he has been shown wrong and he has been shown very wrong many times. Dont ever remember him being correct.
Well I'm going to agree with you colin, if I made a mistake, an apologie must be in order. And as soon as that happens, I will be the first to let you know.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Colin I allready answered this, I told you we DONT have anything in common with ants, you missed my point alltogether.
No you actually have not answered it at all. I have shown you whether you took the time to look or not that we do have things in common with ants. You saying no we dont is not an answer. Try again.


What could we learn from ants, well we instantly learn that they are part of a cycle of life here on earth, a part that humans are NOT a part of.
Proof if any more was needed that you do not read the links provided.


"Milk has been an important part of a healthy diet for generations"
Another failure by you as that also does not say 'we depend on milk'.


Is a quote from a different site. If your not smart enough to read between the lines and realize what they are saying in that sentance, then I can't help you.
I dont care what another site says. You called me a liar when I told you you were wrong in what you stated the original site info was. Your avoidance of that issue means I was right and you were again wrong.


Well I'm going to agree with you colin, if I made a mistake, an apologie must be in order. And as soon as that happens, I will be the first to let you know.
Very small of you. You have again lived down to my expectations. Well done



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Quadrivium
 
Thanks for the compliments. The whole idea of this thread was to gain a real insight into other views on both sides and not the usual circular argument where neither side of the debate learn anything so thanks back at you.

I am also very aware that there are many on this site that have a better understanding of evolution than me which is another reason why I would like a good tempered debate rather than a verbal fist fight even though I believe I can duke it out with the best of them. Problem is you learn nothing.

Your requested description of how I see early evolution working. I’ll give it a go.

We both agreed early life has the potential to produce all that follows. For whatever reason or whatever process sexual reproduction becomes part of the cycle of some early life forms. I think a guess on my part on how would serve no purpose, fact that it happened.

To me sexual reproduction is the key that unlocks rampant diversity in early life and magnifies the process we describe as evolution. It only takes one individual to develop a beneficial mutation because it is still able to breed with others that do not have it and so this potential advantage is passed on. It may never surface again or it may be repeated many times to form many individuals with the same advantage. If it can happen once it can happen again giving a different advantage or building on the first.

Lets assume that this advantage allows the organism to move and colonise an energy source its close relatives cannot. It then is isolated from the rest and each change takes it further away from the original to a point where they can no longer breed with the original. What’s more these mutations do not happen in steps but many small changes sometimes alone and sometimes in conjunction. Some are a disadvantage and die off before that change is spread throughout the colony. Some have no apparent affect no damage done although could add or detract further along the path. Some give advantage and again is spread throughout the colony.

I have written this off the cuff so don’t think this has much in the way to back it up as it is my thoughts on how early evolution worked. It is also why I reason that for big evolution in the short term you need many vacant niches. Evolution in the long term is the organisms sharpening their tools as it were and is why when all the homes are filled you see little in the way of new speciation.

We are all creatures of opportunity and probably why we are obsessed by chance.

I would say not a bad explanation by a bricklayer but probably will make a real scientist split his sides in laughter, But hey I had a go.



edit on 11-2-2012 by colin42 because: No matter how many times you check you see mistakes after you press send



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


Lol ok barcs. You used "order" in your response, I used "group" in my definition to mean the same as "order".
My way:
There are many differnt species in the "group" know as flys.

Your way:
There are many differnt species in the "order" know as Diptera.

I will admit that most times I post from memory without using links as I use my phone to post here on ATS and it has limited capabilities. Even so, I do not see my definition as being philosophical.
I did not get the definition from the site in your above post. That definition is my own, put in my own words from many things I have read in the past and I have read alot so I can not possibly find a link.
I also apologize if the link I provided was "philosophical".
Many, many times I try to avoid those sites while posting because some people dismiss them out of hand. I find it much better to use strictly scientific sites, that way there is less argument.
If memory serves me right (as I said, limited capabilities on my phone), I posted the link in question to our discussion on fossils. Once again I apologize for not vetting it further than I did .
Quad




top topics



 
31
<< 220  221  222    224  225  226 >>

log in

join