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: 254
31
<< 251  252  253    255  256  257 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Actually what happened is we are ongoing victims of genocide, just like it says in the bible and had no other choice but to ramp up our medical intervention trying to combat it. And we are still doing so to this day.


Do you think the gazelle would say it is an ongoing victim of genocide? everything that lives dies.... things arent easy and perfect.... You must live in the back woods and have never seen a modern city, or history book.... im sorry but you really dont see how your peers work to live their lives? using their energy to work for money for necessities, food, clothing, home, to start a family,,, everything else is a product of culture, created by human intelligence, humans love to live, so along with the progression of human civilization there is a steady upward "evolution" in the efficiency and ability of medical professionals, from curing and avoiding disease, to fixing broken bones, 1000s of %'s more amazing what doctors and surgeons can do,,,, now conspiracies with prescription drug world is a whole different story...... have you ever enjoyed a day of your life? do you know there are many sports humans play, games, a number of things in between the time they are avoiding medication and genocide...




posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Hmm explain this one away, how do species diverge if they are living together?
Team discovers microbes speciating.

CHAMPAIGN, lll. — Not that long ago in a hot spring in Kamchatka, Russia, two groups of genetically indistinguishable microbes parted ways. They began evolving into different species – despite the fact that they still encountered one another in their acidic, boiling habitat and even exchanged some genes from time to time, researchers report. This is the first example of what the researchers call sympatric speciation in a microorganism.


Link

Disclaimer: This information is for those who appreciate the natural world, I really don't care what tripe tooth comes up with, so don't bother with ignorant comments.
Thank you..



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyingfish
Hmm explain this one away, how do species diverge if they are living together?
Team discovers microbes speciating.

CHAMPAIGN, lll. — Not that long ago in a hot spring in Kamchatka, Russia, two groups of genetically indistinguishable microbes parted ways. They began evolving into different species – despite the fact that they still encountered one another in their acidic, boiling habitat and even exchanged some genes from time to time, researchers report. This is the first example of what the researchers call sympatric speciation in a microorganism.


Link

Disclaimer: This information is for those who appreciate the natural world, I really don't care what tripe tooth comes up with, so don't bother with ignorant comments.
Thank you..



Thank you for a proper, informative, on topic post

edit on 22-2-2012 by Connector because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 





Do you think the gazelle would say it is an ongoing victim of genocide?
No because they didn't go through what went through. It's in your bible, read your bible.



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Connector
 


Your making me roflmao thinking that people are born with directive.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 02:59 AM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 
Thanks for the info

These envorments must have been being studied for some other reason when this was discovered.

Made me wonder. How many more cases of speciation are going on all around us but go unnoticed?



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


How can they call it speciation when it never actually changes into another species?



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 


How can they call it speciation when it never actually changes into another species?


Speciation is when a species can no longer breed effectively with another. Stop mixing up species with your definition of "different" animals.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Ya but the definition imply s that it changed species. There is no proof it changed species, its just not able to mate with the others is all, that alone is not proof of the species changing.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Easy, the Dinos didn't have Diners, and Drive ins...

Rat's aren't making money. The Dog isn't doing the dishes, the cat just lays around all the time.

And the darn toaster hasn't done anything but make toast in a long time...

We were genetically modified to live here, by who the hell knows....



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by HappyBunny
 
Here is a thing.

The Halocaridina rubra: The Hawaiian red volcano shrimp

Red Volcano Shrimp


These unique shrimp have been dubbed “super shrimp” for being highly adaptive and for having one of the longest life spans of any shrimp specie- up to twenty years! Keeping these creatures healthy and happy should be easy and the reward is hours of entertainment for many years.


So the ex owner says 1 to 3 years tops in the globe yet these shrimps have one of the longest lifespans of all shrimp, 20 years. They must truely be torture chambers for the poor shrimp and certainly not a balanced eco system.


edit on 22-2-2012 by colin42 because: Forgot link


That's awful. I'm surprised the animal cruelty people aren't screaming bloody murder.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by idmonster

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by idmonster
 
Like your previous post. Precise and to the point but you did get one admission


Well its never in an exact balance, but its goal is to be such.
So despite his refusal to accept anything I show him you have finally got him to admit the is no such thing as a balanced eco system

BRAVO



Thank you,

While I have no desire to enter into any discourse with him, I will happily contribute to items on this thread, whoevere postulates them in order to add understanding


There is one point where he maybe right, although, as always his remarks are badly worded and poorly understood. He states "its goal is to be so", once again placing intelligence and guidance on a purely environment driven process.

It is obvious to you, me and most people on here that "it" has no goal, no desires, no end game. However in the grand scheme of things, the word entropy springs to mind. And entropy increasing to its maximum is the only point that true "balance of the universe" can be achieved.

Having said that, I personaly believe that maximum entropy will never occur, but thats a discussion for a whole different thread



edit on 22-2-2012 by idmonster because: fat finger syndrome


Careful, you'll get the creationists off on a "laws of thermodynamics" tangent.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by andersensrm
Your right I should have clarified. Eating better in the sense that we cook our food, are aware of disease and bacteria and such, and have certain regulations in place to make sure we don't eat "bad" food. As far as how we eat today, yea we have poor diets, but in terms of the actual food it is safer.


It probably is. Usually when we get sick from it, it's our own fault for undercooking or just plain not washing our hands. The biggest factor that's put our food supply at risk is the addition of antibiotics to grain feeds and direct feeding to livestock.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia
 


Ya but the definition imply s that it changed species. There is no proof it changed species, its just not able to mate with the others is all, that alone is not proof of the species changing.


Stop, please stop. You didn't read, or if you did you understand what you read. Mircrooganisms do not mate. Sheesh.

Somebody give me some Advil and Jack Daniels. I can't take it any more!



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


Ok breed.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


Ok breed.


No offense, Tooth, but that's an even dumber statement than the first one.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


Ok breed.


No offense, Tooth, but that's an even dumber statement than the first one.
He's not the messiah! He's just a very dumb boy.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


Oh that's to bad, I was quoting someone else on here.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia
 


Ya but the definition imply s that it changed species. There is no proof it changed species, its just not able to mate with the others is all, that alone is not proof of the species changing.


I guess it all depends on the definition of species, but you can't argue that there are no changes, because there are. So it doesn't really matter what we call it as long as we recognize the changes.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   
I think it was Aristotle who first offered a definition of species, to paraphrase:

“Members of the same species have the ability to breed/mate and produce viable offspring.”

Of course Aristotle knew nothing of genes and DNA but from observation understood that some animals were able to produce offspring, and others were not, those that could, he reasoned were of the same species, and those that couldn’t were of different species.

There is a difference between an inability to mate and an inability to produce offspring.

Some animals of the same species are unable to breed, not due to genetic differences (that we now use to define species) but due to mechanics.

A female Chihuahua and a male Great Dane would be unable to mate naturally due to the diminutive size of the Chihuahua in relationship to the size of the Great Danes penis…it just wouldn’t fit ( I’m sure we’ve all experienced that problem
)

Although the Chihuahua could be artificially inseminated with the sperm of the Great Dane, the Chihuahua would be unable to carry the offspring to term due to the pups of a Great Dane actually being larger than the adult form of the Chihuahua.

So if they are unable to breed naturally, why are they still classed as the same species?

The real, modern definition of a species is whether they can “swap” genes.

In the animal kingdom, the process of swapping genes is carried out by sexual intercourse. I won’t go into the mechanics here but even [DELETED] has a son so should be aware of how this occurs.

It is possible, (although not recommended and probably illegal) to have interspecies intercourse if the mechanics fit, but that intercourse will never result in the DNA from sperm of the male, fusing with the DNA from the ova of the female. This is because interspecies intercourse is, by definition intercourse by two different species.

Evolution of a species is by small steps, environmentally driven, speciation requires separation.

My postulated hypothetical theory. (I will try and keep it as realistic as possible)

1. In region (a) Great Danes are the fashion accessory. Everybody has one. In region (b) it is the Chihuahua that is the must have lap dog.

2. The rapture occurs and all of the people in region (a) and (b) get taken to heaven (they all believed…it’s my story Ok!!)

3. During the following tribulation, regions (a) and (b) get separated by a river of lava spewing forth from hells own mouth.

4. The battle between good and evil is fought and god wins, leaving Chihuahua’s and Great Danes separated for millennia by a chasm carved out by the lava.

5. Chihuahuas breed with Chihuahuas, Great Danes breed with Great Danes and the damage wrought to the magnetosphere during the GREAT BATTLE starts to have an effect on the DNA of each.

6. Small changes in the Chihuahua DNA get passed down to the offspring and the same occurs in the Great Danes.

7. Because the changes are small, they go unnoticed (genetically) within the population, and each thrives.

8. One day, geological forces close the gap in the lava creavis and Great Danes and Chihuahuas are once again free to mingle. Each has adapted over time to similar form. Similar in size and similar in habitational requirements.

9. But the mutation over the millennia means that these once genetically compatible breeds, and now physically compatible breed can no longer swap DNA. They have become different species.

10. As they are now trying to occupy the same niche, they are in competition, and in any competition (despite what the schools try and teach our kids) there is only ever one winner, and unfortunately, in nature the runner up prize is extinction.

edit on 23-2-2012 by idmonster because: i may have to change mi sig to "in nature the runner up prize is extinction" what do you think?



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 251  252  253    255  256  257 >>

log in

join