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: 255
31
<< 252  253  254    256  257  258 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 


Well very said, ID.

Tooth, if you look back 10 pages or so (the last time Quad was in the thread), we had a good discussion about the classifications of lifeforms. Species is the lowest. You are talking more about the class or order of a creature, not the species. Those are much higher classifications. There are many species of fly, for example, but fly is actually the ORDER diptera. It is not a species itself. You are being too broad in what you are expecting of speciation. For an entire new order to emerge it would probably take millions of years, whereas with speciation, it can happen in a few hundred thousand years, and in many cases much quicker.
edit on 23-2-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
reply to post by idmonster
 


Well very said, ID.

Tooth, if you look back 10 pages or so (the last time Quad was in the thread), we had a good discussion about the classifications of lifeforms. Species is the lowest. You are talking more about the class or order of a creature, not the species. Those are much higher classifications. There are many species of fly, for example, but fly is actually the ORDER diptera. It is not a species itself.
edit on 23-2-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)


Is species the lowest? Doesn't it go farther than that?



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   
You are correct in a sense, there are many sub categories within each classification. For Species there is sub-species, infraspecies, and a couple others.

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 23-2-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by andersensrm
 


I'm also questioning what might be considered to be called a change. As I have repeated a few times now, how is it not known that these said changes aren't changes that were allowed within the species to begin with? In other words its not really an unexpected change.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


Oh ok, and I assume things can't possibly change order in one shot, it takes several turns in millions of years.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Here is a great article on advanced study's of developmental biology or "evo-devo"
This may help answer some of those pressing questions.

Through evo-devo studies, scientists now know that much biodiversity is due not only to differences in genes, but to changes in how and when genes are expressed, says Albertson. They also now recognize that genes interact with each other and the environment in development to determine phenotype, or an animal’s observable traits.




"Evolution has been taught largely the same way for decades now," he says. "But today evo-devo has produced a much more detailed understanding and appreciation for fine points of evolution. We now know, for example, the genetic and developmental processes responsible for how the bat got its wings and how the whale lost its hind limbs. These are compelling examples of evolutionary change that should resonate with students. It is a really exciting time to be an evolutionary biologist!"




Link



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by andersensrm
 


I'm also questioning what might be considered to be called a change. As I have repeated a few times now, how is it not known that these said changes aren't changes that were allowed within the species to begin with? In other words its not really an unexpected change.


So, it doesn't matter. The fact is, they're changing to adapt to their environment, as well as to other factors such as attracting other sexes, and then on to more complicated factors such as intelligence, culture, religion, science, and exploration.
edit on 23-2-2012 by andersensrm because: spelling



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

im not dening the possiblity of evolution im all for it but im wondering what you think of this hmmm...www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
edit on 24-2-2012 by SpiritWolfPup because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post by SpiritWolfPup
 
Is it the missing link tooth talks about constantly?



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 

no not the missing link lol its about how evolution combinds 2 kinds of evolution to gain the theory of evolution microevolution which is proven but they say macroevolution is a myth



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by SpiritWolfPup
 
Sorry but the link does not work. Too cryptic I suppose. You have to be a resident of this thread to get the pun.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by SpiritWolfPup
 
Sorry but the link does not work. Too cryptic I suppose. You have to be a resident of this thread to get the pun.

apparently it doesnt wanna show least not on my phone so hope this shows
im not dening the possiblity of evolution im all for it but im wondering what you think of this hmmm...www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

this isnt working sorry if you go to bing.com type in debunking evolution should be the first one darn thing *shakes fist at phone*
edit on 24-2-2012 by SpiritWolfPup because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by SpiritWolfPup
 
Pdf file

Your link above.

Reading through it quickly ( as far as I could without getting bored by the same old same old) it appears to be written by someone who either does not have a clue of what evolution describes or is purposely misleading determined to prove god by disproving evolution and if that means being dishonest then so be it.

Problem he and others doing this have is evolution has nothing to say about god one way or the other.

Thats my opinion. Others may disagree as over the years I have found it harder and harder to read the same mis information from 'god sites' to a point where I just skim through them.

Perhaps you had better wait for another opinion



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by andersensrm
 


I'm also questioning what might be considered to be called a change. As I have repeated a few times now, how is it not known that these said changes aren't changes that were allowed within the species to begin with? In other words its not really an unexpected change.


What do you mean by "allowed?" What limiting force is there within animals that would prevent them from continuously changing forever?



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpiritWolfPup
reply to post by colin42
 

no not the missing link lol its about how evolution combinds 2 kinds of evolution to gain the theory of evolution microevolution which is proven but they say macroevolution is a myth

What might be the proposed magical barrier that prevents a lot of 'micro' evo accumulation of being 'macro' evo?



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


yes


edit to add I will write more when I'm not at work.
edit on 24-2-2012 by broahes because: (no reason given)


and to ask: do you believe there is a past and future as far as time is concerned?
edit on 24-2-2012 by broahes because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





What do you mean by "allowed?" What limiting force is there within animals that would prevent them from continuously changing forever?
There are elements in our genes that don't want our species to drift out of what it is, just like there is gametic isolation that prevents other species from breeding with each other.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia
 





What do you mean by "allowed?" What limiting force is there within animals that would prevent them from continuously changing forever?
There are elements in our genes that don't want our species to drift out of what it is, just like there is gametic isolation that prevents other species from breeding with each other.


Only in large jumps, because it would break the flow of genes between other members of our species. But you are forgetting that the length of time we are using here is very large. Anything can change in an animal, ranging from skin type to milk production to visual sensitivity. Accumulate enough changes over time, and an animal will appear very different and be classified differently by humans.

Did you know humans still have the genes for gills in our DNA? The gene developed hundreds of millions of years ago, and has simply been deactivated due to no genetic pressure to reactivate it. There is genetic evidence that we evolved alongside the other animals of this planet.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia
 





What do you mean by "allowed?" What limiting force is there within animals that would prevent them from continuously changing forever?
There are elements in our genes that don't want our species to drift out of what it is, just like there is gametic isolation that prevents other species from breeding with each other.


What might these magical elements be? If you're talking about conserved motifs, well those are basically the same in everything from bacteria to humans, and it looks to me like they didn't prevent speciation. Remember, that in the end species is an artificial concept created by man, that we apply to a population that shows a characteristic frequency of alleles that is -in the long run- wide open to change.
edit on 24-2-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





Only in large jumps, because it would break the flow of genes between other members of our species. But you are forgetting that the length of time we are using here is very large. Anything can change in an animal, ranging from skin type to milk production to visual sensitivity. Accumulate enough changes over time, and an animal will appear very different and be classified differently by humans.

Did you know humans still have the genes for gills in our DNA? The gene developed hundreds of millions of years ago, and has simply been deactivated due to no genetic pressure to reactivate it. There is genetic evidence that we evolved alongside the other animals of this planet.

What constitutes a large jump? It's looking more and more with each conversation that there is some type of intelligence behind evolution.




top topics



 
31
<< 252  253  254    256  257  258 >>

log in

join