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: 256
31
<< 253  254  255    257  258  259 >>

log in

join
share:

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





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.
Everything I read made it clear that when speciation occurs, the species dies quick. I consider death a failed attempt at this mode working.




posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 11:28 AM
link   

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



There's no intelligence needed. It's simple freaking logic. If the chromosomal genes change too much to blend with another set from someone within your species, then they will not blend. If the change is small, however, then the genes will blend and continue spreading. Multiply this occurrence by a few hundred thousand alterations, and the genes will be significantly different from where they started during an arbitrary observation.

Stop making up imaginary limitations.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Everything I read made it clear that when speciation occurs, the species dies quick. I consider death a failed attempt at this mode working.

You're reading wrong. When talking about speciation of sexually reproducing organisms, we're in general talking about a process that happens over 0.1-1k thousands of years. There's no such thing as 'quick' in such cases..



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

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)


Exactly what I was getting at, but you articulated it much better, thank you.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





You're reading wrong. When talking about speciation of sexually reproducing organisms, we're in general talking about a process that happens over 0.1-1k thousands of years. There's no such thing as 'quick' in such cases..
So there should be bones, lots of bones proving all of this speciation over millions of years. Why is it that they can't find any bones that they can identify as being a speciation of apes of humans?



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





There's no intelligence needed. It's simple freaking logic. If the chromosomal genes change too much to blend with another set from someone within your species, then they will not blend. If the change is small, however, then the genes will blend and continue spreading. Multiply this occurrence by a few hundred thousand alterations, and the genes will be significantly different from where they started during an arbitrary observation.

Stop making up imaginary limitations.
Ya but what I'm saying is whats making that change, and knowing how to make the changes, in addition to executing it, sounds to me like there is intelligence behind it.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





You're reading wrong. When talking about speciation of sexually reproducing organisms, we're in general talking about a process that happens over 0.1-1k thousands of years. There's no such thing as 'quick' in such cases..
So there should be bones, lots of bones proving all of this speciation over millions of years. Why is it that they can't find any bones that they can identify as being a speciation of apes of humans?


Because bones don't last. Its like saying, where's all the fur, and skin, and meat from all these animals.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia
 





There's no intelligence needed. It's simple freaking logic. If the chromosomal genes change too much to blend with another set from someone within your species, then they will not blend. If the change is small, however, then the genes will blend and continue spreading. Multiply this occurrence by a few hundred thousand alterations, and the genes will be significantly different from where they started during an arbitrary observation.

Stop making up imaginary limitations.
Ya but what I'm saying is whats making that change, and knowing how to make the changes, in addition to executing it, sounds to me like there is intelligence behind it.



When someone chooses vanilla instead of chocolate, what outside intelligence is influencing them to pick one?



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





You're reading wrong. When talking about speciation of sexually reproducing organisms, we're in general talking about a process that happens over 0.1-1k thousands of years. There's no such thing as 'quick' in such cases..
So there should be bones, lots of bones proving all of this speciation over millions of years. Why is it that they can't find any bones that they can identify as being a speciation of apes of humans?

but they can

for humans look e.g. www.theistic-evolution.com... (yes the url is stupid, but skulls depicted in the pic are very much real, A is modern chimp, G is modern human, the rest are skulls from our lineage with oldest being B..)
edit on 24-2-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by SpiritWolfPup
 

This link was brought up earlier in the thread. I like to play a little game with resources like this called “I’ll Stop Reading When I Hit the Third Demonstrably Wrong Statement.”

Let’s play!


"Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary.

I’ll give this one a pass because it’s a thesis statement that, hopefully, the author will back up at some point with evidence.


Variation (microevolution) is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool and adaptive mechanisms of finches.

Well, that’s the first one. Take, for example, cases where bacteria have mutated and gained the ability to utilize new food sources. My favorite case of this is where certain kinds of bacteria are now able to break down synthetic polyamides (aka Nylon), which have only existed for the last 80 years or so. This isn’t a trait that existed prior to the invention of Nylon and is now being expressed, this is a change genome of the bacteria.


Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species.

Here’s number two. Creationists used to believe that there species were immutable. It was only after decades of being shown irrefutable evidence of evolution within a species that they finally admitted there could be “variation” (which is their weasel word used as a means of avoiding the dreaded “e” word) within a species.


What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of.

Which is just the weasel way of saying that “speciation (aka macroevolution) doesn’t happen”, which is also demonstrably wrong. Links to lists of observed speciation have been posted in this thread numerous times. And, just like with evolution below the species level, after decades of being presented with objective evidence of evolution at the species level, the creationists will eventually decide that “macroevolution” really does exist but will move the goalposts back to wanting to see evolution on the genus level. So that's number three.

Didn't even get out of the first paragraph before finding three inaccurate statements. Then "creation scientists" wonder why no one takes them seriously.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Fossils

Generally, when an animal dies in the wild, it is quickly “recycled” back in to the cycle of life. Scavengers, fungi and bacteria consume the animal until nothing is left. This happens in almost all cases.

Occasionally the conditions and environment an animal dies in allow a sense of that animal to be preserved as a fossil.

For the purpose of this exercise, fossilisation refers to mineral fossilisation rather than other preservative “techniques” such as tar pits, amber, freezing. (Yes these are each also referred to as fossilisation)

1. The animal has to die in such a way as to remain un-molested by predators and scavengers after its death. This does not mean that death by predation will never be caught in fossilisation however. There is a famous fossil of a predator/prey struggle caught as it was happening.

2. The animal needs to be covered in such a way as to exclude oxygen. Landslides, volcanic ash and sea bed sedimentation all assist in the covering of dead animal. By far the most common covering is by seabed sedimentation and marine fossils far outnumber fossils of land based animals.

3. The soft tissues rot away leaving the bones, these too will “rot away” (actually, as bones are largely comprised of the mineral calcium, dissolve is a better description) but far more slowly.

4. The bones and surrounding “covering” become compacted; this is the slow process of the creation of sedimentary rock.

5. As the bones “dissolve” away from the forming sedimentary rock, a small “space” is left behind. Other minerals are carried into the space and are “laid down”. This process of minerals being laid down is very similar to what one sees in caves where stalactites and stalagmites are formed.

6. This process of minerals in the once skeleton of an animal being replaced by other minerals takes an extremely long time, throughout which they must remain absolutely un-disturbed, geological activity or burrowing animals would disrupt the process and prevent complete fosillisation from occurring.


Most of the events outlined above, on their own would be an extremely rare occurrence, but for all of them to occur, in the correct order, well that would be like a tornado ripping through a junk yard…etc..etc…etc.

To put it into perspective, if life has been around for 3 Billion years (English - Million X Million) and we have 1 million fossils, that’s one fossil laid down every three million years!!!!! It’s that rare an occurrence.

Of course fossilisation isn’t actually that rare, plants and single cell fossilisation has happened and is happening almost constantly, it is this fossilisation of plant life that allows us to live the way we do. (There’s a reason why oil is called a fossil fuel) It’s also worth noting that fossilisation takes a loooooong time and even though it continues to happen all around us, we are using it faster that it can be replaced.

In summary;
with how rare the process of fossilisation is, I’ll leave it to the undedicated and ignorant to wonder why we don’t have “bones all over the place”, I’ll simply marvel that we have any fossils at all.

edit on 24-2-2012 by idmonster because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-2-2012 by idmonster because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by andersensrm
 


Well bones don't typically get eaten.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by andersensrm
 





When someone chooses vanilla instead of chocolate, what outside intelligence is influencing them to pick one?
A complex arrangement of live backed with intelligence.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





but they can

for humans look e.g. www.theistic-evolution.com... (yes the url is stupid, but skulls depicted in the pic are very much real, A is modern chimp, G is modern human, the rest are skulls from our lineage with oldest being B..)
But me point here is that none of these that aren't human, have been linked to humans.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by andersensrm
 





When someone chooses vanilla instead of chocolate, what outside intelligence is influencing them to pick one?
A complex arrangement of live backed with intelligence.


You mean the person chooses with there own brain, but how can this be? There must be something directing her right?



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





In summary;
with how rare the process of fossilisation is, I’ll leave it to the undedicated and ignorant to wonder why we don’t have “bones all over the place”, I’ll simply marvel that we have any fossils at all.
Then let me rephrase my comment.

How is it that in over 150 years, archeologists have managed to find over 2.5 million bones, and not a one of them connects us to any other life?



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Intrestingly enough, nothing my dog like to eat more than a big juicy lamb bone. Eats it all up she does.

Starts by gettning into the marrow then consumes the whole bone.

Hyenas also eat the bones, in fact, now I come to think of it, A lot of carnivorous animals eat bones, Might have something to do with their calcium requirements and not having cow mucous to drink.

I suppose some ignoramous might not realise that bones get eaten but surley they would be as rare as a tornado built aircraft HAHAHAHAHAHAH!



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster
 





In summary;
with how rare the process of fossilisation is, I’ll leave it to the undedicated and ignorant to wonder why we don’t have “bones all over the place”, I’ll simply marvel that we have any fossils at all.
Then let me rephrase my comment.

How is it that in over 150 years, archeologists have managed to find over 2.5 million bones, and not a one of them connects us to any other life?


He just explained it very thouroughly to you.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster
 





In summary;
with how rare the process of fossilisation is, I’ll leave it to the undedicated and ignorant to wonder why we don’t have “bones all over the place”, I’ll simply marvel that we have any fossils at all.
Then let me rephrase my comment.

How is it that in over 150 years, archeologists have managed to find over 2.5 million bones, and not a one of them connects us to any other life?


Ah well, If I can just stop you there.






















Nothing else to add, just wanted to stop you.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Well bones don't typically get eaten.
What world do you live in? Bones get eaten by many animals and spread around as well.


But me point here is that none of these that aren't human, have been linked to humans.
Why have you started talking like a pirate? They have all been linked to humans, obviously


Then let me rephrase my comment.

How is it that in over 150 years, archeologists have managed to find over 2.5 million bones, and not a one of them connects us to any other life?
They have but like ants, wolves, sparrows, balanced eco systems you have chosen to ignore the evidence to hold onto your childish nonsense that has none




top topics



 
31
<< 253  254  255    257  258  259 >>

log in

join