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.

 

The missing link, when it comes to evolution of life (Expanding earth)

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 07:09 AM
link   
Today I was watching on Discovery channel, a very good episode on life and how it evolved. I want to share, what became evident when watching it.

Life on earth, as describe, began with life starting evolve as single cell organisms or bakteria, in the seas. This, of course, we can all relate to and agree on. Escept creationists, which is not an issue here.

The discussion then goes on, that these cellular organisms then split and made several branches, as in the tree of life. Making us into worms, with skeleton and without one ... and finally, it came to the part, where the fish started to walk on land.

STOP! STOP! STOP RIGHT HERE!

This is where it all goes wrong, because why should these fish start to walk on land, as there is no food on land an there is no evolutionary demand that they do so. Before mammals have to start to walk on land, the plantlife need to start growing on land, before they crawl there and the plantlife on land need to have a similar constraints that is attainable and acquireable for these lifes.

Now, at this point it becomes obvious that it isn't only the continents that suggest and expanding earth, it is also evolution that simply DEMANDS it. Consider here, that the earth is growing and the waters becoming ever more shallow at points. The plants on the bottom, their cells altering like the alger we already know, to take on green form and use the sunlight above water. This is a natural evolution. And then, the fish that is living in these ever more shallow waters, are slowly but surely evolving into having to lay their egg on more and more dry land, becoming more and more like reptiles that lay there eggs in a watery sand. And evolution slowly making sure, than only those eggs, that are capable of hatching in a dryer enviornment hatch ... natural selection.

This is bloody obvious, that it is almost amazing ... it's basically the missing link to evolutionary history. That fish just started to walk onto land, is about as illogical, as saying that man walks on water.

This is what I wanted to reveal to you ... another feather in the hat, for expanding earth.




posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 07:18 AM
link   
But the water isn't getting shallower, it is in fact getting deeper as the ice at the poles melt.

That's what is happening, ice age comes, sea levels drop as more ice is formed, ice age goes and sea levels rise again.

The Earth is not expanding.
edit on 2/1/12 by woogleuk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 07:18 AM
link   
got a link to this ?



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by haven123
 


Why would he need to provide a link to his own thoughts and theories?



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by woogleuk
 


I don't know what your saying, but you are obviously missing the point.

The obvious answer to your question, is YES ... of course the earth is expanding, unless you believe in God and think he just PUT IT THERE. The earth, OBVIOUSLY, grew from a magnetic bubble into a planet. Just like any other bubble in the universe.

Unless you wanna go the creationist way, and say the sun spew the earth out ... I'll ask where the sun came from ... and we'll always end up with the same stupid anomalies, that somewhere there was a magnetic bubble that collected into an object ... and so began creation.

It's so obvious, that it's almost laughable to see people who call themselves scientists to be working on something else ...



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by haven123
got a link to this ?


Link, to darwinism, to expanding earth ... or to my own thoughts and theories?



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


What??? The Earth formed from material left over in the accretion disc orbiting the sun, after cooling down it was bombarded by comets which left water (as well as gases from volcanoes). As this cooled down and froze at the poles, it left a lot of land. Then the first single celled organisms (prokaryotes) sprang from some amino acids.

The Earth is not physically expanding



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by bjarneorn
reply to post by woogleuk
 


... The earth, OBVIOUSLY, grew from a magnetic bubble into a planet. Just like any other bubble in the universe.

...


How could this be obvious? Did you manage to witness the growing of a micro-earth in your bathtub or how do you come to this conclusion?

How does a "magnetic bubble", whatever that is, convert into solid matter?



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


What??? The Earth formed from material left over in the accretion disc orbiting the sun, after cooling down it was bombarded by comets which left water (as well as gases from volcanoes). As this cooled down and froze at the poles, it left a lot of land. Then the first single celled organisms (prokaryotes) sprang from some amino acids.

The Earth is not physically expanding


What a dumb way of looking at it ...

In the beginning there was only plasma, and plasma is still 99,9% of the universe. It's gases, that are spread so far about that they rarely collide, but in such a state that the electrons are not bound to any specific proton.

Then there was Big Bang ... what? Big Bang, hell no ... there just was a collision, absolutely had to happen sometime ... and it's happening all the time ...

That is the beginning of the universe ... your version of the earth collecting from accretion of the Sun, is just ignorant ... I'll ask the question, where the does the sun come from ... and what God created it? it just "happened" ... no it doesn't just happen ... we're living in a Universe, where things that happened, are still happening and will continue to happen throughout all time ... it's not a process that was ignited ... and when sun burns out, it will enlarge enormously and evolve to another state of sun ....

Your vision of a static universe is merely the same view as the creationists had prior to darwinism ... it's ignorant and ignoring the very fundemental issue of all things. It isn't just life, that began with a singularity ... so does everything in the Universe ...

Even if "assume" the earth started by accretion ... that accretion had to start in a single bubble of gravity ... the accretion has to start with one single entity ... You are starting out your version of the earth, not at the beginning, but at a stage where earth already exists .... and even in your own version, accretion ... the earth expands ... because it isn't static. It's accretion of dust from the sun ... cannot be a singluran event, but must be an ongoing event ... your version of "creation", even if a little bit more advanced than the average religious nincompoop (pardon my french), is still the same point of view ... a static version.

But sorry, I won't allow you the privilege of thinking you live in a static Universe ... because we don't, and like all other things, we must evolve.


edit on 2/1/2012 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by bjarneorn
This is where it all goes wrong, because why should these fish start to walk on land, as there is no food on land an there is no evolutionary demand that they do so.


As far as I understand there was vegitation on land (and insects) way before fish left the seas. I am no expert on this subject, but I think that there is always a demand for food and that would explain why we evolved to live on land. Also, if you were food, land might have seemed like a safe place to hide from larger fish. I don't know, but I don't see why you need an expanding earth to link together the theories of evolution.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


I am at work and do not have time to write down full explanations.

But, yes (according to main stream science), there was a big bang, and all that material flung out across the known universe. Now the gravity caused this gas (and dust) to fall into itself very tightly, which became very hot, voila, one sun. The left over gas and dust orbiting the newly formed sun all came together and created the planets we all know and love.

How you are getting creationism from what I am saying is beyond me.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by bjarneorn

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


What??? The Earth formed from material left over in the accretion disc orbiting the sun, after cooling down it was bombarded by comets which left water (as well as gases from volcanoes). As this cooled down and froze at the poles, it left a lot of land. Then the first single celled organisms (prokaryotes) sprang from some amino acids.

The Earth is not physically expanding


What a dumb way of looking at it ...
No comment..


In the beginning there was only plasma, and plasma is still 99,9% of the universe. It's gases, that are spread so far about that they rarely collide, but in such a state that the electrons are not bound to any specific proton.
True


Then there was Big Bang ... what? Big Bang, hell no ... there just was a collision, absolutely had to happen sometime ... and it's happening all the time ...
Collision of what? What particles collided? What happened then? Did it just blow up?


That is the beginning of the universe ... your version of the earth collecting from accretion of the Sun, is just ignorant ... I'll ask the question, where the does the sun come from ... and what God created it? it just "happened" ... no it doesn't just happen ... we're living in a Universe, where things that happened, are still happening and will continue to happen throughout all time ... it's not a process that was ignited ... and when sun burns out, it will enlarge enormously and evolve to another state of sun ....
Mostly true, given different definitions of "another state of sun" aka red giant star.



Your vision of a static universe is merely the same view as the creationists had prior to darwinism ... it's ignorant and ignoring the very fundemental issue of all things. It isn't just life, that began with a singularity ... so does everything in the Universe ...

Incomprehensible mumblejumble. Static? Creationists view? Ignorant to which fundamental issue? SINGULARITY? Sorry, these thoughts are not well connected, please elaborate.



Even if "assume" the earth started by accretion ... that accretion had to start in a single bubble of gravity ... the accretion has to start with one single entity ... You are starting out your version of the earth, not at the beginning, but at a stage where earth already exists .... and even in your own version, accretion ... the earth expands ... because it isn't static. It's accretion of dust from the sun ... cannot be a singluran event, but must be an ongoing event ... your version of "creation", even if a little bit more advanced than the average religious nincompoop (pardon my french), is still the same point of view ... a static version.
Did you just postulate that a natural accretion disc should be flawless and have a perfect distribution of its matter? That is implausible. Did you postulate that the earth isn't static (What is your definition of "static"?) therefore it MUST expand? Could you cite or present evidences?



But sorry, I won't allow you the privilege of thinking you live in a static Universe ... because we don't, and like all other things, we must evolve.
Please define static and show how the universe isn't "static", with examples. Are there celestial bodies which are clearly and visibly not "static"? Pulsating stars excluded.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mads1987
As far as I understand there was vegitation on land (and insects) way before fish left the seas. I am no expert on this subject, but I think that there is always a demand for food and that would explain why we evolved to live on land. Also, if you were food, land might have seemed like a safe place to hide from larger fish. I don't know, but I don't see why you need an expanding earth to link together the theories of evolution.


Well, exactly ... this is the heart of my point. But we do know already, that life began in the oceans ... that is pretty much the same way we learned it in kindergarten.

news.bbc.co.uk...

www.time.com...

www.nowpublic.com...

This is pretty much, what we already discovered, because we have evidence of fossils in older rocks, that pre-date some of earlier thoughts. It's also quite evident, that plant life began lige alger ... this is also pretty known. And the fact, that all cells live in "salty" waters, even inside our bodies ... is also another pretty good clue, to this.

But, there is a missing link in how the story is presented, when it comes to walking onto land. And I suggest this missing link is, Expanding earth ... the timing is perfect, the ocean floors crack open and there is sparkling life ... as life grows, earth expands and in some places "continents" the landmass is slowly rising above sealevel as the cracks that makes oceanfloors of today, open and separate the landmasses.




posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by woogleuk
 


want to see the documenty,
edit on 2-1-2012 by haven123 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by ManFromEurope
Please define static and show how the universe isn't "static", with examples. Are there celestial bodies which are clearly and visibly not "static"? Pulsating stars excluded.


I don't have to, you said it yourself ... you canẗ say "come up with proof", and then in the next sentence say "but exclude the most obvious proof".

Well, the most obvious proof is our Sun ... it's sure isn't static is it? The next to that one, would be the earth we are walking on ... every year, there are layers of earth that is being created, and things left alone for a few millenia, will find themselves beneath ground and even leave fossils. Not to mention volcanoes, rifts in the earth itself ... the Atlantic ridge ...

And finally ... life

The moment you talk about "static" is in creation, even if you talk about a modern version of creationism ... you become a religious fanatic. Because creationism, is obviously false ... the arguement, if you find a clock you know it was designed, is flawed. We designed the clock, to simulate time ... but the fact, that we cannot design anything, that will tell time 100% perfectly, is the only proof you need, that time itself is not a design.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


What does accretion in astrophysics have to do with a static universe? And how could they ever be anything but opposing theories?

I have no clue what you are trying to say with your posts. But it sounds like you are making stuff way more complicated than it has to be. If you are trying to say that earth in theory is still expanding/growing, since our gravitational pull is still sucking little comets and other stuff in, I agree. But obviosly not at all to the same extend as when our solar system was first born.
Regarding the bubbles - it sounds like you think the bubbles of gravity excist even without massive objects to generate it. If that is the case, you are wrong. If you on the other hand is just trying to say that stuff in space clumb together and eventually will grow into planets and moons and other junk, you are correct, but have a very weird way of putting it.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by haven123
 


I wasn't being funny, I was just pointing out that the OP was his own thoughts, there is no link or supporting documents, unless you are referring to the crackpot theory of an expanding Earth.,



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


How you are getting creationism from what I am saying is beyond me.



It is creationism, even if it is a more advanced version.

Watch documentaries of Big Bang, they all start with "visualisation of 7 days of creation". This is the first version I saw of Big Bang theory, as a Child. The comparision between Gods 7 days, and Big Bang ...

Creationism is obvious, because it creates questions and does not answer any ... Why is the Sun and the earth so similar in shape? why is there gravity? why is there electromagnetism? Why is the earth so uncomfortably similar to a plasma ball? where did Big Bang come from? Why did Big Bang ... just Bang?

It doesn't answer any question ... it's like creationism in religion, it's comfortable. All our objections to religion, today, is based on the "discomfortable" parts of religion. God will come to earth and punish us ... not comfortable, so we object. Anything that states, that our existance is constant ... is comfortable. The earth is growing, not comfortable. The earth is a static size, and is floating in a constant orbit in space ... comfortable.

Big Bang is so much like Gods creation, in just one big flash he created the heavens and all came to begin. Let there be light, God said, and there was Big Bang and light came to being ... then on the 7th day, he made the earth from the dust of the sun ...

The story insults our intelligence, literally ... we area living in times, where we have acknowledged that life began as a single bakteria, and that we came to existance as natural selection. The survival of the fittest, not from Gods creation ...

The obviously next intellectual step, is to look at the entire Universe and see the same thing. It didn't come to existance in a single flash of creation, but gradually through the natural workings of atoms, gravity and electromagnetism.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


Rubbish! Creationism suggests a higher power, I suggested a powerful explosion, no higher power involved.

Tell you what, I put it to you that your theory has more to do with creationism than mine. what say you? Probably rubbish you're thinking....well that's how I feel about you thinking that I even suggested creationism.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by bjarneorn

Originally posted by ManFromEurope
Please define static and show how the universe isn't "static", with examples. Are there celestial bodies which are clearly and visibly not "static"? Pulsating stars excluded.


I don't have to, you said it yourself ... you canẗ say "come up with proof", and then in the next sentence say "but exclude the most obvious proof".

Ah-ah. I took pulsating stars out of the equation because they are pulsating not in any kind of "I want to be more than a small star" - which is metaphorical and quite stupid unless someone detects a sentient star.
No, they are between two (or even three, as far as I understood) stable phases - one, where gravitation is squeezing the matter till it reaches a critical density high enough to ignite another level of thermonuclear fusion and the other one when the outwards pressure of the fusion's fire has pushed the matter far enough that the density dropps below that critical point so the star can cool down and contract back to phase one.
There are more possible phases in which things like binary stars, accretion discs and other external influences take part, but these are just other faces of the same coin. No intention, just pure and wellunterstood physics.



Well, the most obvious proof is our Sun ... it's sure isn't static is it?
Yes, it is static. It burns continously through its fuel, just like any other star. Some stars reach a point of critical low fuel, see above.

The next to that one, would be the earth we are walking on ... every year, there are layers of earth that is being created, and things left alone for a few millenia, will find themselves beneath ground and even leave fossils. Not to mention volcanoes, rifts in the earth itself ... the Atlantic ridge ...
Look at it from the moon and you would see nothing of that. Maybe the continents would move, if you looked for millenia. The diameter of earth isn't changing, as there is no new matter or matter lost. (10.000 tons of meteoric mass excluded, but that would affect the diameter in the range of 1:10^18!)


And finally ... life

The moment you talk about "static" is in creation, even if you talk about a modern version of creationism ... you become a religious fanatic. Because creationism, is obviously false ... the arguement, if you find a clock you know it was designed, is flawed. We designed the clock, to simulate time ... but the fact, that we cannot design anything, that will tell time 100% perfectly, is the only proof you need, that time itself is not a design.

Time, creation, creationism, all mixed together in one thoughtbubble - but how you came from creationism to perfect clocks I don't get.
I don't even get it that you continously try to bring creationism in this discussion, nobody here said anything about it, or about evolution. Do you think that there is some kind of evolution in celestial bodies? How? Where is the pressure to evolve on our sun? Or on Earth? Meteors? Well, Earth itself can take quite a hit, there is no need for evolution against meteors ;-)

Nope, I still don't get it.




top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join