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.

 

Evolutionary theory: Gaps and not yet understood phenonemon

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 01:52 AM
link   
Evolution is a fact.
You know my opinion from my thead on this subject.
However in evolutionary theory there are still gaps.
I open this thread, to be in constant motion examining these gaps.
I feel that we dont download knowledge, we learn it.
So if there are gaps, as we learn more and more about them, we may possibly explain them along our quest to understand.
The idea that we have all the knowledge (a la creationism) is against how we function and learn.
We are not dummies (to a creator), who would create a world without mystery, where everything is preordained on higher authority
If we are dummies to something it is nature or the universe. Something that is neither higher, lower. It just is.
We learn by examining, knowing, speculating, examining.
However, the gaps and yet not understood phenomenon in evolutionary theory merit an own thread.
These white/ black points of understanding are a riddle, in and of themselves to a curious mind.
It is my hope, that we will examine these and new scientific result, resulting in an unending thread of understanding and knowledge.
Lets not makes this about religion, but curiosity and understanding.

edit on 24-1-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)

All are welcome, who seek.
edit on 24-1-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-1-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by BBalazs
 


Dear BBalazs,

I am a Christian and have no intention of adding to this post other than to congratulate you for being willing to look at any inconsistencies in any theory. I give you both a star and a flag and hope that you find intelligent conversation rather than religious explanations as that is not what you asked for. I would also ask that any people who wish to debate creationism create their own thread. Peace.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 02:26 AM
link   
reply to post by BBalazs
 


One inconsistency I can come up with is that they claim it would take millions of years to evolve, and that doesn't seem to be the case
disturbingnews.wordpress.com...

I was watching mutant planet the other day (new Zealand) and saw the most interesting evolutionary evidence I have seen in a long while. I can't remember the name off hand, but it was a mongoose that evolved into a cat. It gained retractable claws, more catlike features, habits (sleeps in trees like a puma) and evolved to fill the apex predator niche that remained vacant on the island. Yet it is still a mongoose. Many a creationist has demanded proof that one animal can evolve into another, I wonder if they would accept such evidence

(edit) Memory failed me, it was Madagascar. Anywho, meet the fossa, a mongoose dressed as a cat
en.wikipedia.org...(animal)

There's inconsistency in most theories, I mean, this is the theory of life itself... We can barely comprehend how the Egyptians could build their pyramids so well, and they had a language that we understand. It's not hard to imagine that evolution is going to take a lot more time to work the bugs out of, but it doesn't make it wrong.
Who knows, but the framework is there
edit on 24-1-2012 by IFeelForty because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-1-2012 by IFeelForty because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 03:15 AM
link   
In my opinion, there is only there is only one gap, or problem in Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution By Natural Selection. My problem is humans, although we have archaeological evidence of pre-human 'common ancestors.' We also have evidence that they weren't very smart, certainly not capable of much more intelligent thought than a chimp or any other primate. The problem is, we are the only animal capable of free thought, by that I basically mean the ability to say yes or no. We are the only animal that can get over survival instinct. My completely hypothetical example of this is to take a pig for arguments sake (because a pig is one the cleverest animals on the planet). If you were to abuse a pig and put it in unmanageable living conditions, hit it every once in a while with a baseball bat, play weird noises all day, and give it strange visuals, but still feed it as much as it needs 2 survive. The pig would eat it instinctively without a flicker of cognitive thought. But if you where to do the same 2 a human, a human would eventually think, "you know what iv'e had enough of this," and starve themselves.
edit on 24-1-2012 by abominatonofdesolation because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 03:20 AM
link   
reply to post by IFeelForty
 


While I understand the point you are trying to make in your post I would like to point out that a mongoose cannot and did not evolve into a cat. A mongoose or any other similar species will adapt to fit an un-occupied niche in an ecosystem, and take advantage of the resources available. A similar example would be the many different bird species of New Zealand that, over millennia, adapted themselves to roles occupied elsewhere by mammals, because the resources were available and there were no mammals to compete with(in New Zealand, until the arrival of humans around 750 years ago). Some of the bird species in NZ gave up flight and adopted habits and diets similar to mammals, but none evolved into mammals
. The idea of an animal of one genus changing to another genus is a crass notion that creationists use to try to muddy the waters of real scientific inquiry, and is not part of evolutionary science.
edit on 24-1-2012 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 03:27 AM
link   
reply to post by abominatonofdesolation
 


Not true, wild animals when captured will sometimes starve themselves and have even been known to try to kill themselves. An example of this, known to me personally, is one of a barn owl which was injured by a car and brought to a animal shelter with a broken wing, the owl was due for an extended period of recovery, in time it began to reject food and regularly attempted to sever an artery under it's undamaged wing with it's beak.


edit on 24-1-2012 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 03:37 AM
link   
As I said it was hypothetical, I don't know much about animal psychology, I kinda knew I would instantly be debunked on that. But nevertheless I still have a problem with humans in The Theory of Evolution.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 03:42 AM
link   
Cite examples in this thread, now. Otherwise you've created an opinion based thread with nothing substantial to backup your opinion thus leaving us arguing philosophy instead of science.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 03:47 AM
link   
reply to post by abominatonofdesolation
 


No actually we're not the only animal that can "get over survival instinct" you nub. Human personality development is a combination of genetic traits and the environmental influences during an individuals childhood. STRESS can trigger what are considered modern-day "behavioral and neurological disorders" but in our ancestors past these personality types were a key role in ensuing the survival of our ancestors at the time. ADD is a prime example of this -- where a individuals brain doesn't release enough dopamine to fully operate unless their flight/fight response is triggered. This was key in survival in the wild and during times of war/combat, but isn't as necessary in modern society.

Either way the point stands - humans have NOT overcome their survival instincts.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by AQuestion
 


I'm curious, can I congratulate you on investigating all the inconstancy of the documented history of the christian religion and the inconsistencies therein? Also - there's new information out if you have.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by BBalazs
 


The OP is kinda scattered, but although there are gaps in the fossil record, ther is still sufficient evidence to back up everything from whales moving onto land to humans evolving larger brains. Science changes, religions stays constant. Science bases itself on evidence and facts while religion maintains its original perception of the world. IMO it's pretty clear that science is the more logical, rational approach for people to take when it comes to how life came about.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 03:52 AM
link   
reply to post by IFeelForty
 


There's nothing in that wikipedia post regarding some "miraculous" evolution of a mongoose into a fossa. Could they share a similar ancestor that lived millions of years ago? Sure!

Oh the "catboy" photoshop was pretty nifty. Clean up the dark lines under the iris though because they're distracting from the depth of the eye.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 04:04 AM
link   
Okay, this link makes a much better argument than me.

www.compassionheart.com...



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by abominatonofdesolation
Okay, this link makes a much better argument than me.

www.compassionheart.com...


The 'prehistoric renaissance' (so to speak) is a bit of a puzzle indeed, however it by no means challenges the evolutionary process as science understands it.
edit on 24-1-2012 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 04:19 AM
link   
Can someone post a picture or a link to a picture of Human evolution with pressumed dates?
The model of human evolution with dates and as much info as the science of evolutionary theory stands, but in a picture format.
Thanks in advance!



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evil_Santa
reply to post by IFeelForty
 




Oh the "catboy" photoshop was pretty nifty. Clean up the dark lines under the iris though because they're distracting from the depth of the eye.


Yeahhhh.... I photoshopped the other couple dozen articles on him too.. And the videos... And the other pic that was posted on ATS with cat pupils when they are round. Sorry I was too lazy to post fifty links, though you can find them. Thanks for the tips, I'm sure Wordpress would love your input



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 04:40 AM
link   
reply to post by BBalazs
 


hey there.. ask and ye shall receive... well, I did my best.


this image was from this NASA site.


meh..


from Indiana University.
and though I only perused.. this site looks interesting. I was linked there by another page from Indiana Uni.
Lastly...

Taken from this site, the University of Illinois at Chicago.
enjoy!! back to work for me
spot you all later

edit on 2012/1/24 by Jimjolnir because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by abominatonofdesolation
In my opinion, there is only there is only one gap, or problem in Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution By Natural Selection. My problem is humans, although we have archaeological evidence of pre-human 'common ancestors.' We also have evidence that they weren't very smart, certainly not capable of much more intelligent thought than a chimp or any other primate. The problem is, we are the only animal capable of free thought, by that I basically mean the ability to say yes or no. We are the only animal that can get over survival instinct. My completely hypothetical example of this is to take a pig for arguments sake (because a pig is one the cleverest animals on the planet). If you were to abuse a pig and put it in unmanageable living conditions, hit it every once in a while with a baseball bat, play weird noises all day, and give it strange visuals, but still feed it as much as it needs 2 survive. The pig would eat it instinctively without a flicker of cognitive thought. But if you where to do the same 2 a human, a human would eventually think, "you know what iv'e had enough of this," and starve themselves.
edit on 24-1-2012 by abominatonofdesolation because: (no reason given)



No, we're not the only thing capable of free thought. Animals show emotional decisions as well. And we're not the only thing to get over survival instinct... An example is a cat or dog who, despite a building being on fire, risks its life to wake its owners up and save them. Your pig example is false as well... I recall reading about a mother bear and her cub in some kind of facility for medical experiments on animals. The animals endured extreme pain and discomfort, so one day the mother bear killed its cub and then committed suicide. Here is the actual story LINK.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by trollz
 


Thanks for that post certainly eye opening, I take back the whole pig example.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 05:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Jimjolnir
 



Thank you!
Do you know, has anyone studied the possibilty that humans may have evolved a whole lot earlier then is assumed?



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join