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.

 

Evolution happens. That's a fact.

page: 1
28
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+20 more 
posted on May, 22 2012 @ 06:57 AM
link   
It amazes me time and time again when people disregard the theory of evolution and claim that there is no evidence behind it. Well there is, and evolution is real. I just want to show you a very recent example of human evolution.

First of all I'll quickly explain how evolution works, because I often see people under the impression that evolution is a voluntary process and is intentionally controlled based on environmental factors. First of all a mutation needs to occur, this is random and is not based on necessity. A mutation can either be beneficial, neutral or harmful. Harmful mutations will make life difficult and hinder the ability to reproduce, while beneficial mutations give the host an advantage in life and will go on to reproduce, possibly reproducing more than the rest of the species due to the advantage they have, whatever that may be. The mutation is spread by the offspring, the process repeats until it is widespread. Isolated species can evolve into a completely separate species over a very long time. That's how evolution works, It's random. Slight variations of this may exist but it's all based on the same principles.

Now for a short example of this process in recent Homo Sapiens.

Did you know adult Humans aren't meant to be able to digest milk? Milk contains a sugar called "Lactose", to be able to break Lactose down a protein by the name of "Lactase" is needed. Humans and most mammals are born being able to produce Lactase and lose the ability when they become adults, around puberty for humans, since milk is meant to feed the young and is not intended to be ingested by adults. I'm sure you've heard of Lactose intolerance, when these people have something containing Lactose they get an upset stomach because they can't break it down, this is the reason they sell milk specifically for adult cat's and dog's as well, it's how we're meant to be. This all changed around 7000 years ago when a mutation occurred in Europe that meant adult Humans did not stop producing Lactase as an adult, we know it happened around then due to DNA recovered from bones. This mutation is very beneficial, as I'm sure you can imagine. Milk is rich in calcium which strengthens bones, as well as being a great renewable food source, so Humans with this mutation were far better off than the others, and therefore went on to reproduce and the mutation spread. Today most European descendants can digest milk, I'm glad to be one of them! I can enjoy a nice iced coffee without suffering later.

People of African origin also gained this ability at some point, I'm not quite sure when. Lactose intolerance is a lot more common in far East Europe, and very common in China and other Asian countries. Around 10% of people with a European origin are lactose intolerant, they are in fact normal and we are the weirdos!

So there we go, a quick example of recent human evolution. Evolution happens regardless of your religious beliefs and regardless of whether we were created or not. Obviously this is not a visible example, but it happens in the exact same way, it's generally a lot slower and harder to observe. Of course the majority of evidence to support evolution lies in fossil records, but this is often ignored and said not to be proof (which is rather ignorant in my opinion).

I hope you found this interesting, which is the point of this, I'm not after a debate.


I don't have a specific source since I read a lot about this a long time ago, but there are many articles around.

Edit: here we go, a reliable source that's a lot more detailed.
It's also a lot more readable than my late night writing ability...
edit on 22-5-2012 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-5-2012 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 22 2012 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 


be prepared for a pile of crap, my friend
it's a sad world where we need a (nicely crafted) post to defend something that should be obvious to all

s & f



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 07:26 AM
link   
Evolution 101. ADAPT OR PERISH.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by NeverSleepingEyes
reply to post by SpearMint
 


be prepared for a pile of crap, my friend
it's a sad world where we need a (nicely crafted) post to defend something that should be obvious to all

s & f


Thank you, I'm prepared for a bit of that if this thread gets much attention. I don't think the target audience is that big but I see it often enough to make me write this (not just around this site). Yeah it is sad, I think this is common knowledge to most people though.

Sorry if the OP is a little sloppy, like I said, it's late.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpearMint
First of all a mutation needs to occur, this is random and is not based on necessity.


This is where the physicist steps in to rebuke the biologist.


+7 more 
posted on May, 22 2012 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 


What changed in our DNA code to allow for the processing of milk? That would be proof of evolution. Otherwise, it is just proof of adaptation. It is true all living things adapt to their environments. Harboring a new enzyme capable of breaking down lactose is a great example of adaptation. Losing hair or growing extra hair is another example. Pigmentation of the skin is another example. None of those things are evolution, they are adaptation.

Another common misconception is cross-breeding. You can mix a husky and a shephard, and you can get longer legs, or longer hair, but it is a product of selective breeding, not evolution.

As far as I know, there has never been any direct proof of evolution, only adaptation. We have found plenty of evidence of changes in DNA, but they have never been gradual, they have always been jumps where one animal (like humans) suddenly appears on the scene and drives a competing and co-existing animal out of the food chain. Although that may be "survival of the fittest," it is hard to say it is evolution unless we can find the connecting data where one emerged from the other, and emerged as a result of mutations affecting DNA.

I've given this example many times. If evolution were true, it should be simple to prove. If humans have a generational time frame of say 25 years, then we can say 100,000 years of humanity is 4000 generations. Then, we take a bacteria that has a generational time frame of say 6 hours. We create an environment for that bacteria where it can survive, but will require mutations to thrive. We let it go through 4000 generations (approximately 3 years) and we test the DNA every step along the way to decide if it is adapting or evolving. If it evolves, then evolution is proven. If it only adapts, then evolution is disproven!

Edit:
Just read your link, and it does say the enzyme is linked to a gene, and it does call the mutation an evolution.
Great find! I still want someone to run my bacteria experiment though..


The lactase gene was absent from the DNA extracted from these skeletons, suggesting that these early Europeans would not be tolerant to milk.

Dr Mark Thomas, from UCL, said: "The ability to drink milk is the most advantageous trait that's evolved in Europeans in the recent past.

edit on 22-5-2012 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 07:42 AM
link   
S&F but I have to say that nobody who should read this will and if they do, they won't understand what you are saying because it sounds like scientific mumbo-jumbo to them.
I learned long ago that there is no way you can reach those you plan to reach because they just won't read, understand or listen. In the end you can show them evidence and write a really easy to understand post but all you get is a quote from the bible and you know they didn't read a word of your carefully written post.
Frustrating and sad but true. I've given up long ago. May they dwell in their strange fairy tale world.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 07:45 AM
link   
Cool thread, buddy. Laid out nice and simple, S&F


I'll add these two simple examples, too:

The fact that our jaws have gotten smaller since the 1500's. We no longer have room for our wisdom teeth.
Goosebumps - useful if we had fur because it would fluff up and make more insulation. Good for people who had fur but for us goosebumps are useless.

We have a handful of things on our body that are not of any use what so ever, like our inner eyelids and little toe's, they are completely useless, not signs of intelligent design.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by SpearMint
 


What changed in our DNA code to allow for the processing of milk? That would be proof of evolution. Otherwise, it is just proof of adaptation. It is true all living things adapt to their environments. Harboring a new enzyme capable of breaking down lactose is a great example of adaptation. Losing hair or growing extra hair is another example. Pigmentation of the skin is another example. None of those things are evolution, they are adaptation.

Another common misconception is cross-breeding. You can mix a husky and a shephard, and you can get longer legs, or longer hair, but it is a product of selective breeding, not evolution.

As far as I know, there has never been any direct proof of evolution, only adaptation. We have found plenty of evidence of changes in DNA, but they have never been gradual, they have always been jumps where one animal (like humans) suddenly appears on the scene and drives a competing and co-existing animal out of the food chain. Although that may be "survival of the fittest," it is hard to say it is evolution unless we can find the connecting data where one emerged from the other, and emerged as a result of mutations affecting DNA.

I've given this example many times. If evolution were true, it should be simple to prove. If humans have a generational time frame of say 25 years, then we can say 100,000 years of humanity is 4000 generations. Then, we take a bacteria that has a generational time frame of say 6 hours. We create an environment for that bacteria where it can survive, but will require mutations to thrive. We let it go through 4000 generations (approximately 3 years) and we test the DNA every step along the way to decide if it is adapting or evolving. If it evolves, then evolution is proven. If it only adapts, then evolution is disproven!


Edit: Didn't see your edit.


edit on 22-5-2012 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 07:54 AM
link   
I am not a scientist but, this is compelling. In the fashion that you are frustrated with disregard to evolution I encourage you to not disregard the evidence for creation.


edit on 22-5-2012 by Keeper of Kheb because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Keeper of Kheb
I am not a scientist but, this is compelling. In the fashion that you are frustrated with disregard to evolution I encourage you to not disregard the evidence for creation.


edit on 22-5-2012 by Keeper of Kheb because: (no reason given)




Fixed it for ya.

I don't disregard any religion or the theory of creation, I don't have proof either way so I don't criticize, regardless of what my opinion may be. I try to remain open minded and I'm always interested in learning about other peoples theories and beliefs.

I can't watch it right now but I will when I can.

edit on 22-5-2012 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 08:14 AM
link   
I can site one major example for evidence of evolution.. I must state first that I do not believe in god, but I would never be arrogant enough to assume that he/she/it does not exist in any form.. I can't really prove either way, and neither can anyone else. Therefore I remain open to educated argument either way...

Although I must say... One of the theories does certainly hold considerably more credence with me than the other, purely because I am a creature of reason and logic....

Darwin himself stated that his "theory" was not complete... And there were "some" things he couldn't explain... However, it is the best theory we have so far, based on what little observable evidence we have... Which although is limited, is rather convincing, as others above have undoubtedly proven...

Yeah, it's not complete, but just because we still can't explain some aspects of evolution doesn't mean that we therefore dismiss the whole theory and affiliate ourselves with another "theory", (for that's what religion is to me), which is actually based on no provable evidence, contravenes the laws of physics as we know them in several instances, and teaches us to accept many unlikely propositions while simultaneously informing us that we are not worthy of understanding or questioning them.

Anyway... I fear I may be flogging a dead horse so to speak.. But here we go..

In the human body, the nerve that extends from the back Of the voice box, goes down the neck, round a major ventricule of the heart, then back up the neck to connect to the brain. Now, this route is obviously not logical, and to design this feature, would be ridiculous, and certainly not the actions of an omnipotent being... Now, here's the clincher... This feature is also present in the giraffe, it still has the convoluted route, which is about 6m in this instance! This feature originally comes from fish, and is still present in mammals from when the evolutionary tree split. You see, in fish, this route is actually the shortest route possible for the nerve.

Now, this isn't proof.... But it's certainly strong evidence... Which is all we can provide.

Any comments OP?

PA



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 
I would also like to add that there are various usages of the term evolution - what's being argued here, once again, seems to miss the point that most detractors mainly have issues with the theory of common descent - all life on earth is descended from a common ancestor through a series of small and progressive steps to change in almost all regards.

I've got not problem with "microevolution" or natural selection through adaptation, I recognize the amazing amount of diversity capable even within a single creature's genetic code - but I have serious qualms with the theory of common descent and the mathematical/statistical/informational hurdles it faces...which to me so far remain insurmountable.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by PerfectAnomoly
 


That's very interesting indeed, thank you for that! To me that's very strong evidence, maybe even proof. Another part of the body that may support evolution is the appendix which is not needed in modern humans. I don't know much about the history of the appendix though so that might not be a very good example, I need to do some reading.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Praetorius
but I have serious qualms with the theory of common descent and the mathematical/statistical/informational hurdles it faces...which to me so far remain insurmountable.


There really is no qualitative difference between all life forms coming from a single genotype, divided by environmental factors, and all forms whatsoever being a collection of particles from a single underlying field, divided by energy quantities.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpearMint
reply to post by PerfectAnomoly
 


That's very interesting indeed, thank you for that! To me that's very strong evidence, maybe even proof. Another part of the body that may support evolution is the appendix which is not needed in modern humans. I don't know much about the history of the appendix though so that might not be a very good example, I need to do some reading.


The most plausible explanation I have heard for the appendix is that it serves as a safehaven for our digestional bacteria. When we get a nasty stomach bug and our intestines are violently emptied out and we lose all the probiotics and enzymes, they can repopulate from the appendix. In this day and age with milks and yogurts and less occurences of violent stomach bugs, the appendix is not as important as it might have been in year's past, but it does still serve a purpose.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by imherejusttoread

Originally posted by Praetorius
but I have serious qualms with the theory of common descent and the mathematical/statistical/informational hurdles it faces...which to me so far remain insurmountable.


There really is no qualitative difference between all life forms coming from a single genotype, divided by environmental factors, and all forms whatsoever being a collection of particles from a single underlying field, divided by energy quantities.

Perhaps, but that still doesn't have much bearing on whether one is the actual or even possible method by which all life on this rock ended up as it has.

Thanks, regardless.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Originally posted by SpearMint
reply to post by PerfectAnomoly
 


That's very interesting indeed, thank you for that! To me that's very strong evidence, maybe even proof. Another part of the body that may support evolution is the appendix which is not needed in modern humans. I don't know much about the history of the appendix though so that might not be a very good example, I need to do some reading.


The most plausible explanation I have heard for the appendix is that it serves as a safehaven for our digestional bacteria. When we get a nasty stomach bug and our intestines are violently emptied out and we lose all the probiotics and enzymes, they can repopulate from the appendix. In this day and age with milks and yogurts and less occurences of violent stomach bugs, the appendix is not as important as it might have been in year's past, but it does still serve a purpose.


That is a very good theory, if it's true then it would have been useful until very recently. Like I said I don't know much about it. Thanks.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   
Just for the record, I don't believe there is anything on our bodies that is no longer useful. Even the small bit of fine hair and goosebumps still provides a little extra warmth and electrostatic connection to our environment. Our pinky toes still provide a little extra balance (just ask anyone that has had one removed), and our appendix and tonsils still have uses. Ideally, I think we are better off keeping our bodies intact. 2 kidneys is better than 1, Gall Bladders, Thyroids, Testicles, and Ovaries are all more than just luxuries.

Now, I won't lie, I don't understand gray hair or male pattern baldness, or extra layers of fat around the midsection as we age. I don't understand osteoporosis or the loss of teeth that seem to be common as we age. I don't understand why a baby crying is so infuriatingly annoying. Seems anti-evolutionary to make something so fragile also so annoying, LOL!

Still, I believe all those things do serve purposes, we just don't fully understand them at this point.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 


If you're going to source something on nutritional evolution with regard to lactase sourcing something as flimsy as bbc.news just won't hold. Here are some actual peer-reviewed journal articles that support your notion:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

www.nature.com...

www.cell.com...(07)61358-5

And here's a site with excellent info from a good friend of mine:

www.millerandlevine.com...

There is room for God and science in the equation. He made the equation.



new topics

top topics



 
28
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join