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: 17
28
<< 14  15  16   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1littlewolf
and I have met quite a few scientists who have themselves have become spiritual when they began to delve deeply into the mysteries of the universe.

Ever met Fred Alan Wolf?
He seems like a very fascinating guy. I'd love to have a good long conversation with him.
edit on 25-5-2012 by Xaphan because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 25 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by borntowatch
 


the jaw bone has shrunk due to consumption of processed food and lack of nutrition.
It was discovered in lab animals while researching nutrition for humans.

has anyone ever considered that along the way of "evolution" mans deeds would "create" changes in our development?



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   
The fossil evidence does not support Darwinism. The cambrian explosion is now an even bigger enigma than it was for Darwin. The fossil record shows a top down approach for the implimentation of body plans with the majority of all phyla appearing in a extremely brief period of geological time. There are no transitionals for any of the Cambrian animals.
The excuse was that they were soft bodied and could not be fossilised has been refuted. The problem is we do have soft bodied pre cambrian fossils, we even have exquisite fossils showing cellular structure. We also see the first composite eye in the cambrian, on par in complexity with any modern composite eye. No gradulism at all.

There is no singular tree of life to fit the observations, there are multi branches at it's base, Darwinism should show each phyla gradually appearing and gradually splitting. This is not the case. We also have the enigma of convergent evolution as well as several problems with biogeography.

Transitional fossils exist, but not nearly enough as would be expect in Darwins gradalism. It also shows periods of extreme stasis between rapid periods of morhphology. Body plans do not seem to be controlled by dna alone. Hox genes are simply switches that control the placement of body parts but not thier morphology.

Take the whale for example. New Fossils have pushed the first modern whales back even further in time. Leaving only around five million years for small land carnivore to be fully transformed into the large marine mammal we know, and it stayed that way for over 50 million years.

Consider how many succesful body changes must be made for this morphology. Consider the statistics using the darwinian science of population genetics and it simply cannot happen under gradualism. To compound the issue the transitional whale was already fully aquatic after around 1 or 2 million years.

I agree the transition did happen the fossil structure and lineage is fairly solid, but it could not have happened with the neo darwinian mechanism. Darwinism has become a blockage in scientific discovery. As well as spawning a the modern intellectual racism eg eugenics.

Micro evolution is nothing but simple one point mutations, what we now know now is that epigenics is a bigger factor in the variations we see due to breeding with very little change in the underlying DNA. To extroplolate from this to the creation of new genes, new proteins, new organs, and new body plans is preposterous and no evidence exist for it.

You will not hear any of this in school, because the Darwinists have fought tooth and nail to prevent any challenge to the paradigm, any challenge is instantly falsely branded as crazy creationism. When in reality it is purely scientific in nature.

I agree, evolution happens, but it does not happen by the darwinian mechanism and there is no evidence at all that it does.

Darwin once said that if anything could be shown to have not developed in a simple gradual step by step fashion his theory would absolutely break down. This condition has been met with every gene, every new protein fold, every molecular machine.

We need to look beyond Darwinism if we are to advance understanding.



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xaphan

Originally posted by 1littlewolf
and I have met quite a few scientists who have themselves have become spiritual when they began to delve deeply into the mysteries of the universe.

Ever met Fred Alan Wolf?
He seems like a very fascinating guy. I'd love to have a good long conversation with him.
edit on 25-5-2012 by Xaphan because: (no reason given)


I would love to one day. Unfortunately the guys (and girl) I know haven't gone nearly as far as him and I myself don't know enough about physics to go down that road either. Also as I live in Australia I can't see him making it down here any time soon....



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by randomname

thats your proof of evolution. lactose intolerance.

some people can't eat peanuts. that doesn't mean they're descended from monkeys.

that isn't evolution.

and why isn't it that scientists can't find any human bones older than 7000-8000 years old if supposed mankind has been evolving for millions of years.

even modern human bones older than 20,000 years would be a start. which there should be since mankind bury their loved ones.

that's a fact right there disproving monkey theories. focus on that instead of lactose intolerance.



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


you don't have a clue what you're talking about, do you?
this is a rhetorical question... i read some of the other stupidities you wrote (read your post on anti-virus, that really tells it all) and I'm not going to spend any more time on your wonderful reasonings.

have a great life, plenty of fish here



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Praetorius
... 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.


If A can mutate into B over short time periods, why can't A turn into Z over hundreds of millions or billions of years?

In order to endorse micro- but not macro-evolution (terms that biologists don't even use in the same way), a person would have to think he'd found some mechanism, some biological 'switch (if you will), that kicked in and told B not mutate any further, into C, wouldn't he? What is that mechanism that puts on the brakes and says "nope, B... don't stray too far from A!"?

It's late and I'm probably not making much sense, but today's A is just yesterday's B, and today's B tomorrow's A.

(Or something.... Hey, *I* know what I mean. ;-)

Chihuahua vs. great dane. Both came from the wolf. But look how different they are. If human 'artificial selection' can produce THAT variation over a mere ~10,000 years, imagine what 'natural selection' could do over millions or a few billion.

Again, to say that micro-evolution occurs but macro-evolution doesn't, one would need to identify that biological mechanism that kicks in and limits change. Where on the nucleotide or chromosome is this limiting agent located? It's just not there....

It also doesn't help that we live in a world in which ignorance of mathematics is so common that it's expected, sometimes even claimed with pride (haha). And yet even for the mathematically gifted, the huge amount of time available for all of these genetic changes to have taken place -- billions of years -- is almost literally incomprehensible.
edit on 31-5-2012 by TeaAndStrumpets because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 11:00 AM
link   
When faced with radical environmental change it can be expected that radical mutations will be selected for. Population size, distribution, and reproductive habits will impact how quickly mutations "become" the norm in a population. One or several mutations can become normalized in a population in less than a century under certain circumstances with certain populations of flora and fauna.

A suddenly radically altered environment will produce more succesful mutations than a stable environment. A lot more. It is conceivable that a million year period of change can see more (and farther ranging) succesful mutations than a 5 million year period of relative stability.

It is a misconception that human ancestors are only represented by a couple of fossils. We have thousands upon thousands of such fossils. A couple of our proposed ancestors are very poorly represented with only a hand full of fossils. Based on available dating methods we see a steady progression in our immediate ancestors toward the homo Sapien type. It is very clear that late Erectus looked more like a Sapien than early Erectus. It is so progressive infact, that anthropologists get in arguments about where one species ends and the other begins. Imagine a table with 30 skulls on it arranged in chronological order. The first is H. Ergaster (an example of an argument between whether Ergaster is just an early Erectus or a separate species) and the last is H. Erectus. The first and last skulls look clearly different, but in between there is a series of small changes from one to the other. Where do you draw the line between one species and the next?

While real scientists try to figure out how to separate one species from another in an ever evolving chronology, the Christian Monitor crowd is busy concocting fanciful farces of scientific reasoning to make themselves feel better about being propagators of mythology.


edit on 31-5-2012 by Erectus because: spelling correction



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 14  15  16   >>

log in

join