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: 3
28
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   
OP - you mentioned the fossil record.

Can you tell me, how do scientists know that fossils had offspring? how do they know that fossils passed on their genes to their offspring and that it mutated or didn't? how is this testable? If I brought you set of bones and said, "here, this was my great, great grandpa" - would you be able to confirm that?




posted on May, 22 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by CloonBerg
Evolution occurs and has been proven on many accounts (DNA and all).

Which "Evolution"? Whenever I think of Evolution, I think of Cosmic Evolution, Chemical Evolution, Stellar Evolution, Organic Evolution, and Macro-Evolution, while the Evolutionists is thinking of Micro-Evolution. Please define what you mean by Evolution beforehand.


First of all, evolution is the result of completely accidental mutations! Sometimes (rarely) these mutations may be superior.
Has this ever been observed?


This process can be further narrowed down when sexual selection occurs. If females are more attracted to males that can walk upright, this will speed up the process of evolution.
Again, just a theory, and though it would be logical in such an event, that doesn't make it true.


If you don't understand alleles or how genotypes are passed to offspring you should educate yourself on it. If you understand that, combined with how DNA mutates, and natural selection, you will understand evolution.
Yes, I understand them. I want you to note that Natural Selection does not create. It selects. I'd also like to point out, there is no evidence of Evolution actually taking place. It still remains a theory, and it is not observable. I would submit and agree that Evolution, at least in the Macro-Evolution sense, is true IF someone can provide proof that NEW information is added through mutations.

From what I've seen of mutations (5 legged cows, 2 headed turtles, etc) - no NEW information is added, only either a LOSS of information, or a scrambling of information. The day I believe in evolution is when pigs fly.

Literally.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpearMint

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)



thanks for fixing it. not sure why it did that. i look forward to what you think about the video.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 


If you actually did your research, you'd find that evolution is just as full of holes as creationism is.


A watch is too complex to "happen" by chance. Yet such living systems are almost infinitely more complex than a watch. They could not be random—they simply had to be designed and created.



The high information content of DNA could only have come from intelligence. Information science teaches that in all known cases, complex information requires an intelligent message sender.



No mutation that increases genetic information has ever been discovered. Mutations which increase genetic information would be the raw material necessary for evolution. To get from "amoeba" to "man" would require a massive net increase in information.



Evolution flies directly in the face of entropy, the second law of thermodynamics. This law of physics states that all systems, whether open or closed, have a tendency to disorder (or "the least energetic state"). There are some special cases where local order can increase, but this is at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere.


This stuff comes from a blog, but you can find that it is actually pretty accurate.

Evolution Flaws

Clearly, you did not look as deeply into evolution as you pretended to.

Thanks for playing.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lionhearte

Originally posted by CloonBerg
Evolution occurs and has been proven on many accounts (DNA and all).

Which "Evolution"? Whenever I think of Evolution, I think of Cosmic Evolution, Chemical Evolution, Stellar Evolution, Organic Evolution, and Macro-Evolution, while the Evolutionists is thinking of Micro-Evolution. Please define what you mean by Evolution beforehand.


First of all, evolution is the result of completely accidental mutations! Sometimes (rarely) these mutations may be superior.
Has this ever been observed?


This process can be further narrowed down when sexual selection occurs. If females are more attracted to males that can walk upright, this will speed up the process of evolution.
Again, just a theory, and though it would be logical in such an event, that doesn't make it true.


If you don't understand alleles or how genotypes are passed to offspring you should educate yourself on it. If you understand that, combined with how DNA mutates, and natural selection, you will understand evolution.
Yes, I understand them. I want you to note that Natural Selection does not create. It selects. I'd also like to point out, there is no evidence of Evolution actually taking place. It still remains a theory, and it is not observable. I would submit and agree that Evolution, at least in the Macro-Evolution sense, is true IF someone can provide proof that NEW information is added through mutations.

From what I've seen of mutations (5 legged cows, 2 headed turtles, etc) - no NEW information is added, only either a LOSS of information, or a scrambling of information. The day I believe in evolution is when pigs fly.

Literally.


I am obviously speaking about the evolution of species

lol "it still remains a theory". You need to refresh your memory on what a theory means in scientific terms.

Yes, mutations have been observed many times.
stke.sciencemag.org...;290/5499/2137

Mutations driving evolution is fact. Scrambling, deletion, addition or crossing of information IS the creation of new information. Think of it like taking a word like "runts" and transforming it with the same information into "turns". Same coding, new word. Bases do sometimes transpose into gene sequences, that is proven as well. Also, if you knew anything about genetics and genomes, you would know that larger genome doesn't = more complex organism. The examples of mutations you give (5 legged cows etc) often times occur in somatic cells and not gamete cells. Also, since those mutations are not beneficial to survival and reproduction, the species will never evolve to be 5 legged or 2 headed.

I know natural selection doesn't create anything, it is a process. It certainly is a major factor though in the creation of new species.

Sexual selection is observed in many species. Birds of paradise are well known for their sexual selection behaviors. Fish of the Cichlidae family are another good example. (these are so far all inter-sexual selection). Intrasexual selection examples would be strongest males in a herd fighting for females. Sexual selection is fact.

Oh yeah, and evolution is observable. Look up studies on Drosophila fruit flies. They reproduce extremely fast, and it is easy to get multiple generations in a short period.

People who don't believe in evolution either:
1. Don't really understand it
2. Don't want to understand or accept it (bury head in sand)

Ive seen a lot of posts on ATS about evolution, and the way many people perceive it is laughable. So many think it is some kind of internal feedback process in which the animal magically knows to start breathing air or growing wings to become superior...WRONG. (and yes i wouldn't believe this either).



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 07:14 PM
link   
The jawbone and wisdom teeth as proof of evolution, thats just childish. If thats the standard of argument for evolution here then that reflects poorly on your countrys education system
The jawbone is not used by modern people like it was pre 1500, we dont chew hard foods and bones. If we used our jaws as much today as then our bone and muscles would grow and accommodate these teeth.
This evolution argument is far more than lactose and teeth.
How moronic.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by SpearMint
 


If you actually did your research, you'd find that evolution is just as full of holes as creationism is.



A watch is too complex to "happen" by chance. Yet such living systems are almost infinitely more complex than a watch. They could not be random—they simply had to be designed and created.


Fallacies, fallacies and more fallacies. Comparing a watch to evolution is worse than comparing apples and oranges. Mathematically a watch could occur by chance. It would require more time than we could ever perceive though...


The high information content of DNA could only have come from intelligence. Information science teaches that in all known cases, complex information requires an intelligent message sender.


DNA is a result of complex controlled chemical reactions. You are nothing more than a sack of controlled chemical reactions. We create DNA. We are the intelligent message senders. If you knew anything, DNA was not the first thing to contain information for the creation of life. Also, remember that the first life on earth was not as complex as the most complex we have today. So in relativity, it was not complex.


No mutation that increases genetic information has ever been discovered. Mutations which increase genetic information would be the raw material necessary for evolution. To get from "amoeba" to "man" would require a massive net increase in information.


This is just stupid. Expression of information is what is important, not the amount. If you believe this crap then you simply just don't understand genetics. Simple as that. There are numerous plants and fungi that have a much large genome than humans. As I said before, increase is not necessary but a change is. Changes AND increases or decreases happen in nature.


Evolution flies directly in the face of entropy, the second law of thermodynamics. This law of physics states that all systems, whether open or closed, have a tendency to disorder (or "the least energetic state"). There are some special cases where local order can increase, but this is at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere.


Life itself flies directly in the face of entropy. But entropy always wins, or else we would never die. That is why life needs to reproduce in order to exist.


To those that don't believe in evolution, go take a college level biology course so that you can at least understand exactly what evolution is and how it works. Unless you simply don't want to believe in it. I don't care if you chose to believe or not, just don't misinform people.



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

Originally posted by Lionhearte
OP - you mentioned the fossil record.

Can you tell me, how do scientists know that fossils had offspring? how do they know that fossils passed on their genes to their offspring and that it mutated or didn't? how is this testable? If I brought you set of bones and said, "here, this was my great, great grandpa" - would you be able to confirm that?


Yes, through DNA comparison. It's not necessary to do that however, can you think of another way for a DNA mutation to spread?



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 08:45 PM
link   
What you are referring to is "adaptation", not evolution.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by borntowatch
The jawbone and wisdom teeth as proof of evolution, thats just childish. If thats the standard of argument for evolution here then that reflects poorly on your countrys education system
The jawbone is not used by modern people like it was pre 1500, we dont chew hard foods and bones. If we used our jaws as much today as then our bone and muscles would grow and accommodate these teeth.
This evolution argument is far more than lactose and teeth.
How moronic.


Of course evolution is far more than lactose and teeth. My example was just one, the most recent I know about and it's easy to understand. Pre 1500? 500 Years is NOTHING on the evolutionary scale. Also, like I said, evolution is down to chance and not necessity. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

You've insulted a person and their country's education system based on an uneducated opinion.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
What you are referring to is "adaptation", not evolution.


Explain why.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   
You have described either a DNA mutation ( which is always negative ) or Adaption. Evolutionist believe we all evolved from bacteria or from fish. Evolution would be a transition from one KIND to another. A hairy 4 legged fish... IE the missing link, which has not been discovered.. Stop trying to sell your THEORY as FACT



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 08:56 PM
link   
I'm going to make this easy for everyone. The haploid human genome occupies a total of just over three billion DNA base pairs. Then there is junk DNA, which is apparently very important, also.

The odds of having a successful replication and adding a new DNA base pair every year since the World began 4.5 billion years ago is impossible. We don't even have a new DNA base pair added every ten or fifty years.

If your premise is that the lactose gene was added within the past 7,000 years, you have proven that evolution is impossible.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
What you are referring to is "adaptation", not evolution.


Explain why.


I've explained it as well as you've explained your position.


I have a million dollars in my wallet. That's a FACT.

(Saying it's a "fact" doesn't make it a fact.)



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Twilly
You have described either a DNA mutation.


I'll stop you right there, yes I have. It's been passed down and a lot of the human race now possesses it. That is evolution.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jim Scott
I'm going to make this easy for everyone. The haploid human genome occupies a total of just over three billion DNA base pairs. Then there is junk DNA, which is apparently very important, also.

The odds of having a successful replication and adding a new DNA base pair every year since the World began 4.5 billion years ago is impossible. We don't even have a new DNA base pair added every ten or fifty years.

If your premise is that the lactose gene was added within the past 7,000 years, you have proven that evolution is impossible.


This is something we can observe in DNA up to 7000 years ago. We have physical proof it happened. I'm not talking about a "Lactose gene", humans no longer stop producing Lactase when they become adults.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
What you are referring to is "adaptation", not evolution.


Explain why.


I've explained it as well as you've explained your position.


I have a million dollars in my wallet. That's a FACT.

(Saying it's a "fact" doesn't make it a fact.)


Did you just read the title and reply? I wrote a page explaining what I meant, and provided an article on it. Read that and also the peer reviewed papers someone posted. How much explanation do you want? Unless you can put some reason behind your statement it means nothing.

See how every point someone against evolution tries to make is based on misunderstanding or lack of knowledge? There hasn't been one reasonable argument.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
What you are referring to is "adaptation", not evolution.


Explain why.


If I may ...

Adaptation occurs when a species develops characteristics which enhance its survival in a particular environment; the way some animals adapt to cold environments, for example. Evolution occurs when a species evolves into another species. The point being that the evolved species can't produce offspring with the species it evolved from.

Anyway, evolution can be proven with simple logic. We know some species become extinct, and we know that we've had mass extinctions in the past. Now, if one species could not evolve into another, then that would mean that every species on Earth today has always been here. If you consider all the species on the planet now, consider the rate at species that go extinct, and work your way back about 100,000 years, it becomes pretty clear that there is no way that many species could have existed on the Earth at the same time. It all comes down to numbers.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 09:25 PM
link   
well sure i could make something one way mae it better " thats considered " evoulution as humans we evolved. nope thats like compairing us to sheep



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 09:28 PM
link   
speciation is all around us. the african cichlids of lake malawi have been doing it literally in front of our eyes

evolution is trickier

how did wings evolve ? as kurt vonnegut said, " 'We have to continually be jumping off cliffs and developing our wings on the way down.'



edit on 22-5-2012 by syrinx high priest because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join