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: 6
28
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2012 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by SpearMint
 




evolution would take an infinite amount of time just to get started.

Well you got that right ! How is it you have so much trouble nailing down exactly what you said ?

"Extremely slow process"

Your saying, " I didn't say that " isn't true. Do you wish to redact the statement so we can move on ?
Or explain how your ststement and mine are so different if you rather ?


I don't think you know what infinite means.... I said it's slow, you said it takes an infinite amount of time to get started. If that were true then we wouldn't have evolved, nothing would. This is painful, I still don't know what it is you're on about. Obviously it didn't take an infinite amount of time to start or you would not be here.




posted on May, 23 2012 @ 02:00 AM
link   

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


When there is a environmental catastrophe then an increase in mutation rate could be beneficial.
This could be triggered by the catastrophe itself (nuclear disaster etc.) and could enable
the remaining organisms to adapt to their new "polluted" enviournment.

See www.abovetopsecret.com...
(Keywods GLO gene vitamin c antioxidant mutation evolutionary advantage)

There are examples of man intentionally increasing the mutation rate and this is based on need.
For example I believe Max Wolf designed protein producing bacteria this way so he could make
a high protein foodstuff for people.
(Ref www.qualityenzymes.com...)

An organism preying on another organism could intentionally increase the mutation rate
so its prey is more beneficial to itself. This could also be a disaster.

If it's beneficial for one organism to increase the mutation rate of its prey then I am sure evolution
has been there and is using it ;-)

Limbo



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Limbo
 


This is why I said there are variations, there are a few factors that come in to play. Thank you I'll have a read.
edit on 23-5-2012 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 


You don't know what I'm on about ?



If that were true then we wouldn't have evolved


But you said it yourself.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Before we were humans (homo sapien) we were still mammals. Nothing "changed" in human DNA to allow for it, it was already there.
edit on 23/5/12 by Morg234 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by SpearMint
 


You don't know what I'm on about ?



If that were true then we wouldn't have evolved


But you said it yourself.


WHAT ARE YOU ON ABOUT? Let me make it simple.

You said:
"It would take an infinite amount of time for evolution to even get started. The theory itself suggests that."

Definition of "infinite":
"Limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate: "an infinite number of stars"."

So if it took an infinite amount of time to start it would NEVER start.

I said it's a slow process. Jesus....



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 02:14 AM
link   
Actually, All humans are born with the ability to drink milk. Lactose intolerance is actually the norm. The gene switches off in the case of lactose intolerance, as WAS the norm.

In other words we've always had the ability to ingest milk, it's not an emergent quality. It's just that in modern populations that can drink milk the gene has not switched off.

Evolution, as in new genes or new functional proteins it is not.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 02:15 AM
link   


or a random accident


This just shows a lack of understanding when people say it was a random accident. If the means and environment are there it will happen. It is an inevitability, not an accident.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
Actually, All humans are born with the ability to drink milk. Lactose intolerance is actually the norm. The gene switches off in the case of lactose intolerance, as WAS the norm.

In other words we've always had the ability to ingest milk, it's not an emergent quality. It's just that in modern populations that can drink milk the gene has not switched off.

Evolution, as in new genes or new functional proteins it is not.


That doesn't mean we always have, it means something in Lactose intolerant people makes it switch off. We know people couldn't before 7000 years ago due to DNA that has been collected, there is no debate there.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 02:21 AM
link   


It still remains a theory,
reply to post by Lionhearte
 


Remains? That's the best thing it can be. A scientific theory. An explanation proven beyond doubt by all the scientific facts.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 


Alright look I apologise for driving at you the way I have. Just trying to get you to understand that if you say something a certain way you have to be ready to hold to it. You can't deny you said something that you obviously did say. Nor can you change it. Not even in the slightest way.

You can't prove evolution explains existence and is how everything came to be, anymore than I can prove creation does.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpearMint

That doesn't mean we always have, it means something in Lactose intolerant people makes it switch off. We know people couldn't before 7000 years ago due to DNA that has been collected, there is no debate there.


Well considering babies need to drink milk, I think yes we've always had it. If not when did this new gene arise?

How does the switching off of a gene equate to evolutionary advancement? We may be able to switch off other genes to gain other abilities but this is not evolution.

If we continue to switch off functions do we end up evolving into something else? a new species perhaps? I don't think so.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 


yea.. i stopped at theory ..

oh and a fact isn't always the truth..



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 


You're welcome.
Hmm currently thinking that if the universe is one giant adapting computer programme
AND the creator is valid. Then the universe must not be a closed system for the creator
to tinker with things. It should be possible to find out where this tinkering is happening
and thus prove a designer?

I can think of 2 types of computer program.
One that runs doesn't take outside input, the other takes outside input.
How could we prove a designer in each case from inside the program?
It is even possible?

We would have to know everything about the programme to know if it has been tinkered from outside?
So for man to know that god tinkered with someone he would have to know everything about the universe.
Currently impossible and easy to prove so therefore currently there is no proof of god in that respect.

EDIT L: Wrong anyways because it assumes any outside tinkering is god.
Limbo

edit on 23-5-2012 by Limbo because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-5-2012 by Limbo because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 02:35 AM
link   
*sign* Why are we still arguing about evolution? We should be arguing about the multiverse, because evolution is kind of a used argument(though not necessarily incorrect, and my argument is as before, and that's evolution disproves the Bible, not God.)

I do have one question(well actually several, but I don't like to take too long) for evolution, however, and that is, why do we die? Why don't organisms do everything possible, say like learning how to duplicate their organs and cells perfectly so that they could be immortal? Instead, why do they seem to worry about this "DNA ladder(or genes, remember DNA contains genes) so much? Why does it appear that they care more about their descendants than themselves? Is it possible that they somehow inherently know that this DNA ladder is really their true-selves, and that eventually, it can reach perfection?

You say, well, everything dies, but then, why did life begin? Life is a direct contrast to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which says that things can only go from order to disorder.

Some people say that the universe is filled with entropy(or death and chaos), however, it wasn't like that in the beginning. It was low entropy(or orderly, or filled with "useful energy"). According to Roger Penrose, the probability for a low entropy universe in the beginning like that is 10^1230. Again, the analogy for this is like walking into a room and find that all the hot molecules are on one side, and the cold ones on the other

Also, there are about 50 constants that have to be very perfect for the universe to exist. Check out this site, and you'll be amazed at how precise this universe is www.godandscience.org...

Eventually, you'll realize that pretty much the only way to explain away this universe as not being "designed" is to "invoke" the multiverse theory, which states that there are an infinite number of "possible" universes out there, and given an infinite amount of time, one of it will result in our universe(in other words, it doesn't collapse after reaching certain variables, and the constants are exact). Naturally, you have to ask, why should there be a set of constants that allow the universe to exist, why doesn't the universe collapse EVEN after reaching these variables and constants? In other words, why should there be something, instead of nothing?

In addition, the multiverse doesn't rule out God together. In order for the multiverse theory to be true, you have to assume that every universe starts out EXACTLY the same way, i.e with infinite energy and an explosion(otherwise, this universe is clearly unique, which would imply that it was designed).
The problem is that the multiverse can't explain where these Infinite Energies come from. Instead of explaining where did one Infinite Energy come from, we have to ask, where did all of these Infinite Energies come from? And why is the energy infinite, why isn't it a quantifiable number? What causes these explosions?

Now according to M-Theory, it says that these explosions are a result of two branes colliding against each other in a higher dimension. Well, how do we know that these branes are not God? The definition of energy is that it's the property of a system. Is it not possible then that these Infinite Energies are a product of a system called God?

In addition, in order to reach the last variable(which for now we can call life, though I think there are even "later variables" than that, such as the five senses, that IMO, require divine intervention as well, since the probability of developing each of them through random chance is also very small. Keep in mind that the world around us are just "particles collision" and "frequencies," and we somehow just learned to read them, in a very short time(4 billion years are extremely small, when you're talking about these probabilities), you have to assume that the previous steps have to be exactly the same, for example, it has to turn from energy into matter(which should not be a given, it should be noted that while we have been able to turn matter into energy, we have never been able to turn pure energy into matter), then these matter have to exert the strong force, electromagnetism, gravity, etc which should not be assumed. After all, why do matter HAVE to attract? Why can't they be neutral(most natural) or even repel?

Any of these steps and the constants are different, and life could not exist. In fact, without gravity, stars wouldn't even form.

Scientists say, given enough time, anything can happen. Well, I don't know much about probability, but still, I have to ask, why doesn't the universe just fail and collapse after the first few variables and constants every time? What causes the variables to "act different?" There are an infinite number that each constant could take, so why does it even know to "stay around" that area(remember that everything is supposed to be random, and that no explosion "know" what the previous explosion did)



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by SpearMint
 


Alright look I apologise for driving at you the way I have. Just trying to get you to understand that if you say something a certain way you have to be ready to hold to it. You can't deny you said something that you obviously did say. Nor can you change it. Not even in the slightest way.

You can't prove evolution explains existence and is how everything came to be, anymore than I can prove creation does.


But I didn't say anything about it taking an infinite amount of time... You did.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz

Originally posted by SpearMint

That doesn't mean we always have, it means something in Lactose intolerant people makes it switch off. We know people couldn't before 7000 years ago due to DNA that has been collected, there is no debate there.


Well considering babies need to drink milk, I think yes we've always had it. If not when did this new gene arise?

How does the switching off of a gene equate to evolutionary advancement? We may be able to switch off other genes to gain other abilities but this is not evolution.

If we continue to switch off functions do we end up evolving into something else? a new species perhaps? I don't think so.


Yes we've always had the ability at a young age. It's meant to switch off as an adult. A mutation occurred that meant it didn't switch off, that's a huge advantage. It was passed on through offspring and it now considered normal. This is evolution.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 


Was anyone here around to see it happen? (A mostly-rhetorical question.)


The possible theories are not just Evolutionism and Creationism, but Intelligent Design. Those are three distinct theories, with possibilities of overlap.

Since people have been arguing about all three for quite some time now, maybe all three sides should step back, and listen, and consider that maybe, just maybe all three (or 2 out of 3) have been in play at some point or points in time.

That's all I have to say, other than that I believe in Intelligent Design, which I do NOT use to mean Creationism, or to support Theism.

I suppose that Evolutionism and/or Creationism can be true to, but—

I wasn't there!

I don't plan to follow this thread (Subscribe), or want to argue any points.

Enjoy life my fellow people!



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 


Theres NEVER been any witness of any evolution happening in ANY time while anyone been alive never not in any history has it been witnessed....you think it just suddenly stopped??? and if we evolved from apes...why is there still apes??? did they miss the bus? theres no real evidence of evolution.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 02:53 AM
link   
reply to post by hiphoprevolution
 


we didnt evolve from apes. Us and the other primates evolved from a common ancestor which is long extinct. The reason humans and other primates exist today is becuase we occupy a diffirent niche in the enviroment

The reason other hominids like neanderthal don't exist is becuase they were in the same niche as us and we out competed them.


edit on 23-5-2012 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
28
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join