There's Something Very FISHY About Evolution! Smell it here!

page: 4
26
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
Though creationists like to use the platypus as an anomaly, it has actually provided valuable genetic information for evolution.


I'm not a creationist and I have never heard any religious folks bring it up.

I actually came up with that point on my own by simply reading about the creatures and thinking about the information I read.
If other people came up with it, it was totally unrelated to me and I have nothing to do with them. Random coincidence.

So please don't try to label me, I am just asking some questions and pointing out what I view as inconsistencies.

I do feel that many evolution proponents are equally as zealous and fanatical as are many religious types, so of course I am extremely skeptical and cautious of their claims just as I am the opposing view.

It is indeed a red flag that you got emotional and wanted to "bang your head", and then proceed to label anyone who asks a specific question as being part of a group (which it turns out you were wrong I have no applicable institutionalized religious association or conviction).

I do have one major conviction though, and that is to intellectual honesty and the pursuit of the truth.

And your simplistic "Evolution doesn't have to happen" thought-terminating cliche doesn't actually answer my questions. I want to know what mechanisms it occurs on chemically and through the ancestral pedigree.

What makes "Evolution not happen" for 400 million years?




posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by ManFromEurope
Until now, there is no better theory. And you can jump up and down driven by your religious ideas, they are still unproven and therefore a much less good theory/explanation.
edit on 1-8-2012 by ManFromEurope because: (no reason given)


I find that intellectually dishonest to construe any alternative explanation versus contemporary evolutionary theory as "religious".

Let us define "religion":


a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:


Appears that "Evolution" actually fits really well into the definition of "religion".

So isn't it equally fair to suggest that Evolutionists are presenting their religious opinion (a hypothesis/theory) and pretending it is a fact? That's exactly what the religious types do, they present their theory/opinion/hypothesis as a fact and deny any questioning of it.

And when pinned down on a glaring inconsistency, they produce thought-terminating cliches, common logical fallacies, get angry, or simply run away and pretend it never happened.

Both parties are guilty of this in countless ways historically and in contemporary times.
Now you know why I don't feel comfortable siding with either one, and consign myself unto my own inquisitive nature while applying skepticism to those who claim to have all the answers about things we couldn't possibly know either way in the first place.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


You are correct, I labeled you and apologize.

Things like the Coelacanth, get tricky to understand if you are not an expert at species classification. It is an order of fish that share a similar characterist, not a species itself.

What would be confusing is that the chracteristic that makes it a Coelacanth, has been around 400 million years. But the species themselves have changed, and were thought to have gone extinct millions of years ago until it resurfaced again.

The best way to explain it is if you take a distinctive feature like the rhino horn, the rhino morphs into a cat like creature, then morphs into a deer like creature, but retains the feature of the horn, still making it a rhino.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by nixie_nox

Evolution doesn't have to happen. Creatures are not forced to change. If they are succeeding in their environment, they don't need to change.


I thought that environmental changes would force the organism to adapt to them.

Are you insinuating that the Earth didn't change much over 400 million years?

Also, are you suggesting the Coelacanth is the most robust specimen as it's obviously the most successful in terms of longevity and resistance to adaptation?

If you don't mind, could you please supply a peer reviewed article explaining the mechanisms why "Evolution doesn't have to happen?"



See? As per usual, you as an example for an Anti-Evolutionist fail to grap even the simplest of evolutions basic principles.
An organism does NOT have to evolve.

But IF it mutates, that doesn't mean automatically that the change is for the better. If it is better, so that it can have many more surviving children, its genes will spread over an expanding number of specimen in that species.

Sharks didn't evolve for dozens of million years, because enough of their children survived without changes and most changes which did occur didn't enhance the number of surviving children of the respective parent, so they weren't statistically relevant.

Its just a kind of arithmetic. More children survive = your traits will bunch out in the overall population, given enough time.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 09:13 AM
link   
I've a question for the devout followers of the modern synthesis religion.

Is it falsifiable and what could falsify it?

If it's not falsifiable, it is not science.

Hmm... I bet no one will answer this one, far too dangerous
edit on 1-8-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by ManFromEurope
Until now, there is no better theory. And you can jump up and down driven by your religious ideas, they are still unproven and therefore a much less good theory/explanation.
edit on 1-8-2012 by ManFromEurope because: (no reason given)


I find that intellectually dishonest to construe any alternative explanation versus contemporary evolutionary theory as "religious".

Let us define "religion":


a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:


Appears that "Evolution" actually fits really well into the definition of "religion".

So isn't it equally fair to suggest that Evolutionists are presenting their religious opinion (a hypothesis/theory) and pretending it is a fact? That's exactly what the religious types do, they present their theory/opinion/hypothesis as a fact and deny any questioning of it.

And when pinned down on a glaring inconsistency, they produce thought-terminating cliches, common logical fallacies, get angry, or simply run away and pretend it never happened.

Both parties are guilty of this in countless ways historically and in contemporary times.
Now you know why I don't feel comfortable siding with either one, and consign myself unto my own inquisitive nature while applying skepticism to those who claim to have all the answers about things we couldn't possibly know either way in the first place.



Whoa - now you put a theory and a believe on a pair of scales and test them for the same? Are you serious?

Okay, I don't have to do this, but one more time: PRESENT A BETTER FITTING THEORY AND(!) SUBSTANTIATE IT!

It will replace evolution faster than you can imagine.

No stories!
No believes!
They are useless as they are the most subjective basis possible.
Are you able to deduce the predominance of your way, objectively? I doubt that.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by ManFromEurope
 



Okay, I don't have to do this, but one more time: PRESENT A BETTER FITTING THEORY AND(!) SUBSTANTIATE IT!


Check out the lecture from James Shapiro I posted on the first page. It's been called a third way.
He does not invoke supernatural causes at all.

The current theory won't completely die until it's proponents actually die off.
edit on 1-8-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


You are correct, I labeled you and apologize.

Things like the Coelacanth, get tricky to understand if you are not an expert at species classification. It is an order of fish that share a similar characterist, not a species itself.

What would be confusing is that the chracteristic that makes it a Coelacanth, has been around 400 million years. But the species themselves have changed, and were thought to have gone extinct millions of years ago until it resurfaced again.

The best way to explain it is if you take a distinctive feature like the rhino horn, the rhino morphs into a cat like creature, then morphs into a deer like creature, but retains the feature of the horn, still making it a rhino.


Mainstream evolution theory states that if the environment doesn't alter, than there is no need for evolution/mutation to occur?

So how did nearly every single creature in the ocean evolve drastically, yet one of them stayed pretty much the same through vast periods? We all know from the fossil records that the oceans have changed drastically over time and went through many phases. New predators arose, while others went extinct, etc. There were massive anoxic events causing catastrophic extinction events.

The assumption you expect me to entertain here is that despite the fact all other creatures in the ocean clearly had to evolve due to the requirement to adapt, that this one extremely primitive early blueprint was the ultimate design and ended up outliving all other designs. This implies that coelacanth is the superior organism on Earth due to it's success rate and it's ability to not 'need to evolve' even though the ocean environment changed many times drastically.

I have seen a lot of people blow this fish off as no big deal, but I'm afraid it's a bona fide mystery as a result of lack of pertinent data. I feel safe in the presumption that we simply don't know enough about it to understand how all of these events transpired exactly and in what fashion. Maybe in a hundred years, but today it's clearly an anomaly in respect of "the official story".



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   
I'm willing to listen to any theory that does not involve the quoting of 2,000 year old "knowledge". The world has moved on quite a bit in 2 thousand years. You know...electricity, communication, the internal combustion engine, penicillin, human rights. The only places that haven't kept up with the times are countries run by religious nutjobs (Afghanistan, Pakistan etc). Christians that cling to this olde book have more in common with the fundamental muslims they hate so much than the average 21st century human being that has learned to think for themselves.

There might be a god, but he does not live in the Bible. There might be an intelligent design, but it certainly has a vehicle, and that is evolution, or something that looks very much like it.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by ManFromEurope
 


A theory is a belief that you can formulate a test for.

And it's not my responsibility to replace your theory if I can ask a question that puts it into doubt.

For example if you were trying to build a car, but one of the parts simply wasn't designed correctly and you couldn't get the car working, and I pointed at the broken part and said "That part doesn't seem to be correct", you will keep expecting the car to work until I invent a better part and replace it?

Well, first of all, it's not my car, so although I can give you suggestions and point out what I think is a problem, it's ultimately not my responsibly to replace the part.
And secondly, I would suggest everyone who cares about the car to be conscripted into the task of figuring out how to design a better part so that maybe we can have a working car soon.

I am not saying abandon the car, but it's obvious we need to revise our understanding of car mechanics theory and come up with better solutions so we can get it running.

Forgive the extensive metaphor but hopefully it will be sensible.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logman
I'm willing to listen to any theory that does not involve the quoting of 2,000 year old "knowledge".


Are you referring to the Bible or to ancient Greece?
Because technically both claims can be traced back thousands of years.

And how does the age of a belief discount it's validity?
So in 2000 years the theory of gravity will be unreasonable because it's too old ?



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ManFromEurope


See? As per usual, you as an example for an Anti-Evolutionist fail to grap even the simplest of evolutions basic principles.
An organism does NOT have to evolve.



So you are saying that when a male and female reproduce that minor variations do not occur in the child's dna as each generation progresses? I was led to believe it did, and that over millions of years, these small variations in each generation led to gradual and significant evolution in the macro scale.

So are you suggesting that after 400 million years of reproducing, they did not have any major changes in their dna code that would result in gradual change into another form?

Here I am, the person you label "Anti-Evolutionist", claiming that evolution has to happen, as a result of breeding and the fact the environment has changed drastically including the flora and fauna which drive evolution through interaction.

And there you are, the "Pro-Evolutionist", claiming that evolution doesn't have to happen, while ignorant all of the basic tenants of evolution theory.

Isn't that ironic as hell? Think about it.

Sure evolution probably won't happen in a closed system since there is no changes to promote adaptations, but we don't exactly live in a closed system do we?



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


You are correct, I labeled you and apologize.

Things like the Coelacanth, get tricky to understand if you are not an expert at species classification. It is an order of fish that share a similar characterist, not a species itself.

What would be confusing is that the chracteristic that makes it a Coelacanth, has been around 400 million years. But the species themselves have changed, and were thought to have gone extinct millions of years ago until it resurfaced again.

The best way to explain it is if you take a distinctive feature like the rhino horn, the rhino morphs into a cat like creature, then morphs into a deer like creature, but retains the feature of the horn, still making it a rhino.


Mainstream evolution theory states that if the environment doesn't alter, than there is no need for evolution/mutation to occur?


So how did nearly every single creature in the ocean evolve drastically, yet one of them stayed pretty much the same through vast periods?


The ocean has been more like a train station, creatures went in, others came out, depending on need. The whale was originally an antelope sized land animal, that suffered a major long drought, and had to start foraging in water for food.

The species didn't stay the same, that characteristic stayed the same. Eyeballs have been around since the beginning of life practically, some features are timelessly handy. Smell is another one.



We all know from the fossil records that the oceans have changed drastically over time and went through many phases. New predators arose, while others went extinct, etc. There were massive anoxic events causing catastrophic extinction events.


yes. pretty cool stuff.


The assumption you expect me to entertain here is that despite the fact all other creatures in the ocean clearly had to evolve due to the requirement to adapt, that this one extremely primitive early blueprint was the ultimate design and ended up outliving all other designs
.
That feature, not the fish itself. But, in the Cretacious, it was a very, very, common feature, and now it exists in only 2 species. So it didn't do that well. And there are 25,000 species of fish.


This implies that coelacanth is the superior organism on Earth due to it's success rate and it's ability to not 'need to evolve' even though the ocean environment changed many times drastically.


it is a type of fin on a fish, not an organism.

I have seen a lot of people blow this fish off as no big deal, but I'm afraid it's a bona fide mystery as a result of lack of pertinent data. I feel safe in the presumption that we simply don't know enough about it to understand how all of these events transpired exactly and in what fashion. Maybe in a hundred years, but today it's clearly an anomaly in respect of "the official story".

You are clearly not understanding this.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 



So how did nearly every single creature in the ocean evolve drastically, yet one of them stayed pretty much the same through vast periods?


Not only that, but the majority of the phyla appeared during the cambrian, only a few appered later on.
In fact there were more phyla during the cambrian than exists today!



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 10:06 AM
link   
anyone here on ATS that tries to logically "debate" people of strict religous faith, are wasting their time. it's useless....however, the laws that they try and institute, along with the actions they take, that involve the lives of the rest of us, should be stictly limited and few if any.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox


You are clearly not understanding this.


Oh I understand all right.

That I 'reject evolution' by stating it's a requirement that things must evolve while in an open system that drastically changes.

And that you a 'supporting evolution' by saying it doesn't have to happen in an open system that drastically changes.

I twisted everything around to show the weakness of the entire system of beliefs that people have been indoctrinated into accepting without question. We are in double-contradictory positions now.

This will be a hard one to dig out of.
Mainstream biology is clearly in a crisis and cannot make up it's mind.

I already rejected the religious junk a long time ago, and am currently looking for a workable hypothesis but sadly am faced with two very poor alternatives and will have to take the 3rd door.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   
I used to subscribe to the theory of evolution until I started reading about it. There are lots of problems with it that mainstream scientists just ignore. Here is for me the most obvious one.

Life supposedly developed as single cell organisms, that reproduce by cell division. But the Theory of Evolution (ToE) says that at some point single cell organisms evolved into multi-cell organisms. In a multi-cell organism, each cell is specialized. Skin cells can't survive without oxygen and food delivered by blood cells, Same for all other cell types. And while all of the cells resulted from cell division (as stem cells) they then transformed, not unlike a catapiller into a butterfly, into specialized cells like skin cells, brain cells, muscle cells, etc.

So how did a single cell organism evolve into a multi-cell organism?
Did thousands of single cells cluster together and decide amongst themselves to specialize? "You become a blood cell, I'll become a skin cell and you over there...you're going to be muscle cell" ?

Sounds silly, doesn't it?

Well what if one single cell divided into two and each of those two became specialized? Won't work because if one of the two is now a skin cell for example, how will it survive without blood? If the other cell is now a blood cell, what's to prevent it from floating away if there's no arteries to hold the blood in?

And I haven't even touched on the mystery of how single cell organisms with only one set of chromosomes became specialized cells with two sets of chromosomes resulting from a male and female donor.

If you ask any expert in the fields of biology, genetics or bio-chemistry how this happened, their eyes glaze over, they mumble something that sounds like "I don't know' and they walk away.

I wish I could remember which Nobel prize winning scientist said that if the theory of evolution were tested with the same standards as any other theory, it would fail miserably.

Intelligent Design is the obvious answer to these mysteries.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by Logman
I'm willing to listen to any theory that does not involve the quoting of 2,000 year old "knowledge".


Are you referring to the Bible or to ancient Greece?
Because technically both claims can be traced back thousands of years.

And how does the age of a belief discount it's validity?
So in 2000 years the theory of gravity will be unreasonable because it's too old ?

If I have to explain it you do not possess the intelligence to understand it.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


You don't understand that the Coelacanth is an attribute on a fish, not a species. The species changed, they kept the attribute, but just barely as there are only two fish left with it.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Oh yeah and that "3rd door"?

It's admitting I don't know how the hell it happened.
And realizing that other people don't know either because none can actually explain it in detail by showing the chemical mechanism for how it occurred (or failed to occur for 400 million years).

I am fine living with knowing that we don't actually know.
It's the honest position in life, where I don't have to pretend I know something that is nearly impossible for anyone in our primitive technological position to actually know for sure.

I just find it rather pretentious that people will exclaim they know for absolute sure what happened 400million years ago.

Share the time machine so I can find out too, or else, leave it open to speculation and be reasonable with people who question your dearly held belief systems.





top topics
 
26
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum