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...are there any rules?

page: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

I think it's more interesting that that, actually. It's plain to see that many of the more obstinate creationists posting here are well aware that evolution is true; they're just fighting a rearguard action against truth.

Such behaviour may seem bizarre, but it is quite in keeping with a certain kind of religious mindset: the one in which a few authorities 'in the know' do their best to hide certain potentially damaging truths from the rest of the believers. Lay Catholics were formerly discouraged from reading the Bible for precisely this reason.




posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Vandettas
 




"Fitting the bill" is an opinion.

No...in this case it is a fact. We have observable soft-shelled and hard-shelled eggs fitting the bill.

Are you trying to say the egg was perfect? Thats impossible.

Nope.

You know the environment changes right?

Yep.

You know other animals exist right?

Yep.

You know things around the egg change right?

Yep.

You know mutations can be random right?

No rules? Haphazard?

Its nothing contradictory about it. Something will cause the egg to change.

Unknown. Just like the OP states. No rules.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 


Originally posted by Vandettas
You know mutations can be random right?


Originally posted by totallackey
No rules? Haphazard?

As you know very well, mutation is not evolution. Mutation is the raw material on which natural selection (a highly nonrandom, rule-based process) acts. The mechanism of evolution is natural selection.

Why are you so afraid that your co-religionists will learn about evolution? Are you afraid they will lose their faith? Have you lost yours?


edit on 28/9/12 by Astyanax because: of speculation.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
Such behaviour may seem bizarre, but it is quite in keeping with a certain kind of religious mindset: the one in which a few authorities 'in the know' do their best to hide certain potentially damaging truths from the rest of the believers. Lay Catholics were formerly discouraged from reading the Bible for precisely this reason.
Thanks for the tip, this will give me something interesting to research.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 04:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 




As you know very well, mutation is not evolution. Mutation is the raw material on which natural selection (a highly nonrandom, rule-based process) acts.


So, spell the rules out. Rules indicate order. Order them out, one by one, and apply them to the context of eggs. Simple. I have not seen it in this thread.


The mechanism of evolution is natural selection. Why are you so afraid that your co-religionists will learn about evolution? Are you afraid they will lose their faith? Have you lost yours?


You can file this statement in the circular container to your left. I have no horse in the race. Just post the written rules and demonstrate how those rules answers the issue of hard and soft shelled eggs.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by Astyanax
 


I have no horse in the race.



You bold faced liar.
edit on 28-9-2012 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 


So, spell the rules out. Rules indicate order. Order them out, one by one, and apply them to the context of eggs. Simple. I have not seen it in this thread.

One by one? Did you think they were the Ten Commandments?


The rule is: heritable mutations that help their carriers survive and reproduce spread through the population.

It's called natural selection.

As for the laundry-list of quibbles you are now compiling, you can file it where you suggested I file my comment. If you require further elucidation, there are plenty of good books you can buy.


Just post the written rules and demonstrate how those rules answers the issue of hard and soft shelled eggs.

You keep up a fine pretence of ignorance, I must say.



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 05:06 AM
link   
How do you guys not just get utterly infuriated with the stubbornness and lack of critical thinking that seems to be leaking into this board(this thread as well) more and more every week. Maybe it has always been like this and I am now only just noticing it.

I applaud everyone's attempt to help answer the OP's question and gave stars out to those few.
edit on 29-9-2012 by HossDelgado because: grammar



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 06:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Again, avoiding the issue. You tell me to buy a book? Are you incapable of answering the question? You just keep repeating, "natural selection ," natural selection," over and over again. You are like a skipping 45 or 33 and 3rd...

One more time...the title of this thread is "Evolution...are there any rules?" The problem under examination is this: Hard and soft shelled eggs. Currently observable facts (a fundamental aspect of science) indicate many different types of creatures bearing soft shelled eggs in many different type of environments. Heredity has dictated these creatures continue to exist AS IS and still produce soft shelled eggs. At the same time, there are also creatures present in the same environmental conditions producing...wait for it...hard shelled eggs?

What rules?

The actual statement to be filed was the one where you stated I was afraid and had co-religionists. Shove it firmly in your pipe and smoke it, rather than filing it.



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 07:00 AM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


Same to you.



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by Astyanax
 



Heredity has dictated these creatures continue to exist AS IS and still produce soft shelled eggs. At the same time, there are also creatures present in the same environmental conditions producing...wait for it...hard shelled eggs?

What rules?


There are many, many different reasons why this can occur. Since you're question is more on the general side, I'll give you a general answer : They are a different species.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 03:01 AM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 


Again, avoiding the issue.

What issue am I avoiding?


Are you incapable of answering the question?

I already answered it.


You just keep repeating, "natural selection ," natural selection," over and over again. You are like a skipping 45 or 33 and 3rd...

You keep repeating the same question over and over again and you expect a different answer?



Currently observable facts (a fundamental aspect of science) indicate many different types of creatures bearing soft shelled eggs in many different type of environments. Heredity has dictated these creatures continue to exist AS IS and still produce soft shelled eggs. At the same time, there are also creatures present in the same environmental conditions producing...wait for it...hard shelled eggs?

Currently observable facts? Can you present us with these wonderful facts?

I eagerly await your presentation of two entirely different species of organism living identical lifestyles under identical environmental conditions while displaying different phenotypes. Come on then, show us these marvels of creationist biology.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 05:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


The topic is evolution. Not creationism. Are you telling me you are unaware there are creatures inhabiting the same environments bearing live young, hard shelled eggs, and soft shelled eggs?

If you answered the question, I missed it.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 


Are you telling me you are unaware there are creatures inhabiting the same environments bearing live young, hard shelled eggs, and soft shelled eggs?

Inhabiting the same environments and pursuing the same lifestyles? Yes, I am indeed unaware of such organisms; that is why I refer to them as marvels of creationist biology. I am eager to see you cite an example or two.


If you answered the question, I missed it.

Scroll back and have another look, then.

By the way, using the word 'creatures' is assuming what you are trying to prove.


edit on 30/9/12 by Astyanax because: deliberate obtuseness takes some overcoming.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Lifestyles? Eating, reproducing, sleeping...does this not constitute lifestyle? If so, then yes, they are living the same lifestyles. All creatures share this lifestyle. What else is there?

I am unsure of what you mean regarding my use of the word "creature." I can change it if you like to organism, animal...

Okay...you list one rule. Survival of the fittest. I see this as indicating there is only one fit way to deal with surviving in a specific environment.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by heineken
 


Has anyone ever wondered (and come up with a reason) WHY creatures moved from sea to land? If there was no life on land (no vegetation or bugs to eat) what compelled creatures to climb out of the water in the first place?



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 


Lifestyles? Eating, reproducing, sleeping...does this not constitute lifestyle?

No. The specific behaviour associated with those activities does.


All creatures share this lifestyle. What else is there?

Are you suggesting that a coral has the same lifestyle as a red snapper?


I am unsure of what you mean regarding my use of the word "creature."

'Creature' implies a creator – as you are very well aware.


Okay...you list one rule. Survival of the fittest. I see this as indicating there is only one fit way to deal with surviving in a specific environment.

I would love to see you justify that statement logically.


edit on 30/9/12 by Astyanax because: of awareness.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by heineken
 


Has anyone ever wondered (and come up with a reason) WHY creatures moved from sea to land? If there was no life on land (no vegetation or bugs to eat) what compelled creatures to climb out of the water in the first place?

Maybe because of the vast unused resources (vegetation)? Why did you assume the opposite? I'm almost certain land plants precede land animals in the fossil record. I stated another possible reason ITT..
edit on 30-9-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Okay. I am responding in the order in which I can clear up some misunderstanding.


'Creature' implies a creator – as you are very well aware.


My use of the word creature was not an attempt to prove anything. I did just look up the definition and you are correct. I was not aware; however, since it seems to bother you, I will henceforth utilize the word, organism.


No. The specific behaviour associated with those activities does.


and


Are you suggesting that a coral has the same lifestyle as a red snapper?

How an organism accomplishes things such as eating, reproducing, sleeping, is how you define lifestyle, rather than the act itself?

I would love to see you justify that statement logically.


Well, according to the definition of words. Survival:

the state or fact of continuing to live or exist, typically in spite of an accident, ordeal, or difficult circumstances: the animal’s chances of survival were pretty low

Fittest:

of a suitable quality, standard, or type to meet the required purpose:


Since an organism's purpose is to eat, rest, and reproduce, the survival of the fittest rule, would necessarily accomplish this according to the path of the least resistance (i.e., all adaptations would result in one simplest form).



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Creature is not exclusive to creationist domain. That's the stereotypical Ivory Tower way of bureaucratic academia.

This is type of ideology I referred to using epigenetics/Lamarck example.

There is such a thing as usage of word Creature in geological, biological contexts.

Many in "true" academia don't feel the stigma supposedly attached to the word Creature and is found in museums and many biology and geology texts, both websites and papers. They think it's ok to adopt the word as a synonym.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join