So if we come from the sea, why didn't we stay there?

Krazysh0t

UxoriousMagnus

DISRAELI
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus

 

You starve in a grocery store if all the tins are being grabbed by people who are bigger and stronger than you are.
If all the sea plants and plankton and small fish are being grabbed by the fish which are twice your size, your best chance of survival might be to work out a way of getting at the untouched plants on the edge of the shore.

As for the "nineteenth-century migration" analogy; Even if they were not starving, they were not prospering. Why else do you think they made the voyage?

I don't have time to teach you about why the Protestant religious people made the trek over....

As far as the actual thread is about though....so only the smallest, weakest who were afraid and starving off decided to take to the shores? The smallest ..... weakest........got it

The smallest and weakest left the oceans to live on land. Before that there were no animals on land, so these animals after leaving the oceans would be the strongest and biggest animals on LAND. You are willfully disregarding this fact. It's not like the smallest and weakest animals leave the ocean, only to compete against stronger and bigger animals on land. No they were pioneers, their only competition were plants (which are widely believed to be the first living organisms that made the leap from sea to land). All you'd need to do is spend like 5 minutes thinking about this and you'd come to this conclusion. Stop pretending that you can't figure out why evolution doesn't work and actually research it.

*****************************************************************************************

well....evolution takes millions or even billions of years.....you all say. You say the earth is old enough to take care of this. You say that carbon dating proves this.....when carbon dating is proven to be useless....then you tell us that Radiometric dating proves that the earth is old enough. Then they test newly formed lava rocks from Mt. St. Helens, known to be just 20 years old and all the best labs using radiometric dating place the ages of those samples in the 500+ million years range.

how do you all turn a blind eye to such things?

reply to post by UxoriousMagnus


First off, WE don't say anything. Science and scientists say things, we just study their experiments and papers and reach similar conclusions as them.

Who said that C-14 dating isn't effective?

Why Carbon Dating Works

The truth is, C-14 decomposition is highly consistent, with a margin error of plus or minus 40 years. That, in scientific parlance, is a very good tolerance.

The real problems of C-14 and its so-called erroneous readings, however, have more to do with the natural elements than the consistency of its decay.

As for your Mount Saint Helens nonsense, that is creationist propaganda. To refute that BS, I give you this:

Comments on David Plaisted's "The Radiometric Dating Game" - Part 1

Here's the abstract of this paper:

Dr. David Plaisted has written a "critique" of radiometric dating, which appears on the The True.Origin Archive. He claims on p. 2 (the page numbers for Dr. Plaisted's report are based on placing a copy into Microsoft Word® with a Times New Roman Font 12 single spacing format) that his report discusses a number of issues that question the validity of radiometric dating. He further claims that the issues in his report have not been adequately discussed in other creationist documents. A review of his report, however, shows that little, if any, of his material is original. He has simply recycled erroneous claims from Slusher (1981) and other creationist sources. In some cases, statements from Dr. Plaisted and his sources are word for word identical to statements in Slusher (1981), but Slusher (1981) is not properly quoted or referenced. Overall, the worn-out claims in Plaisted's report were refuted long ago by Dalrymple (1984), Brush (1983), Young (1982), and others. My report briefly discusses and addresses some of the worn-out claims in Plaisted's report, but for details consult my references.

It would help, if when building your case, you don't post creationist lies and propaganda and actually post real information (not to mention sources).

Krazysh0t
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus

 

First off, WE don't say anything. Science and scientists say things, we just study their experiments and papers and reach similar conclusions as them.

Who said that C-14 dating isn't effective?

Why Carbon Dating Works

The truth is, C-14 decomposition is highly consistent, with a margin error of plus or minus 40 years. That, in scientific parlance, is a very good tolerance.

The real problems of C-14 and its so-called erroneous readings, however, have more to do with the natural elements than the consistency of its decay.

As for your Mount Saint Helens nonsense, that is creationist propaganda. To refute that BS, I give you this:

Comments on David Plaisted's "The Radiometric Dating Game" - Part 1

Here's the abstract of this paper:

Dr. David Plaisted has written a "critique" of radiometric dating, which appears on the The True.Origin Archive. He claims on p. 2 (the page numbers for Dr. Plaisted's report are based on placing a copy into Microsoft Word® with a Times New Roman Font 12 single spacing format) that his report discusses a number of issues that question the validity of radiometric dating. He further claims that the issues in his report have not been adequately discussed in other creationist documents. A review of his report, however, shows that little, if any, of his material is original. He has simply recycled erroneous claims from Slusher (1981) and other creationist sources. In some cases, statements from Dr. Plaisted and his sources are word for word identical to statements in Slusher (1981), but Slusher (1981) is not properly quoted or referenced. Overall, the worn-out claims in Plaisted's report were refuted long ago by Dalrymple (1984), Brush (1983), Young (1982), and others. My report briefly discusses and addresses some of the worn-out claims in Plaisted's report, but for details consult my references.

It would help, if when building your case, you don't post creationist lies and propaganda and actually post real information (not to mention sources).

edit on 15-1-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

***********************************************************************************************************************
I know...I know....all creationists are uneducated liars......so just read this in a study of.....well.....knowing your enemy

www.answersingenesis.org...

and yes....it is a lying, idiot creationist site.....but fun to poke around in to see what the enemy believes.

MarsIsRed
vethumanbeing
I watched that animal planet/discovery collaberation. "mermaid a body found". I looked at it from a different perspective (what if the truth is being told as purely fictional). Its done with feature film all of the time. Grand schemes, maybe to enlighten the idiot human.

MarsIsRedf you find a "mockumentary" enlightening, then I bow to your greater enlightenment!

I can see you have no imagination; so will put in the catagory of a 9th grade algebra teacher (roaming as a substitute) in some unnamed school district.

MarsAttacksYour post is basically a jumbled mess of what is currently understood (no offence).

Unintended offence taken; what exactly is "a jumbled mess of currently understood"?

MarsAttacksto the OP. Life left the oceans because natural selection dictates that it is inevitable - life will always adapt to niches where adaption is possible. It simply takes time.

What if mammals as land creatures decided to live in the ocean PIG becomes a WHALE?Humans took what 3 million years to become homosapiens, sharks (a fish) in 350 million years have done nothing to improve their motor skills, developing legs arms etc. to further develop tool use. That is a long period of time to remain lazy opportunist slackards.

reply to post by OpenEars123


I believe that we are naturally pushed to explore new horizons to expand and perhaps find a better living space away from predators.
On land, one does have more places to hide and to see what`s coming. In the ocean, you are obviously more vulnerable and since we have not evolved any means of defence like fangs, sharp claws, hard shell, exploring land seemed like a logical idea.

V.A.

reply to post by VenusAlien


I hope you are not blaming the shark specie; Id get out of their way in a heartbeat, probably evolve into their worst enemy; the dolphin, vigilantant defenders of the under sea realm.

>>>
Why don't we live in or under water?
>>

Life did (and would) evolve anywhere where it even can, be it in the water, under the water, deserts, caves or wherever.

We "simply" happen part of this life which at some point stayed on land, as opposed to water.

There is not really a urgent reason why we should've stayed in the water...nature/life doesn't restrict itself to one single environment.

Edit:

Of course it's THINKABLE that we could've stayed in the water and then went from there...but then we might have the discussion now why we never got on land ; )

reply to post by Lingweenie


First of all I never denied that animals have a soul...nor plants nor anything else for that matter. U obviously misinterpreted my post. Nowhere do I claim that. On the contrary, I am a very spiritual person and believe EVERY being...not just HUMAN (another misinterpretation your part) has a purpose in their life span. I believe that all creatures are able to feel and think and love. That is how we ALL are able to flourish. When I said the word "beings", you assumed I meant human beings. Your argument clearly shows an affinity for animals, organisms and whatnot...so you must obiously think each is important in its own right. Therefore give them all the respect of the classification of the word "being". Also, I do not believe in the big bang theory whatsoever. I stated..."for arguments sake" taking a standpoint from an opposing viewpoint. I believe that is the most preposterous theory of all time. I believe we were created by a higher being. One that obviously knows love and emotions. My response to the original post was meant to challenge the big bang theory that clearly many people do believe. If we evolved from such, then how can the we explain the creation of a thought process, emotions, etc. Evolution can obviously change a "being" (there goes that word again) physically, but how could it have created the essence of life? And that is for ALL BEINGS...PLANT, FISH, MAMMALS ON EARTH!!! And as far as your article and your own opinions...how do u know that you are correct??? You argue your point as if you have definitive proof. Which, human, you absolutely DO NOT! This forum is for the open minded...not the closed. Thank you and enjoy your evening.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


I challenge your ignorant post, but you will have to read my reply to Lingweenie...which is a few posts before this, It is long and I do not care to re-write my reply. It was actually directed to the both of you. Before you call someone ignorant on ANY theory on the creation and/or evolution of life, be sure you have YOUR facts straight and are able to prove yourself. Again, I do not believe in the big bang theory. And to discuss the matter of the soul in terms of evolution, how can you say it has not been proven? Many people who have had NDE's can swear on their lives their soul reached another realm. How do you know this is untrue? You dont. Just as you cannot prove your theory of the soul being non-existent. Their are hundreds of theories on the evolution of life. Who is to say who is right and who is wrong? No one. Until that fateful day that we depart ourselves, it will all be just speculation. Not science, not religion, not anything can be proven. You just have to have faith. Not necessarily in a religious or spiritual aspect, but in whatever YOU believe is true. You are no body to shun anyone else's belief system. You must have faith in something...you obviously have faith in that article you posted. Is it truth? Why? Because some intellectual wrote it? Because science says so? Who says science is correct? A scientist? A person like you and me who also searching for the truth? Truth is no one knows the truth.

HEADS UP!!!!

Bickering, name-calling and all other ill-mannered remarks need to be checked at the door.

We expect civility and decorum within all topics.

You are responsible for your own posts.




Fair warning!!!!!!!!

Q: "So if we come from the sea, why didn't we stay there?"

A: Some of us did. They are called fish.

OpenEars123
Hi, apologies for this short thread as it's really just a question.

First and foremost I need to state that I do not believe in religion, at all.

But this question has been on my mind for some time, and this seems to be the best place to hear different answers.

Our world is 2/3's covered in water. Life as we know it adapts to the environment surrounding it. So why did we evolve and decide to habitat just 1/3 of our world? Why don't we live in or under water?

To religious people I respect your views (excluding the ones who push their agenda, and condemn non believers) but i would really appreciate a civil discussion.

I am popping out for a few hours, and look forward to some insight when I return.

NB: If this has been discussed many times, I apologise to all in advance. I thought writing this thread would still be much quicker than using a flakey search function

Regards
OE123

edit on 14/1/14 by OpenEars123 because: My phone is rubbish

As far as I know, and have been told, NUMEROUS TIMES....evolution is a product of gene mutation...not adaptation..

Every reasonable example thus far has been based out of adaptation and not gene mutation(every example that I've read at least, I admit I may have skipped a few)....So...even though I do not support the theory of evolution here it is....

So why did we evolve and decide to habitat just 1/3 of our world? Why don't we live in or under water?

Short answer: genetic mutation
Longer answer: As you presupposed, at one point we did have sea-faring ancestors(says the majority of evolutionary biologists)...however through whatever means genetic mutations occured....be it genetic drift or what have you, and sea-faring creatures began to crawl onto land and found it to be more compatible with these genetic mutations...Another possible solution is that sea-faring organisms, through genetic mutations, began to exhibit both land and sea faring traits, much like common frogs or crocodiles...and eventually those organisms evolved into varying other organisms, both land-faring and back into sea-faring organisms again....

Another short answer: evolutionary theory is flawed (sea-faring to land-faring may be inaccurate)
Another longer answer: A small but still credible amount of evolutionary biologists have began questioning the presupposition that life began in water. Specifically, these scientists have been studying Ediocaran fossils. Ediacarans are fossil remains that supposedly predate the cambrian explosion, and which are traditionally held as predecessors to invertebrates such as jellyfish and worms....However, some scientists don't agree. The case has been made that Ediacarans may have been an early form of fungi or lichen and were not sea-faring but rather were found on land. Of course this is still up for debate, but it's not an unreasonable conclusion given the evidence.


At any rate, it is interesting to find so many posters responding with what seems to be "evolution via adaptation"....
One individual mentioned whales feeding on land animals....this is an adaptive trait...and it's a learned trait....
Not long ago I watched a documentary about a whale who had developed a method of hunting seals on land....and eventually it gave birth to a beautiful little calf ....The young did not "inherit" the hunting behavior of its parent...it had to learn it.
No evolution occured.....

Without genetic variation, which occurs primarily by genetic mutation, there is no evolution....Hence why the "maybe they crawled out and yada yada yada" is not an accurate answer....The only reasonably acceptable answer is as I said....genetic mutation....

A2D

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


I have to ask; is this an accidental mutation that fit the environment or deliberate (a vague dim consciousness executed by the cellular; an act to thwart a possible potencial extinction or destruction of its host body). Do you tell your body "someone is actually in charge here", I am in control you are not lost at sea with no oars.

UxoriousMagnus

Pauligirl

UxoriousMagnus

*************************************************************************************************
because this goes against the premise of "survival of the fittest" ....in your personal model it is "survival of the weakest and smallest".....

it is a good thing that evolution happens quickly before all the weak small ones die off.....if it took millions of years or something then they would all be dead and eaten.....so your model also require fast evolution.....I guess

well since Darwin says it.....it is therefore true.

Then we look at the Shark that hasn't changed in 200 million years...hehe

vethumanbeing
reply to post by Agree2Disagree

 

I have to ask; is this an accidental mutation that fit the environment or deliberate (a vague dim consciousness executed by the cellular; an act to thwart a possible potencial extinction or destruction of its host body). Do you tell your body "someone is actually in charge here", I am in control you are not lost at sea with no oars.

edit on 15-1-2014 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)

Genetic mutations are never deliberate. I don't understand what you're getting at....

Early life forms didn't contemplate potential extinction the way that we do...We're an intellectual species that is much more capable of understanding, rationalizing, and contemplating specific scenarios than many other organisms....In one respect, that's what makes humans so "unique" as compared to other organisms...

Like I said, the early life forms didn't contemplate potential extinction, so a "deliberate mutation" is out of the question...
When I said the organisms mutated...I didn't mean that there were only beneficial mutations....
In fact, I'd go ahead and say that significantly more organisms died as a result of those mutations....

A2D

edit to add: And to note, the genetic mutation did NOT fit the environment...but it was WORKABLE through adaptation.... The genetic mutation(s) did not make life impossible for early organisms, but it was not by any stretch of the imagination easy....but that is where adaptation steps in...Those early life forms adapted to their new genetic material and began to work with it to see what worked best for them(what helped them survive)...Or in this scenario, they moved to a more land-based lifestyle....

Every one of us were born from a sack of water.
Very much chemically equivalent to the ocean.

dp4lyfe
reply to post by Lingweenie

 

First of all I never denied that animals have a soul...nor plants nor anything else for that matter. U obviously misinterpreted my post. Nowhere do I claim that. On the contrary, I am a very spiritual person and believe EVERY being...not just HUMAN (another misinterpretation your part) has a purpose in their life span. I believe that all creatures are able to feel and think and love. That is how we ALL are able to flourish. When I said the word "beings", you assumed I meant human beings. Your argument clearly shows an affinity for animals, organisms and whatnot...so you must obiously think each is important in its own right. Therefore give them all the respect of the classification of the word "being". Also, I do not believe in the big bang theory whatsoever. I stated..."for arguments sake" taking a standpoint from an opposing viewpoint. I believe that is the most preposterous theory of all time. I believe we were created by a higher being. One that obviously knows love and emotions. My response to the original post was meant to challenge the big bang theory that clearly many people do believe. If we evolved from such, then how can the we explain the creation of a thought process, emotions, etc. Evolution can obviously change a "being" (there goes that word again) physically, but how could it have created the essence of life? And that is for ALL BEINGS...PLANT, FISH, MAMMALS ON EARTH!!! And as far as your article and your own opinions...how do u know that you are correct??? You argue your point as if you have definitive proof. Which, human, you absolutely DO NOT! This forum is for the open minded...not the closed. Thank you and enjoy your evening.

You've confused the word "belief" with "science" in this post. What you believe and what science shows aren't the same thing. You cannot say you believe something is true then be correct without putting forth evidence to support your case. You can BELIEVE that all living organisms (first define what it means to be living) can have a soul, but until you can produce credible evidence to demonstrate this as true, no one has to take you seriously. You can get all hot and bothered about it if you want, but that is the truth.

Evolution also makes no claims about the origin of life. Evolutionary theory works with the PREMISE THAT LIFE ALREADY EXISTS. So this question:

Evolution can obviously change a "being" (there goes that word again) physically, but how could it have created the essence of life?

Is complete nonsense.

dp4lyfe
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

I challenge your ignorant post, but you will have to read my reply to Lingweenie...which is a few posts before this, It is long and I do not care to re-write my reply. It was actually directed to the both of you. Before you call someone ignorant on ANY theory on the creation and/or evolution of life, be sure you have YOUR facts straight and are able to prove yourself. Again, I do not believe in the big bang theory. And to discuss the matter of the soul in terms of evolution, how can you say it has not been proven? Many people who have had NDE's can swear on their lives their soul reached another realm. How do you know this is untrue? You dont. Just as you cannot prove your theory of the soul being non-existent. Their are hundreds of theories on the evolution of life. Who is to say who is right and who is wrong? No one. Until that fateful day that we depart ourselves, it will all be just speculation. Not science, not religion, not anything can be proven. You just have to have faith. Not necessarily in a religious or spiritual aspect, but in whatever YOU believe is true. You are no body to shun anyone else's belief system. You must have faith in something...you obviously have faith in that article you posted. Is it truth? Why? Because some intellectual wrote it? Because science says so? Who says science is correct? A scientist? A person like you and me who also searching for the truth? Truth is no one knows the truth.

edit on 15-1-2014 by dp4lyfe because: (no reason given)

I never said that the soul didn't exist. I said it was UNPROVEN. There is a BIG difference in the terminology. You should look it up. NDE's can be shown to be chemical reactions in your brain possibly to help you transition into death, but that isn't the only way to cause them. NDE's are proof of nothing and are mostly viewed as just anecdotal evidence. Personally, I don't know what they are, if they are chemical reactions or proof of an afterlife. I DO know that they aren't absolute proof in anything considering people's testimony is unreliable at best (especially when their life is in peril). Therefore, this concept called "soul", is unproven. You are being intellectually dishonest to bring it up during the course of scientific discourse. That isn't how scientific theories are built.

Apparently I touched a nerve, considering how you wrote your response to me (what with the lack of proper paragraph formatting as well as not having actually posted anything with substance in the two replies that you say are directed to me). So apparently you can just make up your own theories of how everything came to be, and as long as you have faith, you can trump the mountains of evidence that science provides to contradict your wild claims. Sorry that isn't how it works. You know what says that science is correct? The scientific method. It is designed to allow science to be as objective and non-biased as possible. Sure since scientists are human, they are susceptible to bias, but that is what peer review is for. We can look at a scientists claims and his experiments then try to reproduce the same results.

The Big bang has MUCH credible evidence in support of it. It is a theory, it is pretty much accepted as scientific fact. You unwillingness to understand it doesn't give you the right to make up things about it (like it being the source of life or something) and then say it is untrue.

Also I understand that no one knows the whole truth, but that doesn't mean we cannot try to get as close as possible to understanding it. You seem to be under the impression that because the absolute truth is unknowable, we should discount ALL science. Well just as a heads up, you are using a creation of science to have this debate with. How do you think computers work? If you can discount one theory (Big Bang or Evolution), then you have to discount theories like electrical theory.

It's funny, in your first post you say this:

This forum is for the open minded...not the closed.

But then refuse to educate yourself on basic scientific theories like Evolution and Big Bang. Then when you fail to fully understand these theories you go ahead and just say they cannot be true. Why don't you practice what you preach and actually look at the COUNTLESS amounts of evidence (there is new evidence pretty much monthly in favor of evolution) in favor of these theories and open your mind up? I DID use to believe in God and all that. I was raised Catholic, but when I opened my mind up, I figured out that religion is the one with the closed mind.

UxoriousMagnus

Krazysh0t
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus

 

First off, WE don't say anything. Science and scientists say things, we just study their experiments and papers and reach similar conclusions as them.

Who said that C-14 dating isn't effective?

Why Carbon Dating Works

The truth is, C-14 decomposition is highly consistent, with a margin error of plus or minus 40 years. That, in scientific parlance, is a very good tolerance.

The real problems of C-14 and its so-called erroneous readings, however, have more to do with the natural elements than the consistency of its decay.

As for your Mount Saint Helens nonsense, that is creationist propaganda. To refute that BS, I give you this:

Comments on David Plaisted's "The Radiometric Dating Game" - Part 1

Here's the abstract of this paper:

Dr. David Plaisted has written a "critique" of radiometric dating, which appears on the The True.Origin Archive. He claims on p. 2 (the page numbers for Dr. Plaisted's report are based on placing a copy into Microsoft Word® with a Times New Roman Font 12 single spacing format) that his report discusses a number of issues that question the validity of radiometric dating. He further claims that the issues in his report have not been adequately discussed in other creationist documents. A review of his report, however, shows that little, if any, of his material is original. He has simply recycled erroneous claims from Slusher (1981) and other creationist sources. In some cases, statements from Dr. Plaisted and his sources are word for word identical to statements in Slusher (1981), but Slusher (1981) is not properly quoted or referenced. Overall, the worn-out claims in Plaisted's report were refuted long ago by Dalrymple (1984), Brush (1983), Young (1982), and others. My report briefly discusses and addresses some of the worn-out claims in Plaisted's report, but for details consult my references.

It would help, if when building your case, you don't post creationist lies and propaganda and actually post real information (not to mention sources).

edit on 15-1-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

***********************************************************************************************************************
I know...I know....all creationists are uneducated liars......so just read this in a study of.....well.....knowing your enemy

www.answersingenesis.org...

and yes....it is a lying, idiot creationist site.....but fun to poke around in to see what the enemy believes.

So you want me to read an article from a bunch of Creationists who lie about science so I can get their worldview? Look, this isn't at matter of opinion, it is a matter of scientific fact. The Creationists are LYING about the radiometric dating techniques they used at Mount Saint Helens to disprove things and YOU are buying into it. There also is no such thing as Creation Science, because all Creationist Scientists use techniques like the one above to try to discredit evolutionary theory. It is sad, dishonest, and unfortunately hooks gullible people and people with confirmation biases (mostly the same thing in this regard). A simple Google search can produce mountains of evidence to debunk claims like the one you make.

By the way, speaking of Google searches. When you search for this topic about rocks dated much older than they should be at Mount Saint Helens, all you get is Creationist sites. Don't you think it is odd that not a SINGLE credible scientist is pushing this tripe? Look we can all produce evidence on the internet, but it comes down to credibility and Creation Scientists have none.

Links:
ATS thread on the topic: Dishonest Creationist Tactics= Bad Religion
ADVICE: The Debate of Young Earth Creationists
Are Some Creationists Being Willfully Dishonest?
An Account of a Debate with a Creationist
Creationist Tactics

It's sad that there are literally TONS of topics that you can find discussing the dishonest Creationist tactics that are used to try to debunk evolution. Yet YOU give them the same credibility as real scientists.

reply to post by OpenEars123


i wonder if our ancestors were merfolks.

peace

reply to post by OpenEars123


As I was taught in school, the theory is that there were some fish which evolved through natural selection to take advantage of life in the water and on land. If the theory of evolution is correct, it would stand to reason that such an intermediate step took place. From there, maybe organisms evolved which simply by design were able to move more easily on land than in water.