Why Fossils May Appear To Support Evolution.

a reply to: FearYourMind

Then go create a thread about the BBT, or better yet, post in one of the numerous already existing threads on the topic. If you did that, maybe you would have discovered that the singularity is being discarded.

No Big Bang? Yes, Big Bang

originally posted by: Another_Nut
a reply to: Krazysh0t

and that doesnt give u pause?

the fact some species havent changed for 75+ million years but some (like most mammals) have all evolved since then?

never mind the Cambrian explosion where most ,if not all, Phylum originated

think about that . there have been no major changes since lifes first "explosion"

doesnt that strike you as odd ?

No changes do not happen gradually but in bursts to adapt to different environments. When a species is perfectly adapted it doesn't need to change anymore. And evolution still takes place today we can literally observe new species appearing.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

how can that be true when we are just now getting around to finding out what "junk" dna does?

Genetics has no clue whats going on yet

not even close

a reply to: dothedew

There are holes and conjecture flowing throughout the theory of evolution, with just as much voice and cynicism behind it, to where its followed like a religion. On the other hand, evolution explains a lot more, and is a lot more reliable, than any modern religion we have today.

I think this statement best sums up where we are philosophically, conceptually and scientifically in 2015 on these topics.
I really appreciate posters like this that are right in the middle of the debate here at ATS.
And really it's the reason I continue to post these threads.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

What always pisses me off about this stuff is that evolution is a theory...its a good theory..and the best the scientific community has. But it isn't the Law of Evolution....its a theory. Religious nuts like to jump in and bash it anyway they can to prove their god....

As a science lover and believer in evolution ill say this....there may be a god...and that god may have created us...its a theory. My free beliefs allow me to think that. Do your beliefs allow you to believe that there may not be a god? Oh no wait...you can't or you go to hell! Oh noes!!!

Had this talk the other day with someone and ill put forward my own theory on god. Think about ants for a moment. Ants can't do calculus. No matter how hard they try they can't do or understand calculus. This how I feel about god. Our brains are not adept yet to understand these advanced principles of life and god. So people come up with books and religions to try and help. Many religions believe their god is everywhere...can do anything....and controls everything all at the same time. And these same religious people think that we could even remotely comprehend that.

If only one religion came about back in the day id be impressed...but 100s if not 1000s of religions came about cause this is what people do to answer the unknown. Every religion thought they were so special until they died out...now there are few left and those are dying as well. At least science will say its a theory...ive never heard a follower of religion say their god is a theory or that it could be a possibility they are wrong. Id have much more respect for them if they did say that.

edit: and im not yelling at you blue haha just ranting in general

a reply to: Another_Nut

Why should it give me pause?

Punctuated equilibrium

Punctuated equilibrium (also called punctuated equilibria) is a theory in evolutionary biology which proposes that once formed most species will exhibit little net evolutionary change for most of their geological history, remaining in an extended state of stasis. When significant evolutionary change occurs, the theory proposes that it is generally restricted to rare and rapid (on a geologic time scale) events of branching speciation called cladogenesis. Cladogenesis is the process by which a species splits into two distinct species, rather than one species gradually transforming into another.[1] Punctuated equilibrium is commonly contrasted against phyletic gradualism, the belief that evolution generally occurs uniformly and by the steady and gradual transformation of whole lineages (called anagenesis). In this view, evolution is seen as generally smooth and continuous.

originally posted by: FearYourMind

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: FearYourMind
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's obvious that something extraordinary occurred to create what we are now. We live on the same planet with the same resources that all of the other animals in the animal kingdom have access to.

Extraordinary maybe (we ARE after all unique with this evolutionary trait), but if you are using this post as camouflage to push extraterrestrial manipulation or divine manipulation, then you are wrong. Science has pondered this very question and has already came up with a few theories/hypotheses to answer why we are rational thinkers.

Evolution of human intelligence

You must consider all possibilities as a critical thinker. Especially when we only know less than 10% of what actually exist around us.

I do consider all possibilities, but I favor the ones with the most evidence for them and disfavor the ones that break scientific laws.

originally posted by: FearYourMind
Technically evolution goes all the way back to the beginning of time and space. So rather than focusing on apes, I focus on what created the universe and existence itself. I am stumped with the Big Bang theory and why it is accepted as fact and nobody considers what created the singularity that became the Big Bang. So, if we can't understand that, then we will never know exactly where we came from or how we were created.

The singularity is out of the scope of the BBT since we have literally no way to observe it with physical means. Science is still interested in the possibility of a singularity but it remains theoretical and not even the only theory.

You guys have really flawed understanding of current scientific claims

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: FearYourMind

Then go create a thread about the BBT, or better yet, post in one of the numerous already existing threads on the topic. If you did that, maybe you would have discovered that the singularity is being discarded.

No Big Bang? Yes, Big Bang

Why do that when we are discussing evolution here on this thread? What....can't talk about the Big Bang when it comes to a evolution debate? You do realize the majority of topics have been discussed on other threads over and over here on ATS right?

a reply to: JUhrman
if thats true then after each major extinction we should have another cambrian explosion

as all those niches are open again and we should have explosions of new Phylum

but we dont

think should make one think

unless their indoctrination is complete

a reply to: Another_Nut

Also not true. Junk DNA is supposed tqo come from the various horizontal DNA transfers happening all the time. You guy should really read more instead of pretending to understand what you talk about

a reply to: Another_Nut

It's exactly what happens. Old and new species fill new niches all the time. It's even taking place today as human change their environment

a reply to: Krazysh0t

From what I understand about genetic drift and common ancestry, certain genetics are shared/passed down through generations, and some species are similar to one another (hence using mice and monkeys, etc to design and test most modern medicine). However, if you wanted to liken it to an analogy of computer programming, all programs are written with code, but not all are the same. Some are similar with the same base code, with extra, different code written on top of that. Some are written completely different. In the end, they're all computer programs, of different sizes, shapes, purposes, etc. (See what I did there?)

However, there's issue with that. Buried, defunct genetic code, which we don't use anymore. But that only brings more questions. Like the pink spots by our tear ducts, which are said to be evolutionary leftovers of a second eyelid, such as a birds, or lizards. I haven't seen any fossil evidence of us evolving from reptiles, only birds coming from them. And even that has certain issues.

In the end, it doesn't matter in the long run. Well know 100% for sure, somewhere down the road. As far as genetics go, evolution doesn't have to be correct for our understanding of genes to work.

Look at the issues between time and quantum physics, and the bickering back and forth that for one to work, the other has to be looked at differently or scrapped. Does it mean that all the science we have figured out using time will be null and void? Not really. It still works. And what's the golden rule? If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

originally posted by: Another_Nut
a reply to: Krazysh0t

how can that be true when we are just now getting around to finding out what "junk" dna does?

Not sure how that disproves that genetics is dependent on evolution... Just because we don't understand everything about DNA, doesn't mean that genetic science based on evolutionary theory is flawed.

Genetics has no clue whats going on yet

not even close

This is a ridiculous statement. No science is close to explaining what's going on yet. That is why theories change all the time as new evidence comes out.

originally posted by: FearYourMind

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: FearYourMind

Then go create a thread about the BBT, or better yet, post in one of the numerous already existing threads on the topic. If you did that, maybe you would have discovered that the singularity is being discarded.

No Big Bang? Yes, Big Bang

Why do that when we are discussing evolution here on this thread? What....can't talk about the Big Bang when it comes to a evolution debate? You do realize the majority of topics have been discussed on other threads over and over here on ATS right?

Talking about the BBT is offtopic. It is a separate theory in a separate field of science. Bringing it up is just a distraction.

originally posted by: FearYourMind
Also, why haven't any other apes evolved? If we supposedly came from apes then you would expect other apes would have evolved with us, but not one of them has.

It has already been pointed out that we shared a common ancestor with apes so you are a bit off base however you seem to be forgetting quite a bit.

Reacquaint yourself with Homo neanderthalensis.



And a little more info for you.



Of course, there is a lot more on the subject just use that computer in front of you. Anyway, now that you see how dumb your argument is hopefully you will refrain from using it again.

There are truth seekers and then there are people who claim to be truth seekers that are simply lieng.

a reply to: dothedew

All mammals have common ancestry with reptiles before the apparition of synapsids. Please check your facts

originally posted by: dothedew
a reply to: Krazysh0t

From what I understand about genetic drift and common ancestry, certain genetics are shared/passed down through generations, and some species are similar to one another (hence using mice and monkeys, etc to design and test most modern medicine). However, if you wanted to liken it to an analogy of computer programming, all programs are written with code, but not all are the same. Some are similar with the same base code, with extra, different code written on top of that. Some are written completely different. In the end, they're all computer programs, of different sizes, shapes, purposes, etc. (See what I did there?)

That analogy doesn't work because the code between two programs may be the same language, but it is likely that very little of the code is the same in one program as in the other program. With DNA, ALL species on the planet share similar DNA with all other species on the planet. Humans and the banana tree share 50% similarity with each other. To extend your analogy, does a computer program that simulates weather events share 50% of the code with a video game?

However, there's issue with that. Buried, defunct genetic code, which we don't use anymore. But that only brings more questions. Like the pink spots by or tear ducts, which are said to be evolutionary leftovers of a second eyelid, such as a birds, or lizards. I haven't seen any fossil evidence of us evolving from reptiles, only birds coming from them. And even that has certain issues

We didn't evolve directly from reptiles. Reptiles and mammals evolved from a proto-species that had both mammalian and reptilian characteristics.

a reply to: rockpaperhammock

Interesting comments, God creating us equals a spiritual theory, evolution making us equals a scientific theory.
As one person said to me the other day, when divided on a subject our bias will always send us one way or the other.
It's normal human psychology.

As for "Punctuated Equilibrium" being the cause of no fossils showing up, doesn't that defy the entire evolutionary theory of slow change. Actually an explosion of life in the fossil record does more to support creation than evolution.

Do any evolutionist here at ATS seriously with intellectual honesty, actually want to defend the weakest of all the sub-theories within evolution. And this time you can't split it off like you do with abiogenesis with scientific category semantics.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
As for "Punctuated Equilibrium" being the cause of no fossils showing up, doesn't that defy the entire evolutionary theory of slow change. Actually an explosion of life in the fossil record does more to support creation than evolution.

Do any evolutionist here at ATS seriously with intellectual honesty, actually want to defend that weakest of all the sub-theories within evolution. And this time you can't split it off like you do with abiogenesis with scientific category semantics.

What? Punctuated Equilibrium STILL happens over millions of years. It's just not nearly as many millions of years as usual. Why don't you actually attempt to UNDERSTAND what it is saying before dismissing it?