It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The 2 Creatures That Could Deny Evolution !

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 27 2019 @ 10:34 PM
99% of all animal species that have ever existed are now extinct, and you present *two* unchanged species as evidence to support your assertion that evolution is a sham?

We'll need to see some slightly more compelling evidence, counselor.

Besides--there are plenty of creatures right here on ATS that deny evolution!

edit on 27-7-2019 by TheTruthRocks because: Baby Jeebuz told me to

posted on Jul, 28 2019 @ 03:42 AM

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: turbonium1
We have yet to resurrect any extinct species, so claiming it is possible, is purely speculation on your part.

And it's not relevant to the issue, anyway.

Cloning has already been achieved on higher order vertebates, so no, it is not pure speculation.

What is pure speculation, however, is the belief that all life was created in a non changing, fully developed state. There is ZERO evidence, even anecdotal, for that being the case,

Even if one subscribes to the belief of a creator, there is no scientific reason to believe that evolution wasn't the mechanism that was employed.

As to "relevance", you are the one that made the "gone forever" statement. You can't then credibly say it is irrelevant, when it is simply a response to a statement you, yourself made.

First of all, I never said cloning was speculation, you'd know that if you actually read what I posted.

As for your claim that there is no evidence that all species of life on Earth were ever created that way.....

Do you think a car or plane would create themselves out of nothing but the materials coming together, and transforming it all, into a car, or a plane? No, a car or plane can only exist through creation, right?

Can you put DNA from two or three different species in a jar, and create a new life form? No.

Can we create ANY form of life, out of the materials which make up life forms? No.

We cannot create life, of any kind. We cannot 'evolve' a species, into a different species. Every species on Earth today, is the same species it was since the beginning. We know that species don't change into another species. So why would you believe all life was created out of nothing, when we cannot create life with intelligence, and intention, to create life?

The sheer complexity of all living species, which remain those species, are far more likely to be from creation, at a level far beyond human intelligence, than a random pile of slime magically transforming into life, of some kind, which itself creates all forms of life from itself, by random chance.

It would not seem likely that a car could be created out of random piles of rubber and steel, if you'd never seen a car before, would it? You would think this car was created by an intelligence, right?

You would not propose theories on how random rubber and steel, over millions of years, created that car, out of nothing but the material, slowly piecing itself into a car, right?

You think a car requires an intelligence to create it, but life is just from a pile of random #e, all mixed together, and after millions of years, 'life' pops out of the #e!!

I would say life takes a far greater intelligence to create than a car, but you obviously don't think so.

When we create cars, and cannot create life, you just say life was created from random goo, prove it was not.

I can prove millions of things on Earth are only possible from an intelligence creating them. What can you prove that random goo has ever created by itself?

posted on Jul, 28 2019 @ 10:26 AM
Isn't adaptation exactly what evolution is?

You evolve to 'adapt'.

If only we had some fresh biological material from crocs 200 million years ago to compare to modern crocs and gators.

Then again they're literally immortal. Only things that kill them are injuries and starvation. The just keep on growing and growing until they get too big for their food supply.

Their bloods amazing. Too bad someone was allowed to patent it and lock it away preventing it's use in human medicine essentially.

So while I am not convinced they've not evolved since they came into existence, I'm not sure they would of needed to as they're already well built.

Probably more evidence of evolution than there is a 'hand of god' being responsible for their creation and continued existence.
I say that because when people deny evolution they usually mean "Some sky fairy made everything."
edit on 28-7-2019 by AtomicKangaroo because: words!

posted on Jul, 28 2019 @ 10:35 AM

originally posted by: AtomicKangaroo
Isn't adaptation exactly what evolution is?

Adaptations can only go to the extremes that the genetic code allows. This is why even with over 100 years of selective breeding we still haven't been able to show an example of an organism changing into another organism. Dogs remain dogs, finches remain finches, fruit flies remain fruit flies.

Take for example antibiotic resistance which was once thought to be an example of evolution. The germ line actually quickly reverts back to normal once the antibiotic is removed. This demonstrates that it is not evolution, so a team of scientists found that it was actually epigenetic markers, or in other words, a particular detox gene that was turned up higher to allow antibiotic resistance. This gene was always in this microbe, but it turned up in response to the antibiotic. But, once the antibiotic is removed, that detox gene goes back to baseline levels, and the germ line becomes vulnerable again. This shows that antibiotic resistance is not evolution, it is simple adaptation:

source (link)

The theory is dead you just have to realize it.
edit on 28-7-2019 by cooperton because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 28 2019 @ 10:39 AM

originally posted by: RAY1990
What about dogs anyways?

If evolution and selective mutations is all bunk then how do we have so many breeds of dog?

How can dogs breed with wolves?

What about the equidae (horse) family?

I don't think selective breeding is the same as evolution.

Evolution is being a fish on land and growing lungs so it can breathe.

Crossing a Rottweiler with a Chihuahua to get a miniature Rottweiler isn't evolution because the end result hasn't come about due to adapting to the environment.

How can dogs and wolves breed?

Let me respond with some questions.

How do Asians and Caucasians breed?

How do Africans and Indians breed?

The same way. Humans are humans regardless of breed... sorry race. Same as dogs are dogs regardless of race..... er... I mean breed.

But not all similar breeds/species/race are compatible. E.g a human cannot produce offspring with a Gorilla through intercourse despite our similarities.

So we can go off on all sorts of tangents on this matter.

But discussing humans like we do dogs and horses tends to upset people for some reason so we often do not look at our own species and it's various 'breeds' the same way we do as others so I'll leave it there before some one gets triggered.

edit on 28-7-2019 by AtomicKangaroo because: typos. because it aint one of my posts without them.

posted on Jul, 28 2019 @ 10:50 AM

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: AtomicKangaroo
Isn't adaptation exactly what evolution is?

Dogs remain dogs, finches remain finches, fruit flies remain fruit flies.

But dogs from a few million years ago are probably much different to modern dogs. Same for finches. Fruit flies? I dunno but probably them too.

Much as modern humans look nothing like our cavemen ancestors.

Comparing amoebas and viruses to humans and dogs I think is like comparing apples to lobsters.

I mean animals that originated in oceans and became land dwelling air breathers don't revert to fishes when you replace their oxygen supply with water. They just drown.
If the whole amoeba/bacteria thing applied surely they would revert yes?
edit on 28-7-2019 by AtomicKangaroo because: added a line.

posted on Jul, 28 2019 @ 11:20 AM
a reply to: cooperton

Cockroaches remain cockroaches

The cockroaches are an ancient group, dating back at least as far as the Carboniferous period, some 320 million years ago.

posted on Jul, 28 2019 @ 11:30 AM

Also what thread title put into my head.

posted on Jul, 28 2019 @ 11:34 AM
Luckily religions are dying, and I’m hoping that within my lifetime we can put this entire section of ATS is the ‘Hoax’ bin.

We can then make use of all the great minds available to advancing science as far as possible. There are some truly great minds being wasted on nothing but a series of fairytales specifically designed to restrict ones mind and not to question what we see.

Good riddance to religion.

posted on Jul, 28 2019 @ 01:14 PM

originally posted by: Akragon
and of course we do NEED another "evolution is false" thread to add to the pile that goes nowhere

incoming attack in 3...2...1

is it time for me to update the list?
edit on 28-7-2019 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 28 2019 @ 04:12 PM
a reply to: AtomicKangaroo

I'm not a geneticist though I would argue that dogs are GMOs and a form of genetically controlled evolution.

Some breeds of dog do not breed well and most of them do not breed with natural counterparts such as the wolf or fox, even with artificial insemination.

Lions are not tigers but we've got ligers alive today, how horses are bred, their traits and various successes and failures is actually pretty interesting stuff. But comparison of any of these animals with humans can be slightly faulty.

One reason is timescale, a dog can breed within a year. Another reason is there's very little evidence of humans breeding to acquire certain traits so our evolution has been a mostly natural one... We did breed with others in the past though, I'll have a bit Neanderthal in me for instance.

Again I'm not a geneticist, so any explanation I could give in regards to when a breed becomes a new species due to the amount of mutations it's got compared to it's natural genetic pool would be inadequate. I can't say without laughing that a Chihuahua isn't that much of a divergence from the wolf though.

I guess it'll just be safe to say they're mutants in comparison

posted on Jul, 28 2019 @ 04:18 PM
a reply to: turbonium1

God is fungus!

That is all.

posted on Jul, 28 2019 @ 04:18 PM
a reply to: Gothmog

There are 2 things needed for an evolution change to be visible.

1 - a change that can set the examples before and after said evolution apart.
2 - For the individual who has developed the change to reproduce in mass and have its descendants be abundant enough to be considered the general population.

If a single specimen develops a new trait but does not get a chance to pass it on - the event simply does not registers.

Consider us, people. There may be humans out there with abnormalities that are either beneficial or not, like the odor gland in Koreans that does not produce an unpleasant smell. Its an evolutionary change but it has not spread to the whole world population.

Hypothetical: There could be some guy or girl in Asia who may developed an immunity to common cold but died in an accident before spreading the gene. Even if a change is really beneficial human population is not in any immediate danger so the chance of such change to be spread is nonexistent. Same thing can be said about a fish. If nothing is threatening the fishes existence or changes do not offer any needed amendments to genes or physiology there would not be an easy way or necessity to spread the change to the whole species.

An example - polar bears. We assume polar bears came to be from regular bears who was born with white fur and was more successful in hunting and survived long enough to pass genes and mutation was so helpful now there is a population of white bears. Now what if suddenly a dark skinned bear gets born to polar bear. It cant hunt well due to its skin color and dies before it can reproduce. Hence the general population of polar bears is unchanged.

This is me rambling but i hope you get my thought train.

posted on Jul, 28 2019 @ 04:47 PM

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
First I give to you the crocodile having existed in it's same form for 200 million years through the entire dinosaur period and beyond.
It survived an extinction level event that wiped out all it's uncles and cousins within that family and it continues to this day unchanged.

Second the fish called a Sturgeon, again unchanged in 200 million years, it looks like a swimming dinosaur. If you know anything about this fish they are really tough they can survive out of water longer than just about any fish and they live a long time.

My assertion is they were created exactly as they are at around that time and started like that and never changed, they never evolved, they were perfect for all the changing environments on this earth and they survived down to this day, living modern dinosaurs.

Zero Evolution in 200 million years, maybe a little adaptation, that's it.

"Zero evolution, maybe a little adaption" ok so....evolution. LOL


posted on Jul, 28 2019 @ 05:09 PM
Isn’t the moth in England that turned black because of coal pollution and it’s genetic line was now black moths a perfect example of environmental evolution

posted on Jul, 28 2019 @ 05:14 PM
I feel like their is a give and take with evolution and environment.

For example, the baleen whales I believe are the largest creatures in earth’s history because of environment. Whale’s only developed the straining technology for mass filtering plankton recently and used to have large teeth like sharks

In plants evolution is interesting, I think evolution will try all variables and whatever works goes forward, think of the types of pollination from pollen, cones, helicopter leaf things, fruit, vegetable, basically the plant while unaware of its environment will use whatever means necessary to further its genetics, for whatever reason

posted on Jul, 28 2019 @ 05:28 PM

originally posted by: ADUB77
Isn’t the moth in England that turned black because of coal pollution and it’s genetic line was now black moths a perfect example of environmental evolution

You're talking about peppered moths. Which is also similar to A) red knot shorebirds and B) This Bird Evolved into Existence Twice — Thousands of Years Apart and NPR.

posted on Jul, 28 2019 @ 05:35 PM
I read the thread title and was excited, really, really excited......

Finally some one was going to bring up the platypus, but no, all we got

was a


posted on Jul, 28 2019 @ 07:14 PM
a reply to: Heruactic

I am disappointed.
Several replies , and still no definition of a trigger point or mechanism

posted on Jul, 28 2019 @ 07:40 PM

originally posted by: AtomicKangaroo

If the whole amoeba/bacteria thing applied surely they would revert yes?

All organisms remain that same organism. We have tried with selective breeding to make an organism change into another organism, but it doesn't happen. Selective breeding is theoretically much quicker than "natural selection", so if it actually were possible to evolve an organism into another organism, we would have observed it by now.

originally posted by: SeaWorthy
a reply to: cooperton

Cockroaches remain cockroaches

The cockroaches are an ancient group, dating back at least as far as the Carboniferous period, some 320 million years ago.

Evidence to support that? Beware of sci-fi evolutionary bloggers... they post without any evidence backing what they say.

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in