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.
originally posted by: Answer
There's another way to approach the creation argument:
If god created all animals on earth at one time and evolution does not occur, he/she/it has killed off most of them and started over again several times.
originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
originally posted by: Answer
There's another way to approach the creation argument:
If god created all animals on earth at one time and evolution does not occur, he/she/it has killed off most of them and started over again several times.
That makes me wonder what animal will spontaneously poof into existence next!
I mean, it has happened in the recent past (according to the OP) where some animals become extinct while other animals later just appear onto the scene...so the sudden "poofing into existence" of different species must be something that just happens from time-to-time.
So... The evolutionary processes have been observed in a lab, but speciation hasn't... Do those processes that we do observe directly indicate that speciation will occur given enough time?
originally posted by: Answer
Scientists have seen evolution through natural selection in a lab setting. They have observed the processes.
How does the climate really indicate evolution through natural selection, rather than say selective adaptation?
originally posted by: Answer
Scientists have seen the evidence in fossilized remains which strongly suggests that species branch off from a common ancestor and they can extrapolate data from the surrounding strata, fossils of other species living at that time, and what is known about the world's climate during that time period to piece together a puzzle that indicates "this species developed these traits because of XYZ."
If fossils are so rare and only have a very small chance to form, how can the distinction be made between certain conditions disallowing fossils to form in certain strata and certain species not existing at all in a certain time period?
originally posted by: Answer
Applying what is known about natural selection thanks to observations in the lab, scientists apply that knowledge to the grander scale of speciation.
I've posted an example above but I'll repeat it: whenever fossils are found in a particular strata but they are not found in others, it suggests that a particular species developed and then went extinct during a certain time period i.e. the ice age.
If every species is subject to natural selection, what makes the difference between the species that can adapt fast enough and the species that can't, if their environment changes at the same time?
originally posted by: Answer
Obviously the ice age did not happen overnight so species adapted to the cooling temperatures over many many generations. Some species did not or could not adapt quickly enough to the cooling temperatures and they died out. Some of the species that thrived during the ice age such as large furry herbivores that relied on large protein-rich plants and large predators that preyed on the large furry herbivores went extinct toward the end and shortly after the end of the ice age because their food sources dwindled and/or they were not fit for a warmer climate. There are times when a "rapid" change in climate is the cause of extinction because the process of natural selection simply can't keep up. Keep in mind that when I use the term rapid in this context, we're still talking about hundreds of thousands of years.
Are you implying that a species can actually have control over their own evolution by controlling their environment? And considering that most species do control their environment (whether consciously or not), doesn't that sort of negate natural selection? Prime example:
originally posted by: Answer
The dinosaurs were not completely wiped out in the explosion from the asteroid strike. The strike threw so much material into the atmosphere that it partially blocked out the sun, causing rapid cooling of the earth which led to the extinction of vast amounts of large plant life. The huge herbivores that relied on the huge vegetation eventually died out and along with them, the huge carnivores that relied on the huge herbivores eventually died out. Many smaller species were able to survive but, over time, they branched off into new species that were better suited to their new world i.e. birds. Obviously, there are species in the ocean that have changed very little since the age of the dinosaurs because water-borne species were not as effected by climate change. We humans have slowed our own evolution because we developed the tools to control our environment. Cooking food, growing protein-rich food, using fire and shelter for warmth, etc. have completely changed the process of natural selection.
Ok.
originally posted by: Answer
Logically, if species did not evolve through natural selection, they would all die in these various extinction events. Luckily, thanks to natural selection, certain species are able to adapt and survive. If the earth were thrown into a sudden ice age again today, the vast majority of species would die out because they've evolved to our current climate.
Maybe the understanding of the confusion needs to be expanded upon. You'll see what I mean.
originally posted by: Barcs
originally posted by: vasaga
What is the evidence then (or mountains of evidence as you call it), if we can not watch the process happen in real time? Honest question.
You may want to read the last 10-15 pages of this thread to understand why it has devolved to asking for the evidence that has already been posted. Born has said we must back up our claims, but won't allow us to use links, which is kind of a joke. You know as well as I do that I've personally posted evidence for you multiple times. Fossil record, genetics, chemistry and geology all point to evolution as a fact of life.
@Bold part... I'll repeat what I posted before on the last page, but I'll change it just enough to make it relevant to that post;
originally posted by: Barcs
Without evolution, biology makes no sense, and still after all these years of asking, not a single evolution denier has answered the question of why genetic mutations do not add up over thousands to millions of generations, like they do in the hundred or so that we have observed. They all just say "I believe micro evolution but you'll never see a monkey turn into a human", a response that is a complete strawman, not to mention it's completely wrong and dishonest. It would be nice if somebody would finally tackle that question, but creationists / science deniers dodge the question and change the subject every time.
The barrier is not as magical as you believe. I hope the car analogy above explains the problem.
originally posted by: Barcs
To answer your question, we actually CAN observe the process in real time. Speciation has been done for multiple species in a lab. Genomes have been mapped from generation to generation showing the exact differences in genes. In organisms with short lifespans, we can observe, but expecting a human that only lives 100 years to sit back and watch a process that takes 7 million years is ridiculous. If we can observe genetic mutations slightly altering a species over time, then why would you expect these changes to stop happening? Deniers seem to construct this magical barrier that prevents the changes from adding up enough to change the way we classify the organism, but there is no evidence of this limitation. It is a false limitation imposed by deniers that has no evidence to back it. Care to tackle THE question? Maybe I'll make a new thread asking it and see if any denier or creationist is willing to even attempt it. So far nobody has.
originally posted by: vasaga
originally posted by: Answer
Scientists have seen evolution through natural selection in a lab setting. They have observed the processes.
So... The evolutionary processes have been observed in a lab, but speciation hasn't... Do those processes that we do observe directly indicate that speciation will occur given enough time?
Other question is, when is something considered speciation? Does speciation differentiate between, say an ancestor 'speciating' into a chihuaha and a bulldog, and an ancestor 'speciating' into a seal and a wolf?
How does the climate really indicate evolution through natural selection, rather than say selective adaptation?
If fossils are so rare and only have a very small chance to form, how can the distinction be made between certain conditions disallowing fossils to form in certain strata and certain species not existing at all in a certain time period?
If every species is subject to natural selection, what makes the difference between the species that can adapt fast enough and the species that can't, if their environment changes at the same time?
Are you implying that a species can actually have control over their own evolution by controlling their environment? And considering that most species do control their environment (whether consciously or not), doesn't that sort of negate natural selection?
Ok.
originally posted by: vasaga
With evolution, you have to understand that it's not speciation that people have a problem with. It's the massive increase in cognition of the 'new' species, where cognition means the mental process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought and experience.
Next time you ask someone to prove that God exists, I'll answer "what makes you believe that he does not", just to see how you like that answer.
originally posted by: Answer
originally posted by: vasaga
originally posted by: Answer
Scientists have seen evolution through natural selection in a lab setting. They have observed the processes.
So... The evolutionary processes have been observed in a lab, but speciation hasn't... Do those processes that we do observe directly indicate that speciation will occur given enough time?
My question to you is what makes you believe that they do not?
See my car analogy above.
originally posted by: Answer
Barcs' question is actually "given that scientists can observe genetic mutation in a lab and most creationists believe this happens as "microevolution", why then can creationists not accept that millions of years of these mutations would eventually lead to a new species?" Do the genetic mutations just stop at some point?
So a donkey and a zebra are the same species then, but the Zebroid is a different species. So is a tiger and a lion, but the liger is a new species.
originally posted by: Answer
The definition of speciation has been posted many times in this thread. It's defined as the point at which the evolved organism can no longer reproduce with its ancestor. If you take Rat #1 and try to mate it with its descendant: Rat #7,900,432,812 and it is not compatible for reproduction, then Rat #7,900,432,812 is a new species.
It boggles the mind that any question regarding evolution is immediately labeled as 'creationist'. And something being 'controversial' does not mean it's false. The earth being round when everyone thought it was flat was also controversial. So in fact, you didn't actually answer my question. You just avoided it with fallacies.
originally posted by: Answer
"Selective Adaptation" is controversial and not yet recognized as legitimate. Creationists like to seize on every off-shoot of evolutionary science in order to validate their beliefs while simultaneously ignoring the mainstream principles. It boggles the mind.
How many fossils of the same species is actually found on average? And at what number of fossils within a specific layer is this a reasonable assumption to make?
originally posted by: Answer
It's a very easy distinction to make. Just because fossils are rare does not mean that it's not a fair assumption to say "we've only found this species in a layer of strata that spanned 5 million years so it's safe to say they only lived during this time period."
So you're saying that beavers building a dam is instinct to survive, and humans building a house is somehow not?
originally posted by: Answer
Are you implying that a species can actually have control over their own evolution by controlling their environment? And considering that most species do control their environment (whether consciously or not), doesn't that sort of negate natural selection?
I've seen that video before and love it but it doesn't negate natural selection in the slightest. It only highlights how species can have a dramatic effect on their ecosystem. A species doesn't consciously change its environment to survive, it just does its thing and sometimes the environment is affected. When beavers build dams to flood an area, they're just doing their instinctual duty.
Are you saying that the modern world is not an environment? If it is, the same rules still apply.
originally posted by: Answer
We homo sapiens have absolutely negated natural selection through tool use, technology, medical advancements, etc. Nature has very little effect on who survives in our modern world. The evolutionary path changes constantly for every species and it has been dramatically affected in humans. We are obviously unique in that we harnessed tool use and fire... Again, you're trying to use these examples as proof that natural selection/speciation is invalid but your argument falls very short.
Lol. I left it for what it is. Not all replies deserve an in depth response. All I did was ask questions. Either I was satisfied with the answer, or I wasn't. I could live with that answer, so, I said ok. I'm sure that doesn't have to be a problem.
originally posted by: Answer
Ok.
Great response to the last one. I guess you couldn't come up with anything solid in response to such a valid point.
The creationist story is not my thing. Just FYI.
originally posted by: Answer
I'd still appreciate if someone, anyone on the other side of this argument could explain how all of today's modern species survived along all other species in the past and somehow, these are the ones that made it through. Were today's animals the only ones allowed on the ark? If god created all current species and they've been around relatively unchanged since the beginning (which I really hope you don't actually believe was 5,000 years ago), then how/why did modern species survive and so many others have died out? How/why aren't fossilized remains of modern species found alongside fossilized remains of ancient/extinct species? If a scientist produced the fossils of a modern Lion (been around 800,000ish years) alongside the fossils of a Nimravid (predecessors of lions that lived 30 million years ago), or ANY other modern species alongside its now-extinct family members, the creation belief might actually gain some validity.
Evolution works from the first cell up to all modern life right? I'd say the amount of cognition between the first cell and humans is quite large, wouldn't you say?
originally posted by: Answer
originally posted by: vasaga
With evolution, you have to understand that it's not speciation that people have a problem with. It's the massive increase in cognition of the 'new' species, where cognition means the mental process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought and experience.
Say what now?
What "massive increase of cognition" are you talking about?
Something tells me your understanding of the process of speciation is wayyyyyyy off.
originally posted by: vasaga
Next time you ask someone to prove that God exists, I'll answer "what makes you believe that he does not", just to see how you like that answer.
See my car analogy above.
So a donkey and a zebra are the same species then, but the Zebroid is a different species. So is a tiger and a lion, but the liger is a new species.
It boggles the mind that any question regarding evolution is immediately labeled as 'creationist'. And something being 'controversial' does not mean it's false. The earth being round when everyone thought it was flat was also controversial. So in fact, you didn't actually answer my question. You just avoided it with fallacies.
How many fossils of the same species is actually found on average? And at what number of fossils within a specific layer is this a reasonable assumption to make?
So you're saying that beavers building a dam is instinct to survive, and humans building a house is somehow not?
Are you saying that the modern world is not an environment? If it is, the same rules still apply.
Evolution works from the first cell up to all modern life right? I'd say the amount of cognition between the first cell and humans is quite large, wouldn't you say?
originally posted by: Barcs
Without evolution, biology makes no sense, and still after all these years of asking, not a single evolution denier has answered the question of why genetic mutations do not add up over thousands to millions of generations, like they do in the hundred or so that we have observed. They all just say "I believe micro evolution but you'll never see a monkey turn into a human", a response that is a complete strawman, not to mention it's completely wrong and dishonest. It would be nice if somebody would finally tackle that question, but creationists / science deniers dodge the question and change the subject every time.
originally posted by: vasaga
@Bold part... I'll repeat what I posted before on the last page, but I'll change it just enough to make it relevant to that post;
When it's regarding God, it's up to the believer to prove that God DOES exist, and asking the non-believers to prove he doesn't exist is stupid.
Apparently, when it's regarding anything correlated to evolution, in this case genetic mutations adding up to millions of generations, it's up to the non-believer to prove that x IS NOT adding up, and asking the supporters to prove that it is, is stupid.
Yay for double standards.
You have to understand that it's not the acceleration that is the problem. It's the speed. With evolution, you have to understand that it's not speciation that people have a problem with. It's the massive increase in cognition of the 'new' species, where cognition means the mental process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought and experience.
The barrier is not as magical as you believe. I hope the car analogy above explains the problem.
originally posted by: vasaga
Refusal to understand the position of someone else is where the conversation ends.
originally posted by: vasaga
Refusal to understand the position of someone else is where the conversation ends.
originally posted by: Answer
originally posted by: vasaga
Refusal to understand the position of someone else is where the conversation ends.
If I attempt to teach arithmetic to a child and they prefer to rely on their imaginary method they've dubbed "magical happy number time" which makes absolutely no sense, I'm not going to waste my time attempting to understand the child's position no matter how confidently they believe that 2+2=banana.
originally posted by: borntowatch
originally posted by: Answer
originally posted by: vasaga
Refusal to understand the position of someone else is where the conversation ends.
If I attempt to teach arithmetic to a child and they prefer to rely on their imaginary method they've dubbed "magical happy number time" which makes absolutely no sense, I'm not going to waste my time attempting to understand the child's position no matter how confidently they believe that 2+2=banana.
Arithmetic 1 + 1 = 2
Evolution and big bang arithmetic 0 + 0 = EVERYTHING. Your imaginary method and bananas, kind a sorta makes you and your species look very unevolved in my opinion.
originally posted by: Answer
Your ignorance is staggering.
You're still holding onto the false notion that the Theory of Evolution or the Big Bang Theory have ANYTHING to do with the origin of matter despite the repeated frustrated efforts to show you otherwise?
What, exactly, is creationism if not "0 + 0 = Everything"?
Is "0 + magical sky daddy = everything" somehow more logical?
What a joke.
originally posted by: borntowatch
originally posted by: Answer
originally posted by: vasaga
Refusal to understand the position of someone else is where the conversation ends.
If I attempt to teach arithmetic to a child and they prefer to rely on their imaginary method they've dubbed "magical happy number time" which makes absolutely no sense, I'm not going to waste my time attempting to understand the child's position no matter how confidently they believe that 2+2=banana.
Arithmetic 1 + 1 = 2
Evolution and big bang arithmetic 0 + 0 = EVERYTHING. Your imaginary method and bananas, kind a sorta makes you and your species look very unevolved in my opinion.
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
......bananas? Seriously? Is this some kind of ape-related creationist humour? And what 'imaginary method'? Is this some kind of confused reference to all the evidence plus the science?
... the anti creationists resort to a common "abiogenesis is not evolution" stance.