Can someone explain a part of evolution to me?

delete double post

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: Ghost147
I just don't understand this willful ignorance

I get that.

Do you not understand that I cannot fathom yours??

There has never (and I mean frikkin' EVER) been proof of Evolution presented to (or by) the Scientific community. Never ... effin' ... EVER. Whose 'ignance' is willful?

No. There's never "Effin' " ever been evidence for YOUR definition of evolution.

You have an obscure view of what evolution actually is. That's the only issue here.

I've already presented several forms of evidence in this very topic.

Suspiciously, whenever I do, you seem to ignore them. How about refuting them?

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: Ghost147
You have an obscure view of what evolution actually is. That's the only issue here

Ahhhhhahahahaha!!

You're one of those types. You want to control the narrative by definition.

How am I controlling the narrative? I've been posting with citations...

originally posted by: Snarl
Evolution is the difference between a T-Rex and a frikkin' chicken. I didn't make this up. You fuggers have to live with that. You're the ones who said that T-Rex -> Chicken was what happened. Not me. Now you tell me how it happened.

How about you back up your claims with actual evidence? All you need to do to prove me wrong is by providing citation by reputable sources and I will concede. That's how a debate like this works.

originally posted by: Snarlshow me the proof

I have, and you've ignored it. Perhaps you should first respond to my previous comments where I provided it before demanding even more?

originally posted by: Snarl
That ... or shut your ever-lovin' mouth, because you're not a Scientist!!

I'm sorry, what evidence do you have on where I got my education?

a reply to: deadlyhope

One main topic I need help with is he desires proof of species changing, any species really - have we found fossil records showing the transition of our ancestor into both humans and primates?

Are you sure you're not asking for yourself, your "friend" ploy sounds like you hate debating yourself, so you create a persona?

Is this thread another troll attempt -

You authored this on Oct, 16 2015

Creationism SHOULD be taught in school. ( alongside science theories!
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Evolution, and creationism should be taught in the same classroom as these are both the most widely accepted theories on how the world came about. If a third opinion came about, and was accepted and believed by a large amount of people, I would encourage that being taught, too

a reply to: Ghost147

No, my friend. It's you that wishes to prove Evolution correct. I'm afraid the burden of proof all rests with you.

If you can't prove it ... you lose.

OBTW, I know you're going to lose. No one on your side has won this debate ... ever. LOL

originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: Ghost147

No, my friend. It's you that wishes to prove Evolution correct. I'm afraid the burden of proof all rests with you.

If you can't prove it ... you lose.

OBTW, I know you're going to lose. No one on your side has won this debate ... ever. LOL

yup troll confirmed. apply that logic to yourself, otherwise if u have nothing to add then all you are is a detriment to the discussion on ATS

originally posted by: SR1TX

There is no conclusive evidence to support evolution as is at present, only a theory.

Absolutely not true, but I guess if you intentionally ignore evidence that challenges your preconceived notions, then there will never be what you consider to be conclusive evidence. If evolution didn't exist, the structured treatment regimen used by those afflicted with AIDS would not work. You don't need to wait thousands, tens of thousands or even millions of years to watch evolution in progress. Those taking powerful anti-viral medications will see the effectiveness of those drugs gradually decrease as a resistant strain of the virus becomes more plentiful and eventually takes over completely. Rather than increasing the dosage, one need only cut it off completely to allow the resistant strain to lose its advantage and once again allow the non-resistant strain become the most prevalent. Do that for a while and then reintroduce the same anti-viral, and it will be effective again.

Try to be a critical thinker. Search for and consider evidence before reaching a conclusion.

originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: Ghost147
No, my friend. It's you that wishes to prove Evolution correct. I'm afraid the burden of proof all rests with you.

The burden of proof isn't on me when you're the one making claims. When I make claims, I provide citation. Would you like me to quote myself within this topic showing you the proof I've given? Or are you simply here to make claims, ignore responses and remain misinformed?

originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: Ghost147
I know you're going to lose. No one on your side has won this debate ... ever.

Modern medicine and modern agriculture seem to be doing just fine using what we know of evolution.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Oh sorry. I've never changed my views and never will......?

If you read through that full topic, you will actually see that I concede to the opposition, admitting that creationism is in no way science based.

But I've also bounced from religious, to agnostic, to atheist a time or two, that I will admit.

Am I consistent? No.

A troll? Meh. I'll let others decide.

But this friend I speak of is very real, and so is my stance on evolution being true...which, based on my own searching and help on this thread, now is backed up with more than before.

a reply to: Snarl

Snarl, my apologies for no responses at all - I have been busy for a few days.

I'd suggest taking a step back. People that believe in evolution don't often have an agenda, there's nothing to be gained for them - they are simply looking for truth in the best way they can. While creationism and other theories cannot be proven, it would seem that evolution is the best we have.

We can prove without a doubt that adaptation and mutations happen - that a species will adapt to their environment, and can even do so within a few generations at times - I think I've read some psycho stuff about some bugs, but then you also realize that even at the smallest scale, bacteria becomes resistant to the latest drugs - it's a form of adaption, of changing and improving - which is about the literal definition of evolution.

Macro evolution, on the other hand, is what I inquire about. As has been presented already, it's extremely hard to show exactly how it works. If we could only see the skeletons and other remains of every living creature ever, things would be more conclusive.

As things stand, it doesn't seem as if I can prove things to my friend, and maybe others cannot convince someone like yourself because the data is in fact limited - things don't simply become fossils upon death, and leave us a fancy trail of details painting a detailed picture, however... It would seem that there is enough evidence to, at the very least, not call the idea crazy - and at the very most, call it the truth.

What is your beef with it, anyways?

a reply to: deadlyhope

Yeah no, absolutely not. Such notions are pseudo-philosophical-nonscience stuff a'la Herbert Spencer, essentially.

Social Darwinism doesn't have a basis in biology, thankfully enough!

a reply to: Ghost147

Dude listen. Evolution is just a change in the frequency of alleles over time.

That's it.

People like to make things more complicated than they are, unfortunately.

After debating with flat earthers.

The evolution vs creation debate just seems so old hat.

originally posted by: andrewh7

If evolution didn't exist, the structured treatment regimen used by those afflicted with AIDS would not work. You don't need to wait thousands, tens of thousands or even millions of years to watch evolution in progress.

Shoot me a message when that AIDS turns into a bacteria or a fungus.

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: andrewh7

If evolution didn't exist, the structured treatment regimen used by those afflicted with AIDS would not work. You don't need to wait thousands, tens of thousands or even millions of years to watch evolution in progress.

Shoot me a message when that AIDS turns into a bacteria or a fungus.

i dont think you understand the theory. polymorphing doesnt need to take place for the theory of evolution to be true. something just needs to be able to adapt and change depending on its environment over time and even then something may reach an apex form and be perfect for its environment and no longer require a need to change.

originally posted by: rukia
a reply to: Ghost147

Dude listen. Evolution is just a change in the frequency of alleles over time.

That's it.

People like to make things more complicated than they are, unfortunately.

Yes, I'm aware

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: andrewh7

If evolution didn't exist, the structured treatment regimen used by those afflicted with AIDS would not work. You don't need to wait thousands, tens of thousands or even millions of years to watch evolution in progress.

Shoot me a message when that AIDS turns into a bacteria or a fungus.

AIDS isn't alive... It's a condition caused by the HIV virus.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: Snarl
Macro evolution, on the other hand, is what I inquire about. As has been presented already, it's extremely hard to show exactly how it works. If we could only see the skeletons and other remains of every living creature ever, things would be more conclusive.

That's the thing, we don't Need to see every creature that has ever died and place their fossils piece by piece in order to prove anything.

The same process that happens from generation to generation, and the same process that causes one species to diverge is the same process that leads to the separation of genuses.

The only factor that differs from them is the ammount of time needed.