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.

 

evolution, where is the evidence???!!! I see none

page: 17
6
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2005 @ 12:47 PM
link   
.
I think evolution may work something like this:

During the good/easy times a species will diverge into many/any viable form(s),
Then the sledge hammer of the environment culls out big chunks of the variant forms. The K form and the R form [arbitrary variables] both are able to survive the new environment but any intermediate KR or RK combinations are not viable. This would leave each population as successful only interbreeding with its sub-population.

In otherwords a species tends to broadly fill an open ecological niche(s) like a gas or fluid. Then the environment cleaves [or eliminates all but one] variant [range of] form(s). This is how the environment creates a new species.

I suppose it is possible that if a variantly adapted form interbreeds with others that have its particular exagerated adaptations it would tend to be optimized [be self reinforcing] that way, and so there could be some selective pressure for that selective propensity to develope.
.




posted on May, 28 2005 @ 05:31 PM
link   
for at least taking this thread seriously. It's really starting to look like a cartoon at the moment so I'm going to watch for a while in case some more proposed evidence comes to the table. As far as Mattison's posts, if I were to try to add anything to them or re-interpret them, it'd be an injustice to the knowledge and reasoning behind them. I'll let 'em stand as they are and if anyone is willing to actually read them, I've cited the sources.

Pray, train, study,
God bless.



posted on May, 28 2005 @ 07:59 PM
link   
To those who advocate intelligent design, where did the intelligent designers come from? Consider evolution? Aliens might have evlved to help us evolve. We certainly see evidence that we were not simply sitting still for several millions years, waiting for aliens to come along and "raise the Children of the Dragon up."



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by tsuribito
You should read into science theory.

Evolution is not a fact, but a theory. But it is the best theory we have right now because other findings in different fields of science can all be brought into this theory. And Science theory says that a theory is better the more independent theories back it up.

Creationism on the other hand is the other theory that we have. But it is not as good because it does not explain everything we encounter.
Also it implies that there is some sort of god or creator. But there are no empiric facts that show us that there is a creator of some sort.
Science can not explain everything.

Of course Evolution can at any time be tossed around or we have to change it so it fits everything we see in reality(happens all the time)
What scientists actually do all day is trying to prove that our current theory of evolution is false.
They are not getting paid for trying to back it up.

Did you know that everything we know about gravity is also just a theory? We can work with it until someone comes up with something better. Same with Evolution.


The concept of Gravity is a theory also. Want to go jump off a cliff and test it?



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Delta, told them yet, but they are still here, so I guess they like some theories over others. Although would be funny to see on the news, millions of christians die as they are told the truth, that gravity, like evolution, is only a theory. So to prove all scientific theories evil/satan they all jumped off buildings, cliffs, spans, whatever and died. In other news, the national IQ level has risen over 50 points and science has just advanced 50 years without all the religous dogma getting in the way of reality.



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 04:49 AM
link   
Let's ask a question which do you believe some celestial being one day in their infinite wisdom created people in 'their' image to kill and slaughter each other like a deranged coronation street(soap opera)
or we evolved from single cellulr organisms from a process which has more scientific fact and has pretty much been proven even if you dont believe in the overwelming evidence of the fossil record.



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 10:01 AM
link   
how people compare a substantial, testable theory such as gravity with evolution, which is untestable and gaping with missing data.


Pray, train, study,
God bless.



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shenroon
Let's ask a question which do you believe some celestial being one day in their infinite wisdom created people in 'their' image to kill and slaughter each other like a deranged coronation street(soap opera)
or we evolved from single cellulr organisms from a process which has more scientific fact and has pretty much been proven even if you dont believe in the overwelming evidence of the fossil record.



That is an interesting statement. Let's examine that thought. Which statement makes more sense?

Our ancestors are human.

Our ancestors are reptiles.

According to evolutionists we share common ancestors with chimps, pigs, lizards, fish, etc.

According to creationists we share common ancestors only with our brothers and sisters (other humans). Which position is more logical?

Creationism states that humans have always been humans, chimps have always been chimps, pigs have always been pigs etc. What do we observe today? When any living thing has offspring the offspring are the same kind of creature as the parents. Oh yes, evolutionary change can take millions of years. The answer that evolution apparently uses to get around logic is time. Given enough time the impossible becomes possible. Is that logical?

I ran across a pertinent article yesterday. It was written by Ker C. Thomson. "Dr. Thomson is a former director of the U.S. Air Force Terrestrial Sciences Laboratory. He holds a B.A. in physics and geology from the University of British Columbia and D.Sc. in geophysics from the Colorado School of Mines. Dr. Thomson served as professor of geophysics at Baylor University and professor of science at Bryan College. He has published numerous technical papers in the area of geophysics and seismology."

Here is a portion fo the article with emphasis added by me:

"It should be apparent that evolution is capable of an immediate scientific test: is there available a scientifically observable process in nature which on a long-term basis is tending to carry its products upward to higher and higher levels of complexity? Evolution absolutely requires this.

Evolution fails the test. The test procedure is contained within the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This law has turned out to be one of the surest and most fundamental principles in all of science. It is, in fact, used routinely in science to test postulated or existing concepts and machines (for instance perpetual motion machines, or a proposed chemical reaction) for viability. Any process, procedure, or machine which would violate this principle is discarded as impossible. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that there is a long-range decay process which ultimately and surely grips everything in the universe that we know about. That process produces a breakdown of complexity, not its increase. This is the exact opposite of what evolution requires.

The argument against evolution presented above is so devastating in its scientific impact that, on scientific grounds, evolution would normally be immediately rejected by the scientific community. Unfortunately, for the preservation of truth, evolution is not adhered to on scientific grounds at all. Rather, it is clung to, though flying in the face of reason, with an incredible, fanatical, and irrational religious fervor. It loudly claims scientific support when, in fact, it has none worthy of the name."

Link to the whole article

Steve



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 03:26 PM
link   
posted by Delta38 and countless others missing the point

The concept of Gravity is a theory also. Want to go jump off a cliff and test it?


Many people here on ATS, in defense of evolution, have been saying evolution is only a theory just as gravity is only a theory(i assume they mean Einstein's Theory of General Relativity).

They then go on to say that because they are both considered theory that they are both equally plausable. The example, too often cited lately IMO, would you jump off a building 'cause it's only a theory BS is a ridiculous analogy. The generic term theory of gravity, so often used, is misleading in that the theory describes why something falls, we all accept that it is does indeed fall. Gravity is still very much an unknown, we can measure its effects, BUT what gravity actually is is still very much in debate.

To hopefully put to rest this deceptive analogy, here are some(you can find more if you like) other theories of gravity:

-Shifting Theory: home.earthlink.net...

-new Unified Field Theory: www.allanstime.com...

-Tesla's Dynamic Theory of Gravity: www.netowne.com...

-Walter Wright's Push Gravity Theory: www.keelynet.com...

-Quantum Gravity theories: www.keelynet.com...

-And of course Einstein's General Theory of Relativity: www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk...

Just curious as to what "theory" is the indisputable fact that drives your analogy? I don't really expect an answer to this, just more bashing and name calling.

The fact is that there are scientists(PHDs in biology, chemistry, astronomy, mathematics, etc.....) like it or not who see flaws with' Darwinian evolution'(natural selection mechanism) on both the macro level and on the cellular level. If actual, credentialed scientists can find issue for debate, how can we laymen be expected to take evolutionary theory(as a whole) as fact? The simple fact is that alot of these things are unknown, there is NOT an abundance of evidence to support them.

Maybe there is a natural process to explain abiogenesis or macroevolution, but to state that they exist as fact(akin to general relativity) is deceptive and untrue.



[edit on 31-5-2005 by Rren]

[edit on 31-5-2005 by Rren]



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 05:12 PM
link   
www.arn.org...

"Irreducible Complexity
In The Origin of Species Darwin stated 6:

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

A system which meets Darwin's criterion is one which exhibits irreducible complexity. By irreducible complexity I mean a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, since any precursor to an irreducibly complex system is by definition nonfunctional. Since natural selection requires a function to select, an irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would have to arise as an integrated unit for natural selection to have anything to act on. It is almost universally conceded that such a sudden event would be irreconcilable with the gradualism Darwin envisioned.

can anyone explain how you can reconcile this fact with Darwinism?
or how bout this little so called evidence for evfolution>>>>

www.talkorigins.org...

but then check this out>>>>>

en.wikipedia.org...

Hmmmmm...a skull cap, a femur (which turns out didn't even go with the skull cap), and a part of a jaw bone with 3 teeth???
and with this they created that universally known picture of a parade of ape like creatures beginning with Java Man, morphing into modern man?!

no sir, this is not what i call conclusive, or even the "best evidence" we have.

and for you "we evolved from primordial slime" folks>>>>>

www.resa.net...

hmmmm...question: how did Stanley Miller know what the primordial earth atmosphere was like? what evidence did he have of this?
answer: NONE!
As a matter of fact, it is widely accepted now that early earth had none of the compounds he used in his experiment except water vapor.

And when the same experiment is done using the componds we do think were present, the result IS organic molecules with some carbon, but do you know what kind of molecules they are?
CYANIDE and FORMALDEHIDE, which anyone knows fries proteins and could never EVER create a living cell.

these are just 3 examples of the so called evidence for evolution and i've got plenty more from every other scientific discipline that points to a Designer from biology to cosmology. I'd be happy to post sources if your interested.




posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slicky1313
all my life in school, in science class. "we came from apes" "The big bang" but yet, after all this drilling in of knowledge, I find a very much amount of evidence and facts, and find evolution lacking scientific facts, as well as common sense, and is 99.9% fairy tale and .1% facts. I couldprobably find more evidence for why Santa Claus has a secret laboratory in the north pole and thats where all the presents comes from on Christmas than of Evolution.


Seriously, take a hit of acid. You'll figure it out.


I'm a Christian (oops.. scratch what I said before..
) Anway, I see evolution as natural and perfectly plausible. I don't think men/women evolved from apes.. but I do think its possible that the time it took for God to create the earth ("7 days") is not what we know as seven days. One of God's days is probably 1 million human years. Just something to consider.



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 09:29 PM
link   
.
speedysixsix, what function is irreducable? It is all organic chemistry and structure. I think you may be suffering under the condition that thinks all aspects of biology are some sterile perfection, ready for a museum.

Most of what organisms do is utilize very basic systems, such as use oxygen [or other elements] for respiration, take in nutrients for energy and building structure and reproduce. Of the three reproduction is the only one that really takes any expansion of the imagination. Even there though Prions are an example of non-nucleic acid protein self-replication.

Many of those early systems could have been VERY inefficient, but as long as they kept the organism [system] going that is all that mattered. Early on there were no decay type microbes to interfer with any system that could replicate itself. Some of those early forms may have been incredibly long lived. Now life is much more competitive. Many of those early, crude, inefficient forms could not last very long at all in today's environment.
.



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 06:55 AM
link   
For keeping it real. I mean really real. When logic and common sense comes together, it's a beautiful thing.



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Rren good post.

Perhaps I overstepped my meaning in earlier posts.

Forgive me if I said that evolution was 100% right.

I don't think I did, but I may have come off that way, if so I apologize.

I do think that there are gaps in our knowledge, but I have yet to find anything which fits the data better.

The problem is, that any model we use will have to contend with these huge gaps in our data.

Any origin theory will remain unprovable until we can use it to create life.

This being said, I still think that evolution fits the data better.

I think we can all agree on microevolution being a fact.

I am convinced by the evidence for macroevolution, or a common ancestor.

Obviously not everyone is.

Syntax, I thought we were discussing evolution not abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis is still very controversial, and there are many other possibilities, but unfortunately we have very little data.

Now, can any of you tell me about a theory that fits the data better?

Preferably one without a unprovable supreme being.

I would honestly like to hear some competing theories.

Thanks.



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Any origin theory will remain unprovable until we can use it to create life.


Why does this statement scare me?



Originally posted by LeftBehind
Preferably one without a unprovable supreme being.


But an unprovable pool of primoridal mud is? I don't get it. What is it about the idea of God people don't like?


Originally posted by LeftBehind
I would honestly like to hear some competing theories.


Me too. Oh, you want me to throw some out there? I'm not allowed because I'm biased apparently.


Doesn't the responsibility lie with the scientists in the field at the time to come up with possibilities? It is only then that we can test these possibilities until the truth is found. That's the very heart of a theory and science itself, is it not?

[edit on 2-6-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 12:09 PM
link   

From Leftbehind
Perhaps I overstepped my meaning in earlier posts.

Forgive me if I said that evolution was 100% right.

I don't think I did, but I may have come off that way, if so I apologize.


No need for an apology, the 'gravity' post from me(above) was in rebuttal to this jump off a building stupid christian BS that has been used NUMEROUS times by some to validate evolution theory by linking it to General relativity. To my knowledge the only such analogies you used were in clarification(ie what's a theory, hypothesis, assumption, etc....).

I do appreciate your input, regardless of your postion on evolution theory. I'm here to learn by discussion, i try to stay humble, i don't claim to have all the answers but the ignorant slurs, and hate that some spew does get to me(i ignored that gravity bit in prolly about 20posts before i replied to it). Anyway i tried to find some info to your questions/statements in your last post.

I wondered if there are any competing evoltuionary theories myself. Perhaps not a single common ancestor, or some sort of multiple abiogenesis event(maybe given the right conditions(whatever those may be) life sprung up in more than one place. Seems that would explain the Cambrian explosion but you would probably have to ask Nygdan or Byrd if that's logical or if it has allready been studied and either rejected or still under review.

I've looked around for competing theories on evolution(excluding ID or some sort of creationism as i assume that's what you meant). Here is some info i've found(again you'd have to ask a biologist or anthropologist(etc...)as to their validity):

This theory deals with abiogenesis, suggesting that it did not happen on Earth. Instead abiogenesis took place somewhere else(either space or another planet i assume).

Life from Space: An Emerging Paradigm
By N. Chandra Wickramasinghe From: www.actionbioscience.org...


The facts always led the way for Fred Hoyle and myself. The information content of life, even in its simplest form, had to be reckoned with on a superastronomical scale. So we argued the molecular arrangements bearing this information could not arise under the hopelessly diminutive conditions that existed in a "warm little terrestrial pond." The origin of life must surely involve the combined resources of all the stars in all the galaxies of the Universe. Once originated, however, the dispersal and distribution of life across cosmic distances would be assured by virtue of the well-attested resistance of bacteria to the harshest of conditions in space.
The next fact in our favour was that life appears on early Earth when comets were colliding with great frequency and when the planet had neither a stable ocean or atmosphere.2 The conditions on Earth at this time were manifestly unsuitable for producing even the chemical building blocks of life indigenously. In our picture it was easy to see how both the organic feedstock of life and life itself could have arrived on Earth along with the colliding comets.


Here's a good link on the history of macroevolution: Found Here: www.absoluteastronomy.com...

A few non-Darwinian evolutionists remained, however, including Schmalhausen and Waddington, who argued that the processes of macroevolution are different from those of microevolution. According to these scientists, macroevolution occurs, but is restricted by such proposed mechanisms as developmental constraints.


Non-Darwinian Intraspecies Evolution
This is copyrighted material so i don't know if i can cut&paste a quote.
Here is a link for you: www.geocities.com...

The seven theories of Darwin. From: www.talkorigins.org...
1.Transmutationism
2.Common descent
3.Struggle for resistance
4.Natural selection
5.Sexual selection
6.Biogeographic distribution
7.Heredity
Four more recent theories:
8.Random mutation
9.Genetic drift/neutalism
10.Functionalism
11.Gradualism

O.k. now here are the "anti-darwinian" theories and where they differ/contradict the list.

-Special creationism (sometimes just "Creationism"), the view that species are created "specially" in each case): challenges 1, 2, 6 and usually 8.

- Orthogenesis (linear evolution, aka Great Chain of Being thinking, the view that evolution proceeds in direct lines to goals, also sometimes called teleological evolution or progressionism): challenges 8 and 9.

-Neo-Lamarckism (aka Instructionism, the view that the environment instructs the genome, and/or the view thatchanges occur to anticipate the needs of the organism): challenges 7b, 8 and 9.

-Process Structuralism (aka Formalism, aka Laws of growth tradition, also called Naturphilosophie, deriving from Goethe and Oken - the view that there are deep laws of change that determine some or all of the features of organisms): challenges 3 to 5 and 10.

-Saltationism (in texts before about 1940 also called "Mutationism" or "Mutation Theory", the view that changes between forms occur all-at-once or not at all): challenges 11, and sometimes 2.


From last link(above)
For historical purposes, it is worth noting that all of these except Special Creationism have been held by people who thought themselves good Darwinians.


And one last thing, as an "intelligent designer".

Say we were created by aliens(no i don't believe this but for argument's sake). Would we not be able to detect that design(as it's not of super-natural origin). What do you think about the correlations between IDT and SETI, are we not detecting design(albeit in radio signals), if we receive a signal in Pi(3.14) is that evidence for design? If not how many positions past the decimal would it take to accept design versus natural. At what point does something become improbable? Why can't we detect design?








[edit on 2-6-2005 by Rren]



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Finally, other theories. I don't think I have much background to speak on any of these without learning more. The only one I can say something about it is panspermia (seeded from space), but was to the understanding it got thrown out of the science books half a century ago due to too many inconsistencies and evidence against the theory.



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 06:54 PM
link   
.
The idea of God or some creator, is that it sounds like a fariytale.
Very nice, but doesn't have much of anything to do with reality.

Most events in the Universe happen not because they should or shouldn't [which is itself subjective/opinion] but simply because the precursor events happened and those were sufficient for this current event to happen.

Do you believe in magic?

Creationism requires both anthropormorphism AND magic.

Evolution requires nothing more than the dumb blind Universe simply going on its kinetic way, like it does all around us.

I love fairytales. I don't however believe in them as fact.
.



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Not sure if this has been posted yet.

New evidence that links dinosaurs to birds:

news.yahoo.com.../nm/20050602/sc_nm/dinosaur_dc



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Why don't you like fairy tales? Giants, and wolves that talk and eat pigs, all mighty powerful people wiping out billions of humans because he is in a bad mood with 5-6 people, what's not to like?

I mean, why should we believe in reality, science, facts, when we could have fairy people flying around blessing things with their wands, and not like the way priests bless little boys with their, uh, wands....



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join