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: 23
6
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 09:39 PM
link   
This thread has turned into an intersting debate.
But, it seems the debate has forgotten the subject:


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


Could we please nudge the discussion back near the topic?




posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Why are you on ATS shauny? Why specifically are you in Conspiracies in Religion?


Because i'm a skeptic, just looking to find out why people believe what they believe. I believe that a lot of religion has to do with the psychological aspects of a person and their environment.

However much we breed dogs and new species, you'll see any species circle around before it lays down, which is because their ancestors used to do that to pad down the grass...all my dog is doing is padding down the sofa. The fact that our ancestors believed in gods, it's not that surprising that people today still do.

I read a book ''The Universal Dream Key: The 12 most common dream themes around the world'', and it has many reasons as to why all the people around the world share similar dreams. The theory for this is that these dreams derive from our ancestors. You're being chased in your sleep?...your ancestors were chased by wild animals or other tribes. The reason in the modern world why you are being chased are mainly emotional wild animals, such as fear, anxiety, anger, hatred, envy and so on.

Sure it's no conclusive evidence. However, it does suggest that we are still influenced by what our ancestors did, whether we're having a dream or having faith in a religion.



Also, why are there Christians in India, China, Iraq, Israel, if it's all culturally influenced?


Because people move about these days, which why we have christianity in the UK today too, and the same for the USA. I'm not saying religions are set in concrete for each country, merely that we 'associate' certain religions with certain countries.



I can't wait to see the match if ever He decides to play you and let me watch.


so until he does, we can take it that i'm better than him. the challenger for the heavyweight boxing title of the world, isn't the best in the world until he beats the person holding that title. right now i'm holding the title of 'kicking god's butt at tennis', so until he beats me, i'm better. therefore, there are things that we are better than god at.



I don't get why aliens are probable and God is impossible



I didn't say they were impossible. I said aliens are almost certainly possible, even intelligent ones, as the universe is infinite, hence the possibility is also infinite. if there were just one religion, it might all seem somewhat believable. however, there's many, and there's many more, when people decide to create different sects because they want to do it 'their' way and not someone elses way. it's laughable to put it simply.



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 06:49 PM
link   
I couldn't pass up on this one. If you pose a postulation beginning with assumptions that are erronious your conclusions will always be wrong.
So, a couple of things . read Xeplyr (sp) and he will explain to you that proof of evolution is available to us every day if you know where to look and this is verifiable proof.
Secondly no scientist would try to date anything older than about say, 60,000 years because of the half life of Carbon 14. Therefore, archeologists use that method, not paleontologists. Carbon 14 decays by half in 5,700 years and again by half in another 5.700 years and so until it's completely gone.
If you have the ability (and I assume that you don't now have it and possibly never will) why not use the isotope of another element such as Uranium 235 with a half life of something just over 700 million years. This would accurately date an object well over a billion years old.

I assume that you are young (still in scondary school) because almost everybody knows that evolution does not say that we came from monkeys, well not most of us anyway. Possibly some politicians in Washington derived that way but that was an evolutionary mistake and they should be voted out of office.
Have fun looking this stuff up; it ain't hard and the result will make you sound better informed.
skep

mod edit for easy reading

[edit on 13-12-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 04:10 PM
link   
1313, i will give you a place to find evidence

go to a place where you can purchase/borrow books.
find books about evolution in the nonfiction section
read

any questions?



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
Because i'm a skeptic, just looking to find out why people believe what they believe. I believe that a lot of religion has to do with the psychological aspects of a person and their environment.


I've not seen you ask me what I believe and why, with any attempt to openly consider my perspective. Not saying you haven't, but it hasn't been apparent to me. If you are truly interested, I'd like to have a one-on-one discussion, as friends should you like to U2U me on it. Not a debate, not claims, accusations, or bickering, but a walk-through of what I believe and why in the context of what it also has to offer you for free.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
However much we breed dogs and new species, you'll see any species circle around before it lays down, which is because their ancestors used to do that to pad down the grass...all my dog is doing is padding down the sofa. The fact that our ancestors believed in gods, it's not that surprising that people today still do.


If you believe we evolved from dogs, I may see some assemblance of your point
. However there is a huge huge difference between instinct and conscious reasoning. If I'm not able to convince you of that point, then I hope there isn't too much suffering in the endless pursuit of unsatisfying appetites.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
I read a book ''The Universal Dream Key: The 12 most common dream themes around the world'', and it has many reasons as to why all the people around the world share similar dreams. The theory for this is that these dreams derive from our ancestors. You're being chased in your sleep?...your ancestors were chased by wild animals or other tribes. The reason in the modern world why you are being chased are mainly emotional wild animals, such as fear, anxiety, anger, hatred, envy and so on.


I believe I've read that one. I think I could've written better back when I used to do dream interpretations myself
.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
so until he does, we can take it that i'm better than him. the challenger for the heavyweight boxing title of the world, isn't the best in the world until he beats the person holding that title. right now i'm holding the title of 'kicking god's butt at tennis', so until he beats me, i'm better. therefore, there are things that we are better than god at.


Hehe, well, if I say I am the self declared "King of the World". What? No contenders? I guess I really am the King!
The problem what that thinking is I actually become "king of my own little world" with reality going on all around me that I'm completely oblivious to.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
I didn't say they were impossible. I said aliens are almost certainly possible, even intelligent ones, as the universe is infinite, hence the possibility is also infinite.


Then given this consideration, with the universe being infinite, it shouldn't be hard to conceive an infinite God with more intelligence than us, yes? As you say here, "the possibility is also infinite".


Originally posted by shaunybaby
if there were just one religion, it might all seem somewhat believable. however, there's many, and there's many more, when people decide to create different sects because they want to do it 'their' way and not someone elses way. it's laughable to put it simply.


If everyone were robots then this would be true. One program, one way to think, one thing to do, one experience for all. Is that the world you're envisioning? How would that make an infinite God remotely interestd for even a split second? How would that make man interested in living for even a split second?


[edit on 14-12-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Well, let's see...

You can directly observe changes in allele frequency in such organisms as viruses and bacteria in a lab.

You have organisms with characteristics that clearly show that they once had 4 limbs instead of 2 or even none. (cetaceans, large constrictor snakes, etc)

You have evidence from the fossil record, such as dinosaurs evolving feathers.

You have people who, after taking antibiotics for a long time, have a population of dangerous, resistant bacteria.

You have synapomorphies, traits that are shared among groups of organisms within a clade. Basically, related, but separate, organisms have some of the same characteristics because they all inherited them from a common ancestor.

You have transitional forms, such as Archaeopteryx and fossil whales, again from the fossil record.

You have vestigial organs or traits in organisms, such as eye sockets in some blind fish and goose bumps in people. These traits or organs have a function in related species: other fish relatives for the fish and chimpanzees for people.

You have conserved genetic sequences across taxa, such as the sequences for ribosomes.

The fact that genetic engineering is possible across taxa is evidence for evolution, but doesn't support the immutable species concept.

Ok, that's like 8 or 9 pieces of evidence for evolution, but hardly a final list. Still, that's already ahead of the bible, the only evidence for creationism that I've seen...(and not good evidence, at that)




posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 11:46 AM
link   
the problem with evolution is that we're assuming too much:

we see a few fossils, mentally morph them into another species and say 'aha, so, animal x grew larger, lost a few toes, reinforced its feet and is running around as animal y now...'

cool, there's no denying that many species look suspiciously similar to one another, but there's one aspect of science, people are continously overlooking - a demonstration, an experiment! of course, noone has ever created anything, just cross-bred existing traits.. i'd like to see a mouse with (working) wings, reliably reproducible, of course.

denying evolution is imho, nonsense, explaining it would be the taks at hand if people weren't so concerned with 'winning' the contest of evolution vs. religion vs. intellegent design vs. whatever.

one hint: selection alone won't cut it, let me offer one example: metamorphosis, it takes basically 2 sets of animals, a complicated transformation and often protective shell, now develop that at once, just by random mutation without f'.....ing up.

of course, there are many more trivial problems: such as development of genders (so you're the only male, now what?), lack of genetic variety (so, you were lucky enough to find a female, now start a family which, on the long run will.... become monstrous inbreds??!?=)



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 12:02 PM
link   
does an embrio not evolve into a baby..does a baby not evolve into a child..a child into an adult???? is this not evelution?????



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by plague
does an embrio not evolve into a baby..does a baby not evolve into a child..a child into an adult???? is this not evelution?????


No, it's development, a completely different process.



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922

Originally posted by plague
does an embrio not evolve into a baby..does a baby not evolve into a child..a child into an adult???? is this not evelution?????


No, it's development, a completely different process.


well lets check websters mr. hairsplitter.....

a process of change in a certain direction......
a process of contineus change from a lower or simpler state to a more complex or better state : growth........
the process of working out or developing.......

well i dont know but it seems that the dictionary is telling me that development is evolution..... i guess though the dictionary could be wrong....



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by plague

Originally posted by mattison0922

Originally posted by plague
does an embrio not evolve into a baby..does a baby not evolve into a child..a child into an adult???? is this not evelution?????


No, it's development, a completely different process.


well lets check websters mr. hairsplitter.....

a process of change in a certain direction......
a process of contineus change from a lower or simpler state to a more complex or better state : growth........
the process of working out or developing.......

well i dont know but it seems that the dictionary is telling me that development is evolution..... i guess though the dictionary could be wrong....


Plague i think you're confusing the generic term "evolution" (which applies to many, many things) and the "Theory of Evolution". IOW Mattison was correct as it pertains to the debate. You'll find nobody on either side of the debate who would use embryonic development as proof of Darwinian evolution....clear?

[edit on 14-12-2005 by Rren]



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by plague
well lets check websters mr. hairsplitter.....

a process of change in a certain direction......
a process of contineus change from a lower or simpler state to a more complex or better state : growth........
the process of working out or developing.......


Is it just me, or have we lost sight of the discussion... I don't understand the heavy emphasis on semantics. Are you 'Skep' disguised with another user name?



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 02:21 PM
link   
has anyone ever heard of "darwin's finches"?

it's a great example of adaptation through natural selection over a timeframe shorter than the human lifespan.

if you want to hear more, i'll find a link.



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
has anyone ever heard of "darwin's finches"?

it's a great example of adaptation through natural selection over a timeframe shorter than the human lifespan.


It's an example of micro-evolution which nobody, creationists included, deny. I'd go out on a limb and say that most of the members who post in the origins forum regularly know about "Darwin's finches"...it doesn't contradict creationism.


if you want to hear more, i'll find a link.


I show you mine if you show me yours....ok me first



[source]

In the same way, the different finches that Darwin saw on the Galapagos Islands are another example of variation that is no evidence for "evolution." Recent observations have revealed that the finches did not undergo an unlimited variation as Darwin's theory presupposed. Moreover, most of the different types of finches which Darwin thought represented 14 distinct species actually mated with one another, which means that they were variations that belonged to the same species. Scientific observation shows that the finch beaks, which have been mythicized in almost all evolutionist sources, are in fact an example of "variation"; therefore, they do not constitute evidence for the theory of evolution.


Again you guys are arguing something that isn't in dispute.

(edit)forgot to provide source for quote.

[edit on 14-12-2005 by Rren]



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Ah, the straw men strike yet again!

You who oppose evolution say that the changes seen in species are adaptations, but not evolution. That's just wrong. Y'all overlook the fact that these changes are accompanied by changes in allele frequencies. That right there says evolution.

Another thing; creationism says all things were created and they were "good." Then how do you explain flaws in organisms? I guess it's like an imperfect human engineer who designs something that may be great, but has flaws. A perfect engineer, as creationism holds, would produce perfect creations. Too bad you don't see that.
The flaws in organisms are better explained by evolution.



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
Ah, the straw men strike yet again!

You who oppose evolution say that the changes seen in species are adaptations, but not evolution. That's just wrong. Y'all overlook the fact that these changes are accompanied by changes in allele frequencies. That right there says evolution.

Another thing; creationism says all things were created and they were "good." Then how do you explain flaws in organisms? I guess it's like an imperfect human engineer who designs something that may be great, but has flaws. A perfect engineer, as creationism holds, would produce perfect creations. Too bad you don't see that.
The flaws in organisms are better explained by evolution.


I give up...talk about your strawman...i'm out.



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rren

Originally posted by truthseeka
Ah, the straw men strike yet again!

You who oppose evolution say that the changes seen in species are adaptations, but not evolution. That's just wrong. Y'all overlook the fact that these changes are accompanied by changes in allele frequencies. That right there says evolution.

Another thing; creationism says all things were created and they were "good." Then how do you explain flaws in organisms? I guess it's like an imperfect human engineer who designs something that may be great, but has flaws. A perfect engineer, as creationism holds, would produce perfect creations. Too bad you don't see that.
The flaws in organisms are better explained by evolution.


I give up...talk about your strawman...i'm out.


So, I respond to the posts of people who think evolution is false, with DECENT responses, and you tuck your tail and run? You must not be too comfortable with your position...oh well, I'm comfortable with my stance on evolution.



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
You who oppose evolution say that the changes seen in species are adaptations, but not evolution. That's just wrong. Y'all overlook the fact that these changes are accompanied by changes in allele frequencies. That right there says evolution.

Another thing; creationism says all things were created and they were "good." Then how do you explain flaws in organisms? I guess it's like an imperfect human engineer who designs something that may be great, but has flaws. A perfect engineer, as creationism holds, would produce perfect creations. Too bad you don't see that.
The flaws in organisms are better explained by evolution.


You call these arguments 'decent.' Please. You can't even manage to stay on topic. You jump from IDT back to creationism. What do flaws in organisms have to do with ID? ID makes no assumptions re: the IDer. You have though... might be nice if you were actually familiar with theories PRIOR to posting about them.

truthseeka...
Oh the irony.


So, I respond to the posts of people who think evolution is false, with DECENT responses, and you tuck your tail and run? You must not be too comfortable with your position...oh well, I'm comfortable with my stance on evolution.


Any time you want to talk science, here I am... you can start your own thread, Maybe you can call it something like. "Truthseeka, who know everything about origins theories without actually being familiar with them challenges evolution opponents and IDTists." might be a little long for a title, perhaps you can get the same point across with less words.



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 06:20 PM
link   

So, I respond to the posts of people who think evolution is false, with DECENT responses, and you tuck your tail and run? You must not be too comfortable with your position...oh well, I'm comfortable with my stance on evolution.


I noticed you weren't actually reading what i post or what i link, to back up my position(i'm not a scientist so i try not to leave it with just a "Rren says so"), hence the "i'm out".

"Tuck my tail and run"...another internet tough guy, gotta love it. But i can't let you call me chicken, nobody calls me chicken.[/Marty McFly] So here we go weak point by weak point...ok sweetie?



Ah, the straw men strike yet again!


Thanks for leading with a big juicy grapefruit...i'm a layman so i appreciate the softball.


I'd be careful making that plural ("the strawmen") though, mattison is more than you can handle, trust me. Unlike me he's not a creationist or a Christian so you can't hide behind those arguments either. But i'm harmless.


Strawman: rhetorical technique (also classified as a logical fallacy) based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position...........[snippeddy snip snip].....A straw-man argument is the practice of refuting a weaker argument than an opponent actually offers. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to your opponent

How exactly did i misrepresent yours or another poster's position? Well let's move along and see who's building the strawman, shall we?




You who oppose evolution say that the changes seen in species are adaptations, but not evolution. That's just wrong. Y'all overlook the fact that these changes are accompanied by changes in allele frequencies. That right there says evolution.


When did i say "Darwin's finches" didn't involve changes in allele frequencies? When did i say adaption isn't evolution? In fact i said that the finches were an example of micro-evolution which is defined as, (and please sir correct my ignorance if indeed i am ignorant), changes in allele frequency within a species. Perhaps you believe the finch is proof of universal common ancestry(prior to your strawman construction and subsequent destruction that was the convo). You build 'em and knock 'em down, i don't see what part i had in constructing that strawman...but i digress. Moving along, still with me Biff?



Another thing; creationism says all things were created and they were "good." Then how do you explain flaws in organisms?


Either the flaws you're referencing (i'm sorry did you mention any?) are not actual flaws but mis-perceived (ya know flawed by what/whose perspective), or we could get into a discussion about de-evolution (copy of a copy of a copy ad infinitum), entropy in biological systems. Or the cou de gras a philosophical discussion on the fall of man and subsequent effect on the creation. Pick your poison bud, i'm not skeered.


I guess it's like an imperfect human engineer who designs something that may be great, but has flaws. A perfect engineer, as creationism holds, would produce perfect creations. Too bad you don't see that.


Perfect by whose definition? Flawed by whose definition? I realize truthseeka (word up homie) is the one who determines these things, by all means enlighten me/us with more pearls of wisdom. You've got me holding my Bible over the trashcan.....waiting on your ever wise word to let go of my ignorance in favor of truthseekaology. Obviously not only have you trashed creationism but intelligent design and Christian philosphical theism. All with just a couple sentences... Woooo you're good.

*tucks his former tail (now just a "useless" vestigal appendage
) and runs off, crying hysterically.*



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 07:09 PM
link   
doesn't enough of something happening on the microscale (ie evolution) eventually lead to a change on the macroscale? wouldn't enough divergence within the same species lead to a new species?




top topics



 
6
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join