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: 24
6
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
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?


Well, if we could answer this question for sure, it's not likely that this thread would even exist. Of course the questions you're asking are pretty much the basis for evolutionary theory. Obviously, the evolution camp would say yes, the creationist camp would say no (maybe not the OEC's), and the IDist would say maybe.

Let me turn the tables, what microscale changes can you cite that you think are suggestive of macroscale capabilities? Seriously... not trying to attack you, but I would like to discuss this with you.




posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Boy, Rren, you sure told me.
BTW, don't bite my style, it's too much biting going on in the world already. Stick to the script.

And, don't call me homey. I ain't your homey, and I find that remark racist and offensive.


Seriously, though...

I looked a little into the ID "theory." Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the basic premise that irreducible complexity, specific complexity, and the fine-tuned universe prove, not only that all life on Earth was designed, but also proves that evolution is false.

Didn't Behe use the irreducible complexity argument with the cilium/flagellum? Didn't he say that this cellular component, composed of an array of proteins, is irreducibly complex and won't work if some of the components are missing? Let me know if you agree with that.

As for flaws in organisms, look at people. Your retina is "installed" backwards AND you have a blind spot in your vision. Why would an intelligent designer design our eyes this way?

BTW, your tail is not useless; how do you think you sit?

But, what IS useless is those goose bumps you may get from time to time. What is ID's explanation for that? Evolution's explanation is that the goose bumps are a vestigial trait. Furthermore, you will find a use for this useless trait in related organisms; in chimps, the bumps lift their fur to protect them from heat or to help them bluff opponents. I gotta go with evolution's explanation on that one...


One thing I'd like to see is evidence for ID. I'd also like to see a major flaw with this argument addressed properly; the designer itself. How is it unnecessary to describe the designer? Surely, if the designer created all life through means that can be explained by science, we can use science to describe the designer, right? But no, you Rren said yourself that it is unnecessary to do so. Why? I think it's a neat way to avoid some of the tough questions from ID critics.


And, mattison, don't endanger my name. Though it's just a lame way to attack me, I don't take that likely. Death before dishonor, ya dig?


But please, continue to call me a liar, all the while dodging the issues the designer itself introduces...




posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
Boy, Rren, you sure told me.
BTW, don't bite my style, it's too much biting going on in the world already. Stick to the script.


Ok bud.


And, don't call me homey. I ain't your homey, and I find that remark racist and offensive.


Wouldn't i have to know your race for me to have intended my remarks to be derogatory or offensive? Homie was in refernce to the replacing the "er" with and "a" ala ebonics... but i didn't intend to sound racist if i offended in that way i apologize.


Seriously, though...

I looked a little into the ID "theory."


Very little based on your new thread, but i digress. You were saying?



Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the basic premise that irreducible complexity, specific complexity, and the fine-tuned universe prove, not only that all life on Earth was designed,


Yes



but also proves that evolution is false.


No it says that NDT is incapable of accounting for the origins of biological complexity and/or information. It doesn't dispute common ancestry or evolution as most people know it.




Didn't Behe use the irreducible complexity argument with the cilium/flagellum? Didn't he say that this cellular component, composed of an array of proteins, is irreducibly complex and won't work if some of the components are missing? Let me know if you agree with that.


That's true and covered in the 1st post page1 of my ID thread...that you posted in.


As for flaws in organisms, look at people. Your retina is "installed" backwards AND you have a blind spot in your vision. Why would an intelligent designer design our eyes this way?


Don't know - when i get the chance i'll ask Him for ya, cool? How exactly does your belief in an imperfect creation or design negate the ID hypothesis exactly? Not following your logic or lack there-of.


BTW, your tail is not useless; how do you think you sit?


I was being sarcastic, or did you think as a creationist i would be arguing for vestigal organs and/or appendages? C'mon man that's day1 stuff there.


But, what IS useless is those goose bumps you may get from time to time. What is ID's explanation for that?


Why do you "feel" that an origins theory should have an answer for that?


Evolution's explanation is that the goose bumps are a vestigial trait. Furthermore, you will find a use for this useless trait in related organisms; in chimps, the bumps lift their fur to protect them from heat or to help them bluff opponents. I gotta go with evolution's explanation on that one...


Yeah ok. Who's arguing with ya, exactly? Are you still talking about ID or did you move on and not let me know?

Ok i'll stop here the rest i personally have discussed ad nauseum and recently posted specifically to the testing IDT thread about alot of these things. Read the DNA and Design paper i linked to in my last post...you're confused but as you've finally admitted you only read a little bit and looks like you've concentrated on rebuttal material before reading the source so your confusion is understandable.

Read my thread it's only two pages and read the links... not saying you'll agree but atleast you'll know why you don't. After just reading that thread you started i'm sure this is futile..but i'm a sucker what can i say.



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 06:34 PM
link   
You're a pretty funny dude.


First, you ask me for examples of flaws in organisms. Then, when I give you examples, you say, "whatever, what does that have to do with ID?" Then, you make fun of my name (while calling me juvenile
). After that, you call me a troll. How nice of you.


I never attacked you, and I can't, because I'll get warned. But, oh well, it's a free country (barely).

As for the flagellum...what you and Behe seem to be ignorant of is the fact that not all organisms have cilia/flagella that contain the spoke proteins and central microtubules seen in the "typical" flagellum/cilium. The sperm cell of the eel is one example. But, Behe himself said that if any one of the components were removed, the structure would not work. I guess you can give him an E for effort...


You said that ID has no need to explain goose bumps in people. Why not? I'm sure the arrector pili muscles that move human hair follicles in the skin are pretty complex...maybe irreducibly complex
. Why say, "so what, that has nothing to do with ID." Again, ID seems lazier in this respect than evolution.



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
And, mattison, don't endanger my name. Though it's just a lame way to attack me, I don't take that likely. Death before dishonor, ya dig?

Endanger your name, please. If anything, I helped you protect your name. Truthseeka, suggestive of one who seeks the truth. It seems that your quest for the truth hasn't led you to actually investigate any of the claims of IDists. I saw your post in the other thread. I appreciate the current events lesson, but I think both Rren and I perfectly aware of the claims of all these people. But we're not here to discuss them, we're here to discuss ID... actually, I am wrong about that... the title of the thread is concerned with evidence for evolution, and not seeing any, which actually, I don't believe. I would never make a blanket statement like that, and in fact I believe the title of the thread is somewhat ridiculous, but here we are.

But now that the argument has progressed to an attack on ID, I decided to jump in... but once again, I digress.... so here we are the thread has in fact 'evolved into a discussion about ID. Now back to the question at hand.

Truthseeka, in your quest for the 'truth' about IDT, what books articles, papers, websites, etc. written by IDTists have you read? Not refutations of IDT, not articles critical of IDT, but actual articles written by IDTists?

So it wasn't as much of an attack as an observation. Please correct me if I'm wrong... go through the list of all the ID materials you've read, and discuss why the arguments and theories are flawed, thus proving you're familiar with the theory via actually reading the primary information, and I'll issue you a public apology. I'll even start a new thread in the slug fest forum to publically apologize, and give you your shot without the fear of getting warned.

So... was the 'death before dishonor' statement some kind of loosely veiled threat? Is threatening someone in an anonymous forum supposed to be intimidating? What are you going to do, find out my IP address, and drive here and kick my *&%, because I 'insulted' your online moniker? Please. Grow up.



But please, continue to call me a liar

Liar? What? Please. I never called you a liar, point out specifically where I called you a liar; post a link to the specific post in question. Until then, you know what this statement makes YOU?


all the while dodging the issues the designer itself introduces...

Dodging the issues... what is it that's so difficult about this for you to understand: Design theory by definition doesn't infer anything about the designer. Would you be pissed if you went to an orange grove and couldn't pick apples? Are you upset that in addition to being able to drive you to work, your car can't fly you to my IP address to whop my butt? Do you get pissed when you go to the doctor and can't get your cavity filled? Stop asking IDT to do something that it by definition isn't capable of doing or even supposed to do.

Based on this, if anyone is dodging the issues, it's you. Did you even bother to read any of the stuff that Nygdan has posted? That's how you 'discuss' the issue. I suggest you read some of his stuff.

So to recap:

1. I offer no apology for making a reference to the irony of your handle for the reasons stated above.

2. Not only is your loosely veiled threat not intimidating in the least, and based on the anonymous nature of the forum, is in fact quite amusing.

3. I have no recollection of calling you liar; it's just not my style. I may have called you ignorant, but again, I offer no apology for this. Until you can produce evidence of my having called you a liar, not only are you misrepresenting my position, but YOU are in fact lying. Which I'd like to point out not only the irony of lying and calling me a liar, but the fact that 'truthseeka' is a liar.

4. By 'dodging the issues a designer itself introduces,' one is merely operating within the actual definition of the theory. Again, I'd like to take a moment to point out the logical fallacy of attempting to refute something without understanding it. Do you see the difficulty with that? If not, u2u me and we'll see if we can't work it out in private.

Or maybe I can explain it to you after you hack my IP address and come to beat me up.



[edit on 15-12-2005 by mattison0922]



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 08:26 PM
link   
I probably should have addressed these issues in my other post to you, but they weren't exactly directed at me. Oh well.

Originally posted by truthseeka
I looked a little into the ID "theory." Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the basic premise that irreducible complexity, specific complexity, and the fine-tuned universe prove, not only that all life on Earth was designed, but also proves that evolution is false.

Obviously if you make this statement that you've looked into 'a little' into ID is completely accurate. ID says nothing about proving evolution false.


Didn't Behe use the irreducible complexity argument with the cilium/flagellum? Didn't he say that this cellular component, composed of an array of proteins, is irreducibly complex and won't work if some of the components are missing? Let me know if you agree with that.

Ummm... yes, and it's true, well not necessarily the IC portion, but IC is Behe's hypothesis with respect to this particular system.

If you cite Matzke's paper, I'm going to scream :bng:


As for flaws in organisms, look at people. Your retina is "installed" backwards AND you have a blind spot in your vision. Why would an intelligent designer design our eyes this way?

This is typical of people that don't understand ID. ID doesn't make any provision that things need to perfect, or that in retrospect something couldn't have been designed better. While I know that Behe's personal opinion is that the biochemistry of the eye is IC, IDT itself is under no obligation to support this claim. Mike Behe and his opinions don't equal IDT.


But, what IS useless is those goose bumps you may get from time to time. What is ID's explanation for that? Evolution's explanation is that the goose bumps are a vestigial trait. Furthermore, you will find a use for this useless trait in related organisms; in chimps, the bumps lift their fur to protect them from heat or to help them bluff opponents. I gotta go with evolution's explanation on that one...

Oh Geez, this is a tough one... let me think about it. Okay so what? IDT has no problem with this? Of course, again, you'd know this if you'd actually read an IDT. If you read even a cursory amount of material about Mike Behe, you'd realize that he believes that the common descent of man and chimpanzee's is reasonable and likely. So you see, IDT doesn't need to explain it because it's not at issue with it.

Boy, you must have looked very 'little' into IDT to come to these conclusions.


One thing I'd like to see is evidence for ID. I'd also like to see a major flaw with this argument addressed properly; the designer itself. How is it unnecessary to describe the designer? Surely, if the designer created all life through means that can be explained by science, we can use science to describe the designer, right? But no, you Rren said yourself that it is unnecessary to do so. Why? I think it's a neat way to avoid some of the tough questions from ID critics.

Boy... this concept is tough for you, huh? How simple can this be stated: IDT by definition makes no assumption about the designer. End of story. Don't ask it to do something it's not capable of, or intended to do.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 10:52 AM
link   
OK, mattison, you obviously have no sense of sarcasm. What part of
did you not understand? That was a statement in jest. When I said "endanger," that was a slang meaning. I guess you have too many years to understand either concept from an immature punk like me...


Now you're lying. Before you called me a liar in your last post, you implied that I was a liar. So, you implicated me as a liar; just because you didn't come flat out and say doesn't mean I couldn't see your intent (wow, triple negative
).

So, what is the point of ID if it says nothing about the designer? How does adding a designer to current information of evolution add anything? And, you ask why I feel that flaws in organism offer evidence against ID. Well, gee, let's see...maybe because your theory is INTELLIGENT design! Through INTELLIGENT design, I would expect an INTELLIGENT designer to have designed things in an INTELLIGENT manner.

I truly don't understand why saying there's design without speaking on the designer does anything. Wouldn't you want to know more about the designer?



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
OK, mattison, you obviously have no sense of sarcasm. What part of
did you not understand?

Okay, my fault, BUT, IMO "
" could be perceived as mocking, was this not your intent, I apologize. Sarcasm is difficult to interpret without vocal inflection etc.


That was a statement in jest. When I said "endanger," that was a slang meaning. I guess you have too many years to understand either concept from an immature punk like me...

Hmmm... I had no idea that 'endanger' had recently adopted a slang meaning. None of my students have used it in that sense, but they certainly could be behind the times. I don't know how old you are, but I am 34 - but don't consider myself anything but youthful. Perhaps, I am fooling myself though, but I can keep with guys half my age on the mountain and road bikes.... though recent weight gains have kept me off of anything more difficult than a real easy 5.11, or a really hard 5.10.


Now you're lying. Before you called me a liar in your last post, you implied that I was a liar. So, you implicated me as a liar; just because you didn't come flat out and say doesn't mean I couldn't see your intent (wow, triple negative
).

Ummm... no... I am not lying. I DID NOT call you a liar. What you INFERRED from my posts says nothing of my intent. Obviously you're not married. If you were you'd realize that what you inferred, is not necessarily what someone implied. I know nothing about you, save for your opinions on ID, for me to call you a liar would be pretty much making a statement from complete ignorance. You could be the most honest person I know. Truth seeking has nothing to do with truth telling; one likes to believe they go hand in hand, but can't assume so. Irrespective of any of this, I didn't imply you were a liar, and I am sorry you inferred such.


How does adding a designer to current information of evolution add anything?

I already told you this: it serves as an additional basis of hypothesis formation.


And, you ask why I feel that flaws in organism offer evidence against ID. Well, gee, let's see...maybe because your theory is INTELLIGENT design! Through INTELLIGENT design, I would expect an INTELLIGENT designer to have designed things in an INTELLIGENT manner.

Oh okay, I see, you think that DNA based life, that can reproduce itself, adapt to changing conditions, and occupy virtually every available ecological niche is unintelligent. [sarcasm] I'm sure LOTS of people will agree with you about that [/sarcasm]

I've some got some news for you friend. Intelligence DOES NOT imply perfection. I would imagine you consider yourself reasonably intelligent, does a failed test, or other mistake, somehow make you unintelligent.

Intelligence doesn't imply perfection. This is your own Judaeo-Christian Bias.


I truly don't understand why saying there's design without speaking on the designer does anything. Wouldn't you want to know more about the designer?


Okay, let's try this one more time:

BY DEFINITION, IDT MAKES NO ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THE DESIGNER :bnghd:

[edit on 17-12-2005 by mattison0922]



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 06:52 PM
link   
it would have to make the assumption that the designer existed without being designed

OR

that the designer was designed by another designer which in turn was designed by yet another designer and so on



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
it would have to make the assumption that the designer existed without being designed

OR

that the designer was designed by another designer which in turn was designed by yet another designer and so on


Irrespective of what you think ID must "have" to do, it doesn't. Something you'd know if you read ANY ID theory... even a shred.



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slicky1313
how do we get conscience material from non conscience material in evolution? and how do we get intelligence from non-intelligence in evolution?

evolution is scientifically impossible. It has way to many flaws, and way to much faith to belive in it, it has no more than a hypothesis with supposive "facts". all a hypothesis is a guess on what happened, then checked to see if its true. yeah, its been checked, but theres also evidence to say it didnt happen. I dont see any reason to belive in this garbage like evolution and the big bang.





How is evolution scientifically impossible? Through archaeological evidence, we are able to see when changes throughout the body occurred. Do you think evolution, or change, can happen over night? Through findings like Lucy, cro-mag, all of the austrolopithecus species (all which are extinct), the bi-pedal transformation, the brain sizes slowly becoming larger, the loss of the tail (which we have a tail bone), the shoulder rotation capabilities, the homo habilis, erectus, sapien-sapien, neandertal, and I know I'm missing some more, all took time to change. It took many years to change. I don't understand why people can't fathom that fact. The people that argue the "theory" of evolution, probably have not taken any anthropology classes, just religious study classes. It is not a bad thing to accept that changes occur.

Talk about flaws, how about the bible. It has been proven that humans existed before the bible says we have. Religious beliefs go way beyond the Judeo/Christian way of life. Humans were hunter/gatherers, pretty much just like other animals are, but unlike the other animals, we have the capablity to teach others what we have learned. Hence better tools emerged, better houses, an understanding of the agricultural cycles that exist.

Computers evolved, machines evolved, way of life evolved, brainwashing has evolved........EVERYTHING EVOLVES!!!!





[edit on 19-12-2005 by phlantz]



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

Originally posted by mattison0922

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
it would have to make the assumption that the designer existed without being designed

OR

that the designer was designed by another designer which in turn was designed by yet another designer and so on


Irrespective of what you think ID must "have" to do, it doesn't. Something you'd know if you read ANY ID theory... even a shred.


i'm just saying that ID would have to eventually broach the topic of how the designer came to be.

it honestly just begs the question "who created god"

of course, when i say this people say "there has to be a god, we do have a universe, right?"

then i say, "if we can have an absolutely eternal god, why not an absolutely eternal universe?"

its just not enough to say that there was a designer. its science, you have to explain what the designer is.

you can't just say that a liquid became a solid, you must explain the process of solidification of liquids aka freezing.

ID hasn't met the burden of proof yet

end of story.
or is it, dun dun DUN!!



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
i'm just saying that ID would have to eventually broach the topic of how the designer came to be.

it honestly just begs the question "who created god"

of course, when i say this people say "there has to be a god, we do have a universe, right?"

then i say, "if we can have an absolutely eternal god, why not an absolutely eternal universe?"

its just not enough to say that there was a designer. its science, you have to explain what the designer is.

you can't just say that a liquid became a solid, you must explain the process of solidification of liquids aka freezing.

ID hasn't met the burden of proof yet

end of story.
or is it, dun dun DUN!!


Since you insist on including the same question on many threads, I shall post what I think is a good response to your question answered on another:


Originally posted by Roger Pearse
I am a little surprised that people are really discussing "who created God." Surely everyone can sense that this is a conundrum, not a sensible question. I don't claim to be clever enough to unravel cunning fabrications of this sort, so I don't pay attention to them. Does anyone?

For what it's worth, this one involves a linguistic trick. God=uncreated first cause. By definition if he was created he is not God. The sentence, then, is nonsense. While it is possible in English to create nonsense sentences, they do not acquire meaning simply because the word 'God' appears in them.

"One fine day in the middle of the night
Two dead men got up to fight
Back to back they faced each other
Drew their swords and shot each other."
-- traditional.

I haven't read back through the thread to see who injected this 'question', or rather jeer, into it. I suggest, tho, that someone do so and obtain an explanation from the poster.

No political system, no religion, no set of principles is immune to dishonest criticism. Let us evaluate all beliefs equally, fairly and honestly, including those which refuse to be discussed and demand instead to be taken as a default, like the societal values of any period of history.

All the best,

Roger Pearse


My recommendation is to read the thread title, and no, it's not called, "Who Made God?"



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 07:30 AM
link   
there is a bacteria/microbe that has evolved to live on nylon...a synthetic material that wasn't around say a thousand years.

ofcourse you'll put this down to some sort of micro-evolution and hence it doesn't count as 'real' evolution. what the question at the top of the page should be is ''evolution of man...did it really happen''...that's the question all the none religious people here want answered.



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
i'm just saying that ID would have to eventually broach the topic of how the designer came to be.

it honestly just begs the question "who created god"

of course, when i say this people say "there has to be a god, we do have a universe, right?"

then i say, "if we can have an absolutely eternal god, why not an absolutely eternal universe?"

its just not enough to say that there was a designer. its science, you have to explain what the designer is.

you can't just say that a liquid became a solid, you must explain the process of solidification of liquids aka freezing.

ID hasn't met the burden of proof yet

end of story.
or is it, dun dun DUN!!


Since you insist on including the same question on many threads, I shall post what I think is a good response to your question answered on another:


Originally posted by Roger Pearse
I am a little surprised that people are really discussing "who created God." Surely everyone can sense that this is a conundrum, not a sensible question. I don't claim to be clever enough to unravel cunning fabrications of this sort, so I don't pay attention to them. Does anyone?

For what it's worth, this one involves a linguistic trick. God=uncreated first cause. By definition if he was created he is not God. The sentence, then, is nonsense. While it is possible in English to create nonsense sentences, they do not acquire meaning simply because the word 'God' appears in them.

"One fine day in the middle of the night
Two dead men got up to fight
Back to back they faced each other
Drew their swords and shot each other."
-- traditional.

I haven't read back through the thread to see who injected this 'question', or rather jeer, into it. I suggest, tho, that someone do so and obtain an explanation from the poster.

No political system, no religion, no set of principles is immune to dishonest criticism. Let us evaluate all beliefs equally, fairly and honestly, including those which refuse to be discussed and demand instead to be taken as a default, like the societal values of any period of history.

All the best,

Roger Pearse


My recommendation is to read the thread title, and no, it's not called, "Who Made God?"


The title of this thread is "Evolution, where is the evidence???!!! I see none"
If this is the question of the day, then it has been answered many times. There is observable proof of evolution.

This question "who created the creator" is a valid one scientifically (That is if ID wanted anything to do with science). It would be like having an equation with an unknowable variable. Eventually, while honing the theory, they'll have to try to solve for X.

The designer plays a key role in Intelligent Design. It may try to say that it doesn't presume to put into play who the designer is, but only to avoid losing popularity by alienating people. ID wants everyone together under one banner that says "We were created by an Intelligent Designer.......and Christ was his only son"



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slicky1313
so does anyone have any real proof, or shall I say evidence to suggest the earth is billions of years old?


Post made by original author of thread on page 2 of this thread.

Suggestion:

Go measure how fast Niagra Falls carves out the ground, causing the recession of the Falls themselves. Now look at how much has occurred throughout it's lifespan (since the beginning of the falls formation).

You can see and measure the effects.

You can choose to decide the falls were the cause, or deny this assumption.

Either way, your free will plays a role in how you choose to integrate the information.

If the evidence is "evil" to you:

Here no, see no, speak no evil?

see, you may have a lot in common with monkeys.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Uhhh...

What about homology? Isn't that evidence for evolution? In vertebrates, you have limbs with ranging functions that are homologous (bat wing, mole arm, human arm, whale flipper, etc.)



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 04:01 PM
link   
here's a bunch of evidence for evolution

Exhibit A

Exhibit B

Exhibit C

Exhibit D

Exhibit E

Exhibit F

AND Exhibit G

this shows all of the scientific arguments FOR evolution

exhibit F and G are for HIGHSCHOOL level biology, so they shouldn't be hard to understand.

[edit on 1-2-2006 by madnessinmysoul]



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
this shows all of the scientific arguments FOR evolution


You say this as if it's undesputed. By the way, here are some of the worst excuses...er...explanations in defense of the theory in the links you've provided. Get your BS detectors out for this one, something smells funny: www.txtwriter.com...

My favorite parts are statements like this one: "Biologists do not agree" as if all biologists think evolution is fact. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Propaganda warning, failure to think for oneself may lead to mental shutdown and a zombie-like effect. Check this one out, "Darwin's theory of evolution has proven controversial among the general public, although the commonly raised objections are without scientific merit."



Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
exhibit F and G are for HIGHSCHOOL level biology, so they shouldn't be hard to understand.


It is written for a High School level of understanding, that is not to say the science does not get more complex the deeper you go. Genetics was my concentration in my five years at the university and it hardly goes into any great detail as to how any of this certainly occurs other than the same old ecology theories that plague the world of unsubstantiation. There's a difference between evolution and allelic adaptation, but these articles choose to ignore it for some reason. I'll be siding with Mendel on this one.


[edit on 3-2-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Soory to say this but the cilium/flagellum can be broken down. It works without 80% of its components I guess not as well but doent that put one huge hole in the theory.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join