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 saint4God
Genetics is starting small, then building up. Ecology is the opposite. Starting big, then trying to reduce to the smallest definable quality. When building a puzzle, the Genetics knows how the pieces fit together to make a larger picture. For and Ecologist, taking the puzzle already formed and breaking it all up leaves a bunch of confusing pieces scattered all over the place. Ecology is great for tagging critters and studying animal psychology, but it won't cure cancer. This is my bias after studying them both.
Originally posted by melatonin
It's just the way of science, some areas are more reductionist than others.
Genetics can provide little explanation of how organisms interact with environment - ecology can.
Originally posted by melatonin
In psychology, the same applies, at the moment I'm researching in social neuroscience and it attempts to apply reductionist neuroscientific approaches to social cognition.
Each approach has its uses.
Originally posted by aecreate
have ooparts been mentioned? human artifacts that predate dinosaurs?
Originally posted by saint4God
I like how this thread turned into a "lets toss our claim out there" instead of providing additional data as requested. And no Rasobasi420, per my post that wasn't what I asked.
Originally posted by saint4God
By the way, when people say evolution is missing the transition models, they don't mean different species that somehow relate. They're speaking of those individual steps between lets say a Panderichthys and a Tiktaalik. That's the gripe. I have no doubt there used to be species that are now extinct. Just discovering new species really isn't a great help. Kudos to scientists though for working on it, much better than the "have faith in what we believe" attitude demonstrated in college Bio classes.
Originally posted by Rasobasi420
The 20 million year span is a pretty short one in evolutionary terms. To measure the steps between these two animals one would need tofind every generation and guage the changes. That is not likely to happen because of the amazing way nature tends to get rid of waste (ie. dead bodies)
Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Edit: I agree, evolution can most certainly be a tool of god, if he exists. As for evidence, it's overwhelming and majorly supported.
Originally posted by saint4God
Why is God not allowed to work through science?