It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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: 44
6
share:

posted on May, 29 2007 @ 03:48 PM

quote: Originally posted by speaker
I would give you the probability for evolution occurring but unfortunately it is 1 over a number that is so large it hasn't been given a name yet!

Why is it 1 over a number that is so large it hasn't been given a name yet? Exactly how do you come to this conclusion? Can we see some workings.

At this point in the discussion, there is an important detail that deserves attention. The simple fact that DNA cannot be created by non-design. An error in the sequence of the nucleotides making up a gene would render that gene completely useless. When it is considered that there are 200,000 genes in the human body, it becomes clearer how impossible it is for the millions of nucleotides making up these genes to have been formed, in the right sequence, by chance. The evolutionary biologist Frank Salisbury has comments on this impossibility:

A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain. Since there are four kinds of nucleotides in a DNA chain, one consisting of 1,000 links could exist in 41,000 forms. Using a little algebra (logarithms) we can see that 41,000=10600. Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives the figure 1 followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension.

The number 4^1,000 is the equivalent of 10^600. This means 1 followed by 600 zeros. As 1 with 12 zeros after it indicates a trillion, 600 zeros represents an inconceivable number.

The impossibility of the formation of RNA and DNA by a coincidental accumulation of nucleotides is expressed by the French scientist Paul Auger in this way:

quote: We have to sharply distinguish the two stages in the chance formation of complex molecules such as nucleotides by chemical events. The production of nucleotides one by one-which is possible-and the combination of these within very special sequences. The second is absolutely impossible.

Sorry for my poor formatting as I am new here and still learning

[edit on 29-5-2007 by ag2000]

[edit on 29-5-2007 by ag2000]

posted on May, 29 2007 @ 05:02 PM
Just because the human genome is over 3 billion base pairs doesn't mean that it couldn't have evolved.
Here is a link to the animal with the smallest known genome. They also reckon that this organism will be incorporated into the insect that it lives in to become a permanent organ and be incorporated into the insects DNA.

Make of it what you will.

G

posted on May, 29 2007 @ 10:52 PM

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.

Take a day off and drop acid. It will all make sense.

posted on Jun, 1 2007 @ 10:17 PM
Well... Here you go!

But here is some facts on Evolution..

www.livescience.com...
www.livescience.com...
www.livescience.com...
www.livescience.com...
www.livescience.com...
www.livescience.com...

Also, the counter argument, Intelligent Design, is based on nothing but the Bible.
Here some stuff on that.

www.livescience.com...

..has catalogued many traits produced by point mutations (changes at precise positions in an organism's DNA)--bacterial resistance to antibiotics, for example.

Mutations that arise in the homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals can also have complex effects. Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae and body segments should grow. In fruit flies, for instance, the mutation called Antennapedia causes legs to sprout where antennae should grow. These abnormal limbs are not functional, but their existence demonstrates that genetic mistakes can produce complex structures, which natural selection can then test for possible uses.

Moreover, molecular biology has discovered mechanisms for genetic change that go beyond point mutations, and these expand the ways in which new traits can appear. Functional modules within genes can be spliced together in novel ways. Whole genes can be accidentally duplicated in an organism's DNA, and the duplicates are free to mutate into genes for new, complex features. Comparisons of the DNA from a wide variety of organisms indicate that this is how the globin family of blood proteins evolved over millions of years.

11. Natural selection might explain microevolution, but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher orders of life.

Evolutionary biologists have written extensively about how natural selection could produce new species. For instance, in the model called allopatry, developed by Ernst Mayr of Harvard University, if a population of organisms were isolated from the rest of its species by geographical boundaries, it might be subjected to different selective pressures. Changes would accumulate in the isolated population. If those changes became so significant that the splinter group could not or routinely would not breed with the original stock, then the splinter group would be reproductively isolated and on its way toward becoming a new species.

Natural selection is the best studied of the evolutionary mechanisms, but biologists are open to other possibilities as well. Biologists are constantly assessing the potential of unusual genetic mechanisms for causing speciation or for producing complex features in organisms. Lynn Margulis of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and others have persuasively argued that some cellular organelles, such as the energy-generating mitochondria, evolved through the symbiotic merger of ancient organisms. Thus, science welcomes the possibility of evolution resulting from forces beyond natural selection. Yet those forces must be natural; they cannot be attributed to the actions of mysterious creative intelligences whose existence, in scientific terms, is unproved.

posted on Jun, 1 2007 @ 10:18 PM
12. Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve.
Speciation is probably fairly rare and in many cases might take centuries. Furthermore, recognizing a new species during a formative stage can be difficult, because biologists sometimes disagree about how best to define a species. The most widely used definition, Mayr's Biological Species Concept, recognizes a species as a distinct community of reproductively isolated populations--sets of organisms that normally do not or cannot breed outside their community. In practice, this standard can be difficult to apply to organisms isolated by distance or terrain or to plants (and, of course, fossils do not breed). Biologists therefore usually use organisms' physical and behavioral traits as clues to their species membership.

Nevertheless, the scientific literature does contain reports of apparent speciation events in plants, insects and worms. In most of these experiments, researchers subjected organisms to various types of selection--for anatomical differences, mating behaviors, habitat preferences and other traits--and found that they had created populations of organisms that did not breed with outsiders. For example, William R. Rice of the University of New Mexico and George W. Salt of the University of California at Davis demonstrated that if they sorted a group of fruit flies by their preference for certain environments and bred those flies separately over 35 generations, the resulting flies would refuse to breed with those from a very different environment.

13. Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils--creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance.

Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock's worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition [see "The Mammals That Conquered the Seas, " by Kate Wong; Scientific American, May]. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans.

Creationists, though, dismiss these fossil studies. They argue that Archaeopteryx is not a missing link between reptiles and birds--it is just an extinct bird with reptilian features. They want evolutionists to produce a weird, chimeric monster that cannot be classified as belonging to any known group. Even if a creationist does accept a fossil as transitional between two species, he or she may then insist on seeing other fossils intermediate between it and the first two. These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record.

Nevertheless, evolutionists can cite further supportive evidence from molecular biology. All organisms share most of the same genes, but as evolution predicts, the structures of these genes and their products diverge among species, in keeping with their evolutionary relationships. Geneticists speak of the "molecular clock" that records the passage of time. These molecular data also show how various organisms are transitional within evolution.

Dang 4,000 word limits!

posted on Jun, 1 2007 @ 10:19 PM
14. Living things have fantastically intricate features--at the anatomical, cellular and molecular levels--that could not function if they were any less complex or sophisticated. The only prudent conclusion is that they are the products of intelligent design, not evolution.
This "argument from design" is the backbone of most recent attacks on evolution, but it is also one of the oldest. In 1802 theologian William Paley wrote that if one finds a pocket watch in a field, the most reasonable conclusion is that someone dropped it, not that natural forces created it there. By analogy, Paley argued, the complex structures of living things must be the handiwork of direct, divine invention. Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species as an answer to Paley: he explained how natural forces of selection, acting on inherited features, could gradually shape the evolution of ornate organic structures.
Generations of creationists have tried to counter Darwin by citing the example of the eye as a structure that could not have evolved. The eye's ability to provide vision depends on the perfect arrangement of its parts, these critics say. Natural selection could thus never favor the transitional forms needed during the eye's evolution--what good is half an eye? Anticipating this criticism, Darwin suggested that even "incomplete" eyes might confer benefits (such as helping creatures orient toward light) and thereby survive for further evolutionary refinement. Biology has vindicated Darwin: researchers have identified primitive eyes and light-sensing organs throughout the animal kingdom and have even tracked the evolutionary history of eyes through comparative genetics. (It now appears that in various families of organisms, eyes have evolved independently.)
Today's intelligent-design advocates are more sophisticated than their predecessors, but their arguments and goals are not fundamentally different. They criticize evolution by trying to demonstrate that it could not account for life as we know it and then insist that the only tenable alternative is that life was designed by an unidentified intelligence.

15. Recent discoveries prove that even at the microscopic level, life has a quality of complexity that could not have come about through evolution.
"Irreducible complexity" is the battle cry of Michael J. Behe of Lehigh University, author of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. As a household example of irreducible complexity, Behe chooses the mousetrap--a machine that could not function if any of its pieces were missing and whose pieces have no value except as parts of the whole. What is true of the mousetrap, he says, is even truer of the bacterial flagellum, a whiplike cellular organelle used for propulsion that operates like an outboard motor. The proteins that make up a flagellum are uncannily arranged into motor components, a universal joint and other structures like those that a human engineer might specify. The possibility that this intricate array could have arisen through evolutionary modification is virtually nil, Behe argues, and that bespeaks intelligent design. He makes similar points about the blood's clotting mechanism and other molecular systems.
Yet evolutionary biologists have answers to these objections. First, there exist flagellae with forms simpler than the one that Behe cites, so it is not necessary for all those components to be present for a flagellum to work. The sophisticated components of this flagellum all have precedents elsewhere in nature, as described by Kenneth R. Miller of Brown University and others. In fact, the entire flagellum assembly is extremely similar to an organelle that Yersinia pestis, the bubonic plague bacterium, uses to inject toxins into cells.
The key is that the flagellum's component structures, which Behe suggests have no value apart from their role in propulsion, can serve multiple functions that would have helped favor their evolution.
Dang limit!

posted on Jun, 1 2007 @ 10:20 PM
The final evolution of the flagellum might then have involved only the novel recombination of sophisticated parts that initially evolved for other purposes. Similarly, the blood-clotting system seems to involve the modification and elaboration of proteins that were originally used in digestion, according to studies by Russell F. Doolittle of the University of California at San Diego. So some of the complexity that Behe calls proof of intelligent design is not irreducible at all.

Complexity of a different kind--"specified complexity"--is the cornerstone of the intelligent-design arguments of William A. Dembski of Baylor University in his books The Design Inference and No Free Lunch. Essentially his argument is that living things are complex in a way that undirected, random processes could never produce. The only logical conclusion, Dembski asserts, in an echo of Paley 200 years ago, is that some superhuman intelligence created and shaped life.

Dembski's argument contains several holes. It is wrong to insinuate that the field of explanations consists only of random processes or designing intelligences. Researchers into nonlinear systems and cellular automata at the Santa Fe Institute and elsewhere have demonstrated that simple, undirected processes can yield extraordinarily complex patterns. Some of the complexity seen in organisms may therefore emerge through natural phenomena that we as yet barely understand. But that is far different from saying that the complexity could not have arisen naturally.

"Creation science" is a contradiction in terms. A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism--it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms. Thus, physics describes the atomic nucleus with specific concepts governing matter and energy, and it tests those descriptions experimentally. Physicists introduce new particles, such as quarks, to flesh out their theories only when data show that the previous descriptions cannot adequately explain observed phenomena. The new particles do not have arbitrary properties, moreover--their definitions are tightly constrained, because the new particles must fit within the existing framework of physics.

In contrast, intelligent-design theorists invoke shadowy entities that conveniently have whatever unconstrained abilities are needed to solve the mystery at hand. Rather than expanding scientific inquiry, such answers shut it down. (How does one disprove the existence of omnipotent intelligences?)

Intelligent design offers few answers. For instance, when and how did a designing intelligence intervene in life's history? By creating the first DNA? The first cell? The first human? Was every species designed, or just a few early ones? Proponents of intelligent-design theory frequently decline to be pinned down on these points. They do not even make real attempts to reconcile their disparate ideas about intelligent design. Instead they pursue argument by exclusion--that is, they belittle evolutionary explanations as far-fetched or incomplete and then imply that only design-based alternatives remain.

Logically, this is misleading: even if one naturalistic explanation is flawed, it does not mean that all are. Moreover, it does not make one intelligent-design theory more reasonable than another. Listeners are essentially left to fill in the blanks for themselves, and some will undoubtedly do so by substituting their religious beliefs for scientific ideas.

STUPID LIMIT!!!!!!

posted on Jun, 1 2007 @ 10:22 PM
Time and again, science has shown that methodological naturalism can push back ignorance, finding increasingly detailed and informative answers to mysteries that once seemed impenetrable: the nature of light, the causes of disease, how the brain works. Evolution is doing the same with the riddle of how the living world took shape. Creationism, by any name, adds nothing of intellectual value to the effort.

Also, we have evolved even today? 1000 years ago we would all be giants. Humans have gotten taller. 1, 000 years ago I'd be burnt at the stake for being a witch because I'm 5'11. basketball players would be killed enmass as children as they reach the average of 4'10 at the age of 5 or whatever before they became giants, like Goliath.

Also, humans have evolved to gain resistances to diseases that used to kill people.

www.talkorigins.org...
Just some info on Transitional Species...

Also, if God is perfect then why do we have useless parts?
On Evolution(Including Humans) here is a list of Top Ten Useless Limbs and Organs.

www.livescience.com...

Humans are 3 of the ten, with the top 1 and 2 on the list! So, why these useless things if God is perfect? Was he drunk or does he have a mental handicap?

We have evolved.

There we go! I've posted this on other forums and not putting it here. The other places didn't have limits though. Well, all you "Creation is right because we said so!" go away. Evolution is real, its done in labs, you support evolution every time you get a vaccinnation shot or pet you dog or cat.

posted on Jun, 2 2007 @ 10:23 AM
Sorry I haven't been here often, the job I was at required a lot of time and attention. Thanks for the heads up melatonin and appreciate the info. I don't think one can just "brush aside" Hardy-Weinburg equilibrium in favor of an untestable proposed exception to the rule (if you know where I'm going with that).

Good news is I have my Bachelor's of Biology degree from the university finally and start at a biology company on Monday. We specialize in protein synthesis, fun fun
. It'll be interesting no doubt. One friend is worried(?) that my lack of faith in evolution may cause work conflicts, but I cannot see how. We're there to work with the facts, not tinker with mythology.

I used to respond to the whole, "yeah? What's your explanation? God?" but this isn't the appropriate thread for that. We're here to discuss evolution, not other theories. If we can stay on task, then it will be a lot more progressive I'm sure.

Still unaddress is how evolution follows the scientific method. I've been over the details of what that is for pages in addition to phenotypic and genotypic complications with mutations passings along successive generations. This too has gone unaddressed. So until then, most of it will sound like a broken record to me, giving more towards propogating a new religion rather than a scientific discussion.

[edit on 2-6-2007 by saint4God]

posted on Jun, 2 2007 @ 05:20 PM

Originally posted by saint4God
One friend is worried(?) that my lack of faith in evolution may cause work conflicts, but I cannot see how.

Opposing beliefs and ideas often cause conflict. Moreso if it's evolution Vs. God. It's a bit of a debate subject that one.

Originally posted by saint4God
We're there to work with the facts, not tinker with mythology.

Obviously you tinker with mythology in your day to day life by being a Christian. So it must be nice to go to work and deal with facts.

Originally posted by saint4God
Still unaddress is how evolution follows the scientific method.

It has been addressed. We cannot physically observe the evolution of ape to human. However, this in no way affects the theory of evolution. We don't need to observe the past to know what happened.

Originally posted by saint4God
giving more towards propogating a new religion rather than a scientific discussion.

I would find it hard to have a serious discussion with anyone who believes that Noah's Ark, Tower of Babel, Adam & Eve, etc, are literal events.

How can you possibly be logical and talk science, when those events don't follow any sort of logic whatsoever. Science, history, geology, would show that there is little to no evidence of a world-wide flood of biblical proportions. So if your mythological beliefs don't fit a method, scientific or logical, then why are you here demanding that other people's ideas and beliefs should..

[edit on 2-6-2007 by shaunybaby]

posted on Jun, 2 2007 @ 08:46 PM
They have faith. That's all they have. "I have faith that 2+2=5!!!!!!! So firebomb anyone's house who says different!!!!"

posted on Jun, 11 2007 @ 02:52 PM

Originally posted by shaunybaby
Opposing beliefs and ideas often cause conflict. Moreso if it's evolution Vs. God. It's a bit of a debate subject that one.

It still puzzles me why you see God and evolution as conflicting. There are many who don't see that to be the case.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
Obviously you tinker with mythology in your day to day life by being a Christian. So it must be nice to go to work and deal with facts.

I don't recall shauny making biting comments like this, but I know I've bit back just to see what I get so I guess fair is fair.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
It has been addressed. We cannot physically observe the evolution of ape to human. However, this in no way affects the theory of evolution. We don't need to observe the past to know what happened.

And still there's the disregard for testing, predictable results, working model, data, etc...as if seeing is all there is to believing.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
I would find it hard to have a serious discussion with anyone who believes that Noah's Ark, Tower of Babel, Adam & Eve, etc, are literal events.

Perhaps, but isn't relevant to this thread.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
How can you possibly be logical and talk science, when those events don't follow any sort of logic whatsoever. Science, history, geology, would show that there is little to no evidence of a world-wide flood of biblical proportions.

Are you sure? If believe you have that assurance, how are you so sure?

Originally posted by shaunybaby

You have not established that my beliefs are mythological, nor is it relevant to this thread.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
don't fit a method, scientific or logical, then why are you here demanding that other people's ideas and beliefs should..

Because we are discussing science here, not belief.

posted on Jun, 11 2007 @ 02:53 PM

Originally posted by Lightstorm
They have faith. That's all they have. "I have faith that 2+2=5!!!!!!! So firebomb anyone's house who says different!!!!"

Who have I firebombed? Where have I said 2+2=5? What makes you think that "all I have is faith"? Please support your accusations or make them not.

posted on Jun, 11 2007 @ 04:05 PM

Originally posted by saint4God

And still there's the disregard for testing, predictable results, working model, data, etc...as if seeing is all there is to believing.

Not having a go but POT...KETTLE...BLACK. Where's the testing for god and his 'divine'deeds? Where are the predictable results? (except for your answers) Working model - bible????LOL, Data??? and you cant even see your belief - blind faith is what you have.

G

posted on Jun, 11 2007 @ 04:25 PM

Originally posted by shihulud
Not having a go but POT...KETTLE...BLACK. Where's the testing for god and his 'divine'deeds? Where are the predictable results? (except for your answers) Working model - bible????LOL, Data??? and you cant even see your belief - blind faith is what you have.

G

What's this have to do with the topic? I'd be glad to answer these questions on the appropriate thread.

[edit on 11-6-2007 by saint4God]

posted on Jun, 12 2007 @ 08:22 AM

Originally posted by saint4God
It still puzzles me why you see God and evolution as conflicting. There are many who don't see that to be the case.

I don't see how 'God could create evolution' is a good enough excuse to make God and evolution not clash.

Originally posted by saint4God
And still there's the disregard for testing, predictable results, working model, data, etc...as if seeing is all there is to believing.

There is for microevolution. However, I think what's 'on trial' here is the evolution of humans. We cannot observe that specific part of evolution, a) because it's already happened, and b) it takes millions of years, so do you not think to ask for all of that is a little illogical? You're saying with observing the evolution of ape to man, we cannot possibly know if it's right or not. However, you're asking for the impossible, because we can't observe that, it's a process that takes millions of years. So why are you asking for miracles and impossibilities on a thread that's supposed to be 'scientific'?

Originally posted by saint4God
Because we are discussing science here, not belief.

How are we discussing science, when you're asking for some miracle to happen and science to prove evolution by observing the evolution of ape to man? You're asking for the impossible, you're asking for a miracle, you're asking questions like a person with faith, who's trying to pretend they're asking hardcore scientific questions.

posted on Jun, 12 2007 @ 01:13 PM
S4G, THEY HAVE THE PROOF OF EVOLUTION! Amazing I know but they've done it in labs.

Every time you pet a cat or dog you support Evolution. Everytime you get a vaccine you are supporting evolution. Everytime you duck cause you're tall you support Human Evolution. Everytime you don't get sick from a disease that killed people 500 years ago you are supporting evolution. Everytime you watch Flipper on TV you are supporting Macro Evolution.

You support Evolution every day you just won't admit it.

posted on Jun, 12 2007 @ 01:15 PM

Originally posted by saint4God
It still puzzles me why you see God and evolution as conflicting. There are many who don't see that to be the case.

in the realm of science you remove the part of the theory that adds nothing to understanding the situation. god adds nothing to our understanding here, we remove god from the equation.

occams razor

posted on Jun, 13 2007 @ 12:20 PM
Look at the cavemen

Now look at yourself.
See a difference?
See the similarities?
They are from evolution.

And what you said about evolution is 99% fairy tale and 1% fact, same goes for religion.
Besides there are a lot of facts for evolution. Read the ! sticky.

posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 05:35 PM

Originally posted by shaunybaby
I don't see how 'God could create evolution' is a good enough excuse to make God and evolution not clash.

Many believers feel that God works in methods, order and law - that which we call "nature". Nature is not an entity itself, rather a collection of order. The reasoning is God would use evolution to develop man in the same way he'd use water vapor to generate clouds, clouds to rain and so forth. I don't have a stance on this particular issue, I want to see more evidence so maybe there's someone here better suited to answer.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
There is for microevolution.

Definitions get really fuzzy here. What one textbook calls microevolution, another calls adaptation. I think this thread has rehashed the variances extensively. What I haven't seen presented yet is the connection between microevolution/adapation with macroevolution/evolution.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
However, I think what's 'on trial' here is the evolution of humans. We cannot observe that specific part of evolution, a) because it's already happened, and b) it takes millions of years, so do you not think to ask for all of that is a little illogical?

Is it not illogical to state something that cannot be shown as a working theory a science? Either it follows The Scientific Method or it is not science. I'm not sure where the argument is.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
You're saying with observing the evolution of ape to man, we cannot possibly know if it's right or not.

No, and I apologize if I implied it. I'm asking for the mechanism that causes it. That mechanism needs to pass the validation criteria for The Scientific Method. Then and only then can it be called a theory.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
However, you're asking for the impossible, because we can't observe that, it's a process that takes millions of years. So why are you asking for miracles and impossibilities on a thread that's supposed to be 'scientific'?

I'm not. We can question, discuss, model, test, gather data, reproduce models and prove gravity, erego it is a science. If anyone states evolution has the same strength, bring forth the same qualifications.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
How are we discussing science, when you're asking for some miracle to happen and science to prove evolution by observing the evolution of ape to man? You're asking for the impossible,

I don't see how it is "impossible" if you're stating it's valid science. See above.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
you're asking for a miracle, you're asking questions like a person with faith, who's trying to pretend they're asking hardcore scientific questions.

I don't see the benefit in the characterization of "like a person with faith, who's trying to pretend they're asking hardcore scientific questions" here. This isn't a political arena where we're racing to win friends. Got facts? Show facts. That simple. The readers can use their own minds and make their own decisions. I'd like to do the same.

top topics

6