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: 6
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slicky1313
I agree.... no hurry to evolve, and has no sign of legs, so where is the lung fish with legs since it would be stronger and more dominant. the inbetween in evolution doesnt add up for animals, only a few "reconstructed" skeletons to make look like what they want them to look like

to bad like Darwin had anticipated we never found the inbetween of to many animals, only a few which they "think" evolved, like the lung fish in between, still no major in betweens.
a missing link in the evolution theory

Slicky, while I appreciate your support and committment to your beliefs, I would appreciate it you could refrain from referring to my posts in context with statements like this

only a few "reconstructed" skeletons to make look like what they want them to look like

While I am certainly willing to discuss ambiguities, inconsistencies, inaccurate conclusions, and possible frauds in the fossil record, I don't wish to completely discount the hard work of thousands of scientists in this particular field. Because I don't agree with their conclusions doesn't mean I don't respect them or their science. When you make generalizations like this, in my opinion, it affects your credibility in a negative way. Thanks, and sorry for bitching.




posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 02:56 PM
link   
I find it so funny that people 'try' to find cracks in the thoery of evolution, at least they have gone through the effort to put forth proof of they're arguement.

What has Christianity put forth in matter of evidence for all of its thoeries, or in fact anything it has ever said?

N O T H I N G! 0! ZIP! NADDA! SQWAT! ZERO!

and no the bible is not evidence






[edit on 7-12-2004 by Johnny Redburn]

[edit on 7-12-2004 by Johnny Redburn]



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnny Redburn
I find it so funny that people 'try' to find cracks in the thoery of evolution, at least they have gone through the effort to put forth proof of they're arguement.

Johnny, thanks for your post. Interestingly enough, if you'd read the thread, you'd realize that not everyone has 'tried' to find cracks. For some of us, who actually read and critically evaluate the available information for themselves, find the cracks glaringly apparent. Anyway... would be happy to discuss your take it on it here in this thread... your choice on the topic. However I respectfully reserve the right to not discuss things already adequately addressed in the thread.


What has Christianity put forth in matter of evidence for all of its thoeries, or in fact anything it has ever said?

N O T H I N G! 0! ZIP! NADDA! SQWAT! ZERO!

and no the bible is not evidence

This merely reflects your ignorance re: Christianity. Because YOU haven't seen said evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist. While not a Christian myself, I'm sure there are those on this thread who would be happy to discuss archaeological, and other evidences offered by Christians in support of their beliefs. Furthermore, there exists a whole discipline within science known as 'creation science.' While I am sure you've not read a single bit of 'creation science' literature, I am sure you won't hesitate to bash it. If you'd ever actually care to discuss some specifics, then let's do.

Personally, theological discussions are not my thing... but if you want to discuss the veracity of many of the scientific conclusions postulated by evolutionary theory, well then let's have at it.

Might I also suggest a spell check prior to posting as well as a review of the following: there (location), their (possessive) and they're (contraction for "they are"). Believe it or not, they sound the same but are not the same word, and thus, cannot be used interchangably.



[edit on 7-12-2004 by mattison0922]



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 05:22 PM
link   
"and no the bible is not evidence" first off, not evidence for what?
and can u back that up, on how the Bible ISNT evidence.
so another words your saying that the whole christianity religion is completely false, and the Koran may as well be to since most of it is based on the Bible stuff in there anyway.
I find this quite ironic you can belive that matter less complicated than my toe nail thats many times less the size of a tip of a needle exploding causeing this. u may as well say that if u put a way more complicated and advanced thing in space, say a toe nail, thats so small it cant be seen by the naked eye in 20 billion years we will see humans and planets coming out of it.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 08:32 AM
link   


"and no the bible is not evidence" first off, not evidence for what?


Seeing as we are talking about evolution/creation I will use that as an example, the Christains use thier 'Garden of Eden' for the place in which thier god created humankind. Now where is there any evidence that backs up what is said there? just because it was written by human beings 2000 years ago in the bible is not evidence, (And yes I have seen those shows that try to place the location of Eden in certain locations).


and can u back that up, on how the Bible ISNT evidence.


The reason it cannot be accepted as evidence is the fact that it is hearsay based on peoples reports and views. In fact it cannot even be classed as secondary contemporary evidence for its origins are somewhat cloudy.
As www.bible.ca puts it:



We have random bits and pieces of historical evidence of varying degree of reliability. For example, just because our earliest complete copy of the Bible (codex) is about 325 AD, this does not mean that a codex in 125 AD did not exist. All we can say is that we have no direct archeological proof.


Added to that is the fact that it was written and put together some time after the events it documented happened.



so another words your saying that the whole christianity religion is completely false


Sorry I was way to general in my last post, Im saying any theory or point that uses the bible as its basis, is using evidence that is non-admisable material yes.

As to mattison im not really in the mood for a huge arguement and you seem to have read more than me on the subject, so I should'nt fight an arguement I cannot win, but thanks anyway.
Oh and thanks for correcting my spelling error ya nazi
j/k



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnny Redburn
I find it so funny that people 'try' to find cracks in the thoery of evolution, at least they have gone through the effort to put forth proof of they're arguement.


If you found it to be wrapped up in truth, then show me your undeniable proof please. I will then believe.


Originally posted by Johnny Redburn
What has Christianity put forth in matter of evidence for all of its thoeries, or in fact anything it has ever said?


There are many scientists who are Christians yet do not throw faith into the science. I find many truths in Mattison's findings and ran into the same problems. I am Christian. Mattison has much more experience and is willing to do the research to debate it, therefore am more interested in listening instead of speaking.

To say 'zero' is not denying ignorance.

[edit on 8-12-2004 by saint4God]



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 03:42 PM
link   


Gill theory of human glands

The human parathyroid glands, which regulate the level of calcium in the blood, probably evolved from the gills of fish, say researchers.
The gills of ancestral marine creatures were used to regulate calcium levels.

A team from King's College London believe that they were internalised, rather than lost, when four-limbed, land-living animals evolved.

The research is published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

More: news.bbc.co.uk...


No, there is not indesputible proof of evolution, but it is more logical then looking out across the horizon and thinking that the Earth is flat because it seems to end or any other superstisious notions.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jonna
Gill theory of human glands

The human parathyroid glands, which regulate the level of calcium in the blood, probably evolved from the gills of fish, say researchers.
The gills of ancestral marine creatures were used to regulate calcium levels.

A team from King's College London believe that they were internalised, rather than lost, when four-limbed, land-living animals evolved.

The research is published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

More: news.bbc.co.uk...



No, there is not indesputible proof of evolution, but it is more logical then looking out across the horizon and thinking that the Earth is flat because it seems to end or any other superstisious notions.

Agreed, which superstitious notions comparable to the flat Earth theory have been postulated and/or propagated here in this thread?

While the scientific article cited by this news article doesnt seem to be available yet, at least in all the places that I looked, I can make some preliminary comments.

Certainly that the parathyroid gland develops from the pharyngeal pouch is not news. This has been known for quite some time now. In ADDITION to the parathyroid hormone the pharyngeal pouches also develop into the Eustachian tubes and the thymus. It is noteworthy that fish possess a thymus and some, a structure called the labyrinth, which is analogous to Eustachian tubes.

Evidence in the news article is offered via a couple of means one of which is the function of each. The article mentions that gill slits are used in regulation of calcium levels in fish. Internal calcium levels in fish are increased by removing calcium from the surrounding seawater. The parathyroid hormone is alleged to be analogous as it is responsible for maintaining calcium levels. The parathyroid hormone causes a loss of calcium from bone, and a subsequent re-uptake of calcium from the kidney. These are fundamentally different mechanisms of calcium regulation. While this news article makes it seem like its as simple as internalization of tissue, the situation is much more complex. In fact, entire pathways that signal and respond to parathyroid hormone signals must SIMULTANEOUSLY evolve. Including the mechanism by which cells synthesize and release hormone in response to low calcium, the mechanism by which cells detect the hormone, the mechanism by which cells remove calcium from the bones, and the reuptake mechanism. These must all evolve SIMULTANEOUSLY for this system to be of any use. What good is the hormone signaling if the hormone can't be detected? What good is signal detection if calcium can't be removed from bones? Similarly, what good is removing calcium from bones if there exists no reuptake mechanism?

This article then goes on to supply genetic evidence. It points out that both structures express the gene GCM-2, and that this gene is critical for proper development of these structures. This is likely true; however, this news article fails to point out that GCM-2 is expressed in multiple tissue types, including glial cells, placental cells, kidney cells, and hemocyte precursors. GCM is actually an acronym for Glial Cells Missing, which describes the phenotypes of early mutants. GCM-2 is responsible for glial cell development in fruit flies too, but I dont hear people saying gills are descended from fruit fly nerves.

The article then goes on to state another parathyroid gene is expressed in gills, but neglects to mention what the gene is. I will be download this article ASAP and attempt to complete a more thorough analysis in the near future.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by shmick25

Originally posted by mattison0922
I can no longer sit idly by and watch this thread continue in this manner. Anyway, it appears that many of my 'friends' are here anyway. Maybe
Aeon will show up too!!


Good to have you over to this thread mattison. Good to have someone on board that actually knows what their talking about

As I just like to ask simple questions to other simple folk!


Just out of curiosity, can you explain this to me. My friend told me before the Big Bang, all the data of the university was compacted into a speck less than the size of a pin head. Then all of a sudden it blew up and we now have our universe.

How did the earth get water on it to start with? Was there water initially?

What was the first 'supposed' building block for life. Wasnt it a protein strand?

So pretty much, if I cut my finger nail off (which has a lot more information that a protein strand) and left it lying around for a few billion years, we should see humans evolve from it?

I would have thought that over millions of years, different cancers and viruses would have 'evolved' at the same time that could have killed many of the organisms that were living, thus limiting the chance of survival. i.e. humans and animals have many forms of diseases that prevent us from living to our full capacity.



[edit on 3-12-2004 by shmick25]


You can't describe the big bang as something that started from a point of a certain size. At the moment prior to the big bang , our universe didn't exist, there wasn't n-dimensional space, there was no time, there was no matter. In the instant of the big bang, all of this was created - all the mass, all the dimensions, all the laws of physics and the building blocks for life. This is the only version of creationism that I believe in. Did God do this? Maybe. Did he create the earth in 7 days, nope. Did he create Adam and Eve as the Bible says, nope. I like to believe that he created all the possibilities of life in his image (the building blocks of life and the process for the creation of life). Then he sat back to see what what incredible variation his universe could produce - isn't that the most wonderful miracle you could possibly imagine? He does work in mysterious ways you know.

The earth has water on it because water is a natural by-product of stellar creation. When large amounts of matter in space start to collapse onto itself it starts the formation of a solar system. Some of the matter becomes a star the the rest form planets, moons, asteroids and COMETS. These comets are frozen water and rock, and over billions of years enough of them impact the forming planets to provide the water. These comets also provide something else, organic compounds based on carbon, the building block of ALL life. It is these organic compounds which provide the basis for life. These compounds mix and combine randomly over long periods of time while being exposed to radiation, and at some point, amino acids (the building blocks of protiens) formed. The amino acids combined to form protiens and the rest is evolution. Inter stellar space is full of dust and gas, which we KNOW AS FACT contain lots of organic molecules.

There is also a theory, known as "panspermia" that proposes that all life in the universe is based on organic molecules carried by comets. Or put another way, comets act like sperm, they collide with planets and their combined materials result in life. This theory isn't generally accepted at this point, but I think it is intriguing.

As far as the finger nail thing goes, what you are saying doesn't make any sense. Do some research and try and understand the current theories of how life forms and you would see that it doesn't come from a fingernail.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slicky1313
I still dont see any evidence of billions of fossils of ape/human mix out there folks, which theoretically it would have took more than trillions of half ape guys to have lived before the full man would have come out, and I still dont see that,


Original post truncated for length and due to attrocious grammar
It isn't very likely to find billions, let alone trillions, of fossils for a single species of anything. The only thing anyone is likely to find billions of skeletons for is modern humans, and that could be shown by the population explosion in recent centuries. With the exception of viruses and bacteria (which have no skeletal remains, obviously), very few species of ANYTHING accrue a large enough population, even over several centuries or millenia to leave billions of skeletal remains. There have not been billions or trillions of dinosaur fossils found, and it is believed that they ruled the earth for over 100 million years.



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaoszero

Originally posted by Slicky1313
I still dont see any evidence of billions of fossils of ape/human mix out there folks, which theoretically it would have took more than trillions of half ape guys to have lived before the full man would have come out, and I still dont see that,


Original post truncated for length and due to attrocious grammar
It isn't very likely to find billions, let alone trillions, of fossils for a single species of anything. The only thing anyone is likely to find billions of skeletons for is modern humans, and that could be shown by the population explosion in recent centuries. With the exception of viruses and bacteria (which have no skeletal remains, obviously), very few species of ANYTHING accrue a large enough population, even over several centuries or millenia to leave billions of skeletal remains. There have not been billions or trillions of dinosaur fossils found, and it is believed that they ruled the earth for over 100 million years.


well, if we cant find trillions of fossils of any kind of animal, then that could be evidence for a young earth, and maybe its not a billion years old. and geez guys, the first said it was 20 million years, then a couple years ago textbooks said 4.6B and now its gettin older. at that rate, the earth is aging at about 40 years per minute.
I dont see any reason why we cant find billions of fossils of animals if they lived for so long.

[edit on 10-12-2004 by Slicky1313]



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 03:36 PM
link   
If you don't believe in evolution, do a google search for "eohippus"

Probably the most popular evolutionary animal, next to humans.



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Been away for a while. Recently I saw this article:
Famous atheist now believes in God
And what made him change his mind?

[..] biologists' investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved," [...]



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Stalin didn't like Darwins teaching and burnt all his books. As a result Russia's crops died because of lack of understanding on how to make them more resistant and millions starved. I guess this is probably the reason they teach it in school, however if you can prove the theory wrong why not go win yourself a nobel prize?



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slicky1313
well, if we cant find trillions of fossils of any kind of animal, then that could be evidence for a young earth, and maybe its not a billion years old. and geez guys, the first said it was 20 million years, then a couple years ago textbooks said 4.6B and now its gettin older. at that rate, the earth is aging at about 40 years per minute.
I dont see any reason why we cant find billions of fossils of animals if they lived for so long.


The remains of almost every organism that dies decomposes beyond recognition. The conditions under which fossils can successfully form are unusual, and the odds that a fossil will then be exposed at the surface again, and discovered, are smaller still.

[edit on 10-12-2004 by Trent]



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by StarBreather
Been away for a while. Recently I saw this article:
Famous atheist now believes in God
And what made him change his mind?

[..] biologists' investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved," [...]


How can anyone look up at the stars at night, or ponder a black hole or quantum mechanics, or watch a bee collecting nectar, and just come to the conclusion "its so complicated that intelligence must be involved in its creation" This is completely illogical. It is the equivalent of "I don't understand it so it must not be understandable". The universe is ruled by chaos - creation and destruction in a never ending dance. And if we keep trying, eventually we will understand everything. If we don't keep trying, what is the point of existence.



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptAvatar
How can anyone look up at the stars at night, or ponder a black hole or quantum mechanics, or watch a bee collecting nectar, and just come to the conclusion "its so complicated that intelligence must be involved in its creation" This is completely illogical. It is the equivalent of "I don't understand it so it must not be understandable". The universe is ruled by chaos - creation and destruction in a never ending dance. And if we keep trying, eventually we will understand everything. If we don't keep trying, what is the point of existence.

The point here was to show that even the most hardened atheist can change his mind. After a lifetime of denial, recent scientific facts have finally convinced him otherwise.
And this is a philosophy professor, someone with a whole life of study and dedication to habits of scientific thought.
His opinion changed over time, as he was confronted with the complexity of the genetic programs. He became aware of the simple fact that all the complexity necessary for a complete organism to function could not have come about by chance alone over any realistic period of time.
Recognition of non-evolutionary design does not preclude understanding. On the contrary, it is the stubborn insistence on theories that do not stand basic scrutiny that has deviated many scientists from investigative paths closer to the truth.



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Is there any known minimal self-reproducing life-form? What is the simplest known life-form?



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by StarBreather
Is there any known minimal self-reproducing life-form?


Well, chemicals can induce their own replication. Viruses are rather 'life-like'. Prions are a little more controversial. They are, lets call it, deformed, proteins. They are beleived to cause other proteins, healthy ones, to become deformed like them in their pressence. I beleive that there are also micro-organisms that have been created in the lab that have a small 'minimal' genome.



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Well, chemicals can induce their own replication.

"Chemicals" is too generic, and is not a life form.


Viruses are rather 'life-like'.

They are not self-reproducing, because they require already existing compatible life forms to reproduce.


Prions are a little more controversial. They are, lets call it, deformed, proteins. They are beleived to cause other proteins, healthy ones, to become deformed like them in their pressence.

They are not life forms.


I beleive that there are also micro-organisms that have been created in the lab that have a small 'minimal' genome.

This is what I wanted to know. Any special micro-organism that is known to be the most simple (either natural or artificial)?



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join