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: 7
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 10:07 PM
link   
ehhh, I personally think the whole thing of aithest changing to God belivers is all bull. sure, it happens. Ive heard of pastors turning to Aiethest. fact is, that still dont change the question on if God exist.
evolution is scientifically impossible. chances of it happening are so big u cant imagine. besides, we got as far as a hypothesis, and no farther. thats one bad theory if all we got is a hypothesis.
it can never be a science, cause its lacking like 2 out of the 3 qualities to be a science, which is to be observed for one.




posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Well, chemicals can induce their own replication.


This is deceptive at best... what biologically relevant chemicals can induce their own replication?


Viruses are rather 'life-like'.

Viruses cannot even carry out their own basic metabolism. Viruses are life-like but are not life. Viruses require life to propagate.


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

Gotta call you on this one: No microorganisms have been created de novo. This is completely not true to my knowledge, please provide a ref.



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 11:23 PM
link   
I concentrated in evolutionary bio back in college - fun stuff. While we have some very good facts (age of of earth, early fossil records, etc.) we unfortunately have no real clue how life all started off - none, nada zippo. Some decent theories but no smoking gun.

There has been some nifty work done compliments of recent genome work which has come up with interesting data - small group of "modern" humans gave rise to all we have today (search on mitochondrial DNA for that).

There is also decent agreement in the record that there have been "spurts" of evolution due to massive upheavals to the environment - yes it goes on slowly everyday but it is the spurts that give rise to the big changes in both plant and animal records. We've had it pretty stable for 10-20,000 years so there is some speculation that things have slowed somewhat.

So how did life begin and lead to us??

1. Godlike entity or alien experiment
2. Natural process from organic soup
3. Seeding by natural process e.g. some frozen water from a planet gone bust with all sorts of frozen critters that eventually slammed into us
4. Seeding by godlike or alien entity either before or after indigenous life had already arisen - genetic tampering or breeding experiment
5. Stranded aliens that were assimilated into this planet's evolution - as in #4 but more "we got stuck here so we made the best of it" versus "we came and left"
5. Combo of all of the above
6. Other

My big beef (and I never did get a chance to put out a paper on it) is that human evolution is up in the air these days. We can control our environment so natural selection is not much of a factor anymore and we have the medical tech to keep non-viable individuals alive so they continue to breed and de-evolve the species. Bit of a monkey wrench now in the works - even then what constitutes human evolution now anyway - the ability to hold a job and make a buck??



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slicky1313
evolution is scientifically impossible. chances of it happening are so big u cant imagine.

So does 'too big to imagine' prevent you from actually providing an estimate based on scientific evidence? Also.. do you think it's more likey that two fully formed human beings got transformed from dust to living flesh because god wanted to make human shaped sandcastles?

Viruses are life-like but are not life. Viruses require life to propagate.

So do we or we'd starve.. how does this not make it a life form?

---
In another thread I asked one question [several times] about the 97% DNA similarity between humans and chimps.. it got unaswered but I'm hoping that as this thread is based on 'absence' of scientific evidence I may get an answer other than 'god dunnit'.

So.. how can chimps be so closely related to us without evolution or a common ancestrial link? Whats the alternative scientific explanation?

I would be grateful if someone could answer this seriously from a scientific standpoint without giving links to flat earth sites and proverbs.



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 06:00 AM
link   
Yes Evolution dosen't happen and the planet earth is flat with the Sun and all planets orbiting it /end sarcasm

This place makes me so mad some times.

Question for the bible cult if evoultion doesn't happen and we all evolved from Adam and Eve how come we all look differnent for example for arguments sake lets say eve was a blonde Adam had black hair (not sure if the bible says) Where did red heads come from???



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flux Wilde
Question for the bible cult if evoultion doesn't happen and we all evolved from Adam and Eve how come we all look differnent for example for arguments sake lets say eve was a blonde Adam had black hair (not sure if the bible says) Where did red heads come from???


Though Adam and Eve were the first, I don't believe they were the only. After being cast out of the garden, there seemed to be other tribes out there during their lifetime. Also, Adam living 930 years gives quite a duration when it said he had other children. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it takes about 30 different people to start a successful gene pool. Also, the human genome was built with a lot of variables both dominant and recessive. Different traits pop-up all the time that are uncharacteristic of the parents. This is not evolution, just a switching of existing variables.



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Though Adam and Eve were the first, I don't believe they were the only.

Where did the others come from? The dirt? Adams rib? [which would make them clones and therefore inbred anyway].


Also, the human genome was built with a lot of variables both dominant and recessive.

Recessive to what? A recessive gene might be one from a grandparent for instance.

[edit on 13-12-2004 by riley]



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slicky1313
evolution is scientifically impossible. chances of it happening are so big u cant imagine. besides, we got as far as a hypothesis, and no farther. thats one bad theory if all we got is a hypothesis.
it can never be a science, cause its lacking like 2 out of the 3 qualities to be a science, which is to be observed for one.


Slicky1313, I recommend you read an article in the November issue of National Geographic entitled "Was Darwin Wrong?". The answer to your question is


  • You're looking for the wrong proof. - In order to find proof of anything, you have to not only be willing to admit when you've found it, but you also must be knowledgeable enough about the subject from a neutral perspective. From reading your initial post, it appears that you have only a stereotypical (and incorrect) idea of what evolution is. This is not meant as a flame or an insult, but rather as a clarification. In order to find proof, you have to know what you're looking for. Darwin, for instance, never said we are descended from apes. That is a popular misconception people have, and the most popular area the Christian community likes to attack...thing is, they are attacking the wrong idea. People educated in the subject just shake their heads, and try to explain that it's not how it works, but few ever listen, and those that do hear only through their religious filters.

  • The evidence abounds. - For those that know what evolution -really- is, the evidence is absolutely undeniable. Living beings adapt, their body alters itself to suit its environment, be it through longer appendages, a resistance to a particular toxin, or some uneeded part becoming vestigal. It has been proven in laboratories, without question. It has been documented, filmed in action, and studied with the emprical process. It has happened within our lifetime, with countless species whose lifespan and breeding cycles can produce thousands of generations in only a year. No amount of preaching, no amount of denial will make it otherwise. I fail to see how this threatens ANY religious views, or why certain people find it so hard to accept.


So, my advice is this: If you want proof of evolution, first figure out what evolution is, and then it will be unmistakable. If you keep going around looking for proof that humans descended from apes, then yeah, you're going to be disappointed.

[edit on 12/13/2004 by thelibra]



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by riley
Where did the others come from? The dirt? Adams rib? [which would make them clones and therefore inbred anyway].


Here's where I'm getting the info. Genesis 4:16 " So Cain went out from the Lord's presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden. Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch."

Land of Nod. They named an entire land for one person? Cain was building a city? For just himself and his wife? Not likely. There were others who were not living the the presence of God. God would probably create them in the same way as Adam - 'from the dust of the earth'. Otherwise there would probably be some kind of compatibility problem.


Also, the human genome was built with a lot of variables both dominant and recessive.
Recessive to what? A recessive gene might be one from a grandparent for instance.


If we're saying God created Adam & Eve, they would include the full set of genetic instructions for generations to come in the same way you have a complete set of instructions. God can plan. Unless you believe the genome 'evolves' to contain more and more information as generations continue, but that's contrary to current scientific thought.



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Unless you believe the genome 'evolves' to contain more and more information as generations continue, but that's contrary to current scientific thought.

Could you provide a source that suggests this is contary to current scientific thought please? .. and why it's contrary?
I am curious as well.. since you seem to have some respect for science.. how is dirt able to transform into human tissue?

[edit on 13-12-2004 by riley]



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by riley

Originally posted by saint4God
Unless you believe the genome 'evolves' to contain more and more information as generations continue, but that's contrary to current scientific thought.

Could you provide a source that suggests this is contary to current scientific thought please? .. and why it's contrary?


Internet searches like this could help define the finite amount of dna humans have and the components thereof: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Do you have examples of a 'proto' or previous formation of human genes?


Originally posted by riley
I am curious as well.. since you seem to have some respect for science.. how is dirt able to transform into human tissue?


The body contains core components also found in dirt. Carbon, water, oxides, minerals, etc. My analogy is this. If you have eggs, milk, sugar, oil and flour, you can make a cake. It takes specific quanitites, mixing and baking but looking at the cake without studying it, you'd have no idea it contained those ingredients.

Understanding science helps us understand God. It's a master's design that we're meant to discover. Per Genesis, God breathed the breath of life into Adam. I was thinking he 'breathed' oxygen to get the lungs and heart t going. And/Or this can be taken as energy, electricity or other etherial substance to set an otherwise lifeless body into motion. If you want to say there was a fusion of the stuff in dirt because of this then okay, there's an interesting thought. Just kicking around ideas. The 'how' of it is still not known, but doesn't mean we should stop looking for answers.



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Colleagues, I am not positive, but I am pretty sure you're dealing with a troll here: no more, no less. As long as the above-mentioned organism gets any sort of response for you, he/she will continue to troll.

Your rebuttals are brilliant, but I think you're operating under a belief that the troll either is intelligent enough to understand you or that the troll is actually serious about researching the data.

Neither is the case.



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 10:11 AM
link   
needs deleting

[edit on 13-12-2004 by riley]



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Internet searches like this could help define the finite amount of dna humans have and the components thereof: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Thankyou.

Do you have examples of a 'proto' or previous formation of human genes?

No.. but I will look into it. This is why I have been asking about the similarity between human and chimps dna.. obviously they must have a common ancestry to be related so it might be in their genes as well as ours. The 'obsolite' dna might also be junk dna.. or even might end up 'fading' until it disapears.. they'd be no use for us to carry amphibian dna from when we crawled out of the sea for intance. Also it may take a while before scientists decode dna.. can't wait.


The body contains core components also found in dirt. Carbon, water, oxides, minerals, etc. My analogy is this. If you have eggs, milk, sugar, oil and flour, you can make a cake. It takes specific quanitites, mixing and baking but looking at the cake without studying it, you'd have no idea it contained those ingredients.

And it is the building blocks of all biological life as well.

And/Or this can be taken as energy, electricity or other etherial substance to set an otherwise lifeless body into motion. If you want to say there was a fusion of the stuff in dirt because of this then okay, there's an interesting thought.

My take on it is that is would be far more easier for a single celled organism to be created from the earth than a whole animal as complex as a human being.. and it would be fairly simple for it to split to form another and become.. Eve.

The problem with her coming from Adam's rib is that women have twice the dna.. so the opposite would make more sense.

Just kicking around ideas. The 'how' of it is still not known, but doesn't mean we should stop looking for answers.

Glad you are keeping an open mind.. and I appreciete your willingness to answer my questions logically.



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Exchange much appreciated to search for possibilities, not for the sake of argument.


Originally posted by riley
My take on it is that is would be far more easier for a single celled organism to be created from the earth than a whole animal as complex as a human being.. and it would be fairly simple for it to split to form another and become.. Eve.


I'm open to that. I have no problem with trans-species evolution as an idea. The problem I have is people saying it's a conclusive science.


Originally posted by riley
The problem with her coming from Adam's rib is that women have twice the dna.. so the opposite would make more sense.


I think it interesting that this body part was chosen. I think of stem cells originating from bone marrow as a facinating study in and of itself. The potential is limitless but always have to consider what is the right and humane thing to do.

Another point to note is that woman wasn't taken from the foot, for woman was not meant to be beneath him. Nor from a hair on his head for neither was she to be above him. From his side she was taken and formed so that side-by-side they were to work together to care for each other and grow new life. I think both patriarchal and matriarchal societies contradict this original message.

"Sarg, she wants to carry a gun and run into combat with us!"
"Then corporal, you'd better give her a gun!"



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 11:45 AM
link   
How strange the notion that evolution is somehow counter-God. I think the closeness of chimp dna is evidence enough that the theory is correct. This in no way negates the glory of creation in my mind, infact makes it all the more wonderous. The trigger/s for the evolution from chimp to modern man fascinate me, what series of enviromental or other factors had a hand in it?
All in all life is complex and perfect and awesome and incredible regardless its origin.
The only thing I disagree with is the thought that such evolution here on earth must nessesarily be pure fluke, somehow negating the possibility of evolution elsewhere in the universe. This one small world, as incredible as it is, among literally, infinate others. If it can happen here, why not thruout the universe? Seems pointless for a God to "create"/evolve life on one small rock and have the rest barren. very unlikely.



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Evolution really exist I think...but human kind was created by genetic manipulation and that is why we are a bit dumb hehehehe
The ET's came on earth to create us with a kind of ape that was standing up...that is the missing link
The bible , the genesis, explains it from a point of view of an human who did not understand that the Et's are not "god" and we all misinterpret it..the god of the old testament are the Eloims, the annunakis, the ET's that created us and they gave us only 2 strands of DNA, so that we can be easily enslave, we fear death, and so on....we are the dumb blonds of the univers....and to beleive that crap in the bible, we have to be totally dumb.



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amelia
....and to beleive that crap in the bible, we have to be totally dumb.


I'd be offended if I didn't consider the source.



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Amelia have you seen any scientific evidence of this genetic manipulation you speak of? Id be intrested in seeing it, if any exist, as I said in my last post, this "missing link" idea fascinates me.



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 12:18 PM
link   

women have twice the dna.. so the opposite would make more sense.

Don't know the origin of this particular quote, but this is false. Women don't have twice the DNA of men... to my knowledge anyway.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join