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.

 

Prove Evolution Is False - Even Without the Bible

page: 4
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2014 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: paradox

originally posted by: Grimpachi


Please explain and provide the "evidence" to what logical or biological barriers would prevent microevolutionary changes from becoming macroevolutionary changes over long spans of time



It's called Mendel's Law. Go ahead and look it up.

Now since you are claiming it can happen, go ahead and provide your evidence.


Oh wait..


Who made the claim of evidence...why you did.

I don't think you know what Mendal's law is.

Here are the definitions.


Men·del's law (mĕn′dlz)
n.
1. One of two principles of heredity first formulated by Gregor Mendel, founded on his experiments with pea plants and stating that the members of a pair of homologous chromosomes segregate during meiosis and are distributed to different gametes. Also called law of segregation.
2. The second of these two principles, stating that each member of a pair of homologous chromosomes segregates during meiosis independently of the members of other pairs, so that alleles carried on different chromosomes are distributed randomly to the gametes. Also called law of independent assortment.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Men′del's law′
n.
1. Also called law of segregation. the principle stating that during the production of gametes the two copies of each hereditary factor segregate so that offspring acquire one factor from each parent.
2. Also called law of independent assortment. the principle stating that the laws of chance govern which particular characteristics of the parental pairs will occur in each individual offspring.
3. Also called law of dominance. the principle stating that one factor in a pair of traits dominates the other in inheritance unless both factors in the pair are recessive.
[1900–05; after German. J. Mendel]
Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.
Mendel's law (mĕn′dlz)
Any of the principles first proposed by Gregor Mendel to describe the inheritance of traits passed from one generation to the next. ♦ Mendel's first law (also called the law of segregation) states that during the formation of reproductive cells (gametes), pairs of hereditary factors (genes) for a specific trait separate so that offspring receive one factor from each parent. ♦ Mendel's second law (also called the law of independent assortment) states that chance determines which factor for a particular trait is inherited. ♦ Mendel's third law (also called the law of dominance) states that one of the factors for a pair of inherited traits will be dominant and the other recessive, unless both factors are recessive. See more at inheritance.


Please explain and provide the "evidence" to what logical or biological barriers would prevent microevolutionary changes from becoming macroevolutionary changes over long spans of time.

Because Mendal's law doesn't do that.




posted on May, 27 2014 @ 05:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: paradox

the more and more evolution falls flat on its face with absurd claims and lack of evidence, the more and more credence it gives to creationism. Watching scientists trying to "figure things out" is like watching a dog chase its own tail.


No. Not even close.

Evolutionary theory could be proven to be completely wrong and that would NOT prove Creationism to be true in any way.

Creationism isn't the default catch all for all failed theories dealing with life and reality.

You still would have to prove Creationism for it to be true!!



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Prove the soul and spirit please.
We could just have the illusion of those things.
We don't have wings because we have not needed them and split from the bird family a very long time ago.



Prove that image you see in the mirror every morning is actually you or is just an optical illusion (soul spirit=consciousness of your being is not involved at all?) You are just a reflection of what you think you interpret as YOU; (what is that meat sack I think is looking back at me). I need the wings because I don't like paying for gas, car insurance or airfare (I know!; its a selfishly practical thing that during my early evolution never thought about as someday maybe saving me some bucks).
edit on 27-5-2014 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 05:52 PM
link   

this is old junk DNA


there is no such thing as junk DNA. this has been disproven.




I just don't understand why the religious are always the ones fighting evolution


Because it is false. Even if I weren't religious, evolution would still be absurd.



We have found many transitional; fossils


No. there is no such thing, and even Darwin acknowledged this fact in Origin of Species.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 05:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

No. Not even close.

Evolutionary theory could be proven to be completely wrong and that would NOT prove Creationism to be true in any way.


Can you give me a hypothetical alternative to evolution? Evolution hinges on the philosophy of naturalism. If naturalism is not true, what is the alternative?
edit on 5-27-14 by paradox because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
Here OP this is real proof because it is done by scientists not cheats and frauds.




Are you kidding me? That is your scientific proof. A youtube video? Please get real!

One of the main problems with a comparing evolutionary analysis of human and chimp DNA is that some of the most critical DNA sequence is often left out from the analysis. Scientists so desperately seeking answers sometimes read too much between the lines. The chimpanzee genome was finished in about 2004 with some hope that it would provide clear DNA similarity evidence for an ape to human ancestry. This similarity is frequently listed as “PROOF” of man's evolutionary origins, but a more objective explanation tells a different story, one that is more complex than evolutionary scientists are willing to admit. It’s misleading information.

At this point in time, a completely unbiased whole genome comparison between apes or chimps and human has not been done and surly should be. Why not? Are they afraid of the answer or that the data may not reflect the outcome in which they predict?

Have you taken any science classes? Other than those in grade school that will brainwash it's students who know no better?



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
Here OP this is real proof because it is done by scientists not cheats and frauds.




Are you kidding me? That is your scientific proof. A youtube video? Please get real!

One of the main problems with a comparing evolutionary analysis of human and chimp DNA is that some of the most critical DNA sequence is often left out from the analysis. Scientists so desperately seeking answers sometimes read too much between the lines. The chimpanzee genome was finished in about 2004 with some hope that it would provide clear DNA similarity evidence for an ape to human ancestry. This similarity is frequently listed as “PROOF” of man's evolutionary origins, but a more objective explanation tells a different story, one that is more complex than evolutionary scientists are willing to admit. It’s misleading information.

At this point in time, a completely unbiased whole genome comparison between apes or chimps and human has not been done and surly should be. Why not? Are they afraid of the answer or that the data may not reflect the outcome in which they predict?

Have you taken any science classes? Other than those in grade school that will brainwash it's students who know no better?



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: wonderworld

I guess if it doesn't come from a blatant bible blog, it just doesn't measure up to your standards. Sorry about that.
edit on 27-5-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Yes, it's called variation within a species, there is no such thing as macro evolution.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 06:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: paradox
a reply to: Grimpachi

Yes, it's called variation within a species, there is no such thing as macro evolution.


Macroevolution as documented by scientists around the world.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: paradox

Does my alternative theory have to ignore all the natural laws that are in place or does it include them???

Because if I ignore them, then anything at all could be put forward as an alternative. However, if I include them, I would find it difficult to come up with a theory other than the one Evolution provides.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: wonderworld

So my evidence is worse than yours? lol.
You get your evidence from a Bible website...
Lets look at the facts...in a USA courtroom it was found that evolution is the best peer reviewed way we can understand where we come from...ID/creationists lied and tried to cheat...luckily science and facts prevailed and reason won.

I ask again If we were designed why did the designer do such a bad job?.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jonjonj
If one wants to see evolution in practise one only needs to take the example of the common dog. I see no debate here. Forced or not is another question entirely.
Or perhaps sheepdogs were created to specifically herd sheep and chihuahuas to annoy people.


All domesticated dogs were bred by industrious human intervention producing the breeds seen today and if they self mutated over 1000s of years that still is not enough time for the 300 or so AKC recognized differing types (mutts rule btw). Who is to say the human is not of the same derivation by others (certainly not designed by a better smarter poodle; too much grooming required).



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: paradox
a reply to: Grimpachi

Yes, it's called variation within a species, there is no such thing as macro evolution.


Macroevolution as documented by scientists around the world.


Scientists around the world have baseless faith in macro evolution*



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

Macro evolution already ignores natural laws.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: paradox

Watching scientists trying to "figure things out" is like watching a dog chase its own tail.


Whereas watching religion trying to explain nature is like watching a dog trying to paint the Sistine Chapel.


Or like inducing (same time periods sexual orientation); MichaelAngelo (painter/sculptor) into trying the seduction of Leonardo DaVinci (scientist/painter) (using whatever trickery) or instead teach a dog new self cleaning methods. Nature is self explainitory it just needs someone to observe its perfection/genious at work. I'm surprised the human hasn't totally crashed and burned and the insect specie is like the energizer bunny; nothing affects its battery levels.
edit on 27-5-2014 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 06:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: paradox

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: paradox
a reply to: Grimpachi

Yes, it's called variation within a species, there is no such thing as macro evolution.


Macroevolution as documented by scientists around the world.


Scientists around the world have baseless faith in macro evolution*


I'm sorry, did you miss the 23 references in the bibliography section below? Of course you did. I doubt you even clicked the link, let alone read a paragraph.

This whole thread is a joke. I'm out. See you guys around.
edit on 27-5-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Creationism is the ultimate cop-out. No need to apply your brain, just say "The magic sky pixie did it!"

End of story, no further thought or intellectual curiosity required.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: AfterInfinity


I'm sorry, did you miss the 23 references in the bibliography section below? Of course you did. I doubt you even clicked the link, let alone read a paragraph.

This whole thread is a joke. I'm out. See you guys around.


Oh, the references which infer macro evolution based on limited evidence and do not prove it because it is not observed? Yeah, I saw those.

We all have access to the same evidence, friend.
edit on 5-27-14 by paradox because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rob48
Creationism is the ultimate cop-out. No need to apply your brain, just say "The magic sky pixie did it!"

End of story, no further thought or intellectual curiosity required.


I don't think you understand that the "intellectual curiosity" only comes to support what we would expect from a creator. the analogy I used earlier was a dog chasing its tail around. that's exactly what science is.
edit on 5-27-14 by paradox because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join