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.

 

What is evolution, not what some think

page: 33
12
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 05:47 AM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74

Those are examples of evolution which is fair enough but its kind of like gravity. I could give examples of what that does, yet cannot tell you how it actually functions.

Its similar with our understanding of the evolutionary process, we can show it at work(Kind of), yet how and why this is so is still a mystery in some respects, probably most respects.

Take the Cambrian explosion for example how can we explain that given our current understanding of the evolutionary process, or how cellular life even evolved from inanimate matter in the first place?

To me those events suggests some kind of intelligent design behind or involved with the process of evolution but my point I suppose is that with an extended period to observe these processes at work i'm sure humanity will indeed unlock nature's mysteries regarding such.

edit on 8-7-2014 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 07:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
Take the Cambrian explosion for example how can we explain that given our current understanding of the evolutionary process, or how cellular life even evolved from inanimate matter in the first place?


To your first point:
Punctuated equilibrium

Punctuated equilibrium (also called punctuated equilibria) is a theory in evolutionary biology which proposes that most species will exhibit little net evolutionary change for most of their geological history, remaining in an extended state called stasis. When significant evolutionary change occurs, the theory proposes that it is generally restricted to rare and rapid (on a geologic time scale) events of branching speciation called cladogenesis. Cladogenesis is the process by which a species splits into two distinct species, rather than one species gradually transforming into another.[1]


Your other point is about the origin of life not evolution, but you are correct in that we don't know exactly how it happened. We have several competing hypotheses to try to explain it, but nothing fleshed out into full theory form.



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 07:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

There are some short falls regarding Punctuated Equilibrium.

It only explains small changes in the evolutionary process, so that hardly addresses the larger problem regarding the appearance of higher taxa. I agree that punctuated equilibrium address small changes from species to species but it seems to raise more questions than answer in the grand scheme of things.



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 07:58 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

All science raises more questions when something is answered. There doesn't exist a single theory in science that doesn't work that way.



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 08:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

This is also true maybe that's because there are no definitive answers to some of the problems we seem to ponder.

I strongly suspect our perspective or limit of such is the main problem there.


Nothing seems to work the way we think it does.

edit on 8-7-2014 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

Well I think it's more to do with how thoroughly we can answer the question given our technology and current total knowledge. Think of it like this, when a scientist tries to make a controlled experiment that only changes the variables that he wants to change, it may not account for a variable that he or anyone else is unaware of. Therefore while the scientist my successfully answer a question postulated by science, he won't answer it completely and when that new variable is discovered, a new experiment needs to be derived and tested to account for its existence and how it fits into the current theory. An example of this would be dark matter or dark energy, which we only know about because the math that makes up the universe doesn't work out without them. Neutrinos are another example.

It could also be a kind of application of infinity kind of like how there are infinite numbers between 0 and 1. Every time you break a fraction down, you can always break it down into a smaller fractions. These answers and the questions they spawn could be the same thing going on into infinity as we answer more and more about the universe.

Speaking along the lines of the previous paragraph, precision is another problem. As the precision becomes more precise, totally new events can be discovered spawning totally new questions. Our technology can only account for precision to certain points (hence why scientists use margin of errors). The only way to solve the precision problem is to improve our technology. An example of this is the difference between standard and quantum physics. Before we could measure the precision down to the quantum level, we didn't know that matter behaves differently at the quantum level then it does at the standard level.



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch
Thankyou for addressing those issues, I appreciate the effort, though I am aware of your answers.

My issue is that they are all theory, so scientists have built theory on top of theory and shazam, we get answers, well the answers you give me, answers that I see as theory.

Yes God could have, may well have used the BB and the other systems to guide evolution.
I dont believe that, the evidence isnt solid enough

Limiting God? No, never mind how God created, He did a good job, we stuffed it up


Scientific theories are based on fact, though. I presented FACTS. I can't believe I wasted my time breaking down everything for you only so that you could simply deny it and call it a day. Good to know you have high standards of scrutiny. If you can't even offer a single counter point, then you are doing nothing but preaching, I'm sorry. Your views hold absolutely no weight whatsoever. You just deny anything you don't like without even reading the facts.


I can't believe the nerve of this guy to come on here acting like he's 100% sure that all "evolution" type changes are wrong, but won't say why or even respond to anything. Denial doesn't prove points. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you don't even care to try to respond to evidence. You are a preacher. Please find a more gullible site to preach on.
edit on 8-7-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Quadrivium
ETA: I understand that this section of your post had to to with "kind of species" kind could easily mean type.


Exactly. So his definition was wrong, just like I said. "Kind" is not a scientific term and neither is "type" and creatures don't suddenly change on the family or genus level. Any change BEYOND the species level counts as macro evolution, so speciation technically qualifies based on what you quoted.



In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch", see Fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted [note 1]). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels.


The bolded text sums it up perfectly. They are trends that slowly emerge over time. Borntowatch seems to think that a big mutation happens that causes a cat to become a dog.



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: hydeman11
a reply to: borntowatch

Hello,

Borntowatch, I understand your skepticism. I like to be skeptical, too. I think more people should be more skeptical of more things, in general. (Or else why would I be on a conspiracy site in the first place?) But your level of skepticism towards the entirety of scientific theories is perhaps an unhealthy level. Perhaps.

Let me explain, science makes models on what is observed. If it is not an observable natural phenomena, it will never be part of a scientific theory. Because of this, an interfering god (one that changes the laws of natures to produce miracles) is a possibility, but one that cannot be part of science, because it breaks one of the assumptions of science as a philosophy. (1. The world around you is real. 2. You can know something about it. 3. The observed laws of nature are consistent.) So using only the evidence available, those theories are the best models of reality known to man, the ones built upon the most solid foundations with mountains of observations. Yes, they're made by fallible humans, yes there are minor problems with the details. But if this were a 500 piece jigsaw puzzle of a cat, and you happen to be missing about 20 randomly placed pieces, all evidence would still point to the big picture as a cat.


Cheers.


Its a million piece jigsaw and 900000 pieces are missing. You have a picture of a cat and are making the pieces look like a cat.
Minor problems, hmmm. I dont know about minor

I accept why you believe in evolution, I dont.

You cant win me over with the evidence as it stands, my point is why cant you accept my unbelief in evolution as much as I accept your belief in evolution.


Because evolution is not a belief system and I have posted countless evidence that proves it. You have posted ZERO evidence of anything, you have only denied the obvious. And it's not that I don't accept what you believe, I just think it's beyond absurd and ignorant in 2014 to still deny evolution but not provide any evidence of your side or even explain any of it in detail. You just bury your head in the sand when faced with evidence and rely on shock tactics and catch phrases.

i.imgur.com...

This is more like your position. Evolution is missing only tiny pieces with small details that the validity of the theory does not rely on. But again, you aren't responding to any studies or links that prove you wrong, so what can I do? I'll just deny ignorance while you perpetuate it.
edit on 8-7-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Krazysh0t

There are some short falls regarding Punctuated Equilibrium.

It only explains small changes in the evolutionary process, so that hardly addresses the larger problem regarding the appearance of higher taxa. I agree that punctuated equilibrium address small changes from species to species but it seems to raise more questions than answer in the grand scheme of things.



The problems like that can been addressed a multitude of times already, even in this thread. Cambrian explosion was 20 million + years. It has never been a problem for evolution, merely a dishonest creationist argument that never gets explained with facts or numbers. It only gets denied. Maybe you are one that can change the trend and break down the math for me on why you think 20 million years isn't enough time to account for the Cambrian changes.



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: hydeman11
a reply to: borntowatch

Hello,

Borntowatch, I understand your skepticism. I like to be skeptical, too. I think more people should be more skeptical of more things, in general. (Or else why would I be on a conspiracy site in the first place?) But your level of skepticism towards the entirety of scientific theories is perhaps an unhealthy level. Perhaps.

Let me explain, science makes models on what is observed. If it is not an observable natural phenomena, it will never be part of a scientific theory. Because of this, an interfering god (one that changes the laws of natures to produce miracles) is a possibility, but one that cannot be part of science, because it breaks one of the assumptions of science as a philosophy. (1. The world around you is real. 2. You can know something about it. 3. The observed laws of nature are consistent.) So using only the evidence available, those theories are the best models of reality known to man, the ones built upon the most solid foundations with mountains of observations. Yes, they're made by fallible humans, yes there are minor problems with the details. But if this were a 500 piece jigsaw puzzle of a cat, and you happen to be missing about 20 randomly placed pieces, all evidence would still point to the big picture as a cat.


Cheers.


Its a million piece jigsaw and 900000 pieces are missing. You have a picture of a cat and are making the pieces look like a cat.
Minor problems, hmmm. I dont know about minor

I accept why you believe in evolution, I dont.

You cant win me over with the evidence as it stands, my point is why cant you accept my unbelief in evolution as much as I accept your belief in evolution.


Hello,

I see that you think there is less evidence then I do, but you certainly seem to acknowledge that there is a significant amount of evidence. (10% is statistically significant.) If you would, I'd like to explain how even that wouldn't be much of a problem. (I don't mind if you disagree, but I'd like to further this thought.
)
What would 10% of a cat look like? Well, maybe you got a piece with an eye and a piece with a whisker. Judging by the eye color, shape, and iris shape are pretty distinctive alone, pointing to a mammalian eye, at the very least (snake eyes also commonly have slit irises, but I think you'll agree that they look much different). So, a little detail, and you're at least looking at a vertebrate, as far as I can see. Add the whiskers, well, that definitely makes it mammalian. Don't like those? Just imagine your ten percent of information is a bunch of fur. Well, you're looking at a mammal, there, too. It's less clear, but you're not wrong in saying "I see a mammal," when you look at a cat.
The point here is, it really doesn't matter how much information is had. You can be missing a lot and still say a fair deal about a subject intelligently. Now, the amount of evidence for evolution is likely far greater than you give credit for, simply because it is a theory that counters so much long held belief and has been thoroughly scrutinized. But even if that weren't true, the strength of the evidence supporting the theory is compelling enough.
This is perhaps why you don't have to be an expert in biology to accept the theory. One can see when there is strong evidence and not understand the entire process. Now, I'm all for digging deeper, and I often see people who do not wish to, and that's fine as long as they (and I) know my limitations on the subjects at hand. Plenty of people believe in something, like evolution, based solely on the claim of the scientific community, and I don't like that either. The evidence is too compelling to not be looked at, examined, and weighed personally.


*Now the following isn't addressed to you, but thank you for reading so far borntowatch.*

Did I hear Cambrian explosion? BOOOM! No, not that kind of explosion. Andy06shake, you ask a vague question about the Cambrian explosion, and I'm not sure exactly what you wish to know about it. Now, I assume you know there was life well before the Cambrian explosion, with fossils of soft-bodied organisms demonstrating that clearly and "bio-chemical" reactions in rock chemistries evident before that (Now that might be more a sketchy argument than evolution, despite it being a well-supported model, itself). So, then the question must refer to why the rapid increase in shell/hard part construction using biologically secreted/precipitated calcite and aragonite? Good question. Some very correct individuals in this thread have pointed you toward punctuated equilibrium and to the fact that the Cambrian explosion did not happen in a small chunk of time.
But let's talk a bit more in depth, shall we?
I quite like this topic. There are several hypotheses as to why the sudden (sudden geologically speaking, not biologically. See, that's probably half the problem. Inconsistencies between what geologist call sudden and what biologists call sudden...) increase in hard part precipitation. Now, one compelling argument was predation. There is fossil evidence of predation dating before the Cambrian explosion, and a lot of organisms in the Cambrian were still sessile. This is bad, because sessile, soft-bodied organisms do not last long when a hungry predator comes around. But, it's not as simple as even that...
See, there are other hypotheses equally supported by their own data. For instance, there was likely more oxygen, perhaps enough to actually have an atmosphere, in the Cambrian, and likely even an ozone layer. I'm also quite partial to new research that indicates volcanic activity would have increased calcium levels in sea water, as to better allow calcium carbonate(calcite/aragonite) precipitation. Sea water chemistry, even today, is a big deal for what an organism can precipitate as a shell or hard part (That goes into thermodynamics of reactions with the presence of other dissolved solids, most notably magnesium). There are other good theories, so for more on my general response and others, check out the link below.


en.wikipedia.org...

Cheers.



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Krazysh0t

This is also true maybe that's because there are no definitive answers to some of the problems we seem to ponder.

I strongly suspect our perspective or limit of such is the main problem there.


Nothing seems to work the way we think it does.


This sounds so.... wrong...

Try gravity, I am sure you will agree it works the same way we think it does, otherwise you would exit your apartment from second floor...

This so much reminds me of Tim Minchin and Storm.



I believe this was mentioned already here... but again... this just...



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs
Yet your definition was wrong as well. You said they were "exactly the same". They are not.



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs
Never been a problem? Really?
What do we see at the very beginning of of the C. E.? What does the fossil record show?



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Quadrivium
Hello,
I don't know if you saw the end of my last post, it was kinda directed at the whole Cambrian explosion thing... Long winded response though, so I can't blame you if you missed it. I'm not quite sure what answer you want me to give as to what we see at the beginning of the C.E., so I'll give you my response and one again link to the appropriate wiki page.

The fossil record shows an abundance of trace fossils at the beginning and before the Cambrian explosion, with some rare preservation of soft-bodied organisms that are morphologically similar to species that later developed, but were likely not direct ancestors of those phyla. Lagerstatten, like the Burgess Shale formation(although Burgess is Cambrian) , provide the best evidence for Pre-Cambrian life. We then see the beginning of hard-part fossilization which increases an organism's likelihood to be fossilized exponentially. This is evidence of hard parts is the explosion.

en.wikipedia.org...

Cheers.

edit on 8-7-2014 by hydeman11 because: clariefied that Burgess Shale is a Cambrian formation, unclear wording.

edit on 8-7-2014 by hydeman11 because: clarified Burgess Shale as a Cambrian formation, previously unclear wording.



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 09:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs


Because evolution is not a belief system and I have posted countless evidence that proves it. You have posted ZERO evidence of anything, you have only denied the obvious. And it's not that I don't accept what you believe, I just think it's beyond absurd and ignorant in 2014 to still deny evolution but not provide any evidence of your side or even explain any of it in detail. You just bury your head in the sand when faced with evidence and rely on shock tactics and catch phrases.

i.imgur.com...

This is more like your position. Evolution is missing only tiny pieces with small details that the validity of the theory does not rely on. But again, you aren't responding to any studies or links that prove you wrong, so what can I do? I'll just deny ignorance while you perpetuate it.


To me evolution IS a belief system, cant you understand that simple concept, why do you demand I conform to your view.
I just dont get how you can be so unreasonable

Evolution can not explain the DNA codes, the language of life, how its written, passed on and then read

Evolution is not missing tiny pieces, its missing massive amounts of pieces, the biggest pieces dont even look like being discovered.

Its theory built upon theory, do you at least recognise that?



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 10:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Krazysh0t

This is also true maybe that's because there are no definitive answers to some of the problems we seem to ponder.

I strongly suspect our perspective or limit of such is the main problem there.


Nothing seems to work the way we think it does.


This sounds so.... wrong...

Try gravity, I am sure you will agree it works the same way we think it does, otherwise you would exit your apartment from second floor...

This so much reminds me of Tim Minchin and Storm.



I believe this was mentioned already here... but again... this just...


Tim Minchin?
Is he a scientist I have never heard of him before?

Tim Minchin, seriously, your best bet is to bait and attack with a comedian who runs people down.
I should put a Hovind youtube clip in to counter Tim but that would be a little, tit for tat, so I wont.

Christians get belittled for using creation science websites and you put in Tim Minchin's.

It seems like creation science websites are far more valid that bitter comedians, so much for playing nice.



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

Hello,

You weren't specifically addressing me with your previous two posts, so I hope you don't mind if I jump in again.
First, I want to again clarify that evolution, that is the mainstream definition of the theory of biological evolution, does not pertain as to how DNA originated. It only pertains to how that is passed on. This is fact. This is a human concept, therefore it cannot be argued with. You can give it other definitions, but those are not the mainstream definition. It's like if I called wanted to call a cat a frog. I'd be wrong, because the mainstream human agreed concept of cat is cat. Words cannot be argued wit.

Now, there is only one "belief" necessary to believe in evolution, and that's uniformitarianism. (Other than the basic assumptions that "reality" is real, you can know something about it, ... Everyone's assumptions if they wish to talk about reality.) Of course, if the universe operated differently and seemingly randomly, with laws sometimes true and sometimes false (miracles), that would fundamentally break how science works. But seeing as we can make falsifiable predictions that are true, uniformitarianism is so far a sound assumption. In this way, you can say that evolution is a theory based on a few well founded assumptions, yes, I agree. It is supported by evidence, but evidence does not prove. (No proving anything with science). Yes, I agree to that as well. You can say a lot of evidence is missing, perhaps. But so far as a predictive model of reality, evolutionary theory has not been falsified and has predicted correctly that which has been observed in the fossil record, even if other models also predict the observed phenomena. So even if evolution is inaccurate, we still do not have a better model for reality.

However, your phrasing of "evolution being a belief system" is not so accurate. I'd agree to "system of beliefs about how the world works based on observable evidence." I think we can agree to that, yes? It's not so major a change, but it clarifies. It doesn't even mention how much evidence, so that's sufficiently vague as to fit the amount of evidence you believe as well as the amount of evidence I believe exists, right?

I don't know who that Minchin fellow is, so I can't talk about that. I can, however, say that Kent Hovind and his son Eric have made claims that are falsifiable, and have been proven inaccurate on occasions. I would warn you to be careful about posting videos with falsifiable claims, as this community seems to (less than kindly) refute falsifiable claims quite quickly. I am not saying the Hovinds are wrong, just that they have made statements with inaccurate information. I like this thread, I like this discussion. I don't want to see it closed because people start attacking people.

Cheers.



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 11:52 PM
link   
a reply to: boncho

I don't like green N&Ms because I don't like red M&Ms. I don't like red M&Ms because they are too sweet, filled with artificial stuff, and poor quality. I tried the red M&Ms first.

Perspective.
edit on 782014 by JohnFisher because: added the 3rd sentence



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 01:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: hydeman11
a reply to: borntowatch

Hello,

You weren't specifically addressing me with your previous two posts, so I hope you don't mind if I jump in again.
First, I want to again clarify that evolution, that is the mainstream definition of the theory of biological evolution, does not pertain as to how DNA originated. It only pertains to how that is passed on. This is fact. This is a human concept, therefore it cannot be argued with. You can give it other definitions, but those are not the mainstream definition. It's like if I called wanted to call a cat a frog. I'd be wrong, because the mainstream human agreed concept of cat is cat. Words cannot be argued wit.

Now, there is only one "belief" necessary to believe in evolution, and that's uniformitarianism. (Other than the basic assumptions that "reality" is real, you can know something about it, ... Everyone's assumptions if they wish to talk about reality.) Of course, if the universe operated differently and seemingly randomly, with laws sometimes true and sometimes false (miracles), that would fundamentally break how science works. But seeing as we can make falsifiable predictions that are true, uniformitarianism is so far a sound assumption. In this way, you can say that evolution is a theory based on a few well founded assumptions, yes, I agree. It is supported by evidence, but evidence does not prove. (No proving anything with science). Yes, I agree to that as well. You can say a lot of evidence is missing, perhaps. But so far as a predictive model of reality, evolutionary theory has not been falsified and has predicted correctly that which has been observed in the fossil record, even if other models also predict the observed phenomena. So even if evolution is inaccurate, we still do not have a better model for reality.

However, your phrasing of "evolution being a belief system" is not so accurate. I'd agree to "system of beliefs about how the world works based on observable evidence." I think we can agree to that, yes? It's not so major a change, but it clarifies. It doesn't even mention how much evidence, so that's sufficiently vague as to fit the amount of evidence you believe as well as the amount of evidence I believe exists, right?

I don't know who that Minchin fellow is, so I can't talk about that. I can, however, say that Kent Hovind and his son Eric have made claims that are falsifiable, and have been proven inaccurate on occasions. I would warn you to be careful about posting videos with falsifiable claims, as this community seems to (less than kindly) refute falsifiable claims quite quickly. I am not saying the Hovinds are wrong, just that they have made statements with inaccurate information. I like this thread, I like this discussion. I don't want to see it closed because people start attacking people.

Cheers.


Yes I agree, mostly
Uninformative is a reality, to a degree. There is much science doesnt understand. Miracles do happen.

Evolution is a system of beliefs, thats fine I stand corrected, not that I see that description as an issue in any real shape or form, more pedantic than relevant, though I shall try amend my future statements for the sake of not offending.

and Finally, I didnt post a Hovind video,I just wanted to point out a comedian was somewhat invalid to the thread, somewhat more invalid than say, Answers in Genesis.
answersingenesis.org...
and its view on the faith required to believe in evolution
Though
I am not here to evangelise, just ask why do those who accept evolution need to evangelise as much as they do




top topics



 
12
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join