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: 53
12
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch


Wow, well congratulations, I think you are just beginning to understand we disagree, kudos and stars for you.

No, I've acknowledged that we disagree several times in this thread.


No new information was added, it was just rearranged. Micro/macro, you dont win the internet.

Before you keep misusing information theory as some kind of bullet proof shield that allows you to baselessly deny that evidence for evolution is, in fact, evidence for evolution, you should be able to answer the following questions (in your own words, of course, because according to you links are just a way of hiding behind a wall of text):

1. How is the amount of information measured in a biological system?

2. What is the identity of the sender and receiver of the information within a biological system?

3. What is the means by which the information is transmitted in a biological system?

4. What are the units of information in a biological system?

5. How is that information encoded in a biological system?

If you can't answer those five questions, then your information theory arguments are meaningless.


I can live with you being wrong yet you cant deal with me being wrong, you seem to have the issue.

I have no problem with you being repeatedly wrong about every scientific concept you choose to type about here. What I take issue with is your blatant dishonesty about it. Again, if you want to man up and be honest that you simply don't want to accept evolution in spite of the overwhelming evidence supporting it because it doesn't agree with your faith, that would be better than you intentionally misusing and purposely misunderstanding scientific concepts as a way to justify your religious beliefs.




posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch
Look at Barcs, he has to attack me, he steers clear of the question, its like he has no answer and has to attack the person asking the question.


The history of this thread speaks otherwise. What question are you referring to? You are the one who has been dodging the evidence. I addressed the OP in detail more than once. You dismissed it as faith and denied all references to science, so I'm not sure what there is to discuss. You aren't looking to learn more, or expand your knowledge. Why are you here? All you are doing is misrepresenting evolution.


Barcs, I am telling others, you included that I dont read links, I want a simple basic clear answer that is reasoned and explained.


-Genetic mutations happen.
-Natural selection happens.
-The environment changes and the organisms change with it over time as less adapted ones go extinct.
-This process is commonly referred to as evolution, more specifically the theory of modern evolutionary synthesis.
-It has nothing to do with planet formation, chemicals emerging, the big bang, the origin of life, or anything else.
-The end. Simple, basic and clear, just for you. I will not go into detail because you will deny it regardless, and I'm sure this post will be denied as well.


Yes I am a bot, I noticed you didnt even consider grappling with the question, the reason I posted it three times was to encourage an answer, an answer still not forthcoming, though maybe Phantom can produce one


Which question? 10 to 1 says I've already grappled with it.


Wow, well congratulations, I think you are just beginning to understand we disagree, kudos and stars for you.

No new information was added, it was just rearranged. Micro/macro, you dont win the internet.

I can live with you being wrong yet you cant deal with me being wrong, you seem to have the issue.


And this sums up the thread in a nutshell. "I'm right, you're wrong. new traits emerged but new info was not literally added so i win!"

I thought you were all about simple well reasoned arguments? Where is yours? It seems your primary form of argument is semantics.
edit on 8-2-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 06:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Answer

You're still using intelligent design propaganda websites to support your opinion?

Come on, borntowatch... you can do better than that.


and you are still using evolutionist propaganda, you have brought nothing to the discussion

I am just looking for someone genuine to provide answers, they are not here.


No you aren't. You're just here to kick the hornets' nest.

There have been many MANY answers provided to you here and in multiple other threads but you ignore it all. You've already said this isn't about the evidence so stop contradicting yourself.

I'm not going to waste another second trying to explain anything to you or post more links to evidence that you'll simply ignore. I just like pointing out your hypocrisy and lack of legitimate sources.

There's a good reason why you'll only find "evidence" to support your gibberish on creationist websites... there are no peer-reviewed scientific studies that support anything you think you know about life on this planet.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer

Another thread has popped up in this forum. ...
Same uneducated nonsense.
Same ignorant arguments.
Sigh.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 06:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: iterationzero

Additionally, you're the one who kept bringing up "complex specified information", you little Dembski-ist you, can you explain how rearranging information units to create and entirely new trait in a species isn't new information being generated? Or are you saying that CEIKNORTWYY and NEWYORKCITY have the same information content?





Prove it was a new trait, not just a dormant pre existing trait, what new information was added and how was it added.
Information was rearranged, I expect no less than information within a living organism being rearranged, thats adaptation or microevolution.
Is what you are saying an attempt at an answer or a tentative statement meant to to be a question instead of an answer.
Changing the two words is a little different than turning into a new species, huhu macro micro. We differ in our beliefs, who would have figured



The real irony and hypocrisy behind your statements is that you're using a single supposed study from a creationist website as some sort of evidence to prove your point.

Others have posted dozens of studies with evidence to prove the legitimacy of evolution but you've ignored it.

So if the evidence disagrees with your belief, all science is hogwash, but if a single study purports to validate your opinion, suddenly it's legitimate? Are you serious?



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 01:44 PM
link   


Since Borntowatch does not like links, I posted a picture summary of the types of genetic mutations.

Think of it like computer code. Changing as little as one word or even one letter in a line of code can have deep implications on the functionality of the software, even if it was strictly an error in copying. 2 genes rearranged in the right place can lead to new traits. Since there are billions of base pairs, there are a ridiculously large amount of possibilities when it comes to arrangements of the code. You claim that new information must be added, but technically it is, because the line of code now means something completely different, and a new trait emerges. It's like changing the word DAD to ADD and thinking nothing has changed in the meaning (or gene expression).

It'll be interesting to see the way he denies this one.
edit on 9-2-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 03:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

-Genetic mutations happen.
-Natural selection happens.
-The environment changes and the organisms change with it over time as less adapted ones go extinct.
-This process is commonly referred to as evolution, more specifically the theory of modern evolutionary synthesis.
-It has nothing to do with planet formation, chemicals emerging, the big bang, the origin of life, or anything else.
-The end. Simple, basic and clear, just for you. I will not go into detail because you will deny it regardless, and I'm sure this post will be denied as well.



-Genetic mutations happen. I agree

-Natural selection happens. I agree

-The environment changes and the organisms change with it over time as less adapted ones go extinct. I agree

-This process is commonly referred to as evolution, more specifically the theory of modern evolutionary synthesis. I agree

-It has nothing to do with planet formation, chemicals emerging, the big bang, the origin of life, or anything else. i agree

-The end. Simple, basic and clear, just for you. I will not go into detail because you will deny it regardless, and I'm sure this post will be denied as well.
SO

Now lets see some beneficial genetic mutations that have lead to a new species arising from an older one.

Natural selection, of course, now lets see some evidence of new species arising from natural selection, you know evidence. This question also covers your next statement, see I see it as microevolution,. i accept microevolution as I have stated previously

i do believe that things evolve, just not into new species.

Cant you understand that, I thought it was simple, maybe not

Its a bjg leap to talk about small scale mutations and then imagine man from monkeys or whatever one cares to believe



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 03:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs


Since Borntowatch does not like links, I posted a picture summary of the types of genetic mutations.

Think of it like computer code. Changing as little as one word or even one letter in a line of code can have deep implications on the functionality of the software, even if it was strictly an error in copying. 2 genes rearranged in the right place can lead to new traits. Since there are billions of base pairs, there are a ridiculously large amount of possibilities when it comes to arrangements of the code. You claim that new information must be added, but technically it is, because the line of code now means something completely different, and a new trait emerges. It's like changing the word DAD to ADD and thinking nothing has changed in the meaning (or gene expression).

It'll be interesting to see the way he denies this one.


thats a very pretty picture Barcs, how about you explain where it comes from in the biological sense, is it from a bacteria, a snail, horse, whale.
Scientifically speaking where can I see it in real life?
or is it just an imaginary picture of what you hope happens.

Just a question, it looks good but is it a reality and how does it support what happens in the real world.

Pretty pictures aside, lets see it in real life turning something into something else.

and as far as I remember computer codes are designed by a programer



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 06:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: iterationzero

Additionally, you're the one who kept bringing up "complex specified information", you little Dembski-ist you, can you explain how rearranging information units to create and entirely new trait in a species isn't new information being generated? Or are you saying that CEIKNORTWYY and NEWYORKCITY have the same information content?





Prove it was a new trait, not just a dormant pre existing trait, what new information was added and how was it added.
Information was rearranged, I expect no less than information within a living organism being rearranged, thats adaptation or microevolution.
Is what you are saying an attempt at an answer or a tentative statement meant to to be a question instead of an answer.
Changing the two words is a little different than turning into a new species, huhu macro micro. We differ in our beliefs, who would have figured



The real irony and hypocrisy behind your statements is that you're using a single supposed study from a creationist website as some sort of evidence to prove your point.

Others have posted dozens of studies with evidence to prove the legitimacy of evolution but you've ignored it.

So if the evidence disagrees with your belief, all science is hogwash, but if a single study purports to validate your opinion, suddenly it's legitimate? Are you serious?


I wonder if you deliberately sidestepped my question or didnt read my post.
I thought it was simple and clear

I havnt seen a single clear statement ever replying clearly and concisely, here is your chance.

Prove it was a new trait, not just a dormant pre existing trait

See as i understand it was a dormant trait, prove otherwise and you win

simple isnt it



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Science; the tool needed to explain God's work .



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
Science; the tool needed to explain God's work .


Maybe, maybe not.

But 'borntowatch' is saying that God didn't even use evolution, because evolution is not real, and animals do not evolve. I think he is saying God just created every animal exactly as they are today. The fossil record may show other similar extinct animals that seem to be evolutionary precursors to the animals of today, but he's saying those extinct animals are biologically unrelated to the animals of today.


edit on 2/10/2015 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 09:39 AM
link   


i do believe that things evolve, just not into new species. Cant you understand that, I thought it was simple, maybe not Its a bjg leap to talk about small scale mutations and then imagine man from monkeys or whatever one cares to believe


Oh look, you're still wrong. Perhaps you wish to pretend that utter grotesque and shameful ignorance was a reply to any relevant post. So far your attempts to deny, obfuscate, and double-talk away the evidence have failed.
Be aware that you have not convince anyone with your twisted interpretations.



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch
-Genetic mutations happen. I agree

-Natural selection happens. I agree

-The environment changes and the organisms change with it over time as less adapted ones go extinct. I agree

-This process is commonly referred to as evolution, more specifically the theory of modern evolutionary synthesis. I agree

-It has nothing to do with planet formation, chemicals emerging, the big bang, the origin of life, or anything else. i agree


Great. Then you agree with evolution.


Now lets see some beneficial genetic mutations that have lead to a new species arising from an older one.

Bigger brain in homo sapiens and neanderthals than in previous hominid ancestors like Homo habilis and a bunch of others.


Natural selection, of course, now lets see some evidence of new species arising from natural selection, you know evidence.


Natural selection doesn't work by itself. You need the genetic mutations first. One clear example is the extinction level event at the end of the dinosaur ages. It killed off most dinosaurs and led to the rise of mammals.


This question also covers your next statement, see I see it as microevolution,. i accept microevolution as I have stated previously


That's wrong, however. There is evolution. Micro/macro are the same. Macro evolution = millions of years of micro evolution.


i do believe that things evolve, just not into new species.
Cant you understand that, I thought it was simple, maybe not
Its a bjg leap to talk about small scale mutations and then imagine man from monkeys or whatever one cares to believe


For the last time. MAN DIDN'T COME FROM MONKEYS. Why would you STILL perpetuate that lie after all the times you have been corrected on that??????

No, it's not a big leap. Maybe you'd like to explain why you do not think the mutations can add up given more generations. Explain it to me. Nobody ever addresses this point.


thats a very pretty picture Barcs, how about you explain where it comes from in the biological sense, is it from a bacteria, a snail, horse, whale.
Scientifically speaking where can I see it in real life?
or is it just an imaginary picture of what you hope happens.

Just a question, it looks good but is it a reality and how does it support what happens in the real world.


Those are examples of the types of mutations that have been observed by scientists. If you'd like to see it yourself, get a microscope, and start studying genetics and comparing genomes. I'd give you multiple links to these studies but you don't read links, you only want 3rd grade level explanations for things.


and as far as I remember computer codes are designed by a programer


Red Herring and complete non sequitur.

We're talking about genetic mutations, which act like computer code changes. I gave you an analogy, since you don't read links or scientific studies that prove everything I've said.



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
Science; the tool needed to explain God's work .


Maybe, maybe not.

But 'borntowatch' is saying that God didn't even use evolution, because evolution is not real, and animals do not evolve. I think he is saying God just created every animal exactly as they are today. The fossil record may show other similar extinct animals that seem to be evolutionary precursors to the animals of today, but he's saying those extinct animals are biologically unrelated to the animals of today.


I am saying God created every animal exactly as they are today, with slight variations.

Can you explain such a sparse fossil record?
It would help if we could see the lineage of evolution.



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

one thing for sure is that to understand a creator or how all things came to be is far beyond the intelligence of humans it is equivalent to trying to teach an ant how to build a computer and waiting for him to build one for you.

One will just have to admit that he does not have the faculty to understand
edit on 10-2-2015 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-2-2015 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
a reply to: Barcs

one thing for sure is that to understand a creator or how all things came to be is far beyond the intelligence of humans it is equivalent to trying to teach an ant how to build a computer and waiting for him to build one for you.

One will just have to admit that he does not have the faculty to understand


I agree. IF there is a creator, the entity could very well be beyond our comprehension, but that doesn't mean we will never grasp it or that evolution is wrong because of such unknowns. I've been arguing from the beginning that creation and evolution, while vastly different concepts, are not mutually exclusive and they are actually quite compatible if you truly have an intelligent designer. It's far more logical and efficient to set up life to be able to adapt and survive over time. I have no problem with this view, it's just the fundamentalism leading to denial of cherry picked fields of science where I get annoyed.



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

Those are examples of the types of mutations that have been observed by scientists. If you'd like to see it yourself, get a microscope, and start studying genetics and comparing genomes. I'd give you multiple links to these studies but you don't read links, you only want 3rd grade level explanations for things.


and as far as I remember computer codes are designed by a programer


Red Herring and complete non sequitur.

We're talking about genetic mutations, which act like computer code changes. I gave you an analogy, since you don't read links or scientific studies that prove everything I've said.


I seem to have to repeat myself an awful lot, I BELIEVE IN MiCROEVOLUTION YES I DO

Now can that be out of the way for a little while

and ok, man didnt come from monkeys, whatever, why dont you show me the evidence of where we came from, prove we didnt come from monkeys.

and saying Macro evolution is millions of years of Micro evolution is not science, its a 1st grade statement. You have been found out


And those DNA examples have been observed where, just a little more detail please. I said no links, didnt say no references You cant just say its the truth, you have to prove it. I dont think you have a clue what you are talking about, I want you to explain what you believe not what others believe. I dont think you understand evolution and are to scared to admit it. Even if you said those images come from a Rhino I could chase it up, you said nothing.

You havnt answered a single question, just complained that I generalised with monkeys. Smoke screen for an inability to justify science you believe in?


and no red herrings or strawman, DNA is a code and it has information that is passed on just like a designed computer. Your argument is week, nearly non existent.

You know what I just realised Barcs, you have nothing of value to add to this conversation.
Take away your ability to throw up a wall of texts and you cant explain what you believe. Your understanding of evolution is someone elses, you havnt a clue as to what you believe you believe.



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: flyingfish



i do believe that things evolve, just not into new species. Cant you understand that, I thought it was simple, maybe not Its a bjg leap to talk about small scale mutations and then imagine man from monkeys or whatever one cares to believe


Oh look, you're still wrong. Perhaps you wish to pretend that utter grotesque and shameful ignorance was a reply to any relevant post. So far your attempts to deny, obfuscate, and double-talk away the evidence have failed.
Be aware that you have not convince anyone with your twisted interpretations.


Or we could just use evidence to shut me up, you know prove evolution with science, prove one species can evolve in to another
Surely it cant be that hard if its been proven by science....surely.
What made you believe, what experiment, what test won you over.



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch
[


What made you believe, what experiment, what test won you over.


You've already said this thread isn't about evidence. Why do you keep contradicting that statement?

Besides, asking someone to post a single piece of evidence that "won them over" is like asking you to post the bible verse that made you a Christian.



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch


I seem to have to repeat myself an awful lot, I BELIEVE IN MiCROEVOLUTION YES I DO


Then why can't millions of years of microevolution culminate in substantial changes?




Now can that be out of the way for a little while

and ok, man didnt come from monkeys, whatever, why dont you show me the evidence of where we came from, prove we didnt come from monkeys.


Actually, modern apes and men have a common ancestor. So no, we didn't "come from monkeys." We're actually an evolved primate.

This is the family tree:




and saying Macro evolution is millions of years of Micro evolution is not science, its a 1st grade statement. You have been found out


What? Microeconomics and Macroeconomics are both ways of studying the principles of economics... one just looks at small-scale changes and the other looks at the bigger picture. Same with micro vs macro evolution. The dichotomy was fabricated by creationists to fit their own agenda. They are not two different types of evolution.

There is one particular aspect of evolution that needs to be given specific attention: the somewhat artificial distinction between what is called “microevolution” and “macroevolution”, two terms often used by creationists in their attempts to critique evolution and evolutionary theory.

Microevolution is used to refer to changes in the gene pool of a population over time which result in relatively small changes to the organisms in the population — changes which would not result in the newer organisms being considered as different species. Examples of such microevolutionary changes would include a change in a species’ coloring or size.

Macroevolution, in contrast, is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to mate with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together.

You can frequently hear creationists argue they accept microevolution but not macroevolution — one common way to put it is to say that dogs may change to become bigger or smaller, but they never become cats. Therefore, microevolution may occur within the dog species, but macroevolution never will.

There are a few problems with these terms, especially in the manner that creationists use them. The first is quite simply that when scientists do use the terms microevolution and macroevolution, they don’t use them in the same way as creationists. The terms were first used in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko in his book on evolution Variabilität und Variation. However, they remain in relatively limited use today. You can find them in some texts, including biology texts, but in general most biologists simply don’t pay attention to them.





You havnt answered a single question, just complained that I generalised with monkeys. Smoke screen for an inability to justify science you believe in?


More like frustration caused by trying to teach Trigonometry to a person who doesn't believe that 2+2=4.

"Prove to me that the earth goes around the sun! Don't just use some stupid scientist's data... prove it yourself!"

Do you see how stupid that argument is? Nobody can walk up to you and show you a box full of evolutionary processes... I don't know what you expect from your "show me your own evidence, not a link" nonsense.



Your understanding of evolution is someone elses, you havnt a clue as to what you believe you believe.


So you'd rather hear someone's opinion than the researched, peer-reviewed, repeatable scientific data presented by professionals?

You're not interested in evidence, but you want to hear what someone believes? That's a completely backwards way of thinking.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join