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.

 

Animals appearing whole - ie anti-evolution

page: 12
31
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Phantom423

A fact in science is something that can be readily observed, i.e. first hand observed behavious such as measuring the ductility of a piece of metal with a strain gauge or applied weights where as a indirectly observed grouping of data can not be called readily observable so is not regarded as a fact in science but is indeed regarded as suitable for formulating a hypothesis or rather a theory (hypothesis and theory are more or less interchangable in that respect.
Therefore
Evolutionary Theory can not be called scientific fact though it can by length of service and level of acceptance be called an established fact much like einsteins theory of relativity (though darwin was not as intelligent as einstein though he did cause some pretty good political lampooning in a publication called punch).
In that respect you are obviously wrong and are I am sorry to day flogging a dead horse, trying to catch a ship that has already sailed etc.


Evolution has been observed with human eyes in the laboratory. It is a scientific fact. The data is there. The experiments are there. The observations are there.

isites.harvard.edu... he%20dynamics%20and%20genetic%20bases%20of%20adaptation.pdf

www.sciencemag.org...

edit on 30-6-2014 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)


www.pnas.org...

edit on 30-6-2014 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)


Let me know how many journal articles you want -
edit on 30-6-2014 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767

Genetic mutations, natural selection and speciation have all been observed first hand.

Scientific theories CONTAIN hypotheses, they aren't the same. They are simply parts of the theory that are in the process of being tested. The process of evolution (genetic mutations sorted by natural selection) is absolutely a fact, and that fact is what the theory is built on. It's called the theory of modern evolutionary synthesis, by the way, not evolution.

Whoops just noticed that Phantom already responded to this with facts and data. My bad at repeating the same stuff. It's almost like second nature now to respond instantly to these type of claims.
edit on 30-6-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Unless you did not notice the theory is still EVOLVING (PUN intended but it is fact) and is still being modified as time goes by with new interpretation and mechanism, indeed the current model is quite different from the one hypothesied and based on his observations by One Charles Darwin and As for first hand observations of genetic fluctuation that is a fact that one whom has worked with more than one pathogenic sample culture can not deny but the mechanism is not adaptation but rather mutation and can be caused by many different factor's ranging from chemical and radiological chromosone interferance which in our poluted world should indicate a chaos of such occurances far above what we percieve as the RNA and DNA do a good job of self repair but instead it is more related to genetic defects than viable systems and such diseases as leukemia and cancer may have a large burden of there blame on these environmental factors, Now as for natural selection well that too is proven in it's mechanism and a good analogy is the school yard bully whom goes on to rule the state but whose IQ is as low as his butt hole as shown once his clever PR chums are taken away for his only real talent was the delegation he learned leading his pack of follower's around by there short noses but I digress and this is not darwinism but a replacement for his own form of linear adaptation and selection.
But here we are talking Jargon and what could be less human or more empty than this, like I said why can not both be true.

Let's look at the standard model of the cell, long ago according to evolutionary theory the cell was a collection of extracellular cytoblasts swimming around in a proto plasmic soup (the plasm being the for runner of cytoplasm) and according to the accepted model these simply mollecular structures began to self replicat and then to form symbiotic relationships then to wall themselves in for possible defence against competition form outside there little collonies or proto cell's but the first virus found a way around this then these cells learned to not only self replicate as a unit (mitosis) but to make that unit become heirarchical and perform seperate tasks in spite of having the same set of basic structure, clump together and form larger colonies of these cell's which were the early multi celled organism's, then these mutli celled organisms grew more complex and advanced in order to adapt to new survival niches in there race to out last there competitors for the same natural resources, eventually one started typing on a computer and wondering could that improbably journey be even remotely possible in such a short space of time after the universe is hypothesied to be, then he took a look at the current data at the time and found there was a theory abour pan spermia and the fact that freez dried spores of certain microbial (Complex evolved symbiotic structures of complimentary molecules capable of self replication called cell's) where about the same size as the average grain of interstellar dust but that meant the life began even earlier and elsewhere if it was true so it was even more improbable, so being fed up he decided the answer was 42 and decided to join the dolphins with there escape plan and go all new agey for a bit to clear his head and perhaps hug a few tree's before comeing to the conclusion if the theory was a soup the customers would throw it in the waiters face and lynch the chef but because they did not know what they were eating they accepted the crap as right anyway.
Now if you can catch all that babble maybe you get my drift no.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Barcs

Unless you did not notice the theory is still EVOLVING (PUN intended but it is fact) and is still being modified as time goes by with new interpretation and mechanism, indeed the current model is quite different from the one hypothesied and based on his observations by One Charles Darwin and As for first hand observations of genetic fluctuation that is a fact that one whom has worked with more than one pathogenic sample culture can not deny but the mechanism is not adaptation but rather mutation and can be caused by many different factor's ranging from chemical and radiological chromosone interferance which in our poluted world should indicate a chaos of such occurances far above what we percieve as the RNA and DNA do a good job of self repair but instead it is more related to genetic defects than viable systems and such diseases as leukemia and cancer may have a large burden of there blame on these environmental factors, Now as for natural selection well that too is proven in it's mechanism and a good analogy is the school yard bully whom goes on to rule the state but whose IQ is as low as his butt hole as shown once his clever PR chums are taken away for his only real talent was the delegation he learned leading his pack of follower's around by there short noses but I digress and this is not darwinism but a replacement for his own form of linear adaptation and selection.
But here we are talking Jargon and what could be less human or more empty than this, like I said why can not both be true.

Let's look at the standard model of the cell, long ago according to evolutionary theory the cell was a collection of extracellular cytoblasts swimming around in a proto plasmic soup (the plasm being the for runner of cytoplasm) and according to the accepted model these simply mollecular structures began to self replicat and then to form symbiotic relationships then to wall themselves in for possible defence against competition form outside there little collonies or proto cell's but the first virus found a way around this then these cells learned to not only self replicate as a unit (mitosis) but to make that unit become heirarchical and perform seperate tasks in spite of having the same set of basic structure, clump together and form larger colonies of these cell's which were the early multi celled organism's, then these mutli celled organisms grew more complex and advanced in order to adapt to new survival niches in there race to out last there competitors for the same natural resources, eventually one started typing on a computer and wondering could that improbably journey be even remotely possible in such a short space of time after the universe is hypothesied to be, then he took a look at the current data at the time and found there was a theory abour pan spermia and the fact that freez dried spores of certain microbial (Complex evolved symbiotic structures of complimentary molecules capable of self replication called cell's) where about the same size as the average grain of interstellar dust but that meant the life began even earlier and elsewhere if it was true so it was even more improbable, so being fed up he decided the answer was 42 and decided to join the dolphins with there escape plan and go all new agey for a bit to clear his head and perhaps hug a few tree's before comeing to the conclusion if the theory was a soup the customers would throw it in the waiters face and lynch the chef but because they did not know what they were eating they accepted the crap as right anyway.
Now if you can catch all that babble maybe you get my drift no.


If you don't agree with the data in the journal articles, then you have to address the lab methods and tell us why they are wrong. You're repeating the same mantra over and over without even reading the articles. This is typical of cults - they have been so indoctrinated with brainless crap, that they can't think.

Read the journal articles and tell us WHY they are wrong. If you can't do that, then by default you lose.


edit on 30-6-2014 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

I take you never read the hitch hikers guide to the galaxy then.
Seriously a theory is not a fact no matter how well supported by complimentary evidence or else it would not be called a theory would it, facts do not have to adapt with time.
By the way I am part of no cult though if you class belief in god as such then I will happily plead guilty to that.
edit on 30-6-2014 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Phantom423

I take you never read the hitch hikers guide to the galaxy then.
Seriously a theory is not a fact no matter how well supported by complimentary evidence or else it would not be called a theory would it, facts do not have to adapt with time.
By the way I am part of no cult though if you class belief in god as such then I will happily plead guilty to that.


Why don't you read the journal articles and tell us why they're wrong in their conclusions.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767




posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 07:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Barcs

Unless you did not notice the theory is still EVOLVING (PUN intended but it is fact) and is still being modified as time goes by with new interpretation and mechanism, indeed the current model is quite different from the one hypothesied and based on his observations by One Charles Darwin and As for first hand observations of genetic fluctuation that is a fact that one whom has worked with more than one pathogenic sample culture can not deny but the mechanism is not adaptation but rather mutation and can be caused by many different factor's ranging from chemical and radiological chromosone interferance which in our poluted world should indicate a chaos of such occurances far above what we percieve as the RNA and DNA do a good job of self repair but instead it is more related to genetic defects than viable systems and such diseases as leukemia and cancer may have a large burden of there blame on these environmental factors, Now as for natural selection well that too is proven in it's mechanism and a good analogy is the school yard bully whom goes on to rule the state but whose IQ is as low as his butt hole as shown once his clever PR chums are taken away for his only real talent was the delegation he learned leading his pack of follower's around by there short noses but I digress and this is not darwinism but a replacement for his own form of linear adaptation and selection.
But here we are talking Jargon and what could be less human or more empty than this, like I said why can not both be true.

Let's look at the standard model of the cell, long ago according to evolutionary theory the cell was a collection of extracellular cytoblasts swimming around in a proto plasmic soup (the plasm being the for runner of cytoplasm) and according to the accepted model these simply mollecular structures began to self replicat and then to form symbiotic relationships then to wall themselves in for possible defence against competition form outside there little collonies or proto cell's but the first virus found a way around this then these cells learned to not only self replicate as a unit (mitosis) but to make that unit become heirarchical and perform seperate tasks in spite of having the same set of basic structure, clump together and form larger colonies of these cell's which were the early multi celled organism's, then these mutli celled organisms grew more complex and advanced in order to adapt to new survival niches in there race to out last there competitors for the same natural resources, eventually one started typing on a computer and wondering could that improbably journey be even remotely possible in such a short space of time after the universe is hypothesied to be, then he took a look at the current data at the time and found there was a theory abour pan spermia and the fact that freez dried spores of certain microbial (Complex evolved symbiotic structures of complimentary molecules capable of self replication called cell's) where about the same size as the average grain of interstellar dust but that meant the life began even earlier and elsewhere if it was true so it was even more improbable, so being fed up he decided the answer was 42 and decided to join the dolphins with there escape plan and go all new agey for a bit to clear his head and perhaps hug a few tree's before comeing to the conclusion if the theory was a soup the customers would throw it in the waiters face and lynch the chef but because they did not know what they were eating they accepted the crap as right anyway.
Now if you can catch all that babble maybe you get my drift no.


If you don't agree with the data in the journal articles, then you have to address the lab methods and tell us why they are wrong. You're repeating the same mantra over and over without even reading the articles. This is typical of cults - they have been so indoctrinated with brainless crap, that they can't think.

Read the journal articles and tell us WHY they are wrong. If you can't do that, then by default you lose.


yu'ter gross idio!



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 08:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: MarsIsRed

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Barcs

Unless you did not notice the theory is still EVOLVING (PUN intended but it is fact) and is still being modified as time goes by with new interpretation and mechanism, indeed the current model is quite different from the one hypothesied and based on his observations by One Charles Darwin and As for first hand observations of genetic fluctuation that is a fact that one whom has worked with more than one pathogenic sample culture can not deny but the mechanism is not adaptation but rather mutation and can be caused by many different factor's ranging from chemical and radiological chromosone interferance which in our poluted world should indicate a chaos of such occurances far above what we percieve as the RNA and DNA do a good job of self repair but instead it is more related to genetic defects than viable systems and such diseases as leukemia and cancer may have a large burden of there blame on these environmental factors, Now as for natural selection well that too is proven in it's mechanism and a good analogy is the school yard bully whom goes on to rule the state but whose IQ is as low as his butt hole as shown once his clever PR chums are taken away for his only real talent was the delegation he learned leading his pack of follower's around by there short noses but I digress and this is not darwinism but a replacement for his own form of linear adaptation and selection.
But here we are talking Jargon and what could be less human or more empty than this, like I said why can not both be true.

Let's look at the standard model of the cell, long ago according to evolutionary theory the cell was a collection of extracellular cytoblasts swimming around in a proto plasmic soup (the plasm being the for runner of cytoplasm) and according to the accepted model these simply mollecular structures began to self replicat and then to form symbiotic relationships then to wall themselves in for possible defence against competition form outside there little collonies or proto cell's but the first virus found a way around this then these cells learned to not only self replicate as a unit (mitosis) but to make that unit become heirarchical and perform seperate tasks in spite of having the same set of basic structure, clump together and form larger colonies of these cell's which were the early multi celled organism's, then these mutli celled organisms grew more complex and advanced in order to adapt to new survival niches in there race to out last there competitors for the same natural resources, eventually one started typing on a computer and wondering could that improbably journey be even remotely possible in such a short space of time after the universe is hypothesied to be, then he took a look at the current data at the time and found there was a theory abour pan spermia and the fact that freez dried spores of certain microbial (Complex evolved symbiotic structures of complimentary molecules capable of self replication called cell's) where about the same size as the average grain of interstellar dust but that meant the life began even earlier and elsewhere if it was true so it was even more improbable, so being fed up he decided the answer was 42 and decided to join the dolphins with there escape plan and go all new agey for a bit to clear his head and perhaps hug a few tree's before comeing to the conclusion if the theory was a soup the customers would throw it in the waiters face and lynch the chef but because they did not know what they were eating they accepted the crap as right anyway.
Now if you can catch all that babble maybe you get my drift no.


If you don't agree with the data in the journal articles, then you have to address the lab methods and tell us why they are wrong. You're repeating the same mantra over and over without even reading the articles. This is typical of cults - they have been so indoctrinated with brainless crap, that they can't think.

Read the journal articles and tell us WHY they are wrong. If you can't do that, then by default you lose.


yu'ter gross idio!


du bist eine kleine schlemihl
вы малого идиот
אתה אידיוט


edit on 30-6-2014 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 10:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Barcs


No it is a scientific theory, based on observation and interpretation of the observed,


Nope. Scientific theories are based on facts. Plain and simple. There is no interpretation necessary. When you see that morphology is directly controlled by genes, and then see hundreds of genetic mutations one from generation to the next, it is blatantly obvious. Creationists and evolution deniers make up this imaginary boundary, claiming that mutations can not add up past a certain point, but have no evidence for this claim whatsoever. If something can speciate, then why can't it get even further away from the original, given enough time? No evolution denier ever answers these questions. They just make blanket statements like "a fruit fly will always be a fruit fly". What you don't seem to understand is that big changes require longer time periods. We're not going to witness large change within a single human lifetime. It's nonsensical. But again, if any evolution denier can provide evidence that genetic mutations stop adding up after a certain point, then I'll concede the argument, but whenever I ask the question, the subject gets changed. Let's see if you can back up that claim.


They won't debate because they can't debate. They have no data, no evidence, no bench work. Just rambling speculation.

Note that the most rabid followers of Creationist crap never show up after a challenge. They just disappear into the ether. I've shut down more than a few threads already



You just described LABTECH767 as a Creationist. From what I read, he has made no agreement with Creationist principles and was merely pointing out that you were misusing the term "Scientific Fact".

Scientific facts are established by empirical observation of repeatable experiments. A scientific fact would relate to a direct observation of the sort "the cell sample did not succumb to apoptosis within the normal time-frame and continued to reproduce" or "the radiation reading was 140 Becquerels".

A framework which may explain observed effects but itself is not directly observed, cannot become a scientific fact.

Recently, work with particle physics which give stochastic results, has led to a softening of this definition to include a mathematical expression of confidence in the data, the "six-sigma" confidence level.

Evolutionary Theory cannot be directly observed. We can see actions which it may explain but we can't see IT. An indication of this is that we have no unit of measure of Evolution.

Evolutionary Theory is also stochastic, based as it is upon random mutation. As such we cannot go and repeatedly re-evolve the same species and always get the same result. Any Evolutionary experiments are not repeatable due to this.

Since the repeat-ability of Evolutionary experiments is not possible and we have no numerical measure of it, we cannot gain any numerical confidence level but instead must base any 'confidence' on the vagaries of human estimation. As such, it will never reach the six-sigma confidence required.

Face it. Evolution stays a theory.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 10:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Barcs


No it is a scientific theory, based on observation and interpretation of the observed,


Nope. Scientific theories are based on facts. Plain and simple. There is no interpretation necessary. When you see that morphology is directly controlled by genes, and then see hundreds of genetic mutations one from generation to the next, it is blatantly obvious. Creationists and evolution deniers make up this imaginary boundary, claiming that mutations can not add up past a certain point, but have no evidence for this claim whatsoever. If something can speciate, then why can't it get even further away from the original, given enough time? No evolution denier ever answers these questions. They just make blanket statements like "a fruit fly will always be a fruit fly". What you don't seem to understand is that big changes require longer time periods. We're not going to witness large change within a single human lifetime. It's nonsensical. But again, if any evolution denier can provide evidence that genetic mutations stop adding up after a certain point, then I'll concede the argument, but whenever I ask the question, the subject gets changed. Let's see if you can back up that claim.


They won't debate because they can't debate. They have no data, no evidence, no bench work. Just rambling speculation.

Note that the most rabid followers of Creationist crap never show up after a challenge. They just disappear into the ether. I've shut down more than a few threads already



You just described LABTECH767 as a Creationist. From what I read, he has made no agreement with Creationist principles and was merely pointing out that you were misusing the term "Scientific Fact".

Scientific facts are established by empirical observation of repeatable experiments. A scientific fact would relate to a direct observation of the sort "the cell sample did not succumb to apoptosis within the normal time-frame and continued to reproduce" or "the radiation reading was 140 Becquerels".

A framework which may explain observed effects but itself is not directly observed, cannot become a scientific fact.

Recently, work with particle physics which give stochastic results, has led to a softening of this definition to include a mathematical expression of confidence in the data, the "six-sigma" confidence level.

Evolutionary Theory cannot be directly observed. We can see actions which it may explain but we can't see IT. An indication of this is that we have no unit of measure of Evolution.

Evolutionary Theory is also stochastic, based as it is upon random mutation. As such we cannot go and repeatedly re-evolve the same species and always get the same result. Any Evolutionary experiments are not repeatable due to this.

Since the repeat-ability of Evolutionary experiments is not possible and we have no numerical measure of it, we cannot gain any numerical confidence level but instead must base any 'confidence' on the vagaries of human estimation. As such, it will never reach the six-sigma confidence required.

Face it. Evolution stays a theory.




Yes it has.... Wolves being changed into toy poodles is evolution. There isn't a micro and macro evolution. Micro leads to "macro" evolution. There is no unobserved process of evolution. That's what creationist tell the uninformed because they aren't smart enough to know the difference. all of it is predictable and observable. Creationists pretend there's some extra step called macro evolution. It doesn't exist and isn't predicted by evolution. It's just saying that the little changes we see never stop and add up over millennia.

If you wanna say god is the driving force behind evolution and humanities spark of intelligence was his way of making us in his image. That works. I don't think you need it, but it works. Pretending all of science is a lie by the devil to confuse us makes y'all look foolish.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 10:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs


No it is a scientific theory, based on observation and interpretation of the observed,


Nope. Scientific theories are based on facts. Plain and simple. There is no interpretation necessary. When you see that morphology is directly controlled by genes, and then see hundreds of genetic mutations one from generation to the next, it is blatantly obvious. Creationists and evolution deniers make up this imaginary boundary, claiming that mutations can not add up past a certain point, but have no evidence for this claim whatsoever. If something can speciate, then why can't it get even further away from the original, given enough time? No evolution denier ever answers these questions. They just make blanket statements like "a fruit fly will always be a fruit fly". What you don't seem to understand is that big changes require longer time periods. We're not going to witness large change within a single human lifetime. It's nonsensical. But again, if any evolution denier can provide evidence that genetic mutations stop adding up after a certain point, then I'll concede the argument, but whenever I ask the question, the subject gets changed. Let's see if you can back up that claim.


how convenient that evolution needs so much time that we cannot see it happen.

why don't scientists just turn on and off random genes and see what happens?
if something comes out with gills instead of lungs, that would prove something, right?

i know they can splice genes in but that's not the same.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 10:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: LABTECH767

Genetic mutations, natural selection and speciation have all been observed first hand.

Scientific theories CONTAIN hypotheses, they aren't the same. They are simply parts of the theory that are in the process of being tested. The process of evolution (genetic mutations sorted by natural selection) is absolutely a fact, and that fact is what the theory is built on. It's called the theory of modern evolutionary synthesis, by the way, not evolution.

Whoops just noticed that Phantom already responded to this with facts and data. My bad at repeating the same stuff. It's almost like second nature now to respond instantly to these type of claims.


so genes mutate in just the right way? how cool is that!

i wonder how that happens and why?



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 11:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: ArtemisE

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Barcs


No it is a scientific theory, based on observation and interpretation of the observed,


Nope. Scientific theories are based on facts. Plain and simple. There is no interpretation necessary. When you see that morphology is directly controlled by genes, and then see hundreds of genetic mutations one from generation to the next, it is blatantly obvious. Creationists and evolution deniers make up this imaginary boundary, claiming that mutations can not add up past a certain point, but have no evidence for this claim whatsoever. If something can speciate, then why can't it get even further away from the original, given enough time? No evolution denier ever answers these questions. They just make blanket statements like "a fruit fly will always be a fruit fly". What you don't seem to understand is that big changes require longer time periods. We're not going to witness large change within a single human lifetime. It's nonsensical. But again, if any evolution denier can provide evidence that genetic mutations stop adding up after a certain point, then I'll concede the argument, but whenever I ask the question, the subject gets changed. Let's see if you can back up that claim.


They won't debate because they can't debate. They have no data, no evidence, no bench work. Just rambling speculation.

Note that the most rabid followers of Creationist crap never show up after a challenge. They just disappear into the ether. I've shut down more than a few threads already



You just described LABTECH767 as a Creationist. From what I read, he has made no agreement with Creationist principles and was merely pointing out that you were misusing the term "Scientific Fact".

Scientific facts are established by empirical observation of repeatable experiments. A scientific fact would relate to a direct observation of the sort "the cell sample did not succumb to apoptosis within the normal time-frame and continued to reproduce" or "the radiation reading was 140 Becquerels".

A framework which may explain observed effects but itself is not directly observed, cannot become a scientific fact.

Recently, work with particle physics which give stochastic results, has led to a softening of this definition to include a mathematical expression of confidence in the data, the "six-sigma" confidence level.

Evolutionary Theory cannot be directly observed. We can see actions which it may explain but we can't see IT. An indication of this is that we have no unit of measure of Evolution.

Evolutionary Theory is also stochastic, based as it is upon random mutation. As such we cannot go and repeatedly re-evolve the same species and always get the same result. Any Evolutionary experiments are not repeatable due to this.

Since the repeat-ability of Evolutionary experiments is not possible and we have no numerical measure of it, we cannot gain any numerical confidence level but instead must base any 'confidence' on the vagaries of human estimation. As such, it will never reach the six-sigma confidence required.

Face it. Evolution stays a theory.




Yes it has.... Wolves being changed into toy poodles is evolution. There isn't a micro and macro evolution. Micro leads to "macro" evolution. There is no unobserved process of evolution. That's what creationist tell the uninformed because they aren't smart enough to know the difference. all of it is predictable and observable. Creationists pretend there's some extra step called macro evolution. It doesn't exist and isn't predicted by evolution. It's just saying that the little changes we see never stop and add up over millennia.

If you wanna say god is the driving force behind evolution and humanities spark of intelligence was his way of making us in his image. That works. I don't think you need it, but it works. Pretending all of science is a lie by the devil to confuse us makes y'all look foolish.


man made the poodles, not evolution.

do you actually believe they would have survived without us to take care of them?
besides, they are still dogs.

now a wolf to a tabby would be evolution.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 11:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: LABTECH767
here we are talking Jargon

Now if you can catch all that babble maybe you get my drift no.


I can agree with that part.

Not a single thing you said in that response had anything to do with evolution. It was all just run on sentences with no coherent points or paragraphs. Am I really supposed to believe you are a lab tech and know more about evolution than scientists do?



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 11:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut


Scientific facts are established by empirical observation of repeatable experiments. A scientific fact would relate to a direct observation of the sort "the cell sample did not succumb to apoptosis within the normal time-frame and continued to reproduce" or "the radiation reading was 140 Becquerels".

A framework which may explain observed effects but itself is not directly observed, cannot become a scientific fact.


Evolutionary Theory cannot be directly observed. We can see actions which it may explain but we can't see IT. An indication of this is that we have no unit of measure of Evolution.

Evolutionary Theory is also stochastic, based as it is upon random mutation. As such we cannot go and repeatedly re-evolve the same species and always get the same result. Any Evolutionary experiments are not repeatable due to this.

Since the repeat-ability of Evolutionary experiments is not possible and we have no numerical measure of it, we cannot gain any numerical confidence level but instead must base any 'confidence' on the vagaries of human estimation. As such, it will never reach the six-sigma confidence required.

Face it. Evolution stays a theory.



Someone might want to call Dr. Lenski then and let him know that despite appearing in multiple publications and being successfully peer reviewed, that he has in fact NOT observed over 64,000 consecutive generations of E. Coli evolving in his lab.

myxo.css.msu.edu...



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 11:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: tsingtao
now a wolf to a tabby would be evolution.


No, no it wouldn't actually. Canines and Felines (along with lions, bears and a host of other carnivores) share a common ancestor approximately 55 MYA, the common ancestor evolved into the vast majority of carnivorous mammals throughout the last 55 million years.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

www.gmanetwork.com...

www.scientificamerican.com...



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 11:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: chr0naut


Scientific facts are established by empirical observation of repeatable experiments. A scientific fact would relate to a direct observation of the sort "the cell sample did not succumb to apoptosis within the normal time-frame and continued to reproduce" or "the radiation reading was 140 Becquerels".

A framework which may explain observed effects but itself is not directly observed, cannot become a scientific fact.


Evolutionary Theory cannot be directly observed. We can see actions which it may explain but we can't see IT. An indication of this is that we have no unit of measure of Evolution.

Evolutionary Theory is also stochastic, based as it is upon random mutation. As such we cannot go and repeatedly re-evolve the same species and always get the same result. Any Evolutionary experiments are not repeatable due to this.

Since the repeat-ability of Evolutionary experiments is not possible and we have no numerical measure of it, we cannot gain any numerical confidence level but instead must base any 'confidence' on the vagaries of human estimation. As such, it will never reach the six-sigma confidence required.

Face it. Evolution stays a theory.



Someone might want to call Dr. Lenski then and let him know that despite appearing in multiple publications and being successfully peer reviewed, that he has in fact NOT observed over 64,000 consecutive generations of E. Coli evolving in his lab.

myxo.css.msu.edu...


Why did you respond as if I denied Dr Lenski's work?

Anyway, all he has to do is repeat it, a few times, and get the same result & I'd be happy to call it a Scientific Fact.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 12:06 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

I replied as though you denied Dr Lenski's work because you issued a blanket statement insinuating the results are invalid by stating that evolution had never been observed when in fact it has. You don't have to get on the train to know where it's going. If all he has to do is repeat it a few times then why are 64,000 and counting not good enough?



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 02:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: tsingtao
now a wolf to a tabby would be evolution.


No, no it wouldn't actually. Canines and Felines (along with lions, bears and a host of other carnivores) share a common ancestor approximately 55 MYA, the common ancestor evolved into the vast majority of carnivorous mammals throughout the last 55 million years.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

www.gmanetwork.com...

www.scientificamerican.com...




are those early genes gone? (from 55 mya)
are they still around in todays animals, not doing anything.

what does a mutated gene look like?
can one tell if it's mutated?

anyway, i'm aware of evolution and the trees they put together.
still don't understand why we don't have some floppy, 1/2 thing that looks like it doesn't belong here, tho.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join