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: 13
31
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 03:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: tsingtao


are those early genes gone? (from 55 mya)


some of them are still there in their original form, others have changed and adapted.

are they still around in todays animals, not doing anything.

even "junk DNA" does something. there may be some genes that don't express themselves but for the most part they all have a function.


what does a mutated gene look like?


that depends on the gene in question. some mutations are "silent". that is, they don't affect phenotype or function. Some mutations can cause a host of genetic defects from Downs Syndrome to "Siamese Twins". Overall though, the vast majority of mutations are neutral having no positive or negative affect on the organism in question.

can one tell if it's mutated?

Sometimes the only way to know for sure(without extensive and expensive lab testing) is when the mutation expresses itself as an incorrectly coded phenotype. Like I said earlier, most mutations are completely neutral and people are completely unaware unless there is a particularly negative mutation such as cancer.

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.


like a platypus for example? it has genes from reptiles and mammals. www.dawn.com...

or maybe something simpler? whales with vestigial legs perhaps?




posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 06:52 AM
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.



You're wrong. Read the articles posted above and read this one as well:

www.worldscientific.com...

Experiments are reproducible and the process of evolution has been observed in the lab.
If you don't understand how science is done, then read the those articles including the "Methods" sections.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 02:12 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.


You seem to have missed that my post was about semantics - why Evolution is a Scientific Theory and not a Scientific Fact.

I made no mention of God in the post. It would appear that you see ANY disagreement with Evolutionary Theory as being a religious statement.

There are grounds in Genetics, Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics which place doubt in Evolutionary Theory. None of those doubts are negated by calling everyone who identifies them a religious zealot.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

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.


You seem to have missed that my post was about semantics - why Evolution is a Scientific Theory and not a Scientific Fact.

I made no mention of God in the post. It would appear that you see ANY disagreement with Evolutionary Theory as being a religious statement.

There are grounds in Genetics, Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics which place doubt in Evolutionary Theory. None of those doubts are negated by calling everyone who identifies them a religious zealot.




What grounds are there that don't come from a creationist???


What is your alternate theory? Does it involve Jesus and of pandas and people?



Do you actually know the difference in a scientific theory and a scientific fact? ( this ones a trick question, there isn't one)

Evolution is not a hypothesis. That's the definition if a non scientific theory.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

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.



You're wrong. Read the articles posted above and read this one as well:

www.worldscientific.com...

Experiments are reproducible and the process of evolution has been observed in the lab.
If you don't understand how science is done, then read the those articles including the "Methods" sections.



This last link is a Bioinformatics paper that attempts to simulate Evolutionary Processes in a computer algorithm.

It is repeatable, but it is not Evolution, it is a computer program.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: ArtemisE

originally posted by: chr0naut

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.


You seem to have missed that my post was about semantics - why Evolution is a Scientific Theory and not a Scientific Fact.

I made no mention of God in the post. It would appear that you see ANY disagreement with Evolutionary Theory as being a religious statement.

There are grounds in Genetics, Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics which place doubt in Evolutionary Theory. None of those doubts are negated by calling everyone who identifies them a religious zealot.




What grounds are there that don't come from a creationist???


What is your alternate theory? Does it involve Jesus and of pandas and people?



Do you actually know the difference in a scientific theory and a scientific fact? ( this ones a trick question, there isn't one)

Evolution is not a hypothesis. That's the definition if a non scientific theory.


Eh? I was stating that Evolution is a Scientific Theory. That is exactly what I was saying two posts ago!

And I did point out, in my previous post, reasons to doubt Evolutionary theory that have noting to do with Jesus or the Pandas and People book. Please re-read it but first, turn off your mind filter that separates humanity into either one camp or another. There is a whole spectrum of possible responses and motivations.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
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?


I never made the claim that the observations/results were invalid.

I was pointing out that Evolutionary Theory is an intangible where we can only observe its effects. We cannot see it 'as a thing'. We also have no unit of measure of Evolution for the same reason.

Observation of 64,000 generations does not equal 64,000 genetic changes. Nor are any of the changes which were observed, repeatable in the way a Chemistry or Physics experiment is.

That is why everyone is still calling it the Theory of Evolution, not the Law of Evolution or the Scientific Fact of Evolution.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Woah now, I am fine with the sentiment of your argument(we observe indirectly in all cases except bacterial evolution...), but you're phrasing is a bit disingenuous. Calling it the "Fact" of Evolution would be a major demotion from a scientific Theory. Theories are an explanation, a kind of advanced model for how reality functions, based on observations, facts, and data. Of course it isn't a fact, it is based on facts.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 03:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

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...


www.pnas.org...


Let me know how many journal articles you want -


The first link appears to be dead.

The second link sees similarities in the three human albumen proteins and those in apes and from that, makes the assumption that there was a common ancestor @ 5 million years ago. This only makes sense if you assume, as did the authors, that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor. Examples of differing possibilities are that, due to similar morphology, optimal and similar proteins arose through adaptation without a common ancestor. Or that they were designed to do the same job and so are similar. Or a mix of any of these ideas.

The third link is a paper that tries to use modern genetics to fit primates into a Darwinian tree diagram of ancestry relationships. As 10 of the 17 selected species genomes had not been fully mapped at the time of publishing, the paper is speculative at best. Also fitting Evolution to convenient diagrams is fraught with problems as the cases of the Earnst Haeckels Embryo Sequence Diagram and the Horse Evolution Sequence Diagram would prove.

Still, despite your scholarly links, Evolution is theoretical. It does not have the repeatability of Physics or Chemistry experiments to be able to call it a Scientific Law or a Scientific Fact.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: hydeman11
a reply to: chr0naut

Woah now, I am fine with the sentiment of your argument(we observe indirectly in all cases except bacterial evolution...), but you're phrasing is a bit disingenuous. Calling it the "Fact" of Evolution would be a major demotion from a scientific Theory. Theories are an explanation, a kind of advanced model for how reality functions, based on observations, facts, and data. Of course it isn't a fact, it is based on facts.


I totally agree. But, from their responses, many others don't.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

It appears that the majority of problems I'm seeing are stemming from semantics in these cases... I find this troubling. Clearly, evidence supports the theory of evolution much the same way evidence supports the germ theory of disease, with the only difference being that humans do not have a long enough lifespan or the science necessary to observe genetic mutations and selection in populations of complex organisms (more complex than bacteria) in a single human lifespan. We agree on that.
That said, I assume you see the evidence I have alluded to and I question why you seem so critical towards the Theory of Evolution... If not the theory, you seem particularly critical of the evidence it is grounded in? I do apologize if I am wrong, I am slow sometimes. : /



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut


I never made the claim that the observations/results were invalid.


By claiming that evolution is not an observable phenomena you are essentially stating that any claim otherwise is false.




I was pointing out that Evolutionary Theory is an intangible where we can only observe its effects. We cannot see it 'as a thing'. We also have no unit of measure of Evolution for the same reason.


But you're wrong.


Observation of 64,000 generations does not equal 64,000 genetic changes. Nor are any of the changes which were observed, repeatable in the way a Chemistry or Physics experiment is.



In the early years of the experiment, several common evolutionary developments were shared by the populations. The mean fitness of each population, as measured against the ancestor strain, increased, rapidly at first, but leveled off after close to 20,000 generations (at which point they grew about 70% faster than the ancestor strain). All populations evolved larger cell volumes and lower maximum population densities, and all became specialized for living on glucose (with declines in fitness relative to the ancestor strain when grown in dissimilar nutrients). Of the 12 populations, four developed defects in their ability to repair DNA, greatly increasing the rate of additional mutations in those strains.


Additionally, another strain evolved to survive on citric acid in an aerobic environment.

In 2008, Lenski and his collaborators reported on a particularly important adaptation that occurred in the population called Ara-3: the bacteria evolved the ability to grow on citrate under the oxygen-rich conditions of the experiment. Wild-type E. coli cannot grow on citrate when oxygen is present due to the inability during aerobic metabolism to produce an appropriate transporter protein that can bring citrate into the cell, where it could be metabolized via the citric acid cycle. The consequent lack of growth on citrate under oxic conditions, referred to as a Cit- phenotype, is considered a defining characteristic of the species that has been a valuable means of differentiating E. coli from pathogenic Salmonella.



That is why everyone is still calling it the Theory of Evolution, not the Law of Evolution or the Scientific Fact of Evolution.



By everyone I have to assume you mean all the people who don't differentiate between the scientific definition of fact and theory versus a laypersons definition of those two terms.

We take a fact in science as meaning data, not absolute certainty but "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of such facts. The facts of evolution come from observational evidence of current processes, from imperfections in organisms recording historical common descent, and from transitions in the fossil record.

So sorry, saying "well it's only a theory" is a bunch of bologna in the connotation you ascribe to it.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 04:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
Still, despite your scholarly links, Evolution is theoretical. It does not have the repeatability of Physics or Chemistry experiments to be able to call it a Scientific Law or a Scientific Fact.



Scientific theory > scientific law.
Scientific theories explain scientific facts.

All you're showing here is your scientific illiteracy.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 02:10 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

You may not have mentioned god (lower case all it deserves) but the largest group of people against evolution are people that believe their religion and STORIES based on it are 100% true even although there is NO proof of god.

Then they always fall back on the word faith well again that has been programmed by repeated sessions at the place of worship, some people rebel against that and actually think for themselves !

There is enough evidence to indicate that evolution is true we have nothing for the other side except stories handed down.

IF the creationist believers really think that religion is correct and god created everything as they say and claim why did this all powerful being FAIL to get his message all over our globe at the same time surely that should have been NO problem for the creator of everything



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 06:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Right let's get something streight, I have not been a laboratory technician for over 20 years barc's but since you suggest that scientists KNOW then what I pointedly counter is that they THEORISE, the universe even in orthodox scientific theory is far too complex to know and the observation of macro system mechanics as opposed to the understanding of maco system mechanics are two completely different thing's.
For e.g. I take a seemingly solid object but then state it as a fact that it is solid matter when in fact it is not but is a cloud of atomic nuclei held in place by covalent and monovalent bond's, every part is in motion in that object and it is not static as it appears from the macro perspective, but wait it get's better, go even to the nucleus with it's proton and neutron and is that a solid, no it too is mainly empty space and so go to the neutron and once again you find it is made up of smaller particles, go even down to one of these quark's and it too is not solid but appears to be a coherant oscillation or ripple in the fabric of time space, so the obect is not sold and the statement of Knowing is not entirely or argumentatively accurate in any reasonable definition, the scientist could more accurately describe it as knowing the state as it appeared at time of observation and analysis.
Now I do believe in God as I have already pointed out though he/it that I call the lord is beyond my ability to concieve let alone describle discernable parameters too and as for evolution I do believe God has many tool's at his disposal and it is one that is as valid as any other, he works on time frames that to our transitory existance are inconcievable and even before there was a concept of time or a reality for it existed at dimension and in reality that we can not ascertain, also he is still here with every instant of our lives even that we have not yet encountered already played out before him.
Now as for evolution I personally do no accept that Human's came from chimp's as I believe the human race to be both older than anthropolical or archeological observations can ascertain and perhaps not native to this originating reality, Especially if we are part descended as the book of enoch would suggest (when he saw that noah looked like the nephilim and unlike himself) from the nephilim as they constitute a second older human race and a extre terrestrial habiting species whom against there orders came down to earth (Trust me it is all writen in anceint texts) they had transdimensional or spiritual nature so though they may have been compatible with humans they were not native to the dimension they had tampered with but there children whom where therefore half human and half other dimensional more advanced being had a foot in both worlds which made them dangerous and harmful perhaps to the quantum (Spiritual) structure of reality around them) and they also unruly with nature that was not compatible with the greater system they had been spawned into so they were purged.
I think I will throw this in for the whale statement, the whale's are theorized based on some fossils that have similar (note the word similar not identical) trait's to living whale species that have been found in the himalayas and it is hypothesied (Not proven) that whales evolved on the shores of a now vanished sea that is believed to have existed between the approaching continent of India and the Continent of Asia, it is believed to have been a smart predatory wolf like creature whom had hooved feet and over time took advantage of the rich ecology and source of food present in that shallow sea, over time it became first semi aquatic then lost all ability to return to land as it adapted to pure aquatic environment and spread outward.
One more item of Trivia the anceint greek's regarded Dolphin as the people of the sea and they do indeed have much larger brains than my critic's.
Think for a moment, you are basing your anti creationism on a linear view of time but we know that time is anything but linear and factor in the possibility of cross dimensional interferance or shifts and how long is a day.

By the way sorry for my grammer and spelling, the long sentences and My stubborn point of view, I did play symantecs as they were being played against me so I hold my hand up in guilt there now are my critics man enough to accept there flaw's.

You know carbon 13 only has a half life of 5700 years give or take.

edit on 2-7-2014 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Citrates are a salts created from Citric acid. They are either very weakly acidic, or basic. Just a minor point, I know.

I am aware that Lenski also kept frozen samples of many generations of his e.coli populations and after seeing the metabolism of citrate, went back several generations and re-ran his experiment from before that point, looking for the instance of differentiation that allowed citrate to be metabolized. He found that the change happened somewhere around the 20,000th generation and well before the metabolism of citrate was evident.

This would be a support for your case, if you had known to invoke it, as he was able to re-adapt the e.coli from a previous generation. Essentially re-doing the experiment and proving that the adaptation was genetically decided before the trait was evident.

However, the experiment was not exactly repeatable. Not all attempts to re-adapt were successful, again because of the stochastic and complex nature of such changes. So while evolution was observed and then re-observed, it still wasn't a repeatable experiment like most Physics or Chemistry ones.

Please note that I am not denying that evolutionary change appears to have occurred and has been observed. I am saying that what has been observed does not meet the requirements to call the theory a scientific fact.

My disagreement with Evolutionary Theory is that the three mechanisms of Natural Selection, Random Mutation and Genetic Drift cannot do what is claimed of them and that therefore we are missing something vital in the process.

Natural Selection could very well be the only mechanism of selection, but I can also conceive of just dumb luck, for no reason at all (random chance), governing it. If there is any alternate possibility that is outside the Theory's constraints, then the theory is not a complete answer.

Random Mutation itself is not actually random. It is chaotic. This means that its level of complexity is great but it operates within constraints. It is governed by chemistry, physics and its limits are definable by probability mathematics. Mutation rates for various genomes are known and what we observe should fit to those constraints. Yet when we try and calculate how much time things should take, we get answers that are multiples of observed rates. An example of this is when you figure out how long life on Earth has been evolving, you get a figure of 9.7 billion years (±2.5 billion years), yet the Earth has only existed for about 4.5 billion years. Here's a link to one such paper.

That knocks two legs out from under the theory and the last one, Genetic Drift, cannot fill the gap and fix it all up.

You see, I'm talking about the science, not religion.

Also, I found this article about the definition of scientific terms in Nature and thought it was worth sharing, even though it wasn't specifically part of this thread.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767

I'm not anti-creationist. I'm anti-fundamentalist and I'm against people who attack and deny science because of their fundamentalism. I don't care what your personal beliefs are. The science is solid and has been for a while. You can hypothesize about it all day long, but you still didn't address anything about the science of evolution in your post. Even if your ideas about inter dimensional beings or Nephelim are true, it doesn't discount evolution. It will add to the theory. Evolution is absolutely verified, but that doesn't mean that additional unknown forces couldn't influence the mutations or change the environment. Maybe there is more to evolution than simply genetic mutations and natural selection. There's just no evidence of it as of yet. Also humans didn't come from chimps, they just share a common ancestor.
edit on 2-7-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: LABTECH767

I'm not anti-creationist. I'm anti-fundamentalist and I'm against people who attack and deny science because of their fundamentalism. I don't care what your personal beliefs are. The science is solid and has been for a while. You can hypothesize about it all day long, but you still didn't address anything about the science of evolution in your post. Even if your ideas about inter dimensional beings or Nephelim are true, it doesn't discount evolution. It will add to the theory. Evolution is absolutely verified, but that doesn't mean that additional unknown forces couldn't influence the mutations or change the environment. Maybe there is more to evolution than simply genetic mutations and natural selection. There's just no evidence of it as of yet. Also humans didn't come from chimps, they just share a common ancestor.


Well said!



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Barcs

Now as for evolution I personally do no accept that Human's came from chimp's


First of all MAN created god not the other way and lots of them Names of god(s)

Also as this is already been stated we have not descended from chimps and nowhere does it say that unless religious people say it!!!

An idiots guide to the APE family tree

Hope that is simple enough to understand



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: LABTECH767

I'm not anti-creationist. I'm anti-fundamentalist and I'm against people who attack and deny science because of their fundamentalism. I don't care what your personal beliefs are. The science is solid and has been for a while. You can hypothesize about it all day long, but you still didn't address anything about the science of evolution in your post. Even if your ideas about inter dimensional beings or Nephelim are true, it doesn't discount evolution. It will add to the theory. Evolution is absolutely verified, but that doesn't mean that additional unknown forces couldn't influence the mutations or change the environment. Maybe there is more to evolution than simply genetic mutations and natural selection. There's just no evidence of it as of yet. Also humans didn't come from chimps, they just share a common ancestor.


Looking back through most of your posts, your standard response seems to be to have a pick at the faith of others, whether the post you responded to had religious overtones or not.

You don't appear as altruistic as you describe yourself (and probably believe yourself) to be.




top topics



 
31
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join