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: 22
31
<< 19  20  21    23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UB2120

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: UB2120

That sounds really snazzy of you're a god fearing human but doesn't really take into account every other form of life that's been here the past few billion years.


How do you figure that? It takes into account all forms of life. From the most primitive to the most advanced on this world or any other world.

By the way, I am not a God fearing person. I am a God loving, respecting person. The purposed theories of evolution and creation as discussed by most people today only refer to this planet. The information in the Urantia Book discuss this process on a universal scale. As we will one day find out, the universe is teeming with life, intelligent life.


That isn't entirely true. There is no reason to assume that the natural laws of how evolution works don't apply to life outside our world. Extremophiles lend credence to this idea since these are lifeforms that have evolved to live in conditions that are almost alien to the majority conditions on this planet.


That is my point! Evolution does work out the same on the worlds of space, at least from an administrative point of view. Life does vary depending on a multitude of things, from the elemental make up of the planet to the type of atmosphere both of which will determine the type of life projected. The process, however, is the same. Life is never an accident, its always purposeful.

Again, evolution is God creative technique in time/space.




posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: UB2120

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UB2120

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: UB2120

That sounds really snazzy of you're a god fearing human but doesn't really take into account every other form of life that's been here the past few billion years.


How do you figure that? It takes into account all forms of life. From the most primitive to the most advanced on this world or any other world.

By the way, I am not a God fearing person. I am a God loving, respecting person. The purposed theories of evolution and creation as discussed by most people today only refer to this planet. The information in the Urantia Book discuss this process on a universal scale. As we will one day find out, the universe is teeming with life, intelligent life.


That isn't entirely true. There is no reason to assume that the natural laws of how evolution works don't apply to life outside our world. Extremophiles lend credence to this idea since these are lifeforms that have evolved to live in conditions that are almost alien to the majority conditions on this planet.


That is my point! Evolution does work out the same on the worlds of space, at least from an administrative point of view. Life does vary depending on a multitude of things, from the elemental make up of the planet to the type of atmosphere both of which will determine the type of life projected. The process, however, is the same. Life is never an accident, its always purposeful.

Again, evolution is God creative technique in time/space.


I agree with everything except that "life is never an accident" statement. How do you know that that statement is true?



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: viibird

The idea was to change the species and to adapt to whatever enviroment the scientists made for it. The fact that the new strain can no longer survive outside the environment the scientists created is irrelevant. If a fish like species that lives under the water, evolves to live on land, we don't expect it to continue to live in the water.


the bacteria evolved into bacteria that is unable to survive in nature.

also the lab conditions are not nature conditions. lab conditions are manipulated by a creator!



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: viibird

That is irrelevant. The fact is that the bacteria changed (read: evolved) over many generations to be able to survive in a new environment and lost the ability to survive in its original environment. THAT is evolution. Whether the conditions of the environment were manufactured by scientists or natural doesn't matter. Evolution is about the process of change in an organism over time not whether or not an organism needs to survive in natural or manufactured environments.
edit on 13-8-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: viibird

That is irrelevant. The fact is that the bacteria evolved to be able to survive in a new environment and lost the ability to survive in its original environment. THAT is evolution. Whether the conditions of the environment were manufactured by scientists or natural doesn't matter.

the wiki page says the bacteria lost ability to survive every where ie nature.
bacteria have to live all year long before it can use its new abilities to survive in a stressful situation.
not good news for the bacteria.

also lab conditions are creation conditions not evolution in nature.
we need a time followup study where a species change by itself in nature.
150 years of continuous monitoring of species since Darwin seems to not be able to find a one case of evolution.
edit on 13-8-2014 by viibird because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: viibird

You are missing the point. It's not about the conditions of where the bacteria lives. It's ONLY about if the bacteria changes over time to be able to live and thrive in the new environment. THAT. IS. IT. You are grasping at straws here.



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: viibird
the wiki page says the bacteria lost ability to survive every where ie nature.
bacteria have to live all year long before it can use its new abilities to survive in a stressful situation.
not good news for the bacteria.


In this particular environment, it's great news for the bacteria. What would be the difference between the conditions set up in the lab and these conditions arising in nature? The mechanisms are exactly the same.


also lab conditions are creation conditions not evolution in nature.


How so? Artificially changing the conditions is no different than naturally changing the conditions: the net result is the same, i.e. evolution. That's like saying that because we can recreate the conditions for fire in a laboratory, it can't occur in the wild because... well, I don't really know why you would think this, tbh.



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

You do need some reference material, don't you?


proof - evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true



conclusion - a reasoned deduction or inference.



Scientific inquiry is intended to be as objective as possible in order to minimize bias. Another basic expectation is the documentation, archiving and sharing of all data collected or produced and of the methodologies used so they may be available for careful scrutiny and attempts by other scientists to reproduce and verify them. This practice, known as full disclosure, also means that statistical measures of their reliability may be made.


I don't want to examine anyone else's opinions. It's a waste of time. You either have proof ... or you do not. I'm afraid you do not. This IS the opinion of the Scientific Community at large. That evolution has occurred is self-evident ... though proving it is beyond our grasp.

It doesn't matter how LONG someone runs an experiment either. Length of study only weights opinion. This is good for drawing conclusions ... not _showing_ proof.

Earlier, you mentioned a piece of paper hanging on your wall. I have five on mine. The other two, most important to me, are kept at home. They look nice, and yes ... they are expensive, aren't they?

You know what I don't do with mine? I don't use them as proof of value, I don't use them as credentials, and I certainly don't use them to make another person feel inferior to me. Now, I will admit my class rings are a bit of intended ostentatiousness. If they weren't, I wouldn't have replaced them when my fingers grew. See? That's simple honesty.

Lenski, now ... well Old Boy has figured out a way to 'do it' while stuffing green paper in his wallet, hasn't he? And what's his method? He lets self-deluded folks beat his drum for him. Do you know what he's got in his beakers at the end of the day? That's right ... E. coli. Do you know what he doesn't have? Proof of Evolution. Proof that a T-Rex turned itself into a chicken. Let me say that again. What has he got? E. coli in a beaker. E. coli which has Mutated, or Adapted itself through Natural (or semi-Natural or un-Natural) Selection. Not ... proof of Evolution.

You know ... Science is very exacting. "It's not an exact science" translates to, "it's not exactly science" or ... it's Soft Science. If you're not getting it, maybe you oughta try physics. In the meantime ponder this: Adaptation through Natural Selection = Adaptation ... why, pray tell, did Science ever need the word Evolution?

And for the rest of 'the forum gang': What is the scientific difference between adaptation and development? I'd suggest you go back up to the top of this post and read the excerpt I placed there. Pay particular attention to the word bias, before you get suckered-in to this rhetorical question.



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 08:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: peter vlar

You do need some reference material, don't you?


proof - evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true



conclusion - a reasoned deduction or inference.



Scientific inquiry is intended to be as objective as possible in order to minimize bias. Another basic expectation is the documentation, archiving and sharing of all data collected or produced and of the methodologies used so they may be available for careful scrutiny and attempts by other scientists to reproduce and verify them. This practice, known as full disclosure, also means that statistical measures of their reliability may be made.


Thank you kindly for the remedial lesson


I don't want to examine anyone else's opinions. It's a waste of time. You either have proof ... or you do not. I'm afraid you do not. This IS the opinion of the Scientific Community at large. That evolution has occurred is self-evident ... though proving it is beyond our grasp.


Forgive my obtuseness, but is the above referring to the peppered moth? If so, I will say that I'm not as stubborn a prick as I come off, really. I will begrudgingly admit that after doing a little extra reading last night, that one could go either way with them. I myself believe that it is a valid example, BUT after reviewing Kettlewell's methodology I think the way he went about HIS experiment was flawed and the methodology lent itself towards skewed results. there were plenty of experiments both before and after his but I'm going to admit when I don't have the appropriate data to properly respond. As such I'll say that any data regarding that bit is at least indeterminate without taking the time to look farther into the other papers and experiments run.


It doesn't matter how LONG someone runs an experiment either. Length of study only weights opinion. This is good for drawing conclusions ... not _showing_ proof.

I'm not going to argue that point either, again forgive me if I come across as somewhat obtuse, but I'm inferring from the length of time reference that you may be referring to Lenski. I get it, I can be a facetious jerk on occasion, ok perhaps more than the average but I digress... regardless of the length of time involved, I as well as many others feel that the weight of Lenski's experiment is quite heavy in favor of the results, particularly the strain of E. Coli that has evolved to live off of citric acid as a source of carbon.


Earlier, you mentioned a piece of paper hanging on your wall. I have five on mine. The other two, most important to me, are kept at home. They look nice, and yes ... they are expensive, aren't they?

You know what I don't do with mine? I don't use them as proof of value, I don't use them as credentials, and I certainly don't use them to make another person feel inferior to me. Now, I will admit my class rings are a bit of intended ostentatiousness. If they weren't, I wouldn't have replaced them when my fingers grew. See? That's simple honesty.


Fair enough, it was an obstinate and pedantic thing for me to say and the braggadocio that is now associated with the statement is both unbecoming and immature as you are correct, they are of no value(no matter how long you or I may have spent paying them off) in the grand scheme of things. I've not been so callous in the past and I'm not going to make excuses for it now. Fort what it's worth, I deserved to be called out on it.


Lenski, now ... well Old Boy has figured out a way to 'do it' while stuffing green paper in his wallet, hasn't he? And what's his method? He lets self-deluded folks beat his drum for him. Do you know what he's got in his beakers at the end of the day? That's right ... E. coli. Do you know what he doesn't have? Proof of Evolution. Proof that a T-Rex turned itself into a chicken. Let me say that again. What has he got? E. coli in a beaker. E. coli which has Mutated, or Adapted itself through Natural (or semi-Natural or un-Natural) Selection. Not ... proof of Evolution.


I disagree that it's not evidence of evolution. Are not adaptation and speciation aspects of evolution? I get what you're saying though...I think. That the time frames typically associated with evolution are not fully reproducible in a laboratory context, therefore we can't actually say we have proof of, let alone have witnessed it. Am I close to your intention in my assumption?


You know ... Science is very exacting. "It's not an exact science" translates to, "it's not exactly science" or ... it's Soft Science. If you're not getting it, maybe you oughta try physics. In the meantime ponder this: Adaptation through Natural Selection = Adaptation ... why, pray tell, did Science ever need the word Evolution?


I'm going to go out on a limb and answer that science, no matter the discipline, has a need to label and categorize any and everything, sometimes to a fault. I am however getting it, so I'll stick with Anthropology, too much math for me to be bothered with physics!

Sorry if I've disappointed you with my lack of argumentative nature today. Sometimes there are other things going on in the real world and this is my distraction and even at my age, I still love to learn and debate is often a great way to learn. The end result being that I may be a stubborn ass and sometimes have a tendency to be overly argumentative
simply for the sake of argument or simply for the sake of being contrary because of what's going on "in the real world". If you've been made the subject of my venting, I do apologize. As a human, I have many flaws, perhaps more than you can find with evolutionary theory. Not entirely sure where I think I'm going with all this other than to say yes, I can be wrong, was probably wrong about peppered moths, stand by evolution 100% and if I was being a huge jerk to you, I'm sorry. It likely wasn't truly aimed at you and the debate ended up being an outlet so if it came off as being personal it wasn't intentionally so. I just don't have much fight in me today so can we simply agree to disagree for now and perhaps pick this back up another time. I enjoy many of your posts and wasn't looking to make anything personal or make enemies from what, in my mind began as a simple debate.



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 10:52 PM
link   
i think linki experiment proves that changes happen only when intelligent being (dr linski) create them . it is a proof of creationism, not evolution.



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 11:02 PM
link   
a reply to: viibird

Howdy,

I don't think you understand how experimental science works... Experimental science offers a researcher an opportunity to isolate variables, to hold all but one constant and determine the effect of that single change.

For example, a lot of experimental geology has been done where certain minerals are melted in a crucible at a pressure of one atmosphere. From this, one can see where a mineral species might crystallize. This allows a geologist to say, ah, I see the presence of mineral species "x," therefore this melt was probably at temperature "y." But that's not good enough in science, because in the real world, you need to account for pressure. Now, there are certain minerals species (which we know from experimental data of the same kind) which are very dependent upon pressure and not so dependent upon heat, so a good geologist might need to look for these minerals and find the experimental data from a crucible at a given pressure.

What's my point? What happens in a lab is a very controlled version of what happens in nature. Nature will always have more variables that might change the result, which might skew the interpretation. That said, the results of the experimental studies hold true to systems outside of the laboratory and are a reasonable model for said systems. The more variables one adds to the model, the closer it mimics reality.

For example, if a scientist cools water to 0 degrees Celsius in a lab, the water will freeze (if pure). Likewise, if nature cools water to 0 degrees Celsius, the water will freeze (if pure). A higher power is not necessary for the water to freeze in nature, is it? Natural laws operate in both the lab and in nature in pretty much the same way.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 11:08 PM
link   
a reply to: viibird

ahhh... but Dr. Lenski didn't create the E. Coli, he just gave it different opportunities and environments to see how it would react. Just with slightly tighter controls than the natural world so that its easier to chart changes and progress. It's not like he's holding court over some huge state secrets over at the lab, he will give out samples for legitimate research purposes so that his results can be peer reviewed and replicated.



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 11:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: viibird

ahhh... but Dr. Lenski didn't create the E. Coli, he just gave it different opportunities and environments to see how it would react. Just with slightly tighter controls than the natural world so that its easier to chart changes and progress. It's not like he's holding court over some huge state secrets over at the lab, he will give out samples for legitimate research purposes so that his results can be peer reviewed and replicated.

the lab is artificial environment made by intellegent being a human. humans are intelligent beings.

so the experiment is evidence that dna changes happens only with interference by intelligent beings (CREATION).



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 11:40 PM
link   
a reply to: viibird

Howdy,

So, because water freezes in laboratory conditions, it is evidence that water ONLY freezes with interference by intelligent beings?

Sincere regards,
Mr. Handyman



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 11:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: hydeman11
a reply to: viibird

Howdy,

So, because water freezes in laboratory conditions, it is evidence that water ONLY freezes with interference by intelligent beings?

Sincere regards,
Mr. Handyman

didnt he do controlled experiment, could he account for all factors available in nature? since he does not know most of them, then he changed the environment artificially by intelligent design.

it is an evidence of creation, that only by intelligent design can changes happen to dna.

otherwise why cant they find any evolution in nature since 1850 time of darwin (some evolution that happened after 1850) not deducted from pieces of bones 50 million years ago.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 12:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t
One only has to look at the Cambrian explosion to see new and previously unknown species.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 12:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: guitarplayer
a reply to: Krazysh0t
One only has to look at the Cambrian explosion to see new and previously unknown species.

and look at the turkish ruins of 5000 BC showing drawings of different animals not existing now, but similar like the big birds, the different chicken etc.
no drwaings of current chicken in 5000 bc!!!



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 01:14 AM
link   
a reply to: viibird

Howdy,

You missed my point... I addressed this in my first post to you on this subject, but I'll happily respond again.


No, you do not need to know all the variables in nature. You need to pick one experimental variable and hold all other variables constant. After you see the effect of this one experimental variable, you can pick another variable and allow for the first experimental variable to be held as a constant. Each variable in a system is then accounted for scientifically and an accurate model of nature can be created. The more variables tested (and added to the model), the more accurate, but these variables cannot all be tested at the same time. If there are not controlled conditions, multiple changed variables at once, then there is no way of knowing what variable produced what effect.

Really, honestly, the point I was making was that you are using flawed logic. Even if this research showed that intelligence is needed in order to change a system to cause changes in DNA, that would not be sufficient to show that ONLY intelligence can create changes in DNA. Unfortunately, his experiment doesn't even show that intelligence is needed. He didn't guide the bacteria to adapt to their new conditions, he merely changed the conditions and the bacteria adapted to them.

If you don't think that nature changes conditions, then do you think all global warming ever was either by god's hand or human generated? Does climate require intelligence? What say you about paleoclimatic indicators, such as limestone, in parts of New York and Appalachia in general? Nature changes, environments change, and organisms adapt. This is nature, and a researcher placing the same strain of bacteria in a new condition merely mimics nature's actions in a very small way.

It really is like saying that because water freezes under laboratory conditions, it requires intelligence to freeze said water in nature. Especially because laboratory conditions cannot mimic all of the unknown variables of nature. This is bad logic.

Scientists have seen the product of evolution continuously in new fossil discoveries and newly described ring species. Certainly humans don't live long enough lives to see the required generations of more complex animals (we see bacteria, maybe plants...) to notice firsthand these changes. This has already been discussed, in this thread, by people more qualified to speak on the matter than me. You can call it natural selection if you wish, or even adaptation, but when the sum total of those changes make an organism a different species, that is evolution.

Sincere regards,
Mr. Handyman



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 01:18 AM
link   
a reply to: guitarplayer

Hello,

Could you please elaborate on this? I mean, I am inferring that you might be implying that the life seen in the "Cambrian Explosion" period of geologic time is somehow inconsistent with the life before. Am I interpreting this correctly?

Sincere regards,
Hydeman



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 01:24 AM
link   
holding all variables constant minus one, does not happen in nature . that is intelleigent design!

Alcohol does not accumulate in nature . Alcohol only last a bit of second before it changes into vinegar.
Only humans changed variables to prevent alcohol from changing into vinegar.
Hence alcohol is created by intelligent designer MAN.

How come all humans are the spitting image of each other even though man branched from chimps 7 million years ago.
We have many branches of chimps, but only one of humans.
even if humans started 100000 years ago how come there is no change in species in human branch in 100000 years.
supposedly a trait needs only 80 years of constant environmental streeser, non happened on humans.




top topics



 
31
<< 19  20  21    23 >>

log in

join