It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What is the evidence for evolution?

page: 7
12
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: AvoidBadCompany
What caused evoloution?


Don't you mean what causes evolution?

Genetic mutation and natural selection.

Unless this is some non sequitur to try and crowbar in the long-debunked "first cause" fallacy?




posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: AvoidBadCompany

Could you provide evidence for this beyond scripture and the like? I'm a non CHristian as is the majority of mankind, and as such I doubt that statement. Oh and as I've pointed out else where, I am a non Abrahamic spiritualist



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

I believe that the latter is what was being asked. Its a neat (ie face saving) 'ok so I can't argue against evolution but I can impose my faith on what causes it' kinda thing. Its then going to be "oh ok well that's god too". Which is unprovable.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

And when the obvious question of "what caused god, then?" comes up, the arguer inevitabley exempts their personal god from the very premises they claim makes their argument valid.
edit on 13-11-2014 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

a closed model of the evolutionary process is the only thing that will provide legitimacy to your theory. with only analytical techniques where evolutionary analysis is 'More Art than Science', Evolution is just that...not Science.

when I push the power button on my television, or radio, or launch an ICBM at an enemy Capital or start my car...guess what happens 99% of the time. that is Science. 1% is for the malfunctions.

if the Theory of Evolution cannot be applied systematically upon all biological systems in every condition, without regard to if its a primordial soup or the African Savannah on our planet and any other planet that may contain life in the Universe ...it is not Science.

but you are free to continue to believe it is...but I won't be going on that adventure.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: michaelbrux

There is literally no connection between any of the points you make. Not only that, but they don't even make sense on their own, let alone as a whole.

What exactly is the argument you're trying to make here?



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 03:04 PM
link   
besides....an underlying premise of the Theory of Evolution is that the Y chromosome, Male, is a mutation of the X chromosome.

please understand my distaste for that Atrocity.


edit on 13-11-2014 by michaelbrux because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: michaelbrux

News just in: creationist attacking evolution demonstrates yet another fundamental misunderstanding of the phenomenon. More at 6!



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: michaelbrux

Mate, don't try ths route. You clearly don't understand, we are in the real world, its not a closed model, and I best not see the words "violates the second law of thermodynamics" be typed either. "Closed models" are not accurate. Anyone with a Physics education or Physical chemistry one will know that. I am talking high school physics here too. Not University, though it becomes amply visible when you try to do any measurements on real systems that those "neat models" are not going to go very well anymore.

I return to the fact, you are in no place to argue this. You've ignored and misconstrued every single bit of evidence placed on the table here.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: GetHyped

I believe that the latter is what was being asked. Its a neat (ie face saving) 'ok so I can't argue against evolution but I can impose my faith on what causes it' kinda thing. Its then going to be "oh ok well that's god too". Which is unprovable.



Here's the thing with evolution. It's so haphazard that it is very unlikely that it is intelligently directed. Why do humans still have wisdom teeth? If a god or gods were directing evolution, wouldn't he or they evolve us away from wisdom teeth as we started cooking foods to make them more easy to break up in our mouths? Instead they have just become vestigial objects in our mouths that often end up with problems in our mid-twenties and have to be surgically removed.

Also, keep in mind, whenever humans take over evolutionary direction, we speed it up quite considerably. As can be seen in selective breeding of dogs, cats, horses, bananas, etc. So humans are better at directing evolution than god is?



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: michaelbrux

I am with GetHyped you don't make any sense. Did they break your mind or something? It certainly seems like it. You are all over the place talking about things that have nothing in common.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: michaelbrux

Bwhaa no its not. THe Y-Chromosome happens to contain all the genes that make a male a male. Previously (and in many species) those genes just happened to occur on non differentiated chromosomes. There is plenty of evidence for this, including functional male humans sans a Y-Chromosome. The genes have just become imbedded in another Chromosome (usually the X). The Chromosome is the house to the genes, not the cause of maleness.

I'd also like to point out that your "evidence" you just threw out in no way invalidates evolution, but rather shows you should not play in the field of evolution, or genetics.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No argument here. But my faith does not require me to to think there is an over deity that 'controls every thing'. Mind you I am a hard polytheist, and we tend to be less OCD about such.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Yes, I assumed you would agree. Though it looks like you may subscribe to some form of the god of the gaps argument. While we cannot ever disprove such a claim, there is no point where you can prove it either. Until science and spirituality align that is.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

So you dismiss the Shumann resonance having any effect on the way nature takes form? Have you ever seen a cymatics video? The TedX video below might deny what you are saying. I have shown you the truth.

It is the pattern of life down to the very atoms Adam is Created with.

Hebrews 11

11 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for.

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.




edit on 13-11-2014 by AlephBet because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlephBet
a reply to: Barcs

So you dismiss the Shumann resonance having any effect on the way nature takes form? Have you ever seen a cymatics video? The TedX video below might deny what you are saying. I have shown you the truth.



i have already posted a diagram of involution on page 3 of this thread. and it has nothing to do with cymatics. it is a mathematical function and an esoteric concept, not a biological process. your application of involution is as useless as the scripture that came with it.
edit on 13-11-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I am a neopagan Druid. My deities are not quite like what Abrahamic followers say a deity is. For example there is no cosmology for creation. My faith is just that MY faith. I don't force it on others (though those who try to do so to me discover not all Pagans are pacifists, I am certainly not that
)



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

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: michaelbrux

Mate, don't try ths route. You clearly don't understand, we are in the real world, its not a closed model, and I best not see the words "violates the second law of thermodynamics" be typed either. "Closed models" are not accurate. Anyone with a Physics education or Physical chemistry one will know that. I am talking high school physics here too. Not University, though it becomes amply visible when you try to do any measurements on real systems that those "neat models" are not going to go very well anymore.

I return to the fact, you are in no place to argue this. You've ignored and misconstrued every single bit of evidence placed on the table here.



I think i'm going to go ahead and try this route.

we are talking about the evolutionary process...Model it...you say it exists...draw us all a picture of what it looks like...even a dimwit like myself can appreciate a pretty picture.

i'll even say...it doesn't have to be closed...use arrows that direct me to a sub-process you haven't reconciled into the macro process.

even a high school educated options trader can model complex derivatives portfolios and turn a profit for himself.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

if more than one person says so it must be true.

i'm just waiting for my closed model of the evolutionary process.

and for good measure...show me where you proved that it is correct. since you decided to chime in.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: michaelbrux

You can model all you like, but you don't understand the processes involved. Your genetics understanding has been shown to be lacking. I'm not going to break out R to helo your modelling, either



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join