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.

 

Evolution is a farce: Evidence

page: 29
27
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 09:59 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackManINC

Oh no, there's no reason to take it on faith. here is a site which will explain to you in detail what scientific investigation has revealed to us about macroevolution. and this comes from berkeley, mind you...

evolution.berkeley.edu...




posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 10:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: BlackManINC

Oh no, there's no reason to take it on faith. here is a site which will explain to you in detail what scientific investigation has revealed to us about macroevolution. and this comes from berkeley, mind you...

evolution.berkeley.edu...


WOW, so as always, they make an observation and conclude "macro-evolution" based on, well absolutely nothing but assumptions about what they believed happened in the past. I asked you to provide an actual pathway or mechanism for macro-evolution of one kind of animal to another to occur, and this link provides nothing but childish fairy tales. Its the same kind of crap I got in my thread I recently posted about the Rosetta mission. Somebody gives me a link from NASA supposedly "proving" that bacteria can survive atmospheric re-entry, but then I read it and its nothing more than a lab test suggesting that it MIGHT survive, not a real experiment in space proving it.
edit on 27-11-2014 by BlackManINC because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 10:19 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackManINC

First, because he argues that there is a difference between "microevolution" and "macroevolution." Second, because he states that "microevolution" occurs. So if "microevolution" occurs he needs to provide proof for his initial premise that "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are two mutually exclusive phenomena. However, considering that you and he have only responded with posts that have nothing to do with my question I'll go ahead and assume that you don't actually have an answer.

So then let me ask another question. Since you can't identify a biological mechanism that prevents small mutations from accruing into larger mutations over time why do you believe that evolution is impossible?



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 10:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: BlackManINC

First, because he argues that there is a difference between "microevolution" and "macroevolution." Second, because he states that "microevolution" occurs. So if "microevolution" occurs he needs to provide proof for his initial premise that "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are two mutually exclusive phenomena. However, considering that you and he have only responded with posts that have nothing to do with my question I'll go ahead and assume that you don't actually have an answer.

So then let me ask another question. Since you can't identify a biological mechanism that prevents small mutations from accruing into larger mutations over time why do you believe that evolution is impossible?


It is purely your assumption that enough small micro-evolutionary changes over time will eventually change the creature into something else altogether. A fantasy in the minds of men, and when challenged with living fossils and four million year old cave dwelling drug resistant bacteria, they do the run around to twist the evidence in favor of the evolutionary faith, and that link from Berkeley university is a shining example of this disingenuous act.



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 10:51 PM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight


But it wasnt even his thread. The poster Technique started it and disappeared like he has in so many multiple threads recently. And then came borntowatch as rearguard action.

Has anyone ever seen them together?



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 10:55 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackManINC


It is purely your assumption that enough small micro-evolutionary changes over time will eventually change the creature into something else altogether.

Let's assume they won't, then. Now, why not?

That's all he's asking.



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 11:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlackManINC

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: BlackManINC

Oh no, there's no reason to take it on faith. here is a site which will explain to you in detail what scientific investigation has revealed to us about macroevolution. and this comes from berkeley, mind you...

evolution.berkeley.edu...


WOW, so as always, they make an observation and conclude "macro-evolution" based on, well absolutely nothing but assumptions about what they believed happened in the past. I asked you to provide an actual pathway or mechanism for macro-evolution of one kind of animal to another to occur, and this link provides nothing but childish fairy tales. Its the same kind of crap I got in my thread I recently posted about the Rosetta mission. Somebody gives me a link from NASA supposedly "proving" that bacteria can survive atmospheric re-entry, but then I read it and its nothing more than a lab test suggesting that it MIGHT survive, not a real experiment in space proving it.


Theory based on patterns derived from evidence available to anyone competent with google. as opposed to your rock solid evidence of...what? Seriously, what intellectually superior theory are you sitting on and how is your evidence for that theory more compelling than what evolutionary theory has to offer. I'm prepared to be blown away by your secret superior solution. i mean, it has to be secret or evolution would be obsolete by now. so lets see it. if we are all wrong and you are right, please, let us suffer not another minute in ignorance.
edit on 27-11-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 03:08 AM
link   


We understand the theory of evolution to be a series of conclusions drawn from over a century of research, predictions, and discoveries. This theory allows us to understand the mechanisms in biology and make further predictions about the sort of evidence we will uncover in the future. Its predictive power is vital to success in real-life applications like medicine, genetic engineering, and agriculture.

However, creationists don't see it the same way. Creationists artificially classify medicine, genetic research, and agriculture as "operational science," and believe that those disciplines function in a different way than research in evolutionary biology. They understand the theory of evolution, along with mainstream geology and a variety of other disciplines, as a philosophical construct created for the express purpose of explaining life on Earth apart from divine intervention. Thus, they approach the concept of evolution from a defensive position; they believe it represents an attack on all religious faith.

This defensive posture is reflected in nearly all creationist literature, even in the less overt varieties such as intelligent-design creationism. It dictates responses. When creationists see a particular argument or explanation about evolution, their initial reaction is to ask, "How does this attack the truth of God as Creator? What philosophical presuppositions are dictating beliefs here? How can I challenge those underlying assumptions and thus demonstrate the truth?" Recognizing this basis for creationist arguments is a helpful tool for understanding why such otherwise baffling arguments are proposed.

In reality, we understand that although various philosophical implications may be constructed around evolution, it is not driven by any atheistic philosophy. The fundamental principle undergirding the theory of evolution is the same as the fundamental principle behind all science: that hypotheses can be tested....But creationists instead insist that evolution arises out of explicitly atheistic axioms….

Creationists accept certain aspects of variation, adaptation, and speciation, but they artificially constrain the mechanism for adaptation to produce an imagined barrier between "microevolution" and "macroevolution"… They conceptualize evolutionary adaptation as a series of individual changes, missing the entire mechanism provided by the population as a whole … They make the extraordinary claim that no transitional fossils exist, simply by redefining "transitional" into something that could not possibly exist… Creationists attempt to rewrite the last two centuries of scientific progress in order to avoid dealing with the multiple lines of evidence all independently affirming common descent and deep time… They have far-reaching misapprehensions concerning microbiology and DNA …. On top of all this, they assign ethical and moral failings to evolutionary science in order to make evolution seem dangerous and anti-religion….


Source

Macroevolution ?
You are welcome.



posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 03:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: borntowatch

its that you openly criticized a solidly established field of scientific study and thereby insult the intelligence of thousands of esteemed researchers spanning both the globe and the decades,


If I take all the rhetoric and emotion from your post, that snippet is all I get to work on

Let me explain that you have nothing, if it was solidly established this conversation would be over.
Gravity states things drop. I see things drop
Evolution states things evolve, where is the proof

Why do I read the words like think, Ideas, maybes and believed in science journals in relation to a scientific fact.

I could say more but I would be accused of preaching



posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 06:24 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

I never said the answer was solidly established. the STUDY is. and i will submit to you the same question i submitted to blackmaninc. what intellectually superior theory are you sitting on and how is your evidence for that theory more compelling than what evolutionary theory has to offer. If you are going to make us look like idiots, do it already. amaze us.

And one more thing: perhaps if you had a lifespan of 200 millon years and nothing to do but chase down abd observe the entire family tree of a select species for that whole time, you might observe evolution if you knew what to look for. then again, you have never personally observed the birth of a star or a black hole so i guess those are lies too.

further edit: "Let me explain that you have nothing, if it was solidly established this conversation would be over."

Oh, i sincerely doubt that. Otherwise that berkeley site would have been the perfect spring board. closing your eyes to science doesnt mean science suddenly stops working. you're not that good lol


edit on 28-11-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)


edit on 28-11-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-11-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 07:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch
a reply to: borntowatch

Gravity states things drop. I see things drop
Evolution states things evolve, where is the proof



Maybe if Gravity took longer than written record for things to finaly hit the floor, we all would be discussing how Gravity does not exsist?

I'm sure someone must have sent you a few links and evidence of fossil record that has found that over millions of years that skeletal structure had changed in many species and eventually had changed to the point the creature is nearly completely impossible to match to the very first find. Yet line up all the fossils in chronilogical order and you see the transitioning. Much like a fetus in the womb. The begining and end results are completely different.

I understand you want irefutable proof. Don't we all? If there was all the proof needed for anything we wouldn't still be searching. IMO it is part of our own evolution to an extent. If you break down the past 200 years of Human history and continue multiplying how we have changed from 1814 to 2014 then continue that rate to lets say 12014. Yes Twelve Thousand and fourteen AD. Surely you would entertain the notion that all the mixing of race and changes that can hapen over that amount of time would make us nearly unrecognisable to our futre lineage?



posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 07:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

Let me explain that you have nothing, if it was solidly established this conversation would be over.



Haha you think your acceptance of a scientific theory determines whether or not it's solidly established......?

You're fighting a losing battle, you're on the wrong side of history and folk such as yourself will be deemed the real dinosaurs as time rolls over you.



posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 08:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

The mechanisms given that is called micro evolution never adds any new information to the gene pool that would lead to new organisms no matter how many millions of years of time you give it. Its either a reshuffling of existing genetic information or, in most cases a loss of information. So you are free to believe, by the falsehood of inductive reasoning, in the fairy tale that these mechanisms will lead to anything new, of an ape or a frog turning into a human if you wish, just don't insult my intelligence by calling this a scientific fact.
edit on 28-11-2014 by BlackManINC because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 08:12 AM
link   



posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

when you move the goal posts around, it's real easy to think you're always winning....

difference between gravity and evolution is that it's called the LAW of gravity, because it has been proven, indisputably, that what we call gravity is an actual, proven, real thing....you drop something, it falls...what goes up, must eventually come down.

evolution is, however, only a theory.....a very through, well-researched, very plausible theory....but still just a theory, none the less...

you do understand what the difference in science is between a "law", and a "theory", right?



posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: BlackManINC

There are a number of mutations that "add information." Just on a basic level you've got small scale insertions and large scale duplications. I don't know where people get off claiming there's no way to add information to DNA when you learn about these types of mutations in grade school.



posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 10:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: borntowatch

when you move the goal posts around, it's real easy to think you're always winning....

difference between gravity and evolution is that it's called the LAW of gravity, because it has been proven, indisputably, that what we call gravity is an actual, proven, real thing....you drop something, it falls...what goes up, must eventually come down.

evolution is, however, only a theory.....a very through, well-researched, very plausible theory....but still just a theory, none the less...

you do understand what the difference in science is between a "law", and a "theory", right?


Well there's Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation aswell as Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.

The latter allows us to calculate a mass's gravitational pull whereas the former attempts to explain why it happens.

And 'just a theory'?........that's usually something only creationists say.
edit on 28-11-2014 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369

read my posts...do i LOOK like a bloody creationist to you?

i deal in facts, and reality...evolution is a theory...that's a fact.

it's also a fact that it's far more plausible than the biblical fairy tale of "creation".



posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: Prezbo369

read my posts...do i LOOK like a bloody creationist to you?

i deal in facts, and reality...evolution is a theory...that's a fact.

it's also a fact that it's far more plausible than the biblical fairy tale of "creation".


you said ONLY a theory like its not even the best theory available. but thanks for clarifying.



posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

Cool, and you also have bacteria that steals genetic information from dead bacteria. Is this in any way an indication that an addition was made by Darwinian means leading to some upward process of evolution from common descent? NO. Is the plant becoming anything more than a plant? NO. This is just another shining example of the evolutionist twisting the evidence to fit into the faith.




top topics



 
27
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join