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: 52
27
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 10:01 PM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72

Here's what Darwin said about the complexity of the eye:

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."

However it's often used out of context. He went on to say:

"Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound."

And he continues on about the eye for some time. In this chapter.
Use the Ctrl-F (or Mac equivalent) to search the text for "Organs of extreme perfection and complication." and you'll find where the eye is discussed.

Is the eye too complex to have evolved?

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution


edit on 12-3-2014 by WakeUpBeer because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 10:07 PM
link   
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Creationists using things out of context?!!??? Say its not so!!!!



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Watched this the other day explaining the evolution of the eye.





Interesting stuff.



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 10:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Over the past few years I have seen this stated a number of times by various professors and it really highlights the degree of conjecture amongst people who work in the field. I have only managed to find this as I don't think it is productive for me to spend the rest of my day researching this further.



Dr John Ross of Harvard University states:

… there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. … There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.
The source is: Chemical and Engineering News, 7 July 1980, p. 40;

Since the universe is a closed system, entropy will continually increase,and consequently, the disorder in our universe will be on an uphill run. How does evolution answer this? Do we have to change the law of entropy? Or is the Theory of Evolution flawed?


Please view this in context to my other points and bear in mind that I could come up with a dozen objections based on common sense. However as previously stated in numerous threads nobody wants to think for themselves, it is always the case of "my dad is bigger than yours".



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 10:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: kennyb72

Oh wow, yeah one academic says that (whats his speciality, please cite your exact source for that quote). Because those words in no way shape or form can be applied to evolution, with out explicitly stating it as such.

curious.astro.cornell.edu...

viz

"However, evolution does not take place in a closed system, but rather requires the existence of outside forces - i.e., natural selection. The idea is that there can be some environmental effect that makes organisms with a particular mutation (one that makes them more "complex") more likely to survive and pass their genes on to the next generation. Thus, as generations go by, the gene pool of the species can get more and more complex, but notice that this can only occur if the gene pool interacts with the outside world. It is through the course of that interaction that some other form of entropy (or disorder) will be generated that increases the entropy of the universe as a whole."



The quote from Dr. Ross was taken completely out of context. For the record, he's a professor of linguistics who studied under Noam Chomsky as his PhD advisor and the quote comes from 'Chemical and Engineering News, 7 July 1980, p. 40' and was in response to a question about whether or not the singularity from "The Big Bang" violated the 2nd law of TD. It had nothing at all to do with evolutionary theory.


ETA- never mind, it appears Kenny corrected the matter already.
edit on 3-12-2014 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 10:38 PM
link   
a reply to: WakeUpBeer




How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated;


Nice research WakeUPBeer, but I don't think it invalidates my statement, do these sound like the words of a confident man. Add this the addition of some critical thinking you could ask yourself why all land based biological creatures don't have perfect eyesight, after all who couldn't use perfect vision as it enables all creatures to be more efficient. As we know, this isn't the case as the number of cones and rods vary amongst different species.

I thew the quote in because this question, the most crucial question has not been satisfactorily answered.



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 10:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: kennyb72
Nice research WakeUPBeer, but I don't think it invalidates my statement, do these sound like the words of a confident man.


Well thank god (take your pick) the study of evolutionary processes has come a long way since Darwin. Indeed who couldn't use perfect vision? So much for an intelligent designer. But I jest. Really I don't understand why you are surprised no creatures have perfect eyesight. Is it your contention that if the eye evolved, they should? Could you elaborate a little more please?

ETA: The thread is about evolution not the origins of life.
edit on 12-3-2014 by WakeUpBeer because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 11:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer

originally posted by: kennyb72
Nice research WakeUPBeer, but I don't think it invalidates my statement, do these sound like the words of a confident man.


Well thank god (take your pick) the study of evolutionary processes has come a long way since Darwin. Indeed who couldn't use perfect vision? So much for an intelligent designer. But I jest. Really I don't understand why you are surprised no creatures have perfect eyesight. Is it your contention that if the eye evolved, they should? Could you elaborate a little more please?

ETA: The thread is about evolution not the origins of life.


And how has evolution studies come on since Darwin, surely you don't mean the fossil record because that tells us very little. The prediction not so long ago was that a missing link would be found, so desperate where these honest scientists that they falsified the record, That wouldn't be the first or last time in various fields of science.

The incremental ever morphing theory of evolution does not hold water without evidence and so evolution theory has not come very far since Darwin at all.

I am not a creationist I believe in intelligent design, I don't believe life started five thousand years ago in fact I believe our species started several billion years ago and was formed basically in tact with an evolutionary system built into our genes, however it is a micro system not a macro system. If you want to understand this then please follow the links in my previous post and I will catch up with you in a year or so to continue the discussion.

"The thread is about evolution not the origins of life." It may be convenient for evolution proponents to see this in isolation but shear logic would suggest they are inextricably inseparable.
edit on 3-12-2014 by kennyb72 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-12-2014 by kennyb72 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 11:11 PM
link   
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Evolution used to include the origin of life until it all fell apart with the numerous miller urey experiments, and henceforth disconnected itself from the big bang in the process, a theory with numerous holes in it itself, holes so big that I don`t even care to address.


edit on 3-12-2014 by BlackManINC because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 11:15 PM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72

We will just have to agree to disagree. The things you bring up have been brought up, and addressed multiple times, since the beginning of this thread. I really don't feel like repeating what other, more articulate posters have covered.


edit on 12-3-2014 by WakeUpBeer because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackManINC

No problem man.

When have you actually addressed anything anyway?



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 11:20 PM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72

In the minds of most evolutionists, the origin of life is a seperate issue. The few that still preach abiogenesis AKA chemical evolution are just throwing the problem into outer space about it all starting with aliens and floating rocks. The level of stupidity will reach its peak pretty soon.



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 11:22 PM
link   
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

It is a circular argument because I am using this example to suggest that if in fact evolution was responsible for creating the eye then why would it do so selectively. Why did evolution favour humans over dogs, or birds over humans for that matter.

Why are we not all super animals with every faculty at it's pinnacle of perfection, why don't humans live to be a thousand years of age, screw evolution, we got a raw deal. Unless something else decided the order of things of course.



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 11:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Barcs
You really can't see it, can you Barcs?
I have already said that what you have described may have very well happened. The point I have been making is that you have to take it on faith. It may sound good, it may fit your criteria but you still have to take it on faith.
You are accusing me of things that I have not done in this thread or others. I have always tried to answer your questions and if I have had to leave then it has nothing to do with the questions I assure you.

You just dodged the question again, and repeated the original argument again. Nothing about the mutations, nothing about the science. You didn't answer a single point I made. You just repeated that it takes faith to believe that 1+1 will always = 2. You offer no explanation whatsoever. I'm not saying that it very might well have happened. I'm saying it did because we can measure mutations and the math adds up. If you do not wish to accept this fact, that is on you, not us. It's simple fact that after 3 billion generations that most of the genetic code will have mutated at one point or another. You have no right to parrot around strawman definitions of evolution that require a separate mechanism to do the same thing on the long term that it does in the short term.



Yes Barcs, as a matter of fact I do take it on faith that in 1000 years the earth would have traveled around the sun 1000 times. It is a faith based question. You have faith that the earth and/or the sun will be here in 1000 years. This is not a fact and neither is macroevolution.


So you think macro revolution is not proven? That in 1000 years without any natural disasters or outside interference the earth will not have revolved around the sun 1000 times? I didn't ask if you thought the earth would survive 1000 years. I asked if given its current course, the course would continue in the same direction. But a better analogy is a pile of rocks. If you add 10 rocks to a pile every year, in 100,000 years, you'll have a mountain or very large hill. It's not rocket science. There is no mechanism that makes the rock pile turn into a hill. I forget who used that analogy but it was far better than mine.



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 11:27 PM
link   
a reply to: WakeUpBeer



We will just have to agree to disagree. The things you bring up have been brought up, and addressed multiple times, since the beginning of this thread. I really don't feel like repeating what other, more articulate posters have covered.


That really is a shame because nobody has provided anything close to an acceptable response and again I really like to here others personal views rather than the same old regurgitation,

A pleasant exchange nevertheless thank you.



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 11:30 PM
link   
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

I`ve addressed almost every piece of so called evidence for common descent since I started pages ago and ripped them all to shreds. Quite frankly, I`ve grown tired of this eternal cycle of circular arguments coming from the ape men, I`m finished addressing this foolishness.



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 11:43 PM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72

Well I have no new ideas of my own in regards to evolution or origins, if that's what you're looking for. As far as evolution goes my opinion is that you don't entirely understand it, or just disagree. Maybe that's why a lot seems like the "same old regurgitation" to you. My opinion on origins goes no further than, I don't know. I am an atheist and see no evidence that would suggest intelligent design. I won't rule that out entirely and if it was shown to be the case my next set of questions would be in regards to where that intelligent designer came from. Then I'd be more or less where I started in the first place.

Pondering origins!
edit on 12-3-2014 by WakeUpBeer because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 12:23 AM
link   
a reply to: WakeUpBeer



Well I have no new ideas of my own in regards to evolution or origins, if that's what you're looking for. As far as evolution goes my opinion is that you don't entirely understand it, or just disagree. Maybe that's why a lot seems like the "same old regurgitation" to you. My opinion on origins goes no further than, I don't know. I am an atheist and see no evidence that would suggest intelligent design. I won't rule that out entirely and if it was shown to be the case my next set of questions would be in regards to where that intelligent designer came from. Then I'd be more or less where I started in the first place.
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

It is the origin of life that our controllers need to muddy up so that we are not aware. We are all immortal beings and that as humans we have already come a very long way from the moment we acquired our current level of consciousness.

Just as religion tries to control us, other energies are working to retard our progress. They work through every level of our society including science to make us believe we have no rights other than those permitted by the state. You could probably trace the whole movement back to the Fabians of the mid to late 19th century.

All life is a unity, you have probably heard that before through New age cults, but it's origins come from the early Vedic records, The Chaldean Kabbalist early Gnostics, Egyptians and Greeks records and passed on through the secret societies. We are all a part of that unity experiencing a period of individual consciousness evolution. This is the real evolution, the knowledge of which is being kept from us.The source of the matter that makes up the unity is eternal as are we the moment we manifested into the physical world on our incredible journey.

All you physicalist will know one day, hopefully later rather than sooner but your are all my brothers and sisters and God for want of a better word is every single atom, subatomic particle and monad of our universe.

edit on 4-12-2014 by kennyb72 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 12:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: kennyb72
And how has evolution studies come on since Darwin, surely you don't mean the fossil record because that tells us very little.


While I would disagree with you on the importance of the fossil record,in an over generalized way, (meaning that in my opinion it gives us a great deal of insight whereas you seem top scoff at it) it is certainly true that it can only show us part of the picture and sometimes not a big one at that due to the sparseness of finds and the vast amount of Earth there is to look for them compounded with the very specific conditions required for preservation and fossilization to occur. However, as a result of vast technological leaps and bounds in just the last 20 years it gives us a great starting point/ jumping off point for other types of research. Particularly in regards to genomics. One really good example that is only a few years old is the newest member of the hominid family tree, Denisovans. Were it not for the drastically increased sensitivity of genetic testing at our disposal we would still be oblivious to their existence. Because of the extremely finite nature of samples located thus far, they would have been boxed away and labeled as Neanderthal remains as the fragments were found in a site that had contemporary remains from HSN as well as HSS. In addition to discovering hard evidence of Denisovans which gives us a better look at hominid dispersal into Europe and Asia going back nearly 2 million years when H. Erectus first left Africa, we also were able to discern from the sequences that there is still an as yet unknown Hominid and very likely will be eventually found in N. Africa or the M.E.

Heck, just look at what we knew about the Hominid/hominin family tree in 1859 when Darwin first published his nasty little book compared with what we know today. In 1859 we knew about Us and we knew about HSN and very little was known about HSN. We now have a pretty clear picture of each hominid going back over 5 million years to Ardipithecus Ramdi and a scattered view going back even earlier nearly to the point of genetic divergence from Chimpanzee and Bonobo. We know that evolution, at least hominid evolution, is not necessarily about increasing complexity or even about a more fit morphology and is instead tied more to our ability to think. If that were not the case, we would still see Homo Erectus running marathons as they were far better suited to bipedal walking than we currently are and we would likely have been absorbed into the European Neanderthal population instead of the other way around because lets face it... physically, they were superior to us in every way...except their ability to adapt to a wide array of environments.


The prediction not so long ago was that a missing link would be found, so desperate where these honest scientists that they falsified the record, That wouldn't be the first or last time in various fields of science.

Not so long ago is a matter of perspective wouldn't you say? We're talking pre WW2 when the "missing link" was still the soup du jour. And since then we've made a ton of huge finds(and let me clarify that I'm approaching my comments from an Anthropological perspective e.g. hominid evolution) that, as I mentioned above, give us a very clear picture of hominid/hominin history of the last 5+ million years. From Habilis to Ergaster, to Erectus,Antecessor to Heidelbergensis to Neanderthal and Denisovan... to a really important find at Dmansi Georgia of Erectus remains that are as old or possibly older than the oldest Erectus remains ever found in Africa. And Georgicus is a pretty big deal because, contrary to what most people think, Anthropologists don't think they've got it all figured out and we actually thrive on finds that throw a wrench into things and that's exactly what this H. Georgicus find does. It shows us that Erectus may actually have evolved in Europe and then migrated into Africa and not the other way around as it's been thought for roughly 90 years. I lieu of the Georgicus find as well as the Denisova discovery and the revelation of a mysterious as yet unknown but closely related hominid it's going to take a hell of a lot to convince me of your statement indicating that Anthropologists and/or evolutionary Biologists are falsifying records. Do you have anything of that nature that would compel me to rethink everything I know and have studied for over 2 decades? Because believe it or not, I'm not just blindly following whats popular in my field, I follow the evidence and the data to wherever its inevitable conclusion lies.

I am not a creationist I believe in intelligent design, I don't believe life started five thousand years ago in fact I believe our species started several billion years ago and was formed basically in tact with an evolutionary system built into our genes, however it is a micro system not a macro system. If you want to understand this then please follow the links in my previous post and I will catch up with you in a year or so to continue the discussion.

And that's all fine and good. We should be able to have more rational and adult level dialogues if that's the case. From my perspective, god or gods play no roll whatsoever in how I approach science. I was a die hard Irish Catholic, altar boy and 6 day per week attender of mass when I started studying Anthropology. It played no part in how I looked at the evidence then and how I view the church or religion today, likewise, still no roll in my approach. The 2 concepts are not mutually exclusive to one another. What is important to me is can the hypothesis or theory be supported with cold hard facts. And evolution on this 3rd rock from Sol existing from day 1 on the macro scale is fully supported by everything I've read, seen and studied.

"The thread is about evolution not the origins of life." It may be convenient for evolution proponents to see this in isolation but shear logic would suggest they are inextricably inseparable.


not at all. hypothesis like abiogenesis and panspermia are about chemical processes and studied by molecular biochemists and people of their ilk. Paleontologists study the zoological aspects e.g. Dinosaurs, megafauna etc... and Anthropologists study the human aspects of evolutionary history. it's a lot of ground to cover and impossible to all be included under one massive umbrella. There simply needs to be that massive depth of separation between the various disciplines or nobody would ever finish any graduate level degrees! Perhaps I'm way off, but the impression I get from the vast majority of folks who insist that its all part of one area of study is that they truly don't grasp the scope of what theyre inferring or that it simply looks easier for them to feel that its all rubbish and junk science and that because there isn't a clear answer to how it all started that those studying evolution are trying whatever we can to distance ourselves from it. It really isn't the case. I've been studying Anthropology as a whole for nearly 30 years and Neanderthal in particular for well over 20 and I'm always learning something new and I always look forward to being wrong about something because its all about learning the truth. It's not about being right or my precious ego.



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 01:18 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar



not at all. hypothesis like abiogenesis and panspermia are about chemical processes and studied by molecular biochemists and people of their ilk. Paleontologists study the zoological aspects e.g. Dinosaurs, megafauna etc... and Anthropologists study the human aspects of evolutionary history. it's a lot of ground to cover and impossible to all be included under one massive umbrella. There simply needs to be that massive depth of separation between the various disciplines or nobody would ever finish any graduate level degrees! Perhaps I'm way off, but the impression I get from the vast majority of folks who insist that its all part of one area of study is that they truly don't grasp the scope of what theyre inferring or that it simply looks easier for them to feel that its all rubbish and junk science and that because there isn't a clear answer to how it all started that those studying evolution are trying whatever we can to distance ourselves from it. It really isn't the case. I've been studying Anthropology as a whole for nearly 30 years and Neanderthal in particular for well over 20 and I'm always learning something new and I always look forward to being wrong about something because its all about learning the truth. It's not about being right or my precious ego.


Thank you so much for that, it is really what I have been waiting for,an intelligent friendly post.

Let me explain my viewpoint in light of this paragraph. Firstly I have every respect for the work that goes into sorting out the various iterations of life that preceded the modern age, and I totally understand the vastness of the work you are performing. To find anything after 10s of thousands of years that meet the criteria to be included as evidence to support one lineage or another must be exacting, exciting and heartbreaking.

You have stated in this paragraph that the way that science is divided into various disciplines and the enormity of the task of crystallising it all into one big picture precludes, at this point in time, a sort of unified theory of life on Earth. What I get out of this is a question of scope and compartmentalisation.

The rest of us however don't need to worry about all of those problems, we simply have to ask the questions, where does life come from? when did it start? and what continues to animate it? I could go further with, What is it's purpose? which of course then becomes a philosophical question.

If the answer to any of these questions is not zero, then you would next have to ask "why have evolution at all" If life could just be planted here. An advanced civilisation could have seeded Earth, or my belief resolved,manifest,crystallised into being, guided by an intelligence not from another planet but from an inner space, another dimension within our space. The same space from where our consciousness resides and returns and even deeper dimensions where beings with consciousness expanded to an incredible level of intelligence, an intelligence that test biological lifeforms perfecting and adjusting and even building in a degree of adaptation to future proof it's models, And these beings are perfecting biological life forms for our consciousness to inhabit, our destiny is to expand our consciousness, to not have to live in this dimension after a certain time and join this intelligence. This is Hylozoics as explained by Pythagorus.

This has always been my contention throughout this thread that until we can understand consciousness and where it resides, we have no data to create any scientific models or make any judgments other than work with what we have got. Which given time could turn out to be completely wrong. The study of consciousness should be sciences first priority because it is the key to everything.
edit on 4-12-2014 by kennyb72 because: punctuation




top topics



 
27
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join