It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Barcs
You not only dodged my evidence again, you refused to answer the question of why mutations do not add up over time. Nobody ever addresses that point.
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: peter vlar
One chimp? One chimp studied in more detail doesn't make for a good representative group, for a solid scientific study. Links to the actual papers, that can be accessed easily, would be appreciated, though. Always loved genetics. Not an expert, but it's fascinating stuff.
Citations would be hard to come by, because anything that disagrees is considered "creationist" and disregarded by many people.
And, yes, studies done to support evolution are evolutionist studies.
Are you claiming that they did NOT use the human genome as a framework? If they did, as I have read, then that's a problem.
I have known some former Catholics, and heard a bit about that. When you say "recovering", do you mean away from or back to the belief system?
I don't have the article to reference now; it was my dad's, and has been gone for ages now. The article, though, was just a start, and spawned years of reading and research into the entire theory of evolution. It was some time into that before I came across what you would call "creationist" writings. The thing that struck me was that science was assuming a relation between all of those various forms, and calling it the timeline of human development, and yet the actual data presented didn't support that conclusion at all. When science is based on observing and testing and reproducing, and the evidence doesn't add up, it's simply logical to question why. That's what I did.
The point is that there aren't clear changes in morphology. There aren't links between the forms assumed to be related. There is one, then there is another, with no gradual changes.
Evolutionary scientists know this, and admit it's a problem.
I simply take that a step further, and call it a reason to doubt the theory. If it was true, there should be millions of examples of transitional forms, but there aren't. There are "lines" put together of similar forms, with nothing concrete to link them.
The point of the missing link isn't that t he term is old, but that the link is still missing.
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
My position is that any theory that must be supported ad taught based on lies should be discarded.
If there was, in fact, so much good evidence, why all of the fakery?
Strata are dated by the fossils sound in them, and vice versa. Convenient circular reasoning, that.
The other dating methods are error=prone as well.
Unless it's a closed system, you can't know for certain the starting amounts of whatever elements are being measured, or what happened to the sample over time that could have added or removed various amounts of those elements. Claiming that such measurements are valid to determine age is thus incorrect. Even with the measurements accepted, the dating is often proven very wrong.
There are biologists, geologists, anthropologists, and the like that believe creation over evolution as well.
I will willingly admit that creation isn't proven, any more than is evolution. Both are theories.
I don't fault anyone for addressing errors, but I do have problems with people that wont admit deliberate fakery is a problem.
I have seen that more than once. I also take issue when errors are known and yet are repeated in textbooks. Or when a creature like Lucy, known to be a knuckle walker, is displayed as upright.
So please show me where youa re having issues with the part of evolution which is "change through mutation", because THAT is evolution in a simple statement.