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.

 

A Question That Evolutionist Couldn't Answer

page: 6
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 10:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: TechUnique
People hate the idea of God. It's quite sad really, especially considering that a lot of Atheists see the real possible for there being a God, they just hate the idea of what that God represents in their eyes.



Nobody hates god. People hate the behavior of others done in the name of god.

What evidence do you have that anyone "hates god"?




posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 10:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: TechUnique

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: TechUnique

No it hasn't...
You just stopped saying it and switched to saying macro.


By Evolution I mean just that, what you guys call 'Micro evolution' I call adaption. But keep arguing your point by all means. I should have been clearer about what I meant, evidently.
If you're willing to believe in adaptation, why is it such a stretch of your imagination to envision adaptations continually occurring over vast periods of time? Why is it beyond your belief to see that a fish-like creature could eventually adapt to muddy river banks, and the resulting mudskipper creature could eventually adapt full-blown legs to use in its new environment, and the resulting amphibian creature could eventually forego the water altogether, and the resulting lizard creature could eventually become dinosaurs etc. etc. etc.?

Each of those eventually's, by the way, encompass millions of years of minor changes.

The "proof" you seek is something you already believe in: creatures can change. If you believe a creature CAN change, then given enough time and generations those changes can add up to a creature almost unrecognizable as related to the origin.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 10:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: AngryAtTheBlindBelief
a reply to: Elton

Based on what you have posted, the E-Coli, after 60000 generations, are still E-Coli, Meaning absolutely zero *macro* evolution has been seen.


The original post which I was responding to said nothing of macro or micro evolution...



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 10:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

8 Examples of Evolution in Action

Did you actually read this article before posting it??
What an absolute load of bull. If an 8 year old that just learned about evolution and didn't understand exactly what it was showed me those examples, I would be happy and then explain the difference between adapting to a situation and turning a cat into a dog.

That article is laughable. The moth example... when you have 2 creatures. One black and one white, against a black background, the white ones get eaten and disappears because it stands out. Now their are mostly black ones.

The logical thought is that the black ones continued to mate as always, and created black colored offspring. Not that evolution kicked in and the white ones changed their clothing.

Italian wall lizards. They changed their food due to lack of options?? That's evolution??

Not a single example of an actual evolutionary process. Just adaptation, or in the case of the moths, die off.

Rediculous.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Before anyone can comment in this thread, if you don't at least have a basic understanding of the concepts on this website, you are not qualified to discuss this topic:

Evolution 101


This is the point that so many of us are trying to make on the micro vs macro evolution fallacy:




Also, our evolutionary family tree is not as simple as "monkey to human":




posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 10:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: AngryAtTheBlindBelief
a reply to: Grimpachi

8 Examples of Evolution in Action

Did you actually read this article before posting it??
What an absolute load of bull. If an 8 year old that just learned about evolution and didn't understand exactly what it was showed me those examples, I would be happy and then explain the difference between adapting to a situation and turning a cat into a dog.

That article is laughable. The moth example... when you have 2 creatures. One black and one white, against a black background, the white ones get eaten and disappears because it stands out. Now their are mostly black ones.

The logical thought is that the black ones continued to mate as always, and created black colored offspring. Not that evolution kicked in and the white ones changed their clothing.

Italian wall lizards. They changed their food due to lack of options?? That's evolution??

Not a single example of an actual evolutionary process. Just adaptation, or in the case of the moths, die off.

Rediculous.


This is where your misunderstanding of the TOE shows through.

Please see my post above clarifying adaptation vs mutation. You are using the word "adaptation" which you seem to think means intentional adaptation.

Evolution didn't wave a magic wand and turn the moths black. The black moths had a genetic mutation which caused their color. Because that mutation enhanced their survival, their dark color eventually became the dominant trait among that species. On the surface, that is "adaptation." It did not occur by some choice or by some magic. It occurred through natural selection of that particular genetic mutation. THAT is evolution.

The TOE does not say that a cat turned into a dog. That is a straw man argument and should never be used in an intellectually honest debate.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 10:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: AngryAtTheBlindBelief
What an absolute load of bull. If an 8 year old that just learned about evolution and didn't understand exactly what it was showed me those examples, I would be happy and then explain the difference between adapting to a situation and turning a cat into a dog.
"A cat turning into a dog" is not what evolution means.




That article is laughable. The moth example... when you have 2 creatures. One black and one white, against a black background, the white ones get eaten and disappears because it stands out. Now their are mostly black ones.

The logical thought is that the black ones continued to mate as always, and created black colored offspring. Not that evolution kicked in and the white ones changed their clothing.



This is exactly how evolution works. Hence the term "natural selection." Evolution has NEVER STATED that the white ones turn into black ones. It states that, in this particular case, in a population of white and black moths, the white ones died out due to an unsuccessful genetic trait. Now instead of a population of white and black moths, there is only a population of black moths.



Italian wall lizards. They changed their food due to lack of options?? That's evolution??

Not a single example of an actual evolutionary process. Just adaptation, or in the case of the moths, die off.

Rediculous.


Again, this is EXACTLY what evolution is. What these are NOT examples of, is how creationists like to PRETEND evolution works.
edit on 8-2-2015 by AshOnMyTomatoes because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 10:20 PM
link   
I see this is one of those threads where the OP starts getting it handed to them they go back and edit to make it seem like everyone with a different opinion has no idea what they are talking about.

HA!
I read it before the editing! you discredited yourself and now nobody could take you seriously.
I hope everyone that reads this in the future knows you are dishonest.
so, um. yeah, have a nice day



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 10:23 PM
link   
a reply to: AngryAtTheBlindBelief

I'm sorry you never learned about TOE it is truly sad however I don't have the time to educate you against your will. I am sure there are those here that will be glad to illuminate you on the basics as they have done time after time and thread after thread with people who have no intention in learning.

If your understanding of evolution is a cat turning into a dog then you will be one difficult student because the knowledge on the subject would be hindering actual learning instead of helping it.


At times I have wished evolution wasn't true because I could get one flu shot and never have to worry about it again but unfortunately even viruses evolve.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer

That hasn't proven anything. I could have proposed all of that myself if I was to give an example counter argument. I appreciate the time you took to explain how it could have happened but it still doesn't prove that it did happen like that. Everything you said is merely an interpretation of data/whatever else.

I appreciate your post but I used to think exactly like that also, so it hasn't shed any light on the issue in terms of proof backing it up.
edit on 26/10/2010 by TechUnique because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 10:33 PM
link   
It really boils down to this:

To understand or accept the principles of the Theory of Evolution, you first have to accept that the earth is ~4.5 billion years old.

If you can't accept that, there is no point in having the discussion. You'll never EVER get it because it requires an understanding that the earth is very very very very very very old.

IF you can accept that the earth is ~4.5 billion years old, then you have to understand that evolution is not a magical force that changes a species in one generation. It is not a magical force that picks a species and says "you will have legs now." Thinking about evolution that way is basically applying a divine explanation because you don't understand the processes involved... which, ironically, is how religion began in the first place.

The Theory of Evolution states that beneficial genetic mutations often become primary traits through natural selection. In other words, if you have a special trait that makes you live longer or reproduce better, you'll have more babies. Some of those babies will carry your special genetic trait. If the trait is so awesome that it can eventually dominate the species, a new species can be "created" because there are so many mutations that the awesomer creature can no longer mate with the original species. Common ancestors are the branch-off point for these mutations. It doesn't mean a fish gives birth to a frog or a wolf gives birth to a fox. That is a complete misrepresentation of the TOE from a position of total ignorance and it's used by evolution-deniers to confuse people.

If you're going to refuse to believe in the Theory of Evolution, you need to AT LEAST understand what is actually being presented. Don't believe what you've been told in church. Do your own research and form your own opinion. Denying something from a position of ignorance is no way to approach anything in life.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: TechUnique



but it still doesn't prove that it did happen like that. Everything you said is merely an interpretation of data/whatever else


and creationism is a better interpretation of the data?



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 10:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: TechUnique
a reply to: Answer

That hasn't proven anything. I could have proposed all of that myself if I was to give an example counter argument. I appreciate the time you took to explain how it could have happened but it still doesn't prove that it did happen like that. Everything you said is merely an interpretation of data/whatever else.

I appreciate your post but I used to think exactly like that also, so it hasn't shed any light on the issue in terms of proof backing it up.


The information is based on the fossil record, archaeological/anthropological digs, etc with a lot of logic thrown in to fill the gaps. That information is then passed around to a bunch of other scientists to verify and test. Scientists don't just dig up a bone, say "ah ha! This is a new species of primate that had human feet!"

What sort of evidence would be enough to convince you?

What is it about the mounds of evidence that is hard for you to accept?
edit on 2/8/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 10:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: aynock
a reply to: TechUnique



but it still doesn't prove that it did happen like that. Everything you said is merely an interpretation of data/whatever else


and creationism is a better interpretation of the data?

I like that he admits evolution has data that can be interpreted as supporting it.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 10:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer




What sort of evidence would be enough to convince you?


the amount or type of evidence is irrelevant if they're going to ignore it



What is it about the mounds of evidence that is hard for you to accept?


it doesn't conform with their existing beliefs



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 10:44 PM
link   
Is this how it works then? A whole page of reasonable, well-laid-out responses ignored because they're too easy to understand? So now either the vector of approach will change, or the OP and his supporters will just make a new thread?



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 10:47 PM
link   
a reply to: TechUnique

Another question too, if I may...

In your opinion, what is the age of the earth?



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 10:48 PM
link   
Prediction: in answer to the age of the earth question,


something something carbon dating something


Prove me wrong, guy.
edit on 8-2-2015 by AshOnMyTomatoes because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 10:48 PM
link   
a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

Actually "a cat turning into a dog" is the end result of any macro evolution stance or belief.

Micro evolution is adaptation to a creature's environment, food, air, water etc. Those that do not adapt die out and those that do adapt live on. I fully agree. It's the process that I disagree with.

If a fish is in water and decides it wants to move to land (forced out of its element) the changes required to adapt would be far too slow and that fish would die once the habitat changed. The evolution (adaptation stops). If the fish went onto land for the first time, the body embraces the new surroundings, I need to change my gills to support air outside of water, grow legs etc. I'll accept that, unfortunately the fish needs to return to the water immediately or it will die. It returns to the water (natural habitat) and the evolution to move to land stops.

My point is, on the grand macro evolution, we all started as one thing and evolved into another is flawed on the basis that as we wanted to become that other thing we would have died out if we waits for the evolution to kick in. Or we never would have evolved because we went back into the water.

Saying it takes millions of years to evolve is a cop out. No matter how many times the fish gets out of the water, it always gets back in so it doesn't die. This halts the evolutionary process every time.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 10:55 PM
link   
a reply to: AngryAtTheBlindBelief



If a fish is in water and decides it wants to move to land (forced out of its element) the changes required to adapt would be far too slow and that fish would die once the habitat changed. The evolution (adaptation stops). If the fish went onto land for the first time, the body embraces the new surroundings, I need to change my gills to support air outside of water, grow legs etc. I'll accept that, unfortunately the fish needs to return to the water immediately or it will die. It returns to the water (natural habitat) and the evolution to move to land stops.


you know that there are fish that can breath air right?

mudskipper

does that help?
edit on 8-2-2015 by aynock because: filled out



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join