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: Baddogma
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
Not to beat a dead horse, and I really tend to agree with you as that's the logical answer, but reading Sanderson, he was quite specific and puzzled and so was Huevelman... they had bio backgrounds and said the thing in the ice wasn't the same dummy that was there later.
I wasn't there and have no real input, other than to say Sanderson liked a good yarn and stretched his conjectures... but wasn't a bold-faced liar... and his description of the being and the gunshot wound, viscera, etc. along with the smell of decay, was vivid and backed up... so I remain uncommitted to the Minnesota Iceman final verdict of hoax from the first... despite that being the best answer.
originally posted by: qiwi676
Fun idea: I think humanity is done evolving biologically and our next step is technological evolution. Synthesis. Singularity. I don't think it's scary at all
Love you guys!!!!
The term "macroevolution" frequently arises within the context of the evolution/creation debate, usually used by creationists alleging a significant difference between the evolutionary changes observed in field and laboratory studies and the larger scale macroevolutionary changes that scientists believe to have taken thousands or millions of years to occur. They accept that evolutionary change is possible within what they call "kinds" ("microevolution"), but deny that one "kind" can evolve into another ("macroevolution"). While this claim is maintained on the vagueness of the undefined, unscientific term "kind", evolution of life forms beyond the species level (i.e. "macroevolution" by the scientific definition) has been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature. In creation science, creationists accepted speciation as occurring within a "created kind" or "baramin", but objected to what they called "third level-macroevolution" of a new genus or higher rank in taxonomy. Generally, there is ambiguity as to where they draw a line on "species", "created kinds", etc. and what events and lineages fall within the rubric of microevolution or macroevolution. The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is not supported by the scientific community.
Such claims are rejected by the scientific community on the basis of ample evidence that macroevolution is an active process both presently and in the past. The terms macroevolution and microevolution relate to the same processes operating at different scales, but creationist claims misuse the terms in a vaguely defined way which does not accurately reflect scientific usage, acknowledging well observed evolution as "microevolution" and denying that "macroevolution" takes place. Evolutionary theory (including macroevolutionary change) remains the dominant scientific paradigm for explaining the origins of Earth's biodiversity. Its occurrence is not disputed within the scientific community.While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "fact of evolution".
originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
Don't really feel like trudging through 5 hours of video and 12 pages of comments, so I'll ask this here.
What are this fella's credentials to be speaking as an expert of evolution? I'm genuinely curious. Does he have a background in biology or archaeology?
originally posted by: Argyll
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb
Get on code blocks and sit there and type in a bunch of random keys and see how long it takes you to get a working program...
Billions of years?