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.

 

Why Fossils May Appear To Support Evolution.

page: 11
19
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 10:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

evolution has been promoted by a series of hoaxes--more than in any other field of science.
google evolution hoaxes.

it is a theory designed to make people think blind forces have accidentally (through random mutation) caused advanced life.

PROBLEM: John Sanford on Genomic Entropy
youtu.be...

Average cell in 15 yr old - up to 6,000 mutations per cell. (all your cells are different)
Skin cell in 60 yr old - up to 40,000 mutations
Mutations primary cause of aging and death.
“...little potential for substantially increasing the upper limit of human life span.” (upper limit: 120 yrs)
--Michael Lynch (Population Geneticist)
50% reduction in sperm count in men.

Around 100 new mutations per generation.
Geneticists:
Dr. Crow: we are inferior to caveman.
Dr. Knodrashov: no human geneticist doubts man is degenerating.
Dr. Lynch Even assuming a lower mutation rate, we are degenerating at 1%-5% per generation.
Implies a young Creation and as with DNA complexity, theory of evolution is unlikely.

Dr. Francis Collins, head of Human Genome Project, converted to Christ partly due to the data.

“And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;”
Heb 1:10-11




posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 11:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: JUhrman
a reply to: FearYourMind

It's ironic you would post that since only religious fanatics deny evolution and these people bash religious fanatics.


You are so, SO wrong.

A great many of us have arisen , EVOLVED lol.

And we deny religion AND your ridiculous tiresome "theories".

It is too easy for us to see, that things are not looked upon in a light that is for actually finding the answers.

Constant sabotage, short-sightedness, and lackadaisical research are in abundance.

Frankly the theories of Evolution as so presented are as disgusting, UNLIKELY and BORING as almost every religion, in fact is many ways are worse, they have literally gotten us nowhere, and have uncovered NOTHING.

It is time for something new, a total routing of the common thinking that is being ENFORCED upon us by ludicrous and unimportant theories, that not only decide that things have a natural order, and EVOLVE, but that this natural order appears from nothing "naturally" , and yet is completely random.

Loony bin for the religious, and the controlled Science the both of em.



Could you please point out by example some "lackadaisical research"? Thanks.



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 11:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Verum1quaere
a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

evolution has been promoted by a series of hoaxes--more than in any other field of science.
google evolution hoaxes.


How exactly has evolution been "promoted" by hoaxes? The handful of hoaxes attempted were discovered by other scientists, that's how we know they were hoaxes in the first place. A small handful of people attempted to further their own careers and finances by perpetrating the hoaxes in question but it did nothing to promote or further evolutionary theory. Please cite a hoax you feel was furthering evolutionary theory.


it is a theory designed to make people think blind forces have accidentally (through random mutation) caused advanced life.

No, its intention is to explain the diversity of life on Earth.


PROBLEM: John Sanford on Genomic Entropy
youtu.be...


Seriously?!?! John Sanford? 4 minutes into the video he announces he's going to pass around a hat for donations and then attempts to rebuke MES with scripture not science. It's absolutely ridiculous for someone with a PhD to attempt to discredit science with scripture. If the science was wrong, why not address the flaws in the SCIENCE?

He attempts to postulate a biological decay curve based on the ages of biblical patriarchs in a compare/contrast thought experiment comparing patriarchs ages with that of modern man. That's NOT science at all.
I'm seriously flabbergasted that he is justifying junk science and human lifespans based on when Noah's flood occurred which there is no physical evidence for in the geologic record.

And then his rant on sickle cell anemia... it makes my brain hurt

And the fact that he is gearing his argument specifically to his target audience, those he's passing his hat to for donations,


Average cell in 15 yr old - up to 6,000 mutations per cell. (all your cells are different)
Skin cell in 60 yr old - up to 40,000 mutations
Mutations primary cause of aging and death.


this assumption is predicated on all mutations being detrimental which is entirely unfounded when the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of mutations are neutral or benign. Neither positive nor negative.

“...little potential for substantially increasing the upper limit of human life span.” (upper limit: 120 yrs)
--Michael Lynch (Population Geneticist)
50% reduction in sperm count in men.
Around 100 new mutations per generation.


So? Just because there is a mutation that doesn't mean it is harmful to the organism. As for upper limits of the human lifespan... untrue. please feel free to provide a citation to peer reviewed work supporting this statement and I will gladly apologize.


Geneticists:
Dr. Crow: we are inferior to caveman.

That statement is entirely a matter of context. The genetics of Neanderthal and Denisovan are little different than our own today, 70 KA later. Their lifespans were similar to ours contrary to the claims of Sanford in his video. Morphologically we are all different but that doesn't mean inferior. By that line of reasoning, all hominids since Homo Erectus are inferior as they were better suited to bipedalism than we are.


Dr. Knodrashov: no human geneticist doubts man is degenerating.

This statement is absolutely false and has no merit or basis in reality whatsoever. It's complete crap, sorry.


Dr. Lynch Even assuming a lower mutation rate, we are degenerating at 1%-5% per generation.

So what exactly is Jesus going to do to fix our DNA then? If we were created by the Abrahamic god, why didn't he make us so that our DNA wasn't degenerating? How is it that we were perfectly created only 6000 years ago yet I've personally handled remains more than 10x that age? Mutations do NOT equal degeneration. Have you looked into any of this using other sources or are you content with simple confirmation bias?


Implies a young Creation


an implication(which this really isn't anyway) is in no way evidence of such.


and as with DNA complexity, theory of evolution is unlikely.

Ahhh.... it's been a little while since I've seen someone pull the "irreducible complexity" card.

Sanfords entire argument is predicated on other peoples work and the bible. He's a plant geneticist who specializes in horticulture and is way out of his area of expertise.

Dr. Francis Collins, head of Human Genome Project, converted to Christ partly due to the data.


No, he converted long before he engaged in genetic research and none of his work supports your earlier claims/claims of your alleged quotes. In fact it is in complete opposition to your/Sanfords/other quoted individuals, assertions. His conversion and the for it reasons go much deeper than how you try to portray it. His faith never conflicted with his work either. If you're going to make such claims, citations go much farther than simple quotes. That way others can engage in due diligence and fact check your claims.


“And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;”
Heb 1:10-11


ahhhh... now I see why Sanford is so enticing to you.

This entire thing is typical Christian apologist fare.



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 11:48 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

There was a french woman who lived to 122 in the guiness book. So I guess 120 isn't mazimum.



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 06:09 AM
link   
This thread and many comments on it are actually causing me physical pain by the ignorance that's spewing from them.

I guess I'll just comment on the misinformation in the OP, then go from there.


originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
I certainly believe in adaptation and a certain level of species drift.


If you really "believe" in this stuff, then you surely don't understand it. Firstly, Scientific information isn't a "belief" system. You accept the concepts that explain natural phenomena or you do not. Adaptation, and reproduction with variation are intrinsic to natural selection and evolution. You don't simply pick and choose which parts fit into your idea sense of the world as you would with religious texts. You either accept the theory, or you reject it. The way you've worded things is simply a misrepresentation on how things work.


originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
What I don't believe is that non-organic matter spontaneously became organic and then spontaneously became a one celled organism


I'm sorry, I was under the impression that this topic was about Evolution, considering the topics title. What you're now suggesting is you don't have an issue with evolution, you have an issue with Abiogenesis - a completely different theory all together.

Evolution only occurs once life already exists. How that life comes into existence (as in "there was no life" then "now there is life") is an entirely separate concept. The story of Genesis in the bible, is technically a theory of Abiogenesis.


originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
...then it in turn over millions of years evolved into both genders in every species until humanity happened. I have threads on both those topics right now, but this one is on fossils. If that did happen there would be millions of missing link skeletal remains of both species and genders in between.


No, there wouldn't. Species don't form, and then suddenly evolve two separate genders. The phenomena that involves breeding through cloning or combining genetic material through separate individuals came far before there were organisms complex enough to actual form the fossils that you're suggesting should exist.

Not only that, but the process of fossilization is an extremely rare event. Every single fossil that we find has gone through an infinite amount of extremely unlikely events in order to become fossilized, never mind even found by us.


originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
And what do we have today for the fossil record, not that. And even the carbon dating is flawed, it's not 100% accurate.


Oh god (excuse the use of "god" it's more of an expression than my affiliated belief), are you new to this whole theory of Evolution? I'm sorry, but everything you say is so unbearably common for a person who doesn't really know about the theory, but gets all their information from creationist/intelligent design websites and seminars.

Nevertheless, you are absolutely correct! Radiocarbon dating isn't 100% accurate. If it were, we would be able to pin the date down to the very second that organism died. However, Scientists don't make any claims that it works this way. It is actually accurate to about 95%. So if we were to date something several times, we will be about 95% accurate to the exact date. Which is pretty damn good.

You should know though, that Radiocarbon dating only measures dates up to 50,000-60,000 years or so. However, that is not the only method used to date fossils. I could elaborate if you'd like?



originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
As an example, this guy if you found his skeletal remains from 40 million years ago, it could be thought to be the ancestor to a much bigger dinosaur, in the evolutionary line of development, but he actually isn't, but he stayed the same, 40 million years latter he is still the same.



This claim is also incorrect. The Komodo dragon evolved from the Varanus genus. Correct, that was about 40 million years ago. They originated in Asia and migrated to Australia. About 15 million years ago they migrated from Australia to Southeast Asia. Remember, the land masses were different 15 million years ago, so it wasn't a big swim or anything. We then notice branching through the Varanus genus (thanks to fossil records) and see several differences starting about 4 million years ago.

The Komodo's we see today are much smaller and thinner than the original Varanus Genus fossils we saw 40 million years ago.

Lets not forget that from that original Varanus genus we have these as well (during that 40 million year period) through branching genes.

Genus Varanus

Species marked with † are extinct

Subgenus Empagusia:

V. bengalensis, Bengal monitor
V. b. bengalensis, Bengal monitor
V. b. nebulosus or V. nebulosus, Clouded monitor
V. dumerilii, Dumeril's monitor
V. flavescens, Golden monitor, yellow monitor, short-toed monitor
V. rudicollis, Roughneck monitor

Subgenus Euprepiosaurus:

V. beccarii, Black tree monitor
V. boehmei, Golden-spotted tree monitor
V. bogerti, Bogert's tree monitor
V. caerulivirens, Turquoise monitor
V. cerambonensis, Ceram monitor
V. doreanus, Blue-tailed monitor
V. finschi, Finsch's monitor
V. indicus, Mangrove monitor
V. jobiensis, Peach-throated monitor
V. juxtindicus, Rennell Island monitor
V. keithhornei, Canopy goanna, blue-nosed tree monitor, Nesbit River monitor[23]
V. kordensis, Biak tree monitor
V. macraei, Blue-spotted tree monitor

Varanus macraei, blue-spotted tree monitor

V. melinus, Quince monitor[24]
V. lirungensis, Talaud mangrove monitor
V. obor, Sago monitor
V. prasinus, Emerald tree monitor[25]
V. rainerguentheri Rainer Günther’s monitor
V. reisingeri, Reisinger's tree monitor
V. telenesetes, Mysterious tree monitor, Rossell tree monitor
V. yuwonoi, Tricolored monitor
V. zugorum, Silver monitor, Zug's monitor

Subgenus Odatria:

V. acanthurus, Ridge-tailed monitor
V. a. acanthurus, Ridge-tailed monitor
V. a. brachyurus, Common ridge-tailed monitor
V. a. insulanicus, Island ridge-tailed monitor
V. auffenbergi, Auffenberg's monitor, Peacock monitor
V. baritji, White's dwarf monitor, black-spotted ridge-tailed monitor, lemon-throated monitor[26]
V. brevicauda, Short-tailed monitor
V. bushi, Pilbara stripe-tailed monitor, Bush's monitor
V. caudolineatus, Stripe-tailed monitor
V. eremius, Rusty desert monitor, pygmy desert monitor
V. gilleni, Pygmy mulga monitor
V. glauerti, Kimberley rock monitor
V. glebopalma, Twilight monitor, black-palmed rock monitor
V. hamersleyensis, Hamersley Range rock monitor
V. kingorum, Kings' rock monitor
V. mitchelli, Mitchell's water monitor
V. pilbarensis, Pilbara rock monitor
V. primordius, Blunt-spined monitor
V. scalaris, Banded tree monitor
V. semiremex, Rusty monitor
V. similis, Spotted tree monitor
V. sparnus, Dampier Peninsula monitor


…As you can see, the Varanus Genus isn't exactly the same as it was 40 million years ago.



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Noinden

Noinden, you are correct and I agree with you. If you think "transition", you may as well include today's humans in transition as the evidence points to the fact that evolution of humans is speeding up. We are a transitional species. Brain case measurements of homosapien fossils clearly show evidence of transition.
The "gaps" exist only because fossils in good condition are rare. That's not to say they won't be found. It just says that we haven't unearthed everything yet.





I LOVE IT, so now you know the secrets of the Universe and somehow KNOW that we are in some sort of system that has nothing controlling it, but has an inevitable outcome.

The "gaps" in logic are astonishing, they constantly leave out SO many possibilities, of course all of which are scoffed at by the theoristic lovers, which by the way ARE religious, they just do not seem to know it


Well as long as you seem to have knowledge of the "possibilities", why not post them here? How about some links to research, hard evidence and data. Your opinion is just that - an opinion - obviously not grounded in any meaningful scientific research. But why not give it a shot? Hey, we're all ears around here.


edit on 25-4-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 07:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: FearYourMind
Also, why haven't any other apes evolved? If we supposedly came from apes then you would expect other apes would have evolved with us, but not one of them has.


We didn't "come from apes"

We share a common ancestor. We all took different evolutionary paths.



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 07:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: poncho1982

originally posted by: FearYourMind
Also, why haven't any other apes evolved? If we supposedly came from apes then you would expect other apes would have evolved with us, but not one of them has.


We didn't "come from apes"

We share a common ancestor. We all took different evolutionary paths.


Precisely! Just as I showed that the Varanus Genus diverged. The same thing occurred to us.



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 08:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: ParasuvO
Frankly the theories of Evolution as so presented are as disgusting, UNLIKELY and BORING


God forbid the truth should be boring...

I'm sorry but people, in general, are idiots. They overlook the mundane truth for the intriguing or appealing lie every time..



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 08:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: ParasuvO
Frankly the theories of Evolution as so presented are as disgusting, UNLIKELY and BORING as almost every religion, in fact is many ways are worse, they have literally gotten us nowhere, and have uncovered NOTHING.

It is time for something new, a total routing of the common thinking that is being ENFORCED upon us by ludicrous and unimportant theories, that not only decide that things have a natural order, and EVOLVE, but that this natural order appears from nothing "naturally" , and yet is completely random.


[sarcasm] Yeah! down with EVOLUTION [/sarcasm]

[sarcasm]You're absolutely right! What has Evolution ever done for us, or science in general for that matter! [/sarcasm]

Oh wait, I remember...

All of biological sciences, field of medicine, and the totality of agriculture are based upon the Theory Of Evolution.

Our knowledge of Evolution has assisted us in the growth and health of our total global agriculture. Our knowledge of Evolution has shown use how to interbreed species and tweak genetics in order to prevent crops from being killed off by pests without the use of pesticides. Using Evolution we have found ways to improve crop yields by an extraordinary amount.

Do i really need to even go into medicine? Looks like I do because "Evolution has done nothing for humanity" right? We now know how to prevent diseases and even completely destroy them. We have lengthened the lifespan of humanity by decades per individual and this is only growing further with our knowledge of Evolution. We save billions of lives worldwide, and that number grows exponentially with the further development of medical knowledge thanks to Evolution. We save lives of our cattle through veterinary means and the knowledge of their biological history, again thanks to evolution. If you have ever taken any form of medicine at all, thank evolution for that and the scientists that discovered the means to keep you healthy or even prevent you from dying.

Evolution is an intrinsic property of all aspects of biological sciences (among other branches of science). Because of it you can see better due to those glasses you're wearing, or the contacts you want to get. You're teeth aren't falling out and you likely don't have an excessive amount of bacteria in which you could kill someone simply by biting them like you could before we discovered all that we have thanks to evolution. Instead, you live longer because we have means of preventing that bacteria. We can catch murderers thanks to DNA testing (or do you think DNA testing is also a myth?). Criminology in general is so massively impacted by the discoveries in Evolution that we would have a very different world if it was never discovered. Even the furniture you sit on is designed the way it is thanks to Evolution. There are more details in all of our lives that make it every bit more comfortable thanks to Evolution.

So instead of pissing out nonsense that reeks of ignorance and unintelligence, maybe you should do some research and start thanking the people that are really the reason you're still alive today, living as comfortably as you are, and even being able to use a computer to spew your ignorance on.
edit on 26/4/15 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 08:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147
[sarcasm]You're absolutely right! What has Evolution ever done for us, or science in general for that matter! [/sarcasm]


The aqueduct?



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Yeah?
How's that working out for California?



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 10:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Yeah?
How's that working out for California?


No idea, sorry. I was referring to the one the Romans built for the people of Jerusalem... as in...




posted on Apr, 27 2015 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

originally posted by: ParasuvO
Frankly the theories of Evolution as so presented are as disgusting, UNLIKELY and BORING


God forbid the truth should be boring...

I'm sorry but people, in general, are idiots. They overlook the mundane truth for the intriguing or appealing lie every time..


This is so true. I don't know if it's because folks watch too much TV these days, but plenty of people seem to think that the "truth" has to be exciting and controversial. For all we know the truth is boring and plain. In fact that's far more likely.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

I don't get how the conspiracy nuts can believe folks like Jones and Ike, and also believe that the "government" is inept. "I don't trust the man to spend my money how it should be as they are incompetent"....."The government, or a group inside the government has hidden that we have a Kenyan reptilian half black man in power, and that 9/11 was an inside job, orchestrated by the greys" etc etc

You can't have it both ways.

As for "truth" I am not sure its TV. Because to be honest the Victorians believed all sorts of weird stuff with their Penny Dreadful novels. What the interwebs, and TV have done is speed up the ability to communicate this mania.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 08:00 PM
link   
Why Fossils May Appear To Support Evolution?

Because they actually do.



The section on fossils starts at 5:16. Overall, this is one of the better videos out there that talks about the evidence for evolution. It explains some of the dating techniques, the geological column and the transitional fossils themselves. It also shows how evolution is the glue that holds all of the various fields of science together and pretty much the only explanation for the diversity of life on earth that makes any sense at all.

If you do not believe that evolution (micro and macro) is a fact, you should watch this video in its entirety. It goes into detail but still keeps the explanations simple. No crazy/spooky music and catchy themes, no creationist bashing, strictly a discussion about the evidence itself and how it counters the many claims made against it.

edit on 28-4-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 09:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: FearYourMind
Also, why haven't any other apes evolved? If we supposedly came from apes then you would expect other apes would have evolved with us, but not one of them has.


I'm sure someones already beat me to this one, you know, being that there are several pages, but just in case... are actually #ing serious? You cannot actually take yourself seriously as someone who likes to learn about the world around them.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Schmidt1989

Its been answered, its been answered anytime a creationist tries that particular line of "logic" (it hurts to use that word with regards to this).

I attribute this to either

(a) Willful ignorance
or
(b) Trolling

I lean to (b) in many cases.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 07:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Or both.

I call them TROOLS. A portmanteau of "tool" and "troll" - a tool that trolls.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Creationists.

Proof that not all of our species has evolved equally.




top topics



 
19
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join