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.

 

Observable Evidence: Evolution vs. Creationism

page: 5
2
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2015 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

As well as here, thanks to Krazyshot.

10 popular misconceptions regarding the theory of evolution

I think some of the ideas here are on that list. I won't spoil the fun of figuring out which ones. Ah, education!





posted on May, 18 2015 @ 09:00 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

No. 1 ( and most important): It was never repeated.

No. 2 (and I'm not going to upload all the links tonight): they were TICKS and FLEES. Everyone was infested with them - particularly their clothing in those days.

He did not have a sterile laboratory. He did not use sterile technique. Therefore, any credible scientist evaluating the experiment would ask:

No. 1: Is it repeatable?
No. 2: If it is repeatable, design experiments to analyze what it is.
No. 3: Publish papers which support Crosse's discovery and move forward to explain how it happened.
No. 4 (And this is what it is): If it's not repeatable, then the observation was misinterpreted and has no inherent credibility regardless who saw it.

He saw a tick or a flee. The organism reproduced under ideal circumstances of heat, oxygen and water. That's it. End of story. I will upload a few links tomorrow.

How many times do we need to repeat this?? I think I'll have a martini.




edit on 18-5-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 09:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton
Therefore, any credible scientist evaluating the experiment would ask:

No. 1: Is it repeatable?
No. 2: If it is repeatable, design experiments to analyze what it is.
No. 3: Publish papers which support Crosse's discovery and move forward to explain how it happened.
No. 4 (And this is what it is): If it's not repeatable, then the observation was misinterpreted and has no inherent credibility regardless who saw it.




Here is the repeated experimental abstract

"Tuesday, March 15.
Read:—Details of an experiment in which certain Insects, known as the Acarus Crossi, appeared incident to the long-continued operation of a Voltaic Current upon Silicate of Potass, within a close Atmosphere over Mercury.—By W. H. Weekes, Esq. Communicated by the Secretary."

I can email you the entire recreation if you want, and Crosse's original experiment with materials, procedure, etc.



I think I'll have a martini.


first round on you?



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 09:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Grimpachi

As well as here, thanks to Krazyshot.

10 popular misconceptions regarding the theory of evolution

I think some of the ideas here are on that list. I won't spoil the fun of figuring out which ones. Ah, education!



Someone had my same problem with his 6th point:

"I would take issue with your 6th point, that evolution has been observed. MICRO-evolution has indeed been observed, and this e-coli study is certainly an example of that. Also, what exactly is "long term"? No study observable by humans could ever be considered long term in relation to the supposed age of the Earth, and even more so when the supposed age of the universe is taken into account. There are different types of evolution that make up the Theory of Evolution, and they are as follows: Micro-evolution which is defined as the variation within kinds of species, Macro-evolution which is defined as the changing from one kind of species to another kind of species...

The ONLY one of these types of evolution that has EVER been observed is Micro-evolution... The other types HAVE NEVER been observed, and although they are widely accepted as "scientific", the Scientific Method has not been applied, nor can it be, therefore it is not science... it is pseudo-science."

Which was my point all along, in addition to the aforementioned experiments that demonstrate the potential for abiogenesis of life.
edit on 18-5-2015 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 10:18 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Micro and macro are taxonomic terms. They are the same process.



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 11:53 PM
link   
Did the OP even read the links I provided?

Proverbs 18:13 my friend, Proverbs 18:13.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 12:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
Gravitational force can be calculated mathematically, and can be repeated experimentally. We have never had an instance where we observed an organism change its kind. monkeys are monkeys, humans are humans, etc. I understand speciation, and that it accumulates, over time, and gradually an organism will "evolve"; I understand it is proposed that a monkey did not simply give birth to a human, but rather, encephalization of the humanoid was a slow process. All I am saying, is that there has never been an observable example of, for example, a population of fish evolving into a population of amphibians. We can assume all we want, but the fact is we have not observed such evolution, we have only observed adaptations or minute speciation. Evolution appears to be the logical choice as to how things came into being, but maybe evolution seems so logical because it is the way biogenesis occurs, that is, the way biological life gives birth to other biological life (embryology):www.youtube.com...


I'm not sure how many times I need to explain that we don't need to personally observe something in order to make an accurate conclusion.

By the way, you have yet to actually comment on that point. Instead, you just say the same thing over and over again as if I never even stated it in the first place. Perhaps you are just another typical creationist, unlike what I first assumed in my first comment here.

I just gave you an example of a cancerous cell becoming it's own unicellular life form. How does that not equate "one kind to another"? I think the answer to that question lies in the fact that you are only using visuals to determine what an animal is. You are not even looking at its cellular, biological structure. "This looks different from that, there for they are different "kinds" "

I'll repeat myself... again: We know that organisms reproduce with variation. We know that genetic drift leads to speciation (and have observed this). We have biological historical records from species to species where we can trace a direct lineage (which also happen to be dated in the exact way we would expect these organisms to have been alive). We have biological traits which are dormant in living specimens that coincide with this lineage to a common ancestor.

We have mounds and mounds of evidence that all points to one single conclusion. We have 0 evidence that suggests it doesn't do what this conclusion describes. So what exactly is the purpose of having to "be there to see it first hand" that is so important and further conclusive?

Please, stop thinking like a creationist and think rationally.

I'll respond to the rest of your comment later (please remind me if I don't)



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 01:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369
I've already had to do this on another thread. But it's okay, here is the documented science...


agridr.in...



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 06:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
But, maybe, JUST MAYBE, (come on now, this is ATS, we should be questioning EVERYTHING), abiogenesis, which is biological life forming from non-biological means, is how life forms first came into being. Especially since there are experiments that demonstrate this is possible. So, I strongly urge you all to look into it on your own with an open mind.


Sorry, meant to comment on this earlier. I have no idea why Creationists bring up the origins of life in a way to attempt to oppose Evolution. It is an incredibly ignorant argument.

Abiogenesis has nothing to do with Evolution. Evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of life. Evolution only occurs once life already exists. Abiogenesis is how life first started. There is no connection.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 07:00 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton






Gravitational force can be calculated mathematically, and can be repeated experimentally. We have never had an instance where we observed an organism change its kind. monkeys are monkeys, humans are humans, etc. I understand speciation, and that it accumulates, over time, and gradually an organism will "evolve"; I understand it is proposed that a monkey did not simply give birth to a human, but rather, encephalization of the humanoid was a slow process. All I am saying, is that there has never been an observable example of, for example, a population of fish evolving into a population of amphibians. We can assume all we want, but the fact is we have not observed such evolution, we have only observed adaptations or minute speciation. Evolution appears to be the logical choice as to how things came into being, but maybe evolution seems so logical because it is the way biogenesis occurs, that is, the way biological life gives birth to other biological life (embryology):www.youtube.com...


Can you please show me any biology textbook that says that monkeys turned into turtles, an ape turned into a man, a dog turned into a cat? Creationists use those examples over and over again and never acknowledge that evolution is about common ancestry - I think I said that before in this thread - but as usual, it gets ignored. So please provide a list of biology books that specifically say that one phyla turned into another. While you're at it, look up "common ancestry" and see if you can figure out what evolution really says.














edit on 19-5-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-5-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 07:23 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Here's the abstract from the "London and Edinburgh Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science", VOL. XXI.

NEW AND UNITED SERIES OF THE PHILOSOPHICAL MAGAZINE,
ANNALS OF PHILOSOPHY, AND JOURNAL OF SCIENCE.

JULY— DECEMBER, 1842.

Please make note of the DATE - 1842. That's 173 years ago.

When someone reproduces his experiment under modern sterile conditions, I'll be impressed. Otherwise, it was a contaminant - most likely a tick which were all over the place in those days - remember people didn't even take baths more than once a month much less wash their clothes - remember the Great Plague????





edit on 19-5-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Hey OP, I've already posted this for you many times before in another thread and each time you just go "but... but..." and start repeating yourself without ever addressing any of my points. Well, here they are again. Fancy taking a crack?

1) It's not a peer-reviewed paper. It's basically a "letters to the editor".
2) It's in the proceedings for a conference that has NOTHING to do with biology.
3) The author even stated he didn't think it was spontaneous creation but contaminated samples.
4) This incredibly simple experiment was described nearly ONE HUNDRED YEARS AGO in some obscure electrical conference proceedings. It's never been followed up since. Funny, that.
5) Clinging to this laughably flimsy "evidence" whilst ignoring the overwhelming amount of evidence supporting evolution means (IMO) you are self-deluded to the point of living in your own la-la reality bubble.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 10:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheCretinHop
a reply to: SuperFrog

You mentioned stupid design. yhis doesn't seem stupid to me...
www.nature.com...


Then explain why humans do not have similar abilities?

Seriously, If the design is so brilliant, then why only give it to lesser creatures (according to the bible) like butterflies when an internal compass would help humans with pretty much everything. Why is this design not consistent in the least? You guys love to say "common design", yet all of the best designs are reserved for lower animals, rather than the folks allegedly created in god's image. Explain that.
edit on 19-5-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

It's pretty much a given that anybody who uses the term "kinds" knows nothing about evolution or biology. The OP used the word to mean completely different things when he said plants will be plants and frogs will be frogs. In the first he referred to kingdom, in the second he referred to genus or family. It's pretty LOLworthy at this point, and it's blatantly obvious he got his arguments straight from Kent Hovind.

edit on 19-5-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

again: we have seen this thread before. dozens of times. and always with the same result.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Barcs

again: we have seen this thread before. dozens of times. and always with the same result.


Exactly it goes on for a million pages discussing the same evidence and refuting the same fallacies over and over again as new cycles of denialists cycle in to repeat the same nonsense over and over again. Then the people on the fence who don't want to bother reading the trainwreck of a thread stay on the fence because they think there is still a legitimate debate occurring about if evolution is true or not. Does that about sum them up?
edit on 19-5-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Barcs

again: we have seen this thread before. dozens of times. and always with the same result.


Agreed. I need to stop giving folks the benefit of the doubt, it's the same broken record every time.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

“Most men would rather deny a hard truth than face it.”
― George R.R. Martin, A Game of Thrones

All I can say is [faceplant]



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Barcs

again: we have seen this thread before. dozens of times. and always with the same result.


But you've gotta' have faith Tzarchasm! Faith in humanity for being capable to learn information that doesn't already abide by their presupposed views and ideology.

I had faith in this concept in my initial post, as it seemed the OP was at least marginally respectable and knowledgeable; that it could all simply be up to the misinformation he has been feed. Thinking to myself "Maybe he just needs a bit of a push in the right direction".

Now it seems he is just the typical Info-ignoring Creationist we always see, just in a suit instead of a jean vest and a southern accent holding a bible.

Turns out I've lost my faith again. This topic is just circular arguments once again, thanks to Creationists inability to acknowledge valid responses.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

I’m going to ask a few questions before I comment, bear with me please

(a) What level of education do you have in the sciences?
(b) Why are you citing old “experiments” which have been discredited as “proof” of something?
(c) Why are you citing the bible, which is not peer reviewed as a source of scientific fact?
I ask these knowing pretty well what the answers to (b) and (c) will be. You are a spiritual person, and the Bible holds a great importance to you. I’m a spiritual being too, though not Christian, or even Abrahamic. So I do get the yearning to validate ones beliefs, but that is a massive trap to fall into.

Belief is just that, you feel it, you can not validate it.
Science does not operate on belief, it requires proofs, and never states something with absolute certainty. It is not a religious path, despite what many people will say on ATS, it’s a philosophy, and a non metaphysical one at that.

Now onwards:
Charles W. LITTLEFIELD
Sadly his “experiments, and yes I shall use the quotes to show how I feel about his attempts. They are non-scientific, they have not been repeated in a controlled environment, and there were no control experiments. Most importantly he is a creature of another age, and one with a point of view he wished to prove. This is not science, it is side show theatrics. IF this was a thing of science, it would be repeatable. One cannot say “oh but we lost some information”. No that is no excuse.

Andrew Crosse: He was also from another age, one which played fast and loose with how we do things now, but that is fine. He was indeed an amateur scientist, and sadly people misinterpret his most infamous experiment. Crosse did not claim that he had created the insects. He assumed that there were insect eggs embedded in his samples. Later commentators agreed that the insects were probably cheese mites or dust mites that had contaminated Crosse's instruments.

Using the bible as a reliable source for history of science is a very dangerous thing. Let us suspend how I feel about the reliability of that document for a moment. It was written by people, who had no ideas of science, and as such what is recorded (and transposed numerous times, through numerous languages). We can extract Abrahamic myth from the bible, we can’t extract science. Just as one can’t use a tabloid as a reliable record of history.
Have we ever seen speciation? Well no, as Phage has mentioned, the time scale is immense. WE have observed evolution however, we’ve seen resistance to antibiotics in our lifetimes (well depending how old one is), we are also able to rely on not just fossils (which are evidence, even if it upsets some creationists), we can now use genetics. Phylogenetic studies allow us to trace when genes came into a genome in the form we see. Lets look at the gene for lactose tolerance (I am missing the mutation which allows me to digest milk as an adult, so I know this one). Using the science of bioinformatics (specifically genomics) we know that this mutation occurred around the same time we believe we began to keep cattle for milk, not just meat. That is an advantageous mutation in a population, becoming prominent. On top of that this mutation is in a higher percentage in populations which keep/kept cattle for milk, than in populations which did not.

Now speciation? You need to remember that there every generation is a transitory specimen, there are no “missing links”. That term is totally non-scientific. We are talking about science here thus use the correct language? I’m not going to talk about my gods in terms of thermodynamics, or kinetics either.

SO observing different species form? We’d need a record of thousands of generations, all at the same level of recorded traits to notice. SO not “Seen” a new species form, we do however see species begin to change. I return to the bacterium which are resisting antibiotics that is a major change for them, the number of generations that they went through to reach that is immense, so give it a bit longer and we shall see it.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join