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.

 

One of the many questions Darwinist cannot answer

page: 2
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 07:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423





Your question is poorly thought out. Darwin knew nothing about molecular biology and genetics. His work was developed simply on observation.


Lol there is a modern Darwinian evolution that includes those sciences .




posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 07:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Phantom423





Your question is poorly thought out. Darwin knew nothing about molecular biology and genetics. His work was developed simply on observation.


Lol there is a modern Darwinian evolution that includes those sciences .


Really? So Charles Darwin has been resurrected to include molecular biology in his work? Wow - what an achievement.

Have no idea what you're talking about, but perhaps you can give a few references to clarify.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 07:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
I didn't use it as an excuse to push creationism? I simply said Darwinist can't answer the question and its a big big problem. Without a form of mutation that adds new base pairs to the genome without destroying previous information you have no mechanism by which things such as a flagellum or an eye or a lung can evolve from a simpler creature. You have no mechanism for a four-legged mammal to evolve into a whale. This is a major aspect of Darwinian evolution that is just assumed to be true. Everything Darwinian evolutionist claim hinders on this assumption being true.


Says who? You and your misunderstanding of Evolution? I mean you keep calling it Darwinian evolution, but REAL Darwinian evolution didn't even KNOW about DNA, much less genetic pairs. So I find it unlikely that Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection hinged solely on your strawman here.
edit on 18-8-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 07:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Your problem has to do with trying to oversimplify evolution; and if you were TRULY interested in finding the answer to this question, you'd go look it up yourself and read it until you thoroughly understood it. If that still didn't help, you'd ask honest questions about it to people more knowledgeable than yourself to clear up any misunderstandings.

This thread just shows that you are content with misunderstanding it because you seem to think that because you misunderstand evolution, that somehow disproves it.


Please explain where I am "misunderstanding evolution" rather than just saying that I am. Mutations are the mechanism that modern day Darwinian evolutionist use to explain the formation of new morphological features. New morphological features=mutation type that adds new base pairs to the genome. Mutation type that adds new base pairs=Not Found. Not Found=Big problem for Evolutionist



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 07:38 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb






Mutation type that adds new base pairs=Not Found. Not Found=Big problem for Evolutionist


Don't ignore the evidence I gave you in the previous post. You'll appear ignorant (OMG).



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 07:39 AM
link   
On the seventh day, God farted unto the eternal flame and said,
"Let there be light!"
And there was light. God saw the light was good.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 07:39 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I will do no such thing until you show my side of the argument the respect it deserves that shows that you are actually willing to LEARN something new and not just wanting to argue a stupid strawman.

Namely stop calling it Darwinian Evolution. Darwinian Evolution is an outdated theory that no scientist considers valid at this point. Yes, Modern Evolutionary Synthesis relies on much of Darwin's original theory on Evolution, but to call MES, Darwinian Evolution just shows that talking to you about this honestly is out of the question. You came to argue, not clear up any misunderstandings.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 07:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: bottleslingguy

originally posted by: johnwick

originally posted by: bottleslingguy

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

When the Creationists get more proof than "Magic" I'll listen.....till then I'll stick with science.
And no, you don't have proof.


what magic? it was done by scientists from another planet with an agenda. what is so hard to understand about that?


I'm in your camp, I think it was the aliens.


it makes most sense and answers all the mysteries very simply. It's peoples' egos that gives the most opposition to the idea that we're not at the top of the intelligence foodchain.

On the contrary, evolution makes the most sense, because that's what we have the most scientific evidence for at present. I would place aliens and creationism in the same category. Neither has the evidence to be scientifically sound.
Science aside for a moment, I personally have no issue with aliens, or a creator(s). Either is fine by me. We may yet find evidence we were created by one alien(god), and the devil is a different alien who tampered with what the first alien set in motion.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 07:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Are you being deliberately obtuse? So that you can steer the topic away from the fact that you cant answer the question? They call it Darwinian evolution because its based on his work? That doesn't mean it just ignored scientific advancements.

Wiki:
Non-Darwinian evolution is any mechanism which tends to downplay the role of natural selection in evolution. It also may reject gradualism, sexual selection or any other aspect of Darwinian evolution.

You have things like punctuated equilibrium. Or Evolutionist who believe that natural selection is not the main cause of extinction events but rather physical factors such as catastrophes or some form of climate changes.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 07:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Would you prefer Neo-darwinism?



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 07:50 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb
Alfred R Wallace was the co discover but withdrew his approval after being ordered to omit a very important part. They were ordered to omit the last part wich is the fact they believed an outside influence was involved in the order evolution. DUALISM.
Alfred R Wallace then turned spiritual and made fantastic further leaps. If anyone who wants to know the true story of Evolution then do not read the drivel released by the scientific community. It has been completely doctored to cause conflict with GOD AND MAN.
Please read a little of his work on Dualism.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 07:50 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Here you go buddy:

science.howstuffworks.com...

By saying "add new base pairs" you are really doing a "straw man attack";
It's the buildup of small MODIFICATIONS of existing material that makes evolution work.. and it DOES work just perfectly fine, without needing to resort to nonsense thinking.

This is also why the "tornado hits a junk yard and produces a 747" misinformation demonstrates the same ignorance.

Now, I'm both bilingual "hard science" and "open minded", but sometimes things really are just simple, and it's ones ego-filtered, fear-based reactions that keep one from learning.

And for the record, I'm not an atheist, nor an agnostic nor a theist - there is not enough information currently available to any human being to make such an assertion about whether a 'deity' exists or does not exist, and to be able to do so credibly.
That is simple human arrogance. We are too minor a species to be able to acquire that information.

I'm also not an 'evolutionist' - you make it sound like a dirty slur.

What I am, is someone who paid attention in 9th grade science class. That's about all it takes to avoid
falling into a lens grinding machine and making a spectacle out of oneself with conversations like this.

Kev



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 07:51 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Read my previous post with the evidence. You are deliberately ignoring it. Base pairs are added and deleted. Charles Darwin's work was based on observation. "Darwinian evolution" is a catch-all phrase that has no scientific meaning.

Why don't you address the evidence about base pairs? Nothing to say? No references?



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 07:52 AM
link   
If someone were able to answer the questions in your OP to your complete satisfaction, it would not change your opinion one iota about the validity of the Theory of Evolution so, and I'm asking this with 100% sincerity, what is the purpose of this thread?

To me, it seems to be yet another in a very long line of threads that is basically nothing more than a religious person saying "Evolution is so dumb, this is what those dummies believe with all their dumb science lol."



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 07:56 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

By the way, for the record, all this crap about 'Darwinists'. Well there are no longer Darwinists really.. that's term is something like a hundred years out of date.. THIS is really where science is at these day. It's also called the Neo-Darwinian synthesis. Old Darwin while a genius of common sense and observation didn't know anything about genetics; it hadn't been discovered yet.

Kev



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 07:58 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Nope. Asking for proof that God created everything. Science has more evidence and makes more sense than POOF.....planet, life, man.
Like I said, you have no proof.
Science is constantly trying to prove itself wrong, by continuing to study how the world works and has the integrity to say "ooops, we were wrong, it works like this, not like that.
Religion keeps banging the same drum : "Believe because we said so, because you feel it in your heart..... Huh? Proof? We don't need no stinking proof ! We got a BOOK !".
edit on 18-8-2015 by DAVID64 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 08:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

I didn't ignore it. I had this conversation with a friend the other day. He gave me that same post. Point mutations do not add new base pair into the genome. In otherwords they cant account for new morphological features such as a lung. A point mutation involves the substitution, addition, or deletion of a single nucleotide base. In this point mutation the added nucleotide that is added is not generated. It is pulled from another segment of the genome. So even when a section is coped and then point mutation occur those point mutations are information pulled from else where in the genome. So my point still stand that takes the information that is there and moves it around. The copied section is displaced, tandem, or reversed based on which duplication occurs but thru ought this whole process there is never a mutation that doesn't cause a loss of information somwhere else in the genome.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 08:05 AM
link   
a reply to: DAVID64

Lol this is not about religion this is about evolution you keep trying to change the topic to my beliefs because you don't like yours being challenged.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 08:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Answer

It would most definitely change my opinion as all the claims they make could then be possible the only question that would still be is was there enough time for that to occur as they said.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Nope, Wrong again. You started this thread to claim science was wrong and to not so subtly promote your own belief about how things work, how life came about etc. You've tried this in numerous threads. It didn't work then and it's not working now.
Ok, I'll bite. Since you say science is wrong, you tell us how it works. If you know it's wrong, then you must know why it's wrong. Right? So, explain it to us. No magic allowed.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join