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: 7
16
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 10:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
You can see the actual faked pictures from the modern textbooks here. These textbooks were being produced as late as 2004, even though the fraud was detected in the 1800s! Is this the vaunted self-correction of science, or science being twisted to support social and political goals


The website you just cited is a known ID / creationist propaganda site. I will take their conclusions with a grain of salt. Can you link me to the real textbooks used in schools TODAY via academia?

www.antievolution.org...

Check this site out. According to this, they never proved that the drawings were fraudulent and he was never convicted of fraud, although both sides exaggerated their claims. Yes, some were inaccurate, but they were later updated to reflect it. Remember they were drawn in the 1800s, so it's easy to say they were wrong in hindsight when we have pictures and ultrasound now.

I will agree with you that some of the drawings were exaggerated and inaccurate, but Wells also was also greatly exaggerating his claims of intentional fraud. Those 2 guys hated each other and would stop at nothing to prove the other wrong. There is a big different between deliberate fakery and inaccuracy. Yes Haeckle was wrong about his law, but again being wrong or having errors in your work isn't fraud.


If this is what you were taught that convinced you of evolution, better take another look at the facts. You’ve been had.


LMAO. Even if every single drawing was intentionally faked, it doesn't come close to falsifying evolution. Why do folks act like evolution relies on these drawings? It doesn't. There are hundreds if not thousands of other things that prove evolution and are far more convincing than fetal drawings.

You're welcome for the perfect transition into your next thread.



edit on 20-8-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Interesting thread! To me...I don't believe that all life on Earth started from nothing and ended up today, where everything is. Especially humans. I also don't believe in God. So for me...there must be another answer. Aliens? Maybe. Seeding of the planet by another race or an accidental seeding...more likely.



posted on Aug, 21 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: noonebutme

originally posted by: MrConspiracyIt wasn't too long ago the reverse was true. Apart from now they are called religious lunatics for believing in God rather than witches for believing in Science


Well, actually, it was the religious who called them witches for believing and demonstrating a knowledge that religion could not explain.


That was my point. Religious people are now being called crazy. Just like those who pursued science were called witched. Role reversal. It was my point.



posted on Aug, 21 2015 @ 03:41 PM
link   
If there truly are no examples of evolutionary mutations adding genetic
material to the genome then (you) assuming that they don't exist is as
speculative as (a Darwinist) assuming that they do.

Both sides making an argument from ignorance...one based on a belief
in science, one based on belief in a book.

And, in this case, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,
given that the timeline to observe this mutation is quite probably
longer than the human lifespan.

But science still has the best argument, because it is ready to change
its mind if given new evidence...the opposing side...not so much







edit on 21-8-2015 by rival because: to word



posted on Aug, 21 2015 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

These "facts" that you are throwing around to disprove evolution. Where did they originate again...was this from the bible?? You are (trying) using information garnered from the study of science/evolution/Darwinism etc to debunked evolution and you do no see the hypocrisy in that??



posted on Aug, 21 2015 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

do you have any updated pictures of the different stages (from single cell to embryo) that animals go through including humans. I am sure they are not much different from the pic you are advocating as being a fraud.



posted on Aug, 21 2015 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: rival


If there truly are no examples of evolutionary mutations adding genetic
material to the genome then (you) assuming that they don't exist is as
speculative as (a Darwinist) assuming that they do.


You must not have read the thread. His question was answered and sources and examples have already been provided.



posted on Aug, 21 2015 @ 09:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: bottleslingguy


so you're saying Heidelbergensis gave birth to a modern human?


That's not at all what I said. Morphologically, we don't look exactly like "we" did when AMH first wandered into the Eurasian steppes, we don't look like we did 10 KA prior to blue eyes and Caucasians, we certainly don't look the same morphologically as the Omo Kibbish remains that are dated to ~195KA and human beings, if we survive that long, won't look like we do in another 10KA compared to our current appearances either. This is why it's often said that every living creature, every dead one and everything yet to be born is in fact a "transitional" fossil or organism because from one generation to the next, there are a multitude of variables that affect how genes express themselves. It is this slow and steady transition that while altering morphologies and genetic structure, still allowed us to be able to successfully mate with and produce fertile offspring with, Neanderthal. Because H. Heidelbergensis is the immediate predecessor of both our species. We are all of the same Genus, Homo.



how does that work within our timeframe? and don't play that- "you just don't know all the facts" b.s. give me some facts not vague speculations like "they're all over the place"


What time frame are you actually trying to reference? Are you implying that one day a Heidelbergensis mother and father gave birth to a HN or HSS baby within a single generation? If so, that simply isn't how it works. As I mention above, it is typically a very slow process though there are what appear to be some PE events in conjunction with a huge genetic bottleneck incident post Toba eruption as well.

Going back a little farther, Homo Georgicus, which is for all intents and purposes, an archaic European Homo Erectus with some more archaic features that place it in between an Erectus and the oldest member of our Genus, Homo Habilis. It was, as the name implies, found in the Republic of Georgia in the Caucuses region and is ~1.8MA and the first member of our Genus to arrive in Europe. From H. Georgicus through Erectus to Heidelbergensis becoming a fully separate and recognizable species was a period of 1.2MA(HH was a fully distinct species ~600KA). From HH to Neanderthal was another 2-300KA and roughly 400KA from HH to Homo Sapiens in East Africa so these simply are not an overnight phenomena. It is a measurable and verifiable process as shown in the fossil records from South and East Africa to Northern Europe across to Siberia.

This is a very "Readers Digest" summation of events that took place in a time period of nearly 2 millions years and focuses heavily on the morphology. The genetic story is far more complex and has been the subject of many a dissertation. The variation of Hominids during this period of time is simply amazing as was the fact that we shared the planet with as many as a half dozen cousin species in total as recently as 100KA( possibly even a few more depending on the time period in question) and there were still 4 of us until at least 40KA, expanding habitats and sharing genes that in some instances, had been in isolation for 100's of thousands of years and is in part responsible for "us" being the "us" of today compared to Homo Sapiens Sapiens of 70 KA BP. You have to keep in mind that the HSS who left Africa 60-70 KA were very different and as they spread across the globe added in genes from Neanderthal, Homo Altaiensis(Denisovan), possibly some extra freaky action with some H. Erectus and Floresiensis(though those 2 are speculative at present, the possibility still very definitely exists) as well as a semi-mysterious, as yet unidentified hominid from West Africa who definitely existed because we have the genetic data to show that it happened, just no physical remains... as of yet.







posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

I think you're making an excellent point here without even realizing it. Creationists love to harp on the fossil record, but they haven't caught up to modern science and the fact that the vast amount of evidence for evolution is primarily genetic. Creationists love to harp on morphology, and even attempt to quantify when pursing baraminological arguments, but they haven't caught up to modern science and the fact that speciation isn't a matter of morphology, it's a matter of genetics. Maybe the creationists will figure out how to open a second book and understand the scientific observations surrounding evolution from the last half century since DNA was discovered.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 01:37 PM
link   
I agree it's a very slow process and genetically we appeared less than 200,000 years ago so explain to me how that happened. Maybe also throw in how we developed high culture so quickly when it took one early homo species millions of years to improve a stone tool. I know you know the official word on these subjects but that doesn't mean you know the truth. a reply to: peter vlar



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 01:39 PM
link   
I think one big question they seem to dance around is why do some species never change like horseshoe crabs?

a reply to: iterationzero



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: bottleslingguy

No one dances around that question. In fact there is a theory, called punctuated equillibrium, that addresses that VERY point.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
I think one big question they seem to dance around is why do some species never change like horseshoe crabs?

a reply to: iterationzero



To add on to Krazyshot's reply, if a species is well adapted for a certain environment it will not experience significant changes, because they will actually hinder the creature rather than improve it or give it an advantage. Many people seem to think that all creatures must evolve equally, which is a complete misunderstanding. This is why creatures like the white shark, the crocodile, and others have not had many big changes over the years. The only thing that determines the speed of evolution is the environment.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a theory that's right. no real evidence of anything but the dancing act.

a reply to: Krazysh0t



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 07:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
a theory that's right. no real evidence of anything but the dancing act.

a reply to: Krazysh0t



That's not how it works. If I say the word "theory" in relation to a scientific concept, by you saying there is no evidence of it, it makes you look extremely ignorant about how science works.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 08:19 AM
link   
a reply to: bottleslingguy

You seem to think that the point of evolution is to keep evolving to some final form, like a Pokemon.

It's not.

It's about adapting to your environment. If your environment doesn't change, there's no selective pressures to evolve.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 08:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKEmore likely.


Not really, considering all of the evidence points to life evolving here on earth, humans included.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 08:23 AM
link   
a reply to: MCL1150

Only creationist cultists believe that evolution is somehow the enemy of god. Thankfully, most christians aren't creationist cultists.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: bottleslingguy

No one dances around that question. In fact there is a theory, called punctuated equillibrium, that addresses that VERY point.


Don't encourage him. He'll just bring up something else he doesn't have a clue about and claim that science has never ever explained it because he doesn't know about it.

"Oh yeah? Well if science is so smart, how come they don't know why the sky is blue?"
edit on 8/31/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
Darwinian evolution is based solely on natural selection and the addition of new morphological features over extended periods of time thru genetic mutations. I don't think anyone can disagree that in order to get from single celled organism to any an animal is going to take the addition of new base pairs to the genome. Now from the research I have done there is no type of mutation that adds new genetic information into the genome. All mutations take the existing genome and sift it around. This means that a mutation always loses the information that it sifts. The Human genome is 3 billion characters long. Lets equate that to a computer program that is 3 billion lines of code. If I give you that code and tell you that you can't type anything new all you can do is take whats there and move it around in anyway you like. You could never create a new piece of the program without destroying what was there. You could take one piece of the program and copy is somewhere else, but that would not be a new combination of base pairs either. So the question is there a type of mutations, Substitution, insertion, duplication, ect.. that actually adds new genetic information into the genome? If not Darwinist got some splainin' to do

Oh dear not very good at reading are you. OK ATS that might sound condescending but come on if someone is going to attack evolution it would help if they could at least reiterate current knowledge. They can disagree with it but at least GET THE DAMN BASICS CORRECT*

Hint : mitochondria




top topics



 
16
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join