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: 9
16
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 06:52 PM
link   
this is a perfect example of what I mean by not having all the pieces of the puzzle. www.bbc.com...


a reply to: Barcs


edit on 10-9-2015 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 06:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

No one is saying we have all of the answers.

But to use this as an excuse to push creation is just pure BS.

Science is still looking for answers.

So, how about you prove God did it all. All you have is belief and while it may be your cup of tea, it is not mine.

Science will continue to unravel these and many more mysteries. 100 years ago we had absolutely no idea that DNA, Genes and a whole lot of other goodies even existed.

We are getting there. In 2000 years, no one has been able to prove that God exists.

Really, God is all loving, he loves each and every one of us, ........ now ......... get ready for Armageddon!

No thanks.

P


Quoted for agreement.

Science at least has SOME answers...Servant ofLanb what you got to offer?



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 10:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
this is a perfect example of what I mean by not having all the pieces of the puzzle. www.bbc.com...


a reply to: Barcs



Um, you do realize that is a recent discovery right? Of course they haven't put everything together yet. This discovery is further evidence to add to the huge pile in support of evolution.

And your video starts out by claiming evolution is "just a theory", the oldest argument in the book based on a complete strawman. I'm not listening to an idiot spout fallacies on youtube. Show me the hard evidence. The evidence for evolution just keeps on coming.
edit on 12-9-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 12:49 AM
link   
a reply to: DAVID64

there is solid proof against evolution. ask f want hear it all u evolutionists or if you are to chicken?! all you say is: there is proof for evolution... and never show it!!! so i think evolution is a bunch of giblet. so try me.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 06:51 AM
link   
a reply to: flanimal4114

By all means, show us the evidence against evolution.



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: iterationzero

ok then.

Myth 1. Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species

here is a test that was conducted in the late 1930s. they where trying to prove that fact above and failed. Lonnig was one of the scientists who had spent 30 years studying mutations. they used a number of techniques in order to show the sped up evolution in they way of mutations accumulating. the result was that after 40 years of research almost all results where fails and the number of new mutations declined and the same one began to occur with no new types of mutations proving my point that you can only use the already there genetic genes etc.
this shows that mutations can not lead to evolution, there is only so many mutations that can become about. its like the codons that make amino acids in deoxyribonucleic acid, lots of different sequences but only so many proteins that can end up being made in the end. And no new proteins are ever made over time is there???

Myth 2. Natural selection led to the creation of new species.

In the 1970’s, a research group led by Peter R. and B. Rosemary Grant of Princeton University began studying these finches and discovered that after a year of drought on the islands, finches that had slightly bigger beaks survived more readily than those with smaller beaks. Since observing the size and shape of the beaks is one of the primary ways of determining the 13 species of finches, these findings were assumed to be significant. “The Grants have estimated,” continues the NAS brochure, “that if droughts occur about once every 10 years on the islands, a new species of finch might arise in only about 200 years.”24
However, the NAS brochure neglects to mention that in the years following the drought, finches with smaller beaks again dominated the population. The researchers found that as the climatic conditions on the island changed, finches with longer beaks were dominant one year, but later those with smaller beaks were dominant. They also noticed that some of the different “species” of finches were interbreeding and producing offspring that survived better than the parents. They concluded that if the interbreeding continued, it could result in the fusion of two “species” into just one.
different species can not interbreed.
Darwin's finches are not becoming anything new showing that the base for myth 2 is on no foundation.

i think i have answered that to a degree if you are still not convinced please just say so and i can go on.

thank you.



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 08:05 AM
link   
a reply to: flanimal4114

how exactly does any of the extremely outdated information you have posted disprove evolution? And yes...please go on. If you have more evidence that the entire theory is incorrect you should be posting it all so that we can benefit from this knowledge.



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: flanimal4114

Just an FYI before getting into the actual content of what you’ve posted: if you’re going to copy and paste entire sections from another source, as you did for “Myth 2” below, in this case from “Evolution – Myths and Facts” hosted by the Watchtower Online Library of the Jehovah’s Witness organization, you have to use the correct tags and cite your source. Otherwise you’re in violation of the ATS’s T&C.

But on to the show…


Myth 1. Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species



here is a test that was conducted in the late 1930s. they where trying to prove that fact above and failed. Lonnig was one of the scientists who had spent 30 years studying mutations. they used a number of techniques in order to show the sped up evolution in they way of mutations accumulating. the result was that after 40 years of research almost all results where fails and the number of new mutations declined and the same one began to occur with no new types of mutations proving my point that you can only use the already there genetic genes etc.


Your reading comprehension needs some work. None of the studies mentioned in the Watchtower source, nor in Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig’s review papers of that research showed that evolution wasn’t taking place. They were trying to replicate what the results they saw occurring in natural selection at an accelerated rate by mutations breeding – inducing random mutation via radiation. These studies were started decades before we even knew what DNA was. All they failed out was outpacing natural selection via induced mutation. Lönnig, and by extension you, was free to draw his conclusion that mutations cannot cause speciation, but that doesn’t change the fact that we observe speciation regularly.


this shows that mutations can not lead to evolution, there is only so many mutations that can become about. its like the codons that make amino acids in deoxyribonucleic acid, lots of different sequences but only so many proteins that can end up being made in the end. And no new proteins are ever made over time is there???

Except we do observe the rise of new proteins and enzymatic processes. One of the most famous recent examples is an experiment that’s now in its 27th year where they’ve even identified the mutation responsible for the evolution observed in the experiment.


Myth 2. Natural selection led to the creation of new species.



In the 1970’s, a research group led by Peter R. and B. Rosemary Grant of Princeton University began studying these finches and discovered that after a year of drought on the islands, finches that had slightly bigger beaks survived more readily than those with smaller beaks. Since observing the size and shape of the beaks is one of the primary ways of determining the 13 species of finches, these findings were assumed to be significant. “The Grants have estimated,” continues the NAS brochure, “that if droughts occur about once every 10 years on the islands, a new species of finch might arise in only about 200 years.”24

However, the NAS brochure neglects to mention that in the years following the drought, finches with smaller beaks again dominated the population. The researchers found that as the climatic conditions on the island changed, finches with longer beaks were dominant one year, but later those with smaller beaks were dominant. They also noticed that some of the different “species” of finches were interbreeding and producing offspring that survived better than the parents. They concluded that if the interbreeding continued, it could result in the fusion of two “species” into just one.


See my link above regarding observed instances of speciation. The finches may not be an example of speciation, but that doesn’t mean that we haven’t observed speciation elsewhere.


i think i have answered that to a degree if you are still not convinced please just say so and i can go on.

Rather than relying on creationist sources, why not look at some actual scientific research the supports evolution and explain why you think it’s faulty.



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
I think you are the one who actually has to go back and reread something: I said 100,000+ years ago not 10,000. big difference and if you can't see the implications of that then you can go back to sleep.


a reply to: Krazysh0t



Not really. 100,000 is STILL a MUCH lower number than the millions of years that are required for evolution. Relatively, you are still presenting useless information in regards to this debate on evolution.

To be honest, you should have stuck with my typo. Asserting that humans were mining gold 100,000 years ago makes you look ridiculous. There is no evidence existing that corroborates that claim.

One more thing, no I can't see the implications of what you are saying, because it looks ridiculous and unfounded (you certainly didn't post any evidence backing your claim up). How about explaining yourself? Because if I'm "asleep" and better informed about the past then you, it really doesn't say much about your knowledge base. Though you may want to do that as a U2U since talking about human activity 100,000 years ago is rather OT and has nothing to do with evolution.
edit on 16-9-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   
here is a bit of info that some of you may have missed


evolution in REAL time

enjoy the read, hope this enlightens some of you



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: johnwick
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb
My main problem is that slow mutation of just say the eye, doesn't seem possible.

Because it would require it to be formed not just the eye, but the nerves and the processing centers of the brain in tandem.

Otherwise it gives no advantage and takes energy away from the body.

That is a hinderence, not an advantage.

And until such a time as it was functional it would only be a drain.

Not to mention a hole host of other issues I have with it.

But it our best guess ATM..... Silly humans, we believe some of the funniest things.


The same could be said of any other part of the body: the leg, for example. The leg would have to be formed in tandem with the nerves and the specific leg-part of the brain. Why is this not problematic to you?

The answer, of course, is that the brain and the nerves are already there. And then you get a photo-sensitive cell. Then two of those. Then ten thousand. Then they differentiate. Then the cell next to the original one develops a supportive function. Etc.

I really understand people who are skeptical to evolution, but to just deny one part of it seems insane.



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I am sure it has been mentioned. But what the hell, for old times sake


Modern evolution theory is not Darwins theory. WE understand the mechanism of genetic inheritance now. DNA, you may have heard of it? Well Darwin did not know what it did. Nor did Mendel. Thus "Darwinian" evolution as you call it, is an outdated model, much like I am pretty sure you are not operating on a computer using command line driven Basic. Though it is you, so who knows?


I tell you what, you actually learn how genetics works, and we will talk seriously. You do not understand (or are refusing to acknowledge) that there is redundancy in our genome. Hell there are a lot of bits in there which do sweet FA as far as we know.

Lets look at the prime reason for the genome, coding the proteins which make you and I tick. Yep that. You can wave your hands around, but the majority of that which makes you and I, well you and I, is the 1 (ish) % of the genome which codes for proteins, and that has built in redundancies. If not, we'd be totally screwed. Then about 25% of the genome regulates HOW those protiens are expressed. Thus we are 98% similar to our closest living primate cousins, yet we express a lot of our proteins differently, hence appearance differences. Same goes for the extinct hominins, the Neanderthals and Densiovians (which we have some DNA information about). We are even more genetically similar to them than Chimps, and clearly expressed our proteins more similarly, yet still different. Then we look at the entire species, Homo sapiens. We are all within 1% similar or better (eg families are obviously closer). We express differently with in that 1% and cosmetically appear different.

Now why talk about that? Yeah 3 billionish nucleotides long, blah blah. I've only talked about ~25% of those 3 billion nucleotides. We have around 74% of those not yet assigned to a function. We do not know much about the epigenome yet either.

So if we barely understand 25% (rounding down) of our genome. We are doing very well in understanding evolution.

I'm going to ignore your tired attempt to do a macro vs micro evolution rain dance. You don't understand how to apply the words, so stop trying. On top of that you miss the point. "Extended periods of time". We HAVE observed evolutionary leaps. You may one day suffer from an antibiotic-resistant infection. If you do, pray real hard, because clearly that was gods will neighbour, not anything else...right?



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 11:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
Now from the research I have done there is no type of mutation that adds new genetic information into the genome.


Excellent, you have done some research. Are you going to be publishing this research so we fully understand what you have discovered? What sort of research was it? Did you work with a breeding populations? Or perhaps some for of experiment on DNA replication?

Unless you mean that your "research" was looking stuff up on creationist web sites or googling something like "Why Darwin was wrong" in which case it wasn't research at all. And since you got the science wrong, it does make me wonder what you really did as "research"

Please don't keep us all in suspense.



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Revolution9

I defined information I just didn't specifically state it.




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.


I am asking if there is a mutation type that adds new base pairs to the genome. Its not some vague definition. I mean Genetic Information is the Information in DNA which is base pairs. Its not really that hard. I am not saying there is not one out there, but I haven't found any research providing one. I am not asking for particular experiments. I am asking for a mutation type i.e. Substitution. Duplication. ect that doesn't just take the base pairs that exist and move them elsewhere.


This question has been asked so many times and answered that I wonder if y'all can read.

Nucleotides are synthesized continually through a biochemical pathway. That DNA is primarily composed of four nucleotides does not mean that the genome does not have the capability of adding new information. Think binary code: 0s and 1s. Does binary code prevent programmers from adding new information to a processor? No. Are we "stuck" with only one processor for computers? No.
DNA is a code whose configuration not only includes the sequences of the four base pairs - adenine-thymine, cytosine-guanine. It also includes thermodynamic properties like bonding energies, stoichiometric quantities, as well as chirality.

New information is just that: IT'S NEW! What a concept. When a new protein is coded through transcription, IT IS NEW. The DNA programming code wrote a program script - just like C++ - which sent commands to the transcriptional process which then aligned a new configuration of amino acids into a protein.

Get over it already. If DNA couldn't code for new information, life could not exist at all. Ever think of that? I bet not.

I would add that the fact that DNA is composed of four bases is a testament to evolution. Why? Because of nature's tendency to become more efficient and better suited to do whatever it's supposed to do. Adding a new nucleotide wouldn't necessarily add new information. Why? Because it isn't necessary.

And once again, and forever (I wish), base pairs are not recycled like plastic bottles. They are continually synthesized (i.e. new ones are manufactured) to replace the ones that are metabolized over time.

We really need that debate. I'll ask the folks over at the Creationists Institute (Ken Ham) if they'd like to join in. Could be a landmark experience.




edit on 18-9-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-9-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Like tossing a gazillion snow flakes down a mountain to see which ones become snowmen by the time they hit the bottom.
edit on 18-9-2015 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 03:43 AM
link   
a reply to: iterationzero

I did not copy past and was surprised you found my source. I do not advertise the fact I use ifermation from groups so as not to sound unscientific. I like they way you word things and how you give productive feed back. I will consider my fact and come up with more soon.

You are an u argumentative and scientific person. Thank you for that



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: flanimal4114


I did not copy past

The fact that you left in the footnote numbers is a pretty clear sign that you copy-pasted the whole "Myth 2" portion of your post.


and was surprised you found my source.

When you copy-paste info from another source, it makes it very easy to find the source.


I do not advertise the fact I use ifermation from groups so as not to sound unscientific.

Unless you're actively doing laboratory research, you're always going to be citing someone else's information. There's nothing unscientific about that; there are entire journal articles devoted to doing just that called "review articles". They're very useful as a starting point, as they provide a summary of an area of research. Unscientific is not providing your references. Not sure what stage of your academic career you're in, but professors will come down on you pretty fast & hard if you start making claims with no reference to back them up.


I like they way you word things and how you give productive feed back. I will consider my fact and come up with more soon. You are an u argumentative and scientific person. Thank you for that

I appreciate the candor and have one suggestion for you -- consider the sources you're drawing information from and research whether or not there's already a counterpoint to their arguments.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join