It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I think the link that KrazyshOt provided outlined some significant difficulties with speciation?
originally posted by: flanimal4114
My case against macro evolution is this, in any way or form things do not become anything new through evolution and tests back this up as they have never been able to see macro evolution in progress.
My thing about "ant" was not stating how it is but just giving an over view of my theory (scientific term theory 😂😂😂) that things can not be from what is not there, simply saying that the information must already be possible inside the cell/gene/DNA making it imposible to change into something not there.
Enzymes prevent the building up of mutations any way as they over generations bring back to the base of what the first creature was as shown in the fruit flys.
originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: hudsonhawk69
Please explain how a computer chip is based on Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. Darwin didn't even know DNA existed and it isn't even remotely close to how genetic mutations change code. People are so desperate to disprove evolution they make all kinds of irrelevant comparisons and strawmans. Will the junkyard tornado argument be next?
You seem to misunderstand me.
Evolution is not on trial here, Speciation is and more specifically speciation as a mechanism being able to produce all of the biological diversity that we see around us. A number of times throughout this tread solid scientific evidence has been presented highlighting the difficulties surrounding the potential of speciation to be able to achieve this goal. I don't see why that is so difficult to understand.
Few things in science are definitively certain, yet in spite of a the clearly defined difficulties associated with speciation being able to produce all varieties of biological diversity people still spout it off as irrefutable fact. That logic simply doesn't make sense.
originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
I'm not tying to disprove evolution. I'm trying to highlight a simple concept as to why speciation can potentially never be solely responsible for the diversity that we see in the biological tree of life. It's a simple concept that would appear to be supported by the evidence at hand. All proofs of speciation depending on your stand point are not significantly different from the previous generations. The simple example that I provided gives an understandable explanation as to potentially why this is true.