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.

 

A few points for argumentative Creationists to consider.

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 24 2015 @ 01:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Ghost147

Why does someone have to use all the scientific words, when giving a simple explanation?


You don't need to. But it's not that you didn't use scientific words that made your description wrong. Your description was simply wrong.


originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Ghost147
Why did I need to be as specific as saying allele frequency? Isn't Genetic Drift the generic term used to explain the genetic variation of genes.


You didn't need to be specific. I've explained in my above post. Genetic drift isn't a process, nor is it genetic variation, It simply is a matter of accumulated mutations.


originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Ghost147
And doesn't the allele account for the variations.


No, An allele is basically a gene. So a change in allele frequency would be a mutation. But, the allele itself doesn't account for a variation, the change does.

Here's a totally different way to describe the evolutionary process, without using technical terms.

Think of it as "time". We have a second, a minute, an hour, a day (and so forth). All of them describe different things, but are also the same thing in the end. We can relate these terms with Evolution by stating a 'second' is a 'mutation'. 'Over time' (reproduction and successive generations) a second (mutation) accumulates and accumulates. Eventually it accumulates so much that it becomes something new and turns into a minute (a new species). However, the seconds (mutations) continue to accumulate 'over time' (reproduction and successive generations), they form more minutes (species) yet are still related to that very first second, until they go so far as to create something new, an 'hour' (genus). those seconds (mutations) keep accumulating, and in that 'Hour' (genus) there are more and more 'Minutes' (species), all related to that initial second and to each other, and they drift further 'over time' (reproduction and successive generations) until they become a day 'Family', and then an 'week' (order) and so on.

That is a very basic way to explain Evolution that eventually becomes the hierarchy of biological classification's eight major taxonomic ranks.

Of course, Evolution branches, and isn't linear, but you get the idea. No scientific terms needed. I suppose we can make it even more accurate by saying that once we reach an hour (genus) we roll a few dice and whatever number it lands on we start counting again, forming a branch of counted time and make it exactly like Evolution (while still maintaining the count on the original time), as Genus' need two or more species within them to actually be classified as a Genus.
edit on 24/10/15 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 24 2015 @ 03:03 AM
link   

a reply to: Ghost147

You didn't need to be specific. I've explained in my above post. Genetic drift isn't a process, nor is it genetic variation, It simply is a matter of accumulated mutations.




Genetic drift is a process in which allele frequencies within a population change by chance alone as a result of sampling error from generation to generation.
www.apsnet.org...


Sorry genetic drift isn't variation but it's hypothesized that it can lead to a new species which is why I used the term variation, obviously incorrectly.



Genetic drift can also cause a new population to be genetically distinct from its original population, which has led to the hypothesis that genetic drift plays a role in the evolution of new species.
www.nature.com...


I am done playing word games with the 1% that I admitted would be able to explain it better then me.

I don't understand the scientific community.

You know you can't prove single to multi cell nor have we witnessed anything significant when it comes to speciation, yet most absolutely refuse that God could have created everything according to Class/Phylum.

It just seems logical to me to wait until we demonstrate single to multi cell evolution before we try to eliminate God from the equation.


edit on 24-10-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2015 @ 03:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
I don't understand the scientific community.

You know you can't prove single to multi cell


Yes, we can. Yes, we have. You just keep rejecting the information being posted. Actually, far more than rejecting, it seems that you simply ignore that it was already posted.


originally posted by: Isurrender73
nor have we witnessed anything significant when it comes to speciation


We have witnessed a species diverging into another species (multiple times). How much more significant can speciation get when the definition is one species diverging into another species?


originally posted by: Isurrender73
, yet most absolutely refuse that God could have created everything according to Class/Phylum.


Give me one exact quote from a person who truly understands evolution, and is an atheist, that states "There is no possibility that a God created everything according to class/phylum, and so forth!"

I, an atheist, whom has a firm grasp on the Scientific Theory of Evolution, am telling you, that it is possible that god could have created everything according to class/phylum, and so forth.

We all acknowledge that, why? because it is unfalsifiable. You can't disprove that a god had a hand in creating everything according to class/phylum and so forth. However, we don't accept that as the likely possibility because:

1) There is nothing to suggest that god did create everything according to class/phylum, and so forth.

2) We already have a plethora of evidence that nature created everything according to class/phylum, and so forth.

3) Because that notion is unfalsifiable, who's to say that it wasn't Satan, or The Flying Spaghetti monster, or me before I was born but now have no memory of it, or aliens, that created everything according to class/phylum, and so forth. And because the concept is unfalsifiable, it makes the concept moot and pointless. But, we acknowledge that "hey, I can't prove it wrong, so it's possible"


originally posted by: Isurrender73
It just seems logical to me to wait until we demonstrate single to multi cell evolution before we try to eliminate God from the equation.


We have...



posted on Oct, 24 2015 @ 03:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

If your talking about the yeast, many evolutionary scientists dont believe the experiment proves evolution from single to multi cell.

If there is another experiment please show it, because I missed it. The yeast experiment is very weak.

edit on 24-10-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2015 @ 04:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

Well, let's first exclude that Speciation, is a form of what some call "macro evolution".

If you need some examples of speciation that has been witnessed you can review some of these:

Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905)
Primula verticillata and Primula floribunda(1912)
Tragopogon dubius and Tragopogon pratensis (1950)
Madia gracilis and Madia citriodora (1945)
Drosophila melanogaster (1962)
Drosophila pseudoobscura (1966)
Drosophila willistoni (1980)

And more. If you're interested I can post them.

So we can all agree that speciation occurs. And to get to speciation you would have to have change in allele frequencies over successive generations, Natural selection, Genetic Drift, and so forth. Which you also seem to agree with.

Now, How does one prove that this process continues further than a species level? Well, considering that genus' can take thousands and thousands of years in some cases, that would mean we have to look a different sources for evidence. These sources include:

1) Morphological
2) Genetic
3) Fossil

Through various dating methods (that can be cross evaluated with other various dating methods, in many cases) we can determine the general era in which a particular fossil would have lived. Studying other fossils we can look at morphological references, and even genetic references that can be directly linked to other fossils, both older and younger (and in some cases still living today).

If the evolutionary process continues in the way that it functions today, then we could hypothesize that there is common descent between species, and when we study the fossil record as a whole we should see an apparent and gradual change over time between different distinct species. If we were to hypothesize that there is common descent between species, when we study currently living organisms, we should find various parts of the body that are "left over" parts, remnants from presumed previous ancestor species that those older species would have used for various specific purposes in their specific habitats, but currently have no known use or existing function for the current species in it's current habitat, or would have current uses that might be drastically different than their ancestors and were co-opted for other uses to adapt to different environments. If we were to examine the genomes of all living things, we should find patterns and similarities connecting different species and they would be related to the extent that the species are related. Like the fossil evidence, we should find patterns over time that fit into their respective time scales.

If we then converge all three of those different variables together (or even singularly) then we can form a very accurate depiction of the divergence of a genus, family, order, class, phylum, so on and so forth. Which we do. The more fossils we find, the more accurately we can see the gradual changes between one species, to another, to one genus to another, and so on.

Hominids are a great example.



We can do this for just about anything, and nearly any time frame.

In fact, the theory that evolution continues to function the way we see it today is so evidence through our findings in the fossil record that we have yet to see anything that would suggest that it did not function any other way at any time during life on Earth.

Science is very much like being a detective. The answer becomes more and more clear as new evidence enters to play. Choanoflagellates are a great example of how single celled organisms could become multicellular organisms because Choanoflagellates can be both single cellular and multicellular. We have evidence that single cellular organisms had a particular makeup. There are also other primitive multicellular organisms that, in many ways, resemble the first multicellular creatures that existed a billion years ago.

A group at the University of Arizona has published a study of of one group the these amazing organisms, the volvocine green algae. What's amazing about this group of algae is that you can find a range of multicellular sophistication in closely relate algae species. There are species that form simple sets of four identical cells stuck together, other that form balls of 32-64 not quite identical cells with some specialized functions, up to full-blown multicellular organisms with 50,000 highly specialized cells, including reproductive germ cells. The evolution of multicellularity is not an irrecoverable event from an unimaginably distant past; it is something we can observe, manipulate, and test in the lab today.

All these bits of evidence all lead to the same outcome. That The Theory of Evolution is still prevalent even during that time, and that the process is still the same as it is now.

What you don't seem to understand is that you don't need to be there to come to a conclusion that is accurate. There are other ways to gather evidence that show a clear description on what occurred and how.



posted on Oct, 24 2015 @ 08:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73


Evolution is not complicated to understand.

But too complicated, it seems, for you to explain. Almost every sentence of your explanation contains a serious error.

I'm more than a little tired of explaining evolution to ungrateful creationists, but since I challenged you, and I would never ask someone to do something without being willing to take on the same task myself, here's how it really works.

It is not simple, but it can be fairly simply explained.

*


All living things face threats to their survival and propagation from two sources. One is the environment, which may suddently turn hostile due to climate change, geology, the action of other species, etc. The other threat comes from members of their own species (or 'conspecifics') with whom they compete for resources and, in some cases, mates.

The competition is stiff, and those who aren't up to it are weeded out, dying without offspring or producing weak offspring that die off before they can produce a third generation. This weeding-out process is called 'natural selection'.

But the environment is always changing, presenting different opportunities and threats, so unless living things also keep changing (or 'evolving', if you prefer), they will be unable to survive and reproduce successfully and will die out.

Luckily, a mechanism exists to facilitate this change, or 'evolution'. It is called mutation.

Here is how it works. Every living cell contains a blueprint for reproducing itself, called its 'genome'. When a cell duplicates itself, it also duplicates its genome and stashes the copy inside the nucleus of the daughter cell, ready for use when cell division occurs again.

But copying errors sometimes occur during this process. When this occurs, the cell-building process reads these errors and produces cellular material based on them. This is called mutation. The result is an organism that is not quite like its parent. We call this a mutant.

Many different kinds of mutations occur (though all possible mutations certainly do not occur). Most of the mutants will be handicapped by their mutations, less 'fit' than their parents. Natural selection will weed them out.

A very few mutants will be better 'adapted' than their parents and other members of their species. They will tend to have more offspring, and the mutation will spread through the population. When this process has reached its greatest extent, the population can be said to have evolved.

That is the theory of evolution in a nutshell. It is very different — not just in terms of terminology, but in terms of cause, process and effect — from the confused attempt at an explanation you offered.


edit on 24/10/15 by Astyanax because: of typos.



posted on Oct, 24 2015 @ 11:05 AM
link   
there are good reasons why topics like this one will never be resolved except in those who already believe or not. Human ego and the need to be right are insurmountable. Ive never met a person that liked being wrong. Most people will engage in mental, emotional contortions and gymnastics of all kinds to prevent themselves from feeling wrong or admitting they are wrong.


To the OP, ii like most of what you said but i dont understand it very well. Like most people i was denied a proper education and instruction in logic, reason, rhetoric and the like. I will look into this falsifiability thing, it looks promising.


Ego aside, the OP identified some major impediments to fruitful discussion. Having an agreed set of rules, concepts, definitions and the like are critical and usually lacking. Ultimately most of us retire from the cold, indifferent realm of conflict for the safety and warmth of likeminded fellows. We cannot avoid this. All the while we comfort ourselves with the thought that we are superior to those we disagree with. How sad and what a loss for real truth seekers.



posted on Oct, 24 2015 @ 11:05 AM
link   
double post
edit on 24-10-2015 by ratsinacage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2015 @ 11:05 AM
link   
double
edit on 24-10-2015 by ratsinacage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2015 @ 11:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: sweets777
The definition of theory is from my websters is.


It helps if you bother to use the correct definition:


A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.



posted on Oct, 24 2015 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: spygeek






posted on Oct, 24 2015 @ 11:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147


An allele is basically a gene.

Alleles are alternative versions of a gene. There's a gene for blue eyes and a gene for brown eyes. They are alleles of the eye-colour gene.

Looked at from a biochemical point of view, it's a bit more complex than that (different lengths of DNA occupying alternate locations, but a gene is not so much a strip of DNA as all the DNA that affects the synthesis of a particular trait). Still, the above definition will serve.


edit on 24/10/15 by Astyanax because: this stuff isn't as simple as we have to make it, sometimes, to explain it to creationists.



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 07:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Astyanax

It is likely that I understand Evolution better then 99% of you that claim I must be a moron.

I have read literally hundreds of reports on evolution and I understand exactly what Evolution claims. I understand exactly what the theory implies and I understand exactly where it lies in the land of hypothesis.

I have looked at the Fossil record. I understand adaptation and speciation. I think the yeast study was cool but it doesn't prove anything. I also am more up to date on the genome project then most.

I am tired of the arrogance on ATS. I am literally a genius who understands and can explain evolution better then 99% of you who think you know something.



There are over 150,000 research papers published in recognized journals on the subject of evolution. Since you know so much about evolution, why not select several of these papers at random and discuss why they are wrong. If you can't be bothered to select the papers, I'll be happy to do it for you.



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 11:40 PM
link   
I was going to start replying to posts and queries directed to me, but it seems Ghost has replied to all already.

Thank you for the time and effort you've put in Ghost, and others, you have done an excellent job illustrating how evolution works and reinforcing the point made in my op about the invalidity of theological arguments against it.

I hope, however fruitlessly, that discussion of the theory of evolution will in future not be made in the origins and creationism thread. it has been shown repeatedly that evolution is not covered by, nor related to, either of these topics.


originally posted by: ratsinacage
there are good reasons why topics like this one will never be resolved except in those who already believe or not. Human ego and the need to be right are insurmountable. Ive never met a person that liked being wrong. Most people will engage in mental, emotional contortions and gymnastics of all kinds to prevent themselves from feeling wrong or admitting they are wrong.


this is sadly true, however i have met and know a lot of people who are willing to admit when they have misunderstood something or got their facts wrong. they are still in the minority, but still, they are out there.


To the OP, ii like most of what you said but i dont understand it very well. Like most people i was denied a proper education and instruction in logic, reason, rhetoric and the like. I will look into this falsifiability thing, it looks promising.


falsifiability applies not only to the validity of scientific hypothesis and theory, but any and all claims that are said to be true. if it can not be proven wrong, it has little to no value as a statement.


Ego aside, the OP identified some major impediments to fruitful discussion. Having an agreed set of rules, concepts, definitions and the like are critical and usually lacking. Ultimately most of us retire from the cold, indifferent realm of conflict for the safety and warmth of likeminded fellows. We cannot avoid this. All the while we comfort ourselves with the thought that we are superior to those we disagree with. How sad and what a loss for real truth seekers.


The point i was trying to make in the op was that there is "an agreed set of rules, concepts, definitions and the like" when approaching a discussion of scientific theory such as evolution. a lack of knowledge of these accepted definitions and rules, along with a willful ignorance of the scientific method itself, are what drive all of the creationist arguments against evolution. Interestingly, the majority of those who consider themselves superior to those who disagree have been in my experience members of the creationist team. Those with an understanding of science and how it works have been in my experience far more modest and accepting of the limits of their/our scientific knowledge.
edit on 25-10-2015 by spygeek because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 01:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: spygeek
I was going to start replying to posts and queries directed to me, but it seems Ghost has replied to all already.





originally posted by: spygeek
I hope, however fruitlessly, that discussion of the theory of evolution will in future not be made in the origins and creationism thread. it has been shown repeatedly that evolution is not covered by, nor related to, either of these topics.


True. But, so long as some people mistakenly believe that it's definition describes how life started on Earth, we will have to revolve the dismissal of that misunderstanding around the topic of life beginning on earth to some extent.

Nevertheless, I think it is actually quite beneficial seeing these topics in this section, as I would assume others who have been taught this misunderstanding by their peers or family would probably linger in this forum more than a more scientific one, as they tend to share similar bias towards all scientific matters.

Ironically, even though it shouldn't really be in this section according to definition, it may actually be serving a larger purpose here than there.

edit on 26/10/15 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 02:04 AM
link   
originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: spygeek
originally posted by: spygeek
[spygeek] I hope, however fruitlessly, that discussion of the theory of evolution will in future not be made in the origins and creationism thread. it has been shown repeatedly that evolution is not covered by, nor related to, either of these topics.



Ghost147: True. But, so long as some people mistakenly believe that it's definition describes how life started on Earth, we will have to revolve the dismissal of that misunderstanding around the topic of life beginning on earth to some extent.
Nevertheless, I think it is actually quite beneficial seeing these topics in this section, as I would assume others who have been taught this misunderstanding by their peers or family would probably linger in this forum more than a more scientific one, as they tend to share similar bias towards all scientific matters.

Take into account your avatar and its relevance to an IDEALISED (beautiful) version of the human specie; more a tricky idealized meme that is backwards in meaning: revolting and Ghost147 has no idea the harm being caused.



edit on 26-10-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 02:04 AM
link   
Not a lotus flower
edit on 26-10-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 02:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147
Ironically, even though it shouldn't really be in this section according to definition, it may actually be serving a larger purpose here than there.


a point well made and one i must concede..



originally posted by: vethumanbeing
Take into account your avatar and its relevance to an IDEALISED (beautiful) version of the human specie; a tricky idealized meme that is backwards revolting.


now i am completely confused, vet.. i was under the impression his avatar was something along extraterrestrial lines.. =S


Not a lotus flower


???
edit on 26-10-2015 by spygeek because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 02:19 AM
link   
originally posted by: spygeek

originally posted by: Ghost147
Ironically, even though it shouldn't really be in this section according to definition, it may actually be serving a larger purpose here than there

a point well made and one i must concede..

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
Take into account your avatar and its relevance to an IDEALISED (beautiful) version of the human specie; a tricky idealized meme that is backwards revolting.



spygeek: now i am completely confused, vet.. i was under the impression his avatar was something along extraterrestrial lines.



vhb: Not a lotus flower


???
NO (not at all) this is this persons soul revealed.
edit on 26-10-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 02:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Isurrender73

Do it then, just don't abandon it like your last thread.
There is plenty there still waiting for answers to your questions.


No one questioned the science that I presented. I don't post what I don't know. I was attacked repeatedly like I was an idiot without anyone countering the scientific claims I made.

No one ever counters the science I present with any argument other then "you must not understand".

Nobody counters the science you present because....its not science. It's your interpretation if science.and its wrong.
And incidentally...you're a self proclaimed genius that knows all of this stuff better than 99% of the rest of us, and...we're arrogant?
Idiot isn't the word I'd choose for you..but you are in the ballpark.




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join