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.

 

New Resarch Suggests Chimp/Human Fossil Record May Be Inaccurate Depiction Of Divergence

page: 14
18
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 06:10 AM
link   
a reply to: PhotonEffect

This is a semantical argument. You can call the process anything you want - information, code, alterations, mutations, building blocks - The poster who prompted my response used the term "information" - I was addressing his/her terminology.

The difference is this: the Creationists strictly avoid the real biochemical process of evolution. They avoid the science like the plague. They mask it in a way that makes it look like they really know something. But here's the key - which you will note in the link below: There isn't a single experimental citation - not-a-one. What this says is that these guys never go into the lab. They take the real scientific knowledge and corrupt it in a way that makes it look like they did the work when in fact, they've never stepped foot into a lab much less have they demonstrated that the current science about evolution is wrong. A very good example is in the link is posted below: The guy makes it sound like he knows something. But in fact, what he's done is corrupt the current authenticated work on evolution and turned it into his bogus interpretation. I'm not going to analyze it point-by-point - it's waste of time because those who understand the science don't need it and those who have accepted the Creationist fraud have no interest.

Link: creation.com...

"Degraded information
There are abundant examples in the evolutionary literature where genetic degradation has been used in an attempt to show an increase in information over time. Examples include sickle cell anemia (which confers a resistance to the malaria parasite by producing deformed hemoglobin molecules),40 aerobic citrate digestion by bacteria (which involves the loss of control of the normal anaerobic citrate digestion),41 and nylon digestion by bacteria (which involves a loss of substrate specificity in one enzyme contained on an extra-chromosomal plasmid).42 Since they all involve decay of prior information, none of these examples are satisfactory evidence for an increase in biological complexity over time.


General gain-of-function mutations
Evolution requires gain-of-function (GOF) mutations, but evolutionists have had a difficult time coming up with good examples.44 Adaptive immunity, homologous recombination, antibiotic resistance in bacteria, and sickle-cell anemia in humans have all been used as examples, but, as detailed above, each of these examples fails to meet the requirements of a true GOF. The general lack of examples, even theoretical examples, of something absolutely required by evolution is strong testimony against the validity of evolutionary theory.


Saying a gene can be copied and then used to prototype a new function is not what evolution requires, for this cannot account for radically new functionality. Thus, gene duplication cannot answer the most fundamental questions about evolutionary history. Likewise, none of the common modes of mutation (random letter changes, inversions, deletions, etc.) have the ability to do what evolution requires. Darwin pulled a bait and switch in his On the Origin of Species. He actually produced two separate theories: what I call his special and general theories of evolution, following Kerkut45. Darwin went on at length to show how species change. This was the Special Theory of Evolution and he was preceded by numerous others, including several creationists, with the same idea.

It took him a long time to get to the point, but he finally said,

“ … I can see no limit to the amount of change … which may be effected in the long course of time by nature’s power of selection.”46
The ‘can mutations create new information’ argument is really about the bridge between the special and general modes of evolution.

This was his General Theory of Evolution, and this is where he failed, for he provided no real mechanism for the changes and was ignorant of the underlying mechanisms that would later be revealed. To use a modern analogy, this would be akin to saying that small, random changes in a complex computer program can create radical new software modules, without crashing the system.47 Thus, the ‘can mutations create new information’ argument is really about the bridge between the special and general modes of evolution. Yes, mutations can occur within living species (kinds), but, no, those mutations cannot be used to explain how those species (kinds) came into existence in the first place. We are talking about two completely separate processes.


We need to get past the naïve idea that we understand the genome because we know the sequence of a linear string of DNA. In fact, all we know is the first dimension out of at least four in which the genome operates (1: the one-dimensional, linear string of letters; 2: the two-dimensional interactions of one part of the string with another, directly or through RNA and protein proxies; 3: the three-dimensional spatial structure of the DNA within the nucleus; and 4: changes to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd dimensions over time). There is a tremendous amount of information packed into that genome that we have not figured out, including multiple simultaneously-overlapping codes.48 When discussing whether or not mutations can create new information, evolutionists routinely bring up an overly-simplistic view of mutation and then claim to have solved the problem while waving their hand over the real issue: the antagonism between ultra-complexity and random mutation.



edit on 8-2-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 08:06 AM
link   
Why do they have to go into a lab, why can't they just question the theory
Are you scared of having the belief questioned.
Isn't that science, deny something as fact till is proven.
Your argument is backwards, you want evolution accepted when it hasn't been validated

I don't understand how you accept it as truth when there are so many unanswered questions, even in your own diatribe you highlight valid questions and show that they are unanswered

Here is the key, they take scientific theory and question it, expose it and push for the burden of proof to be shown

Yawn, another nothing reply but evolution is truth and we know everything, when in fact you have shown absolutely no evidence to support evolution at all
Creationists don't avoid the science, it just can't be found in real world situations, like the OP
It's all Assumption
All you have done is prove that evolution is afraid of challenge, all you have done is complain that evolution science is being held accountable by people who challenge it

Effectively you have shown is that evolution scientists should not be held accountable for what they say, for what they believe, you deny science, why do you hate science?
edit on 8-2-2016 by Raggedyman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 08:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

"Why do they have to go into a lab"




Anyone else need a dry martini?



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 08:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Why do they have to go into a lab, why can't they just question the theory
Are you scared of having the belief questioned.


The hypothesis of Evolution has been questioned thousands of times, by other scientists no less. Once again, the way something becomes more than a Hypothesis in science is when it's continuously doubted, tested, and those tests confirmed that the hypothesis is factual, then it becomes a Scientific theory.

You can question all you want, but if you don't go out and prove your claims, your claims mean nothing.

All these concepts have been explained to you at least 10 times in this very topic.


originally posted by: Raggedyman
I don't understand how you accept it as truth when there are so many unanswered questions, even in your own diatribe you highlight valid questions and show that they are unanswered


This has been explained to you several times. Evolution is both Fact and a Theory.


originally posted by: Raggedyman
Here is the key, they take scientific theory and question it, expose it and push for the burden of proof to be shown


We've been doing that for hundreds of years, and it's been confirmed thousands of times. You're free to question it all you want, perform the necessary experiments pertaining to the questions you have, then post your results for peer review.



originally posted by: Raggedyman
Yawn, another nothing reply but evolution is truth and we know everything, when in fact you have shown absolutely no evidence to support evolution at all


You asked questions, we gave answers so simple to understand even children get it. It's not our fault that you're cognitive abilities can't fathom such topics. The evidence has been posted, and you choose not to respond to it formally. That's your choice, not ours.


originally posted by: Raggedyman
Creationists don't avoid the science, it just can't be found in real world situations, like the OP


You're right, creationists don't avoid science, they try their hardest to create what they think is science while all together simply manipulating data in order to fit a preconceived notion. Science doesn't work like that. We don't go in with an answer and then find things that support it, we observe a phenomenon and then form a hypothesis on how it functions using more observations.

The fundamental flaw in "creationist science" is that they don't follow the scientific method at all. You know, the thing that makes science, science...



originally posted by: Raggedyman
It's all Assumption


This has been explained to you at least 20 times in this very topic. Your rejection of reality is indeed strong.


originally posted by: Raggedyman
All you have done is prove that evolution is afraid of challenge, all you have done is complain that evolution science is being held accountable by people who challenge it


Yet everyone here has already explained to you what a scientific theory is, a hypothesis that has undergone an excessive amount of scrutiny and doubt, yet time and time again confirmed.

Your empty words fall only on the ears of the ignorant and delusional.



originally posted by: Raggedyman
Effectively you have shown is that evolution scientists should not be held accountable for what they say, for what they believe, you deny science, why do you hate science?


You're delusional if you think that's actually true after 14 full pages of simple explanations on the most basic concepts in science.



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 08:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Raggedyman

"Why do they have to go into a lab"




Anyone else need a dry martini?



Dude, don't you know? Sciency stuff is done in the bathroom. We all know that. Right?

Oh, and yes please, to the drink.
edit on 085408/2/1616 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

How do you explain genetic diversity? We have measured the rate of genetic change and we know that there are about 140 differences between us and our grandparents, 210 differences between us and our eight-great-grandparents and so on. This has enabled us to calculate the genetic diversity between two species, like us and chimpanzees for example which lead us to a common ancestor.

So how do you explain genetic diversity without evolution?

Or how do you explain that we share 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees?



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Agartha
a reply to: Raggedyman

How do you explain genetic diversity? We have measured the rate of genetic change and we know that there are about 140 differences between us and our grandparents, 210 differences between us and our eight-great-grandparents and so on. This has enabled us to calculate the genetic diversity between two species, like us and chimpanzees for example which lead us to a common ancestor.

So how do you explain genetic diversity without evolution?

Or how do you explain that we share 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees?


I can answer that for him

*cough cough* *Clears throat*

The answer is "lies"



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: Agartha
a reply to: Raggedyman

How do you explain genetic diversity? We have measured the rate of genetic change and we know that there are about 140 differences between us and our grandparents, 210 differences between us and our eight-great-grandparents and so on. This has enabled us to calculate the genetic diversity between two species, like us and chimpanzees for example which lead us to a common ancestor.

So how do you explain genetic diversity without evolution?

Or how do you explain that we share 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees?


I can answer that for him

*cough cough* *Clears throat*

The answer is "lies"


I believe your answer is wrong. I've got a lot of links to back it up, but I don't want to show you. Instead I'll tell you what they say.

Ready?

Here goes.

God did it.



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
I believe your answer is wrong. I've got a lot of links to back it up, but I don't want to show you. Instead I'll tell you what they say.

Ready?

Here goes.

God did it.


Hmmm. Compelling argument!



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 11:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: TerryDon79
I believe your answer is wrong. I've got a lot of links to back it up, but I don't want to show you. Instead I'll tell you what they say.

Ready?

Here goes.

God did it.


Hmmm. Compelling argument!


You must see how wrong you are and how right I am by all the evidence I posted (all 3 words of it).

However, if you disagree with me I might change my argument slightly and offer even more proof. Probably along the lines of God really did it or God must have done it.



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147
I can answer that for him

*cough cough* *Clears throat*

The answer is "lies"


hahaha or aliens! Soon they will show us all the evidence to back up their claims.

I am definitely curious to see if any of the 'anti-evolution' team will actually give me an answer, I don't even expect it to be evidence based and referenced.



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Warning!!

Pretty off topic content.

I just realised how much of a paradox religious folks must be in. It's all down to their own (flawed) logic.

Here's my reasoning...

A person who is Christian/Catholic/Jewish/other religion, they believe a book written about certain things that they got told happened in the same book. With no evidence whatsoever apart from what's written in the book (apparently non-fiction). No ifs, buts or maybes. The book is gospel (pun intended).

There are how many science books in how many languages about how many different types of science? Plus all the articles, papers and whatnot. Let's just say, there's a bloody lot (also non-fiction).

But a person who believes their book doesn't believe other books because they lack evidence (even though there's plenty of it)?

So by that logic, a person who is religious shouldn't believe any non-fiction book. But that means they can't believe their special book. But if they can believe their special book, they should believe other non-fiction books.

Anyone else see the paradox?



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79


There are many scientists who have religious convictions but understand that religion is based on faith and science is based on facts. Francis Collins, the head of the Human Genome Project and who is a devout Catholic, has said that he sees God every day in his lab. But does that influence his objectivity or ability to present valid evidence? No.

I don't think religion and science is really at odds for the vast number of people who understands that each has its place.

The problem arises when cults like Creationism construct an entirely new interpretation of science with no evidence. The feeble minded accept it without question.

Everyone wonders why Ken Ham and his crowd even bother. Well there is an answer: it's money. They're stashing away millions received from donors constructing carnival-like exhibits and charging entry fees. Plus, and even more egregious, he sold junk bonds to unwitting people who thought they could participate in the profits! The guy has chutzpah you can say that for him.



www.slate.com...

edit on 8-2-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-2-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 12:49 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Interesting find. So basically the date was adjusted to 6.6m rather than 7m+. Not really a big difference here, although you know the flood gates are going to be opened for the creationists and science deniers based on the way you worded the title. The issue with measuring based on mutation rates is that it is largely dependent on environmental changes. They can date the fossils, and get estimates from the history of the genetic changes, but pinpointing an exact moment of divergence has never been exact. They are educated estimations, but evolution in itself can take hundreds of thousands of years, so you can't possibly have an exact divergence point. I love reading these kinds of things though, Thanks!

EDIT: Damn, I wasn't kidding when I said it would open the flood gates. A whole bunch of talk about emotional faith based nonsense that has nothing at all to do with the OP in the slightest or even evolution. Just the usual tireless fallacies that have been presented for the last decade by angry science haters. Yawn.
edit on 2 8 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 01:02 PM
link   
I made a mistake - sorry.

I said there were no absolutes in a previous post. I was wrong. There is one absolute that I know to be absolutely true - the lame, lazy and the crazy always disappear into the ether when they can't answer a question or present the evidence.

I wonder how many manic schizophrenics are actually on this board - may be only one or two people posting under a bunch of different handles. That would explain a lot.


edit on 8-2-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Why do they have to go into a lab, why can't they just question the theory
Are you scared of having the belief questioned.
Isn't that science, deny something as fact till is proven.
Your argument is backwards, you want evolution accepted when it hasn't been validated

I don't understand how you accept it as truth when there are so many unanswered questions, even in your own diatribe you highlight valid questions and show that they are unanswered

Here is the key, they take scientific theory and question it, expose it and push for the burden of proof to be shown

Yawn, another nothing reply but evolution is truth and we know everything, when in fact you have shown absolutely no evidence to support evolution at all
Creationists don't avoid the science, it just can't be found in real world situations, like the OP
It's all Assumption
All you have done is prove that evolution is afraid of challenge, all you have done is complain that evolution science is being held accountable by people who challenge it

Effectively you have shown is that evolution scientists should not be held accountable for what they say, for what they believe, you deny science, why do you hate science?


Actually it has been stated that we don't know everything and will adjust accordingly once verifiable and credible evidence is presented. If science is all assumption you are more than welcome to sky dive without the parachute to prove it false.



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: Ghost147
EDIT: Damn, I wasn't kidding when I said it would open the flood gates. A whole bunch of talk about emotional faith based nonsense that has nothing at all to do with the OP in the slightest or even evolution. Just the usual tireless fallacies that have been presented for the last decade by angry science haters. Yawn.


Hah! A bit late to the race Barcs



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147
Hah! A bit late to the race Barcs


Yeah, I'll say. I could have sworn there were only 4 pages instead of 14 when I clicked on here

edit on 2 8 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Raggedyman

"Why do they have to go into a lab"




Anyone else need a dry martini?



Are you poking fun at me

I have a challenge, how about answering my question

Why do people who have questions and issues with what scientist say or do have to go into a lab

Are you actually saying only people who go into a lab have the right to question other lab workers

That's pure insanity, please think about what you are sayin, really put thought into what you think

You are making science a religious cult

Why do you hate science, why do you deny science, why make science evil and corrupt




top topics



 
18
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join