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.

 

If evolution happened, where are ALL the transitional fossils?

page: 5
22
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2016 @ 09:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
You wouldn't know a "transitional fossil" if it slapped you in the face....

there is no "complete" organism...they are constantly evolving...constantly in a state of transition....

EVERY FOSSIL IN OUR RECORDS CAN BE LABELED A TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL.....

A2D


Seeing a 100,000,000 year old wasp or mosquito encased in amber that looks just like the critter that bit me makes it really hard for me to believe humans have changed a whole lot either.




posted on Jul, 16 2016 @ 10:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Bone75


Seeing a 100,000,000 year old wasp or mosquito encased in amber that looks just like the critter that bit me makes it really hard for me to believe humans have changed a whole lot either.

Wow....I agree with this so much that I'm quoting it.

Are you sure about what you're saying??? You do realize what it means, right?? We are just animals with skills.....so are ants and roaches and crocodiles.....

I really hope you do now see that!!!

Dare I hope?
Do you see it?



posted on Jul, 17 2016 @ 12:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
You wouldn't know a "transitional fossil" if it slapped you in the face....

there is no "complete" organism...they are constantly evolving...constantly in a state of transition....

EVERY FOSSIL IN OUR RECORDS CAN BE LABELED A TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL.....

A2D

Wow.. I have been around these parts for years and have read many of your posts, it seems you have evolved!
You are correct, the whole "transitional fossil" creationist fallacy argument has been rejected by most religious institutions.



posted on Jul, 17 2016 @ 03:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Bone75

Rates of "evolution"(or mutations) aren't set in stone...just because mosquitoes, wasps, jellyfish, etc. don't show very many distinct signs of change over the course of millions of years does not invalidate evolution at all....

Maybe you'd like to look at a horse instead....


Or maybe a camel?



A2D
edit on 17-7-2016 by Agree2Disagree because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2016 @ 03:14 AM
link   
a reply to: flyingfish

I've always had questions about evolution...I still do to be completely honest....but it's not something that invalidates the science....

A2D



posted on Jul, 17 2016 @ 04:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: LABTECH767
Evolution is a Theory which is why it is called the Theory (idea) of Evolution not the Law of Evolution.


Wrong again. The scientific definition of evolution has been pointed out to you personally on numerous occasions:


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, preferably using a written, pre-defined, protocol of observations and experiments.


en.wikipedia.org...

How many times must this be pointed out?



posted on Jul, 17 2016 @ 05:04 AM
link   
a reply to: secretboss

Oh look, it's another creationist who claims that he/she can't use the search function. Here's an intro.

Here's a hint: the search function is your friend. You should try using it. That way you won't hideously embarrass yourself. As you just have.



posted on Jul, 17 2016 @ 05:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: LABTECH767
Evolution is a Theory which is why it is called the Theory (idea) of Evolution not the Law of Evolution.


Wrong again. The scientific definition of evolution has been pointed out to you personally on numerous occasions:


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, preferably using a written, pre-defined, protocol of observations and experiments.


en.wikipedia.org...

How many times must this be pointed out?


Look do I really have to educate you, Go back to school and learn something preferably with a teacher who know's what they hell they are on about.

A theory not based on provable law's (Principles) remains merely a hypothesis.
A theory CAN NEVER BE PROVEN it can however be supported and shown to be a working MODEL.
ANY theory can be disproven by any evidence that is contrary to it's model's, this is when the THEORY ceases to fit.

Recently (within the last several decade's) you shall have heard of the invention of work around's such as the now infamous CHAOS theory (that is the correct spelling by the way not KAOS) which allow a mostly working group of Theoretical Model's to carry on being used even though there is a lot of out of range date being generated by later analysis and observation (leading some researchers to speculate that the supposed law's of physics themselves may be in transition or not as fixed as they once believed).

What I have just spoken to you are called TENET's which is LATIN for it is HELD and you may find the same phrase on early templer anagram's of the word's Pater Noster leaving an A and an O out with TENET forming a cross and the coded symbol of a clenched fist also sometime's holding a sheaf of wheat also used due to it's connected meaning and hidden meaning's but that is for another thread not this).

In Science a Tenet is to say nicely a RULE and unbreakable RULE.

ANY THEORY MAY BE SUPPORTED BUT NEVER PROVEN is a fundamental TENET of science.
Sorry if you were not taught that but if that is the case they your teachers were probably opinionated idiot's OR it went in one ear and out of the other when they tried to educate you as this is early basic scientific TENET.

Now if I was to plot an engineering diagram or a flow chart of a theory (or for those that have performed structured programming a structured programming diagram - there is no difference they work in the same way and are all flow chart's with only a few of there symbol's slightly changed) of how a theory is formulated I would place it in the following hierarchy, Observation and analysis, were that matches known so called Law's (Let's call them principles) and were it does not, analysis of this deviation and probable causes outlining a hypothetical unknown, further analysis to conjecture more about that unknown such as how it seem's to influence other factors (Gather more data perhaps) further conjecture and analysis and finally a workable hypothesis that seem's to fit to at least the data and obersvation I have available and ulimately a codified theorem.
I am not going to number it down for you, if you know what you are on about at all even remotely they you understand what I am pointing out and have to retract your invalid point.



posted on Jul, 17 2016 @ 06:14 AM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767

Yet again you still misunderstand the scientific definitions of the words 'theory' and 'law'. If you're going to argue against a given scientific theory you'd best get the terminology correct, otherwise you look very misinformed indeed.



posted on Jul, 17 2016 @ 06:51 AM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767

The simplest explanation I have:

A scientific law is the description of an observed phenomenon....it doesn't explain why the phenomenon exists or what causes it.

The explanation of the phenomenon is what is called a scientific theory.

Laws are descriptions....like Newton's LAW of Gravity...or Mendel's law of Independent Assortment...describes an observation...not how it works...

Later on, Einstein came up with the THEORY of relativity....which helped to explain what gravity is and exactly how it works....

(Same thing with Mendel's law of Independent Assortment....it's just a description...but later on the THEORY of chromosomal inheritance helped to explain exactly how it works....)


In conclusion, I don't see why people say "the theory of evolution is just a theory..."...theories are what science uses to explain stuff...so yeah of course it's a theory lol....no one is debating the theory of chromosomal inheritance...or the theory of relativity.... theories are very well established....because they have to be....and that includes the theory of evolution....

A2D


edit on 17-7-2016 by Agree2Disagree because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2016 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Agree2Disagree

Nearly, a Law in science is what is regarded as an unchangeable universal fact, these fact's are essential node's for basing theoretical equations upon but of course throw modern quantum theory into it and there are no real laws only dimensional property's as they all change and equations have to become far more dynamic in nature.

Think how even before Quantum took hold Einstein shook up the Newtonian view.

Still your view is better stated and I like your interpretation.

edit on 17-7-2016 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2016 @ 10:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs

Wow....I agree with this so much that I'm quoting it.


What exactly are you agreeing with?
I don't think humans have changed much since our creation, just like wasps and mosquitoes.


Are you sure about what you're saying???


Are you?



posted on Jul, 17 2016 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Agree2Disagree

Nearly, a Law in science is what is regarded as an unchangeable universal fact, these fact's are essential node's for basing theoretical equations upon but of course throw modern quantum theory into it and there are no real laws only dimensional property's as they all change and equations have to become far more dynamic in nature.



No, A Law in Science can have exceptions, and be subject to change. Saying it is an unchangeable universal fact emplies that it is proven and nothing is proven in science. You even contradicted yourself.

BTW, I gave you a star for very clever hand waving.



posted on Jul, 17 2016 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Agree2Disagree

Nearly, a Law in science is what is regarded as an unchangeable universal fact, these fact's are essential node's for basing theoretical equations upon but of course throw modern quantum theory into it and there are no real laws only dimensional property's as they all change and equations have to become far more dynamic in nature.

Think how even before Quantum took hold Einstein shook up the Newtonian view.

Still your view is better stated and I like your interpretation.


Scientific Laws are subject to change if data that lends itself to a change becomes available. Again, despite your protestations, Scientific Laws do not trump or supersede Scientific Theories. The same things that can change a Theory can change a Law.



posted on Jul, 17 2016 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: secretboss

Simple

because very very very very very very very few dead animals ever get fossilised. Most extinct species have never been fossilied.

Think about it. How many of your ancestors, going back, say, 10,000 years, have been fossilised?

Does this mean you are not descended from them? Because there is no physical evidence they exist



posted on Jul, 17 2016 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: GreenGunther

I don't see where I argued against it being the best working theory but, once again we're still calling it a theory.



posted on Jul, 17 2016 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: aGh0st

For the "it's just a theory" crowd-


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, preferably using a written, pre-defined, protocol of observations and experiments.Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.

It is important to note that the definition of a "scientific theory" (often ambiguously contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity, including in this page) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from, and in contrast to, the common vernacular usage of the word "theory". As used in everyday non-scientific speech, "theory" implies that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, conjecture, or hypothesis;[4] such a usage is the opposite of the word 'theory' in science. These different usages are comparable to the differing, and often opposing, usages of the term "prediction" in science (less ambiguously called a "scientific prediction") versus "prediction" in vernacular speech, denoting a mere hope.



posted on Jul, 17 2016 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Bone75

Humans haven't changed much. That's what I'm agreeing with. We may have more tech and more maths and more science and more gadgets and tools and buildings and all that - but we still are animals.

We are primates. We are primates with extraordinary brains and with language.



posted on Jul, 17 2016 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

So you don't think we evolved from little rat-like creatures who were good at evading dinosaurs?



posted on Jul, 17 2016 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Bone75


So you don't think we evolved from little rat-like creatures who were good at evading dinosaurs?


I do, actually. Monkey fish frog mutant retard baby......




new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join