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.

 

Proof that evolution is the only answer

page: 20
13
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden




I simply stated that the study of evolutionary theory is NOT empirical science.


What's your evidence for that statement? Do you understand what "empirical" means? Do you understand the scientific method?




posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

I just read that paper and while compelling, it suffers from the same problem as any number of other dating methods for great ages. It requires extrapolating short period measured results without direct knowledge of the specific time involved.

It's kind of like when people say that the earth isn't round it's elliptical. Yes, technically it IS elliptical, but did you know that it is rounder and smoother than the average billiard ball? If you were to think the opposite, you would be erroneously extrapolating the apparent roundness and smoothness of a billiard ball to a degree that just doesn't exist in reality. Science does the same trying to apply the scientific method to non empirically measurable theories.

For instance, let's say that Einstein's theories of relativity are correct. That means that in areas of denser space/time such as gravity wells, time slows down. This would also mean that if space/time stretches as the universe expands, that time dilates the further away from the center of the universe we go.

This actually better explains some phenomena we have observed than the current paradigms do, and I have seen some physicists starting to gravitate towards this theory. It explains the apparent blue and red shift better than the doppler effect without requiring contrived immeasurable constructs like dark matter. It explains better the apparent FTL travel of objects in distant space, etc.

What this also means is that since time is not constant, measuring vast distances of time by current measuring sticks just don't work.

This leads to the problems with trying to apply scientific principles to things that aren't observable. They ALL by their very nature become non-empirical. They are not directly observable or testable because even slight changes in decay rates, etc due to unknown variables leads to vast differences in conclusions.

As I've previously stated, this doesn't mean that we can't gain from the studies of these things; however, we would be much better served by looking at them for what they are, rather than what they aren't.

They are nothing more than conjecture based theory and belief. We need to gain from them what we can while acknowledging what they aren't.

What they most certainly are NOT, is fact or the only explanation. With so many unknown and unknowable variables, it is imperative that we acknowledge this fact if we want to minimize the negative impact that paradigms give us. After all, scientific paradigms put the earth at the center of the universe, the sun at the center of the universe and that our ancestors were minerals and lightning.

Jaden
edit on 11-10-2016 by Masterjaden because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

You forgot to add "In my my opinion....." at the beginning of all of that.

You also forgot to back up anything you've said in every single post that would offer any credence to your opinion.



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: AshFan


Uranium-Lead series is one way of determining the ages of the oldest rocks because of the very long half-life of U-238 and U-235. In U/Pb series, there are actually there were actually 2 separate tests involved. The first compares the ratios of U 238 to Pb 206 and the second is called the Actinium series and it compares the ratios of U-235 to Pb 207. These tests are the oldest and most refined radiometric dating techniques being used in geology and archaeology because of the predictable rates of decay. U 238 has a half life of 4.47 billion years and U 235 has a half life of 710 million years. The ability to compare the ratios of both Uranium/Lead series makes this very accurate for dating rock that is at least 1 million years old and can go as old as its half life of 4.47 Bn.

www.berkeley.edu...

geology.about.com...

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton



The problem with involving evolutionary theory with any belief in a higher purpose is that evolution is based on random mutation, not consciously directed mutations.


That is why it is called "progressive evolution" in The Urantia Book. To us it seems random, but it is not. Especially in the early development of life on planet.

Take a look at this paper from The Urantia Book (www.urantia.org...)

edit on 11-10-2016 by UB2120 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: AshFan


Uranium-Lead series is one way of determining the ages of the oldest rocks because of the very long half-life of U-238 and U-235. In U/Pb series, there are actually there were actually 2 separate tests involved. The first compares the ratios of U 238 to Pb 206 and the second is called the Actinium series and it compares the ratios of U-235 to Pb 207. These tests are the oldest and most refined radiometric dating techniques being used in geology and archaeology because of the predictable rates of decay. U 238 has a half life of 4.47 billion years and U 235 has a half life of 710 million years. The ability to compare the ratios of both Uranium/Lead series makes this very accurate for dating rock that is at least 1 million years old and can go as old as its half life of 4.47 Bn.

www.berkeley.edu...

geology.about.com...

en.wikipedia.org...



Great, but how are some rocks newer than others? Where are they coming from?



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

That's an interesting analysis. But what exactly in the papers do you not agree with? How do the analytical techniques utilized show "what they are not"? The results are facts. They are not absolutes. Nothing in science is totally absolute.

Please point out exactly how the methodology supports your opinion. Thanks



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: AshFan


originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: AshFan

www.universetoday.com...



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
I define evolution as per the theory of Modern Evolutionary Synthesis. No room for mixing that up. Genetic mutations and natural selection leading to the increase in frequency of certain traits within a population. This is slam dunk proven.

Pure fallacy.

FIrst off, what's this about "slam dunk proven"? You should know better than to make a claim like that. Nothing in science is proven, let alone by a slam dunk.

This is especially true as it pertains to determining the causative nature by which any particular trait has propagated throughout a population (iow: how evolution actually occurs). How do you separate causative from correlative effects? How do you determine drift from selection? The easy explanation is always to assume it is selection, like you and many others here often do. Yet you completely disregard that it could still be due to migration effects, genetic hitchhiking, introgression, or dempgraphic expansion etc. You also disregard the vast number of scientists who subscribe to neutral theory .

I know you don't care what I have to say, and that you'll claim you were only simplifying things, but I'm going to make my point anyway so that people think twice about assuming your line of thinking is representative of fact.

There's no way to know completely how much of an impact natural selection has had on the frequency of traits of any given population. Much of that determination is and can only be based on presumption, since it's impossible to observe every population that's ever existed in it's own habitat. Models help with "supporting" these presumptions but are largely not representative of the true dynamics of nature. And even if a trait can be associated with selection, it's still difficult to determine in what form, without having to rely on some kind of story to make sense of it. Was it natural or sexual selection? Abiotic or biotic selection? Purifying selection? Directional? Stabilizing? Or maybe it's just an evolutionary byproduct? Is it a physical constraint? Or perhaps the trait derives partly from selection, and hitchhiking as an interaction with linkage or a bottleneck? Not to mention that traits (alleles) are not tied to specific genes but to networks of genes that each have their own polygenic influences. You have to consider the multifactorial effects. It's not as simple as saying "this trait conferred an advantage in this environment so it's underlying gene will get passed on". Not that simple since traits very rarely work in isolation from other traits. Multiple traits act in concert for the benefit of an organism. So any attempt to isolate one as a product of natural selection is tenuous.

As always, questions for clarity on this matter can go on and on...but are rarely given any satisfactory consideration, at least around here.



edit on 11-10-2016 by PhotonEffect because: links for reference



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: PhotonEffect

Simple strokes for simple folks. You love to ambush me and nitpick when I try to keep things simple. I do this because the person I responded clearly has deficiencies when it comes to understanding science.

The change in the frequency of alleles in populations has been directly observed first hand. I don't see what you are getting at by saying that it hasn't been proved or which fallacy you are saying that I used. Are you really suggesting that this has not been proved by scientific standards?

Also I don't disregard migrations and other effects. I consider them part of it. You seem to think that general statements about evolution, automatically don't include every last detail. It doesn't matter. The part I describe above absolutely has been witnessed and verified.

Natural selection always has an affect on the population, even in cases of genetic drift. If an organism has a harmful mutation, it dies. This still happens so selection still plays a role, even if that role is simply keeping things the same for a well adapted organism.


There's no way to know completely how much of an impact natural selection has had on the frequency of traits of any given population.


So when a population of South American crickets get isolated into a cave system that is mostly under water and the population starts experiencing changes that make it more adaptable to water (smoother slimier skin, change in diet, webbing between limbs, swimming ability,etc), you really don't see how much a factor NS is? How does that differentiate from other factors and how does that even go against anything I said before? Obviously one must analyze each situation individually if you really want to break down what % each factor has in each situation, but I still don't see why you are arguing with me on this.



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: PhotonEffect




FIrst off, what's this about "slam dunk proven"? You should know better than to make a claim like that. Nothing in science is proven, let alone by a slam dunk.


Science uses statistics and margin of error to determine the "worthiness" of any particular topic. For instance, if you proposed an entirely new energy source that had very little hard evidence, it would be classified as an early-stage discovery.

Evolution is a VERY late-stage discovery which has a very solid history of verified research. Statistically, it is the standard which scientists use as a fundamental platform. Now, if someone comes up with an entirely different theory and begins to publish hard evidence, then that evidence will be put into the mix for other scientists to investigate.

You need to have some experience working as a real scientist to know these things. I presume you are not a scientist.
But that's okay. Just learn how we do things.



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: PhotonEffect

Simple strokes for simple folks. You love to ambush me and nitpick when I try to keep things simple. I do this because the person I responded clearly has deficiencies when it comes to understanding science.

It's not nitpicking. If anyone is nitpicking it's you, always honing in on mutation and natural selection while leaving everything else out! And you constantly receive accolades for this ignorance from your cohorts around here who pretend to be in the know. Really. you're not doing anyone any favors with your simplifying.


originally posted by: Barcs
The change in the frequency of alleles in populations has been directly observed first hand. I don't see what you are getting at by saying that it hasn't been proved or which fallacy you are saying that I used. Are you really suggesting that this has not been proved by scientific standards?

You are quite the manipulator of debates pretending to not understand what someone has said so you can inject your meaning or twist the words so that you may have a foundation to erect your strawman. Time and time again this is a tactic of yours but then you play dumb when called out on it. Pay close attention Barcs: I have never once stated or even come close to suggesting that the frequency of alleles in a population has never been determined empirically. That's absolute nonsense that you would even say that. What I have asked is how is that frequency determined (proven?)to be the result of natural selection every time (Your claim was that NS leads to an increase in allelic distribution. ) vs any of the other mechanisms for every single population that has ever existed. This is the blanket of nonsense that folks such as yourself continually use to cover all aspects evolution. Like a security blanket


originally posted by: Barcs
Also I don't disregard migrations and other effects. I consider them part of it. You seem to think that general statements about evolution, automatically don't include every last detail. It doesn't matter. The part I describe above absolutely has been witnessed and verified.

Ignorance is not an excuse.


originally posted by: Barcs
Natural selection always has an affect on the population, even in cases of genetic drift. If an organism has a harmful mutation, it dies. This still happens so selection still plays a role, even if that role is simply keeping things the same for a well adapted organism.

TOTAL ASSUMPTION. Every aspect of it


There's no way to know completely how much of an impact natural selection has had on the frequency of traits of any given population.



originally posted by: Barcs
So when a population of South American crickets get isolated into a cave system that is mostly under water and the population starts experiencing changes that make it more adaptable to water (smoother slimier skin, change in diet, webbing between limbs, swimming ability,etc), you really don't see how much a factor NS is? How does that differentiate from other factors and how does that even go against anything I said before? Obviously one must analyze each situation individually if you really want to break down what % each factor has in each situation, but I still don't see why you are arguing with me on this.

Another nice story. Still mostly based on assumption that NS has lead to the prevalence of these traits. How can you say it's not due to gene flow? Was there already another population of crickets in the cave? How big was the population? If you have the research paper on this case I'd love to read it.

NS is not always active especially if an environment is somewhat stable. Then other factors can come into play.
edit on 11-10-2016 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Interesting how Barcs sidestepped the slam dunk comment, but at least you make an attempt to address the matter. Evolutionary theory as presently constructed under the MES is based on probability distributions (population genetics) and presumptions that moonlight as inferences which then extrapolate back in time to explain everything. (Hence Lewontin's comment.) An organisms interaction with its environment or others within the population may have nothing to do with fitness. I'm sure there is a variable for this and all others, the weight they are given eludes me though, but somehow NS comes out on top. I know the mathematical models are rigorous and internally tested, but statistical models are not true representations of the dynamics of populations within their natural environments. We are not privy to the interactions of every population to think that our models are enough to determine how that population's allelic distribution came to be. Or how an trait became adaptive. At what time did we catch this distribution in it's movement through the population?

And it's nice of you to suggest that my not being a scientist automatically precludes me from making cogent points on this matter. As if I don't understand it. It does not change the fact the evolutionary theory is largely based on assumptions.



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Phantom423

Interesting how Barcs sidestepped the slam dunk comment, but at least you make an attempt to address the matter. Evolutionary theory as presently constructed under the MES is based on probability distributions (population genetics) and presumptions that moonlight as inferences which then extrapolate back in time to explain everything. (Hence Lewontin's comment.) An organisms interaction with its environment or others within the population may have nothing to do with fitness. I'm sure there is a variable for this and all others, the weight they are given eludes me though, but somehow NS comes out on top. I know the mathematical models are rigorous and internally tested, but statistical models are not true representations of the dynamics of populations within their natural environments. We are not privy to the interactions of every population to think that our models are enough to determine how that population's allelic distribution came to be. Or how an trait became adaptive. At what time did we catch this distribution in it's movement through the population?

And it's nice of you to suggest that my not being a scientist automatically precludes me from making cogent points on this matter. As if I don't understand it. It does not change the fact the evolutionary theory is largely based on assumptions.


In general, you are correct. Probability plays a large part in how we work with the data. However, "assumption" implies that there's no verifiable data behind the probabilities. That's not correct. As I said in the previous post, statistics and margin of error are what we all use to model the data and extract information. The p-value, which is first calculated from the chi square test, gives a normal range of values which is fairly reliable.

The internal dynamics of a population has many levels. Each level is probably dealt with independently and then integrated in the overall context of the topic - at least that's how I would approach it. It's not dissimilar from researching a disease process - it's a top down approach.

And I didn't mean to insult you by suggesting how we work in the lab - I know you understand it, but occasionally the fine points like statistics and probabilities are lost in the mix. It was just to point out that there is a valid way to work with data that you may not be able to reproduce in the lab.



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

Well you apparently are another one that bit the dust, dissolved into the aether - Poof, they're gone!.



When you come back, even under another name, we will be here, ready to present the EMPIRICAL evidence, to educate the lame, lazy and the crazy even when they resist!


edit on 11-10-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-10-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-10-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Masterjaden

Well you apparently are another one that bit the dust, dissolved into the aether - Poof, they're gone!.



When you come back, even under another name, we will be here, ready to present the EMPIRICAL evidence, to educate the lame, lazy and the crazy even when they resist!



Did you say empirical evidence, I am still here waiting patiently and poof, Phants is gone



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: PhotonEffect

Welp I just typed a long response to your tirade, but unfortunately the net crashed and I lost it and I'm not wasting my time typing it again. You are pretty much wrong on all fronts, and accusations are baseless. The one thing you are correct about is that we do not know the exact percentages of what factors affect what in every single scenario. That doesn't mean I'm wrong. My cricket example is absolutely related to natural selection because the characteristics of the crickets are all aqua dynamic. If NS were not a factor, they wouldn't have become perfectly adapted to that environment. And even if you consider that there may have been another species of cricket with these characteristics to share with this newly trapped species, you have to determine where THEY got those traits from, so either way natural selection is a huge factor in that scenario. You can't just say, "OMG gene flow", because the traits had to originate somewhere. If another species shared genes with them and the traits were not aqua dynamic, there's a good chance the species dies out.


edit on 10 12 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: AshFan

These tests are the oldest and most refined radiometric dating techniques being used in geology and archaeology because of the predictable rates of decay.



How is the starting date determine? We know decay rate, and the currently measured ratio, but how do we know the starting Uranium-Lead Ratio ? Or is this based on assumptions?



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: AshFan

These tests are the oldest and most refined radiometric dating techniques being used in geology and archaeology because of the predictable rates of decay.



How is the starting date determine? We know decay rate, and the currently measured ratio, but how do we know the starting Uranium-Lead Ratio ? Or is this based on assumptions?


I mean, all the different rocks that form sedementary are the same age... igneous rocks are just dry lava that has always been here, metamorphic has changed due to heat and preassure, but has certainly not gotten younger.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 03:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: AshFan

These tests are the oldest and most refined radiometric dating techniques being used in geology and archaeology because of the predictable rates of decay.



How is the starting date determine? We know decay rate, and the currently measured ratio, but how do we know the starting Uranium-Lead Ratio ? Or is this based on assumptions?


No, it's not assumption. The starting ratio is that there is zero lead. Uranium decays into Lead. The more lead/less uranium in the ratio, the older your sample is. If your sample is entirely U-238 for example, then your sample is going to be nearly 4.5 bn years old.




top topics



 
13
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join