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.
originally posted by: cooperton
originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
The scientific community understandably accepts evolution as a common fact because it is a fact.
It is this type of chauvinism that has anchored the scientific community in a meaningless dead end in the labyrinth of life
originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum
Que the "Oh yeah we've seen Micro evolution, I admit that but not Macro" fallacy followed by some quotes from the bible .....
originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: SaturnFX
I think in most cases things do evolve gradually but there are also cases where several different systems evolve at the same time and they just happen to form a more complex system when put together.
The best example of this is probably the very first single celled organisms, there are many parts required for a cell to have reproductive capabilities, and the very first self-replicating cell would have come together based on pure chance because there wasn't yet any evolutionary pressure. And unless the exact right parts came together in exactly the right way, the replication process would fail or not work at all. It is possible for complex systems with multiple irreducible components to spontaneously arise, it's why we see a punctuated equilibrium in the fossil records.
originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
To Cooperton.
There are good scientists who are also creationists. They never let their belief bias their work. Whatever they find they simply prefer to believe there is a god behind it all, originally. Evolution says nothing about whether a god exists. Why aren't you at least open to the idea that species evolve?
You act as if everyone who doesnt agree with the theory of evolution must be some blindfolded fundamentalist christian who has not addressed empirical evidence.
originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton
You can not prove evolution is wrong.
originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: cooperton
Stuff happens in the universe all the time without anyone observing it, and stuff had happened in the universe for billions of years before we were around to observe it.
originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
The first example I can think of is a virus... a virus has the ability to replicate its protein structure.
originally posted by: cooperton
originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
The first example I can think of is a virus... a virus has the ability to replicate its protein structure.
This is not true. Viruses rely on the replication machinery of the host cell.
The Virus-First Hypothesis
The progressive and regressive hypotheses both assume that cells existed before viruses. What if viruses existed first? Recently, several investigators proposed that viruses may have been the first replicating entities. Koonin and Martin (2005) postulated that viruses existed in a pre-cellular world as self-replicating units. Over time these units, they argue, became more organized and more complex. Eventually, enzymes for the synthesis of membranes and cell walls evolved, resulting in the formation of cells. Viruses, then, may have existed before bacteria, archaea, or eukaryotes (Figure 4; Prangishvili et al. 2006).
The research by Miller et al. A research team from the CRSEF, or Creation Research, Science Education Foundation, led by Hugh Miller, has claimed to have dated dinosaur bones using radiocarbon methods, determining them to be no older than several dozens of thousands of years old. Let's look at their research methodology in detail (indicated by bullet points): As it turns out, Miller's research group obtained their sample in quite a remarkable way. In fact, the creationist posed as chemists in order to secure a number of fragments of fossilized dinosaur bone from a museum of natural history, misrepresenting their own research in the process of doing so. When the museum provided the bone fragments, they emphasized that they had been heavily contaminated with "shellac" and other chemical preservatives. Miller and his group accepted the samples and reassured the museum that such containments would not be problematic for the analysis at hand. They then sent it to a laboratory run by the University of Arizona, where radiocarbon dating could be carried out. To get the scientists to consider their sample, the researchers once again pretended to be interested in the dating for general chemical analysis purposes, misrepresenting their research. Let's take a little pause to consider the general issue of misrepresenting your own research. It is understandable that Miller et al. did this, since there would have been a slim chance (at best) of the museum curator providing them with any dinosaur bone fragments if he or she had known what the true intent of the supposed chemists was. In particular, it is implausible that it would have been considered worthwhile to try to use radiocarbon dating methods on these bones, since the rocks that they were taken from were determined to be 99+ million years old, as shown in this paper by Kowallis et al. Now, it is known that 14C14C decays at a fast enough rate (half-life ~6000 years) for this dating method to be absolutely useless on such samples. Thus, it appears that Miller et al. would not have been able to obtain this sample, had they been honest about their intent. This, of course, raises some ethical questions, but let's brush these aside for now. We proceed with the examination of the research done by Miller and his fellow researchers from the CRSEF.
Quantum physics - The copenhagen interpretation concluded that all matter is subordinate to the observer. The tree in the woods exists in a probabilistic waveform until observed by an observer. Schroedinger's cat is neither dead or alive until someone makes an observation. We as observers are literally manifesting reality as we observe. Since this is true, matter could not have possibly generated consciousness as proposed by evolution, since matter is nothing without consciousness.