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.

 

Irreducible complexity and Evolution

page: 37
15
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Noinden

Actually the brain is a computer.... your true self...
Your soul or consciousness whichever you prefer to identify your true self with is the user...

Proof? What if consciousness is just an end result of the neurons firing in your brain and doesn't actually exist?


God i hope not lol.




posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Quadrivium

Macro evolution can certainly be observed. It is why we use fruit flies or bacteria to do it with. You can see hundreds of generations over a short period of time so evolutionary changes can build up. For instance. The E. Coli Long-Term Evolution Experiment has witnessed the bacteria evolve to require aerobic citrate to survive (it should be noted that E. Coli not being able to survive in aerobic citrate is a defining feature of the bacteria to separate it from Salmonella).


Given the right environmental cues, this population would revert back to no longer requiring citrate to survive. The same goes for antibacterial resistance - take away the antibiotic for enough generations and eventually non-resistance re-enters the gene pool. These populations are not evolving, they are experiencing allele shifts in the population depending on environmental cues.

Just like humans can adapt to Vitamin C deprivation by activating a gene that produces it in the human body, and reverts back to not producing it endogenously when it is reintroduced into the diet (research African Bantu vitamin C)... These adaptation mechanisms were always present. You cannot go beyond the boundaries of particular kinds of organisms - microbes make microbes, dogs make dogs, trees make trees. All of which have amazing adaptation mechanisms that the materialists have mistaken for absolute proof of evolution.



posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 11:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

"What if consciousness is just an end result of the neurons firing in your brain and doesn't actually exist?"

God i hope not lol.


Only something that exists can contemplate non-existence. Rejoice, because you exist! Seek your gift, your birthright as a living being. Don't get caught up in the dead-end thinking that you're a mutant monkey. Only something that is meaningful can delude itself into thinking it is not meaningful. The brain is the control panel for your soul; your unique conscious experience.



posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Then explain why cave fish scales have covered their eye but it's still there just unusable. Why do snakes have legs they don't use them. And why do you have a tail bone you know that part we break a lot because it shouldn't be there. See evolution can explain these vistigual items. But how would you explain it? Bad design?
edit on 11/11/17 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 04:49 PM
link   

edit on 11-11-2017 by Quadrivium because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

You have a tail bone which is just the name it's been given for several reasons...
Here's one... Imagine it's time to goto the bathroom for you... a number two lets say...But you have to do things and just are not ready yet...
Then picture what would happen if that was the case and you sat down on an uneven surface... What do you suppose would happen then?
As for the fish well it never had good eyes because of its scales but it never needed them anyway...
It's not like it didn't need it's eyes so decided to grow scales over them...

edit on 11-11-2017 by 5StarOracle because: Word



posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 10:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: dragonridr

You have a tail bone which is just the name it's been given for several reasons...
Here's one imagine it's time to goto the bathroom for you but you have to do things and just are not ready yet...
Then picture what would happen if that was the case and you sat down on an uneven surface... What do you suppose would happen then?
As for the fish well it never had good eyes because of its scales but it never needed them anyway...
It's not like it didn't need it's eyes so decided to grow scales over them...


Its like arguing with a 5 year old child. So i found a video you should understand.




posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 12:57 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Hahaha that's a video for the subconscious programming of well 5 year olds...
You must watch alot of that crap huh?
First it's starts off talking about animals who evolved highly advanced tails...
Then lies about all mammals have tails at some stage in development... This just isn't so... while embryos spinal development may resemble a tail at a given stage it's never a tail...
So anyway they expect you to believe that evolution develops highly specialized tails then evolves you to loose a highly specialized tail altogether...
If evolution was all that those tails would just evolve to become more useful instead of becoming unnecessary...
This video just reminds me of the big lies told by evolutionary scientists especially the one who falsified embryo development pictures to further the lie of evolution...



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Its easy to claim, because they never ever read the citations provided. We are expected to read their funny litte creationist articles, and be objective, they go "its wrong" or "what article" when cited.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Oh please, all you have for "macro evolution " is a bunch of could be, would be and wanna bes on top of out dated "wrong" evidence that they will not take out of the textbooks because they "don't have anything better to replace it with".
edit on 12-11-2017 by Quadrivium because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Quadrivium

Neighbour, you've not actually read what I and others have posted. As I've said, until you are willing to actually engage in an open and honest manner, I am not going to take you seriously. As far as I am concerned, you are yet another creationist who will not engage, and only proselytize.

Now where is the proof of your God doing something? OR my Gods for that matter


When you know the difference between gnosis and eídein, get back to me.


Slan leat



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Well "neighbor",

I have read every post and responded. You on the other hand have not spoken ONCE about how speciation (adaptation) has NEVER been observed beyond the species level. All I get are links to bacteria that are STILL bacteria?!?
Dude, just admit that the theory is outdated .
You still don't have to believe in a creator, just stop making yourself look so........well, you know.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Quadrivium

Clearly you have not read what I wrote based on that comment. I have addressed it. You then said "what about beyond speciation".

You don't even know what the current theory of evolution is.

Off you go. Go defend your faith.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

And again, you are running instead of addressing.
I have read exactly, and understood exactly what you have posted, which again, you have never addressed my point.

Give it up, you have nothing.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Quadrivium

I'm not going to repeatedly answer your questions neighbour. I told you, when you are willing to honestly engage, rather than ignore posted evidence, we will talk.

I showed several examples of speciation which had been observed.

The fact that you confused micro and macro evolution tells me, you don't know your rear from your elbows, even when provided with a map.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 07:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Quadrivium

I'm not going to repeatedly answer your questions neighbour. I told you, when you are willing to honestly engage, rather than ignore posted evidence, we will talk.

I showed several examples of speciation which had been observed.

The fact that you confused micro and macro evolution tells me, you don't know your rear from your elbows, even when provided with a map.

I
There you go!
I agreed that we can see adaptation in a species. Yet , you keep going back there because you can not show an example of macro evolution (speciation above the species level). Go away little man, you are starting to anoy me.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Quadrivium

I showed examples of new species being formed neighbour. If you are unable to keep up, that is not my problem. You don't seem to understand the timescale involved. NExt you will expect a geologist to prove plate tectonics too you, because you can't observe it. It is not my fault you don't see gold when it is before you.

Anyway no I am not going away "Defender of Faith". My own faith demands An Fhírinne in aghaidh an tSaoil, so I'm going to keep doing just that, "big boy".





posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 07:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Quadrivium
There are a great many steps in between with a great many species and changes that have to occur for the prehistoric fish to one day look like wolf.


of which there are no examples in the fossil record.


Then you haven't looked at the fossil record if you believe this to be true.


They claim the supposed neanderthal is a link between apes and humans yet it has a larger cranial capacity than most contemporary human skulls.


Who exactly makes this claim? I worked extensively with Pleistocene hominids, specifically Neanderthal and not a single professor or researcher I've ever worked with made such a claim or statement. Maybe you should educate yourself on what is actually discussed in the scientific literature before you make more ludicrous, false statements. Neanderthal and H. Sapiens are both the descendants of H. Heidelbergensis. H. Sapiens in E. Africa and Neandertal in Europe and Western Asia. It's not that difficult to actually engage in a modicum of due diligence and learn something about what is actually stated in scientific literature.


They assume evolution is true and try to fit observations into that mold, but due diligence will show you it is a house of cards. I did not get to where I am today through blind belief, I got to my non-belief in evolution through an unbiased analysis of reality.


Again, who is they? No Anthropologist, Paleoanthropologist, Paleontologist or Biologist I've ever worked with, talked to or seen speak at a conference.



Your problem and lack of understanding is with over simplifying the process. If you look at the process as is, you'll see that there is no point where science says that one day a fish stopped looking like a fish and looked like a wolf ...



There is no evidence that an organism's adaptation mechanisms can ever amount to macroevolution as it is defined. Just because someone does not believe evolution is true does not mean they lack understanding.


Please... Enlighten me as to what you're understanding of the definition of macroevolution is. Because based on your posting history and replies in this very thread, I'm quite certain that you don't understand the MES let alone what it postulates and can verify.


You zealots are so close-minded.


Hahahahaha if that's not the pot calling the kettle black there! The bottom line is that of all the Scientific Theories that have been formulated in history, evolution has the largest body of supporting evidence. We may not understand every single detail of it but evolution is a fact, it occurs and is occurring every time any organism procreates.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Quadrivium

I showed examples of new species being formed neighbour. If you are unable to keep up, that is not my problem. You don't seem to understand the timescale involved. NExt you will expect a geologist to prove plate tectonics too you, because you can't observe it. It is not my fault you don't see gold when it is before you.

Anyway no I am not going away "Defender of Faith". My own faith demands An Fhírinne in aghaidh an tSaoil, so I'm going to keep doing just that, "big boy".



Therefore once again you must believe that all classes were in place BEFORE evolution began. Speciation in no way, shape or form can prove macro evolution because speciation ABOVE species level has NEVER been observed. What does macro evolution mean? SPECIATION ABOVE SPECIES LEVEL.
edit on 12-11-2017 by Quadrivium because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Quadrivium

Neighbour you are as logical as a block of cheese.

Only a creationist would believe such a thing. As a deity or deities had put those "classes" in place to be followed.

I've told you there is no such thing as micro or macro evolution. There simply is the process of evolution.

Again, you don't know gold when it is placed before you.

I say this as someone who believes in may gods (even your little desert storm god), Magic, and things the eye can not see. I've studied evolution. Have you? Hows about you share some of your scripts in R that you crunched the data with? OR the genetics techniques you've worked with?




top topics



 
15
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join