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: 47
16
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2017 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton
It's amateur hour as usual around here. Their arguments aren't even close to being as cunning as the philosophers and storytellers they admire so much. There's still some significant propagandistic value in the ridiculous falsehoods concerning things like the fossil record that they silently agree with though.

Lies, Lies!

Certainly, the handiest trick of the propagandist is the use of outright lies. Consider, for example, the lies that Martin Luther wrote in 1543 about the Jews in Europe: “They have poisoned wells, made assassinations, kidnaped children . . . They are venomous, bitter, vindictive, tricky serpents, assassins, and children of the devil who sting and work harm.” His exhortation to so-called Christians? “Set fire to their synagogues or schools . . . Their houses [should] also be razed and destroyed.”
..

Propaganda, it works b...eautiful minds that have been corrupted by the spirit of the world and this system of things (didn't want to use the other word that Dawkins loves so much when he's playing the emotions).

In recent years, scientists have been able to compare the genetic codes of dozens of different single-celled organisms as well as those of plants and animals. They assumed that such comparisons would confirm the branching “tree of life” proposed by Darwin. However, this has not been the case.

What has the research uncovered? In 1999 biologist Malcolm S. Gordon wrote: “Life appears to have had many origins. The base of the universal tree of life appears not to have been a single root.” Is there evidence that all the major branches of life are connected to a single trunk, as Darwin believed? Gordon continues: “The traditional version of the theory of common descent apparently does not apply to kingdoms as presently recognized. It probably does not apply to many, if not all, phyla, and possibly also not to many classes within the phyla.” (Biology and Philosophy, “The Concept of Monophyly: A Speculative Essay,” by Malcolm S. Gordon, 1999, p. 335.)

Recent research continues to contradict Darwin’s theory of common descent. For example, in 2009 an article in New Scientist magazine quoted evolutionary scientist Eric Bapteste as saying: “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality.” (New Scientist, “Uprooting Darwin’s Tree,” by Graham Lawton, January 24, 2009, p. 34.)
The same article quotes evolutionary biologist Michael Rose as saying: “The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that. What’s less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.” (New Scientist, January 24, 2009, pp. 37, 39.)
It should be noted that neither the New Scientist article nor Bapteste nor Rose mean to suggest that the theory of evolution is wrong. Their point, rather, is that Darwin’s proposed tree of life, a mainstay of his theory, is not supported by the evidence. Such scientists still seek other explanations involving evolution.

What about the fossil record?

Many scientists point to the fossil record as support for the idea that life emerged from a common origin. They argue, for example, that the fossil record documents the notion that fish became amphibians and reptiles became mammals. What, though, does the fossil evidence really show?

“Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life,” says evolutionary paleontologist David M. Raup, “what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record.” (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” by David M. Raup, January 1979, p. 23).

In reality, the vast majority of fossils show stability among types of creatures over extensive amounts of time. The evidence does not show them evolving from one type into another. Unique body plans appear suddenly. New features appear suddenly. For example, bats with sonar and echolocation systems appear with no obvious link to a more primitive ancestor.

In fact, more than half of all the major divisions of animal life seem to have appeared in a relatively short period of time. Because many new and distinct life forms appear so suddenly in the fossil record, paleontologists refer to this period as “the Cambrian explosion.” When was the Cambrian period?

Let us assume that the estimates of researchers are accurate. In that case, the history of the earth could be represented by a time line that stretches the length of a soccer field. At that scale, you would have to walk about seven eighths of the way down the field before you would come to what paleontologists call the Cambrian period. During a small segment of that period, the major divisions of animal life show up in the fossil record. How suddenly do they appear? As you walk down the soccer field, all those different creatures pop up in the space of less than one step!

The relatively sudden appearance of these diverse life forms is causing some evolutionary researchers to question the traditional version of Darwin’s theory. For example, in an interview in 2008, evolutionary biologist Stuart Newman discussed the need for a new theory of evolution that could explain the sudden appearance of novel forms of life. He said: “The Darwinian mechanism that’s used to explain all evolutionary change will be relegated, I believe, to being just one of several mechanisms​—maybe not even the most important when it comes to understanding macroevolution, the evolution of major transitions in body type.” (Archaeology, “The Origin of Form Was Abrupt Not Gradual,” by Suzan Mazur, October 11, 2008, www.archaeology.org/​online/ interviews/​newman.html, accessed 2/23/2009.)

Problems with the proof:

What, though, of the fossils that are used to show fish changing into amphibians, and reptiles into mammals? Do they provide solid proof of evolution in action? Upon closer inspection, several problems become obvious.

First, the comparative size of the creatures placed in the reptile-to-mammal sequence is sometimes misrepresented in textbooks. Rather than being similar in size, some creatures in the series are huge, while others are small.

A second, more serious challenge is the lack of proof that those creatures are somehow related. Specimens placed in the series are often separated by what researchers estimate to be millions of years. Regarding the time spans that separate many of these fossils, zoologist Henry Gee says: “The intervals of time that separate the fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent.” (In Search of Deep Time​—Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, by Henry Gee, 1999, p. 23.) Henry Gee does not suggest that the theory of evolution is wrong. His comments are made to show the limits of what can be learned from the fossil record. Unlike the rather definite statement made by Peter Vlar: "Looking at the fossil record shows clear transitions from cytoplankton up through todays organisms and all those steps in between...." Just ridiculous. So ridiculous, that I doubt that Peter Vlar actually believes* what he's saying (*: thinks that that's the case), just another D.Trump type actor.
edit on 18-11-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 18 2017 @ 09:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

What you posted in your belief system. It is not science. I have no objection to belief systems and religion. They make for some very nice stories. But science is pragmatic and objective. Unless there is evidence, there is no way to make any statement about the subject.

My analogy to the man who never saw an airplane still holds. You see something you can't explain. Therefore, it is a God or a spirit or something supernatural. Why not the simulation model which is being discussed by scientists? It's all speculation until there's hard evidence.

For the life of me, I can't understand your train of thought and logic. This has been stated ad infinitum by myself, Peter Vlar, Barcs and others: NO EVIDENCE, NO SCIENCE.



You reminded me of this. The allpoweful god of the airplane.


www.indy100.com...

I think this part is pertinent to our conversation.




"They're doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land."


Thanks for the post. That's one of the most interesting stories I've read in a long time. Very apropos.



posted on Nov, 18 2017 @ 09:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: cooperton
The relatively sudden appearance of these diverse life forms is causing some evolutionary researchers to question the traditional version of Darwin’s theory. For example, in an interview in 2008, evolutionary biologist Stuart Newman discussed the need for a new theory of evolution that could explain the sudden appearance of novel forms of life. He said: “The Darwinian mechanism that’s used to explain all evolutionary change will be relegated, I believe, to being just one of several mechanisms​—maybe not even the most important when it comes to understanding macroevolution, the evolution of major transitions in body type.” (Archaeology, “The Origin of Form Was Abrupt Not Gradual,” by Suzan Mazur, October 11, 2008, www.archaeology.org/​online/ interviews/​newman.html, accessed 2/23/2009.)

Oh boy, he uses the term "macroevolution", he must be one of those that thinks there's such a thing as microgravity and macrogravity? Just like those who refer to themselves and eachother as "evolutionists" in so-called "peer reviewed articles" and the term "gravitationalist"? Quit it with the lame propagandistic arguments (ad hominem-style, painting pictures in a ridiculing manner) already; it's not helping your case in the eyes of the rational. You can quit it with the silent agreement with the use of such ridiculing propagandistic arguments as well while you're at it (by not objecting to or having an issue with those who do, like Dawkins, Hitchens, AronRa, Matt Dillahunty, M. Shermer, Bill Maher, etc. or anyone who does it on ATS and not resisting their propagandistic way of thinking, arguing and talking; most of you are still sounding just like them, sometimes even parrotting the exact same line of argumentation; think for yourselves for a change; it's utterly unconvincing this way, as long as someone isn't already a victim of evolutionary propaganda, which of course seems to be the main reason it's done this way, to keep them right where they are, in the dark, with the reverse appeal to pride discussed on the page preceding the page linked in my signature; which is also a play on the fear of seeming stupid, another emotion that can becloud judgement).

For those interested in anything other than ridiculousness and foolishness, watch till 4:13:

You can quit with the ridiculous claims about the fossil record providing clear/definite* evidence for a gradual process of evolution ("....all the steps in between" as Peter Vlar put it), just invent a new beguiling technical term like "punctuated equilibrium" (how exotic) to circumnavigate and distract from the issue (pretending it's no big deal and you don't need evidence for gradual evolution, just switch to the jerky evolution storyline where equilibriums are punctuated to account for there being nothing in between; conveniently ignoring or denying that that type of evidence is pointing towards multiple creationary events and not common descent by mutations acted upon by natural selection over multiple generations of mythological organisms that one needs to imagine haven't been found yet; and pretending that "gradual" is not a logical requirement for the evolutionary storyline to sound more convincing which was the main reason Darwin proposed it in that manner: see example in the last videolink at the end of this comment early on), that's way more cunning. You're all making it way too obvious now on ATS.
*: these are synonyms listed on thesaurus.com, "absolute" is also listed but in another column under the adjective "correct, without error"; "clear" is the word Peter Vlar used, "definite" is the word zoologist Henry Gee used.

Best not watch beyond 9:21:

And you can also quit staying silent (ignoring) or trying to justify the behaviour below as well (including the reverse appeal to pride and playing on the fear of seeming stupid in the phrases "sophisticated physicist", "naive person" and "in physics"; quoting Dawkins and Krauss respectively); that's also not helping your case (except again for those who have already fallen victim to these techniques and have not noticed how what's mentioned under my name to the left has affected their minds and way of irrational biased, wishful thinking and inappropiate unjustified admiration* of the sources of these arguments and way of thinking in a very similar manner as described in Stargate Atlantis season 3 episode 3). *: that includes not having any issues with it, not waking up to the game that is being played, ignoring it (and pretending that they are not your sources if someone else parrotted the same or a similar argument, or teaching something else about another subject; as if that negates the presence of the evolutionary propaganda game because you don't take the stuff below seriously anyway right? No bearing on evolutionary philosophies supposedly, still, same people, and their behaviour is very telling):

Psychology: Dawkins&Krauss selling the philosophy and contradiction that nothing is something

Stephen Hawking and many others do it too, but that's not included in the video above. As Sheppard mentioned in the Stargate Atlantis season 3 episode 3 regarding the situation with Lucius Lavin, it's like you've 'all' turned into Stepford Wives (paraphrasing Sheppard at 15:53 below, I don't obviously literally mean "all" of you); "buck up Carson", 'I need ye' (27:47, scene starts at 26:28):

The Pagan Religious Roots of Evolutionary Philosophies Part 1
edit on 18-11-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2017 @ 11:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: cooperton
A second, more serious challenge is the lack of proof that those creatures are somehow related. Specimens placed in the series are often separated by what researchers estimate to be millions of years. Regarding the time spans that separate many of these fossils, zoologist Henry Gee says: “The intervals of time that separate the fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent.” (In Search of Deep Time​—Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, by Henry Gee, 1999, p. 23.) Henry Gee does not suggest that the theory of evolution is wrong. His comments are made to show the limits of what can be learned from the fossil record. Unlike the rather definite statement made by Peter Vlar: "Looking at the fossil record shows clear transitions from cytoplankton up through todays organisms and all those steps in between...." Just ridiculous. So ridiculous, that I doubt that Peter Vlar actually believes* what he's saying (*: thinks that that's the case), just another D.Trump type actor.

Just telling people what they want to hear to get their approval or support (silent or otherwise), 'tickling their ears' as per the description at 2 Timothy 4:3,4 to gain prominence or convince people to attribute value to what they're selling. Just to be clear, I'm not saying that Peter Vlar is "another D. Trump type actor", that would depend on whether or not he truly thinks that "Looking at the fossil record shows clear[/definite] transitions from cytoplankton up through todays organisms and all those steps in between...". As I mentioned before, he could also just be a bit gullible and deceived. No doubt (in that case) because of false biased ('in the eye of the biased beholder'-type) claims made by brochures (or any material making similar claims) as discussed below:

Myth 3. The fossil record documents macroevolutionary changes. The previously mentioned NAS brochure leaves the reader with the impression that the fossils found by scientists more than adequately document macroevolution. It declares: “So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species.”28

The facts. The confident statement made by the NAS brochure is quite surprising. Why? Niles Eldredge, a staunch evolutionist, states that the fossil record shows, not that there is a gradual accumulation of change, but that for long periods of time, “little or no evolutionary change accumulates in most species.”*29

To date, scientists worldwide have unearthed and cataloged some 200 million large fossils and billions of small fossils. Many researchers agree that this vast and detailed record shows that all the major groups of animals appeared suddenly and remained virtually unchanged, with many species disappearing as suddenly as they arrived.

*: Even the few examples from the fossil record that researchers point to as proof of evolution are open to debate. See pages 22 to 29 of the brochure, The Origin of Life—Five Questions Worth Asking [whereislogic: or the videos about whale evolution and "What kind of evolution" I linked on the previous page for more examples of deliberate deception respectfully and politely referred to here as "open to debate"; the fluke thing is not open to debate, it's plain old deliberate deception, knowing there is no fluke on ambulocetus but still showing that in the textbooks and propagandistic animation videos, then removing that fluke from newer or other animations and pretending the deception never happened in the first place, pretending it's no big deal, supposedly still evidence even without a fluke].

28. Science and Creationism—A View From the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition, “Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution,” p. 14.

29. The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism, by Niles Eldredge, 2000, pp. 49, 85.

Source: Evolution—Myths and Facts

Oh and if it's "difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species", then "looking at the fossil record" does not show "clear"/definite "transitions from cytoplankton up through todays organisms and all those steps in between".

Of course, if there was no transition, it's always going to be "difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species", you can still come up with a good convincing elaborate line of argumentation throwing in lots of beguiling technical jargon, red herring facts and twisted half-truths and other propaganda techniques to convince people you've still got something though. And then have others call it "a mountain of evidence" when referring to this house of cards.

“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”—In Search of Deep Time—Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, by Henry Gee,

caveat: Propaganda isn't "instructive".

Or do the switch to nongradual punctuated equilibrium which is more cunning then pretending you don't know any of the above or that these people alll saw it wrong (as in going the way 'it's not a peer reviewed article' or something like that, 'it's just them saying it, it's not the consensus, they still accept the theory of evolution', 'evolution is still a fact regardless if it's gradual or jerky', 'a jerky fossil record doesn't disprove evolutionary theory', etc. ; there are multiple options of denial of the facts and reason that are all still more cunning than the claim made by Peter Vlar, but I was talking follow-ups to that claim now, the first few I mentioned not being that cunning). When I'm saying "amateur hour" I don't mean that to belittle, but to wake up from one's own slumber and the propaganda techniques so many have fallen victim to and start using those wonderful thinking abilities that I know everyone here has, even the Trinitarians and young earth creationists with their (even more?) insane contradictions and the same way of thinking and arguing and disregard for plain old common sense and logic when teaching the doctrine of the Trinity (or that Jesus is "the God...of our Lord Jesus Christ" mentioned at Eph.1:3) or a universe+earth that is only a few thousand years old.

Young earth trinitarians vs fans of evolutionary philosophies and philosophical naturalists (that like to conflate philosophical naturalism with "science"):

And it's the Ken Ham vs Bill Nye debate on youtube that has the most views about this topic.

Just wake up already, you're being played by both sides of the same coin (see "The Pagan Religious roots of evolutionary philosophies part 2" regarding Plato, Babylon and the Trinitarian church fathers mentioned there; Plato taught both sets of philosophies).
edit on 19-11-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: puzzlesphere

Get this the first time I tell you and you might be almost as smart as you believe yourself to be...

The Universe was created...

That's what scientific evidence shows...

And not only does it show that but the mechanisms to kick start creation match the description of God in the Bible...

Existed outside of the universe is eternal needs no creator to exist...

edit on 19-11-2017 by 5StarOracle because: Word



posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

You have zero evidence for that... cheers... but thanks for trying to be smart.



posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: puzzlesphere

We have the Universe as evidence of that...
Science knows that the universe was created that before it there was nothing...

That's all the evidence I need to be right...



posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

Such arrogance... yet not a single piece of proof beyond your belief... typical.



posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: puzzlesphere

You asked for evidence...
I gave you the evidence...
The Universe was created...
That's reality...
Your response is what is typical...
edit on 19-11-2017 by 5StarOracle because: Word



posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 09:01 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

Ummm... where is your evidence beyond a belief and statement of opinion that the universe was created?

Oh... nowhere.

Carry on.



posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 09:50 PM
link   
LMAO!!

Creationists are hilarious...

evidence = the universe exists, thus it was created




posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: puzzlesphere

The Universe is known to have a beginning...
Figure it out...
In case you can't...
Here's the answer it was created...
Go look up the definition for created...
Figure it out...
It was brought into existence dummy...



posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

Everything that exists was created...
Prove me wrong if you can big mouth...



posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

See thats not how it works smart guy...

Prove you're right... assumptions don't cut it

And because the bible says so isn't a valid answer




posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 10:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

Everything that is brought into existence is created...
That's reality...
And is already proven...
The dictionary and English language say that's what creation means...
That's how dumb you are...



posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 10:14 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

yeah so dumb that i need to resort to name calling.... sure thing

SO lets see how dumb you are... that isn't evidence, even though you believe it is

that isn't reality, its called a theory... which isn't proven by anything... existence doesn't prove creation by a diety

Well played derp...

LOL
edit on 19-11-2017 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 10:16 PM
link   
This is an excellent synopsis of Hugh Miller's research and related Creationist research into dinosaur bones. All the questions that have been posed to Dr. Snelling on this board are addressed in this video. In addition, the narrator goes into some detail as to how samples should be analyzed. Miller has not (and will not) allow anyone to repeat the work independently. He used no controls, no comparative data, in fact, he offers zero data to substantiate his conclusion. The samples have mysteriously disappeared. And so has he.
You've been outed.


edit on 19-11-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 10:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

I see you fail
I see you deflect
I wasn't calling you a name I was stating the obvious
To which you are oblivious...
Talk about hilarious...



posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 10:22 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

I see you're delusional, and have shown that fact for many pages...

apparently you don't even know what the word evidence means...

again... well done




posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 11:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

The evidence is reality...
You know how things actually are...
Show me something that exists that was not created...
If it exists it was created...
That's reality because that which is brought into reality was what???
The answer is created fool...



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join