It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: AthlonSavage
A moth changing colour or patterns to blend with their environment is not an example of species evolving from one thing to next. That process is a metamorphosis.
Followed by a reference to the so-called "mountain of evidence" for evolutionary philosophies (not "the theory of evolution" as defined by some people that conveniently leave out the subject of common descent, which was the main topic of evolutionary ideas/philosophies in my commentary, as it was in your comment about whales and the comment I was initially responding to in this thread) that I have concluded is a house of cards by considering the relevant facts/certainties/truths and "drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction". As per Newton's recommendation that I'm partly quoting there.
originally posted by: turbonium1
Since then, all their efforts have gone into proving this theory is correct, and nothing else is considered but that theory.
All the evidence over recorded history has been ignored, as if it doesn't even exist, because it means their theory has to explain why they've ignored all this evidence, as scientists should never do, regardless of their own views.
Valid science would then find all species have been the exact same species, since recorded history, and since that time, and never changes at all in the future centuries, as well.
They would have no choice but to conclude all species on Earth were CREATED as those species, since the beginning.
They would not know how they were created, or who created them, or why they were created, or when they created them....but at least, they'd be on the right track.
originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: turbonium1
I don't think you actually understand what Science is as does. Your post has no backing as to how scientific method works, or what scientists do. I say this as one.
originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Toothache
uhm… Mostly everyone "believes" it... if that's even the appropriate word
Its only religious fundys that usually argue against it...
And believing what science says about evolution of species does not mean one must also be an atheist
The 1950 Turning Point
There were a few small-scale studies conducted from the late 1920s to late 1940s that suggested a possible link between smoking and lung cancer, but these studies had several limitations – and didn’t provide the evidence necessary to establish a clear connection between smoking and lung cancer.
This began to change in the 1950s. Five larger retrospective studies were published in the early 1950’s that again showed a link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. Though important, these studies still didn’t make a convincing enough case as they relied on the self-reported smoking habits of people who already had lung cancer, and compared them to those who didn’t.
One potential problem with this type of study is that people with lung cancer are more likely to overestimate how much they smoked, while those who don’t have lung cancer are more likely to underestimate how much they smoked. To address this issue, a prospective (cohort) study was needed – recruiting healthy people and following them over time to see who develops or dies from lung cancer and who does not. Without such evidence, the tobacco industry was able to cast doubt on the link between smoking and death from lung cancer and other diseases, says Eric Jacobs, Ph.D., an epidemiologist at the American Cancer Society.