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.

 

Can you prove evolution wrong? -- Part 2

page: 34
14
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2019 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden


Back to the Ad hominem I see.

Hmm.....Let me list some examples of common fallacies for you to better understand the meaning:
ad hominem:

Jehovah however appears to be a thin skinned deity, and says he is jealous. My own gods are not that craven


appeal to ignorance:
We have no evidence for purpose in evolution; therefor no purpose exist.

argumentum ad ignorantiam:
Evolution just is! End of story.



It does not matter if it looks purposeful to you, that does not make it with purpose. Your biases are peaking out.

As always, when I am talking about my beliefs, I state such.
Did I not say, this is what I believe, its not fact?
Regardless of what you believe, people of differing opinions can and do have meaningful conversations.
You admitted that to a certain extent we do not know why evolution works. That leaves room for many things.
As I said, it is my belief, that there is purpose. I never once stated it as fact.
You took a potshot at what you thought would get under my skin, early on.
Those kinds of things don't bother me.
What bothers me is when someone doubles down on a bad bet and can't admit they made a mistake.
It's a simple thing to do, if you're wrong admit it. If you make a mistake, correct it. to do otherwise is childish.

Now if you can engage in a conversation without acting childish I would enjoy doing so. If not, no further reply is necessary.




posted on Jul, 22 2019 @ 09:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Quadrivium

So, by paraphrasing the words ascribed to your deity (Exodus 34:14 to be exact) I an attacking it? Jealousy is being thin skinned. Why would a supposed supreme being, be woried of other gods, I wonde? Could it be, hat Jehovah is not supreme?

You don't undestand science. Again you are applying subjectivity (purpose) to an objective, and evidentually based theory. In that you are extrapolating beyond the data. Science does not do that. That is the perview of faith. Evolution occurs, whether you believe it or not, so argumentum ad ignorantiam is not applicable. Its a natural and measurable phenomenon.

You then go into a Gish gallop. Followed by yet more Ad hominem behavior. Its a two way street. I'm not abrahamic, I'm not obliged to turn the other cheek.

Slan leat,



posted on Jul, 22 2019 @ 09:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Quadrivium

So, by paraphrasing the words ascribed to your deity (Exodus 34:14 to be exact) I an attacking it? Jealousy is being thin skinned. Why would a supposed supreme being, be woried of other gods, I wonde? Could it be, hat Jehovah is not supreme?

Your point being what exactly? Other than you assumed my faith of choice?



You don't undestand science. Again you are applying subjectivity (purpose) to an objective, and evidentually based theory.

You don't understand science. How do you do science without asking questions, without looking at research and researching it yourself? Do you just take the word of others?


In that you are extrapolating beyond the data. Science does not do that. That is the perview of faith. Evolution occurs, whether you believe it or not, so argumentum ad ignorantiam is not applicable. Its a natural and measurable phenomenon.
Why?



You then go into a Gish gallop. Followed by yet more Ad hominem behavior. Its a two way street. I'm not abrahamic, I'm not obliged to turn the other cheek.

Gish gallop? Hello pot.



posted on Jul, 22 2019 @ 10:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden




To imply a purpose, implies a higher intelligence in the Universe. Science is not concerned with that. Evolution just is. End of story.

From www.abovetopsecret.com...

The objective part is that it occurs, and we know HOW, and to a certain extent why.

From www.abovetopsecret.com...

Look at these two statements, they are both from you. If evolution "just is" then there should not be a reason why.
Can you explain, to a certain extent, why evolution works?


edit on 22-7-2019 by Quadrivium because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2019 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Because the environment changes



posted on Jul, 22 2019 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People



No. There are reasons for the process of evolution -- just like any process in nature -- but evolution has no purpose for happening. It just is. Which was the original question I was answering when I responded to this post:


I’m fascinated by this idea of “It Just Is”.
I guess erosion can be said to be “just is” due to the fact it’s extremely easy to test and observe the process from start to finish. Also erosion has pretty good track record of being consistent.
No scientist or publication are known to falsify evidence to prove erosion.

I think putting evolution on the same level as Erosion to me seems desperate.



posted on Jul, 23 2019 @ 05:36 AM
link   
Dp
edit on 23-7-2019 by Quadrivium because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2019 @ 05:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Observationalist
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People



No. There are reasons for the process of evolution -- just like any process in nature -- but evolution has no purpose for happening. It just is. Which was the original question I was answering when I responded to this post:


I’m fascinated by this idea of “It Just Is”.
I guess erosion can be said to be “just is” due to the fact it’s extremely easy to test and observe the process from start to finish. Also erosion has pretty good track record of being consistent.
No scientist or publication are known to falsify evidence to prove erosion.

I think putting evolution on the same level as Erosion to me seems desperate.







The biggest difference is life vs non life.
The rock does not know it is being eroded.
The water does not know it is eroding.
With out life what would science be?
Everything is already here for science to work. All that is missing an intalect to learn and give it voice.
We learn slowly what is already present. Well, some of us that have open minds and are not afraid to question. Others make absolute statements that leave no room for growth because they are stuck in their dogma.
We can see this with statements like *it just is, end of story".
There is no room for anything else. At this point the mind is firmly closed.



posted on Jul, 23 2019 @ 07:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Quadrivium
The biggest difference is life vs non life.
The rock does not know it is being eroded.
The water does not know it is eroding.

Does a bird species know it is going through the process of evolution?



We learn slowly what is already present. Well, some of us that have open minds and are not afraid to question. Others make absolute statements that leave no room for growth because they are stuck in their dogma.
We can see this with statements like *it just is, end of story".
There is no room for anything else. At this point the mind is firmly closed.

You are mis-representing the point of what we are saying when we say "evolution just happenss" or "evolution just is".

We are NOT saying that evolution must blindly be believed, or that it's the "end of story" (I may be wrong, but I don't think anyone on here said "end of story".

What we are saying is that evolution is a natural process. It does not need a intelligently guiding purpose behind it. Instead, it is a process that "Just happens" -- much like many other processes in nature. There is no greater purpose required.

Those other processes "just happen" or "just are", same as the process behind evolution.

There is still an explanation to be for the natural process behind evolution to be understood by anyone who wants to understand it, just like there are explanations behind other natural processes.

NOBODY is saying "Just blindly accept evolution...end of story". That's not at all what we mean by "it just happens."

edit on 7/23/2019 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2019 @ 07:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People


To imply a purpose, implies a higher intelligence in the Universe. Science is not concerned with that. Evolution just is. End of story.

From www.abovetopsecret.com...

As you were saying?



posted on Jul, 23 2019 @ 08:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People


To imply a purpose, implies a higher intelligence in the Universe. Science is not concerned with that. Evolution just is. End of story.

From www.abovetopsecret.com...

As you were saying?




As I said, I could be wrong about nobody saying "end of story", and I was.

But again, you have mis-representated what is meant by the use of "end of story" in this context.

That person is NOT saying that a person needs to blindly believe that evolution is happening (nobody should ever blindly believe anything).

What they ARE saying is that evolution has no purpose. Evolution is not a purposely guided process. It's a natural process. It just happens (like many natural processes), and happens without having a purpose or goal in mind.

In fact, evolution has no goal that it heads towards inasmuch as there is no "finished animal design" that evolution strives to complete. When the first creature evolved a light-sensitive cell that could sense the location of the sun or when a predator was near, evolution did not provide that cell with the end goal in mind of eventually evolving the superior eyes of an eagle.

The process behind evolution just happens. When talking about the story of the natural process of evolution, the story should end with the process just happening, like other natural process just happen. The story should not then go on to ascribe a purpose or end goal of that process. The process has no end goal and no greater purpose.


edit on 7/23/2019 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2019 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Holy derailed thread, batman!



posted on Jul, 23 2019 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Observationalist

As I keep trying to say, its the same as Gravity, magnetism, as you say Erosion etc... they happen, their purpose is subjective. Science is not about subjectivity. IF I make a few kg of an API (Active Pharmaceutical Intermediate) at work (what I do is make pharmaceuticals), then I OBJECTIVELY do so. Rather than subjectively think I have.



posted on Jul, 23 2019 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

..on the sixth day. Seriously!



posted on Jul, 23 2019 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Out6of9Balance

What on the sixth day? IS this more of your Faiths mythology you are passing off as fact? I can do that too. Its still mythology and thus highly subjective.

Nem co doman.

Doman fo nim,
nert hi cach,
an forlann,
lan do mil,
míd co saith.
Sam hi ngam,
gai for sciath,
sciath for durnd.
Dunad lonngarg;
longait- tromfóid
fod di uí
ross forbiur benna
abu airbe imetha.
Mess for crannaib
craob do scís
scís do áss
saith do mac
mac for muin,
muin tairb
tarb di arccoin
odhb do crann
crann do ten.
Tene a nn-ail.
Ail a n-úir
uích a mbuaib
boinn a mbru.
Brú lafefaid
ossghlas iaer errach,
foghamar forasit etha.
Iall do tír
tír co trachd lefeabrea.
Bídruad rossaib síraib rithmár,
‘Nach scel laut?’
Sith co nem
bidsirnae.



posted on Jul, 23 2019 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People



As I said, I could be wrong about nobody saying "end of story", and I was.

But again, you have mis-representated what is meant by the use of "end of story" in this context.

That person is NOT saying that a person needs to blindly believe that evolution is happening (nobody should ever blindly believe anything).

No, that is exactly what they were saying.



What they ARE saying is that evolution has no purpose. Evolution is not a purposely guided process. It's a natural process. It just happens (like many natural processes), and happens without having a purpose or goal in mind.

Again no, by saying "it just is! End of story", they are saying; "Do not question it because it is beyond questioning".
There really is no other way to spin it. Either you agree with him that it is all powerful and should not be questioned or you do not. If you do not, then why defend him?
That is why I called their statement faith based and likened it to the Creationist saying "God did it, end of story".
They then went on to attack what they assumed my faith to be and blamed me for bringing in religion.
Go figure.......



posted on Jul, 23 2019 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
Holy derailed thread, batman!

Eh.......
You know how those religious types are. You start questioning their faith and they lose their minds. It was bound to happen.



posted on Jul, 23 2019 @ 08:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: midnightstar
All the people who are so sure a God did it - NOT ONE has got there god to Show humans he can .
So untill your god does even ONE thing that shows he is real then this debate it pointless because wile a god may exist
all the power in the universe means NOTHING if he does not use it .

Have you ever consider HE is using everything He has to keep everything in the universes alive? Stars and planets die and reborn every seconds.

Have you ever consider how much energy to power infinite galaxies and expanding universes?

Why would He waste His time babysitting such a tiny blue planet like ours?

Because we are sons of God? Seriously? Perhaps you should stop believing the mind of 2000 years old primitive ancient human mind.


originally posted by: midnightstar
God saved you from being a drunk ? or drug addict ? Tell me what makes you so important god would let baby's who never even get to draw there first breath did and yet save you ?
That is the biggest thing to me it tells me that people are very self centered so much that A god would pick them out of billions to help change or ask a favor .

take about delusions of being so much better O look at the sinner I am so much better what a joke .
God wills ( if that is you or a dead baby then God wills is a sick JOKE .

God does not save humanity from slavery. We did.

Why would God want to save anything?

God does not babysit anyone.

"It is finish," Jesus said.



posted on Jul, 23 2019 @ 08:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Known statements:

1) The domesticated dog split from wolves between 25,000 and 40,000 years ago. (I will stick with 25K for more effect in this argument.)

2) Domestic dogs and Wolves have undergone different environmental pressures in the last 25,000 years for breeding and selection.

3) Domestic dogs and wolves are still able to breed and produce sexually viable offspring.

Therefore, it can be argued that 25,000 years is not long enough to create an independent species. Going forward I will call this an Edge-of-Speciation Time (EST) to show that while there may be an excessive amount of variation within the species it has not been long enough to create a new organism...

Known statements:

1) The Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event occured ~66 million years ago.

2) Proto-mammals were present at the time of extintion and began to fill in the ecological niches.
a) Placental mammal fossils have not been discovered prior to the extinction. (There were monotremes present at
the time.)
b) The earliest primate was determined to be 55 million years ago
c) Bats/Chiroptera appeared 50 million years ago
d) The earliest canines have been determined to appear 43 million years ago.

3) 66,000,000 divided by 25,000 is 2,640.

Therefore, there have been 2,640 EST's since dinosaurs went away and mammals began to diversify into what we see today. I have a serious problem with the idea you could have a species of egg-laying monotreme diversify into any of the mammals today with only 2,640 modifications. This gets even worse if you say that dog domestication began 40,000 years ago. That would mean there have only been 1,650 EST's since the dinosaurs went extinct.

So while I am not disputing the process of evolution, I am stating that our current understanding of the process is woefully incomplete and that Darwinism is not the answer to all those questions. There are other mechanisms at work that we have not worked out yet. So I have no problem saying Darwinism is wrong... not because we have not evolved, but because our idea of how we evolved is missing a lot of variables.


Evolution requires an awful lot of time and our Earth is not old enough to allow such slow gradualism from soup to dinosaurs to present days whatever small species. Which is why I don't believe human homo homo sapiens ever evolve. Mutate yes. Evolve nope.



posted on Jul, 23 2019 @ 09:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: rnaa
The time scale you want is generations. There can be hundreds of mutations between each individual and it parents. A species that has multiple births in one generation can have thousands of chances at useful mutations (and bad mutations, and neutral mutations). It is random and as a Biologist you should understand that there is no guarantee that a useful mutation will arise at the right time (or ahead of time). Mutation 'rates' differ across species, across genders (human male sperm has a higher mutation rate than female eggs, for example), and in different regions of the DNA structure. On average, the human rate is about 64 mutations per generation (depending on exactly how it is measured).

There are about 130 million human babies born each year. So that is about 8.32 BILLION chances PER YEAR for a speciation level mutation in the human population alone. And that is one heck of a lot more than your 2,640 EST number.

Of course, for that speciation event to actually happen, it has to actually be present in one part of the population and give that population a survival advantage over another, isolated, population that does not have the mutation. Since there are no isolated populations on Earth for the last 100,000 years or so we just aren't going to see such an event until we start colonizing off planet.


Therefore, until we can colonizing off planet, there is no observable speciation evidence that present days human evolve. Tibetan human are still classified as homosapiens despite their million years old variation. And we would not see any mythical new species arise from human earth anytime in the future unless something radical change the entire earth, which it did billion years ago.

But then again who knows?




top topics



 
14
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join