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.

 

So, a peer reviewed journal article stating...

page: 20
20
<< 17  18  19   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 09:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: Raggedyman

Here is a PRA from berkeley dealing with the topic of cetacean evolution.

evolution.berkeley.edu...


The evolution of whales

The first thing to notice on this evogram is that hippos are the closest living relatives of whales, but they are not the ancestors of whales. In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That's why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree.

Whale evogram
Hippos are large and aquatic, like whales, but the two groups evolved those features separately from each other. We know this because the ancient relatives of hippos called anthracotheres (not shown here) were not large or aquatic. Nor were the ancient relatives of whales that you see pictured on this tree — such as Pakicetus. Hippos likely evolved from a group of anthracotheres about 15 million years ago, the first whales evolved over 50 million years ago, and the ancestor of both these groups was terrestrial.

These first whales, such as Pakicetus, were typical land animals. They had long skulls and large carnivorous teeth. From the outside, they don't look much like whales at all. However, their skulls — particularly in the ear region, which is surrounded by a bony wall — strongly resemble those of living whales and are unlike those of any other mammal. Often, seemingly minor features provide critical evidence to link animals that are highly specialized for their lifestyles (such as whales) with their less extreme-looking relatives.



Woodie, seriously are you telling me what you linked in that link is a journal article, seriously

Please, Barcs, noindie, page, whoever, have pity on woodie and stop him from saying anymore, please, he is like a child on their own in a lion park covered in blood
He doesn't deserve my pity but come on, help him out




posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 09:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Where did I say I didn't believe in germs
I assumed a probability based on evidence you were a flat earther
Just showing you what it's like to have to deal with immature people, guess because you don't believe in germs, you believing a flat earth as well was logical


This is idiotic. You hold evolution to different standards than all other scientific theories. That's why I brought up germ theory. Can't believe you still don't comprehend that.



Do you acknowledge some scientists differentiate micro and macro evolution


Completely irrelevant. They are exactly the same in mechanism.


And no, not interested in hypothesis, theories and law, I asked for evidence for macro evolution, if it's a fact then there should be rock solid scientific evidence


And there is rock solid evidence, you just ignore it and try to exploit semantics by looking for a single catch phrase in a single paper instead of weighing all of the evidence together and seeing what it points to. This is why dishonest people like you have no business questioning science.


If evolution is a probability, how can we t also be a fact?


Evolution as a process is confirmed to happen. There is no denial of genetic mutations and natural selection, the 2 primary mechanisms. Evolution as a scientific theory is not 100% proved because scientists are still working on parts of it, but it contains tons upon tons upon tons of hard facts and experiments. Denial of it is childish, just like denying germ theory, cell theory, atomic theory, etc. You are like a stubborn teenager asking the parents "Why?" every few minutes.



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman


asked that you prove evolution on a macro scale with repetable observable and testable science


There are these things called fossils. Maybe you heard of them?

www.talkorigins.com/comdesc

humanorigins.si.edu...

en.wikipedia.org...

Of course we already know you will dishonestly ignore all evidence and repeat the same bull# again, but hey whatever keeps your religious beliefs alive, right?

You aren't looking for information, you are looking for catch phrases. You are basically a troll that has no purpose here besides making creationists look bad (not that they need YOU for that).

Any information we give will be ignored by you, so it's pointless to post it. You are a proven fraud that dishonestly keeps asking for proof but ignores every single thing that supports evolution. You were given more research on the last page and you didn't even address it.

1. Ask for evidence
2. Ignore all evidence presented and ask for evidence again
3. Repeat the cycle

It's old dude, get a new gimmick.

edit on 4 24 18 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 10:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Incandescent
The opening post can be settled by comprehending the following statement:

Evolution is a scientific theory, not a scientific fact.

Everyone can realise that is an accurate and truthful statement.



Nonsense. Scientific theories are compilations of scientific facts, so to say it's not a fact is absurd. Evolution as a process is fact. The theory as a whole is not because there are certain things we don't know yet and are working on, but based on how much evidence we have the likelihood of it being true is at least 99.999% No theory ever reaches 100% because we don't have complete knowledge of everything.


edit on 4 24 18 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
Nonsense. Scientific theories are compilations of scientific facts, so to say it's not a fact is absurd. Evolution as a process is fact. The theory as a whole is not because there are certain things we don't know yet and are working on, but based on how much evidence we have the likelihood of it being true is at least 99.999% No theory ever reaches 100% because we don't have complete knowledge of everything.


What "certain things" don't scientists know and are working on?

Logically, you cannot claim something as true if it is 99.999% true. It is either true or it is not true.

Lastly, can you explain why Evolution is not classified as scientific fact?



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Did you miss the last 20 pages of people with your argument being smashed on the reef of science over faith
Why do you hate science for your beliefs in your myths Barcs

Please go help Woodie with understanding what a journal article is
You are fighting above your weight and taking unstoppable body shots, throw in the towel

You havnt the evidence I asked for, calling me a troll is obviously your best scientific journal article and it's not a journal article, it's a cry for help



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Incandescent
What "certain things" don't scientists know and are working on?


They don't have the complete fossil history, there are many transitions and time frames that are estimates. There is still much we don't know, but the more we learn the clearer the picture gets. That's why you can never say a scientific theory is 100% truth.


Logically, you cannot claim something as true if it is 99.999% true. It is either true or it is not true.


I didn't say it was 100% true, I said the PROCESS itself is irrefutable fact, but we don't have the complete history and don't know everything. That doesn't mean the mechanisms are up for debate or haven't been figured out yet. It just means there is more to learn.


Lastly, can you explain why Evolution is not classified as scientific fact?


For the same reason why Germ theory is not classified as scientific fact. Do you doubt the existence of germs?

Theories are compilations of facts. If you ask that question, it shows you really need to look up what scientific theory means. Scientific theories never turn into a scientific fact or law. We already went over this.


edit on 4 24 18 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Lol. Did you look at the citations at the bottom of that page? All of the work on that page has citations from the journals it was taken from. If you follow those links, you can see the publications.



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver

LOL
Woods, they are not journal articles, not in journals


I have no interest in arguing with a child



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Nature is a peer reviewed scientific journal


Nature is a British multidisciplinary scientific journal, first published on 4 November 1869.[1] It was ranked the world's most cited scientific journal by the Science Edition of the 2010 Journal Citation Reports and is ascribed an impact factor of 40.137, making it one of the world's top academic journals.[2][3] It is one of the few remaining academic journals that publishes original research across a wide range of scientific fields.[3][4]



new topics




 
20
<< 17  18  19   >>

log in

join