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: 3
21
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 11:03 PM
link   
it's not evolution it's integration

what happens if you breed species together over a period of time?




posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 11:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: trollz

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: trollz
I am asking for a journal article, peer reviewed that states that evolution is a fact


Click on pdf, open it in a new tab and read it. You don't need to download anything, you can read it right there in your browser, just the same as you're reading ATS. Then you can tell me why the article does or does not confirm evolution. As I said before, until you do that then you have no business continuing. Read the article and explain how it does or does not confirm evolution.

You asked for an article.
I provided an article.
You haven't read the article.

Again though, I ask: What exactly do you think evolution is?

A moth is a moth, whatever color

Do you think a chihuahua is the same thing as a doberman pinscher? Why or why not?


Please cut and paste the opening statement and conclusion, let us all see the science involved, let us all see the statements made. Bring it here so everyone can see it, they can make up there own mind

And your article is self defeating, the moths are returning to their original color, no evolution involved, obviously
Did you not notice that?



posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 11:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults
it's not evolution it's integration

what happens if you breed species together over a period of time?


For instance, example please



posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 11:08 PM
link   



posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 11:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Yeah, Darwin's book is flawed, but Darwin criticized his own work by stating that evolution has no ultimate purpose. This is why we continue to tweak it today. But regardless of all that, you won't find proof either way. You will only find evidence that you can use to either refute or support your own claim. But to do that you have to read through numerous arguments, some of which you are not going to agree with totally. Happy hunting.



posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 11:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Please cut and paste the opening statement and conclusion

Absolutely not. I gave you exactly what you asked for, a journal article. Read it. I won't cherry-pick parts out for you. You have access to the entire thing right there.


originally posted by: Raggedyman
let us all see the science involved, let us all see the statements made. Bring it here so everyone can see it, they can make up there own mind

I did. I posted a link to a journal article, just like you asked. Anyone can go read it. Have you read it? When you do, then you can come back and explain to us why the article you asked for does or does not support evolution.


originally posted by: Raggedyman
And your article is self defeating, the moths are returning to their original color, no evolution involved, obviously

I'll ask a third time: What exactly do you think evolution is?



posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 11:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

So the biggest flaw in your argument is me?

I'm nobody, if I threaten your argument then you need more respect for your beliefs.



posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 11:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: Raggedyman

So the biggest flaw in your argument is me?

I'm nobody, if I threaten your argument then you need more respect for your beliefs.


It's your scientific ignorance
You have no argument but belligerence



posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 11:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: trollz

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Please cut and paste the opening statement and conclusion

Absolutely not. I gave you exactly what you asked for, a journal article. Read it. I won't cherry-pick parts out for you. You have access to the entire thing right there.


originally posted by: Raggedyman
let us all see the science involved, let us all see the statements made. Bring it here so everyone can see it, they can make up there own mind

I did. I posted a link to a journal article, just like you asked. Anyone can go read it. Have you read it? When you do, then you can come back and explain to us why the article you asked for does or does not support evolution.


originally posted by: Raggedyman
And your article is self defeating, the moths are returning to their original color, no evolution involved, obviously

I'll ask a third time: What exactly do you think evolution is?


You posted a stupid article stating moths colors change
That's pathetic

A moth is a moth

It doesn't support evolution because the moths are going back to their normal color, a primary school child can understand that logic, can you?



posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 11:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: trollz

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: trollz

Thanks for your sincere reply
Sadly the link states it has timed out, for me

Maybe cut and post the opening statement and the conclusion if you can?

Try this link and then click on "pdf" to see the entire article.


The article deals with the color differences, over time, of the peppered moth.

One might argue that the genetic variability of melatonin production was inherently in the genome of the species and that it is merely statistical expression in the population due to selection pressures.

An additional support for the idea that this does not represent speciation is the rapidity of changes. The European Peppered Moth made two changes in coloration in a 200 year period. As the species has an annual life-cycle, this represents a 'change' every 100 generations. This would be too fast to be a 'speciating' change, repeated at the same rate and is reflected in populations as diverse as Europe and the Americas.

This, therefore does cannot describe a macro-evolutionery proof.

edit on 25/1/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 11:20 PM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

Interbreeding biological species does not produce viable offspring.



posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 11:21 PM
link   
I am not making a claim, none at all, it's in your head Zig
I am asking for scientific peer reviewed articles confirming evolution is a fact

No more or less

Bring it to the discussion, don't hide it



posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 11:24 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Thanks Chro, but I doubt it deserved such a response.
The article title made the evolutionary aspect ludicrous on its own

Why that was brought to the table is bizzare



posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 11:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: Raggedyman

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


The article appears to be searching for a link between genetics and behavior?



posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 11:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Please...

You really just mean you are trolling and no matter what someone shows you it will never be good enough..

I gotta assume there are no logical creationists.. because any there were would be horrified at the way you are representing them..



posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 11:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Raggedyman

Please...

You really just mean you are trolling and no matter what someone shows you it will never be good enough..

I gotta assume there are no logical creationists.. because any there were would be horrified at the way you are representing them..



Well if you can't offer what I asked for then OBVIOUSLY
Otherwise, get the peer reviewed journal article that states evolution is a fact

If I am wrong, it's an easy task Josh

I would be horrified if evolutionists claim evolution is a scientific fact but can't show the journal articles stating it is, horrified to think they think they understand science, representing science, demeaning science



posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 11:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: Raggedyman

So the biggest flaw in your argument is me?

I'm nobody, if I threaten your argument then you need more respect for your beliefs.


It's your scientific ignorance
You have no argument but belligerence


I agree 100%.
But I've already shown you flaws in my own argument.
I'm curious to see if you've done enough homework to find flaws on your own.



posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 11:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Well, you are asking the wrong questions. Your request for definitive proof hinders your ability to enter the scientific realm. Proof only occurs in geometry and law...and maybe pudding.



posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 11:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

If you can't understand the analogy then think about apes. Some mutated flatter feet, less bandy legs and were able to move around on the ground and carry things better than those without the mutation. Over time more changes happened until you got to something vaguely human.
All the failed mutations likely didn't get passed on as those apes didn't survive.

You seeing it now?



posted on Jan, 26 2018 @ 12:15 AM
link   
People don't bother he is a self confessed troll.
A few of us are attempting to find his admission as we speak.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join