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.

 

The Scientific Impossibility of Evolution

page: 16
34
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2019 @ 11:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

Let's not talk about honesty when you blatantly lied in the other thread about what I said was proven and what I said was a work in progress. Where is the testable dissenting evidence? Please post it instead of all these anecdotes.


I posted real science. The neuroanatomy of ocular system is not an anecdote. It's actual observable science. And it's generation is inexplicable through conventional piece-by-piece mutations as proposed by evolutionary theory. There are too many parts and they all need to be present for working vision. There is no conceivable mechanism as to how these complex structures could have evolved. It is not scientific to have the faith that "evolution must have done it".



That is one piece of evidence among many. Are you going to actually refute the research? Just stating that it doesn't count based on your warped standards is not good enough. The genetic history is all there in the non coding DNA. There is no way to even pretend to say you know what would be expected with an intelligent designer.


So evolutionists are allowed to make assumptions, but no one else can? That's some impenetrable defense you got there. I deny no science. Homology shows biochemical similarities among phenotypically similar organisms, nothing more, nothing less. This would be expected in an Intelligent Design model as well.



What about the fact that we wouldn't see so many design flaws?


When a machine is used improperly it will lead to dysfunction. This is the nature of all sin.




LOL @ using the word "kinds" in biology.


the word "species" has so many definitions it is much simpler to use a word that even kids can understand. No reason to overcomplicate things. that's part of the evolutionist's game: overcomplicate it and don't let the commoner's opinion be considered.


Organisms adapt and change over time and those changes are not limited in any way.



Despite the countless generations of fruit flies that have been recorded in the lab that observed no distinct change of kind, or "family", or even "genus" for that matter. Same thing with antibiotic resistance, they resume normalcy once the selective pressure is removed: source. So despite all the experiments attempting to prove evolution there is not one that has a distinct change in an organism. That is all that is needed to prove the possibility of evolution, yet it has never happened, despite immense efforts. This demonstrates that it is not happening.




posted on Jan, 8 2019 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

I posted real science. The neuroanatomy of ocular system is not an anecdote. It's actual observable science. And it's generation is inexplicable through conventional piece-by-piece mutations as proposed by evolutionary theory. There are too many parts and they all need to be present for working vision. There is no conceivable mechanism as to how these complex structures could have evolved. It is not scientific to have the faith that "evolution must have done it".


You posted no relevant science. Yes without backing it up your claim, you are posting nothing but anecdotes and straw man arguments. No conceivable mechanism is a blatant lie. The mechanisms are well known. You just deny them.

Again, your thread title says "scientific impossibility" which means you can PROVE definitively that it is impossible, but you have shown no such research or tests and this thread in on page 16. Where is the proof of your claim of scientific impossibility???



So evolutionists are allowed to make assumptions, but no one else can? That's some impenetrable defense you got there. I deny no science. Homology shows biochemical similarities among phenotypically similar organisms, nothing more, nothing less. This would be expected in an Intelligent Design model as well.


Evolutionists? What are you 5? SCIENTISTS don't make assumptions, they run tests and experiments to find out in things hold weight. Again, I posted hard evidence supporting evolution, and you still have yet to address a single one of them. There is no intelligent design model. It is 100% assumed while evolution is backed by so much evidence it would take ten years to even read though it all. LMAO!



When a machine is used improperly it will lead to dysfunction. This is the nature of all sin.


LOL @ answering with yet another anecdote.


the word "species" has so many definitions it is much simpler to use a word that even kids can understand. No reason to overcomplicate things. that's part of the evolutionist's game: overcomplicate it and don't let the commoner's opinion be considered.


Yeah, it's easier to use words kids can understand when you are dealing with KIDS. You are talking about scientists and using dishonest straw man arguments. The only reason you even say that is because speciation has been proved in a lab and you have no argument against it. "Durrrrr, you can't watch a process for a million years," isn't an argument.


Despite the countless generations of fruit flies that have been recorded in the lab that observed no distinct change of kind, or "family", or even "genus" for that matter.


Your dishonesty holds no bounds. The fruit flies proved speciation! Speciation is not a change of genus or family. LMAO @ no distinct change, the genome has been mapped and the differences are known, they are a different species.



So despite all the experiments attempting to prove evolution there is not one that has a distinct change in an organism. That is all that is needed to prove the possibility of evolution, yet it has never happened, despite immense efforts. This demonstrates that it is not happening.


Dude, distinct small changes have been shown constantly in evolution. They are literally ALL OVER THE ANIMAL KINGDOM. Sorry, your main argument here is blind denial and straw manning evolution over and over.



posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 10:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

You posted no relevant science. Yes without backing it up your claim, you are posting nothing but anecdotes and straw man arguments.


So neuroanatomy is an anecdote to you? You need to start critically analyzing empirical fact (science) on your own, rather than following a dogmatic belief system that is based on theoretical speculation



No conceivable mechanism is a blatant lie. The mechanisms are well known. You just deny them.


Evolution is theorized to work through genetic mutation. Genetic mutation acts on protein modification. Show one proof that a new functional protein was made through selective pressure in a lab... It should be easy to find since there are countless experiments that attempt to force evolution in a lab setting. I'll save you some time, because there are no experiments that demonstrate a novel gene arising from selective pressure, despite the immense efforts to do so. You are relying on a fairy tale, and your aspiring beliefs are based in meaningless speculation.


Again, your thread title says "scientific impossibility" which means you can PROVE definitively that it is impossible


As it pertains to current scientific observation, evolution in terms of changing an organism is impossible. Sure you can have the belief that it is possible, but that is purely a faith-based speculation that has no scientific support that it can actually happen.



"Durrrrr, you can't watch a process for a million years," isn't an argument.


Here you are admitting that you beliefs are based on faith that your speculation about the past is true... even more absurd you propose that it cannot be refuted because we cannot know how it happened.... Further demonstrating the speculative nature of the entire theory.



Your dishonesty holds no bounds. The fruit flies proved speciation! Speciation is not a change of genus or family. LMAO @ no distinct change, the genome has been mapped and the differences are known, they are a different species.


Use all the semantics you want, but despite millions of generations of selective pressure on fruit flies, they remain fruit flies. If you think single nucleotide changes are proof of evolution you are grasping at straws and don't understand the complexity involved with creating a new functional protein - which would theoretically require thousands of successful successive mutations. It is entirely faith-based and not founded in scientific research.




Dude, distinct small changes have been shown constantly in evolution.


Again you are demonstrating your impalpable faith. You see everything through the lens of evolution. If an organism adapts to its environment it is not proof of evolution especially since the adaptive advantage was already present in the possibilities of that organism before the selective presssure


I know what you are going through because I have been through it... just keep researching biological mechanisms and you will realize it is unobtainable through accidental mutation.
edit on 10-1-2019 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
So neuroanatomy is an anecdote to you? You need to start critically analyzing empirical fact (science) on your own, rather than following a dogmatic belief system that is based on theoretical speculation


Nothing about neuroanatomy backs your claim that evolution is scientifically impossible, so yes, it's an anecdote.


Evolution is theorized to work through genetic mutation.


No, this is proved.


Genetic mutation acts on protein modification. Show one proof that a new functional protein was made through selective pressure in a lab...


Genetic mutations change the code sequences. This is a red herring asking for a new protein. The existing proteins are modified, brand new ones don't just show up out of the blue.


there are no experiments that demonstrate a novel gene arising from selective pressure, despite the immense efforts to do so. You are relying on a fairy tale, and your aspiring beliefs are based in meaningless speculation.


A "novel" gene? What are you talking about? New genes don't arise from pressure, different code sequences arise from the modification of existing genes. Plus the human lactose tolerance mutation is well known.


As it pertains to current scientific observation, evolution in terms of changing an organism is impossible. Sure you can have the belief that it is possible, but that is purely a faith-based speculation that has no scientific support that it can actually happen.


100% nonsense. There is no faith, I gave you the huge list of evidence and you ignored it completely.


Here you are admitting that you beliefs are based on faith that your speculation about the past is true... even more absurd you propose that it cannot be refuted because we cannot know how it happened.... Further demonstrating the speculative nature of the entire theory.


Nope. Dozens of transitional fossils have been found. To say we don't know how it happened is a complete lie. This further demonstrates how dishonest creationists usually are.



Use all the semantics you want,


SEMANTICS???? It's been done in a lab. You claimed that speciation was not valid because genus didn't change, when speciation is a change of SPECIES. You are the one using semantics.


despite millions of generations of selective pressure on fruit flies, they remain fruit flies.


Sure thing, Kent. They are a different species of fruit fly. You seem to think evolution requires a fruit fly to turn into a giraffe.


Again you are demonstrating your impalpable faith. You see everything through the lens of evolution.


Because it's been goddamn proved!! That's like accusing somebody as seeing everything through the lens of gravity or the laws of physics. Of course we will, because it's been slam dunk verified. You could easily prove me wrong by refuting a single piece of the evidence posted, but we already know you can't do it, so you resort to straw man arguments and red herrings.


If an organism adapts to its environment it is not proof of evolution especially since the adaptive advantage was already present in the possibilities of that organism before the selective presssure


That's where genetic mutations comes in. I can't believe you don't grasp the very basics of evolution after all these years.


edit on 1 11 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2019 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Excellent thread 👍👍

Starred and Flagged!



posted on May, 23 2019 @ 06:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

For this statement to actually be relevant you must be able to actually prove that something anything actually ever became something not of its own kind... You know nothing like a cat becoming a diff kind of cat or any form of speciation hybridization anything that is a predisposed genetic possibility or even a mutation causing change in DNA by radiation or what have you... After all this too is a a predisposed genetic possibility...
Give us the miraculous evidence of evolution!



posted on May, 23 2019 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

You don’t get to redefine the MES and then demand nonexistent answers to your made up version of biological evolution. Nice try though skipper.



posted on May, 23 2019 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: [post=24386450]peter vlar[/post

I would never be stupid enough to attempt to lie to everyone here and add to the current made up version of evolution...
However you can be sure that when the current version is proven wrong someone will be in line to provide the next “made up version”
lol



posted on May, 23 2019 @ 07:10 PM
link   
I'm still waiting for that theory on cosmic supernatural law. The one where we have measured and determined the exact dimensions of interference from a magical outside-of-spacetime agency that can be demonstrated in both a laboratory and a courtroom as many times as needed for all of the human race to appreciate. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and discrediting the competition is not evidence. Write it down.



posted on May, 23 2019 @ 07:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: [post=24386450]peter vlar[/post

I would never be stupid enough to attempt to lie to everyone here and add to the current made up version of evolution...
However you can be sure that when the current version is proven wrong someone will be in line to provide the next “made up version”
lol


I thought that's how we arrived at 40,000 denominations based on the same exact book?



posted on May, 23 2019 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

I wouldn’t know how many denominations are based on the same exact book especially when the book you are referring to is actually comprised of over 400 books itself... Nor could I tell you how many different languages it has been translated into... I couldn’t begin to Judge the ability of others to then take the information in or what they chose to value most from it or exactly what they choose to emulate because of it... But I’m rather certain that the staggering number you chose to point out as a weakness is actually a profound sentiment instead of its power...

Can you illustrate how the theory of evolution has provided this same profound connection and how numerous versions has spawned separate followings world wide?

While you are at it can you also in your absolute understanding of these said 40000 denominations point out which one are wrong and or right and just exactly why?

I’m failing to see the correlation you felt yourself so wise in making, I realize evolution is a faith based theory which is in and of itself the greatest evidence of evolution in the truest sense of definition as it started out as one confabulation and has been torn apart only to become something else over and over again...

Surely you have something more intelligent to offer up?

edit on 23-5-2019 by 5StarOracle because: Word



posted on May, 24 2019 @ 07:27 AM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

Saying "you need to convince me" when you havent said anything convincing is not a very intelligent response either. It assumes you have made your case to the satisfaction of the forum, but that is simply not true. Your claims are 10x as extraordinary as the theory of evolution. You cant even demonstrate evolution to be false let alone provide consistent measurable examples of supernatural agency that could be construed as a higher power. Until that changes, why should I do your work for you?



posted on May, 27 2019 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: cooperton

Excellent thread 👍👍

Starred and Flagged!


I love how you post this immediately following my post that completely destroyed Coop and made him abandon this thread months ago. Carry on, nothing to see here.



posted on May, 27 2019 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
I'm still waiting for that theory on cosmic supernatural law. The one where we have measured and determined the exact dimensions of interference from a magical outside-of-spacetime agency that can be demonstrated in both a laboratory and a courtroom as many times as needed for all of the human race to appreciate. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and discrediting the competition is not evidence. Write it down.


I'm not holding my breath on this one. They can't even come up with a single mechanism let alone a coherent falsifiable theory. At this point I'd be happy with just 1 piece of testable evidence. At least many of the abiogenesis hypotheses have that.



posted on May, 27 2019 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Even given a billion years I cannot see a slug becoming something so complex as a human being. There is something else going on here.
Perhaps the earth developed plant live and lower life forms , and when all was ready the different species were seeded on the earth.



posted on May, 28 2019 @ 02:31 AM
link   
a reply to: bluemooone2

Life went though its stages... There was a time when simple plants were monstrous... along with everything else in that time period... sabre toothed cats... horses the size of elephant...

A lot can change in a billion years....




posted on May, 28 2019 @ 06:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

Yeah , I have rethought this because even if life here was seeded , it had to evolve somewheres.



posted on May, 28 2019 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

I love how you post this immediately following my post that completely destroyed Coop and made him abandon this thread months ago. Carry on, nothing to see here.


Haha no I stopped responding because you are incapable of carrying on a scientific discussion.

Explain to me a mechanism for how the ocular system could have evolved in a piece-by-piece manner through random genetic mutations...

Show me one complete transitional fossil between apes and humans...

Show me one example of an organism evolving into another organism...

You can't, because it does not exist. Even with over a hundred years of trying to prove the theory, there is not one demonstration that an organism can change into another organism through sequential changes to the genome. It is a fairy tale based on faith.


originally posted by: bluemooone2
a reply to: Akragon

Yeah , I have rethought this because even if life here was seeded , it had to evolve somewheres.


Don't even appease evolutionary theory into your ideology. It is dead weight. It is an insufficient explanation for the complexity exhibited throughout the biological world. Did you know there has never been one complete missing link fossil found between apes and humans?? All the supposed fossils are so damaged you cannot clearly identify the sample. These supposed missing links were theorized to be wandering around for millions of years before the advent of humankind, yet we have absolutely no complete fossils indicating that they ever existed.

edit on 28-5-2019 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 03:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

All that had to change was the ozone layer which was once abundant...
The once abundant ozone layer was directly and solely responsible for increased size and longevity of all living things on Earth...
External influences such as radiation are indeed capable of genetic modifications, this is a direct correlation for you to ponder...
All life shows it to be true but it also shows there were cats and horses and fish insects everything was bigger...
And although when the ozone layer gradually depleted everything changed within the confines of types sizes and longevity decreased and over time hybridization transpired...All things are none the less bound to their types and remain cats and horses fish insects etc...
The belief of evolution and what it is claimed to be capable of is an outright lie on its way out the door...
Genetics will one day outright prove the total impossibility of its claims...

edit on 29-5-2019 by 5StarOracle because: Word



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
Explain to me a mechanism for how the ocular system could have evolved in a piece-by-piece manner through random genetic mutations...


Genetic mutation and natural selection. You ask the same questions over and over and then you hate the answers so you ignore them.


Show me one complete transitional fossil between apes and humans...


Humans ARE apes there is no between! You literally just repeat the same ignorant misunderstanding from years ago. You are unable to evolve your understanding of evolution and that is your problem. You are not honest.


Show me one example of an organism evolving into another organism...


Already been done in a lab, but hey when in doubt repeat the original LIE!


You can't, because it does not exist. Even with over a hundred years of trying to prove the theory, there is not one demonstration that an organism can change into another organism through sequential changes to the genome. It is a fairy tale based on faith.


Another blatant lie. You still have no refuted a SINGLE piece of evidence based on research. Not ONE. Doesn't it get old repeating lies over and over?
edit on 6 4 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
34
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join