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: 4
33
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: norhoc

I can understand what you're getting at. While people will try and say that the shear weight of the numbers supports evolution, you are saying that the opposite is true, that the weight of the numbers doesn't support the complexity of life forms that we find today.

Although you don't come right out and say it, the improbability of such complex systems developing by mere chance over any given time frame support an intelligent design theory over designs created by chance and selected by nature. I do find this idea fascinating and that same thought can be applied to all complex systems found in our universe. It's like saying God doesn't play dice with the universe, a quote by Albert Einstein I believe.

ETA: Perhaps a middle ground can be that the laws of nature promote complexity in evolution, and if it is accepted that the laws of nature are the laws of a creator God, then both evolution and intelligent design can be supported in this way. Evolution could then be considered a path to intelligent design so to speak.


edit on 5-9-2018 by MichiganSwampBuck because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2


In fact, if we follow the evolutionary ladder, it's the case of what came first. And the ladder doesn't go anywhere because the rungs of the ladder are MISSING - as in missing link.

This point doesn't make any sense logically. For instance, if you are assembling a picture of a kitten playing with a ball, but you are missing a handful of pieces to complete the total picture, is the picture no longer a picture of a kitten playing with a ball just because you lost those pieces? Of course not. It's still the same picture. Well the same is true here. Scientists not having every step in the evolutionary history of life (it isn't a chain or ladder and that is a popular misconception btw) doesn't make evolution false.
edit on 5-9-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lightdhype
Very interesting thread. I have ever bought the evolution theory personally. Simple because, why only us?

When other species land and sea have existed millions of years before our supposed ancestors? Makes no sense.


GOOD GRIEF.

We are not the only creatures to have evolved.

More insanity to justify the problem. God save us.....



WE are an anomaly on Earth. We are also an anomaly in our own solar system as far as has been released publicly. Anomalies dont just happen.


Someone posted about not knowing about how things work... ^ is exactly what they refer to.



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 03:06 PM
link   
We have evidence to support the theory of evolution. It's not proof.

We do NOT have evidence of god, except in the fantasy of humans. It is most certainly not proof.



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: edmc^2


In fact, if we follow the evolutionary ladder, it's the case of what came first. And the ladder doesn't go anywhere because the rungs of the ladder are MISSING - as in missing link.

This point doesn't make any sense logically. For instance, if you are assembling a picture of a kitten playing with a ball, but you are missing a handful of pieces to complete the total picture, is the picture no longer a picture of a kitten playing with a ball just because you lost those pieces? Of course not. It's still the same picture. Well the same is true here. Scientists not having every step in the evolutionary history of life (it isn't a chain or ladder and that is a popular misconception btw) doesn't make evolution false.


Sure, if you put it that way. But the picture I'm looking at by your analogy is the cat itself. How did the cat get into the picture, let alone the picture without a creator?

Going down the ladder of progression or regression, how was the cat formed? What came first? Using the OP's analogy




For example, a heart is useless without lungs, and lungs are useless without a heart. The acid-resistant lining of your stomach is irrelevant without the production of stomach acid, stomach acid is deadly without the acid-resistant stomach lining. A receptor is lame without a ligand, and a ligand is erroneous without a receptor to receive its signal. These processes require all parts of the system to be in place for it to work. Because evolution relies on piece-by-piece, sequential transformations, this could not have possibly created these complex systems that require all pieces to be set.


Going further down the ladder, down to the molecular level, how did the DNA evolve? Was RNA needed for its existence? If so which came first? If its RNA, how can it exist without the DNA? And how can DNA exist without RNA?

I can go further down but, I'd like to see your explanation.



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2
Sure, if you put it that way. But the picture I'm looking at by your analogy is the cat itself. How did the cat get into the picture, let alone the picture without a creator?

Going down the ladder of progression or regression, how was the cat formed? What came first? Using the OP's analogy

That's irrelevant to the scope of what Evolution attempts to answer. In that regard you are talking about Abiogenesis. The picture itself is of evolution. We see it by studying the historical record missing links and all. How the picture came to be is an ENTIRELY different scientific inquiry.


Going further down the ladder, down to the molecular level, how did the DNA evolve? Was RNA needed for its existence? If so which came first? If its RNA, how can it exist without the DNA? And how can DNA exist without RNA?

I can go further down but, I'd like to see your explanation.

Of course you can, but that doesn't mean you are still discussing evolutionary theory. Eventually you'll get back to the abiogenesis question, but that is still being debated heavily. It's still a hypothesis even. Though, as of the last few years, it's closer than ever to being put at theory status.

Denying something you see in front of you just because you cannot figure out its origin is intellectually dishonest.



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: SummerRain

originally posted by: Lightdhype
Very interesting thread. I have ever bought the evolution theory personally. Simple because, why only us?

When other species land and sea have existed millions of years before our supposed ancestors? Makes no sense.


GOOD GRIEF.

We are not the only creatures to have evolved.

More insanity to justify the problem. God save us.....



WE are an anomaly on Earth. We are also an anomaly in our own solar system as far as has been released publicly. Anomalies dont just happen.


Someone posted about not knowing about how things work... ^ is exactly what they refer to.


Oh # right off chika. I didnt say we are the only ones to evolve. Im saying there are other species who has been subjected to millions more years 'evolution' than us and yet they are still dumb as a bag of rocks. Food and breeding are their only thoughts. Care to explain to me why that is?

Ill save ya the trouble. You dont know. But you pretend.

At least i can admit we dont truly know # about how or why we are.
edit on 5-9-2018 by Lightdhype because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Lightdhype
Care to point out where evolution says that evolutionary tracks have to follow a certain set of steps of evolutionary progress? Care to point out where evolutionary theory says that intelligent thought is the pinnacle of evolution that all species will obtain over time?

Ill save ya the trouble. You just wrote a bunch of strawman arguments. But you pretend to know what you are talking about.
edit on 5-9-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: edmc^2
Sure, if you put it that way. But the picture I'm looking at by your analogy is the cat itself. How did the cat get into the picture, let alone the picture without a creator?

Going down the ladder of progression or regression, how was the cat formed? What came first? Using the OP's analogy

That's irrelevant to the scope of what Evolution attempts to answer. In that regard you are talking about Abiogenesis. The picture itself is of evolution. We see it by studying the historical record missing links and all. How the picture came to be is an ENTIRELY different scientific inquiry.


Going further down the ladder, down to the molecular level, how did the DNA evolve? Was RNA needed for its existence? If so which came first? If its RNA, how can it exist without the DNA? And how can DNA exist without RNA?

I can go further down but, I'd like to see your explanation.

Of course you can, but that doesn't mean you are still discussing evolutionary theory. Eventually you'll get back to the abiogenesis question, but that is still being debated heavily. It's still a hypothesis even. Though, as of the last few years, it's closer than ever to being put at theory status.

Denying something you see in front of you just because you cannot figure out its origin is intellectually dishonest.





That's irrelevant to the scope of what Evolution attempts to answer. In that regard you are talking about Abiogenesis. The picture itself is of evolution. We see it by studying the historical record missing links and all. How the picture came to be is an ENTIRELY different scientific inquiry.


Yes, it's relevant. Let me show you why.

If in a nutshell, evolution is "the change of the allele - overtime (whether micro or macro stages)". At what stage did evolution occur when the "first selfish gene (Dawkins)" appeared?

Did it occur when the "first cell" divided or before? Was this division a change?

Simple questions but very important to know if you're a proponent of evolution.



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: edmc^2
Sure, if you put it that way. But the picture I'm looking at by your analogy is the cat itself. How did the cat get into the picture, let alone the picture without a creator?

Going down the ladder of progression or regression, how was the cat formed? What came first? Using the OP's analogy

That's irrelevant to the scope of what Evolution attempts to answer. In that regard you are talking about Abiogenesis. The picture itself is of evolution. We see it by studying the historical record missing links and all. How the picture came to be is an ENTIRELY different scientific inquiry.


Going further down the ladder, down to the molecular level, how did the DNA evolve? Was RNA needed for its existence? If so which came first? If its RNA, how can it exist without the DNA? And how can DNA exist without RNA?

I can go further down but, I'd like to see your explanation.

Of course you can, but that doesn't mean you are still discussing evolutionary theory. Eventually you'll get back to the abiogenesis question, but that is still being debated heavily. It's still a hypothesis even. Though, as of the last few years, it's closer than ever to being put at theory status.

Denying something you see in front of you just because you cannot figure out its origin is intellectually dishonest.





That's irrelevant to the scope of what Evolution attempts to answer. In that regard you are talking about Abiogenesis. The picture itself is of evolution. We see it by studying the historical record missing links and all. How the picture came to be is an ENTIRELY different scientific inquiry.


Yes, it's relevant. Let me show you why.

If in a nutshell, evolution is "the change of the allele - overtime (whether micro or macro stages)". At what stage did evolution occur when the "first selfish gene (Dawkins)" appeared?

Did it occur when the "first cell" divided or before? Was this division a change?

Simple questions but very important to know if you're a proponent of evolution.






No, knowing the exact moment of the first mutation isn’t important to understanding evolution. The entire premise is a straw man for small minds. To dispute the facts supported by the study of biology as well as what we’ve learned and are still learning about genetics is hilarious. In fact the question, as you pose it is a non sequitor. How could evolution have occurred prior to cell division? You know it didn’t occur until after the first single felled organisms were already viable.

We can look at long running experiments like the 30 year long Lenski experiment where the ability to digest citrate didn’t appear until about the 20,000th generation removed from the original batch of E. Coli for an example. But you’re treading on the cusp of the first reproducing lifenon earth right after Abiogenesis or Panspermia occurred as if you’ve got some secret “gotcha!” Card up your sleeve but haven’t yet noticed that tour shirt has no sleeves.



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: toms54

originally posted by: Kharron
a reply to: cooperton

Instead, I'll just leave this video here, of ACTUAL, visual and undeniable proof of mutation, selection and survival of the fittest:


That is a great video that does for sure demonstrate how an organism adapts to its' surroundings. It does not however demonstrate the origin of a new species.


“Speciess” is a taxonomic term. We use it to organize how we categorize organisms but there is no clear cut barrier when an organism diverges into 2 separate species. (Ie micro/macro). If we did see this happen you could not get hybrid species.



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cypress

originally posted by: toms54

originally posted by: Kharron
a reply to: cooperton

Instead, I'll just leave this video here, of ACTUAL, visual and undeniable proof of mutation, selection and survival of the fittest:


That is a great video that does for sure demonstrate how an organism adapts to its' surroundings. It does not however demonstrate the origin of a new species.


“Speciess” is a taxonomic term. We use it to organize how we categorize organisms but there is no clear cut barrier when an organism diverges into 2 separate species. (Ie micro/macro). If we did see this happen you could not get hybrid species.


I know what species is and I know what taxonomy is. Yes there is such a thing as different species. A dog is not a horse. What did the octopus evolve from?

I believe in evolution but I think the classic idea best explains the development of subspecies. Only an extreme genetic mutation that somehow survives fully explains differences in species, not tiny gradual changes. In some cases taxonomy can trace a line, in others not so much.



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 05:49 PM
link   
First off, biology is not in dispute here - that's a straw man argument. To say otherwise is hilarious to the ompt degree!! It's the theory of evolution that's in dispute.



No, knowing the exact moment of the first mutation isn’t important to understanding evolution.


To the contrary, it's paramount to understanding the OP's point that evolution impossible. Without a foundation, the entire theory collapses. So, you're basically ignoring the fact that a wide gulf exists between life and non-life to jump to an unscientific conclusion that life must have evolved. One can't exist without the other and only -to use your term - "small minds" ignore this fact.

But let's just supposed, the very first "selfish gene" created itself from the "primordial pond" of life, explain please to a "small-minded" fool like me how "it" evolved into a higher form (of life) without first protecting itself from its very destructive environment?

Simple biology if can please?



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

No it is not important. Evolution is based on the fact that change happens, not why it happened to begin with. To argue otherwise is basically obscuring the argument to appear to be in a place of authority.



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 07:22 PM
link   
So here we have yet another thread. By one of the usual suspects, and it presents nothing new. In summary:

A creationist says evolution is impossible
Posts some sources of dubious objectivity.
Claims based on that set of sources (not properly cited) that evolution is thus a scientific impossibility.

Then proceeds to ignore any science posted.

This is the Problem with ATS these days. Deny ignorance? Not in a long long time.



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Ya brother... we're going down a bad road here

it seems to be promote ignorance lately... Hell we have people that deny gravity exists FFS

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The usual suspects as you stated but none the less...

Stupidity is running rampant in the world... and its spreading here as well




posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Of course, "CHANGE HAPPENS" that's a fact of life. It's another strawman argument to say otherwise.

But why too scared to answer a very simple question?

If evolution is based on fact, then there should be no difficulty answering my question.

For the chick to survive its environment, it must have a protection, the eggshell, but it must break out of its shell to continue surviving. So how does "the selfish gene" break out of its deadly environment without first protecting itself?



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 08:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: toms54

originally posted by: Kharron
a reply to: cooperton

Instead, I'll just leave this video here, of ACTUAL, visual and undeniable proof of mutation, selection and survival of the fittest:


That is a great video that does for sure demonstrate how an organism adapts to its' surroundings. It does not however demonstrate the origin of a new species.


No one said it was a new species, but a mutation occurred and a new organism thrives, after adaptation, in a new environment that the original could not and still cannot live in. But the original is still living in the environment it came from. These two organisms are different but are still the same bacteria.

I don't think you have a complete concept of what evolution is. Just because a mutation happens and an organism adapts and evolves, it does not create a whole new species each time, or a new genus. There is no mutation that will turn a wolf into a dog; but series of mutations, over thousands of generations create enough differences that what started out as the same species has diverged so drastically that we create a new branch for it. When they differ even more, a new genus, and if one goes back far enough -- a new family.

In the case of the Harvard experiment with the bacteria, in the video I posted -- the bacteria that advanced to the 10x area, and then to the 100x area is still of the same species, it is the same bacteria -- it just evolved and became a bit different from the original.

Now, if we gave it two, or five or ten years, there might be enough additional mutations that it would create a need for a new name, and therefore a new species, perhaps even a genus.

Humans evolve and mutate all the time. Imagine how our bodies have to adapt to the additional CO2 in the air that our predecessors were not exposed to. With each generation, our offspring is more suited to the new environment and each generation evolved a bit from the previous one. In fact, we may be so different that a person who lived in the Roman Empire or in ancient Egypt, perhaps could not breathe the same air we do, without difficulties and would be prone to illness or death even. But we are of the same Homo genus, and Sapiens species, even though our bodies are different and suited to different periods.



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden


I notice no one can argue the mathematics behind the impossibility of macro evolution that I posted. Also just show us proof in the fossil record where one species evolved into another, because that would have had to happen billions of times for there to be the diversity of species we see today, yet, it does not show up once in the fossil record.



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 08:55 PM
link   
nevermind my last edit, I'm done responding to ad hominems and erroneous comments

If anyone wants to contrive some sort of idea as to how the functional neuroanatomy described in the OP could have possibly formed by subsequent piece-by-piece random genetic mutations I will be here waiting to debate
edit on 5-9-2018 by cooperton because: I was responding to garbage thrown at me and realized that responding to it would go nowhere




top topics



 
33
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join