The Scientific Impossibility of Evolution

a reply to: Kharron

I get it. I studied it in school also. The fossil record shows this in many cases but in others, it is not really continuous. Some of this gets filled in, other times, we have have to reorder the taxonomic system to take new discoveries into account. But still there are parts that don't fit. The octopus has no known progenitors yet it is a very intelligent sophisticated animal for its' level of development. This is the type of situation that can only be explained by a serious mutation.

You can say it doesn't have a lot of bones, it's hard to document, it must work the way I believe. We are evidence based. We can't cling to one method religiously. If there is another explanation, it should be considered until proven one way or another.

We know that proximity to radiation can produce a fish with three eyes. Chemical agents can produce monsters like flipper babies. Something caused 5 legged cows seen at freak shows across the country. Radioactive minerals exist in nature. They actually found a deposit in Africa that functioned as a natural nuclear reactor for a few hundred thousand years. Who's to say this wasn't a driver of mutations? Maybe homo erectus camped on a pile of uranium in southern France and turned into neanderthals a thousand years later.

Natural nuclear fission reactor

Oh, and I keep coming back to origin of species because that is, after all, the name of the book.

great thread
op .
S&F

By hitting their heads against a brick wall repeatedly ,

evolutionists' tongues should do the woodpecker thang .... ?!

a reply to: edmc^2

The strawman argument is you dancing around "Change happens" is evolution. Nothing, not even your deity remains the same over time.

a reply to: norhoc

I did not see your post neighbour. So let me go look.

Ok so you are positive you understand the mathematics (and its really statistics) of this are you?

How do you know not enough time has passed? You are putting a lot of numbers in there with no source as to why I should trust them? I've got a degree in bioinformatics (among my other degrees) and your so called mathematics looks nothing like what we did.

So cite where your numbers are coming from and I will talk to that. I want reliable sources thanks. Not the apparently pulled out of an orifice numbers you have.

a reply to: cooperton

I am still waiting for you to show you actually have qualifications you claim. Its been months, and as usual you dodge.

As I said to someone else. You are shouting at scientists to be understood. The onus is on you to understand.

Prove, with cited sources, or stop it.

a reply to: radarloveguy

You really do not understand teh difference between evolution and Lamarckism do you?

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: radarloveguy

You really do not understand the difference between evolution and Lamarckism do you?

So you're saying that suddenly a woodpecker's tongue spontaneously grew
through the back of it's head , then re-entered the mouth .... behind the beak ....
somehow ... and that this was passed on to it's offspring ?

Yeah right .
..... Irreducible complexity ......

a reply to: edmc^2

The origin of various genes is a different topic than the origin of life. Like I said to another poster, scientists can't even reliably define what "life" even is yet. When does a group of molecules stop being a clump of inorganic material and become a lifeform? Lifeforms are made up of organic material like proteins, but are proteins alive?

See. These are questions that need to be pinned down with answers. Doing so could go a long way to helping scientists uncover the true origin of life on this planet, BUT evolution isn't the field of study to do this.

a reply to: radarloveguy

I think you've been reading too many creationist web sites.

I'll just leave this here...
Anatomy and Evolution of the Woodpecker's Tongue

originally posted by: Lightdhype
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?

Sorry, but this claim is completely false and demonstrates very poor understanding of evolution. All life shares a common ancestor so all life on earth has been evolving for the same amount of time. Some population groups just experienced different changes than others, living in different environments. Evolution doesn't guarantee higher intelligence or say that everything must keep improving. Genetic mutations themselves are random, so some population groups just get lucky and experience changes that benefit them in their given environment.

originally posted by: radarloveguy

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: radarloveguy

You really do not understand the difference between evolution and Lamarckism do you?

So you're saying that suddenly a woodpecker's tongue spontaneously grew
through the back of it's head , then re-entered the mouth .... behind the beak ....
somehow ... and that this was passed on to it's offspring ?

Yeah right .
..... Irreducible complexity ......

What about the laryngeal nerve on the giraffe?

scienceblogs.com...

Why would the nerve go from the brain all the way down the throat, around a main artery, only to loop all the way back up to the throat? Who would design that? Obviously before the long neck the nerve was in a normal spot and since the leg grew, the nerve stretched. Pretty obvious that it evolved.

I think that your title is misleading.

It is your opinion that evolution can't result in a sophisticated organism based on small changes.

Science did not prove this.

You used your logic and selected facts to support your position. That is not science

Sorry

a reply to: cooperton

there is one thing I would like to point out in response to your thread. you are largely ignoring most of the history behind the theory of modern evolutionary synthesis, leaning exclusively on the Darwinian interpretation to misrepresent the theory as a whole. this is called the strawman fallacy.

sorry, I came back to add one more note. i find it very interesting that you will post numerous threads criticizing evolution but you have not posted a single thread explaining your theory of intelligent design for the forum to examine and dissect. like a food critic who cannot cook. fascinating.

I came back AGAIN because I stand corrected, you have posted a single thread discussing your hypothesis of intelligent design. frankly it has more plot holes than any of your anti-evolution threads:

We can think of this in the opposite direction then, how God would have been capable of programming these law into the universe and therefore create coherent matter instantaneously. This is why God has been called 'Logos', which means both "word" and "reason/logic". God spoke these logical laws into existence and they've perpetuated ever since.

So if the invisible Primordial Awareness manifested on the material plane, what would It (for lack of a better word) look like? A human being. ... The human body is the form of God manifest.

The double-slit experiment demonstrated that photons behave like a wave until they are observed on the quantum level by an experimenter, which then causes them to materialize and act as solid matter!

It is no longer a heliocentric model, but rather a conscious-centric universe.

so this is your contending hypothesis, your model of how existence came to be and subsequently the design of life on planet earth. and you mock the theory of evolution! oy vey

a reply to: cooperton

A friend of mine is a Jehovah's Witness and your argument is identical to his. Some of your diagrams look familar too.

a reply to: radarloveguy

Nope I am not saying that. What I am saying is, complex organisms do not suddenly develop new traits (that is Lamarckism), they might produce an offspring, who has a mutation that codes for a new trait (that would be evolution).

But your theoretical woodpecker evoled a tongue and a beak which does its job, not suddenly decided to try really really hard to make it so.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: cooperton

so this is your contending hypothesis, your model of how existence came to be and subsequently the design of life on planet earth. and you mock the theory of evolution! oy vey

Just sharing my path of life. Evolution no longer fit my own personal observations or raw scientific observations. Believe what you want, but know there are no scientific mechanisms capable of explaining the vast morphological improvements theorized by evolution. Physical laws seem more probable to be the progenitors of biology, rather than random material interaction, especially considering all biology would be ruined if those physical laws changed.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: cooperton

I see it is another thread of yours where you pervert the scientific method

The scientific method is based on empirical observation. Most of my claims in the original post are empirical fact, and I do give my opinion on the matter periodically.

In all my years on ATS I have literally never seen you correctly use the Scientific Method to prove a point. This thread included. Heck even this rebuttal you just used against me shows you don't understand how the Scientific Method works. Where is your falsifiable hypothesis (nonexistent because you refuse to consider that you could possibly wrong)? Where is the testing and experimentation you did? I guess this thread could work as the peer review, but you don't accept peer review.

Here's the thing though. This entire thread operates under the standard false equivalency that if evolution == false, then the Christian god and the Creationism myth in the bible == true. That isn't science. That's just bad logic. Proving evolution false doesn't prove your god true or his stories true.

There were many responses throughout this thread that addressed actual points in the OP, you should do the same rather than taking krazy sh0ts at a generalized group of people.

Meh. I've danced this dance before with you. Literally every one of these points has been argued and debunked for you before, so I already know that correcting you is a waste of time.

It is laughably absurd to claim a scientific method actually pertains to questions like this.

So compartmentalized and unproven..almost diabolically so.

Definitively leftist thinking which is the lack of all logic and reality.

It is amazing how much faith and religion is required for these scenarios..how extremely bad the group who postulates it wants to believe...worse than any religion yet...pretending to be free thinking..despite believing in ever provably more ridiculous claims.

Why do people care anyways about trying to figure out what has gone on?

All the while ignoring 99.9999999% of everything to do it.

It is really like observing a piece of plastic floating in a rain barrel...this plastic pretends it has a method of realizing what and where things come from...and it also tells me nothing was ever created...just "developed" and what started that is unimportant anyways.

originally posted by: SummerRain
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.

Who is we ?

Why was this claim even made...really.

No evidence of Evolution exists outside the fantasy of humans.

Certainly no proof has been offered...even inside its highly defined and controlled self.

Evolution as has been presented was a failure from the start...and purposefully so..a guaranteed necessary distraction put in place to sidetrack and destroy any real and true discovery..and it has shutdown and is now actually killing us.

originally posted by: cooperton
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

um, dont post drivel if you dont want to summon it?

in answer to your request above:

www.pc.rhul.ac.uk...

www.indiana.edu...

www.wiley.com...

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

www.frontiersin.org...

these links are provided to give you a starting point in your self education on the evolution of neurology in mammals, specifically the human brain. unfortunately abiogenesis is another topic entirely and i am about to visit that thread in a moment. if these articles (complete with source materials to continue your research) are not enough to keep you busy, i challenge you to deliver a more comprehensive analysis of your own hypothesis of cosmic intelligence and divine meddling. because your only thread on that subject is very sparse and raises more questions than it answers.

originally posted by: ParasuvO
It is laughably absurd to claim a scientific method actually pertains to questions like this.

Why? It's actually laughably absurd to make a statement like this without backing up why.

So compartmentalized and unproven..almost diabolically so.

Definitively leftist thinking which is the lack of all logic and reality.

Don't interject politics into a discussion on science. Evolutionary theory predates the current political climate by many many decades.

It is amazing how much faith and religion is required for these scenarios..how extremely bad the group who postulates it wants to believe...worse than any religion yet...pretending to be free thinking..despite believing in ever provably more ridiculous claims.

Considering that your religion requires 100% faith that it is true while at least science has evidence it backing up and isn't completely reliant on faith you really don't have much standing to make this complaint.

Why do people care anyways about trying to figure out what has gone on?

Because humans are curious creatures.

All the while ignoring 99.9999999% of everything to do it.

Humans don't know everything. We can only account for what we know. Then as we learn new things we account for that. Speaking or which. Religion ignores more than what science does to explain its concepts.

It is really like observing a piece of plastic floating in a rain barrel...this plastic pretends it has a method of realizing what and where things come from...and it also tells me nothing was ever created...just "developed" and what started that is unimportant anyways.

This paragraph makes zero sense.