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: 7
30
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2018 @ 04:39 PM
link   
How could consciousness, self-determination, a will, and self awareness evolve from mindless, will-less, randomness? What would an organism have to draw on within its own genetic makeup to produce those qualities by mutating? Mutations are rarely beneficial and the multitude of mutations necessary to create the diversity of conscious life we see would not be able to reproduce its own kind. Higher creatures (mammals, even birds) will refuse a genetically mutated or genetically different mate.

Evolution seems mathematically improbable as well. Say you start out with 100 "things" trying to evolve into something else. What do those 100 things eat? Each other?

Why would they bother evolving into something else? Do they know they're innately flawed and are trying to fix their issues?

Evolutionists, when describing the theory, tend to anthropomorphize the entire system, lending an inherent intelligence to the process. Evolution certainly seems to have a will of its own, an intelligently guided blueprint, and the luck of the Irish in coming up aces with every pollution of its genetics (mutations). Natural selection does make some sense and we can see that in action today (dog breeds, plant hybrids, etc.) but saying that billion of genetic mutations produced human beings or any life form is too fantastic to believe.




posted on Sep, 11 2018 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: whitewave

You are making a whole heap of generalizations, but not a single bit of evidence to cite. Its nive that you feel that way. Its however not proof to "feel something".



posted on Sep, 13 2018 @ 02:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
Interesting, but given the idea that the theory of evolution proposes that all things started out simple and then evolved through small changes into more complex lifeforms, it is possible that given enough time small changes will become the highly complex organs you speak of.


originally posted by: stormcell
The simplest organisms are jellyfish. They have a ring of photo-receptors which are directly tied into a simple neural network that control muscle contractions.*

stormcell was responding to a comment about the evolution of the eye.*

QUESTION 2: Is Any Form of Life Really Simple?

...
What do many scientists claim? All living cells fall into two major categories​—those with a nucleus and those without. Human, animal, and plant cells have a nucleus. Bacterial cells do not. Cells with a nucleus are called eukaryotic. Those without a nucleus are known as prokaryotic. Since prokaryotic cells are relatively less complex than eukaryotic cells, many believe that animal and plant cells must have evolved from bacterial cells.

In fact, many teach that for millions of years, some “simple” prokaryotic cells swallowed other cells but did not digest them. Instead, the theory goes, unintelligent “nature” figured out a way not only to make radical changes in the function of the ingested cells but also to keep the adapted cells inside of the “host” cell when it replicated.9 *

*: No experimental evidence exists to show that such an event is possible.
...
9. Encyclopædia Britannica, CD 2003, “Cell,” “The Mitochondrion and the Chloroplast,” subhead, “The Endosymbiont Hypothesis.”

Which organism do you guys think is "relatively more complex", a multicellular jellyfish made up of a large variety of different types of eukaryotic cells or unicellular (single-celled) yeast, which are also eukaryotic cells?

Interdependency: Unicellular Yeast Cell Interactome & Linux Kernel Design+Development Visualization

Everything below can be ignored if one so pleases.

Just some additional information in case someone reads something into my questions that isn't there. The question in the article title is also an open question to anyone here. Even though I didn't share much details about the interdependent machinery that make up prokaryotic unicellular bacteria, of which there are many varieties, not one of which I would describe as "simple" (to use MSB's words) with a straight face. Simpler relative to multicellular eukaryotic lifeforms, sure. But it's still not simple enough to make the evolutionary storylines sound more plausible to me and there are vast differences for which there is "no experimental evidence" "to show that such" differences can be overcome by the "small [undirected accidental] changes" (such as accidental mutations) that MSB spoke about. See the example of such a difference as discussed regarding cells with a nucleus and cells without a nucleus. It's all based on wishful thinking, technical jargon, and really selling your storyline (or conveniently leaving it out and pretend it's just a minor part of the overarching evolutionary philosophies/theories/ideas and everchanging storyline, or gap of knowledge that hasn't been filled yet; but it's the key issue here!). "Everchanging" in regards to the details as long as it adheres to the overarching notion that 'nature did it', 'nature found a way', 'life found a way' by chance and coincidence, i.e. accidentily. Unintelligent “nature” figured out a way. To use the words from the artice above. Details remain sketchy, vague and everchanging, especially when you want to address something specific that doesn't support that overarching notion and points very clearly to the alternate conclusion that it was created and engineered by at least 1 individual with the logically required knowledge, intelligence, foresight and technological know-how to produce the interdependent replicating machinery and technology that we are observing in all living organisms as opposed to snowflakes that some people like to bring into the discussion as if it's the same type of complexity that we're talking about here (watch till 3:36):


*: from earlier about stormcell's comment, I just mentioned that so nobody thinks I didn't notice he wasn't talking about "the simplest organism" in general, I'm zooming in on what he decided to call "simple" because it relates to what MichiganSwampBuck said and what makes evolutionary ideas/philosophies, such as the one MSB aptly described as an "idea", sound more plausible and reasonable to him and many others. The thing is that "ideas/philosophies", no matter how well constructed for marketing purposes with a fancy convincing story that makes one want to buy into it, are not evidence for the storyline based on how they sound to a target audience that is conveniently ignoring the details; such as what kind of changes are we actually observing in the fields such as mutation research and mutation breeding, and what is the general trend, the direction (relating to this idea from "simple" to "more complex" described by MSB). FYI, the general direction or trend of genetic mutations is quite obvious from the research, but not spoken of very often because it contradicts this "simple" to "more complex" idea (so there are various tricks used to distract from the issue here, being vague about which trend is observed in mutation research, or which trend is required to be observed for evolutionary storylines that talk about unicellular organisms evolving into multicellular organisms that are "relatively more complex" such as going from amoeba to humans, or a smaller step in that process, to be deemed more plausible or reasonable to those who care about the actual evidence, the facts; the latter trick is often used by arguing that 'evolution has no direction' as if it has no logical requirements in that respects and if any kind of change will do for the underlying evolutionary storylines that are implied with the word "evolution", see an example below).

Btw, the earlier mentioned evolutionary storyline concerning “The Endosymbiont Hypothesis” is one of many variations of the overarching evolutionary storyline that unintelligent “nature” figured out a way to evolve prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells without the need for the processes of creating and engineering to explain their emergence on the scene (also in terms of chronological evolutionary order of appearance, if that's a good way to keep it short, some people claim for example that both eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells evolved simultaneously, or the other way around as in the storyline described in the article; in those variant storylines, then it doesn't seem to matter anymore which organism is "relatively more complex" and to hold to the "simple" > "more complex" direction for evolutionary progress described by MichiganSwampBuck that was originally supposed to make it all sound more plausible, they simply switch to the 'evolution has no direction' argument someone here might have heard a variation of before; vagueness rules supreme in some circles).
edit on 13-9-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2018 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

Oh my god, that is it, you have debunked evolution with highschool math, amazing!! Those Evolutionary Biologists never thought to look at evolution through a statistical and probablistic lens.

Lets get to the crutch of the issue, please for all of us simple college graduates, go through the math that has lead you to this profound understanding. Show us via mathamatical formula how you derived evolution to be near impossible.

And then finally use the math you are so keen on to derive an alternate theory, perhaps show us the probability of a divine creator.

Lastly please provide us your educational background, someone who has debunked evolution must have several degrees in math and biology. I would hate for you to be simply a religous highschool diploma holder.



posted on Sep, 13 2018 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Blued eyed people exist because when that ONE mutation showed up, people decided to breed it like crazy.

My question is how did any lower level make the decision? Plants can't pick who to pollinate.

Its hard to explain to those who live inside a book, but one mutation has to out breed the non mutated life forms to replace it. One mutation isn't going to survive without intelligent decision by the species. Mutations aren't infections, they have to be bred and passed down in a way that simply can't happen without intelligence.


Some animals are camouflaged in their surroundings, which means every color of that animal existed at one time, red, purple, yellow blue. And only the brown one survived the predators. This is starting with everything and removing information. Evolution theory says the opposite, started with nothing and added information. If you can overlook that you're not worth arguing with.

Butterfly with eyes/face design on its wings. The butterfly with the boobies, the smiley face, the peace sign the dollar symbol etc etc must have existed also,and that information was removed. ONE mutation wouldn't populate the entire region without some type of intelligence/choice. You cant have choice when you start from nothing. We can go all the way back to bacteria and see that intelligence, independent of a brain. We can see necessary symbiotic relationships between 2 life forms who supposedly evolved from each other. Its almost like they seperated in two: Subtraction of information, not addition. Everything is a subtraction from the All. It shouldn't take Sunday school brainwashing to get this point acrossed.

Its almost like you've all forgotten how a tan works. Use it or lose it. Meaning it was already there. You cant build up, there is no such thing as a tan variable, only paleness is a variable. It doesn't take millions of billions of years to lose it. You lose it when you don't use it. Which is why we have the dumbest population in human history.
edit on 13-9-2018 by Prene because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2018 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

I hate to burst your bubble, but your entire argument is built on faulty premises, and you are wrong. I'm at work so I don't have time to get into it right now, but if nobody else has done so by the time i get home then I will gladly explain the various ways that you are wrong!



posted on Sep, 18 2018 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Maroboduus
a reply to: cooperton

I hate to burst your bubble, but your entire argument is built on faulty premises, and you are wrong. I'm at work so I don't have time to get into it right now, but if nobody else has done so by the time i get home then I will gladly explain the various ways that you are wrong!


It’s not worth the effort or your time to bother. The logical fallacies and the appropriate science has been demonstrated repeatedly. Cooperton is dead set on his antiscience/ pro ignorance campaign.



posted on Sep, 18 2018 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
Cooperton is dead set on his antiscience/ pro ignorance campaign.


Great to have ya pete. What part of my post was antiscience? It was all pretty basic anatomy and I tried to be as succinct as possible.


originally posted by: Maroboduus
a reply to: cooperton

I hate to burst your bubble, but your entire argument is built on faulty premises, and you are wrong. I'm at work so I don't have time to get into it right now, but if nobody else has done so by the time i get home then I will gladly explain the various ways that you are wrong!


Present empirical evidence to demonstrate that my premise is wrong, because I presented empirical evidence to demonstrate that it was right. Looking forward to your critique.
edit on 18-9-2018 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Present empirical evidence to demonstrate that my premise is wrong, because I presented empirical evidence to demonstrate that it was right. Looking forward to your critique.


Nothing you presented shows that evolution is scientifically impossible. That position has not been sufficiently demonstrated in the first place.




edit on 9 19 18 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

You mean aside from the standard strawman arguments and basic quote mines? Let’s see, how about basing your anti evolutionary tirade on presenting only one of several mechanisms of evolutionary biology and then pretending the ireducible complexity actually is a thing. We can start there. The eye, the heart... all Of it has been explained more times than I can count in the last 8 1/2 years I’ve had this account. People like you simply ignore those explanations and start an entire new thread as if it hasn’t been explained to you dozens of times already.



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 07:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: cooperton

You mean aside from the standard strawman arguments and basic quote mines? Let’s see, how about basing your anti evolutionary tirade on presenting only one of several mechanisms of evolutionary biology and then pretending the ireducible complexity actually is a thing. We can start there. The eye, the heart... all Of it has been explained more times than I can count in the last 8 1/2 years I’ve had this account. People like you simply ignore those explanations and start an entire new thread as if it hasn’t been explained to you dozens of times already.


You called me antiscience - what part of my OP was rejecting empirical scientific observations? I openly embrace science, and I dug deep and found that there is no foundation for the theory of evolution. My opinion on the scientific data is up for debate, but to call me antiscience is libel.
edit on 20-9-2018 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
To think you know something that is wrong is very harmful, because you are incapable of considering other ideas. To realize you actually don't know, is a great leap in the right direction because you are no longer anchored by an erroneous, dead end belief system.

You mean ideas like Intelligent Design?

Surely you have considered other ideas, right? I too have my issues with the current framework of evolutionary theory (i.e mutations sorted by NA or GD), but that's mostly because I find it inadequate in its explanatory power with regards to the immense diversity and adaptable nature of life. I have thought for a while now that the majority of evolution is actually driven by epigenetic mechanisms. That there is a keen biological feedback mechanism taking place between the genome and the environment that the organism harboring said genome finds itself in. It makes the most sense to me in light of what we're seeing.

Why don't you share the science behind your ideas so others can weigh its legitimacy. What are your solutions to the problems you raise?
edit on 20-9-2018 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 12:58 PM
link   


It’s not worth the effort or your time to bother. The logical fallacies and the appropriate science has been demonstrated repeatedly. Cooperton is dead set on his antiscience/ pro ignorance campaign.


Wow! I expected more from you pete but to say coop is "antiscience/ pro ignorance"? That's a stretch. Why, the op itself is full of scientific findings and facts. How was that "antiscience/ pro ignorance"?

Could it be you can't refute it?




... we discovered that all organisms have organs, tissues, cells, proteins, and molecules that are all dependent on each other for proper functioning.



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: cooperton

You mean aside from the standard strawman arguments and basic quote mines? Let’s see, how about basing your anti evolutionary tirade on presenting only one of several mechanisms of evolutionary biology and then pretending the ireducible complexity actually is a thing. We can start there. The eye, the heart... all Of it has been explained more times than I can count in the last 8 1/2 years I’ve had this account. People like you simply ignore those explanations and start an entire new thread as if it hasn’t been explained to you dozens of times already.


You called me antiscience - what part of my OP was rejecting empirical scientific observations? I openly embrace science, and I dug deep and found that there is no foundation for the theory of evolution. My opinion on the scientific data is up for debate, but to call me antiscience is libel.


you do not openly embrace science, you openly pick and choose what facts you respect as they affect your hypothesis of intelligent design.


In this way, our consciousness is the integral manifesting factor of the cosmos. This may be unbelievable, but the quantum experiments are repeatable, observable, scientific fact.


you misrepresent the double slit experiment to support the hypothesis that a grand cosmic observer is making all of reality happen by looking at it. an inverse strawman fallacy, if you will.



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.


how do you even begin to support this statement with empirical evidence??



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

I'm not even going to bother. The amount of ignorance in this thread, especially the OP, is frankly astounding. Cooperton, you quite clearly have no idea what youre talking about. You ARE anti-science, to the very core, and dont seem to understand how science actually works. People have posted articles explicitly explaining the things that you claim have no explanation. Just because you continually choose to ignore them doesnt mean that they dont exist. Youre misrepresenting evolution by cherry-picking certain things you disagree with while co politely ignoring the things that explicitly refute your idiotic arguments. Frankly, its embarrassing.
edit on 20-9-2018 by Maroboduus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 05:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2



It’s not worth the effort or your time to bother. The logical fallacies and the appropriate science has been demonstrated repeatedly. Cooperton is dead set on his antiscience/ pro ignorance campaign.


Wow! I expected more from you pete but to say coop is "antiscience/ pro ignorance"? That's a stretch. Why, the op itself is full of scientific findings and facts. How was that "antiscience/ pro ignorance"?

Could it be you can't refute it?




... we discovered that all organisms have organs, tissues, cells, proteins, and molecules that are all dependent on each other for proper functioning.



Good grief... tey to keep up. They have refuted it. Many times over. They've also posted to numerous scientific articles which refute it, and which the OP repeatedly chooses to ignore. Feel free to read the articles yourself and see why everything he said is uninformed nonsense, rather than insulting people simply because you haven't bothered to do any research or read the data.
edit on 20-9-2018 by Maroboduus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 05:04 PM
link   
It's pointless trying to argue with people who willfully ignore data, and have less than zero concept of what they're talking about. Pointless to fail against willfully ignorance and stupidity. Evolution cant happen without intelligent and deliberate intent... lol. Good freaking grief. Unreal...
edit on 20-9-2018 by Maroboduus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Maroboduus

originally posted by: edmc^2



It’s not worth the effort or your time to bother. The logical fallacies and the appropriate science has been demonstrated repeatedly. Cooperton is dead set on his antiscience/ pro ignorance campaign.


Wow! I expected more from you pete but to say coop is "antiscience/ pro ignorance"? That's a stretch. Why, the op itself is full of scientific findings and facts. How was that "antiscience/ pro ignorance"?

Could it be you can't refute it?




... we discovered that all organisms have organs, tissues, cells, proteins, and molecules that are all dependent on each other for proper functioning.



Good grief... what is there to refute? His entire argument betrays an ignorance as to how evolution actually works. Since organs now depend upon each other they cant have evolved? What? That's exactly how evolution freaking works. Over long periods of time, organs and organisms grow increasingly more complex and evolve alongside each other, which can absolutely lead to interdependent organs. I mean... I cant even wrap my head around how somebody with even a cursory understanding of evolution can argue that interdependent organs somehow disprove evolution. It's so ridiculous and absurd, and shows such a complete ignorance of the subject at hand, that it's hard to even argue seriously against it.


I think you missed the point of the OP. Here, let me provide a quote from the opening post and let you refute it.




... we discovered that all organisms have organs, tissues, cells, proteins, and molecules that are all dependent on each other for proper functioning.


In other words, how can evolution occur if a part is missing? For example, the cell - how can a cell form without a membrane? How can a DNA form without RNA? How can RNA form without the information inside the DNA? How can the membrane form without the DNA? How would the cell evolve without the DNA/RNA?

Mind you this is just the cell.



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

There is a copious amount of data out there explaining those very things, some of which has been posted in this very thread. Feel free to read it, rather than choosing to remain willfully ignorant and believing that some random clown who doesnt actually understand the concepts of evolution just disproved them with high school math and cherry-picked, misunderstood fragments of science
edit on 20-9-2018 by Maroboduus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
I have thought for a while now that the majority of evolution is actually driven by epigenetic mechanisms.


Epigenetic mechanisms are required even in the most simple prokaryote. They could not be responsible for evolution because epigenetic alterations do not get passed on to the offspring, such a thought is similar to Lamarckism. The necessity of epigenetic mechanisms only adds to the laundry list of requirements for a gene to be successful. Without epigenetic modification, a gene will either be over-expressed or under-expressed, leading to all sorts of havoc. So, even if an effective new gene is somehow formed through thousands of successive mutations, it would still be lethal to the organism without proper epigenetic regulation.

Not to mention, the old gene that was the template for the new gene is now gone

edit on 20-9-2018 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join