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.

 

Abiogenesis - The Impossible Theoretical Miracle

page: 40
30
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2019 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1





posted on Mar, 15 2019 @ 07:18 PM
link   
No facts needed, indeed.



posted on Mar, 17 2019 @ 08:22 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1
Why do whales have vestigal hind limbs?
Why do therapod dinosaurs and birds have basically the same skeleton structure?


www.youtube.com...



posted on Mar, 17 2019 @ 08:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: wildespace
a reply to: turbonium1
Why do whales have vestigal hind limbs?
Why do therapod dinosaurs and birds have basically the same skeleton structure?


www.youtube.com...


You're falling under the assumption that evolution must have done it, so therefore you look at all observable things as being caused by evolution. Yet an actual analysis of the evidence shows no transitional animals that would have been a part of mammals evolving back into marine animals (i.e. dolphins and whales). Of course if they're milk-bearing mammals they're going to have the same anatomical pattern exhibited by other mammals. These are the apex animals of the sea, just like mammals are the apex of the land.

No mammal, even with countless selective breeding, could ever transition to the size of a whale, let alone include living underwater in that transition. The required change in morphology is far beyond anything we have ever seen in a lab setting.



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

As I said, anyone who can read and write can read the research papers which I posted. All the methodology is contained in those papers.

You can deny all you want. Makes no difference to the evidence.


Are you not capable of phrasing it in your own words? I would not send you to go fish to prove a point. I would explain why empirical data proves my point. What is the empirical data that proves birds evolved into dinosaurs?


You won't find any video footage of evolution happening in real time anymore than you can find a video of the Earth taking shape through accretion. But here are some good resources to help you study the methodology, tools and math behind the study of bird evolution and their reptilian ancestors. It is explained by experts who can take you through the process step by step and draw a lovely picture that almost anyone can understand. The only obstacle is choosing to ignore the facts outright and there is no cure for that. Freedom of thought, you know.

www.quantamagazine.org...

nhm.org...

www.nationalgeographic.com...

www.scientificamerican.com...

evolution.berkeley.edu...
edit on 18-3-2019 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 11:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

You won't find any video footage of evolution happening in real time anymore than you can find a video of the Earth taking shape through accretion. But here are some good resources to help you study the methodology, tools and math behind the study of bird evolution and their reptilian ancestors. It is explained by experts who can take you through the process step by step and draw a lovely picture that almost anyone can understand. The only obstacle is choosing to ignore the facts outright and there is no cure for that. Freedom of thought, you know.

www.quantamagazine.org...

nhm.org...

www.nationalgeographic.com...

www.scientificamerican.com...

evolution.berkeley.edu...


You just googled evolution of birds from dinosaurs and posted the links. None of which are actual peer-reviewed articles. Regardless, I want to hear it in your own words. Stop relying on others to explain your beliefs for you. You're a human being capable of rational thought, don't forfeit that right to others.



posted on Mar, 19 2019 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

My takeaway here is that you couldn't find a single statement in any of those articles that you were able to prove incorrect. I leave it to professionals to explain it in simple easy to understand terms because they are paid and I am not. Your objections have nothing to do with their credibility and accuracy. Did you read the articles and follow all the convenient links to more articles explaining all the steps in the study of bird evolution? Did you find any errors you would like to share with us?



posted on Mar, 19 2019 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Did you read the articles and follow all the convenient links to more articles explaining all the steps in the study of bird evolution? Did you find any errors you would like to share with us?


I want to hear it in your words. I want you to prove you can comprehend this stuff. You can't comprehend my arguments so it is like talking to a brick wall. I am not going to waste my time elaborating on something you don't understand and cannot put in your own words.

What in those articles empirically demonstrates evolution of birds to dinosaurs?



posted on Mar, 20 2019 @ 08:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: wildespace
a reply to: turbonium1
Why do whales have vestigal hind limbs?
Why do therapod dinosaurs and birds have basically the same skeleton structure?


www.youtube.com...
That's actually where the reproductive organs are attached to. Do you know how many 'vestigial' organs turned out to be not vestigial?



posted on Mar, 20 2019 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

You won't find any video footage of evolution happening in real time anymore than you can find a video of the Earth taking shape through accretion. But here are some good resources to help you study the methodology, tools and math behind the study of bird evolution and their reptilian ancestors. It is explained by experts who can take you through the process step by step and draw a lovely picture that almost anyone can understand. The only obstacle is choosing to ignore the facts outright and there is no cure for that. Freedom of thought, you know.

www.quantamagazine.org...

nhm.org...

www.nationalgeographic.com...

www.scientificamerican.com...

evolution.berkeley.edu...


You just googled evolution of birds from dinosaurs and posted the links. None of which are actual peer-reviewed articles. Regardless, I want to hear it in your own words. Stop relying on others to explain your beliefs for you. You're a human being capable of rational thought, don't forfeit that right to others.


It's the same nonsense every time with you. Sources are posted and you search desperately for a weak excuse not to address them. All of those are backed by research yet you don't even read any of it.



posted on Mar, 20 2019 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: vasaga

originally posted by: wildespace
a reply to: turbonium1
Why do whales have vestigal hind limbs?
Why do therapod dinosaurs and birds have basically the same skeleton structure?


www.youtube.com...
That's actually where the reproductive organs are attached to. Do you know how many 'vestigial' organs turned out to be not vestigial?


Do you not know what the word "vestigial" means? It doesn't mean useless, it means it has a different function than it did in the past. :facepalm:



posted on Mar, 20 2019 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

Do you not know what the word "vestigial" means? It doesn't mean useless, it means it has a different function than it did in the past. :facepalm:


Your twisting the facts to try to backtrack. Vestigial in biology is defined as:

"(of an organ or part of the body) degenerate, rudimentary, or atrophied, having become functionless in the course of evolution."

Your indignant ignorance is astounding. The hip bones of whales that were thought to be vestigial are intimately connected to their reproductive organs and help stabilize them, according to this study:

whale hind bones are not vestigial

Now that this vestigial myth is proved false, they still cling on to evolutionary theory. This is because no matter what is observed, they assume evolution to be true, and try to fit the facts with the theory. It is backwards science.



posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

So dishonest....

biologydictionary.net...


Vestigial structures are various cells, tissues, and organs in a body which no longer function in the same way the ancestral form of the trait functioned.


www.biology-online.org...


refers to an organ or part (for example, the human appendix) which is greatly reduced from the original ancestral form and is no longer functional or is of reduced or altered function.


en.wikipedia.org...


Vestigiality is the retention during the process of evolution of genetically determined structures or attributes that have lost some or all of their ancestral function in a given species.


So 2 biology sources and even wiki has that. Losing an ancestral function, does not necessarily mean it can't have a new or altered function. Sometimes it does, but that is not always the case.

And to add insult to injury, the study you posted does not even say that the bones are NOT vestigial, yet you dishonesty made that the title of your link. The paper talks about a new function it has. It doesn't debate whether it is vestigial.

edit on 3 21 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2019 @ 05:10 PM
link   
It assumes evolution is true, which allows them to coin the term "vestigial", as a remnant of past evolution.

Again, it all goes back to the blatantly false, unsupported argument that all species have 'evolved' from earlier species. None of it holds up to scrutiny, or available evidence, but they ignore all the evidence on hand, to drive their claims forward.

Countless articles don't matter, since they're all based on the same false assumptions, that 'evolution' happened/happens.



posted on Mar, 23 2019 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
Again, it all goes back to the blatantly false, unsupported argument that all species have 'evolved' from earlier species. None of it holds up to scrutiny, or available evidence


Then where did apes come from? They didn't exist 30m years ago. What about primates? They were nowhere to be found on earth prior to 60m years ago. If your claim is true, apes, primates, mammals, fish, plants and all other types of organisms should have been there since the beginning and that is clearly not what the evidence shows. You can deny it all you want, but that's the best known picture based on evidence. Don't like it? Become a scientist and expose the errors with the research.

Why are there more than a thousand species of shrimp alone? They were all created individually just for fun?


edit on 3 23 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2019 @ 12:01 PM
link   
You don't know me, but I'm your bruuu-tha...
I was raised here in this living hell.....

Lol

As smart and clever as we are, and yearn to be, we just gotta accept that since none of us were there at the start, we can fill in the blanks and tell the story any ol way we want. Whether it's a Grand Design, or a fortunate goofup....its way beyond 'us'. And its gonna go on LONG after Us.

Lets just be Glad the Dobbie Brothers evolved😎



posted on Mar, 24 2019 @ 09:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: wildespace
a reply to: turbonium1

Why do therapod dinosaurs and birds have basically the same skeleton structure?

Why do wheels look similar on buses and trucks? (btw, the description “basically the same” as applied to the skeleton structure of therapod dinosaurs and birds is stretching it; no, they aren't “basically the same”, they aren't even all that similar depending on what exactly you're looking at, or should I say, desperately looking for?)

Anyway...

On September 30, 1986, The New York Times published an article by a New York University professor, Irving Kristol. His contention is that if evolution were taught in the public schools as the theory it is rather than as the fact it isn’t, there would not be the controversy that now rages between evolution and creationism. Kristol stated: “There is also little doubt that it is this pseudoscientific dogmatism that has provoked the current religious reaction.”

“Though this theory is usually taught as an established scientific truth,” Kristol said, “it is nothing of the sort. It has too many lacunae [gaps]. Geological evidence does not provide us with the spectrum of intermediate species we would expect. Moreover, laboratory experiments reveal how close to impossible it is for one species to evolve into another, even allowing for selective breeding and some genetic mutation. . . . The gradual transformation of the population of one species into another is a biological hypothesis, not a biological fact.”

The article touched a raw nerve in Harvard professor Stephen Jay Gould, a fervent defender of evolution as a fact, not just a theory. His rebuttal of Kristol’s article was published in a popularized science magazine, Discover, January 1987 issue. It revealed the very dogmatism Kristol deplored.

In his protesting essay, Gould repeated a dozen times his assertion that evolution is a fact. A few examples: Darwin established “the fact of evolution.” “The fact of evolution is as well established as anything in science (as secure as the revolution of the earth around the sun).” By the time Darwin died, “nearly all thinking people came to accept the fact of evolution.” “Evolution is as well established as any scientific fact (I shall give the reasons in a moment).” “The fact of evolution rests upon copious data that fall, roughly, into three great classes.”

For the first of these “three great classes” of “copious data,” Gould cites as “direct evidence” for evolution the small-scale changes within species of moths, fruit flies, and bacteria. But such variations within species are irrelevant to evolution. Gould extols Theodosius Dobzhansky as “the greatest evolutionist of our century,” but it is Dobzhansky himself who dismisses Gould’s argument above as irrelevant.

Concerning the fruit flies of Gould’s argument, Dobzhansky says mutations “usually show deterioration, breakdown, or disappearance of some organs. . . . Many mutations are, in fact, lethal to their possessors. Mutants which equal the normal fly in vigor are a minority, and mutants that would make a major improvement of the normal organization in the normal environments are unknown.”

Science, the official magazine for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, also spiked Gould’s argument: “Species do indeed have a capacity to undergo minor modifications in the physical and other characteristics, but this is limited and with a longer perspective it is reflected in an oscillation about a mean [a position about midway between extremes].” In both plants and animals, variations within a species will oscillate or move about like pellets shaken in a glass jar​—the variations are held within the boundaries of the species just as the pellets are confined within the jar. Just as the Bible’s account of creation says, a plant or an animal may vary, yet it is restricted to reproduce “according to its kind.”​—Genesis 1:12, 21, 24, 25.

For the second of his three classes, Gould offers big mutations: “We have direct evidence for large-scale changes, based upon sequences in the fossil record.” By saying the changes were large scale, one species changing into another in a few big jumps, he escapes the need for the nonexistent intermediate fossils. But in going from small changes to big jumps, he goes from the frying pan into the fire.

Kristol comments on this: “We just don’t know of any such ‘quantum jumps’ that create new species, since most genetic mutations work against the survival of the individual.” And Gould’s “greatest evolutionist of our century,” Theodosius Dobzhansky, agrees with Kristol. His statement about many mutations being lethal is especially true of large-scale, quantum-jump mutations; also significant are his words that ‘mutations that make big improvements are unknown.’ Lacking evidence for his large-scale changes, Gould falls back on the old timeworn dodge of evolutionists: “Our fossil record is so imperfect.”

The last of Gould’s “three great classes” that he says proves evolution to be a fact is resemblance between species. (The current trend, however, is to discount physical similarities as proof of relationship; genetic similarities are the new vogue for proving relationship, even in cases where physical characteristics differ greatly.)

Gould ridicules believers in creation who argue that “God permits limited modification within created types, but that you can never change a cat into a dog.” He then asks: “Who ever said that you could, or that nature did?” Nevertheless, he believes in a much harder change. Cat to dog would at least be mammal to mammal, whereas Gould says “dinosaurs evolve into birds.”

Consider: Birds are warm-blooded, reptiles cold; birds incubate their eggs, reptiles don’t; birds have feathers, reptiles scales; birds have hollow bones, reptiles solid; birds have air-cooled engines, reptiles don’t; birds have four-chambered hearts, reptiles three-chambered; birds have a syrinx for singing, reptiles don’t. Plus much more. Cat to dog, which Gould ridicules, is a stingy step compared to the quantum leap from reptile to bird, which Gould accepts!

Reptiles are cold-blooded animals, meaning that their internal temperature will either increase or decrease depending upon the outside temperature. Birds, on the other hand, are warm-blooded; their bodies maintain a relatively constant internal temperature regardless of the temperature outside. To solve the puzzle of how warm-blooded birds came from cold-blooded reptiles, some evolutionists now say that some of the dinosaurs (which were reptiles) were warm-blooded. But the general view is still as Robert Jastrow observes: “Dinosaurs, like all reptiles, were cold-blooded animals.” (Red Giants and White Dwarfs, by Robert Jastrow, 1979, p. 253.)

Lecomte du Noüy, a French evolutionist, said concerning the belief that warm-blooded birds came from cold-blooded reptiles: “This stands out today as one of the greatest puzzles of evolution.” He also made the admission that birds have “all the unsatisfactory characteristics of absolute creation”⁠​—unsatisfactory, that is, to the theory of evolution. (Human Destiny, by Lecomte du Noüy, 1947, p. 72.)
edit on 24-3-2019 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2019 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: wildespace

Why do therapod dinosaurs and birds have basically the same skeleton structure?

While it is true that both reptiles and birds lay eggs, only birds must incubate theirs. They are designed for it. Many birds have a brood spot on their breast, an area that does not have any feathers and that contains a network of blood vessels, to give warmth for the eggs. Some birds have no brood patch but they pull out the feathers from their breast. Also, for birds to incubate the eggs would require evolution to provide them with new instincts​—for building the nest, for hatching the eggs and for feeding the young—​very selfless, altruistic, considerate behaviors involving skill, hard work and deliberate exposure to danger. All of this represents a wide gap between reptiles (dinosaurs) and birds. But there is much more.

Feathers are unique to birds. Supposedly, reptilian scales just happened to become these amazing structures. Out from the shaft of a feather are rows of barbs. Each barb has many barbules, and each barbule has hundreds of barbicels and hooklets. After a microscopic examination of one pigeon feather, it was revealed that it had “several hundred thousand barbules and millions of barbicels and hooklets.” (The Birds, by Roger Tory Peterson, 1963, p. 34.) These hooks hold all the parts of a feather together to make flat surfaces or vanes. Nothing excels the feather as an airfoil, and few substances equal it as an insulator. A bird the size of a swan has some 25,000 feathers.

If the barbs of these feathers become separated, they are combed with the beak. The beak applies pressure as the barbs pass through it, and the hooks on the barbules link together like the teeth of a zipper. Most birds have an oil gland at the base of the tail from which they take oil to condition each feather. Some birds have no oil gland but instead have special feathers that fray at their tips to produce a fine talclike dust for conditioning their feathers. And feathers usually are renewed by molting once a year.

Knowing all of this about the feather, consider this rather astonishing effort to explain its development: “How did this structural marvel evolve? It takes no great stretch of imagination to envisage a feather as a modified scale, basically like that of a reptile​—a longish scale loosely attached, whose outer edges frayed and spread out until it evolved into the highly complex structure that it is today.”*⁠ But do you think such an explanation is truly scientific? Or does it read more like science fiction? (*: The Birds, by Roger Tory Peterson, 1963, p. 34.)

Consider further the design of the bird for flight. The bird’s bones are thin and hollow, unlike the reptile’s solid ones. Yet strength is required for flight, so inside the bird’s bones there are struts, like the braces inside of airplane wings. This design of the bones serves another purpose: It helps to explain another exclusive marvel of birds​—their respiratory system.

Muscular wings beating for hours or even days in flight generate much heat, yet, without sweat glands for cooling, the bird copes with the problem​—it has an air-cooled “engine.” A system of air sacs reach into almost every important part of the body, even into the hollow bones, and body heat is relieved by this internal circulation of air. Also, because of these air sacs, birds extract oxygen from air much more efficiently than any other vertebrate. How is this done?

In reptiles and mammals, the lungs take in and give out air, like bellows that alternately fill and empty. But in birds there is a constant flow of fresh air going through the lungs, during both inhaling and exhaling. Simply put, the system works like this: When the bird inhales, the air goes to certain air sacs; these serve as bellows to push the air into the lungs. From the lungs the air goes into other air sacs, and these eventually expel it. This means that there is a stream of fresh air constantly going through the lungs in one direction, much like water flowing through a sponge. The blood in the capillaries of the lungs is flowing in the opposite direction. It is this countercurrent between air and blood that makes the bird’s respiratory system exceptional. Because of it, birds can breathe the thin air of high altitudes, flying at over 20,000 feet for days on end as they migrate thousands of miles.

Other features widen the gulf between bird and reptile. Eyesight is one. From eagles to warblers, there are eyes like telescopes and eyes like magnifying glasses. Birds have more sensory cells in their eyes than have any other living things. Also, the feet of birds are different. When they come down to roost, tendons automatically lock their toes around the branch. And they have only four toes instead of the reptile’s five. Additionally, they have no vocal cords, but they have a syrinx out of which come melodious songs like those of the nightingales and mockingbirds. Consider too, that reptiles have a three-chambered heart; a bird’s heart has four chambers. Beaks also set birds apart from reptiles: beaks that serve as nutcrackers, beaks that filter food from muddy water, beaks that hammer out holes in trees, crossbill beaks that open up pinecones​—the variety seems endless. And yet the beak, with such specialized design, is said to have evolved by chance from the nose of a reptile! Does such an explanation seem credible to you?

At one time evolutionists believed that Archaeopteryx, meaning “ancient wing” or “ancient bird,” was a link between reptile and bird. But now, many do not. Its fossilized remains reveal perfectly formed feathers on aerodynamically designed wings capable of flight. Its wing and leg bones were thin and hollow. Its supposed reptilian features are found in birds today. And it does not predate birds, because fossils of other birds have been found in rocks of the same period as Archaeopteryx.⁠ (The Neck of the Giraffe, pp. 34, 35; Science, “Feathers of Archaeopteryx: Asymmetric Vanes Indicate Aerodynamic Function,” by Alan Feduccia and Harrison B. Tordoff, March 9, 1979, pp. 1021, 1022.)
edit on 24-3-2019 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2019 @ 06:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: turbonium1
Again, it all goes back to the blatantly false, unsupported argument that all species have 'evolved' from earlier species. None of it holds up to scrutiny, or available evidence


Then where did apes come from? They didn't exist 30m years ago. What about primates? They were nowhere to be found on earth prior to 60m years ago. If your claim is true, apes, primates, mammals, fish, plants and all other types of organisms should have been there since the beginning and that is clearly not what the evidence shows. You can deny it all you want, but that's the best known picture based on evidence. Don't like it? Become a scientist and expose the errors with the research.

Why are there more than a thousand species of shrimp alone? They were all created individually just for fun?



Apes exist, nobody can date the original apes on Earth to 30 million years ago!!

Why would apes exist 30 million years ago, without changing to another species, or even an indication of changing? You said that all species are continually 'evolving' into different species, right?

So apes existed 30 million years ago, and still exist, then?

Thanks for proving evolution is nonsense, well done!



posted on Mar, 30 2019 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Evolution occurs at different rates for different species. It will increase and decrease depending on any particular environment or circumstance. You're still not studying the real science. Get a few good books or learn how to research online.




Rate of Evolutionary Change Science EncyclopediaScience & Philosophy: Evolution to Ferrocyanide

Rates of evolution change vary widely over time, among characteristics, and among species. Evolutionary change can be estimated by examining fossils and species that are related to each other. The rate of change is governed by the life span of the species under examination, short-lived species are capable of changing more quickly than those that have a longer life span and reproduce less often. Yet, even short-lived species such as bacteria, which have generation times measured in minutes, do not manifest noticeable evolutionary changes in a humans lifetime.


science.jrank.org...



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join