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.

 

Top Ten Scientific Facts : Evolution is False and Impossible.

page: 40
96
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by chocise
 


That's because you choose to dismiss evidence that conflicts with your world view. Call it stubborn, call it ignorant, call it what you like.




posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by chocise
 


Hey look, it's the person who ignores all of the facts that have been presented to them in favor of evolution. Look at Maslo's posts, they contain plenty of facts. Hell, go to pubmed and search 'evolution' and you'll get all sorts of hard science supporting evolution.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by chocise
I see, so your fact is a theory which contains no facts.

No. Evolution as a phenomenon is a fact. The theory of evolution attempts to explain this phenomenon. Thus evolution is both fact and theory.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by skido
When I look at animal adaptation of camouflage, I just cant believe it is possible through natural selection. There should have been some kind of environmental feedback..

Some kind of environmental feedback.. that is called.. natural selection



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by chocise
 


Here we go again...


Originally posted by chocise
I love these threads but don't wish to get embroiled in yet another, so I just want to make a small contribution directed at Nygdan as he was the first poster here to pedal a much drafted response which continually gets a voicing but has no validity or truth in it.


Nygdan, the user who hasn't been on ATS in years? Wow, easy target.




Originally posted by Nygdan
Evolution is a fact


Nygdan please, evolution is not a fact, it's a theory.


Evolution is a fact, a theory, and a model. You simply display a startling ignorance of even the most basic terminology in science. Another example of things that are both theory and fact are gravity, germs, and circuits.



There are few, if any, facts in it.


Nope, there are many facts in evolution.



It's a nice idea to line all your flora & fauna up and morph likenesses into some imaginary tree of life but the reality is, I'm afraid, very different – your tree is more akin to a web, and a web with many glaring holes in it.


...it's called a Cladogram and what are the 'glaring holes' in it? And I'd say it's more of a bush than a tree.



This is why there is, a continues to be, much ongoing research, study & debate on the subject.


...no, the research and study have to do with the specifics, as does the debate. There is no serious dissent on whether or not evolution occurs, it's merely a few hows and whats that need to be sorted out. There are in fact more scientists named 'Steve' (or some variation thereof) that support evolution than there are total creationist scientists.



It's interesting to note that as genetics brings true science to biology, and was once hoped it would validate its central claim, it has only moved the goal posts and raised more questions than it's answered.


Citation needed. If anything, genetics has validated every claim of evolution. It has shown the clear link of humans to the rest of the great apes, it has shown the common ancestry of various species, it has shown the means of variance in species, etc.



Not a bad thing as it has reignited claims made by the theory and continues to stimulate debate and further research.


There is no debate. You are fabricating issues with evolution that aren't there. I'd like to see you provide some external sources to verify your repeatedly debunked claims.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by skido
 


Because those that don't have camo that hides them from prey are more likely to starve and those that do have camo that hides from prey are more likely to survive. Natural selection has to do as much with being able to eat as it does with being able to not get eaten.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by vasaga
Ok. Let's take a step back here. What is life?

Let's do that after you've addressed my arguments. Or.. if you want.. you can just google definition of life (I'm pretty sure it has been discussed here multiple times as well) and then address my arguments.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by skido
 


The inderviduals with genitics that coulor their hair or skin to be that of the enviroment arent eaten and live to pass their geans on. All of the others are eaten the adapted geans are then passed on : In short the preditors filter out all the ones they can find. This is like when owls hunt mice in the brown fields of england. The white ones are not camoflagued so they are eaten but the brown ones are and survive now a days white field mice are rare for this reson. Another example is zebra they stay togeather in groups as their black and white coulors mixing togeather confuse lions. 1000s of years ago all the ones with geans for other coulors were eaten



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by vasaga
Ok. Let's take a step back here. What is life?

Let's do that after you've addressed my arguments. Or.. if you want.. you can just google definition of life (I'm pretty sure it has been discussed here multiple times as well) and then address my arguments.
-.- Fine.. I'll answer your prior post, but I expect a definition of life from you afterwards.



Originally posted by rhinoceros
Movement is not a property that defines life by itself. Water moves along a vertical gradient. Does this imply that water is living?
Hence why I asked you the question, what is life..


Originally posted by rhinoceros
Don't lose any function apart from being able to synthesize almost any new protein (or respond to almost any alternating variable) which is essential for normal function.
For extended periods of time, yes.


Originally posted by rhinoceros
It's not any component. It's the genetic material. This does not imply irreducible complexity.
O.o Isn't the nucleus a component of a cell?


Originally posted by rhinoceros
So, now "not dying immediately" = "surviving just fine". Interesting..
Yes.. Lol.. If they remove your arm and leave you bleeding, and you die, it does not mean that you can't live without your arm. It means you can't live without blood. Same as the cell. It doesn't mean it can't live without genes. It means it can't live without proteins.


Originally posted by rhinoceros
There are many different types of regulatory mechanisms. An example of autoregulation is, when a gene controls its own transcription by monitoring the level of its end product (protein) in the cell.
The gene monitors its end product? O.o Not sure I follow.


Originally posted by rhinoceros
For example when there's a lot of proteinA in the cell, the transcription of geneA is blocked straight on DNA by an interaction of proteinA with proteinB which may for example form a complex that binds to DNA upstream of geneA blocking its transcription. Likewise a gene may for example produce mRNA all the time, but regulate it's translatation. So for example if there's a high level of proteinC in the cell, some of it may bind on mRNAC blocking its translation. Only when levels of proteinC go down, some mRNAC is free to be translated and again levels of proteinC go up. These are simplified examples, but nevertheless demonstrate that genes can (and do) control themselves
No they don't. All you've described is what genes produce under certain circumstances.. It doesn't mean they control anything.. Sadly, you can't read the whole paper without paying, but, this is the abstract:


In describing the flawless regularity of developmental processes and the correlation between changes at certain genetic loci and changes in morphology, biologists frequently employ two metaphors: that genes ‘control’ development, and that genomes embody ‘programs’ for development. Although these metaphors have an admirable sharpness and punch, they lead, when taken literally, to highly distorted pictures of developmental processes. A more balanced, and useful, view of the role of genes in development is that they act as suppliers of the material needs of development and, in some instances, as context-dependent catalysts of cellular changes, rather than as ‘controllers’ of developmental progress and direction. The consequences of adopting this alternative view of development are discussed.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

Also, in that paper, he stated,

"When a gene product is needed, a signal from its environment, not an emergent property of the gene itself, activates expression of that gene."


That's that, so, back to my question, what is life?



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 


Apply palm directly to face...

Genes are the method by which proteins are produced in a cell. Can you show me an instance where a cell which starts out without DNA or RNA has produced proteins?



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 

It can't.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 


Exactly, because DNA and RNA are necessary for modern cells to function properly.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 

Why are they necessary? What is their function?
edit on 22-3-2011 by vasaga because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 11:42 PM
link   
Of course evolution is true.
That is what they teach(brainwash) us after all. I mean I understand the need to know how all that we are came to be. Evolution is just one guys explanation of how he thinks life happens. One thing about evolution that I just cannot understand is the short time frame that we are given for it to occur in. The Max Plank institute in Germany did a study on the speed rate of evolution. They took 30 generations of a plant, of which kind I do not know, and compared the change in the DNA from the first generation and the last. Out of 120 million base pair of DNA they showed that 8 to 12 base pair had changed. I thought that was pretty impressive till I started doing a little mathematics. I may be off a zero or two but that is like .0000001% change. Now given that it is a change in the same species over 30 generations. That is using the larger change of 12 base pair.

That alone should be enough to conclude that not only would it take a very long time for one species to change into another, but from a single cell organism to evolve to the extent of life we now see today would take longer than the 16 billion years that scientists say is the age of the universe. But hey, this is just one guys thoughts.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by vasaga
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 

Why are they necessary? What is their function?
edit on 22-3-2011 by vasaga because: (no reason given)


To manufacture proteins. It is like saying that human does not need to eat to live. Sure, you will survive for some weeks, but that does not mean you can live without food. Nucleus is essential for the cell.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 12:47 AM
link   
i mean i guess you can use "scientific """"facts""""" to """prove""" evolution is wrong...seeing how it happens in our everyday life. clearly evolution is ridiculous....



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo

Originally posted by vasaga
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 

Why are they necessary? What is their function?
edit on 22-3-2011 by vasaga because: (no reason given)


To manufacture proteins. It is like saying that human does not need to eat to live. Sure, you will survive for some weeks, but that does not mean you can live without food. Nucleus is essential for the cell.
Yes.. But.. The genes do not control the cell, which is where I was trying to get to.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 


That depends on what do you mean by "control", and its just semantics. In addition to protein manufacturing, genes have an important regulatory functions.
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 06:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Conclusion1
 


Wow, an uncited off-hand reference. Sorry, but the Max Placnk institute actually publishes papers, please do a bit of research before you post ignorance.

Oh, and 180ish of your base pairs are different from your parents.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

There is no debate. You are fabricating issues with evolution that aren't there. I'd like to see you provide some external sources to verify your repeatedly debunked claims.


Hi Piltdown, there is no debate?

Laughable.

We can't even string together 50,000 years of human evolution coherently, let alone account for the spontaneous creation of life itself.


Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by chocise
 


That's because you choose to dismiss evidence that conflicts with your world view. Call it stubborn, call it ignorant, call it what you like.


Sorry, but the same could be said for most of what's posted in this thread. The difference being you're more susceptible to the mainstream BS than those who are prepared to question it. What you call 'evidence' I call fantasy, where you see linearity in the fossil record I see distinct, punctuated spaces – I still cannot see any objective truth in it and suspect you, and your kind, are guilty of intellectual dishonesty.

At the single cell level, it was interesting to note in earlier threads on this topic how the irreducible complexity of flagella were dismissed because a single element of the 'motor' could be demonstrated to be a pre-existing component, yet astonishingly you were all willing to dismiss all the other specialised 'parts': parts which simply couldn't have evolved independently [& something Darwin himself would confess to having issues with]. Selectivity with the truth isn't restricted to one side of the argument, John.
edit on 24-3-2011 by chocise because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join