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: 49
96
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2011 @ 04:39 AM
link   
reply to post by deons27
 


I'm sorry, but there have been new phylae since the Cambrian period. I may be wrong, but there are more living phylae that arose after the Cambrian than prior. It's either more or near equal.




posted on May, 12 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 

If you take 5 numbered cubes and let them fall the probability laws tells you that you have 1x2x3x4x5=120 possible combinations.That means the probability of getting any possible combination is 1 in 120 or 0.0086. Increase the number of cubes, say to 84, and the probability diminishes to 209 x 10 to the power of -50. We are not talking about 84 cubes (nucleotides), we are talking about billions that must be in precisely the right sequence.
Take a protein like collagen, which is only one of maybe a million we need to function. To get collagen, you need to arrange 1055 amino acids in precisely the right sequence. Now visualize a slot machine with 1055 spinning wheels, each with 20 possible combinations ( the number of common amino acids ). Even if you could hold some of the wheels it would take a very long time.That is assuming you have all the amino acids to your disposal in the first place. Assume you get this right the protein must be folded into a very specific shape almost like origami or it does not function. And then we are still only talking about one. We haven't even talked about DNA yet. Darwin's famous statement that life began as a single cell is laughable. A fitting quote here is that of Professor Edwin Conklin; he stated:
The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing factory.
The famous astronomer Fred Hoyle said that for random events to produce even one protein would be like a whirlwind spinning through a junkyard and leaving behind a fully assembled jumbo jet.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by deons27
 


That is not how evolution works, you have described single generation. Evolution works on lots of generations with selection. Here, look at this example, where you enter a sentence and the program will evolve it using random mutations and selection in a relatively small number of generations:

www.vanallens.com...




posted on May, 13 2011 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by deons27
 



Originally posted by deons27
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 

If you take 5 numbered cubes and let them fall the probability laws tells you that you have 1x2x3x4x5=120 possible combinations.That means the probability of getting any possible combination is 1 in 120 or 0.0086.



You're not that good at math...a cube has 6 sides. That means each side has a 1 in 6 probability of coming up. If you have six of them then that means it's 1/6^6 as the probability of any particular combination coming up. That means there are 6^6 possible combinations. Or 46,656.

What you're talking about the probability of is having 5 slips of paper and the odds of you getting any one sequence would be 5! or 1x2x3x4x5=120.



Increase the number of cubes, say to 84, and the probability diminishes to 209 x 10 to the power of -50. We are not talking about 84 cubes (nucleotides), we are talking about billions that must be in precisely the right sequence.


Except that they don't have to be in precisely the right sequence. Nobody is claiming that life had to have led to humans. Humans are just a happy accident. There is no 'must' or 'have to' at this point. We're here.



Take a protein like collagen, which is only one of maybe a million we need to function. To get collagen, you need to arrange 1055 amino acids in precisely the right sequence. Now visualize a slot machine with 1055 spinning wheels, each with 20 possible combinations ( the number of common amino acids ). Even if you could hold some of the wheels it would take a very long time.That is assuming you have all the amino acids to your disposal in the first place. Assume you get this right the protein must be folded into a very specific shape almost like origami or it does not function. And then we are still only talking about one. We haven't even talked about DNA yet.


Sigh...you're not getting evolution. You're trying to calculate probabilities as if humans sprung up fully formed as the first forms of life. Hell, current understanding is that DNA didn't even start out with the first forms of life.



Darwin's famous statement that life began as a single cell is laughable. A fitting quote here is that of Professor Edwin Conklin; he stated:
The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing factory.


So a professor said it, but does that make it true...wait a second...
You know, I've heard this quote before and I tried to google it. Every single source for it is a creationist source...I can't find the original source for it at all. Can you please tell me where he said this?



The famous astronomer Fred Hoyle said that for random events to produce even one protein would be like a whirlwind spinning through a junkyard and leaving behind a fully assembled jumbo jet.


And this argument has been addressed a billion times over and it has been shown to be wrong. We can actually demonstrate that all of the building blocks necessary for life were able to assemble themselves as a necessary result of environmental conditions in the early Earth.
edit on 13/5/11 by madnessinmysoul because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Where exactly has this been demonstrated? Don't get me wrong, I'm neutral in this debate, but where has that been demonstrated exactly?



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   
I found this video. Is this really how evolution works?
www.youtube.com...



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous1225
 


In about 150 years worth of scientific publications in the field of biology. There have been experiments that have shown speciation, there has been observation of speciation in the wild, there are ring species, there is evidence of common descent through genetics and the fossil record, we have atavisms and vestiges....all of which just goes to show that evolution by natural selection and common descent are true.

Oh, and cdk007's video series is actually pretty damn accurate.
edit on 31/5/11 by madnessinmysoul because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 





They EVOLVED into a new organism that could survive in the new environment


Sorry but i will have to disagree with you on this one. If a family from (IDK) Mexico moves to um.... Alaska and in time the kids they have grow up with more hair to help with the cold and maybe they are taller for whatever reason.

They did not evolve into a new organism they only adapted to a new environment.

I will say this as i have said before if adapting is evolution then yes evolution is fact. But is it?



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by GunzCoty
 


We have witnessed speciation in the lab and nature....and it's fully backed up by not only the fossil record, but also migratory trends and of course DNA. But who cares about facts if they go against one's beliefs, right?



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   
I have another question about evolution. If one species evolved into another then why would the other species still be around?



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Mud slinging is a little immature, don't you think? You implied that creationist throw facts out the window because of something they believe.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 10:20 PM
link   
I just noticed that evolution and creationism have something in common. They both seem to state that life came from dirt/ basic elements.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous1225
 
Why would this matter, why would one single mutation, or one freak reproductive isolation event in one single individual wipe out an entire gene pool. Species come and go because genes mutate over time, and physiological changes shift in response to selection pressures. Its merely a substitution of allele frequencies.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous1225
 
Creationism doesn't have anything in common with evolution, not even something as simple as actually stating a point of view. Nobody knows what creationism is. The only "is" for which it can claim is opposing evolution because reading books is hard.


edit on 31-5-2011 by uva3021 because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-5-2011 by uva3021 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 03:18 AM
link   
reply to post by GunzCoty
 


Evolution is what happens when whatever pressures, be they environmental, competitive, sexual, or whatever else you can think of, act upon the allele frequency within a population. If populations change over time due to environment, then that is evolution.

Your example? Doesn't make sense. Mexican children won't have genetic changes just because they're living in Alaska.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous1225
 


Typically that doesn't happen. The only instance of something similar happening is with ring species, where species begin to migrate and settle in different areas, often in a ring around some large uninhabitable zone for that species, and there is a minor difference between the populations that are close to each other, but the populations on the 'top' and 'bottom' of the ring cannot interbreed...but that's just because it's over a relatively short period of time.

Over many generations there will be nothing of the original 'parent' population, or at least nothing that would be able to be interfertile.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 05:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous1225
 


I have another question about evolution. If one species evolved into another then why would the other species still be around?

You're envisioning a linear model for evolution when the reality of it is a branching tree. There is a species, we'll designate it species A, and for some reason two populations of that species become geographically, and therefore reproductively, isolated from one another. We'll designate those two species as A1 and A2. Those two populations experience different environmental pressures and, over time, those environmental pressures select for various mutations that occur in each population. Over enough time, as the mutations accumulate, A1 and A2 become species distinct from each other as well as from their common ancestor, species A.

Your question sounds like a variation of the old, "If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?" We share a common ancestor with apes and they continued to evolve as well, just in a different direction.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 05:48 AM
link   
Evolution is false. I just bought a new home (which burnt down)....but before it burnt down I found a bunch of golden scrolls under the concrete in the basement telling me where to find the invisible elf that lives in my backyard. That is how silly religion is. I can't wait until we evolve past idiotic superstition.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by deons27
Take a protein like collagen, which is only one of maybe a million we need to function. To get collagen, you need to arrange 1055 amino acids in precisely the right sequence. Now visualize a slot machine with 1055 spinning wheels, each with 20 possible combinations ( the number of common amino acids ). Even if you could hold some of the wheels it would take a very long time.That is assuming you have all the amino acids to your disposal in the first place. Assume you get this right the protein must be folded into a very specific shape almost like origami or it does not function. And then we are still only talking about one. We haven't even talked about DNA yet. Darwin's famous statement that life began as a single cell is laughable.

Humans have about 25,000 protein encoding genes, not millions. Some unicellular eukaryotes have as many as 60,000. The most "simple" prokaryotes have maybe 500. As to your example of collagen, it's not like this gene just started existing as is. It has its own evolutionary history. For example a likely sequence of events is that some much shorter gene was duplicated to outside an ORF. It then started accumulating mutations. Later a mutation pushed it inside an ORF. Then we had some function. Nature selected for better function (this is the origin of almost all genes, and we still see evidence supporting this in the DNA sequence, that's why we have a concept called "gene family"). Also it doesn't need to be precisely as is. In general only a small portion of proteins (the amino acid sequence) are identical between species or individuals even (these are the essential parts of the proteins, often regarded to as x domains), the rest is not so important for most proteins and there we see a lot of variation. Also amino acid sequence determines protein folding (99% of cases) so I don't really understand why you try to push this as a separate case. Also, I'm more than ready discuss DNA, but something leads me to believe that a discussion about DNA with you would be somewhat fruitless (after all you already stated there are millions of different proteins).
edit on 1-6-2011 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous1225
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Mud slinging is a little immature, don't you think? You implied that creationist throw facts out the window because of something they believe.


Of course they do!!

- Noah's flood => complete and utter nonsense, believing in it in the absence of any objective evidence supporting it ever happened is lunatic

- Genesis account => claims just popped up in their current form...we know for a FACT that's complete and utter nonsense too

- Comets being a sign of god => nonsense

- Talking snakes => lol

- Plagues a sign of god => nonsense

- Not eating shrimp => if you don't like shrimp, fine...if you don't eat shrimp because of scripture you're a fool

- Not eating pork => same nonsense, and my Muslim mate agreed after he at some in rice without knowing (yes, I spiked his rice and claimed it was veal...he wasn't even angry, just went on eating)

- Muslims are all evil => nonsense

- Christians are all evil => nonsense

- Atheists will burn in hell (a PM I get frequently, lol) => please don't make me laugh!

So yeah, if you're believing in completely implausible things, or things that have been completely debunked, I will claim you're delusional. Now, not knowing isn't bad...and if you're presented with FACTS and OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE that contradict your irrational belief, and you are man enough to admit you're wrong...more power to you, in fact, I'd applaud you. Some people on here went through exactly that, and I would never say anything bad against them.

But if you keep deluding yourself, and even worse, try to convince others that your nonsense belief is the "only truth", then I will call you a fool...and imo rightfully so. I do the same to the crazy dude at speaker's corner telling me the world is coming to an end like once a month for the past 5 years.

You are holding the rest of us people back with your irrational and nonsense ideas!


edit on 1-6-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in

join