Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Top Ten Scientific Facts : Evolution is False and Impossible.

page: 57
95
<< 54  55  56    58  59  60 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Since1981
 



If there would be no convergence, there would be no interracial mixing. But it's not the case, there is definitive mixing, to me this gives less diversity. Larger groups, more mixing, less chance for ET to create new species. I believe you require separation for that, to let different paths evolve on their own.

Again, there is no mechanism such as you describe driving evolution.

Consider humans or birds. There are mallards and black ducks. They hybridize. That can be seen in a black duck with a blue speculum. There are also mallards with a violet speculum. This is a case akin to interracial mixing. The question is whether or not there is a raising or lowering of genetic diversity. Here we might have the loss of black ducks as a species and the introduction of a new race of mallards, a black mallard. Although these are the bins we assign to animals there might be future new species as the hybrids becomes one or more species. There is not a loss of genetic diversity as mallards and mallard hybrids reveal a larger number of what are known as phases.

So when you say that mixing reduces diversity you are simply guessing. You really don't have any facts. All you have is a guess that you are willing to buy into because of your religious beliefs.

In general larger groups do not have more mixing. Larger groups tend to break up into small groups. If separation is required then we have plenty of splits in our society from political boundaries to economics to religion to heritage to whatever.




posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Since1981
 


double post
edit on 17-4-2012 by stereologist because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by votan
reply to post by edsinger
 


Evolution and creationism both are unable to prove how life began. There should be no division from both sides.. instead they should work together not to prove their hypothesis but to actually find unbiased truth..

meaning neither side should sabotage each others work if it looks it is detrimental to your claim..

it is counter productive

this thread is mental masterbation
edit on 16-4-2012 by votan because: (no reason given)


The most sensible thing anybody has said here:
"mental masturbation" I love it.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   
.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 





Evolution AND Creationism are only theories


Evolution is a scientific theory, meaning the following:

- it's fully backed up by OBJECTIVE evidence, and none of that evidence goes against the theory.
- it's testable.
- we actively apply it in modern medicine. If the theory were wrong, we couldn't do that.
- we have witnessed it both in the lab and in nature.

Creationism ISN'T even a theory. For that it would require objective evidence behind it...which it hasn't.

Evolution also makes no claims regarding how life started, because that's NOT part of theory. It doesn't matter how life started in the first place, evolution would still be happen as it has for billions of years.



Silly man. Don't you know that theories evolve all the time as the data changes and new data is discovered. Of course you do. This means that you csnnot state anything as a fact. All the facts seem to change and are in a constant state of flux. Therefore, there is no such thing as a solid fact.

Creationism as a throey is just as good as anything you science religion nuts pull out of your hats. You say Creationism isn't a theory because you dont see objective evdance behind it. Don't you know when a thoery starts off It too has no objective evdance behind it until someone does some experimentation that seems to make the observations agree with each other? Since those observations are always in a state of flux when new data is found, you cannot really call that evidance either.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 



Evolution AND Creationism are only theories.

There are many theories of evolution, but no theories of creationism.


someones best guess based on observations which may or may not be accurately perceived.

Not at all. Evolution theories are based on facts. They are not guesses. They are tested and tested and retested and changed as problems are uncovered.


There ARE NO FACTS.

You are confusing fact with truth.


I challenge Science to give me One Fact that's provable beyond any shadow of a doubt no matter what reasoning you employ to either explain it or debunk it.

Release a rock and it falls to the ground. That is not truth, but a fact.


This is impossible. Therefore science becomes religion. Science masks as something it is not. Science does not, nor can it, produce Facts.

Please learn what is meant by the words fact and theory to avoid further confusion on your part.



I am not confusing facts with truth. Science is. The problem is science often totes facts as truth. This is part of ytour religion called Science. Again, you have no theories of evolution based on facts. They are only based on observable evidance which is always in a state of flux as new data comes along. ( which is really not evidence at all) I can drop a rock from very high places and not always will it fall to the ground depending on other circumstances. You know this yourself. You used a very bad example.

You people who are so wraped up in your religion called Science have lost the ability to think objectively. I feel as bad for you guys as I do for anyone who belongs to a cult. Science has it's place to help us in our daily lives but nothing is ever set in stone. Once you go down that road, your lost forever.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 





Evolution AND Creationism are only theories


Evolution is a scientific theory, meaning the following:

- it's fully backed up by OBJECTIVE evidence, and none of that evidence goes against the theory.
- it's testable.
- we actively apply it in modern medicine. If the theory were wrong, we couldn't do that.
- we have witnessed it both in the lab and in nature.

Creationism ISN'T even a theory. For that it would require objective evidence behind it...which it hasn't.

Evolution also makes no claims regarding how life started, because that's NOT part of theory. It doesn't matter how life started in the first place, evolution would still be happen as it has for billions of years.


You are stretching the word evolution. Are parts of evolution testable? Yeah. All you have to do is look at dogs, the peppered moths, the Galapagos finches and many other tried and true proofs that animals change.

We see mutations and use natural selection in modern medicine, correct.

We witness all these things in the lab and in nature, yes.

But we have never seen the entire scope of the theory in nature, we haven't seen it tested, and it is just an explanation for the facts, one that many believe falls short of it's lofty claims.

Many have demonstrated some of the unbelievable problems with birds growing wings, wolves turning into whales, and all the other "stories" of evolutionary theory. But these are usually just discarded immediately by many, as they claim that bacteria gaining nylon resistance proves that a cell evolved into a man.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 



Silly man. Don't you know that theories evolve all the time as the data changes and new data is discovered. Of course you do. This means that you csnnot state anything as a fact. All the facts seem to change and are in a constant state of flux. Therefore, there is no such thing as a solid fact.

As I pointed out before you need to understand what a fact is and how it differs from truth. Her eis a link to learn.
en.wikipedia.org...

Scientific facts are verified by repeatable experiments.



on't you know when a thoery starts off It too has no objective evdance behind it until someone does some experimentation that seems to make the observations agree with each other?

Completely wrong. Facts are explained by theories,
en.wikipedia.org...


I am not confusing facts with truth. Science is. The problem is science often totes facts as truth.

Completely wrong. Science is quite clear on the difference between truth and facts.


This is part of ytour religion called Science.

Science is not like religion. There is no wishful thinking in science. That is left to religion.


Again, you have no theories of evolution based on facts. They are only based on observable evidance which is always in a state of flux as new data comes along.

Once again you show us that you have no idea what a fact is.


Science has it's place to help us in our daily lives but nothing is ever set in stone.

There are the religious fanatics that suggest science is continually being proven wrong. That's substantially off the mark. What happens is that there are continued refinements. Sometimes theories such as phlogiston are tried and shown to be false. A theory is used to explain facts. The theories and tested and refined or rejected in favor of better theories.

The same can't be said for religious rubbish such as creationism. Despite the overwhelming evidence against the biblical flood and exodus the religious fanatics will never drop belief in these false ideas.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by crimsonhead
 



Many have demonstrated some of the unbelievable problems with birds growing wings, wolves turning into whales, and all the other "stories" of evolutionary theory. But these are usually just discarded immediately by many, as they claim that bacteria gaining nylon resistance proves that a cell evolved into a man.

The problem with your items here is that some of these are incredibly well demonstrated in the fossil record. Once the evolution of whales was one of the great unknowns. Today the evolution of whales is one of the best demonstrated examples of evolution in the fossil record. Another incredible example is the transition of reptile to mammal. The transition is so well documented that the intermediaries are hard to identify as reptile or mammal.

Your silly talk of bacteria is the sort of silly argument I hear when I listen to creationist lectures.

There was a time on Earth when there were no fish. There were huge oceans with a fish in them. There were lots of other creatures, but no fish. Now there are fish. Things evolved. At one time there were no mammals. Now there are. Things evolved.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   
I'm sure this has been brought up

but

african cichlids from lake malawi demonstrate evolution (speciation) on such an astonishingly fast pace, they have become the poster children for study




posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


It's about evidence vs guesswork and nothing more. Science has facts, creationism has faith. It's apples to oranges. Facts aren't subjective. You cannot provide one single piece of evidence to suggest that the earth does not revolve around the sun. That is a fact that will not change pending some natural disaster or the end of the sun. Could we one day learn more about what drives the process? Of course! It still doesn't change the fact that the earth revolves around the sun. Gravity is another good example, along with probably hundreds of other facts and laws. Yes theories evolve, but the hard evidence does not. Scientific conclusions are based on objective results. Science is about learning how things work and applying it to our lives. Sure, we might not have the full absolute exact picture about everything, but the pursuit of knowledge is a good thing. Religion vs science is pointless. End the war on evolution already. It's time to move on.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


There is a mechanism and it's incredibly obvious - if you understand the basics of evolution theory. Genes that have higher probability to propagate through a group will do so. This replaces those genes that have less probability to propagate, and the group converges to less diversity. This is what evolution is all about.

I see this in my experiments and it is to be expected. It's an inherent property of the evolution algorithm. You assume for no reason evolution theory will produce great diversity, but that is the unfound claim, please reproduce it in your experiments and try to give some explaination why you see what you see.

edit: As I said before, pointing at great diversity and saying, "evolution did that", is an unfound claim. This has no value and it's not science. You must reproduce great diversity using the theory in experiments. That is what you need to do.
edit on 17-4-2012 by Since1981 because: said before



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


On page 49 (i believe) there is another evidence supporting my claim: www.vanallens.com...

The Weasel applet starts with maximum diversity in the group, for each iteration it converges to the minimum amount of diversity. How do you explain this? Should not evolution theory produce diversity?



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Since1981
reply to post by stereologist
 


On page 49 (i believe) there is another evidence supporting my claim: www.vanallens.com...

The Weasel applet starts with maximum diversity in the group, for each iteration it converges to the minimum amount of diversity. How do you explain this? Should not evolution theory produce diversity?

Does "the weasel applet" really reflect reality? How does it take into an account factors such as isolation, mutation rates, populations sizes, ecological interactions, etc.?

ps. It doesn't. It's just a simple applet with a programmed goal, in case you didn't know, evolution is not goal oriented in this sense..
edit on 18-4-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Since1981
 



There is a mechanism and it's incredibly obvious - if you understand the basics of evolution theory. Genes that have higher probability to propagate through a group will do so. This replaces those genes that have less probability to propagate, and the group converges to less diversity. This is what evolution is all about.

Such a mechanism is not reality. That is not what evolution is about. That's the sort of nitwit story I hear from creationist lecturers often.


I see this in my experiments and it is to be expected. It's an inherent property of the evolution algorithm. You assume for no reason evolution theory will produce great diversity, but that is the unfound claim, please reproduce it in your experiments and try to give some explaination why you see what you see.

Are you doing some bad computer simulations that do not reflect reality? Is that what you call an experiment?


edit: As I said before, pointing at great diversity and saying, "evolution did that", is an unfound claim. This has no value and it's not science. You must reproduce great diversity using the theory in experiments. That is what you need to do.

The fact is that the fossil record clearly demonstrates that at one time there were no fish, no reptiles, no mammals, no birds, etc. Now they exist. That should tell you that your so-called experiments are failures. Figure out where you went wrong.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Since1981
 



The Weasel applet starts with maximum diversity in the group, for each iteration it converges to the minimum amount of diversity. How do you explain this? Should not evolution theory produce diversity?

The applet does not reflect reality. It is an example of a method called a genetic algorithm.

en.wikipedia.org...
www.obitko.com...
lancet.mit.edu...

Have at it and learn something.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by edsinger
 


Well there are a number of your facts that are "false". In recent weeks we've figured out that NASA scientists missed data from mars from the 70's, in that data the scientist said that Mars showed it had life. He speculated that in the next couple years we will know for certainty, he said in his mind it was a %100 chance of life. I could go into the other ones but I'll leave it at that, also you should really lookup what an ostrich is since you're clearly dillusional about the pros of small wings.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 08:44 AM
link   
I am always saddened by posts such as this.

As most people seem very comfortable calling evolution a theory based only upon the physical evidence which can be shown and examined.

Yet many of these same people call "their" religion truth but can show no real physical evidence of the existance of those they worship.

They say they base their beliefs on faith, yet they have no "faith" in the things which they can see and hold in their hands.

It is with this in mind which leads me to say that such posts can very well be made only be made by persons or people who do not truely exist.

I have never met them on the street nor where I work. As for that matter, I have never known their parents or relatives at any time in my life.

Based upon these "facts", I can only conclude that these people and/or persons do not and have never existed.

If they did, or do, surely I would know them. Since I do not know them, I can not believe in them. Therefore they are not.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Since1981
I see this in my experiments and it is to be expected. It's an inherent property of the evolution algorithm. You assume for no reason evolution theory will produce great diversity, but that is the unfound claim, please reproduce it in your experiments and try to give some explaination why you see what you see.

edit: As I said before, pointing at great diversity and saying, "evolution did that", is an unfound claim. This has no value and it's not science. You must reproduce great diversity using the theory in experiments. That is what you need to do.


What experiments are you referring to? What is your profession, and what are the details of your findings? There is no algorithm in evolution. The mutations themselves are random, but the adaptation is not. Of course evolution produced the diversity we see. We have duplicated speciation in a lab, as well as single celled organisms turning into multi-celluar life. Diversity is caused by a certain portion of the population of a species living in a different environment for hundreds of thousands to millions of years. They adapt to their respective environments, and sometimes they meet up millions of years later, and breed, which shares the genetic information from both environments. This is why there are so many races of human and why our gene pool is so diverse. That's essentially exactly what happened with the homo genus.
edit on 18-4-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 



Silly man. Don't you know that theories evolve all the time as the data changes and new data is discovered. Of course you do. This means that you csnnot state anything as a fact. All the facts seem to change and are in a constant state of flux. Therefore, there is no such thing as a solid fact.

As I pointed out before you need to understand what a fact is and how it differs from truth. Her eis a link to learn.
en.wikipedia.org...

Scientific facts are verified by repeatable experiments.



on't you know when a thoery starts off It too has no objective evdance behind it until someone does some experimentation that seems to make the observations agree with each other?

Completely wrong. Facts are explained by theories,
en.wikipedia.org...


I am not confusing facts with truth. Science is. The problem is science often totes facts as truth.

Completely wrong. Science is quite clear on the difference between truth and facts.


This is part of ytour religion called Science.

Science is not like religion. There is no wishful thinking in science. That is left to religion.


Again, you have no theories of evolution based on facts. They are only based on observable evidance which is always in a state of flux as new data comes along.

Once again you show us that you have no idea what a fact is.


Science has it's place to help us in our daily lives but nothing is ever set in stone.

There are the religious fanatics that suggest science is continually being proven wrong. That's substantially off the mark. What happens is that there are continued refinements. Sometimes theories such as phlogiston are tried and shown to be false. A theory is used to explain facts. The theories and tested and refined or rejected in favor of better theories.

The same can't be said for religious rubbish such as creationism. Despite the overwhelming evidence against the biblical flood and exodus the religious fanatics will never drop belief in these false ideas.


You prove my point. You've swallowed the doctrine of science and their cultist teachings to the point where your mind is closed to the possibilities that the dogma is wrong. That's all you have dogma.

If facts as you say are explained by theories and theories can and do change with new data, then you prove my point that there are no solid facts. Dude, you just agreed with me and validated my point and your dogma kept you from seeing it.

You see, science is philosophy. It's a way of looking at something, thinking about something that is designed to help that something make sense to use in a practical way so we can make better use of it. . You find some corroborations in your experiments that back up your theory, they seem on the face, testable and repeatable and call these facts. These facts are paraded around as truths. Don't tell me they aren't, I see it everyday when any scientists opens his mouth about what he thinks a fact is. But with new data those facts change. Opps say the scientists, and are forced to admit they didn't have facts at all. Then sometimes they try to change the model to fit their old facts.. jam a square block into a round hole. If you don't see this your eyes are wide shut. It happens every day. I'm telling you, science has much more to do with religion that you think.. you just cannot see it because you are too close to this thing.
edit on 18-4-2012 by JohnPhoenix because: sp



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 



If facts as you say are explained by theories and theories can and do change with new data, then you prove my point that there are no solid facts. Dude, you just agreed with me and validated my point and your dogma kept you from seeing it.

Clearly, you have never taken the time to learn what a fact is. Had you, you would have learned something. Theories explain facts. The facts are not created or derived by the theory.


These facts are paraded around as truths.

Please take the time to learn. Again you show that you do not understand what a fact is.


But with new data those facts change.

Can you provide an example? It might help to explore why you are so confused.


I'm telling you, science has much more to do with religion that you think.

Again you reinforce that you are very, very confused.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


I'm asking this for the 3rd time. Show me something that disputes the fact that the earth revolves around the sun. You clearly need education about the scientific method. Obviously you have no clue. Most facts do not actually change, but the 'fact' of the matter is that the universe is in a constant state of change, just like all life on earth. Everything changes and evolves when new information becomes available. Please provide me a list of solid scientific facts that have changed drastically over the years, and don't say "oh, scientists said the earth was flat". No, that was religion, and anyone who disputed their "facts" was tortured or killed in the name of god. Absolutely disgusting. So please prove your point about science and facts. Saying that there are no facts, is simply a lie and the facts cannot be disputed without pure guesswork. Please don't ignore this for the 3rd time. Theories are based on facts, the facts aren't based on theories. Theories can change and evolve, but the facts stay the same. The parts that change are usually minor details like estimated dates and time frames, but again, it's on you to provide examples of this.
edit on 18-4-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
95
<< 54  55  56    58  59  60 >>

log in

join