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 Top Ten Myths About Evolution

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 05:02 PM
link   
The Top Ten

This article details all the major misconceptions people have about the theory of evolution, in a rational, scientific tone.

It dispells myths such as "People evolved from monkeys"

I find it highly accurate, and it taught me a thing or two.

This shows that there is some obvious misinformation about evolution being spread by the ID/Creationist proponents.




posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
The Top Ten

This article details all the major misconceptions people have about the theory of evolution, in a rational, scientific tone.

It dispells myths such as "People evolved from monkeys"

I find it highly accurate, and it taught me a thing or two.

This shows that there is some obvious misinformation about evolution being spread by the ID/Creationist proponents.


That you posted this link indicates that you should not be posting about origins topics.

That you this thread 'taught you alot' further indicates you shouldn't post Re: origins theories.

Generally starting a thread means you know something about it. Obviously, you don't subscribe to this beleif.

Okay, Madness... this is your fourth bait thread.... still waiting for some enlightenment from you about how misinformed I must be to support the ID movement.

[sarcasm]Please... please... I don't think I can last in the science community much longer without your insight re: origins theories...... don't leave me hanging, man.[/sarcasm]

This link does nothing to refute ANYTHING from IDT... or even YECism for that matter. The author of this site has apparently read ZERO literature from an IDTist or YECist. Great choice!


My suggestion is that we discuss each of these 'facts' in some detail... I would suggest we start with most lame, ridiculous, and misrepresented example: the NaCl molecule... boy, what a frickin' joke that is. This person obviously understands less about CSI than you do.

though likely what will happen is 'madness' will turn tail and start a new thread.

This link is a joke and does nothing to 'prove' evolution over ID or any variety of creationism.

Your move


[edit on 7-6-2006 by mattison0922]

[edit on 7-6-2006 by mattison0922]



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 10:59 PM
link   
I don't have the faith to believe that hydrogen turns into people if you wait long enough. I need facts.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
The Top Ten

This article details all the major misconceptions people have about the theory of evolution, in a rational, scientific tone.

It dispells myths such as "People evolved from monkeys"

I find it highly accurate, and it taught me a thing or two.

This shows that there is some obvious misinformation about evolution being spread by the ID/Creationist proponents.


That you posted this link indicates that you should not be posting about origins topics.

That you this thread 'taught you alot' further indicates you shouldn't post Re: origins theories.

Generally starting a thread means you know something about it. Obviously, you don't subscribe to this beleif.

Okay, Madness... this is your fourth bait thread.... still waiting for some enlightenment from you about how misinformed I must be to support the ID movement.

[sarcasm]Please... please... I don't think I can last in the science community much longer without your insight re: origins theories...... don't leave me hanging, man.[/sarcasm]

This link does nothing to refute ANYTHING from IDT... or even YECism for that matter. The author of this site has apparently read ZERO literature from an IDTist or YECist. Great choice!


My suggestion is that we discuss each of these 'facts' in some detail... I would suggest we start with most lame, ridiculous, and misrepresented example: the NaCl molecule... boy, what a frickin' joke that is. This person obviously understands less about CSI than you do.

though likely what will happen is 'madness' will turn tail and start a new thread.

This link is a joke and does nothing to 'prove' evolution over ID or any variety of creationism.

Your move


[edit on 7-6-2006 by mattison0922]

[edit on 7-6-2006 by mattison0922]


well, it has to do with the theory of evolution

therefore, i put it in here

now, read it if you want, mock me if you want to look immature

it isn't there to prove anything, it's simply there to dispell some misconceptions people have about evolution

discussion and debate aren't about making the other person look like they are wrong, it's about figuring the truth out. this is a supplement to the discussion.

i didn't even intend this to get more than a couple of responses, i wanted to inform the community

mattison, if you want to be confrontational, i may just be willing to be throw down in the debate forum.

also, sunmatrix, this isn't about faith, it's about showing mountains of evidence



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
I don't have the faith to believe that hydrogen turns into people

Clearly, such a page as cited above is necessary. The Theory of Evolution does not claim that hydrogen turned into people in some big single step, or anything like it.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

now, read it if you want,

Read it.


mock me if you want to look immature

Your perception of mattison is irrelevant.


it isn't there to prove anything, it's simply there to dispell some misconceptions people have about evolution

So when you state something like: "This shows that there is some obvious misinformation about evolution being spread by the ID/Creationist proponents."
you're not trying to disprove ID or Creationism? Possibly not... but my instinct tells me otherwise. At the very least you're trying to portray it in a negative light.

Dispelling myths about evolution doesn't equal an attack on ID or creationism, which is pretty much what your posts in the O & C forum have amounted to thus far.


discussion and debate aren't about making the other person look like they are wrong, it's about figuring the truth out. this is a supplement to the discussion.

Is this what you really think? It certainly doesn't appear that way.

So all you're interested in promoting the 'truth' of evolution... then why the attacks on ID and creationism. Did you not write: "discussion and debate aren't about making the other person look like they are wrong, it's about figuring the truth out."

If this is what you believe, you can discuss the 'truth' of evolution with mentioning ID or creationism.


i didn't even intend this to get more than a couple of responses, i wanted to inform the community

Well it seems like you got what you wanted... a 'couple' of responses, so what's your gripe?

You wanted to inform the community of what? Your history in this forum demonstrates you are interested in informing people that ToE is correct, and all other origins theories are the products of crackpots.

Well... I disagree.


mattison, if you want to be confrontational, i may just be willing to be throw down in the debate forum.

Why something formal? Why not just hash it out right here and now? Personally, I don't like the debate forum, and I prefer the 'free' structure of open debate in the forum... no limitations, and it can continue for as long as it needs to. I don't want to be confrontational... it's just my natural state of being when it comes to Origins topics.

So... let's have at it if you're up for it.

I'll start.

The table salt example is absurd. There is precisely one way in which these ions are capable of joining. The process is governed by a simple natural law. This 'professor' doesn't appear to know much about complexity. A NaCl atom is not complex. It can be specified with a very simple set of instructions; in fact the crystal itself is specified by the name of the molecule: NaCl. Bingo! That's how you form an NaCl 'molecule.' Nothing complex... no big deal. By definition crystals are not complex. They can be described very simply with usually just a sentence or two, or as this case perfectly demonstrates, simply the ionic formula.

In fact this whole tenth item looks like a mishmash of stuff cut and pasted from other sites. The 'professor' titles the 10th statement as "Complexity cannot arise naturally"
Logically, he begins with a spiel about entropy. Big mistake for most people - the 'professor' included. It's obvious this person knows pretty much nothing about entropy, as they define it as "Heat Absorbed in a process)/Temperature." Well... that's not entropy according to any definition of entropy that I am familiar. Entropy is specifically concerned with disorder of a system, and is distinctly related to enthalpy (heat) but is not defined in these terms. Entropy in biological systems is best described by the Gibb's Free Energy equation: G = H - TS, where G is free energy, H is enthalpy, S is entropy, and T is K°.

Next he states: "the atoms in a crystal of table salt are arranged as below, with sodium and chlorine atoms in a strictly alternating square array. If we take the simple-minded approach that we have a one-half probability of getting a sodium or chlorine atom in each spot, "

The text in bold indicates exactly what I stated before: an NaCl crystal isn't complex. It can be specified very simply, with a minimum of instructions. The italicized text that follows is simply ludicrous. There isn't a "one-half probability of getting a sodium or chlorine atom in each spot." There is a zero probablity of this based on electromagnetism. NaCl always arranges in this manner, period.

He then states "we know DNA can arise from simpler chemicals because it does so every time your cells divide. Every haircut you get is proof of it. The missing half of the DNA strand is assembled from molecules in the cell fluids."

Wow..... this guy can't be a professor... at least not a science professor... maybe music or art or some kind of humanities, but definitely not a hard science guy. Haircuts prove DNA arises from simpler chemicals :shakes head: wow. That's a new one. I wonder if this guy knows that hair isn't cellular tissue, it's just protein, no cells, no DNA. Wow. This person really should be ashamed.

Because your cells can synthesize DNA, does nothing to prove that DNA can arise without cells. In fact we know quite the opposite is true. For example, there is no known source of Cytosine outside of biologicals, ie: it doesn't arise naturalistically. So in fact the above statement is flat out wrong. We know exactly the opposite: cytosine doesn't 'appear' outside of biologicals or directed OChem syntheses. Since Uracil is derived from Cytosine, then that means that neither DNA or RNA can form in the absence of biologicals.

Finally based on everything I've just written, this statement: "DNA replicates because it can spontaneously self-assemble" is a load of crap, unless by 'spontaneously self-assemble' he means it can assemble in a cell via the assistance of enzymes, but that is hardly 'spontaneous.'

I'm sorry... perhaps you can clarify what makes this a 'good' resource? It seems like a lot of misinformation, misrepresentation, and flat-out misunderstanding to me.

Oh yeah, In response to your statement to sunmatrix: where are the 'mountains of evidence' that demonstrate hydrogen turns into people... which is what you said.

[edit on 8-6-2006 by mattison0922]

[edit on 8-6-2006 by mattison0922]

[edit on 8-6-2006 by mattison0922]



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 04:16 PM
link   
people could speculate that evolution theory was brought about to promote racist viewpoints.

have you heard that before



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Andy1033,
I don't think that ToE was invented by people in order to support racist views, I'm pretty sure that we have enough evidence to say with certanty that it did in fact occur.
As for was it naturally accomplished or brought upon by God, yeah I'm not going to touch that one. I'm going to watch these two fight it out.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
Andy1033,
I don't think that ToE was invented by people in order to support racist views, I'm pretty sure that we have enough evidence to say with certanty that it did in fact occur..


i am not saying there is not some evidence, but all i want to know is for you people to go away and ask yourself who pushed this theory and what was society like at the time.

i have heard many in england(some powerful people)used the TOE to push very racist claims after darwin brought them out, and it was not just the germans.

[edit on 8-6-2006 by andy1033]



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Unfortunately thats just how it goes sometimes, people will take different advancements and use them for their nefarious ends. Don't blame the science blame the people.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
Unfortunately thats just how it goes sometimes, people will take different advancements and use them for their nefarious ends. Don't blame the science blame the people.


yep i get you but all i am really saying is, would evolution be pushed through as a good theory if it were not for the powers of the people behind the scenes pushing it to boost there racist claims.

i suppose we will not know that unless we lived at the time, but i was trying to make others consider there may have been other reasons why that theory came to light and was pushed hard.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 04:52 PM
link   
At first maybe, I don't know. But now there is a lot scientifically going for it. All it says is how life spread and changed over time not how it came into being. Nor does it say that any form of life is any better then any other.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
At first maybe, I don't know. But now there is a lot scientifically going for it. All it says is how life spread and changed over time not how it came into being. Nor does it say that any form of life is any better then any other.


yep i understand that it may be good to understand how animals developed, but the human equation is different do you not think.

i personally do not believe in evolution in terms of humans, i can understand theory being good for animals and the like.

also how has the theory changed since darwin first brought out his work, i believe that the original version is different from the version that we understand today, that darwins work was not a full answer in itself, was it not.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
I find it highly accurate, and it taught me a thing or two.

That says a lot more about you than it does about the strength of the argument.

Evolution as a theory is still being explored, and it has a few holes in it. But even if you were to throw the entire theory of evolution in the garbage, it still wouldn't prove God exists. One, because there is no God. And two, because some other unknown mechanism might be involved that also has nothing to do with God, or "intelligent design."

Face it. Our ancestors evolved from some fuzzy little primate living in the jungle. Personally, I like the idea. It's a little humbling.

[edit on 8-6-2006 by Enkidu]



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 05:26 PM
link   
Yes I do believe that refinements have been made to the ToE, as for not applying to humans, why not? All we are is apes with tools and a complex language. I do not see what is so special about us that makes us any better then any other creature.
You may wish to check out
www.onelife.com...
they seem to be a descent site with a out line of the evolution of human kind.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 05:30 PM
link   

This article details all the major misconceptions people have about the theory of evolution, in a rational, scientific tone.


Suprised to hear Nygdan liked this link, but I'll still use one of his lines anyway: What did you find most convincing about the page?



It dispells myths such as "People evolved from monkeys"


That's not a myth. Find us some/any (creationist or ID theorist) sources that claim, "people evolved from monkeys."



I find it highly accurate, and it taught me a thing or two.


What exactly did you find highly accurate or informative on that page? Which thing or two did it teach you? If you learned anything from that page you've got a long way to go re: ToE, creationism or ID. Suprising as one of our resident defenders of ToE and the scientific method who has challenged another member, who has a PhD in molecular-celluar biology, to a formal debate over the ToE. Maybe it's just me, but er yeah let me know how that works out for ya.



This shows that there is some obvious misinformation about evolution being spread by the ID/Creationist proponents.


It shows absolutely nothing of the sort, re: misinformation spread by ID and/or creationist proponents. You were honestly impressed with the info on this page?




it isn't there to prove anything, it's simply there to dispell some misconceptions people have about evolution


No. You put it in the context of, 'the lies that ID and creationist proponents spread.' You are correct that it proves nothing though.




mattison, if you want to be confrontational, i may just be willing to be throw down in the debate forum.


I got five on it.... put me in the front row. FYI you've run into an actual expert here, and as you've demonstrated here, you're still learning the basics. Tread softly young one.



also, sunmatrix, this isn't about faith, it's about showing mountains of evidence


Was it to inform the community of common (ie, grade school) misconceptions or to show us the "mountains of evidence?" Mattison is correct imo, there's no way this guy is a science professor....


Not as bad as the 'red rain destroys ID' argument, but close.


[edit on 8-6-2006 by Rren]
edit BTW Nygdan has a sticky thread at the top of this forum that covers this topic much better than our "scientist" did wis his Toe "myths" page(FWIW they're not "myths" either.)

[edit on 8-6-2006 by Rren]



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rren



It dispells myths such as "People evolved from monkeys"


That's not a myth. Find us some/any (creationist or ID theorist) sources that claim, "people evolved from monkeys."



Where on the page does it say that specifically ID/creationist make that claim? It's just giving the number uno misconception of the theory of evolution. In my history classe a couple months ago, the topic of evolution came up and someone said something like, "Yeah it says that people came from monkeys." I was really irritated by the pure ignorance in my class, even my teacher didn't know what the heck he was talking about.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agentdemon

Originally posted by Rren



It dispells myths such as "People evolved from monkeys"


That's not a myth. Find us some/any (creationist or ID theorist) sources that claim, "people evolved from monkeys."



Where on the page does it say that specifically ID/creationist make that claim? It's just giving the number uno misconception of the theory of evolution.


Well it's called the number one myth not misconception (which has a different connotation, no?), and madnessismysoul closed with the statement: "This shows that there is some obvious misinformation about evolution being spread by the ID/Creationist proponents." Where? How?

It showed nothing; a couple strawmen, a couple 'common mistakes' people on both sides make. One seriously flawed attempt to explain the "spontaneous generation" of DNA with no source/cite - a weak attempt to refute CSI (I think) with that "random" section of Pi. #'s 3, 4, 7, and 9 are just silly. 5 might be in that category to, at the very least, it's incomplete and not very informative. 6 wasn't backed up with anything other than 'cause I said so' and 10, as Mattison showed, is just all wrong. There's no way a science teacher wrote this...

This wasn't presented as 'common misconceptions of the ToE' by maddnessismysoul either, it was presented 'ToE myths spread by creationists.' It's BS sensationalism and the very rhetoric that makes this issue so polarized, imo.

Besides as I said (in edit) Nygdan already has this covered in the O&C sticky thread... I send this guy a copy of that to use as a guide for his next rant.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 10:55 PM
link   
The only person that I know of that makes the claim about evolution stating that we come from monkeys is this guy.
drdino.com...
read the site it's absolutely hilarious.
Peace
Mr Mx



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
The only person that I know of that makes the claim about evolution stating that we come from monkeys is this guy.
drdino.com...
read the site it's absolutely hilarious.
Peace
Mr Mx


Well much as I loathe ol' "Dr" Dino... he (actually it's John Hinton via his website) says on the page you linked re common ancestry:


Furthermore, as Ian Taylor has pointed out, many of our alleged ancestors, including monkeys...


Which is true, we do share a common ancestry. The rest is talking about whether the appendix is vestigal or not. That argument didn't make the 'myths' top ten...

Here's a good place to start if you're looking to understand what creationists (I'm an old-earther) actually argue re: common ancestry or the whole micro-vs-macro issue (it's not very technical and lays out the basics well imo.) Eg:


Human Descent
Modern molecular biology tells us that modern humans arose less than 100,000 years ago (confirmed by three independent techniques), and most likely, less than 50,000 years ago (37-46). This data ties in quite well with the fossil record. Sophisticated works of art first appear in the fossil record about 40,000-50,000 years ago (47) and evidence of religious expression appears only 25,000-50,000 years ago (48, 49). Such a recent origin date for modern humans precludes any possibility of any previous hominids being our ancestors, since Homo erectus died out 300,000 years ago, and Homo neandertalensis has been proven to be too genetically different from us to have been our ancestor (50). Where does this leave the evolutionists and their descent of man theory? Well, they can always fall back on their favorite line - "the fossil record is just incomplete." For more information read the paper, "Descent of Man Theory: Disproved by Molecular Biology."



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join