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.

 

Evolution is only a fact, not theory!

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 11:41 PM
link   
YOur def. looks good to me.




posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 06:56 AM
link   
From anonymous posts...


Posted by anon_95966 on 14-02-07 @ 03:49 PM

This anonymous post is in response to ATS thread: Evolution is only a fact, not theory!

Ludicris, if you believe, then it is so. If I do not, then it is not.
Evolution is nothing more than a theory.
And that is a fact.


I think this a common misconception, 'it's just a theory'.

Which actually, in science, means a self-consistent framework that is also consistent with all the evidence, produces predictions, and has never been falsified.

A major basis of science. Yet to some it's just mere guesswork, something you can just pull out your never-regions. Not so.



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
we haven't watched one species of finch turn into another species of finch.


Evolved into a different species would mean .. a finch line eventually turning into goldfish. That would be different species.


Originally posted by melatonin
From anonymous posts...


I cant' even look at those anon posts anymore. They are so lame. Many cowards post there. They can't handle a real discussion on threads.



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Wow...so much has happened since the last time I posted! Thanks for the replies everyone.

First thing I want to say is that we need to stay on topic. I never intended this thread to be an arguement between creationism and evolution. It was merely started to show how the everyday notion of what is a 'fact' and what is a 'theory' is different from how scientist use it. More often than not, I find people using science in their arguement, but don't use the proper scientific terms.


Funny guy. The only FACT here is that Evolution is a theory. Natural selection is a fact. But one species of animal evolving into a totally different species is NOT a known fact (yet).


Here is a perfect example.

Evolution is a theory - You are right here, no arguement.

Natural selection is a fact - WRONG, it is a scientific theory. It is the
mechanism by which the observation of animals changing occurs.

One species progressively changing into another is a scientific fact. See my horse reference earlier. There is now a species of horse, the modern Equus, that didn't exist a million years ago. There was however another species of horse that existed before it. That species further down the line no longe exists. What happened there? How did the new species of horse(modern equus) come into existence? Did it just appear out of nowhere? What happened to the one previous to it? Did it just disappear?

The point is, some observation has been made here. In this case, its the disappearence of one species and the emergence of another. That is the scientific fact! The theory of modern evolutionary synthesis then goes on to make an attempt to why and how this disappearence and emergence happened.

The scientific fact (observation) that a species of horse disappeared and another emerged is independent of what scientific theory tries to explain it. Even if creationism was true, the scientific fact that a horse species disappeared and another emerged is still there.

I don't know how I can be any more clear on this. I wish we had some credited scientist to clear this up for us.



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 11:00 AM
link   
>Evolution is happening and has been happening for millions of years. This is known to be true...

Most of the teeming masses would buy into this premise...

But the reality is we don't "know" any such thing.


Sure we have some data in some places that permits us to engage in some smallish intrapolations...

The plain truth of the matter is we don't have anywhere near the duration of cognizance (some, looking at the entirety of what is 'humanity', might argue we STILL haven't achieved 'cognizance'
), to engage in anything but the wildest of speculations (without ANY REAL support of fact).

The concept of evolution is AN ABSOLUTE JOKE... You might want to look at Cremos view of it (He is on the right track in an Edward Hooper sort of way... Read: Not trying to totally piss off his target 'colleagues') with regards to human evolution.

The problem with Cremos serving up of the 'facts' is he doesn't expand the sandbox enough to really be practicing in what is SUPPOSED to be 'science'. There is a huge (totally suppressed body of 'anamolous' evidence).

Cremo, my supposedly studied 'in the know' friend... Kudos to your J'accuse approach to the covering up of incompatible evidence in 'anthropology'...

Just one question...

WHERE are all of those 'giants'? I can't seem to find ANY reference to them in your charts.


The problem with science... is NO ONE really practices it... Especially 'scientists'!


To try an use 'science' as a basis for support for any of the arguments advanced in this thread... only provides some of us with the most amusing of parodies of what would be 'intelligence'.

Scientists sell the marketing glossy version of their vaunted intellects, totally looking down the collective noses at creationists... essentially mocking them as primitive, 'inside the box' thinkers... basically your hopelessly trapped in religious dogma...

The reality is that scientists, as is, is really only just the NEXT BOX over...
Do you really need to look ANY FARTHER than the 'Big Bang' and SETI.

It's just the priesthood of the white labcoat praying at the sacred temple of the PHD grant.




posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Seriously, why believe in a theory that's only held up to scientific and religious assaults since the time of Darwin? It's MUCH easier to explain how a big man in a 4th dimention just clapped his hands and everything just... appeared... because having to watch over a universe full on ungrateful life forms just happened to be the thing he needed to spice up his lonely existance...

As far as the Finches go, that is evolution. WE classify species based on subjective criteria. It's an artifical system that humans use so we can lump similar things in similar groups. In no way shape or form is changing to a new species a criteria for evolution. So when the finches in the Galpagos start changing physical form to suit the changes in the environment, what do you call that? You see the same development in humans. Look at African vs. European vs. Arctic populations. All can be traced through maternal mitocondrial DNA. These people all had common roots, and have ALL developed physical characteristics and adaptations that help them survive longer than people without them. Therefore havng a greater chance of passing that trait along to more offspring. This is evolution, adaptation, whatever you want to call it.

Now, if you CHOOSE not to believe that we've seen a species mutate or evolve, that's your own mistake. I choose to deny ignorance.



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 05:42 PM
link   
We have such a tough time with this topic because we are dealing with what people see as "truth." The truth can be unique to different individuals. What me and the person next to me see as truth can be different.

But, the truth is still the truth. We must strive to find that.

Oh, someone said I didn't present a theory, instead of evolution. Indirectly, I did.

What if the animals were placed here by an outside force? This doesn't have to be "the beginning of time" creation. But perhaps beings from somewhere else put animals here, and actually created the variety of animals we see? What if the bodies we inhabit as beings were manufactured? If so, were they manufactured somewhere else in the universe? And are there other humans somewhere else?

I no doubt will get spit on for my views, but this isn't about winning a popularity contest.

Troy



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 06:57 PM
link   
>Seriously, why believe in a theory that's only held up to scientific and religious assaults since the time of Darwin?

It hasn't.

The main point Cremo brings to bear (much to his credit
) is that 'scientists' in screening what info gets applied TOTALLY IGNORE ANY data which doesn't fit the premise.

It is exactly the same MO that gets used in ALL areas of human research... and it's the basic reason that 'science' is a defacto religion and NOT a methodology that contributes to our advancement as a species.



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Johnmike
we haven't watched one species of finch turn into another species of finch.


Evolved into a different species would mean .. a finch line eventually turning into goldfish. That would be different species.


that would ACTUALLY be a change past species
that would go past species
that's a change in class

kingdom
phylum
class
order
family
genus
species

linnaen taxonomy



Originally posted by melatonin
From anonymous posts...


I cant' even look at those anon posts anymore. They are so lame. Many cowards post there. They can't handle a real discussion on threads.

well, not all of them are cowards
some of them are simply people without enough time or interest to initiate a full discussion

but i tire of them as well

edit: spelling

[edit on 2/15/07 by madnessinmysoul]



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by cybertroy
What if the animals were placed here by an outside force? This doesn't have to be "the beginning of time" creation. But perhaps beings from somewhere else put animals here, and actually created the variety of animals we see? What if the bodies we inhabit as beings were manufactured? If so, were they manufactured somewhere else in the universe? And are there other humans somewhere else?

I no doubt will get spit on for my views, but this isn't about winning a popularity contest.


While I wouldn't call it 'spitting at you', I would like to question some of your ideas. The thing with your theory is that it lacks a testable base. How are we suppose to falsify that claim? How are we suppose to find the truth in it (as you mentioned earlier)? What's to stop me from beleiving a Flying Spaghetti Monster theory of creation.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by golemina
It hasn't.


Care to elaborate?


Originally posted by golemina
The main point Cremo brings to bear (much to his credit
) is that 'scientists' in screening what info gets applied TOTALLY IGNORE ANY data which doesn't fit the premise.

It is exactly the same MO that gets used in ALL areas of human research... and it's the basic reason that 'science' is a defacto religion and NOT a methodology that contributes to our advancement as a species.


Again, please elaborate with an example.

I just don't see how this is possible. It's not like all the scientists in the world meet every Wednesday at the local lab and discuss which data to throw out and which to keep. It just doesn't work like that. There are way too many independent researchers and scientists working on the same topic for this to be true. One would most certainly rat out another with knowledge of such an action. Many scientists are in competition with each other for grants, awards and recognition.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 10:14 AM
link   
melatonin


It's hard to have respect for someone who wields his lofty qualifications like he is and makes pretty basic errors. I did make my case. For monoculture and development of resistance, a 1952 article...

www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...


Thanks for the link. For what it's worth his credentials are legit and it may infact be you who is making the basic errors. I know I've seen this debated over at ARN and ISCID... several times. I'll see what I can dig up. I think ultimately moot because whether or not we use this as an example is irrelevant semantics. We choose to call this "evolution," ok, fine, we now have everyone agreeing that evolution is true. Nobody was really disagreeing over this. Creationists were just calling it adaption or micro not saying it doesn't happen. :shrug: Maybe I'm missing something.



I have a similar sort of respect for the likes of Jonathan Wells.


I would imagine you do. I like him, but I'm sure you'd of guessed that aswell.




Aye, I was sort of agreeing with you. I think universal common descent is essentially a theory, however, descent and modification is a fact. The further in the past we go, the more we descend into more speculative status. Thus I do think it is a fact we descended from a proto-ape ancestor.


Well the only other option (ie, nobody's arguing we evolved just not from primates) is created ex nihilio or *poof* "theory." Which is a negative argument not, and never could be true theory. In that sense [special] creationism is not scientific. With all that being said, I'm a, um... poofist*. Only atheists (correct me if I'm wrong) hold that all truths are scientific ones... the rest of us have more tools at our disposal (philosophy, theology and Divine revelation).

*The terms "poof theory" and "poofist;" further "poofology," were invented, just now I believe, by Rren. Any unauthorized and unacreditted usage of said terms will result in an all out assault by my, as of yet unretained and un-named, yet wholly vicious, legal team* ~Rren



Gould basically defines 'fact' as a scientific fact - well supported (rather than 100% truth). The definitive theory here is Darwinian mechanisms (not ignoring non-darwinian mechanisms of course).


Atheist/materialist philosophy does not equal scientific methodology... still say I got the high ground here. Gould's opinion, whom/which I really do respect - and would, were he still with us, wipe the floor with my candy ass - aside. I could also quote some heavyweights who would disagree. Arguments from authority only work for us layman
That's why I asked for your opinion doc.



It's really just another area that can complicate things, just a semantic issue (which is why I wanted to see where this thread was headed).


Seems we do agree after all.






Well, doctor of philosophy, or just a lab workhorse, depends on your viewpoint, heheh. I tend to be stuck in my own little area of research.


Ok I see what you mean. Is it not true however that any PhD (regardless of field) is qualified [expert?] in the philosophy of science? Technically speaking of course, I'm sure some are better/more informed than others based on what they do day to day as a scientist.



I do respect you Rren. You have a good way about you, you are intellectually honest.


Eh, it's easy when you' re [meaning me] not all that intellectual.



cognoscente


You can't be serious on this. We have seen Galapagos Finch populations evolve into incredibly different species for over a period of twenty years now, as a measure of adaptation to changing environmental conditions


In the context of the debate between special creation and "evolution" it's irrelevant imo. Infact I could use the Finch data to argue that natural selection is a conservative process.

To wit and off topic: Mattison0922's ATS blog - Darwin's finches.

Based on the long term data it appears that mean beak size fluctuates about 5% in either direction. In other words, it appears that the 5% fluctuations either way are the ‘noise’ in the data that fluctuates about the mean. No real change has been observed, simply a shifting in the numbers of pre-existing genes for varying beak sizes. The most noteworthy thing in my own mind is that the beak size, no matter what the selective pressure appears to fluctuate about a mean, and not change.


A good summation of the argument imo, which includes the most recent data [note: mattison0922 is not a creationist]. This isn't the place [thread] to debate this specifically I know, but it goes to the idea that extrapolation and, inferences drawn from the emperical data do not equal "fact," moreso when the only data is a fossil[s] imho.


*for purposes of this thread all opinions of Rren can be construed as fact*

Thank you and have a nice day.

~Rren and his theoretical legal team.

*exits stage lef... oops stage right*

(edit) your to you 're and took the extra "u" outta usage...


[edit on 16-2-2007 by Rren]

[edit on 16-2-2007 by Rren]



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Normally... No.


You simply can not force people to think... People will think if and when THEY are ready.

>I just don't see how this is possible. It's not like all the scientists in the world meet every Wednesday at the local lab and discuss which data to throw out and which to keep. It just doesn't work like that. There are way too many independent researchers and scientists working on the same topic for this to be true. One would most certainly rat out another with knowledge of such an action. Many scientists are in competition with each other for grants, awards and recognition.

Look! You just dismissed (read: TOTALLY IGNOREd)... because...

"I just don't see how this is possible."

the entire premise being considered in my posts.

See how that works?

And thanks for providing the very demonstration you requested.


Truth is... you can't swing a dead cat without hitting some example (in ALL fields of research) of exactly how the data is made to fit the preconcieved notion... IRREGARDLESS of the facts.

For anyone with an inquiring mind... just check out Forbidden Archaeology... vis-a-vis 'human evolution'.

If you want to check out a thread touching on the 'anomalous'...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Or science as a religion...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

(You might catch some of my comments
).

Science is basically a house of cards built on a pancake foundation. To bring it down, one only needs to pull out any one of those hairs sticking out of the pancake.



[edit on 16-2-2007 by golemina]



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by golemina
Look! You just dismissed (read: TOTALLY IGNOREd)... because...
"I just don't see how this is possible."
the entire premise being considered in my posts.
See how that works?
And thanks for providing the very demonstration you requested.

Truth is... you can't swing a dead cat without hitting some example (in ALL fields of research) of exactly how the data is made to fit the preconcieved notion... IRREGARDLESS of the facts.
Science is basically a house of cards built on a pancake foundation. To bring it down, one only needs to pull out any one of those hairs sticking out of the pancake.
[edit on 16-2-2007 by golemina]


I don't understand what you are trying to convince me of here. Are you trying to convince me I am arguing in the same manner as you, which is wrong, or that my view on science is wrong?

When I say, 'I just don't see how its possible', I go on to explain why. But you somehow forgot to mention that.

Of course there are some bad apples in the mix, but overall most scientists are honest about their work. Its their passion and their ass on the line ultimately.

Just because a few hoaxes and scientific blunders have occurred doesn't mean there is a conspiracy among scientists to pick and choose data. Most papers are peer reviewed, at least the legitemate ones, and are very hard to misrepresent. Like I said before, scientists don't often meet to discuss which data to throw out and which to keep. If anything, they meet to discuss which theory to throw out or keep.



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 11:00 AM
link   
NOT to mention a vicious circle.


People (and 'scientists'
) say something along of the lines of "it's not possible" and 'evidence' is NOT even looked at... MUCH LESS considered.

Makes for a rather short discussion... And study.

The truth is totally staring you in the face... Your eyes physically see it... It just never cracks the threshold of being noticed, recorded, analyzed, etc. etc.

To folks with that reality context... It JUST DOESN'T EXIST.

My example simply highlights that point. You've dismissed what I brought to you. Have no inclination to actual consider it.

You are somehow working under a flawed assumption that it's even a conscious thought process.

I would go so far as to say you have absolutely NO IDEA what I'm talking about.


There are simply endless examples...

I said:
>Truth is... you can't swing a dead cat without hitting some example (in ALL fields of research) of exactly how the data is made to fit the preconcieved notion... IRREGARDLESS of the facts.

How about an example?


I have the rare pleasure of working with autistic children. I've noticed that these kinds tend to run acid (PH) and that a lot of these kids problems seem to settle in and be related to disfunctional digestive symptoms. One of the most effective adjustments that can be made in their diets is to increase their calcium intake.

Solves an awful lot of stuff. (short version
)

I've shared this remarkable information with LOTS of MD types. (I've had a couple of medical discussions here
).

Their response... Is always something along the lines of "that's not possible". And that winds up being pretty much the end of the discussion.

Kind of a bummer... when you consider MOST degenerative diseases have a component of the afflicted person having a more acid PH.

So the mechanics of the thought process are not along the lines of...

>'Like I said before, scientists don't often meet to discuss which data to throw out and which to keep. If anything, they meet to discuss which 'theory to throw out or keep.'

but more along the lines of most of the MD 'professionals' are bought and sold for by Big Pharma (Which IS a conspiracy)... they are basically so brainwashed that their culture (read: reality context) refuses to deal with anything that doesn't use their 'disease' model (and it's golden bullet corollary
).

They are simply incapable of understanding what is being said to them. (Psst! They think people like me are basically NUTS!
)

Anyhow that's one infinitesmal example of why science is in actuality 'science'...

Did you check out anything I recommended?


[edit on 17-2-2007 by golemina]

[edit on 17-2-2007 by golemina]



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Ludacris,

Where do ghosts, OOBEs, shadow people, telepathy, etc. fit into your reality of the world? Do you think people just sit around and make this stuff up? This is the stuff of life that doesn't fit within the confines of evolution.

Again, I'm not saying evolution cannot happen. I don't care one way or the other.

But I am saying that there are a lot of things that I think you are potentially overlooking. It's like you have a set of blinders on, refusing to look at other phenomena.

Troy

[edit on 17-2-2007 by cybertroy]



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by golemina when you
but more along the lines of most of the MD 'professionals' are bought and sold for by Big Pharma (Which IS a conspiracy)... they are basically so brainwashed that their culture (read: reality context) refuses to deal with anything that doesn't use their 'disease' model (and it's golden bullet corollary
).

Anyhow that's one infinitesmal example of why science is in actuality 'science'...


The topic thread is regarding the definition of "fact" and "theory". Are you trying to say Big Pharma are defining these terms in a way that they can manipulate to serve whatever agenda they may have?




Ludacris,
Where do ghosts, OOBEs, shadow people, telepathy, etc. fit into your reality of the world? Do you think people just sit around and make this stuff up? This is the stuff of life that doesn't fit within the confines of evolution.

Again, I'm not saying evolution cannot happen. I don't care one way or the other.

But I am saying that there are a lot of things that I think you are potentially overlooking. It's like you have a set of blinders on, refusing to look at other phenomena.
Troy


Evolution explains nothing but the change in species over time. I don't try and use it for other phenomenon. It's not that I am overlooking, but rather using other theories to explain UFO's, OOBE's etc, etc. I believe evolution isn't adequate to explain these examples.



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Ok, fair enough. Thanks Ludacris.


Troy



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Exactly. Evolution is theory, that attempts to illustrate how we came to be after the Big Bang occurred.

How did billions of years and constant change shape living organisms today? We explain this by starting at the smallest living cell and then guess how it moved up, then guess the next step and the next step, until we illustrate the idea by a clever 'transforming' method. If a fish-like creature had legs, but swam in the sea - it 'has' to make the next step to lizard otherwise Evolution is flawed. So, lets say that during this time period, the ice age turned a peninsula into lake, the fish was forced to walk on land to survive and time shaped the lizard.
- The problem with this is, there is no evidence to support these circumstances that justified a creatures next step up. Its agenda driven guess work.

Its because of this air tight fact of common sense, that Evolution will remain a theory and never be regarded as solid scientific fact.

But thats not to say i think Evolution is false. I believe that Evolution is probable and without going into details, is a likely reason for life as we know it.

But explain this..
Everything started at the point of the Big Bang. with its release, came light, energy, matter, time, gravity etc.

But where did the backbone of this orchestra originate? The origins of these things we perceive is the most difficult to answer. String theory? Tiny strings of energy/electricity? Ok, so we assume that this is God then? The Origin of these things cant be explained by our means of observation.
If not God, then we make the assumption that the universe is governed by a constant of strings. Thats fine, but we don't ignore anything past this point? So if the universe is defined by a consistent backbone (strings), then where did they come from? This constant singularity is everything and everything, yet we cant explain the root origin.

I don't follow religion, i don't ignore evolution and science for my own bliss. But in all logic, the origin of that which defines everything else (energy, space, time etc.) is traced no further and is God, in the sense that God was everything before the universe was created and is everything now. And God is not an powerful, invisible man or entity, but simply the source and origin.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by sharplaya77
The problem with this is, there is no evidence to support these circumstances that justified a creatures next step up. Its agenda driven guess work.

Its because of this air tight fact of common sense, that Evolution will remain a theory and never be regarded as solid scientific fact.


Again, like I've said before, science is NOT gueswork. There is no agenda, other than looking for a framework to explain species change over time.

You are a perfect example of how terms get misrepresented by the general public unless your are a scientist, in which case you'd be a very incompetent one. You are right about evolution always remaining a theory. It will never change from that unless it is disproven, which it so far hasn't. A theory never becomes fact!

I NEED TO STRESS THIS POINT! THEORY NEVER BECOMES FACT! THEORIES ARE BASED ON SCIENTIFIC FACT!



But explain this..
Everything started at the point of the Big Bang. with its release, came light, energy, matter, time, gravity etc.


I really have no answer to this question, but I know evolution isn't adequate to explain it, which is what this thread is about. Please stay on topic as there are plenty of other threads which delve into that matter.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join