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.

 

Question for all you evolutionists.

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by WeAreOne
You are right to question evolution. It shocks me at the stupidity of some people to accept a theory A THEORY (some one else's idea) about something which if anything has been more disproved in the last 100 or so years since Darwin proposed his IDEA (theory).


I think you have a cheek to call people who understand and accept the very simple and elegant theory of evolution stupid, when you ask questions like you do. They show a complete inability to understand evolution, and even what a theory is in science.

Why would we expect to find a human with half an arm? That's just silly. Why would evolution predict a half-armed human?



[edit on 2-9-2007 by melatonin]




posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by WeAreOne
To mark jaxson and any other like minded people who do not swallow the rubbish spoon fed to them through the lies that is education and schools e.g. why teach the theory of evolution as proven when it is quite clearly not?


point out any lies and point out why evolution is not proven, if you would.



You are right to question evolution. It shocks me at the stupidity of some people to accept a theory A THEORY (some one else's idea) about something which if anything has been more disproved in the last 100 or so years since Darwin proposed his IDEA (theory).


you show a general misunderstanding of science here.



He said himself that as the fossil record got more detailed over time (as in his time they were barely scratching the surface and didn’t have anywhere near the amount of fossils they have today) and more fossils were recovered/found it would add credibility to his THEORY. On the contrary it has done the opposite.


um... we've used evolutionary theory to predict many fossils that we've found... including one of (if not the) the first fish with the ability to traverse land.



Do not make the mistake of confusing adaptation for evolution (WE ADAPT TO CHANGES ONLY FOR SURIVIAL THEN REVERT BACK ONCE CONDITIONS IN THE ENVIROMENT RETURN TO A SO CALLED NORMAL STATE (this is one thing that has been proven). IT IS WRITTEN INTO US TO BE THE WAY WE ARE, SOMETHING CALLED D.N.A.) We react for survival then revert.


refrain from slamming on the CAPS, it doesn't help the argument.

nobody will argue that a person reacting to environmental conditions won't revert to genetically encoded trends...
evolution says that beneficial mutations are passed on, not non-genetic adaptations, you clearly don't understand this part of the theory.



Take X-men for example; they are supposed to represent humans who have gone into the SUPPOSED next stage of human evolution but what are they classed as Hmmmmmmm oh yes mutants. They are considered freaks (non-human/wrong); does this not tell you something?


yes, it tells us that stan lee and jack kirby weren't exactly paying attention in biology class or forgot anything they learned of evolution and that they were making commentaries on puberty and racism through the pages of comic books...



Originally posted by WeAreOne
1. Where are all the fossils showing half formed human's with half formed arms, fingers, legs etc etc (This does not apply to human's alone)?


evolution doesn't predict this..



2. Where are all the half formed ape's and half formed human's hanging out these days (I supposed they all turned into humans but then hang on why are there still apes around if they all turned into Human's; very muddy water indeed)?


again, half-forms aren't predict by evolution
and apes are still around because we share a common ancestry with them, no evolutionary biologist would say that humans evolved from chimps, orangutans, or gorillas.



3. Why in the billions of years of earths past has there never been another creature/animal to achieve our level of intelligence (to challenge our dominance of earth); are we supposed to believe in chance alone in this too?


because evolution moves towards survival, not intelligence... intelligence isn't necessary for survival. good example is the great white shark, dumb as a rock yet an efficient killer.



Lastly is it so difficult to believe in some higher form of intelligence or that something more than mere chance took a hand in our creation, earth's creation and even the universe.


well, when there is absolutely no evidence to support it.... YES.



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 08:22 PM
link   
This is something I wrote on the subject from another thread:


Evolution is NOT a form of adaption, it is a description of how adaption occurs. That is all, only a description.

There used to be other descriptions as well, most notibly the Lamarkian theory with held that if say you cut a female rats tail off at 2 inches, then her offspring would have 2 inch long tails as well. i.e we pass on aquired traits.

Lamark predated Darwin by 50 years, I think, and he was on to something but it was not the most accurate or elegant of theories. Darwin comes along and says instead that yes life forms (plants, animals and humans) pass on traits but incrementally based on their advantage to survival and reproduction. So if there is an avantage for a rat to have a shorter tail; then the rats with naturally shorter tails will have a better chance at survival and breeding. Consequently each generation will pass on genes for shorter and shorter tails until the most advantageous length is reached, and a new species of short tailed rats is born. And if at the same time the original long tailed rats survive you will eventually have two distinct species of rat.

To broaden the the analogy as it were look at the native human populations in both the Andies and the Himalyas thousands of miles apart. They share two distinct characterisitics that set them apart from their fellow humans, short squat frames and barrel chests. Such physical differences from your average human form are an adaption to life at high altitudes and little oxygen... the barrel chests are needed to grab as much oxygen from the thin air as possible and the short squat compact frames are needed so that the oxygen in their blood is utilized more effectively by having less distance to travel throughout the body.

These traits appeared over thousands of years, and they appeared because they are needed in order to survive at high altitudes. If these communities had remained separate from the rest of their fellow humans long enough (the longer the breeding cycle the slower the evolutionary process) they would have eventually become a separate species.

Then there are the water gypsies of the Bay of Bengal region. They have been living on their boats for centuries and already they have developed traits that help them survive on and in the water including the ability to see better underwater than your average humans, and the ability to hold their breath far far longer than average as well...

... this is how evolution works.

We humans use the evolutionary principles to our advantage all the time. We do not call what we do evolution but the principles are the same. Take what breeders have done to the domestic turkey for example. It's breast is so large that the animal cannot normally reproduce and has to be artifically inseminated. Why? Because we like white breast meat for thanksgiving. Those breeders chose birds with larger and larger breasts for breeding until we reached this travesty; one that could not reproduce in the wild. We adapted that species to get what we want. Fundamentally the same thing as the evolutionay process except that animals in the wild do not have to deal with marketing pressures. The same is true with most of our livestock and agricultural products. Wild corn is about the size of a small finger... look at it today. It is also another product that would not reproduce in the wild because it has been bred so that its kernals don't drop. Dogs are the ultimate example... from the wolf to the poodle was entirely done by the picking and chosing of traits we wanted to survive. Same thing as evolution except we chose what traits bred.

And so it goes.

Darwin never mentions God in his books nor does evolutionary theory try to disprove God, an impossiblity (either way) because that is not the focus of his work. Nor does he claim man evolved from apes; what he says is that at one point we shared a common ancestor from which both apes and humans evolved.

Look at it this way, which is more elegant, a God that goes POOF you're an ape... POOF you're a man... POOF you're a short tailed rat, all as if by magic; or a God that may set the parimeters but beyond that lets things unfold like the blossoming of a flower in oder to better enjoy the show?



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Thank you very much Mark.
It’s good to know there are some people out there with common sense enough to see past the lies/miss information fed to us by education.
I remember being at school and I realise now how much I accepted and believed what was taught to me simply because teachers/adults were supposed to be honest, right and only speak truth (especially teachers as they were supposed to be the educated ones passing on great knowledge) but now I know they are just ordinary people not been being able to teach the truths but the rubbish put together by our very governments; our so called curriculum or what ever it is where you hail from.

One positive is though that kid's are getting a lot smarter than the governments give credit for. I have spoken to a number of young kids in their teens (13/15) who have been taught about evolution and guess what..... They know its wrong or at least know better than to fully accept; which I think is awesome but I do feel pity for the supposed adults of the world who can’t see past this simple false teaching.
I would have loved to have seen the teachers face's when these young ones started to challenge them on evolution and asking question's that no teacher could supply the answer to.




Also where are all the fossils of these walking sea creatures we supposedly "evolved" from?
Markjaxson


Exactly; there is none not one bit. By rights there should countless amounts of fossil's supporting the different stages of evolution. There should be countless amounts of mutant human's and animals around us now, half formed limbs etc.
But guess what........ You got it; NONE.




So what are you saying? You believe e.t.s helped create us? Or God? It sounds like you trump evolution because it's just a theory, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER EXPLANATION OF WHY WE'RE HERE.
bigbert81


I was simply trying to open up people minds to other possibilities; what you believe is your choice; I posted here not to prove anything but to support the original thread poster and share my thoughts on the subject. I applaud anyone who is willing to go against the accepted social beliefs/ideas.
Think of it like the start of a journey i.e. if this is false then what else is (what other lies have we been told/taught)? And believe me we have been told some whoppers.

Like I said before all I ask is that people keep an open mind.
Good luck



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by WeAreOne
Exactly; there is none not one bit. By rights there should countless amounts of fossil's supporting the different stages of evolution.


There are. Many, many fossils support evolutionary theory. The problem is that you have a very poor understanding of what evolution is.

Schools teach it very poorly. So, I'm not surprised that kids also have a very poor understanding of it.


There should be countless amounts of mutant human's and animals around us now, half formed limbs etc.
But guess what........ You got it; NONE.


I was going to put in some really well researched response, but I decided it would be wasted on someone who thinks X-men comics are in any way related to evolutionary biology...

Put ze comics down and read a good book on evolutionary biology.



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by WeAreOne
 


you do a great job of ignoring all rebuttals to your points. please, participate in the discussion instead of just getting on your soapbox of ignorance towards scientific theory and preaching.



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 03:32 PM
link   
The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.
Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)


I have question????
if we are a species that is evolutionizing and "we are in gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better" then how can we state a deep reality (sciencetifically) which is limited too are understanding comprehension of our animal body? which is still not 100% made 10% or maybe 10000% and maybe our understanding and comprehension of deep reality is 100% made 10% or maybe 10000% and the value of our deep reality is 100% made 10% or maybe 10000% then the value of our deep reality is meaningless.....but what if this value transcends our understanding & comprehension????



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fables
but what if this value transcends our understanding & comprehension????


You seem to be arguing more from the notion that our knowledge is incomplete (very true) and that evolution will change that (can't see why it should).

As a species we can't observe many things, but we have developed methods to surpass our limited biological senses. For example, dogs can smell amazingly well compared to humans, but I don't see how having a dog's sense of smell will advance science considerably. Or having echo-location etc etc.

Evolution is solely related to surviving within the environment in which species find themselves. Thus, having a biological system that is an equivalent to the large hadron collider seems a bit of a stretch.



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
you do a great job of ignoring all rebuttals to your points. please, participate in the discussion instead of just getting on your soapbox of ignorance towards scientific theory and preaching.


I think the problem here is that we are expecting this dude to actually be open to a discussion. He's just come to tell people how stupid he thinks they are, and express his substantial scientific knowledge derived from X-men comics...

[edit on 3-9-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by markjaxson
I am an athiest but i do believe there is a God,supreme being who created us


We can never underestimate the stupidity of American youth.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join