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.

 

More Proof That Evolution is Not a Theory

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Well reddit provided me with this. evolution in 30 years

Well this is an interesting study. I guess the only way to prove something is to do it.

let me guess god did it.





posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Oh, great find. *yawn* I could have told you there would be some evolutionary evidence in that instance. You have just proved that animals can change over time to adapt to their environments.

What you did not prove is 1) that evolution is the sole process for the proliferation of different forms of life on the planet, 2) that intelligence was not required to produce evolution (I assume the importers were a bit more intelligent than a rock), and 3) that God does not exist.

Nice bait though. Did you ever think that perhaps the lizards were originally created by God to be so perfect that they could adapt this way? Hmmmm, maybe you just proved God exists after all...

Sorry, still a theory. On both arguments.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


It's more than just a theory - it's a scientific theory.

And the masses of evidence you want to ignore is still out there, whether you agree with it or not (thanks due to the rigorous analysis of said evidence).

So please continue to embrace ignorance - if the weight of the scientific world can't convince you you're wrong, then so be it. But if that's the case, maybe you should stop using all the other things science was right about, lest you be branded a hypocrite. That includes computers and the internet, btw



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 12:46 PM
link   
It proves absolutely nothing since this isn't evolution at all. It's merely natural selection if that. The genes for this particular adaptation already were present in the lizards genome. If the lizards had turned into giant apes or developed feathers and flew off the island I might be more impressed.

All it shows is how incredible the self replicating machines we call life are. God's creation is truly amazing.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 01:30 PM
link   
According to the article in National Geographic, no one is saying if this is evolution (genetic) or plastic.


What could be debated, however, is how those changes are interpreted—whether or not they had a genetic basis and not a "plastic response to the environment," said Hendry, who was not associated with the study.

There's no dispute that major changes to the lizards' digestive tract occurred. "That kind of change is really dramatic," he added.

"All of this might be evolution," Hendry said. "The logical next step would be to confirm the genetic basis for these changes."

news.nationalgeographic.com...


Evolution is still a theory, even if there is a lot of evidence of such.

Those who don't believe that evolution is possible would argue that whatever adaptations have taken place, the lizards are still lizards.

For the hardcore non-believer, nothing less than seeing a monkey turn into a man will suffice.

Of course, that's not how evolution is purported to work, but there are those who can't get past that.

It's always better to cite the original material, rather than citing some blogger who has misinterpreted or twisted the original work.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by dave420

It's more than just a theory - it's a scientific theory.




Oh, good laugh! I needed that. Now I have to ask, a scientific theory as opposed to what? An unscientific one? Since when does theory even exist outside science?


So please continue to embrace ignorance


Let's try this real slow. I stated at the end of my post (that's the last part where I summarize the post. Summarize means to make a few statements that give the intent of the post, without the details that are in the other parts.):

Sorry, still a theory.


Having trouble with that remedial reading class again?

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 01:45 PM
link   
anyone with a few hours, a microscope, some antibiotics and a few dishes of bacteria can witness evolution as it happens.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Well, it's still a theory, although backed up with some pretty good evidence. If a better explanation comes along that explains the data, then it can still be thrown out or modified. I can't think of anything that might do that, but that's the way science works with theories. Everything is provisional.


P.S. - Hey, Grady, I didn't recall that you had this avatar. I'll go find another.


[edit on 22-4-2008 by Nohup]



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Jeez.

A scientific theory is an idea, based on observations, that can be used to predict outcomes and eventualities. It can be demonstrated false, and supported, by evidence. It can be changed, ammended, fixed, updated, destroyed, rebuilt, whatever. No-one can defend or destroy a scientific theory with anything other that scientific evidence.

A normal theory, is an idea. Full stop. Period. Nothing more. It can't be falsified, and it isn't based on observations, and it can't predict anything.

Guess which one evolution falls under, and which one creationism falls under.

Please try to understand that which you mock. Keep on embracin' that ignorance! You're doing a fine job.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 02:33 PM
link   
So if you take a native American and put him in Alaska, he puts on a fur coat and makes warm clothes...is that evolution?



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by dave420
Wow, that was a well-thought-out post (for you). You actually managed to make an argument. A very specious one, but an argument nonetheless. Perhaps I should learn to be thankful for small miracles.

From en.wikipedia.org... :

In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the theory of general relativity.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


You'll see the first words are clearly "in science". That is how I approach any debate based in whole or in part on scientific observation. Thusly, that was my meaning. Of course, to be thorough, Wiki goes on:

In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statements. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


So the usage you seem to favor, at least in reference to others beside yourself, is a common usage outside the realm of science. To be honest, I was not even aware that this 'common' usage was recognized. I have always considered it a simple error.

So if you really want to pick hairs over what I meant as opposed to what I said (or more appropriately, what you wanted me to have said), even in light of what I believe to be a history of scientific curiosity and research on this forum, go ahead. I have better things to do. Of course, since it apparently is a major highlight in your life to argue with me (sad really), I may peek back in from time to time just to give you a little joy in your drab existence.


Please try to understand that which you mock. Keep on embracin' that ignorance! You're doing a fine job.


I said I might brighten your day, not embrace you. Sorry.


And it's time to roll. Keep the argument going, dave420. I'm sure you can just fill in my part. You seem to be better at knowing what I say than I am anyway. Until tomorrow night,

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Equinox99
So if you take a native American and put him in Alaska, he puts on a fur coat and makes warm clothes...is that evolution?


No. But if a bunch of stone age folks from Asia migrate over the land bridge to Alaska, and it takes them long enough that they develop greater hand and forearm blood circulation than Caucasian types, that might be an indication of a little bit of evolution.

circ.ahajournals.org...

[edit on 22-4-2008 by Nohup]



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
For the hardcore non-believer, nothing less than seeing a monkey turn into a man will suffice.


And vice versa! Evolution theory is about macro adaptations right? In that not all things evolve in the sense that they necessarily "progress". Or am I confused on that?Cuz i've been watching for humans turning into monkeys! Considering the current state of things, it might be our better adaptation, I dunno


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title of the thread is misleading. Should be 'evidence' and not 'proof'. Proof = absolute certainty. Clearly it was evidence, and not proof.

[edit on 033030p://22u15 by Lucid Lunacy]



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 10:00 PM
link   
Intelligent design, thats how we got here. We are only an experiment.
wanna see an alien? Look in the mirror!!



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by thedangler
 


Always trying to sell Darwinism with evidence of micro evolution, (small changes within a kind). They have absolutely no evidence or science to back macro evolution, (change from one kind unto another) i.e. lizard to bird, fish to lizard, etc. It is all semantics, rhetorical and smoke and mirrors.
When will they finally realize only the true believers are gullible enough
to swallow that swill?!



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 11:12 PM
link   
Actully they have plenty of fossil evidence to show the process of speciation which leads to the differences you are talking about. Whether you accept that evidence leads to proof is up to you; however, it is exceedingly close-minded and ignorant of you to say there is no evidence at all.


[edit on 22-4-2008 by Shere Khaan]



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 05:53 AM
link   
Very interesting. The species did indeed evolve to adapt to its environment.

I think another point to look at is the height of humans. Some of the castles or old buildings I visited while I lived in Europe had small doors. It was explained to me that people in the past were generally shorter than they are now. Are people evolving as well?

If the point is valid or not, I am not sure. Just something I thought to throw out there.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 06:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Midav
 


Better evidence of humans evolving here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


As for Evolution. Of course it's a theory! For anyone to say otherwise is to show yourself to be rather foolish and ignorant
Now, whether the theory is correct of not is another matter. Certainly as new evidence comes to light, the theory will - like all scientific theories - change.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by dave420

It's more than just a theory - it's a scientific theory.




Oh, good laugh! I needed that. Now I have to ask, a scientific theory as opposed to what? An unscientific one? Since when does theory even exist outside science?

TheRedneck



To answer your incredible ignorant question: Religion is ALL theory, no facts.... so theory DOES exists outside of science.
You're argument is a farce ! Then again the whole concept of ID of creationism is ...

I said it before and i'll say it again :

I liken the debate to a jigsaw puzzle that does not have its picture on the box.
Science is trying to put it together, while religious dogma is looking over his shoulder.
Dogma feels strongly that the resulting picture will be a unicorn, while Science has speculated a hypothesis based on viewing the individual pieces that the picture is one of a bear.
The more Science puts it together, the more the puzzle begins to look like a bear.
Dogma begins to get more and more upset. "I don't know why you're bothering, it's obviously a unicorn!" he chortles.
Science shrugs, and continues assembling the pieces. The picture begins to look even more like a bear, until it's almost unmistakable.
Every once in a while, Science will have to correct an error and move a piece.
Religion shrieks with glee at this. "See?! You put that piece in the wrong place!
Your wishful thinking that it's a bear made you make a mistake!
Since you're wrong, I am therefore right, and the picture is of a unicorn!"

"But what about all the other pieces I did get right? Can't you see by the rest of them it's obviously a bear?" replies Science.
"You just don't want to admit it's a unicorn! Your arrogance is getting in the way!" screams Dogma lividly.
Science just shrugs, and continues with the puzzle.


To me "teaching" "creationism" in a classroom is like teaching nuclear physics in a church or mosque..It's idiotic and dangerous.

Just so you know: EVEN Gravity is a theory, Scientists have yet to witness or prove the existence of graviton-particles (the particles in an atom that give it it's gravity) , but they know they are there, they must be or gravity would not exists, yet they can't observe them. this is a Theory, just as the theory of Evolution is one.

Yet all you religious people see the word "Theory" and go insane with arguments like : it's just theory, it's not proven, so it's a load of bs"
Funny that you don't seem to imply nor request the same thoroughness of investigation when it comes to your own religion...it's wacky claims and paranormal events described in the bible.

There is a fundamental issue with how religious people define the word "Theory" it seems... Maybe we should first agree on that before we even start debating...

Next step: I foresee these same religious zealots rejecting the Theory of gravity, defy it by faith-power and float up to heaven... (if you can please do )



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 06:42 AM
link   
Hush, hush, sweet Reason

I think it is quite significant that these lizards (originally a single species) went from being herbivores to carnivores in a few (tens of?) generations. But in any event, we have many more spectacular examples of evolution in real time: viruses and bacteria that evolve into distinct species in weeks or less.

None of this will convince our believing friends because they don't want to be convinced. They demand that you show them a chimpanzee turning into a horse -- but if you produced such a marvel, they'd soon find a way to say, 'What do you mean? That's not evolution!'

Biological evolution isn't any kind of theory (sorry, dave420 -- and by the way, your jigsaw puzzle analogy is absolutely spot-on). Evolution is a fact, as well established from empirical evidence as any fact can be. Indeed, thanks to all this opposition from the godly, the amount of evidence presented for it far outweighs that put forward to support many other less 'controversial' scientific theories. We have seen evolution operating in time-frames from several billion years to (in the case of cellular automata) a few hours. Repeat, ad nauseum: evolution is a fact.

The theory, as Darwin explained at the very outself, is one of the origin of species through natural selection. Natural selection is the theory that purpotes to explain the fact of evolution.

It's a waste of breath trying to convince creationist types of this, just as it's a waste of breath trying to convince Osama bin Laden that suicide-bombing is wrong. In both cases -- though in a slightly different way -- Goya's maxim applies: El Sueño de la Razon Produce Monstruos.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join