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: 2
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 07:44 AM
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?


Its mostly a behavior/cultural adaptation. It might represent evolution if they have a greater capacity for making such adaptations compared to other groups. For example if we send a American teen from a central heated shopping mall to Alaska and they spend the whole time on their Ipod instead of getting warm clothes and then perish. We could say evolution is taking place due to one group having a greater capacity to adapt to their changing environment. Though, I think we would need a wider population being affected to call it evolution instead of just stupidity in the teens case.




posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 07:50 AM
link   
I don't think this link is proof of evolution. If anything, its proof of micro-evolution with species, nothing else.

Evolution occurs when the building blocks of an animal change so drastically that it ceases being one animal, and in essence becomes another.

While this study or observation did should that the lizard is evolving, it in fact did not show that it had evolved.

Do I believe that evolution is possible? Yes, has it been shown? No.

I do think this observation though if justification and evidence that species can adapt and evolve. This being said, darwin has already proven this on the islands.

What I would like to see as proof, would have to involve a species that replicates quickly. Say for example an insect or a small mammal.

Lets take a coachroach for example. take a male and female coachroach, put them in an enclosure with plenty of food.

Next monitor there ofspring. Kill off all the small ones. Kill the parents, then repeat this cycle 1000 times or however times necessary to make it the size of a dog.

Next, take most of the food away, monitor the the roaches to see which ones show more inteligence, seperate them from the others, continue to monitor to verify. Once you have the Inteligent ones seperated, kill the others.

Change the atmosphere in the cage. increase carbon dioxide output, increase UV light exposure slowly. with every 10 -20 generations taking it up a small notch.

Decrease the temperature, increase methane intake.

Eventually get them to the point where they could theoretically not survive on Earth in our environment, make them to size of a dog, make it so they can tolerate incredible cold, with little food and do not require water.

Increase atmospheric pressure.

Congratulations, you just created a coachroach that not only can eat a small child, but is smart enough not to get caught, and is next to impossible to kill.

The increased atmospheric pressure should create harder exoskeleton, the reduced oxygen should modify matubilsm(SP), the amtoshere modification should create lung modifications. Both should create changes to color, as well as modifications of inner body organs.

Now then, compare the DNA of the new roach, to your standard roach. Is there more then a 3% change in the DNA? If yes, that is all the difference between a human and a monkey. If no, continue experiment until results are achieved.

I preferably would like to see if its possible to make it grow hair, maybe soften its foods to change the jaw structure, etc.

if you can get the changes to the DNA, you have a new species. If not, you have the same species, only a new type.

Cheers,

Camain



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shere Khaan
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]


People interpret the evidence according to what they want to believe!
Read this thread, and you'll see how true that is.
So no one forgets. I remind you. Mainstream science admits, they are
(obligated) to find only materialistic cause to life and the universe. (no creator allowed). Their patrons, ( the secular elite), have ordered it so.
So let us at ATS, "get real", and "deny ignorance".

[edit on 23-4-2008 by Howie47]



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Maybe I'm missing something?

This is in no way proof of evolution ... and I believe in evolution.

This is simply procreation.

If the lizards had reproduced to a more advanced state of being ... such as growing a tail that would fall off as a defense mechanism, or some other form of advancement that raised their status on the food chain, I might consider this article as proof of evolution.

But, this does nothing but present evidence that lizards can reproduce. At the most, it's proof of adaptation.

What am I missing?

[edit on 23-4-2008 by tyranny22]



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Lot of intelligent people on these boards! I have a question I've never had answered, maybe I can get input. Why does the theory of evolution need to be exclusive from the theory of intelligent design? Why do you have to choose a side? If there is an intelligant creator (IMO there is), why couldnt this force create the universe than leave nature to itself?



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by jsant25
 


You don't. That's what's so retarded about this discussion. Most people (Christians and otherwise) can surely recognise that God can quite easily explain the "why", and science can just as easily explain the "how". It seems only people who want to take a bronze-age social-guidance textbook literally who can't get over that point. Surely it's not beyond anyone's ability to say "God created the evolutionary processes".

reply to post by Howie47
 


The scientific method is obligated to find the truth. It answers to no-one. Anyone can get scientific funding, and anyone can give it. There are PLENTY of religious scientific institutions, so that blows your ridiculous argument clear out of the water.

Where do you get all this nonsense? Seriously, I'd love to know. It's fascinating how people can ignore independently-verified research without the slightest clue as to what's actually being discussed.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


Good point and thanks for the links!


Very interesting and didn't know about those bones!!

Edit: hit post too soon...

[edit on 23-4-2008 by Midav]



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by camain
While this study or observation did should that the lizard is evolving, it in fact did not show that it had evolved.


Can someone please explain to me how this sentence makes any sense at all?

It showed that it is evolving, but failed to show that it had evolved? If the subject began the process of evolving, then at any point after that, has it not evolved to a degree?

Now, why is that most people place such distance between "evolution" and "adaptation". If an adaptation is physical in nature, it is evolution. Generally speaking, evolution is simply the sum of multiple adaptations. You can't evolve without adapting, and you cant adapt without evolving.

I also want to give some props to the poster who asked why, when it comes to intelligent design and evolution, one must "pick a side". Thusly, I pose the same question.l



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by tyranny22
 


you're not missing anything tyranny. People commonly equate environmental adaptation with evolution. Nothing new has been proven by these lizards that hasn't already, by Darwin with his Galapagos Finches over 150 years ago . . .


[edit on 4/23/2008 by JPhish]



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 10:04 PM
link   
An interesting story and good thread.

I'm always amazed at how people don't believe in evolution? I mean its written on every outline of the 3-D world we reside in! How can anyone not notice how fast we are evolving?? Let me make this clear:

Three most basic things about reality:

1) We live in a place of causality.

2) We live in a place of evolution.

3) Donuts really do go good with coffee.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by jsant25 and others to be mentioned below...
There is nothing that prevents both intelligent design and evolution from being true. There is nothing that prevents religion and science from co-existing, save some closed-minded people who adamantly cling to their own beliefs. I think I should point out I am talking about those on both sides of the issue, or this could be misinterpreted easily.

Camain's post shows this. Although simplified (by necessity), his concept may indeed be valid. But it involves carefully controlled conditions, therefore intelligence.

reply to post by XyZeR

Religion is ALL theory, no facts.... so theory DOES exists outside of science.


Here, my friends, we have the reason the term 'theory' has come into common misuse. A theory requires some supporting scientific evidence, and therefore, since religion is by definition faith-based, there can be no scientific evidence. Therefore, no religious concepts can be accurately described as a theory.

Should you wish to use the word in such an incorrect manner, there is no law stopping you from doing so. However, should you attempt to redefine it through a misunderstood misuse of it, I will challenge you on this. As should anyone who wishes to further true science. Latin is used for one reason: it is a dead language and is not being perverted at every possible opportunity.

reply to post by Astyanax

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.


Oh, where to begin? Well, to return to the OP, the fact is that the lizards observed now have differing characteristics than those observed earlier. The theory is that these are descendants of the earlier observed lizards, and that the change occurred due to an evolutionary response to changes in their environment. I would assume that theory is true, as I cannot fathom another plausible explanation, but no one witnessed the event from beginning to end. That means it is still theory.

If evidence for evolution outweighs evidence against it, as you just stated, then it would follow that there would be some evidence against it. That in itself would prevent evolution from being a fact.

Please give me the names of the observers of evolution who have been at this for 'several billion years'. I would like to question them on their secret to longevity. (Not for the reasons you think, I would hate to mistakenly spend that much time on this planet listening to some of the people who populate it.)

And finally, you seem to be unable to treat the field of study known as 'evolution' from the many components of the field. This doesn't surprise me, as many people seem to have this problem. Which brings me to the point I really wanted to make here:

There are those who will discount anything they hear which has the label 'evolution' on it as anti-religion and therefore anti-God and therefore false by definition. This is simply not true, and is a ridiculous notion at best. Many theories which have been tossed aside throughout recorded history have still contributed in some way, and many have simply been found to be woefully incomplete. They still contained some truth.

Yet there are also those who will leap to their feet and scream any time someone questions the validity of a position they have been told is 'scientific'. This is just as ridiculous, since science itself is simply a search for truth, and operates on a continuous cycle of questioning the ideas put forward before. To be offended at the idea of questioning a scientific idea is to be as unscientific as the hermit who still thinks God is some old man sitting on a cloud with a white beard.

I said it in a previous post, and I repeat it here: Science is a search for knowledge. Religion is a search for wisdom. To have either without the other is to have nothing.

And to base a debate on the meaning of an incorrectly used word is... stupid.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 12:03 AM
link   
basically its broken down into two groups, 1 with faith 1 with no faith. the one with faith believes in intelligent design with proof that creation is the evidence. The other believes in "No God" with science to prove their existence. its like comparing apples to oranges. Its two totally different belief systems. Personally i believe in intelligent design, you have to be a fool to not think that this level of complexity is just thrown together, it is a fact that this level of complexity spanning billions of creatures on earth and billions of planets,suns,solar systems is a mathematical impossibility to all be here on a stroke of Good luck or Chance. But, the second we take our last breath, those that don't believe will step into the truth and realize they were wrong. I'd like to pose this question, what do you stand to lose by believing in God and Creation? The thing is christians have it made if they're wrong no biggy we don't lose anything if we're right we gain everything. Come join our side the grass is greener over here...



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


You're being pretty harsh.

It begs the question:

You got something better? Do you have any scientific evidence or proof of how we got here? If not, then what exactly are you doing?



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


It seems that theory and theology are pretty much the same. -ology meaning the study of. Theory as a root combined with ology = theology. Am I to understand from your previous posts about the word theory that theology is the scientific study of religion? It seems that most wikipedia and websters seem to say so. just wondering because your idea that a theory must be scientific in nature ( if that is what you are saying) means that science is also defining religions through its theories and studies, and to me that doesn't sound very spiritual in nature. I also am a believer in a balance of creationism and evolution it makes way more sense to me that they go hand in hand, because on their own they just don't make sense.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by XyZeR
 

I see I accidentally gave credit for the jigsaw-puzzle analogy to the wrong person. Sorry, XyZeR, and my apologies also to dave420.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


I would assume that theory is true, as I cannot fathom another plausible explanation, but no one witnessed the event from beginning to end. That means it is still theory.

Gosh, TheRedneck, is this really the very best you can do? I can't witness my own digestive processes from beginning to end -- does that mean they only exist in theory?


If evidence for evolution outweighs evidence against it, as you just stated, then it would follow that there would be some evidence against it. That in itself would prevent evolution from being a fact.

But I did not state it. Read my post again.

There is no evidence -- I repeat, no evidence -- against evolution.

Not.

One.

Shred.


Please give me the names of the observers of evolution who have been at this for 'several billion years'.

This is embarrassing, man. I really expected better from you. Do you really imagine that empirical observation of a process is somehow more trustworthy than inference from post hoc evidence? Even I wouldn't claim that, and I am a scientific materialist. Here, read some Hobbes.


To be offended at the idea of questioning a scientific idea is to be as unscientific as the hermit who still thinks God is some old man sitting on a cloud with a white beard.

I couldn't agree more. Is this part of your 'reply to post by Astyanax'? Do you imagine I am among the Legions of the Offended?


I said it in a previous post, and I repeat it here: Science is a search for knowledge. Religion is a search for wisdom.

Jay Gould's famous 'non-overlapping magisteria'. Well, I don't agree about the 'non-overlapping'. And religion is a very unreliable guide to wisdom.


And to base a debate on the meaning of an incorrectly used word is... stupid.

So, does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father and the Son, or from the Father through the Son? An empire broke asunder over this question.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Unit541
 



Originally posted by camain
While this study or observation did should that the lizard is evolving, it in fact did not show that it had evolved.


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Can someone please explain to me how this sentence makes any sense at all?

It showed that it is evolving, but failed to show that it had evolved? If the subject began the process of evolving, then at any point after that, has it not evolved to a degree?

Now, why is that most people place such distance between "evolution" and "adaptation". If an adaptation is physical in nature, it is evolution. Generally speaking, evolution is simply the sum of multiple adaptations. You can't evolve without adapting, and you cant adapt without evolving.

I also want to give some props to the poster who asked why, when it comes to intelligent design and evolution, one must "pick a side". Thusly, I pose the same question.l

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


First, thank you for responding to my post. Here is dictionary.com description of evolution.

XXXXXXXXXXXX

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
ev·o·lu·tion Audio Help /ˌɛvəˈluʃən or, especially Brit., ˌivə-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ev-uh-loo-shuhn or, especially Brit., ee-vuh-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

3. Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

—Synonyms 1. unfolding, change, progression, metamorphosis.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

for the most part when people think of evolution occurring within the context of biology, In my opinion, they are talking about things like birds from dinosaurs, or amphibian from reptile, etc. Basically, there talking about seeing the pre and post evolution of a species.

This being said I stick by my statement, slightly modified, it did show that the species was evolving through adaptation, and or mutation. Did it actually become a different species? In my opinion, no it did not.

As a stickler, I myself do not believe in the concept of evolution being a drastic change that occurs of a couple generations. I believe that evolution occurs through micro-evolution. Example being this, this species changing slowly over several generations.

In my opinion, do I think that evolution is occurring, yes, but has evolution occurred, evolution being the complete change of a species to another, no.

To answer someone elses question Inteligent design vs evolution. They are not exclusive of each other. It is a thoertical possibility that that is what happened, through evolution we changed to what we are, and "God" started it all, and manipulated us to what we are, and what the Earth is.

Another possibility is that there is no God, and that Evolution occurs as a natural consequence to the environment, and the creation of complex organisms.

A 3rd is that It doesn't exist, and all that you see if that there adaptations to the same species.

In my opinion the first 2 are statements of "truth" until proven otherwise. Meaning that the people who choose to believe them, believe them because of faith and therefore are zealot in what they choose to believe.

the 3rd, can't be disproven until you get a "human" from a "monkey". So it all comes down to belief, and the ability of a person to keep an open mind.

That in Science and Religion is what is most important.

Cheers,

Camain



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 

Yes, sublime, I guess I am being pretty harsh. I do have something better, but I can't prove it to you or anyone else. I won't even try.

But as to what I am doing here, I am trying to prevent something that I have seen creeping into our society for a long time. Not the anti-religious naysayers, they have been around since eternity. Not the scientists who ask for proof, they actually use logic and reasoning. I am talking about those who purport to love science when in fact they do not even understand the basis behind it. Science is becoming a religion, and a twisted one at that.

Ever read scifi? There is a long-running scenario of the advanced race who forgot how to repair their machines. We are coming into that scenario. We take theories and rather than examine them, we decry and demean anyione who dares do so as being 'unscientific'. We belittle anyone who wants to further understand Global Warming. We rant against any idea that might be seen to question any aspect of 'evolution', when in reality we know very little about the entire field of study.

Re-read the thread. I simply pointed out a baiting OP, and stated a theory as a theory. Immediately I was branded as, let's see, ignorant, religiously fanatical... need more proof of this contention?

I am not bitter as far as this thread goes, I am scared. Scared that we will forget as a society how to handle the knowledge we have gleaned since the Dark Ages, and therefore will enter a new Dark Ages. Then again, maybe that's why I have my library, so hopefully something will survive until the next Renaissance.

And maybe that's what it takes. Humanity has forgotten its past. Perhaps a revisit is in order. Que sera sera.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 

Hey, sublime, here's a very good example of what I was getting at in my response to you. Bear in mind while you read this, that I actually have no problem with most aspects of evolution being quite probably true:


I can't witness my own digestive processes from beginning to end -- does that mean they only exist in theory?

Apparently this is the best I can do, since you don't even seem to realize what a theory is. Just because something is a theory does not mean it is not true. It means it cannot be 100% proven beyond any shadow of any doubt.

The Big Bang theory is probably true, IMO. Yet it is still a theory because we did not witness it and there could be other explanations in the future.

Your digestion process is a theory if you are talking about the complete description of all chemical processes occurring throughout the process. We do not have the complete story yet If you are talking about the facts that 1) you eat food and 2) you excrete something we presently consider waste, that is observable and proven. And actually, with the advent of recent medical observation technology, the entire process is quite observable as well.


But I did not state it. Read my post again.

There is no evidence -- I repeat, no evidence -- against evolution.

I stand corrected. I did misread your post. My apologies.


Do you really imagine that empirical observation of a process is somehow more trustworthy than inference from post hoc evidence?

Yes, I do. Direct observation of phenomena is the most trustworthy method of study we have. Too bad it doesn't work in all cases. Sorry you disagree.


Do you imagine I am among the Legions of the Offended?

Yes I do. The tone of your post as well as the assumptions you have made about my beliefs would seem to me to bear that out.


Jay Gould's famous 'non-overlapping magisteria'. Well, I don't agree about the 'non-overlapping'. And religion is a very unreliable guide to wisdom.

I have to ask: is this another of your 'facts'? Or is it acceptable for another person to disagree?


So, does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father and the Son, or from the Father through the Son? An empire broke asunder over this question.

I believe that is the type of scenario I have just described as 'stupid'. Feel free to disagree with me.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


That's fine, but you came out guns blazing to the very first post. All it stated was that more proof towards evolution has come out.

You then, whether you admit or not, just wrote post based off of previous opinions and didn't bother actually looking into it.

Look, evolution doesn't mean there's not God. To a religious person, evolution would just be God's fingerprint. There's no need to get all uppity about science.


*Edited to add:

And I don't think you need to worry about that sci-fi book. Everyone can't fully understand all fields of science. It's not logical or possible.

[edit on 24-4-2008 by Sublime620]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join