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 Cannot be Proven

page: 12
2
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by SamuraiDrifter

Originally posted by BUYthepeopleFOREthepeople
Prove evolution.

Make something living from dead matter.


That. Is. Not. Evolution.

You do not understand evolutionary theory. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, only with its divergence from a common ancestor. Abiogenesis is a totally separate subject.

Science never claims to prove any theory, only to decide which of many possibilities is the most likely based on evidence. We can be reasonably sure of our theories, but are fully willing to alter them based on new, valid evidence.

I think it's pretty funny how creationists ignore evidence, demand proof, and provide neither to back up their own viewpoint.



Oh but autogenesis is the be all end all of this argument.
What your argument only holds water if we start in the middle? How weak a theory is that.


Only go back to the common ancestor, but don't go any further or it will fall apart....great logic there buddy.

Branching evolution and common descent says: "The scala naturae was a progression from lower to higher, and each lineage originated with a single cell (infusorian) believed to have originated BY SPONTANEOUS GENERATION."
I don't think YOU know your own theory..hit the books kid...open them, read them, and learn something.


Besides your the one with a theory....YOU PROVE IT!!! It's not up to me to prove your ideas. I just need to kick one of the legs out from under your postulate and it won't stand. That is called scientific scrutiny and if you don't like it maybe another thread would be more to your liking.


[edit on 26-9-2008 by BUYthepeopleFOREthepeople]

[edit on 26-9-2008 by BUYthepeopleFOREthepeople]




posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by BUYthepeopleFOREthepeople#
Oh but autogenesis is the be all end all of this argument.
What your argument only holds water if we start in the middle? How weak a theory is that




"autogenesis" was done by the talking donkey (Numbers 22:21-29 )

What?.. that doesn't make sense?

Which part? The talking Donkey part?

[edit on 26-9-2008 by kegs]



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by BUYthepeopleFOREthepeople
Show me one species evolving into another. (not a couple bones which someone says came from some other bones)

I'm sure people who's spent 12+ years studying paleontology (unlike you, who apparently haven't spent any time studying anything related to science) would love to hear their life's work degraded in such a manner.

And it's not "bones coming from other bones" as you so ignorantly put it. The evidence for evolution from the fossil record is intermediate forms. Apparently the full fossil records documenting the whole history of the evolution of several species is not good enough to convince you.


I hear it time and time again how diseases, bacteria and viruses are evolving to become drug resistant. WRONG. The ones that live are the ones that are ALREADY drug resistant. Your just thinning the heard not changing anything.

Amazing! You're partially understanding! Natural selection doesn't give organisms anything. It can only act on the variation already present in the population. What changes is the frequency of traits in the gene pool.


True evolution would require adding genes into the genetic code from an outside source. That can be done in a lab where a technician splices genes into the DNA strand to get something completely different like a glowing sheep. But that is not a natural process and thus not really evolution.

New traits are added and subtracted through a number of means such as mutation and sexual recombination. This creates the variation that natural selection acts on. Another argument from ignorance.


So yeah bring on your faulty science experiments, ignored rules, mislabeled terms, and wrong conclusions...I need a good laugh.

Maybe if you were educated enough to tell the difference between real science and pseudo-science, that would be possible.

[edit on 26-9-2008 by SamuraiDrifter]



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by BUYthepeopleFOREthepeople
"I could easily show you examples of evolution is lab studies"

But you won't. If it was that easy you would have posted them. Those studies will only reinforce the fact that what is called evolution is in fact survival of the fittest and or adaptation.

Show me one species evolving into another. (not a couple bones which someone says came from some other bones)


Fine. Since you're so lazy.


4b. Speciation has been observed.

This statement requires one to accept evidence as evidence, not simply ignore it or label it as something else. And of course the more you refute, the more reality you deny. Among the denied reality, one has to deny an un-disputed fossil record. Within, we find loads of speciation events for just about every species found.


TalkOrigins
1. New species have arisen in historical times. For example:

* A new species of mosquito, isolated in London's Underground, has speciated from Culex pipiens (Byrne and Nichols 1999; Nuttall 1998).

* Helacyton gartleri is the HeLa cell culture, which evolved from a human cervical carcinoma in 1951. The culture grows indefinitely and has become widespread (Van Valen and Maiorana 1991).

A similar event appears to have happened with dogs relatively recently. Sticker's sarcoma, or canine transmissible venereal tumor, is caused by an organism genetically independent from its hosts but derived from a wolf or dog tumor (Zimmer 2006; Murgia et al. 2006).

* Several new species of plants have arisen via polyploidy (when the chromosome count multiplies by two or more) (de Wet 1971). One example is Primula kewensis (Newton and Pellew 1929).

2. Incipient speciation, where two subspecies interbreed rarely or with only little success, is common. Here are just a few examples:

* Rhagoletis pomonella, the apple maggot fly, is undergoing sympatric speciation. Its native host in North America is Hawthorn (Crataegus spp.), but in the mid-1800s, a new population formed on introduced domestic apples (Malus pumila). The two races are kept partially isolated by natural selection (Filchak et al. 2000).
* The mosquito Anopheles gambiae shows incipient speciation between its populations in northwestern and southeastern Africa (Fanello et al. 2003; Lehmann et al. 2003).
* Silverside fish show incipient speciation between marine and estuarine populations (Beheregaray and Sunnucks 2001).

3. Ring species show the process of speciation in action. In ring species, the species is distributed more or less in a line, such as around the base of a mountain range. Each population is able to breed with its neighboring population, but the populations at the two ends are not able to interbreed. (In a true ring species, those two end populations are adjacent to each other, completing the ring.) Examples of ring species are

* the salamander Ensatina, with seven different subspecies on the west coast of the United States. They form a ring around California's central valley. At the south end, adjacent subspecies klauberi and eschscholtzi do not interbreed (Brown n.d.; Wake 1997).
* greenish warblers (Phylloscopus trochiloides), around the Himalayas. Their behavioral and genetic characteristics change gradually, starting from central Siberia, extending around the Himalayas, and back again, so two forms of the songbird coexist but do not interbreed in that part of their range (Irwin et al. 2001; Whitehouse 2001; Irwin et al. 2005).
* the deer mouse (Peromyces maniculatus), with over fifty subspecies in North America.
* many species of birds, including Parus major and P. minor, Halcyon chloris, Zosterops, Lalage, Pernis, the Larus argentatus group, and Phylloscopus trochiloides (Mayr 1942, 182-183).
* the American bee Hoplitis (Alcidamea) producta (Mayr 1963, 510).
* the subterranean mole rat, Spalax ehrenbergi (Nevo 1999).

4. Evidence of speciation occurs in the form of organisms that exist only in environments that did not exist a few hundreds or thousands of years ago. For example:
* In several Canadian lakes, which originated in the last 10,000 years following the last ice age, stickleback fish have diversified into separate species for shallow and deep water (Schilthuizen 2001, 146-151).
* Cichlids in Lake Malawi and Lake Victoria have diversified into hundreds of species. Parts of Lake Malawi which originated in the nineteenth century have species indigenous to those parts (Schilthuizen 2001, 166-176).
* A Mimulus species adapted for soils high in copper exists only on the tailings of a copper mine that did not exist before 1859 (Macnair 1989).

There is further evidence that speciation can be caused by infection with a symbiont. A Wolbachia bacterium infects and causes postmating reproductive isolation between the wasps Nasonia vitripennis and N. giraulti (Bordenstein and Werren 1997).

5. Some young-earth creationists claim that speciation is essential to explain Noah's ark. The ark was not roomy enough to carry and care for all species, so speciation is invoked to explain how the much fewer "kinds" aboard the ark became the diversity we see today. Also, some species have special needs that could not have been met during the flood (e.g., fish requiring fresh water). Creationists assume that they evolved from other, more tolerant organisms since the Flood. (Woodmorappe 1996)

read this thread


Each one of these arguments has been refuted by the very scientific community which he subscribed to. So if these arguments are proven wrong (which they have been) then his whole argument comes unraveled.


Right. Now you need to back up your words, ya putz.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by BUYthepeopleFOREthepeople
Besides your the one with a theory....YOU PROVE IT!!!


OK, let's see what a 'theory' in science really is...


In science a theory is 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. For the scientist, "theory" is not in any way an antonym of "fact". 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 general theory of relativity.


wiki.com

Now, admittedly, new information may come along and fine tune evolution, but it is 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." Creationism on the other hand....



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 12:32 AM
link   
I love it when they call it "just a theory"


A theory is the highest level anything can achieve in science.

All you are doing by saying "it's a theory" is pointing out to everyone you've never once opened a dictionary in your life.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by kegs
 


No kidding! I'd like to see him tackle the 'theory' of gravity!



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by BUYthepeopleFOREthepeople
Oh but autogenesis is the be all end all of this argument.
What your argument only holds water if we start in the middle? How weak a theory is that.


Only go back to the common ancestor, but don't go any further or it will fall apart....great logic there buddy.

The simple fact of it is that we are debating the truth of evolution, and not abiogenesis. That's a completely different scientific subject, but one that is indeed being worked on by people who aren't willing to accept the cop-out explanation "god did it."


Branching evolution and common descent says: "The scala naturae was a progression from lower to higher, and each lineage originated with a single cell (infusorian) believed to have originated BY SPONTANEOUS GENERATION."
I don't think YOU know your own theory..hit the books kid...open them, read them, and learn something.

Hahaha! You're taking that quotation out of context from the book "What Evolution Is." Let's look at that complete passage:


What Evolution Is
The scala naturae was a progression from lower to higher, and in Lamarck's presentation of evolution, each lineage originated with a (single cell) infusorian believed to have originated by spontaneous generation. In the course of evolution its descendants became ever more complex and more perfect. Indeed, all pre-Darwinian evolutionary schemes postulated essentially straight phyletic lineages. One of Darwin's major contributions was to have produced the first consistent theory of branching evolution.

Lamarck was a pre-Darwinian evolutionist whose views are now known to be incorrect. You just attributed the ideas of Lamarck to Darwin, which shows that you either purposely took the above quote out of context or have no understanding of even a popular science book.


Besides your the one with a theory....YOU PROVE IT!!! It's not up to me to prove your ideas. I just need to kick one of the legs out from under your postulate and it won't stand. That is called scientific scrutiny and if you don't like it maybe another thread would be more to your liking.

You could start by proving your ideas. Provide even a scrap of evidence that all species were independently created- that there's even a god at all.

[edit on 26-9-2008 by SamuraiDrifter]



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 12:52 AM
link   
I guess he couldn't stand the heat, so he got out of the kitchen!



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by kegs
I love it when they call it "just a theory"


A theory is the highest level anything can achieve in science.

All you are doing by saying "it's a theory" is pointing out to everyone you've never once opened a dictionary in your life.


Your right. I'm giving far to much weight to your argument by calling it a theory.

Get out your dictionary there kegs and friends and tell me what it says under "scientific method."

Must be Observable and Repeatable.....two things your unproven postulate can't do.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


because these wilfully ignorant people are like spiders. When you shine light on spiders, they crawl under something.

Evolution is just too much for them to handle.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by BUYthepeopleFOREthepeople
Get out your dictionary there kegs and friends and tell me what it says under "scientific method."

Must be Observable and Repeatable.....two things your unproven postulate can't do.


OK, kids, let's look at the definition of 'scientific method'....


The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.


Dictionary.com

Hmm... Don't see "Must be Observable and Repeatable" in there. Now maybe before you start spouting off unintelligently again, perhaps you should review what the Theory of Evolution is...

wiki.com



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Good Wolf
 


So you got mosquitoes that have have come from other mosquitoes as proof of evolution? BRAVO give this man(?) a Nobel Prize.
Oh wait they don't have an blatantly obvious category.

Your evidence of speciation does nothing to advance the claim of universal common ancestry. Speciation is fully compatible with the claim that multiple lineages were created independently and endowed with a degree of genetic adaptability.

Since evolutionists often insist that only sister groups can be identified, not actual ancestors, there is an additional level of speculation. One must prescribe the morphology of the hypothetical common ancestor and then quantify the degree to which it differs from the alleged descendant. One also must make assumptions about when the lineage in question split from the assumed ancestor and when the alleged descendant first arose.

Sorry you lose again.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by BUYthepeopleFOREthepeople

Originally posted by kegs
I love it when they call it "just a theory"


A theory is the highest level anything can achieve in science.

All you are doing by saying "it's a theory" is pointing out to everyone you've never once opened a dictionary in your life.


Your right. I'm giving far to much weight to your argument by calling it a theory.

Get out your dictionary there kegs and friends and tell me what it says under "scientific method."

Must be Observable and Repeatable.....two things your unproven postulate can't do.


So you are just like many, many others that don't even have the first idea what they're talking about. Here's your chocolate medal.


[edit on 26-9-2008 by kegs]



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


Your wrong.

Scientific method
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scientific method refers to bodies of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]

Although spank me vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure.


Gee your thick azzed glasses must be getting fogged up from all the frantic typing, cause I see OBSERVABLE and REPEATABLE....

You lose.

Oh and while your at it look up "ignorant"... its got your picture beside it.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by BUYthepeopleFOREthepeople
Sorry you lose again.

1) No, you're just continuing to show your fundamentalism and willful ignorance of the subject matter. (Evolution by natural selection has been observed under experimental conditions, which you have been shown and ignored).

2) Respond to my post. In your words "I need a good laugh."

[edit on 26-9-2008 by SamuraiDrifter]



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by BUYthepeopleFOREthepeople
Your evidence of speciation does nothing to advance the claim of universal common ancestry. Speciation is fully compatible with the claim that multiple lineages were created independently and endowed with a degree of genetic adaptability.


Well, since speciation is an integral part of evolution, that statement seems rather daft to use as an arguement against evolution, but let's look at the other 'point' you try to make in that statement, concerning common ancestry. You and I share 98% of our DNA with the clever chimpanzee. Now it seems to me that it would not require too much of that "degree of genetic adaptability" you talked about to get that measly 2% of difference. Hmm... I guess you said it best!


Sorry you lose again.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by BUYthepeopleFOREthepeople

 


Your wrong.

etc...




That's a capitulation right there.

[edit on 26-9-2008 by kegs]



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 01:55 AM
link   
"Gee your thick azzed glasses must be getting fogged up from all the frantic typing, cause I see OBSERVABLE and REPEATABLE....

You lose."


I'll have to work on that...



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by kegs

Originally posted by BUYthepeopleFOREthepeople

Originally posted by kegs
I love it when they call it "just a theory"


A theory is the highest level anything can achieve in science.

All you are doing by saying "it's a theory" is pointing out to everyone you've never once opened a dictionary in your life.


Your right. I'm giving far to much weight to your argument by calling it a theory.

Get out your dictionary there kegs and friends and tell me what it says under "scientific method."

Must be Observable and Repeatable.....two things your unproven postulate can't do.


So you are just like many, many others that don't even have the first idea what they're talking about. Here's your chocolate medal.


[edit on 26-9-2008 by kegs]



That's all you got kid?
Come on your the one who just got spanked *(see above).

You can't even use a reference book. (scientific method doesn't say "observable and repeatable" :lol




top topics



 
2
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join