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.
Originally posted by dave420
Evolution happens. We have seen one species turn into a new species.
That is evolution - what do you mean by evolution, if not the standard definition used by the rest of the world?
the same argument could have been made for many of the beliefs of the 15th century, it hardly makes them correct. evolution is a good working model but i doubt it will still be in place in 200 years time.
The theory behind it, since its very inception, has not been overturned by any newly-discovered evidence, even the massive discovery of DNA. It is constantly being refined, making it more and more accurate.
If it was bunk, that wouldn't be possible - it would be thrown out and whatever had better evidence would supplant it as the de facto standard theory on where species come from.
You need to be convinced the theory of evolution is correct? Read the wikipedia article on it. Seriously. It cites all its sources, and is objective and rational. Read it. Learn something. Better yourself.
You admit you are ignorant, yet do nothing to fix it. You are embracing ignorance.
Originally posted by pieman
we haven't.
Originally posted by Good Wolf
reply to post by pieman
Show me this. I've not ever seen it this way. Evolution is taught in schools as fact because we know it happens, what is also taught as part of evolution is all the bits where it says "It is thought that" or "Scientists believe". Theories that are held by the scientific community will be taught, not as fact but as science.
Also, hate to point this out to ya but you have been ignorant. Not only did a few of us have to explain the different between theory and hypothesis but the whole scientific method.
Originally posted by Good Wolf
Originally posted by pieman
we haven't.
Yes we have. That's already been established. See pg1.
Originally posted by pieman
a single minded attempt to put forward only one perspective is anti-intellectual, not the attempt to promote creationism. not offering an alternative nor a quantification of the probability of a theory is anti-intellectual.
quantification of the probability of a theory is anti-intellectual
we see mutation through forced hybridisation and we assume evolution of animals through observation
i don't follow you, at all. what has this got to do with my point?
Originally posted by Good Wolf
Creationism has been put in it's place, it has been shown to be factually bankrupt. That's why it get's eviscerated when proponents makes threads like "Evolution proven false" and reason that thermodynamics disprove it. Such an exercise is not anti-intellectual, far from it.
I don't know why your hung up on this. We do not need quantification of anything period! The theory is accepted and taught not only because it is the best explanation for the diversity of life but because it is the sole theory on the diversity of life. That's it. No probabilities needed. None. But I fail to see how these academics are anti-intellectual. What definition are you going by, cos it isn't the one from wikipedia.
What the hell are you talking about?! Forced hybridization? What hybridization? Speciation doesn't involve any form of hybrids.
5.1.1.2 Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis)
Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was named P. kewensis. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous hybrids of P. verticillata and P. floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926.
Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse
i disagree, i believe the rise of creationism being taught in schools is because the lack of any other viable explanation offered by science creates a vacuum in which it is possible to propose that creationism be taught as an opposing view point to the hopelessly flawed theory of evolution.
the whole "you only say that because you don't understand it" argument has been used by the religious institutions for centuries. it's intellectually dishonest. i've been over this, the evidence is circumstantial, it can be variously interpreted.
Originally posted by FSBlueApocalypse
The theory of evolution is only hopelessly flawed to those who don't understand it.
when EVERY credible scientist says it happens, it does for a reason.
Originally posted by pieman
Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was named P. kewensis. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous hybrids of P. verticillata and P. floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926.
the reason is that it hasn't been seriously questioned for a couple of generations and because it is the best explanation we have to date. it doesn't mean it is the correct explanation or even a good explanation.
Originally posted by Good Wolf
Bacteria found in a dumpster that eats nylon, which technically could not have lived before the 30's.
i know it's good, as i said i find it compelling, but i'm not convinced. i question it. there is nothing wrong with pointing out, in school, that there are many flaws in the theory.
But it is a good explaination, best there has ever been. And it's accurate too.
Originally posted by pieman
it is still not strong enough to stand up on it's own, although nylon eating bacteria is a good one, i'ld prefer a half decent fosil record to be fair. and why don't crocodiles evolve anymore, at all apparantly. i find that odd
Originally posted by pieman
Originally posted by Good Wolf
Originally posted by pieman
we haven't.
Yes we have. That's already been established. See pg1.
no we haven't, we see mutation through forced hybridisation and we assume evolution of animals through observation, but we have not seen, to my knowledge, any evolution due to natural selection over generations.
all we actually have is conjecture and observations. thatt does not qualify in my book as seeing one species become another. it is no more evolution than genetic manipulation or cloning.
sorry for the double post.
[edit on 29/10/08 by pieman]
Originally posted by Venit
Go to a natural history museum, note shared characteristics between species, or gradual elimination of a characteristic over time by species. This, good sir, is evolution.