It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by nj2day
reply to post by noobfun
hehe thanks for watching my back noob!
Those two posts going point by point his "objections" was one of the most tedious time consuming rebuttles I've ever done... LOL
Originally posted by benrl
How many here are Biologist? How many are research scientist? I ask because just as admittedly as a creationist defends his position so do many Evolutionist defend theirs, And by that I mean the entire strength of argument stands solely on "this is what I was taught" OR "this is what I was told"
hmmmm spell checker must have missed the word mine off the end of quote
I will quote an article here below
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. “….Billions and Billions of Demons, The New York Review, p. 31, January 9, 1997."
Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural.
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.
Lewontin “led off a session titled ‘The Mind of a Toolmaker’
by announcing that scientists know next to nothing about how humans got so smart. ‘We are missing the fossil record of human cognition,’ Lewontin said at the meeting. ‘So we make up stories’”
Within session: Mind of a Toolmaker
Title: Why We Know Nothing About the Evolution of Cognition
Authors: Richard C. Lewontin, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA
Abstract: Our lack of knowledge about the evolution of cognition is the result of: 1) our lack of any close living relatives among species; 2) the uncertainty of any reconstruction of our ancestral lines; 3) the complete lack of any fossil record of manifestations of cognition except from organisms that were already indubitably human; and 4) the confusion between homology and analogy of characters so that, for example, the vocalizations of primates are taken as homologous to human speech, where as the evidence from neuroanatomy is that they are merely analogs.
James Randerson, science correspondent for the United Kingdom’s Guardian, wrote an article titled “We Know Nothing About Brain Evolution” in which he, too, reported on Lewontin’s speech.
He is also not convinced that we can use current selective forces to infer what natural selection was doing to our ancestors. He used the example of the butterfly wing. The smallest wings provide no lift at all and so could not have been selected originally for flight. One idea is that they started off as structures to regulate body temperature and were later adapted by natural selection for lift. Maybe something like that happened for human brain size.
fratured that it happens? that is accounts for everything?
EVEN evolutionary science is a fractured one,
you only prove things in maths
Incomplete and missing much of what is needed to "prove" IT
Originally posted by benrl
Stephen Jay Gould, famous Harvard evolutionist said; “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches … in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed.”
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:
The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.
Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes tow [sic] features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I [sic] usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.
Evolution proceeds in two major modes. In the first, phyletic transformation, an entire population changes from one state to another. .... The second mode, speciation, replenishes the earth. New species branch off from a persisting parental stock.
Darwin, to be sure, acknowledged and discussed the process of speciation. But he cast his discussion of evolutionary change almost totally in the mold of phyletic transformation. In this context, the phenomenon of stasis and sudden appearance could hardly be attributed to anything but imperfection of the record; for if new species arise by transformation of entire ancestral populations, and if we almost never see the transformation (because species are essentially static through their range), then our record must be hopelessly incomplete.
Eldredge and I believe that speciation is responsible for almost all evolutionary change. Moreover, the way in which it occurs virtually guarantees that sudden appearance and stasis shall dominate the fossil record."
We proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium largely to provide a different explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record. Trends, we argued, cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages, but must arise from the different success of certain kinds of species. A trend, we argued, is more like climbing a flight of stairs (punctuated and stasis) than rolling up an inclined plane.
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled "Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax" states: "The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge…are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible."
(same source as above)
transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common—and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. The lower jaw of reptiles contains several bones, that of mammals only one. The non-mammalian jawbones are reduced, step by step, in mammalian ancestors until they become tiny nubbins located at the back of the jaw. The "hammer" and "anvil" bones of the mammalian ear are descendants of these nubbins. How could such a transition be accomplished? the creationists ask. Surely a bone is either entirely in the jaw or in the ear. Yet paleontologists have discovered two transitional lineages of therapsids (the so-called mammal-like reptiles) with a double jaw joint—one composed of the old quadrate and articular bones (soon to become the hammer and anvil), the other of the squamosal and dentary bones (as in modern mammals).
Originally posted by benrl
This what Michael Denton, PhD, an evolutionist said about The Disappointing Promise of Molecular Biology for the Theory of Evolution
It is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science - that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school". According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world - that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies."
Originally posted by benrl
A quote from Darwin himself, “the number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on Earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and strata full of such intermediate links?……….this perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory”.
so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory.The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.
In the first place, it should always be borne in mind what sort of intermediate forms must, on the theory, have formerly existed. I have found it difficult, when looking at any two species, to avoid picturing to myself forms DIRECTLY intermediate between them. But this is a wholly false view; we should always look for forms intermediate between each species and a common but unknown progenitor; and the progenitor will generally have differed in some respects from all its modified descendants. To give a simple illustration: the fantail and pouter pigeons are both descended from the rock-pigeon; if we possessed all the intermediate varieties which have ever existed, we should have an extremely close series between both and the rock-pigeon; but we should have no varieties directly intermediate between the fantail and pouter; none, for instance, combining a tail somewhat expanded with a crop somewhat enlarged, the characteristic features of these two breeds.
theres a lack of personal intergrity and honesty ... but thats nothing to do with evolution
lacking in many ways,
plenty but thats usually the job of religeon
How many men of science faced persecution for trying to change what was held as fact?
you most certainly havn't shut down that option but have embraced it whole heartedly but then started touting what you do not know and as what you think everyone does not know, and some how your i dont know has become the truth of what we all supposedly know
We must be careful not to become so sure of what we "know" that we shut down all chance that we really dont have a clue,
as I believe it was Einstein that said it best "it is not what we do not know that gets us in trouble, IT is that which we know for certain"
Originally posted by Daniem
HI there, i just couldnt stop reading your points after i began, it was just soo funny and ignorant that i was kinda flabagasted. I thought it was sad that someone acctually still thinks like this in 2009.
It just shows that if you dont know ANYTHING about a subject or subject, a human can REALY become creative and wildly imaginative when he tries to understand.
"Theory has now become irrefutebul fact"
The scientific definition of the word "theory" is different from the other sense of the word. "theory" can mean a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation that does not have to be based on facts or make testable predictions. In science, the meaning of theory is more rigorous: a theory must be based on observed facts and make testable predictions.
Fact is often used by scientists to refer to experimental data or objective verifiable observations. "Fact" is also used in a wider sense to mean any hypothesis for which there is overwhelming evidence.
=Evolution is a fact in the sense of it being overwhelmingly validated by the evidence.
Scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact.
In the study of biological species, the facts include fossils and measurements of these fossils. The location of a fossil is an example of a fact (using the scientific meaning of the word fact). In species that rapidly reproduce, for example fruit flies, the process of evolutionary change has been observed in the laboratory. The observation of fruit fly populations changing character is also an example of a fact. So evolution is a fact just as the observations of gravity are a fact.
Humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered. Theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain HOW life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.
if a person is ignorant, then educate them. if you cant, maybe because you cant answer their questions, then be quiet.
the problem is that most of the answers are not satisfactory.
for example. the op raised the question that if we evolved from monkeys, then why are monkeys still here.
obvious propaganda like the lucy statue
you observe a man who runs past you. he is wearing a suit. he has a case. based on these observations, you can theorize that he is late for a meeting. (scientific theory based on observed facts).