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, It's only a theory

page: 10
65
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
reply to post by B.A.C.
 



Carbon dating is not observable in a lab either, nor are estimates about the age of the Earth and the universe


WHAT????

seriously.....get some education.

Carbon dating is well-established science, not EVEN theoritical!!!

Lots of established science out there, if you open your mind to it!!

Doppler....ever heard of him? Not only in sound, but light, did his work help to achieve better understanding of the Universe we live in. Doppler, and astronomy, came together to help guage the age of the Universe....look it up, if you dare!




You can't prove that a mummy is 3,000 years old unless you sit there and watch it for 3,000 years

Carbon dating is only "established" by people who depend on it

Wait, are you saying that carbon dating is only accurate to people who believe in carbon dating as accurate????
I'm a bit confused, please explain citing example if you claim carbon dating is inaccurate.
Thanks.



1. Nobody can even agree on the halflife of C-14
2. Nobody can agree on the proportion of carbon isotopes in the enviornment for a given time period
3. Proportion of carbon isotopes changes with altitude

Here's a link about a "freshly-killed" seal
www.talkorigins.org...


[edit on 2-3-2009 by vcwxvwligen]




posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   
well to be a scientific theory something has to be tested many times and be able to be observed or replicated. It goes through so much trails and stuff before scientist will even accept it. so that its just a theory isn't truly knowing what a scientific theory means.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by surrealist1978
reply to post by andre18
 

I work under the definition that to prove something implies it can never be wrong, which is different.
[edit on 2'3/2009 by surrealist1978]


I have the same definition of proof. As would pretty much everyone, except a scientist for some reason.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
reply to post by reasoner
 



This selection shifts the characterisitics of the population, and these shifts can eventually create new species.


Bingo, this is what i don't agree with. I never stated that some of the theory isn't correct.

Origin of the Species is what Darwin called it. I disagree with this part of his theory.

I agree animals can adapt, maybe even drastically, but I don't think they will EVER form a whole new species. Even if changes in DNA emerge as a result of that adaptation, they will always be the same species.



I have wondered this very same question... What do you think of metamorphosis? Evolution can take thousands to hundreds of thousands of years to occur. Perhaps we are observing evolution taking place right now! The process of metamorphosis might be that missing link! It could be that in another 1000 or so years the butterfly will no longer have to be a caterpillar. And what we in fact call “metamorphosis” is actually the process of evolution taking place.


[edit on 2-3-2009 by Beowolfs]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.


In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.




www.notjustatheory.com... - this link is broken

Just tried it, it works fine.




Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.

The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the talk.origins archives gives several additional examples.

Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.




www.talkorigins.org... - this isn't a scientific website. That's like me sending you to a creationist website.

Fine, disprove the science on the site. Notice how scientific papers and experiments are cited?




To say there are no transitional fossils is simply false. Paleontology has progressed a bit since Origin of Species was published, uncovering thousands of transitional fossils, by both the temporally restrictive and the less restrictive definitions. The fossil record is still spotty and always will be; erosion and the rarity of conditions favorable to fossilization make that inevitable. Also, transitions may occur in a small population, in a small area, and/or in a relatively short amount of time; when any of these conditions hold, the chances of finding the transitional fossils goes down. Still, there are still many instances where excellent sequences of transitional fossils exist. Some notable examples are the transitions from reptile to mammal, from land animal to early whale, and from early ape to human.


Here are the fine details about transitional fossils



www.talkorigins.org... - again show me scientists that say this, not people that say scientists say this. The whole website is designed to debunk anyone questioning evolution. Again, thats like me sending you to a creationist website.

Again there are links to scientific papers and if you don't want to believe this site, type in "transitional fossils" on google and you'll find the same info.



The answer to your question can be found here
with the following title
Observed Instances of Speciation



www.talkorigins.org... - same site again.

SO? If I found 50 different sites that say the same thing, you'll find fault wit them also. Find the same info at any other scientific site you like, it'll be the same. Also, notice the site has info about scientific papers???



Sorry too much info to post on the thread.

Hope this helps.

It didn't.

Yes that's obvious. You see no matter how much real, factual info I post, it won't matter to you because you refuse to believe REALITY as it interferes with your beliefs. Luckily your beliefs don't change reality



[edit on 2-3-2009 by jfj123]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by visible_villain
reply to post by jfj123
 


Then how do you explain that evolution is FACT back up by incredible amounts of science ?


Yes ... there's that s-word again ...

Maybe the best way to answer that is to point out what others, much smarter than I am, have already said -


Ashley, G.O. - Like other occult techniques of divination, the statistical method has a private jargon deliberately contrived to obscure its methods from non-practitioners.

Baudrillard, Jean - Like dreams, statistics are a form of wish fulfillment

Belloc, Hilarie – Before the curse of statistics fell upon mankind we lived a happy, innocent life, full of merriment and go, and informed by fairly good judgment.

Unknown – A statistician is a man who comes to the rescue of figures that cannot lie for themselves.
Unknown - There are three types of people in this world: Those who can count, and those who can't.
Unknown - Statistics can be made to prove anything - even the truth.
Unknown – A statistician carefully assembles facts and figures for others who carefully misinterpret them.
Unknown - Without data, all you are is just another person with an opinion.

Source : Dr. Richard A. Heiens




Explain how any of this disproves the fact of evolution?
Please show detailed science that disproves evolution.
Thanks.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Studenofhistory
reply to post by andre18
 

1) How did DNA manage to build a membrane around itself in order to develop into a fully functioning cell.
2) How did single cell organisms come together to form multi-cellular organisms?
3) How did early animals develop eyes, which even Darwin felt could not be explained by his theory
4) How did sea creatures survive long enough on land to evolve lungs, legs, etc.
5) How was the first 46 chromosome hominid able to successfully reproduce 46 chromosome offspring when all other apelike hominids in the area had 48 chromosomes? In order to understand this, look at mules. Mules are a cross between horses and donkeys. Horses have 64 chromosomes and donkeys have 62. Mules therefore have 63 and that is why mules can NOT breed more mules. The odd number of chromosomes prevents conception. So millions of years ago, when ape ancestors somehow(again no one is sure exactly how this happened) managed to produce one offspring who had 46 chromosomes instead of the 48 that all apes had and still have. Now maybe that one 46 chromosome hominid MIGHT be able to conceive offspring(who would have 47 chromosomes), but even if that's the case, those offspring would have the same problem conceiving the next generation just like mules do.
6) Why is it that Humans and apes are closer genetically than horses and zebras? Does that make any sense? Except for skin color, horses and zebra look almost identical to the casual untrained eye whereas the differences between humans and apes is grossly obvious.


Nice stuff.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Beowolfs

Originally posted by B.A.C.
reply to post by reasoner
 



This selection shifts the characterisitics of the population, and these shifts can eventually create new species.


Bingo, this is what i don't agree with. I never stated that some of the theory isn't correct.

Origin of the Species is what Darwin called it. I disagree with this part of his theory.

I agree animals can adapt, maybe even drastically, but I don't think they will EVER form a whole new species. Even if changes in DNA emerge as a result of that adaptation, they will always be the same species.



I have wondered this very same question... What do you think of metamorphosis? Evolution can take thousands to hundreds of thousands of years to occur. Perhaps we are observing evolution taking place right now! The process of metamorphosis might be that missing link! It could be that in another 1000 or so years the butterfly will no longer have to be a caterpillar. And what we in fact call “metamorphosis” is actually the process of evolution taking place.


[edit on 2-3-2009 by Beowolfs]


It occurs when a portion of the population gets seperated or something drastic occurs and the population is split, then evolution occurs differently to the two halves and they both form their own, new, seperate branches in the evolution tree.

[edit on 2/3/09 by Freaky]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Originally posted by Studenofhistory
reply to post by andre18
 

1) How did DNA manage to build a membrane around itself in order to develop into a fully functioning cell.
2) How did single cell organisms come together to form multi-cellular organisms?
3) How did early animals develop eyes, which even Darwin felt could not be explained by his theory
4) How did sea creatures survive long enough on land to evolve lungs, legs, etc.
5) How was the first 46 chromosome hominid able to successfully reproduce 46 chromosome offspring when all other apelike hominids in the area had 48 chromosomes? In order to understand this, look at mules. Mules are a cross between horses and donkeys. Horses have 64 chromosomes and donkeys have 62. Mules therefore have 63 and that is why mules can NOT breed more mules. The odd number of chromosomes prevents conception. So millions of years ago, when ape ancestors somehow(again no one is sure exactly how this happened) managed to produce one offspring who had 46 chromosomes instead of the 48 that all apes had and still have. Now maybe that one 46 chromosome hominid MIGHT be able to conceive offspring(who would have 47 chromosomes), but even if that's the case, those offspring would have the same problem conceiving the next generation just like mules do.
6) Why is it that Humans and apes are closer genetically than horses and zebras? Does that make any sense? Except for skin color, horses and zebra look almost identical to the casual untrained eye whereas the differences between humans and apes is grossly obvious.


Nice stuff.


We cant answer these questions, even if only for the moment, but this stuff doesnt disprove anything. As for number 3, can you provide a link or anything?



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Luckily your beliefs don't change reality


Neither do yours.

The evidence on transitional fossils is slim at best, definitely not conclusive.

Why are you getting so antagonistic? Have I offended you in some way?

If you could undeniably PROVE evolution, you'd have the Nobel Prize tomorrow, big guy. So don't pat yourself on the back just yet.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


The bible actually states that the universe was created 5000 years ago...bit silly.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Studenofhistory
6) Why is it that Humans and apes are closer genetically than horses and zebras? Does that make any sense? Except for skin color, horses and zebra look almost identical to the casual untrained eye whereas the differences between humans and apes is grossly obvious.



The science of genetics is still not absolute. Humans are genetically similar to rats and pigs as well.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Luckily your beliefs don't change reality



Neither do yours.

Luckily I don't rely on beliefs. I rely on proven science



The evidence on transitional fossils is slim at best, definitely not conclusive.

Wrong. There are literally thousands of examples of transitional fossils. Your failure to learn about them doesn't make them any less real.


Why are you getting so antagonistic? Have I offended you in some way?

Not at all.
Deny ignorance.


If you could undeniably PROVE evolution, you'd have the Nobel Prize tomorrow, big guy. So don't pat yourself on the back just yet.


The massive amounts of factual data show the theory of evolution is correct. There is no scientific evidence to suggest otherwise or someone would have won the nobel prize for disproving the mountains of data FOR evolution


Also, I would never pat myself on the back as it would be taking credit for all the hard work scientists have put forth to provide proof of evolution.

[edit on 2-3-2009 by jfj123]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Freaky
 


The point I was trying to make, is that you can't declare evolution to be a FACT when there are some many major unanswered questions.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Studenofhistory
reply to post by Freaky
 


The point I was trying to make, is that you can't declare evolution to be a FACT when there are some many major unanswered questions.


Yes, and so Evolution will always be a theory, because unless someone makes a time machine, we'll never know the answers to those questions.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by vcwxvwligen
 


I actually agree with you that the science of genetics is not absolute and therefore genetics can't be used to declare evolution to be a FACT. Theory yes, but a theory full of holes, mysteries and inconsistencies.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.

I've admitted I agree with some of it. Did you hear me? The biggest problem I have is with Origin of the Species, did you hear that?

You're saying there isn't a potential for error in the Theory of Evolution? Of course you're not. Well until there isn't the potential for error, I won't believe it all.


That's terrific, but your tepid acceptance of some pools of micro-evolution does not make you a reasoned arbiter of the whole branch of evolutionary science.

You are welcome to believe, or disbelieve in anything you like. However, broadly dismissing an entire field of scientific study because as an untrained non-participant, you feel there is a potential for error... that's going to get you ridiculed.

Asking for proof, then closing your eyes and denying it when it's presented to you simply makes you look bad.

Nobody here is forcing you to believe in anything. But your repeated, non-scientific denials go nowhere. For plenty of people around the world, the potential margin of error in the science behind evolution is perfectly reasonable and within acceptible limits. It's your stubborn insistence on denying the whole because you can't comprehend some of the parts that makes people here question your sanity and relative level of education.

Do you disbelieve in wireless communication because cell phones don't carry the full spectrum of the human voice? Would you refuse chemo because the future might find some magical fairy dust as a cure? Do you never drive because of the fatal potential for error on the road?

You offer no reasoned counter-arguments, and yet you expect your denials to be received with the same acceptance that a hundred years of scientific study have earned.

So again I ask... enlighten us. Since you disbelieve the Origin of Species so strongly, what answers do you provide? What is your counter-argument? Or can you offer nothing but nihilism?



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   
I'm sorry, but I disagree. Evolution has shown itself time and time again, and God's Work or whatever the hell you want to come up with is just another folk tale like Apollo and Zeus.

The God's idea worked for a while when we didn't have explanations, but now EVERYTHING can and has been explained by math and science, I just can't back the idea that the God's creationism works well enough...

Science is what gives us our weather predictions and satellites and gadgets and explains why cancer is always evolving, etc.

I mean if I wanted to back God, I'd like him to slay every person who has committed murder, but that doesn't happen. Or ask him why nice people die in car accidents, it's tragic.

Evolution is a fact. That's why vaccines always have to be redeveloped because strains of viruses and infections keep EVOLVING, the BEST ones that can fight off cures WINS.

God to me is Ignorance. Science and Math and Physics is the LAW.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 06:59 PM
link   
By the way, I just want to make it clear, that even though I'm arguing against evolution, I'm NOT a creationist and never have been. I have no problem with evolution being put forward as a working theory as long as both the general public and the experts are open-minded enough to recognize it's flaws and continue to search for a better theory. Unfortunately, evolution is being taught to the average person as if it's an unassailable and established fact and that simply is not valid.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Studenofhistory
reply to post by vcwxvwligen
 


I actually agree with you that the science of genetics is not absolute and therefore genetics can't be used to declare evolution to be a FACT. Theory yes, but a theory full of holes, mysteries and inconsistencies.


People please understand what a Scientific Theory is
Here's a definition

In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.

A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them.

www.notjustatheory.com...

Everyone who thinks along the lines of:
"well it's just a theory, read and memorize this or better yet, go back to page one and read the OP's opening.




top topics



 
65
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join