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: 14
65
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masterjaden
mainstream science is religious in that it is dogmatic and ignores any thought or evidence that contradicts it.



Jaden


How can you say that science "ignores any thought or evidence that contradicts it"? Science is thought and evidence. The purpose of science is the search for certainty in an uncertain world. This process clearly involves "thought" and "evidence."

Dogma is defined as;
-characterized by assertion of unproved or unprovable principles
- of or pertaining to or characteristic of a doctrine or code of beliefs accepted as authoritative

The first characteristic of this definition clearly does not apply to science as many of its aspect are provable. The second characteristic is however is a bit tricky. Though iscience at first seems to adhere to this definition (as there are definitely doctrines and codes of beliefs accepted as authoritative), there exists one big difference between science and dogmatic religion. The difference is that this doctrine or code of beliefs can, in the light of enough evidence, change completely. This differs greatly from the belief structure of dogmatic religion.

[edit on 2-3-2009 by BluegrassRevolutionary]




posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:20 PM
link   

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


I wouldn't say you fall into the category of religous nut.
I'd say you are startlingly uneducated in the field of evolution and genetics, but not a nut.

So I basically HAD to respond to your post. Way too many misconceptions, and false statements.

1) Evolution is not observable... okay this is a rediculous statement.
So are you saying that Mendel's super basic experiments with peas is not repeatable or testable in lab??? Ive done it my self, in elementary school.

I think your problem is your grouping evolution into a single event.
Evolution basically is the product of multiple factors interacting, it can happen slowly, or quickly, or seemingly not at all. The horseshoe has changed little in 445 Million years (compared to fossil relatives).

2) Before you can understand the concept of evolution, or even debate it you have to know the factors which are the basis for evolution. Heres a short list of things you should go look up.

Heredity
Genetic Mutation
Genetic Drift
Genetic Recombination
Selection
Genotype
Phenotype
Speciation
Environmental Niches

All scientifically proven (proven in a sense that multiple repeated experiments were conducted and concluded similiar results)

And others. Go read up on the NUMEROUS studies based on these topics.

3) As for missing links. Or TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS as they are known.
Look up, Coelcanthiformes, and Lungfish.
Or if the transitions to tetrapods bores you
maybe you research a little about

(grabbed quickly off wikipedia, your best friend)

# Homo habilis†
# Homo rudolfensis†
# Homo ergaster†
# Homo georgicus†
# Homo erectus†
# Homo cepranensis†
# Homo antecessor†
# Homo heidelbergensis†
# Homo rhodesiensis†
# Homo neanderthalensis†
# Homo sapiens
lastly Homo sapien sapiens (Me and hopefully you too)

Evolution, or what you are referring to as Evolution which is actually *SPECIATION*

Mutations have taken place over time, from our African ancestors we have definately changed over time, genetic mutation, and lack of gene flow in between populations, would explain many of the 'races' we see.

Evolution can happen relatively quickly but by no means is it something that happens regularly. 1000 years is nothing in evolutionary time.


This is the only time I will respond to one of these posts. As i have yet to find someone who has actually researched the topic in depth, or even had a basic understanding of evolution before attempting to debate against it.
And im sorry to say, based on your post. You need to study these topics, and actually have a grasp on the concept.


Your very first point about Mendel's experiments explain my point exactly.



Mendel's experimental results have later been the object of considerable dispute.[6][5] Fisher analyzed the results of the F2 (second filial) ratio and found them to be implausibly close to the exact ratio of 3 to 1.[7] Only a few would accuse Mendel of scientific malpractice or call it a scientific fraud — reproduction of his experiments has demonstrated the validity of his hypothesis — however, the results have continued to be a mystery for many, though it is often cited as an example of confirmation bias.

en.wikipedia.org...

After that I didn't read the rest of what you wrote.

Cheers.

Yup, gotta love wiki.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



The triloboite! Of course, why didn't I think of that before!



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Originally posted by Freaky

Originally posted by B.A.C.
What I'm saying is that mainstream science would ridicule them for going against them. Journals wouldn't print their research, etc. Happens all the time.


But thats not what you said at all, you said that you would be going against science, not that people would just reject your research.
Happens all the time? List some times its happened.

[edit on 2/3/09 by Freaky]


Going against science in the sense of disagreeing with mainstream science.

Really, let's get serious, did I really have to spell that out for you?


Yes, you did, you could've meant any number of things, so that if you were proven wrong, you could've just expanded your vague sentences into something that could fit into the specific dilemma you're in.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masterjaden

Originally posted by Freaky

Originally posted by B.A.C.
What I'm saying is that mainstream science would ridicule them for going against them. Journals wouldn't print their research, etc. Happens all the time.


But thats not what you said at all, you said that you would be going against science, not that people would just reject your research.
Happens all the time? List some times its happened.

[edit on 2/3/09 by Freaky]




HOw about any number of inventions by nicola tesla, arguably one of the greatest minds to ever grave planet earth, or a little clerk names Albert Einstein who was ridiculed for years before they accepted his cochamamy theories....


Don't be an imbecile, this is THE definition of mainstream scence. The only historical fact of science is that they are never currently accurate. Hell, now adays they come out almost every year and say we were wrong, but now were right, or we thought we were wrong but now it turns out we were right to begin with. Why not just be honest with yourself and admit that you just really don't know anything for sure and admit that the next guy is just as likely to be right as you are, regardless of how crazy he may sound, in fact if history tells us anything, it's that people who sound the craziest are the most likely to be proven correct later on.


Jaden


Dont call me an imbecile because his posts are vague. And why did you just mumble off into nothing in the last paragraph?



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by jrod

Originally posted by John Matrix
Evolution is not even a theory. It is an hypothesis. No one has observed the evolving of one species into another, or from one form of life to a higher form.
........

If you think believing in evolution is part of your waking up, then you have been lulled back to sleep by the biggest conspiracy to ever infect the human speices and delude the masses.

Product of chance? Right. Give me a break.


Religion has been the opiate of the masses and science the light of mankind. Don't listen to what other people tell you, research the facts for yourself, and dont reject new ideas that go against your belief system.


How do you know I haven't researched the facts and the evidence and come to the conclusion that the creation model makes much more sense in light of the evidence?



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


You know all you send me was Fisher attempting to retest, and finding seemingly too accurate results.

And the very fact that you read the first point and moved on shows me you don't care to find the truth. You just want to make your point and move on.

Mendel's work was very, very primitive, he was a monk, and he liked to garden.
His work merely peers into genetics and heredity. And if you stop at Mendel, and move on. Theres no wonder you don't grasp these factors.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freaky

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Originally posted by Freaky

Originally posted by B.A.C.
What I'm saying is that mainstream science would ridicule them for going against them. Journals wouldn't print their research, etc. Happens all the time.


But thats not what you said at all, you said that you would be going against science, not that people would just reject your research.
Happens all the time? List some times its happened.

[edit on 2/3/09 by Freaky]


Going against science in the sense of disagreeing with mainstream science.

Really, let's get serious, did I really have to spell that out for you?


Yes, you did, you could've meant any number of things, so that if you were proven wrong, you could've just expanded your vague sentences into something that could fit into the specific dilemma you're in.


Nothing vague about it at all.

"Going against science" or "disagreeing with science", what's the difference?

Someone get me a cryptologist to translate these riddles for him.


I believe you were the one proven wrong by MasterJaden.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Originally posted by Freaky

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Originally posted by Freaky

Originally posted by B.A.C.
What I'm saying is that mainstream science would ridicule them for going against them. Journals wouldn't print their research, etc. Happens all the time.


But thats not what you said at all, you said that you would be going against science, not that people would just reject your research.
Happens all the time? List some times its happened.

[edit on 2/3/09 by Freaky]


Going against science in the sense of disagreeing with mainstream science.

Really, let's get serious, did I really have to spell that out for you?


Yes, you did, you could've meant any number of things, so that if you were proven wrong, you could've just expanded your vague sentences into something that could fit into the specific dilemma you're in.


Nothing vague about it at all.

"Going against science" or "disagreeing with science", what's the difference?

Someone get me a cryptologist to translate these riddles for him.


I believe you were the one proven wrong by MasterJaden.



Sigh. I was referring to your original post.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.

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


1) Evolution is not observable... okay this is a rediculous statement.
So are you saying that Mendel's super basic experiments with peas is not repeatable or testable in lab??? Ive done it my self, in elementary school.



Mendel's experimental results have later been the object of considerable dispute.[6][5] Fisher analyzed the results of the F2 (second filial) ratio and found them to be implausibly close to the exact ratio of 3 to 1.[7] Only a few would accuse Mendel of scientific malpractice or call it a scientific fraud — reproduction of his experiments has demonstrated the validity of his hypothesis — however, the results have continued to be a mystery for many, though it is often cited as an example of confirmation bias.

en.wikipedia.org...

After that I didn't read the rest of what you wrote.

Cheers.

Yup, gotta love wiki.


Did you even read or understand this citation? Did you miss what the rest of the page you cited said about Mendel's impact on modern genetics.

"his debate between the biometricians and the Mendelians was extremely vigorous in the first two decades of the twentieth century, with the biometricians claiming statistical and mathematical rigor, whereas the Mendelians claimed a better understanding of biology. In the end, the two approaches were combined as the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology, especially by work conducted by R. A. Fisher as early as 1918"

So you read one sentance, "Only a few would accuse Mendel of scientific malpractice or call it a scientific fraud" and decide this is grounds to completely discount all of the rest of pj's post? It is no surprise that you have absolutely no understanding of evolution, or as is evidenced by reading your posts, science in general. Had you read it, you would have gained a lot of valuable information. It is a shame really.

[edit on 2-3-2009 by BluegrassRevolutionary]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:42 PM
link   

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


You know all you send me was Fisher attempting to retest, and finding seemingly too accurate results.

And the very fact that you read the first point and moved on shows me you don't care to find the truth. You just want to make your point and move on.

Mendel's work was very, very primitive, he was a monk, and he liked to garden.
His work merely peers into genetics and heredity. And if you stop at Mendel, and move on. Theres no wonder you don't grasp these factors.


Oh, now Mendel's work was primitive? I thought you said I made a "rediculous" statement for questioning observable results?

You chose to use Mendel as an example, not me.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
In the vein of bombing on mainstream science and those that think only truth comes from it.


Just for the record, I would not be one of those. Science makes many mistakes; threrefore not "only truth" comes from it. Nor does all personal human truth come from science. There is a veracity and power to my love for my spouse, which is for me outside the realm of science, as are many spiritual experiences. I don't see science as better than religion, just different. Each is good at things the other does not address well. Science is good at "how things work", and lousy at "why are we here"; religion has complementary strengths.

While respecting both, it's possible to avoid confusing them, smushing them together as both just religions - and thereby misrepresenting the very essence of science (and religion).


Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Funny thing about "peer review" it's pretty much another word for politics. Given the nature of the human animal. A PhD doesn't make one ascend beyond being human.


Actually, the real mechanism of science is fascinating. Scientists are very human, there is politics, there is competition, there are feuds, there are mistakes and hostilities and friendships. People get attached to positions. It's very messy at times and powerful leaders can lead a branch of science in the wrong direction for years. It's easy to point at flaws, and many on the inside do so.

The intereting part is - despite all this "noise" in the system, it manages over time to gradually select out the "signal" and keep refining knowledge to have more accuracy. There is no branch of science which is further from accuracy now than 50 years ago; many have advanced dramatically. Over time the peculiarities and politics and all get filtered out too. A collective way of incrementally approaching truth (in the matters where science works) can be created even from PhD's who have as you say not ascended above the human. Yet their collective process for finding truth is astounding, far far above what any one genius could do by themselves.

The political noise is shared with many human instititutions - politics, business, religion. The heuristic for (eventually) collectively converging on truth distinguishes science from those others.

There can indeed be some politics involved in peer review; that process is only one piece of of the picture though. There are multiple journals, and science places value on overturning established theories.

Ask yourself this - who gets a Nobel prize for confirming the scientific status quo? Name a single famous scientist whose name you know, who was a conformist with those who came before?

Yes, there are pressures to accept the current consensus as with other human endeavors. But in science there are also counterpressures - only the mavericks who buck the consensus become famous and get the freedom that comes with that. Science is full of young scientists trying to find a niche for themselves by NOT confirming the status quo but discovering or proving something unexpected. The path to succeeding at this is, they need to do good science, strong enough to overturn the previous consensus. They can't get to the top just by yelling louder. And yes, they need to be persistent.

Religion is not a science. Science is not a religion. Both have their place.

reasoner



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Masterjaden
 


You were hoping I'd say what?
That fossil aren't bones?
Or that they are rare in occurence due to scavenging and circumstance of death?

What are you trying to argue?



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by detroitslim
John Matrix - fascinating. When you lay out your unimaginably long timeline, how can you be absolutely sure that the probability of life developing is an absolute zero? Does the slight difference between "extremely improbable" and "impossible" trouble you?


It's not as unimagineable as the odds of life coming into being by accident from non living matter. I spent 2 years studying this area of evolution vs. creation science about 15 years ago. I got rid of a truckload of text books on the subject. I cam to the conclusion that arguing over this is stupid, and attacking creation scientists, christians and other creationist believers is also foolish. Promulgating your theory(hypothesis) as though evolution is already a proven fact is deceptive and an out right lie.

If so called intelligent scientists cannot make one self replicating living cell in a lab, then it's not going to happen on it's own.

Don't be wise in your own eyes and don't be fooled by this crap.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary

Originally posted by B.A.C.

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


1) Evolution is not observable... okay this is a rediculous statement.
So are you saying that Mendel's super basic experiments with peas is not repeatable or testable in lab??? Ive done it my self, in elementary school.



Mendel's experimental results have later been the object of considerable dispute.[6][5] Fisher analyzed the results of the F2 (second filial) ratio and found them to be implausibly close to the exact ratio of 3 to 1.[7] Only a few would accuse Mendel of scientific malpractice or call it a scientific fraud — reproduction of his experiments has demonstrated the validity of his hypothesis — however, the results have continued to be a mystery for many, though it is often cited as an example of confirmation bias.

en.wikipedia.org...

After that I didn't read the rest of what you wrote.

Cheers.

Yup, gotta love wiki.


Did you even read or understand this citation? Did you miss what the rest of the what page you cited said about Mendel's impact on modern genetics.

"his debate between the biometricians and the Mendelians was extremely vigorous in the first two decades of the twentieth century, with the biometricians claiming statistical and mathematical rigor, whereas the Mendelians claimed a better understanding of biology. In the end, the two approaches were combined as the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology, especially by work conducted by R. A. Fisher as early as 1918"

So you read one sentance, "Only a few would accuse Mendel of scientific malpractice or call it a scientific fraud" and decide this is grounds to completely discount all of the rest of pj's post? It is no surprise that you have absolutely no understanding of evolution, or as is evidenced by reading your posts, science in general. Had you read it, you would have gained a lot of valuable information. It is a shame really.


I believe it said "considerable dispute" not just a few. Which right away makes me suspect his results.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:50 PM
link   


If so called intelligent scientists cannot make one self replicating living cell in a lab, then it's not going to happen on it's own.


Just because we cant do it now, means it cant be done at all?
Do you think Humans could have done it a thousand years ago?
You're talking about creating life, that sounds like a hard job.

[edit on 2/3/09 by Freaky]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


Yeah it was primitive.
Maybe primitive is too strong a word.

And yeah, i choose Mendel as one example.
Which you failed to refute, you just send me a blurb from wiki.

Tell me real quick what they mean by "F2" in the experiments and I'll respect your views much more.

Mendel was working with basic genetics. As it can be much more complicated when it is no longer a single locus or allele being observed.
Luckily the traits he was observing were a less complicated form of phenotype variation.


Now before you post back actually read into more then just my initial argument.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freaky

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Originally posted by Freaky

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Originally posted by Freaky

Originally posted by B.A.C.
What I'm saying is that mainstream science would ridicule them for going against them. Journals wouldn't print their research, etc. Happens all the time.


But thats not what you said at all, you said that you would be going against science, not that people would just reject your research.
Happens all the time? List some times its happened.

[edit on 2/3/09 by Freaky]


Going against science in the sense of disagreeing with mainstream science.

Really, let's get serious, did I really have to spell that out for you?


Yes, you did, you could've meant any number of things, so that if you were proven wrong, you could've just expanded your vague sentences into something that could fit into the specific dilemma you're in.


Nothing vague about it at all.

"Going against science" or "disagreeing with science", what's the difference?

Someone get me a cryptologist to translate these riddles for him.


I believe you were the one proven wrong by MasterJaden.



Sigh. I was referring to your original post.


Then why not quote my original post? Or are you being vague?



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
Mainstream science, itself, is a religion


I agree. And they have a lot more faith in their theories, hypothesis, and speculations than I do in my creator.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Originally posted by Freaky

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Originally posted by Freaky

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Originally posted by Freaky

Originally posted by B.A.C.
What I'm saying is that mainstream science would ridicule them for going against them. Journals wouldn't print their research, etc. Happens all the time.


But thats not what you said at all, you said that you would be going against science, not that people would just reject your research.
Happens all the time? List some times its happened.

[edit on 2/3/09 by Freaky]


Going against science in the sense of disagreeing with mainstream science.

Really, let's get serious, did I really have to spell that out for you?


Yes, you did, you could've meant any number of things, so that if you were proven wrong, you could've just expanded your vague sentences into something that could fit into the specific dilemma you're in.


Nothing vague about it at all.

"Going against science" or "disagreeing with science", what's the difference?

Someone get me a cryptologist to translate these riddles for him.


I believe you were the one proven wrong by MasterJaden.



Sigh. I was referring to your original post.


Then why not quote my original post? Or are you being vague?


No I'm not being vague. I just couldnt waste my time going back through the 14 or so pages so I could quote it. It doesnt matter anyway, we both know what it said.

[edit on 2/3/09 by Freaky]




top topics



 
65
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join