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: 15
65
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.

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


For one, that dispute occurred almost 100 years ago, a lot has changed since then including Mendel being hailed as the father of modern genetics. Second, the wiki page goes on to say that Fisher, the man cited as being responsible for the "considerable dispute", went on to help prove much of Mendel's work thus helping to solidify his place in history.

Again man, I am trying to put this as nicely as possible, you are way out of your depths due to your lack of understanding of science. The next time you cite a page in support of an argument, you might try reading the entire page before doing so.




posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by BluegrassRevolutionary
 


I heart you my friend.
I heart you and those like you dearly.

Evolution, is awesome, awesome indeed (not off topic).



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by pjmcginty
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.


It's really quite clear, and make no mistake I'm not claiming to be a scientist, but I do the best I can.

According to what I've read F2 would be the combination of the Parental and F1 phenotypes. Thereby creating a hybrid.

Close enough?



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


Hurray! How long did that take you to look up just now? lol.
Just kidding.


Added...

Now, that we've covered the older topics in genetics and evolution.
Please move on to the other arguements stated, or at least do as I suggest.
And read up on the subjects touched on.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by pjmcginty]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary

Originally posted by B.A.C.

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


For one, that dispute occurred almost 100 years ago, a lot has changed since then including Mendel being hailed as the father of modern genetics. Second, the wiki page goes on to say that Fisher, the man cited as being responsible for the "considerable dispute", went on to help prove much of Mendel's work thus helping to solidify his place in history.

Again man, I am trying to put this as nicely as possible, you are way out of your depths due to your lack of understanding of science. The next time you cite a page in support of an argument, you might try reading the entire page before doing so.


I read this too:

In fact, the genes Mendel studied occurred in only four linkage groups, and only one gene pair (out of 21 possible) is close enough to show deviation from independent assortment; this is not a pair that Mendel studied.

I never claimed to be a scientist, but I've studied enough to know real science and science that is only flouted as science.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 12:05 AM
link   


Let's say my premise is that gravity isn't testable. You could drop a brick on my foot, and I'd have to agree the test worked, no?

Same thing.

[edit on 2-3-2009 by B.A.C.]


OK, but gravity is also 'just' a theory. We don't actually know exactly how it operates.
So you accept gravity, but doubt evolution, even though they are both accepted scientific theories?
You will counter that gravity is observable and testable, therefore you believe. God isn't observable or testable, yet you believe that!
See anything wrong with your logic?


[edit on 3-3-2009 by cruzion]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by reasoner
 



By "clergy" I mean experts who provide guidance to newcomers. In some, but not all, religions they are exhaulted to the highest rank, mainly because their judgment is most trusted.

Every system requires adherence to standards as a means of self-preservation.

Not every theory is based on physical evidence. Lots of theories, like assertions that other theories work, are based on pushing pencils. It would be unfeasible to physically prove them; that would require either too many or even an infinite number of test cases.

If mainstream science were based purely on logical argumentation, then anthropogenic global warming would have been the subject of ridicule rather than Nobel Prize-winning documentaries.

All of that is fine and dandy, but the bottom line is that people are dying everyday from the pseudo-science known as the pharmaceutical industry. People can observe continental drifts, but they don't know how viruses work? Big Pharma probably knows exactly how lots of diseases work, but again, there's an incentive to perpetrate a lie.

An example of theories on top of theories: string theory. People are pretty sure that it works, but no one knows how. However, that doesn't stop people from basing their own theories on the assumption that it does work. Why does/did string theory continue to be discussed? Because of political maneuvering!



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 12:07 AM
link   

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


Hurray! How long did that take you to look up just now? lol.
Just kidding.


Added...

Now, that we've covered the older topics in genetics and evolution.
Please move on to the other arguements stated, or at least do as I suggest.
And read up on the subjects touched on.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by pjmcginty]


How long did it take me? You do see how many replies I have to write, right?

Bluegrass is on me too LOL



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by cruzion


Let's say my premise is that gravity isn't testable. You could drop a brick on my foot, and I'd have to agree the test worked, no?

Same thing.

[edit on 2-3-2009 by B.A.C.]


OK, but gravity is also 'just' a theory. We don't actually know exactly how it operates.
So you accept gravity, but doubt evolution, even though they are both accepted scientific theories?
You will counter that gravity is observable and testable, therefore you believe. God isn't observable or testable, yet you believe that!
See anything wrong with your logic?


[edit on 3-3-2009 by cruzion]


I think he's on evolutions side. And why did you bring god into this?



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by cruzion


Let's say my premise is that gravity isn't testable. You could drop a brick on my foot, and I'd have to agree the test worked, no?

Same thing.

[edit on 2-3-2009 by B.A.C.]


OK, but gravity is also 'just' a theory. We don't actually know exactly how it operates.
So you accept gravity, but doubt evolution, even though they are both accepted scientific theories?
You will counter that gravity is observable and testable, therefore you believe. God isn't observable or testable, yet you believe that!
See anything wrong with your logic?


[edit on 3-3-2009 by cruzion]


No, it's called "The Law of Gravity" And yes we do know how it works. Look it up.

God isn't relevant to this discussion. Same as Atheism has nothing to do with this discussion.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


So far all your replies have revolved around Mendel and his peas.

So if you do indeed have studied the subject please. Lay into me on your perspective on anything else I have stated.

Like... give me something to argue against.
Don't just post wikipedia quotes and expect them to hold up as your arguement.
Critical thinking my friend.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 12:15 AM
link   

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


So far all your replies have revolved around Mendel and his peas.

So if you do indeed have studied the subject please. Lay into me on your perspective on anything else I have stated.

Like... give me something to argue against.
Don't just post wikipedia quotes and expect them to hold up as your arguement.
Critical thinking my friend.


Erm, you wanted to use wiki because you said I liked it so much. So I did.

Also, I'm trying to respond to no less than 5 people at once.

I thought you said your first statement was all you would post, because I'm too ignorant?

Whatever, gimme some time and I'll look into what you stated.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 
.

The biological sciences also have scientific laws, such as Mendelian inheritance and the Hardy-Weinberg principle found in genetics. The social sciences also contain scientific laws [1].

WIKIPEDIA it comes back to bite you in the bottom. lol



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 12:18 AM
link   

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

The biological sciences also have scientific laws, such as Mendelian inheritance and the Hardy-Weinberg principle found in genetics. The social sciences also contain scientific laws [1].

WIKIPEDIA it comes back to bite you in the bottom. lol


No, it doesn't. The information contained there is very good. You don't agree?

If you don't like wiki, I'll use any other number of sources, I'm pretty good at R&D.

When did I state that science didnt' have any laws?



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by reasoner
You are welcome to that belief, but it's hard to find any evidential support for it.

This is the double standard. You believe that you can make such a statement as an absolute without need for any credible evidence, yet demand "proof" rather than mere overwhelming evidence from science.


I use the same evidence as you do and I believe all of the evidece fits better in the creation model.

You haven't done much studying of creation science have you?

Never mind, I'm just giving my two sense and I am not interested in foolish debates with brain washed evolutionists who think that their religion and faith is a proven fact, when in fact it's not.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by MatrixProphet
What would an evolutionist/atheist do, if there comes a time where it is determined that a power with consciousness HAD to be involved at some point in the evolutionary/natural selection/abiogenesis - journey?


If that was demonstrated with scientific methods, it would be revolutionary and exciting. Of course, like all major changes, it would be resisted at first and would need good evidence to convince scientists.

So - make that a little more scientific. What evidence would you expect to find if an intelligent being had something to do with evolution, which would distinguish that from natural processes?

Many people have trouble with this, because they reason from "common sense". Like saying that logically, it's impossible for something to come from nothing. Actually, that's not a logical conclusion, it's a proposed axiom based on human experience. It's safe to say that the creation of the universe, whether by a giant snake, a Jewish patriarch in the sky, or a Big Bang, was something pretty far outside our experience base, so that axiom is not "obviously" true to all of us.

Anyway, the awe and wonder that we can all feel with live and intelligence and consciousness can spill over into "it just makes sense that this couldn't have happened by random chance!". I can share that feeling! It's hard to believe, emotionally. But that is not "evidence", it's just a belief.

Intelligent Design argues that it would be mathematically improbable that life could evolve on its own. That argument (like the argument that there must be other life in a universe this big, SETI style) is based on some guesses of probabilities we don't really know. If it has any traction, it will eventually convince enough scientists, but I have my doubts. More corroborating evidence is probably needed, as often happens in science.

Here's something I'd find to be real evidence: finding a complex species without any "junk DNA", nor vestigal organs etc (like the appendix). No design flaws (like human knees). No incremental ancestors. Basically, no signs of the byproducts of the inefficiencies of mutation and natural selection. I think that a truly engineered species's genome would stand out radically, in such a way that even skeptical scientists would eventually be convinced.

Or how about finding undeniable DNA on asteroids or in comets? Evidence for panspermia would not be evidence for intelligent design per se, but it would open more doors for it.

Maybe some SETI communication that upon decoding explained the process by which our planet was seeded with life long ago?

I think the most we could expect, given the degree of validation of evolution already, would be some evidence that it was guided along; perhaps that the primordial soup was seeded with protolife rather than coming up with it terrestrially. Or perhaps that some force did some artificial selection at a key juncture, as we do with breeding plants and animals (like the monument in 2001, somehow helping the local primate develop higher intelligence).

All that could happen within science. But it hasn't yet. So far the critics of evolution have by and large been snipers, looking for minor holes or inconsistencies or mistakes and thinking that overrides the mass of evidence. They have not been willing to subject themselves and their alternatives to the same level of scrutiny.

I *welcome* falsifiable scientific hypotheses regarding conscious creation elements in the development of life, and the search for evidence thereof. Go for it!

(Be brave tho; the "intelligent designer" so discovered might not confirm to the picture painted by old religious texts, so religious folks undertaking this search may have more to fear from fellow religionists than from scientists, if what they find out challenges religion more than science.)

reasoner



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


Im not saying don't use wiki.
Im saying understand what you are quoting.
Don't just post something because its on topic and you think it helps your arguement. As in previous posts it has not.

As for the Hardy Winberg principles and Mendelian inheritance. You were stating that its not a theory of gravity. Its a law. Thats why we know its real. (paraphrase)

Well these are laws of biology.
Stating that something is a law does not make it infallible.
So by you arguing for gravity but against genetics on the grounds of it being a LAW is moot.


ADDED...


As for wiki being a good source. I'll have to disagree. Its a good starting off point to research a topic. But because anyone can put in anything, you cannot rely 100% on it.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by pjmcginty]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freaky


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]


Only a fool would place his faith in science and humanity. Look where your faith has got us? Wars, famines, selfish greedy people, thieves, muggers, liars, gossips, people arguing about this kinda crap while the world is going to hell.

What's wrong with you? Wake up man!!



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


So your saying place your faith in religion? Organized religion?

You mean like when Islam, compelled to rid the world of infidels murdered the majority of hindu and to them Heretic religions from places like Afganistan?

Or should we follow the Catholic faith and go forth in gods name, murdering thousands of muslims? Or hey, lets go to the America's and in the name of god feed native women and children to our war dogs and burn them alive for being ungodly fools.

I'm sorry, but your "gods" are all dicks if this is the type of action they represent. And i'd just as soon place my faith in man, he's just as violent, and I know him better. He's me.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix

Originally posted by Freaky


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]


Only a fool would place his faith in science and humanity. Look where your faith has got us? Wars, famines, selfish greedy people, thieves, muggers, liars, gossips, people arguing about this kinda crap while the world is going to hell.

What's wrong with you? Wake up man!!


You make me smile.

Science has directly told people to thieve and mug, lie and gossip? The world isnt going to hell, just the people in it. Why would MY faith send anyone to hell?
I dont place faith in anything, I just accept science.


And pjmcginty, very nice speech, I totally agree.


[edit on 3/3/09 by Freaky]




top topics



 
65
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join