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 pjmcginty
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]
Origin Of The Species
Charles Darwin: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
Charles Darwin: "the evolution of the eye by natural selection at first glance seemed "absurd in the highest possible degree". However, he went on to explain that despite the difficulty in imagining it, it was perfectly feasible"
Feasible? That doesn't sound too convincing to me. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about, feasible doesn't cut it, doesn't reek of proof to me.
Like I stated before, lots of holes in the theory, though there is lots of good stuff too.
Originally posted by Masterjaden
First off, we never observed the universe expanding. We noticed a shift to the red in spectroscopic analysis and interpreted it as a sort of dopler shift. That is by no means a proven theory. That is just the best explanation of the apparent red shift in spectroscopic analysis up to this point. We don't even know which stars are farther away or how far away individual stars are to even attempt to corroborate red shift as being a doppler shift and not some unknown phenomena like wave degradation over time or something else. And don't say we know how far away stars are with parallax shift, I'll laugh at you. If you aren't aware of parallax measurement's shortcomings, then you have no ability to think logically for yourself at all.
Jaden
Originally posted by B.A.C.
I've proved MANY wrong today.
Have you done your research? What did I say my belief was on this subject?
I'll save you the trouble of looking through the thread. I said I believe in lots of the science of evolution. The main problem I have is with the origin of the species part.
Origin Of The Species
Charles Darwin: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
Charles Darwin: "the evolution of the eye by natural selection at first glance seemed "absurd in the highest possible degree". However, he went on to explain that despite the difficulty in imagining it, it was perfectly feasible"
Feasible? That doesn't sound too convincing to me. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about, feasible doesn't cut it, doesn't reek of proof to me.
Like I stated before, lots of holes in the theory, though there is lots of good stuff too.
Stuff like this.
Originally posted by Freaky
Originally posted by B.A.C.
I've proved MANY wrong today.
Have you done your research? What did I say my belief was on this subject?
I'll save you the trouble of looking through the thread. I said I believe in lots of the science of evolution. The main problem I have is with the origin of the species part.
Origin Of The Species
Charles Darwin: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
Charles Darwin: "the evolution of the eye by natural selection at first glance seemed "absurd in the highest possible degree". However, he went on to explain that despite the difficulty in imagining it, it was perfectly feasible"
Feasible? That doesn't sound too convincing to me. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about, feasible doesn't cut it, doesn't reek of proof to me.
Like I stated before, lots of holes in the theory, though there is lots of good stuff too.
Stuff like this.
What exactly dont you like about it?
Origin Of The Species
Charles Darwin: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
Charles Darwin: "the evolution of the eye by natural selection at first glance seemed "absurd in the highest possible degree". However, he went on to explain that despite the difficulty in imagining it, it was perfectly feasible"
Feasible? That doesn't sound too convincing to me. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about, feasible doesn't cut it, doesn't reek of proof to me.
Like I stated before, lots of holes in the theory, though there is lots of good stuff too.
Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
Not every theory is based on physical evidence. Lots of theories, like assertions that other theories work, are based on pushing pencils.
An example of theories on top of theories: string theory. People are pretty sure that it works, but no one knows how. However,
Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
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.
Originally posted by Freaky
I'm just gonna go and get rid of the quotes.
Do you remember the title of this thread?
Feasible doesnt sound too convincing? Its just a theory, once again, a theory, he was explaining that it could happen.
[edit on 3/3/09 by Freaky]
Originally posted by B.A.C.
Originally posted by Freaky
I'm just gonna go and get rid of the quotes.
Do you remember the title of this thread?
Feasible doesnt sound too convincing? Its just a theory, once again, a theory, he was explaining that it could happen.
[edit on 3/3/09 by Freaky]
One more post before bed, argh.
It could happen? I agree. Is that proof, nope. That's my whole point.
Cheers.
[edit on 3-3-2009 by B.A.C.]
Originally posted by pjmcginty
reply to post by B.A.C.
I didn't bother reading all your posts.
As your first one was so strikingly ignorant.
I replied to it first, I don't have time to trawl through the entire thread.
And his statement that "If someone could find an organ which does not arise.."
Is backed by more present work such as : (i cant remember what this is called someone help me out) Only morphologically compatible mutations can result in a new phenotype. Like a bird cant develop feathers without some prior trait, scales, from which to build off.
Natural selection, or as i'd rather call it. Selection. Is again, a cog in the machine.
And as popular as Darwin's theories are it is by no means Evolution in a nutshell as many seem to think.
Sorry for the long wait, I like to argue, but I am also studyin for a midterm.
Added...
Oh okay heres a better example incase i get a birds didnt develop feathers first, dinosaurs did. So whatever, before some stupid arguement comes up that does not actually argue the point im trying to make...
Simple Fish Gas Bladder ---> pystomous gas bladder(connected to esophagus)---> Basic lung sac ----> further developed lung sac
[edit on 3-3-2009 by pjmcginty]
Originally posted by B.A.C.
OK I'l be one of the religious nuts to respond
In science, the word theory is used as a plausible general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon.
The word is derived from Greek θεωρία theoria (Jerome), Greek "contemplation, speculation"
en.wikipedia.org...
Why don't I believe in evolution?
It is speculation.
Not only is evolution not observable, it is not testable or repeatable in a lab.