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 rickyrrr
reply to post by B.A.C.
I am no biologist, so I can't speak for the precise answers to your questions. However I am a computer scientist and I can provide a compelling example that lends credence to evolution.
In artificial intelligence, there exists a technique known as Genetic Algorithms or GA.
A genetic algorithm is a program written to quickly find solutions to equations or other problems, by a process of random mutation and selection.
It more or less goes like this:
A population of solutions with randomized attributes is created. Because it is randomized, they are pretty much all crappy solutions.... some crappier than others.
a process of selection and elimination removes from the population the worst performers, then it generates a brand new population by randomly choosing attributes from the "winning" solutions in the previous round.
this process repeats until eventually (and much faster than other search methods) a very good solution is found.
The GA (genetic algorithm) is analogous to the process of reproduction, and the selection process is analogous to the notion that organisms with greater fitness have an increased likelihood to survive.
In as much as GA represents a "model" of life and reproduction, then it could be said to be laboratory evidence for evolution. It is up to you to agree or disagree as to whether GA mimics life and reproduction.
One thing is certain: Genetic Algorithms are proof that a random process coupled with a selection component will result in accurate solutions, so anybody claiming that evolution is impossible because it contains randomness, should probably come up with a new counterargument. The process of genetic mutation and reproduction includes both randomness and a selection component, so it does seem to be a close analog.
Originally posted by thrustbucket
The OP is right, for anyone that assumes, like the OP, that Science as it is practiced today is the only and ultimate decider of fact and truth for all of society.
Fortunately, not everyone is that obtuse.
...Evolution in itself does not seek to debunk creation. Evolution simply states that a species can adapt to better suit it's environment. More specifically a species that adapts can increase it's fitness. In other words increasing its chances of procreation and passing on its mutated genes.
Originally posted by tyranny22
reply to post by B.A.C.
Just because we haven't found the "missing link" regarding the evolution of humans doesn't mean there isn't one. One can look simply to the Wooly Mammoth ... or what we call it's ancestors, elephants - to see how evolution works and that it DOES. It's very evident.
That's not to say I'm not a creationist as well. I just don't see the point in drawing a line. Kinda silly if you ask me.
If you believe in evolution, as I do, you more than likely believe in the Big-Bang theory as well - which to me is inconceivable. Limitless space with a unimaginably big rock that explodes to form billion of galaxies and within each, billion of star systems? I guess it's possible ... but, where'd the rock come from when there's nothing else bit empty space? Another missing link.
I think science and religion have some reconciliating to do before we advance in either of the subjects.