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: 42
65
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Originally posted by andre18


until scientists observe something different that proves them facts incorrect


The facts/data is not proven incorrect – nothing is 100% proven. You have to look into mathematics to find complete proof.


then they revise or add to the theory


revise or add to the – data/fact collected. Scientific facts and scientific theories are two different things.


That's why I have a problem with it.


You have a problem with science being science???


Should you have to qualify that by saying it's Unscientific Fact? Then change it.


No because anyone can see it’s common sense I’m not claiming it to be a scientific fact. You should be able to distinguish between the two. Anyone else can – unless they’re a creationist


[edit on 5-3-2009 by andre18]


It's not science I have the problem with, it's their theory of evolution being presented as fact.

Sometimes in science the "fact" is proven wrong. You forgot that part.

I love mathematics, only you can make mistakes, not the math.




[edit on 5-3-2009 by B.A.C.]


I have a problem with the Theory of Creationism, because so far I've seen no
proof of it being a Theory ,Fact or even a Concept.
But there is Theory that it can't be proved and that's a fact.

Who made God anyway, another God or did it evolve out of the Big bang.
Is this covered in the Big Book of Creationism.




posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Quit calling "The Theory of Evolution" a fact, you can't according to your own definition.


I don’t think you’re ever going to get it. I’ve tried to explain all this to you as best I can but it seems I’m never going to get through to you. I feel you’re a waisted effort. Sry.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by skeptic_al
 


Here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Plain and simple. I don't call Creationism a fact.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by andre18

Quit calling "The Theory of Evolution" a fact, you can't according to your own definition.


I don’t think you’re ever going to get it. I’ve tried to explain all this to you as best I can but it seems I’m never going to get through to you. I feel you’re a waisted effort. Sry.


*****I HOPE EVERY EVOLUTIONIST ON THIS THREAD READS THIS*****

You assume I don't KNOW this. I know what a "Scientific Fact" is.

I agree you have lots of "Scientific Facts" as evidence for "The Theory of Evolution".

I know that it isn't "Theories" that are fact. I know that "Theories" explain facts.

All I want is for you to stop calling the "Theory" a fact.

You can't do it can you? You're actually too proud to admit to me that by sciences own definition of "Theory" and "Fact" the "Theory of Evolution" isn't a fact.

I don't need to post another thing on this subject. No one will get anywhere until we get past this point.


deny ignorance

[edit on 6-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


B.A.C.

I'll try to be gentle....please re-read your post.

BTW, I am not an 'evolutionist'.....I am a realist.

Sorry, but there is no 'magic guy' up above who watches over everything.

(sigh).....one more try.....

Please, I invite you to watch the many videos that have been posted, they explain very well the difference between 'facts' and 'theories' and 'laws'.

Also, with a very, very critical eye, watch again the 'creationist' videos....look for the factual errors, the innuendos, the 'questions' asked, never answered, in order to leave a dangling doubt in the minds of the viewers....

B.A.C. really, this is simple: Either the entire Universe (and us, on earth) were 'created' somew 6,000 years ago, and ALL of what science has helped us to learn, and study, and understand is some grand 'deception'....or, what we've learned, through science and understanding is gradually allowing us to inch our way toward truth...maybe science will FIND 'god'?

I happen to think that science IS a divine argument....it should be embraced. Along with reason.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 12:40 AM
link   

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


Here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Plain and simple. I don't call Creationism a fact.



Lets Pretend for a moment I have no Idea what you are on about or
what you are re-directing me to.

But all I read was support for Evolution, with some of your mumbo jumbo
thrown in. Was I supposed take special note of your mumbo jumbo or
the other stuff.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 12:48 AM
link   
****ATTENTION EVOLUTIONISTS*******

Is your argument about God or Evolution? Please Clarify.

I don't need to bring God, Evolutionists, Creationists, Bob, Sam, or anyone else into it.

I can PROVE, you hear that? I can PROVE that "The Theory of Evolution" isn't a fact. Here: www.abovetopsecret.com... This WHOLE thread was created to explain EXACTLY what a theory is. Are you disagreeing with the OP Andre now? Remember he's a strict Evolutionist and has made the best points for your cause.

My WHOLE problem with this thread was all the Evolutionists calling "The Theory of Evolution" a fact.

Now they'll have to change the argument or admit I'm right.

Creationists and Evolutionists and Everyone else show all your friends this post. Whether they are Creationist or Evolutionist or neither THIS IS TRUTH.


deny ignorance

God Bless.



[edit on 6-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 01:11 AM
link   
(sigh) We, Humans, are so lost...



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by asatg
(sigh) We, Humans, are so lost...


I agree completely, myself included.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


asatg, and B.A.C.

NO!!! We are not lost!

Reason....that is the rope, the 'preserver', if you will.

I've seen the 'eye' given as a reason to believe in 'creation'....

Well, as I've noted, MY eyes aren't all that special. They certainly aren't 'perfect'. (but, they're blue and beautiful....)

No! We Humans, as most mammals, eat and breathe through the same hole. It is only, in Humans, when we swallow, that a piece of tissue called the epiglautous (sp?) will cover our trachea so the food is directed toward the esophagus.....and during this act of 'swallowing', of course, we cannot breathe.

Sheesh!!! I just remember high school biology here....certainly I could Google and learn more.....but this, among other facts, should be enough to show a reasoning person that we weren't "designed"!!!

Either you can accept that every aspect of the Human body is related, in some way, to other mammals....or, you just wish to wallow in 'fantasy-based' imaginations of some sort of 'Heavenly Being'.....

YOUR choice!



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 02:21 AM
link   

I know that it isn't "Theories" that are fact. I know that "Theories" explain facts.


Theories are facts because of the amount evidence theories have that support it. Theories are the closest scientific term we have to explain observations in the most strict and most precise manner possible. The german shepherd came about, a hundred years ago. That is a fact of evolution because we can see it happening. We can see the theory of evolution is a fact because we can observe evolution before our very eyes. The theory is a fact because we can see the fact.

It is not a fact however, that all the evidance for evoltution is 100% evidant. Is that the fact of evolution is mean?



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 02:51 AM
link   
reply to post by andre18
 


oh not again . . .

theories are not facts!

:bnghd:

[edit on 3/6/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 02:58 AM
link   
So the theory of gravity isn't a fact?

:bnghd:



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by andre18
So the theory of gravity isn't a fact?

:bnghd:



No it isn't. Theories explain facts, go watch all the videos you posted.

You've been beating me over the . with a million posts explaining that, remember? Want me to go back and copy all the posts? Not to mention the Scientific Definition or even the non scientific one (you choose) of the word Theory.

Nice Try.

Cheers.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 03:38 AM
link   
WARNING, THIS POST CONTAINS OWNAGE

reply to post by B.A.C.
 


It appears you haven't been listening to a single word said through this entire thread. WoW.

en.wikipedia.org...


The potentially confusing statement that "evolution is both a theory and a fact" is often seen in biological literature. This statement arises because "evolution" is used in two ways. First, the "fact of evolution" refers to the observed changes in populations of organisms over time, which are known to have occurred. Second, the "theory of evolution" refers to the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the current scientific explanation of how these changes occur.

On its own, the word "evolution" often refers to the combination of the underlying facts, and the theory that explains them. However, it is also frequently used to refer to one or the other. Readers should take care to determine an author's meaning.

Evolution has been described as "fact and theory", "fact not theory" and, "only a theory, not a fact". This illustrates a terminological confusion that hampers discussion

Fact is often used by scientists to refer to experimental data or objective verifiable observations. "Fact" is also used in a wider sense to mean any hypothesis for which there is overwhelming evidence.

Evolution is a fact in the sense of it being overwhelmingly validated by the evidence. Frequently evolution is said to be a fact in the same way as the Earth revolving around the Sun is a fact.

Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong


[edit on 6-3-2009 by andre18]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by andre18
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


It appears you haven't been listening to a single word said through this entire thread. WoW.

en.wikipedia.org...


The potentially confusing statement that "evolution is both a theory and a fact" is often seen in biological literature. This statement arises because "evolution" is used in two ways. First, the "fact of evolution" refers to the observed changes in populations of organisms over time, which are known to have occurred.

On its own, the word "evolution" often refers to the combination of the underlying facts, and the theory that explains them. However, it is also frequently used to refer to one or the other. Readers should take care to determine an author's meaning.

Evolution has been described as "fact and theory", "fact not theory" and, "only a theory, not a fact". This illustrates a terminological confusion that hampers discussion

Fact is often used by scientists to refer to experimental data or objective verifiable observations. "Fact" is also used in a wider sense to mean any hypothesis for which there is overwhelming evidence.

Evolution is a fact in the sense of it being overwhelmingly validated by the evidence. Frequently evolution is said to be a fact in the same way as the Earth revolving around the Sun is a fact.

Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong


[edit on 6-3-2009 by andre18]


This is from YOUR source above.



Second, the "theory of evolution" refers to the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the current scientific explanation of how these changes occur.


A theory, even the theory of evolution, and any other theory explains veriifiable observations (facts) ie; "changes" in the quote above. A Theory isn't Fact.

You're wrong.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 04:26 AM
link   
To tell you the truth i have no idea what you're talking about. I litrally don't know what the point of your post is.

Question: did you even read this - "Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong"

You first you point out -" the theory of evolution.....explains veriifiable observations (facts)"

So you admit the theory of evolution is a fact and then you loose me with "A Theory isn't Fact. You're wrong." which contradicts yuor first point.

What are you trying to say.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by ShiningSabrewolf

Originally posted by JPhish
Any time the "naturalist zealots" would like to acknowledge my posts it would be excellent!

Only one of my posts have been acknowledged by the "naturalist zealots" and my rebuttal to that one response i received*, has been ignored.

You guys must have "selective reading".

Might be because of the statement that you are arguing for the sake of arguing?


Regardless of my motives, my points are still valid. I believe you are wrong and i've shown that it's VERY likely that you are, yet you still persist.

Unlike all the evolutionists in this thread, i'm not relying on a belief system to fight my battles. It appears you can not handle that, so you choose to ignore me.

That's alright, but let it be known that through your disregard of my posts and inability to refute my claims, you’ve exposed your belief system as flawed.


[edit on 3/5/2009 by JPhish]


Yes, and yet in my debates with BAC I've shown that evolution makes more sense when compared to current, living animals than Creationism or ID does.

I personally have not ignored your posts, none of them have been directed towards me or the points I was using to argue why I believe evolution is a better theory. On the other hand, the only person on the ID/Creationist crows that has answered my questions was BAC (and I thank you for that BAC), whereas others in the same crowd have completely ignored them. Maybe you should PM those who you were directing your questions towards if you want answers that badly.

There is also the personal reason that when someone states they are arguing for the sake of arguing, then no matter what the percieved 'other side' says or does, that person will still continue arguing. Thus why I answered you when you asked "why is no-one answering me?"


I have no desire to get into that position. Unless you're willing to set your mind on what it is that you are arguing for (ID, Creationism, whether or not we xhould be calling evolution a fact?) I don't see the point.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by andre18
reply to post by atlasastro
 




Just for the sake of curiosity i checked it out on google - key words "evolution of photosynthesis" and the first one listed is

www.sciencemag.org...

Seriously do your homework - it's not hard
Just so you know, this is going to come back and haunt you. This does not explain the genesis of Photosynthesis. Read my post. Read what you linked. Your link talks about the series, possible lineage. All the example are already phototrophs. They are already photosynthesising. They are showing sequencing complexity. All they have is new sequence info. Some new lines. That is all. READ.


The origin and evolution of photosynthesis have long remained enigmatic due to a lack of sequence information of photosynthesis genes across the entire photosynthetic domain.
See how the first line says "have long remained enigmatic". and a bit later where it says the "entire photosynthetic domain". The first bit remains unchanged. It is still enigmatic. The seconf bit ot the "entire photosynthetic domain"....this bit is really important and relates to the rest of the source you supplied considering it used Parsimony and distance to generate the new beliefs and results.


To probe early evolutionary history of photosynthesis, we obtained new sequence information of a number of photosynthesis genes from the green sulfur bacterium Chlorobium tepidum and the green nonsulfur bacterium Chloroflexus aurantiacus.
They got new sequences on genes. Genes that already existed.


A total of 31 open reading frames that encode enzymes involved in bacteriochlorophyll/porphyrin biosynthesis, carotenoid biosynthesis, and photosynthetic electron transfer were identified in about 100 kilobase pairs of genomic sequence. Phylogenetic analyses of multiple magnesium-tetrapyrrole biosynthesis genes using a combination of distance, maximum parsimony, and maximum likelihood methods indicate that heliobacteria are closest to the last common ancestor of all oxygenic photosynthetic lineages and that green sulfur bacteria and green nonsulfur bacteria are each other's closest relatives.
All they have is what they assume are all relatives. That are close to each other. I actually say this in my post, the one you replied to. I say that early on bacteria multiplied quickly and abundantly as phototrophs but there is no explanation or understanding as to how the leap was made. Your link highlights this. This is the closest the "think they have found". They do not explain how the change was made nor do they have a record for it.


Parsimony and distance analyses
Do you even know what this is. This is the method by which they try to estimate the distance between species in any given lineage, it is a statistical method were they get large results from computational phylogenetics, they grab the data and then try to find the best possible match to what they are seeing in the records, the results of the best match is infered, it is inference. You can get millions of possible trees of linage from inputting as little as a dozen taxanomic units. They literally pick an answer amongst a million possible answers based on the data they currently have. The error of this method is the assumption that all the units used are related genetically. That the entire line of taxa are decended directly from one another, this gives them the tree that best fits what they see. This is a dangerous way to support an arguement if you ask me. If you are comfortable with this method then so be it.

further identify purple bacteria as the earliest emerging photosynthetic lineage. These results challenge previous conclusions based on 16S ribosomal RNA and Hsp60/Hsp70 analyses that green nonsulfur bacteria or heliobacteria are the earliest phototrophs. The overall consensus of our phylogenetic analysis, that bacteriochlorophyll biosynthesis evolved before chlorophyll biosynthesis, also argues against the long-held Granick hypothesis.
Here they correct the perviously held FACTS on evolution that were wrong. NOW they think the earliest LINEAGE is purple bacteria. All this is based on the infered linage that they picked from a large pool of possibilities because it matched the limited observed and known domain(remember this from the start of the post). See the word BACTERIOCHLOROPHYLL. Google that and try and learn the complex level of evolution need to create the enzyme chains to make chlorophyll. Even at the less complex levels the enzyme chains are toxic, until they "evolved" to chlorophyll. The Garnick hypothesis argues that there was a logical forward evolution of these enzymes and that they must of had uses. If this hypothesis is arguing against the Granick theory....then what does that mean.
But this has been argued before, i have read some of Blakenships Molecular Mechanisms of Photosynthesis that also have "theories". Namely Burkes attempt to explain the transition from bacteriochlorophyll to chlorophyll. To achieve this they had to interpret(yes that is right), they made an interpretation of the data to conclude that some aspects would have had to have been duplicated non-specifically a number of times before it would then become specific and "probably"(Blakenships words not mine) made a more efficient processes available, this is all without the added complexity of gene recruitment that is also needed.


When early microbes evolved, some species developed ways to convert sunlight into cellular energy and to use that energy to capture carbon from the atmosphere
How, why, were.

The origin of this process, known as photosynthesis, was crucial to the later evolution of plants.
Yes, it is crucial and needs to be explained. As yet Evolution cannot. Its gt lots of scenarios, all of which are supported by "evidence" like parsimony and distance.

The publication today of the analysis of the complete genome sequence of an unusual photosynthetic microbe provides important insights into studies of how that light harvesting mechanism evolved and how it works today.
Thanks. This explains my point. You can swallow this as fact, but look at it. Read it. Understand it. All they have is an insight, not an explanation, they do not understand it. It is based on inference and assumption.

Did you get around to googling the other questions I have.
I have access to the Entire Australian network of Libraries and Online Journals for Universities if you need anything. Sharing is Caring.

Do you think I just started looking into this when I came across you thread.
You are a joke.
Come back to me when your opinion is based on facts and not quote mined inferences .

The origin of photosynthesis is a fundamental biological question that has eluded researchers for decades. The complexity of the origin and evolution of photosynthesis is a result of multiple photosynthetic components having independent evolutionary pathways. Indeed, evolutionary scenarios have been established for only a few photosynthetic components.
arjournals.annualreviews.org...

Now ANDRE......sit down and chew on a nice slice of humble pie. And do your own homework. What a joke.

I OWN YOU.


[edit on 6-3-2009 by atlasastro]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
Any time the "naturalist zealots" would like to acknowledge my posts it would be excellent!

Only one of my posts have been acknowledged by the "naturalist zealots" and my rebuttal to that one response i received*, has been ignored.

You guys must have "selective reading".

[edit on 3/5/2009 by JPhish]


Frankly, you don't want a discussion so that's why I haven't responded to all of your posts. I've tried making points but you're not interested in content, you're interested in deflecting the discussion to avoid content. If that changes, I'll be more then happen to respond to every question you post.




top topics



 
65
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join