It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 03:44 PM
creationism, the garbage that it is, is NOT a theory, and barely even rates as a hypothesis. its faith based, there is absolutely no proof o fit, and so really, crap like that should not be included in any sane or credible academic schedule.

posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 03:46 PM

Originally posted by tamusan
Climacoceras, Canthumeryx, Paleomeryx, Palaeotragus, and Samotherium. The line from a deer with a short neck to the modern giraffe.

Scientists after much study now consider Climacoceras a Giraffoid, which is a member of the same species.

posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 03:46 PM
Hey there everybody, I can't get into this too much, but first here is the link to my debate that was had about creationism -vs- evolution being taught in schools. Good info, even if I did lose....

My real point?

Look, using the bible to argue against creationism is stupid. No one can even agree which bible is correct, what certain translations mean, blah blah blah.

What I think we can agree on, is that if there was a God, then I highly doubt he would have created any species that would not be able to evolve slightly to handle the enviroment. This is not a novel idea, merely a thought train I have had.

I mean, doesn't the fact that "science" exists prove that there is order to the universe? Similar, as another poster pointed out, to a programmer creating a new program, one that would have encoded data that would allow it to both interact, and react, based on it's own abilities, and allow it to change to fit it's needs?

I mean, are we arguing against a type of evolution, or about the existence of God? I mean, why is the bible even being mentioned? We know for a FACT that there are many parts, (the dead sea scrolls) that are missing, so who knows what it really all means.

The idea, however, that by believing in some sort of evolution you must eliminate God, is ridiculous.

Similarly, the idea that we reached this point in existence by pure chance and evolution through single celled organisms is also ridiculous.

So what are all of you arguing?


(yes, yes, I know. I AM awesome.)

posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 03:48 PM
reply to post by B.A.C.

Ah, BAC....'grasshopper', NOW you begin to understand......

DNA....DioxyNucleicAcid (sorry for the spelling....I abbreviated it)

Regardless, the actual physical characteristics of the molecule were only 'reasoned' about 50 years ago. The 'double helix' model, was a breakthrough, to explain how the darn thing could split apart, and, remember, the DNA molecule uses only FOUR components, but put into the correct order for each species, it defines the species.

OK....try to wrap your heads around this, folks....the computer you are currently sitting in front of uses TWO bits....On/Off. DNA is binary code, times two!

You look for gigabytes, when you buy a computer....Nature has provided much more.....'googlebytes'????

posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 03:49 PM
reply to post by jasonjnelson

What if intention influences the evolving of the body/plant. If the animal/plant is often in a problematic situation, could it be that the will/intention of the creature forms its body to overcome the problem over the generations. Who/what else should know what the problem is and if there is a problem and what to want to resolve it?

And since intention has to do with consiousness and that has a connection higher self (that what people call god...) both evolutiontheory and religion are right but incomplete.

Keep in mind that quantum phisics showed us that consiousness can manipulate/create matter.

what do you think about that

posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 03:49 PM
For a short neck giraffe alive today, look at the okapi.

posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 03:53 PM
reply to post by turbohenk

Is your question, "Can evolution be based on the will of the user?"?

I know that the very nature of our frontal lobe makes me believe in a higher order to this universe.

posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 03:53 PM

Originally posted by B.A.C.

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

Like a giraffe maybe?
2nd line............

Maybe. You seem to have a problem with showing something to back your statements up. Show me a short giraffe and you may be onto something.

An Okapi?

How about the ancestors of Whales having legs?

How aboout Dolphins being born with vestigial legs?

How about the Hoatzin (a bird) having fingers on its wings?

Not sure why I am bothering because there is no argument that can sway you if the currently available facts cannot.

Still I had to say something.

(edit for my weak attempts at spelling LOL)

[edit on 2-3-2009 by Helmkat]

posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 03:55 PM

There is actually great deal of fossil and genetic evidence for evolution as described above (natural selection + mutation producing changes in life forms over geological time periods). It's this accumulation of many, many pieces of evidence of many types that makes evolution so well established, not any single item.

Virtually the whole biotech industry is based on biology which depends on evolutionary theory for its underpinnings.

There IS no important "missing link". In the case of Stellar Evolution (the history of stars), we have examples of many stars in many stages. Is the theory wrong if we have no known example of a star that's exactly 5,184,238,989 years old? No; as we have plenty of "datapoints" of stars older and younger than that from which to extrapolate, there's no "missing link" star stage. Likewise, the fossil record is amazingly complete, and what gaps there are continue to be filled as more research is done. There's no gap in the fossil record that casts doubt on the whole process, no point that's "outside the curve", unexplainable by the theory.

How about pre-fossil record - the first formation of life? That's less certain. Hey, maybe a bit under 5 billion years ago God or an alien race did step in and help the process along. Perhaps evidence of that intervention will be discovered next year. But it hasn't come to light yet. And we do have good evidence that evolution took over after that.

Maybe God intervened in Natural Selection from time to time over these billions of years. Fine, present a falsifiable hypothesis which would demonstrate whether or not that happened, and we can try to scientifically test it.

Maybe God created the planet a few thousand years ago - along with all the fossils and radiocarbon evidence etc. Well, sure but then God could have just as well created this universe twenty minutes ago along with all the neural pathways that make you think you were once a child with grandparents. Both of those are unfalsifiable hypotheses, so it's outside the realm of science. We'll just have to content ourselves with discovering the laws of this universe that "appears" to have come into existence billions of years ago.

One of the things which psychology has demonstrated is that it's close to impossible to convince somebody of a line of abstract reasoning when their emotions don't want them to believe it. Not quite impossible, and that's the brilliance of science and reason - once in a while somebody actually changes what they believe based on reasons, rather than rationalizing what they want to believe. I would not bet any money that there's much opening for that here. Those who want or need to believe that evolution has no scientific basis can do so in the face of any degree of evidence. It is ALWAYS possible for an individual to explain away what one doesn't want to accept.

Science is an interesting approach. It's all about how one can take a bunch of humans who all want to distort evidence to support their beliefs, and weave them into a cooperating and competing community which can gradually sift fact from belief, despite their individual failings. It's an imperfect process which goes off on false trails at times, but it has an impressive record of righting itself over time. People outside that culture tend to not understand the process by which science accomplishes this, and misapply vague concepts of "theory" or "fact" to convince themselves that their beliefs have scientific backing even when they are way outside the set of theories which the known evidence could support. Unfortunately, arguing with most of them is like debating Beethoven's innovations with somebody who is tone and rhythm deaf but is bluffing based on how they believe music probably works from what they've heard without understanding.


posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 04:00 PM

Scientists after much study now consider Climacoceras a Giraffoid, which is a member of the same species.
Being a "Giraffoid" does not make it the same species. That is not what the term "Giraffoid" implies. Climacoceras is in the family Climacoceratidae and there are other members of this family. None are living. A giraffe is in the family Giraffidae. Giraffe and okapi are two "living" members of this family.

posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 04:08 PM

Originally posted by B.A.C.
OK I'l be one of the religious nuts to respond

Well that didn't take long now did it

Why don't I believe in evolution?
It is speculation.

Actually no it's not.

In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

Not only is evolution not observable, it is not testable or repeatable in a lab.

Actually here's the info

Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.

The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the archives gives several additional examples.

Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.

So as you can see, you're wrong.

The Missing Links, where are they? If evolution were true where are all these skeletons that are halfway through evolving? There are none.

Wrong again

To say there are no transitional fossils is simply false. Paleontology has progressed a bit since Origin of Species was published, uncovering thousands of transitional fossils, by both the temporally restrictive and the less restrictive definitions. The fossil record is still spotty and always will be; erosion and the rarity of conditions favorable to fossilization make that inevitable. Also, transitions may occur in a small population, in a small area, and/or in a relatively short amount of time; when any of these conditions hold, the chances of finding the transitional fossils goes down. Still, there are still many instances where excellent sequences of transitional fossils exist. Some notable examples are the transitions from reptile to mammal, from land animal to early whale, and from early ape to human.

Here are the fine details about transitional fossils

Why don't we see new species emerging? There should be new species evolving before our very eyes, where are they? Instead we see the extinction of species. Has evolution now stopped?

The answer to your question can be found here
with the following title
Observed Instances of Speciation
Sorry too much info to post on the thread.

Hope this helps.

posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 04:11 PM
what the heck...

yeh it's a theory...

but you sound like you want to disprove it, this is an argument used by creationists over and over again.

That's the general mentality of those people.

Evolution is mutations in genetics over a period of time, that's all it really is.

Change in genetics may = change in phenotypes, thus we have "evolution"

People always think that evolution means "Natural selection," although the two are not the same thing. In evolution, genes dont necessarily change according to the environment for better adaptation, evolution is just change in the genetic coding.

My dad's been a geneticist for over 30 years, he said it's theory because we havn't really set a real standard for WHAT IS evolution yet.

posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 04:14 PM

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Why don't I believe in evolution?
It is speculation.


THEORY has 2 meanings

It is all too common for people to confuse the two meanings of the word "theory".

In popular terms, "theory" means a guess, or speculation. Thus the common phrase "just a theory" meaning "just speculation".

in scientific terms, there is another, different, meaning to the word "theory" - it means an EXPLANATION.

Theories EXPLAIN facts

Theories explain the facts we observe :

Gravity is a fact, we observe its effects.
Gravitational Theory describes how gravity works.

Electricity is a fact, we use it everyday.
Electromagnetic Theory explains the details of how it operates.

Germs are a fact.
Germ Theory explains how they cause disease.

Evolution is a fact, it is observed.
The Theory of Evolution explains how it works.

the ToE is an EXPLANATION, NOT speculation

The Theory of Evolution is NOT "speculation about evolution" - that is NOT what the phrase means at all.

Rather -
the Theory of Evolution is the EXPLANATION for how evolution works, it models the behaviour of the FACTS of evolution, and allows predictions to be made.

Just as Electromagnetic Theory is the explanation or model of how electricity works.
Would one say "electricity is just a theory" ?
Of course not.

And Gravitational Theory is the explanation or model of how gravity works.
Would one say "gravity is just a theory" ?
Of course not.

And Germ Theory is the explanation or model of how germs cause disease.
Would one say "germs are just a theory" ?
Of course not.

some people say
"evolution is (just) a theory"

as if it means
"evolution is merely untested speculation" (false)

when it really only means
"evolution is an explanation, or model" (true)

Claiming "evolution is just a theory" indicates lack of understanding of the word, and how science operates, and that the ToE is an explanation for observed facts.


posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 04:15 PM
anyone who really wants to get solid info about evolution and those psudo-science questions that IDers bring up, go to this website.

It's a great read !!!!!

I'd like to see ID'ers disprove all the science on this site

Sorry my creationist friends but you cannot change reality by denying it.

Besides, you could always say that god just started the universe and let it EVOLVE from there

[edit on 2-3-2009 by jfj123]

posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 04:18 PM
What I find interesting in all of this is the question: WHY. Why the heck would a cell A) be born, B) decide in some way it has to adapt itself to the environment, C) adapt itself until it becomes millions of zillions of times as complex. Probably that's a dumb question to all the scientifically prepared ATSers here, but I find it mind boggling. (In my ignorance.

As for a bunch of other issues, I suspect the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Evolution may be proven 100000% whatchawant, but mustn't a cell have some kind of instruction from somebody/something/whatever that may be to evolve?

Just my guess.

It would be interesting to have a thread where both positions (pro-evolution fellows/anti-evolution guys) are confronted. And see what happens.

PS: please, PLEASE, don't call me a creationist, because i'm not. Seriously.

[edit on 2-3-2009 by theufologist]

posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 04:22 PM

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Not only is evolution not observable, it is not testable or repeatable in a lab.


Evolution HAS been observed.
Evolution IS observed.
Evolution HAS been tested millions of times - and has always passed.
Evolution IS repeatable in a lab.

Examples :

B.A.C. - these are all PRATTS you copied from a creationist web site without checking the facts first.

Originally posted by B.A.C.
The Missing Links, where are they? If evolution were true where are all these skeletons that are halfway through evolving? There are none.

All fossils are transitionals.

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Even today, this world is filled with simple one-cell structured living organisms. Why didn't they evolve?

They did.
From earlier forms.

Originally posted by B.A.C.
What about the written record? The cuneiform writing system originated perhaps around 2900 BC, if man has been here evolving for so long, why don't we see evidence of it?

We DO see evidence of man going back 100s of 1000s of years.

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Why don't we see new species emerging? There should be new species evolving before our very eyes, where are they? Instead we see the extinction of species. Has evolution now stopped?

We DO see new species arising.
But creationists just deny the facts.

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Answer these questions for me.
God Bless

Surely you cannot be serious B.A.C. ?
These are all well-known PRATTS - Points Refuted a Thousand Times.
All completely wrong.

If you really are serious, then this indicates you have never studied the subject at all - instead you just copy/pasted from a creationist web site.


posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 04:24 PM

Originally posted by B.A.C.
How is the burden on me? I said it isn't testable, prove me wrong. No need to bore the readers, just give me one example of how it is testable.

Evolution has been tested by millions of experiments and observations by 1000s of scientists in dozens of countries for many decades.

It has passed every test - MILLIONS of them.
NOT ONE test has shown evolution false.

Of course, creationists like B.A.C. simply deny these clear facts.


posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 04:26 PM

Originally posted by B.A.C.
OK show me a FACT, just one FACT, not ALL, just ONE that is known about evolution. Remember a FACT is VERIFIABLE.

OK, Here are the FACTS :

When you have read those FACTS, get back to us.


posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 04:29 PM
reply to post by theufologist

Actually, this thread is about pro- anti- evolutionists already.

Sorry, your rant about how a cell 'knows' how to divide, doesn't wash.

A cell is, indeed a pretty complex structure.....but, it took millions, billions of years to get there. Cell division, and reproduction, just ONE aspect of evolution....

Proteins, RNA, magic, just chemistry.

posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 04:30 PM
reply to post by B.A.C.

Depends on what you think of "technology". It was found recently that our ancestors started using tools in Ethiopia over 2 and a half million years ago.
Human Ancestors Tools

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in