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: 9
65
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen

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


Like a said. A credible person would go ahead and admit to a mistake or misunderstanding. Credibility rises with actions like that. A simple thing to do...or is it?



Where's the button to put a foot in somebody's ass ??


Top right.

I already clicked it
Gone to eat, argh.




posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

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



Carbon dating is not observable in a lab either, nor are estimates about the age of the Earth and the universe


WHAT????

seriously.....get some education.

Carbon dating is well-established science, not EVEN theoritical!!!

Lots of established science out there, if you open your mind to it!!

Doppler....ever heard of him? Not only in sound, but light, did his work help to achieve better understanding of the Universe we live in. Doppler, and astronomy, came together to help guage the age of the Universe....look it up, if you dare!




You can't prove that a mummy is 3,000 years old unless you sit there and watch it for 3,000 years

Carbon dating is only "established" by people who depend on it



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by vcwxvwligen
 


vcw, can't believe you got a 'star' for that one!!!

Look, if you don't understand nuclear decay rates, then you will never understand carbon dating. Of course, if you don't believe in the nuclear forces, then the H-bomb was never invented, and nuclear power plants don't exist.

I can't educate you, do it for yourself....please!!!



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



Hey, that post was worth starring. It was funny, ludicrous, and relevent!

This was a one line post.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.

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



You are arguing semantics. If I force the dog to evolve by breeding him, or a predator forces him to evolve, you end up with the same result.


I'm saying it isn't evolution, it's only breeding, forced at that.

Now if a deer can only eat something that is 12 feet in the air and he grows extra long legs so he can reach it, I would consider that evolution.



B.A.C., you are pushing the envelope of sematics pretty hard, and your judgement on what constitutes "proof" would fill a corrupt, third world bureaucrat with pride.

You demand proof of evolution, but you have re-defined evolution to an all-encompassing, diffuse concept with an impossible burden of proof. Then you scoff at evidence that does not clear your definitions, and evidence that comes close to your definition of "evidence" gets re-labelled as "adaptation", "forced breeding", or the like.

You're essentially asking the board to define "blue", and when someone suggests that the sky is blue, you reject that evidence because there are white clouds, red sunsets, shifting colors, and terrestrial blue things.

Scientific method puts the burden of dis-proving evidence on you. Summarily dismissing the genetics of fruit flies, wolf spiders, and wooly mammoths doesn't make evolution invalid, nor any other theory valid.

Evolution as a process has been factually proven several times in this thread, and with each instance, you reject that proof because it has not met your personal standards. I submit to you that your standard is humanly impossible to reach, and that even if you were granted immortality and were to watch with your own eyes how every species on the planet evolves over the next 50,000 years, you would still reject evolution as an unproven theory.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   

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


Actually... I do believe we have seen this "theory" in action as germ evolve to endure the efforts we make to eliminate them.

Repeatable in the lab... Well, I am willing to bet that one can alter subsequent generations of germs through applying the same chemicals to the original strains. I will admit, this is speculation on my part because I am not a biologist.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   
You know, I could come back into yet another argument where the creationists are clearly misunderstanding what theory means... and in some cases seemingly making up their own definition. But I've had it.


Instead, I've realized the opposite is probably the best option.

I want you to rant like the street corner nutjob preachers do.
I want you to live in ignorant bliss, while those who actually do work in scientific fields continue to advance the human race despite your ramblings.

Basically, if you were to be corrected now... where would the fun be in that?
I've realized I much prefer watching you guys come up with excuses and get frustrated daily.

Call me a sadist... but sometimes it's best just to watch someone stand in the way of inevitability and get run over repeatedly.


Makes me all warm and fuzzy inside, knowing there are people who still believe the BS we spoon fed them over 2000 years ago.

[edit on 2-3-2009 by johnsky]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   
I hate it when people try to apply religion to science.

Why? well i look at how religion is the backing to much violence in the world and i see that religion is more wrong, sometimes dead wrong, then right. It's always the face of someone trying to use force to get you to join their cause and donate money, or go on a suicide-bomb run.

Don't tell me the Intelligent-design freaks aren't trying to force anything... spending millions of dollars on their bull# campaign to publish books (MISINFORMATION), build stupid #ing museums with dinosaurs playing with humans... ya right.

Nothing is true until their is evidence (science)


Everything in this hundred year old book is true, and if we can't find the evidence, we create the evidence (fraud, aka religion).



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by visible_villain
The issue I personally have with Darminism or Evolution is that it reduces the existence of living beings, such as people for instance, to an absolutely random event.

Your issue doesn't make it incorrect though.


On its face such a notion is preposterous - but, the manner in which such an absurdist rationalistic notion has been forced down everybody's throats, beginning with defenseless kids in early childhood, who are unable to even think for themselves, makes a whole lot of sense especially when looked at in the overall context of western culture itself ...

It's not like their being lied to. They're being educated with factual information. To make it sound like the children are being abused if they're taught facts is in and of itself absurd.


If living things are indeed random events then it follows immediately that such random events have no significance whatsoever. Thus it follows that the unspoken subtext underlying almost everything American, the mantra, 'survival of the fittest,' is completely justified in theory as well as practice ...

Not really.
We are what we make of our existence and that in and of itself is significant



If living beings are indeed random events and thus, as a result of merely their own nature, posess in themselves no intrinsic value, then there can be no objection on any rational, ethical or procedural basis to the wholesale and wanton destruction of said living beings for what really boils down to no special reason whatsoever.

Due to billions of random events and successful mutations, we have the ability to think and act rational and ethical.


As long as there is profit in carrying out such destructive policies, then, by definition, that's all that matters - it doesn't matter how much destruction of living beings, or as is said, killing is involved.

huh?


Consider the consequences if people were actually allowed to engage freely in the debate as to what it is precisely that makes a living being a living being ...

Our sciences are so screwed up they are still looking for a basis of consciousness in inert matter, such a the brain, etc ... I've looked into all this. Actual scientific research into the nature of consciousness is shockingly inconclusive and unproductive ...

If I weren't such a devout coincidence theorist I would almost be thinking the establishment is very committed to hiding from us the true facts concerning our own essential nature. IMHO, it would be far too empowering for us all to finally discover just who and what we actually are -- to say the least, far, far more than mere random events living out meaningless lives, which, once expired might just as well have never even been ...

Then how do you explain that evolution is FACT back up by incredible amounts of science ?



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


Evolution isnt necessarily a largely visible change, nor is it such a large and unnecesary change like what you said, its adapting to an environment to survive, and usually its made by a genetic mutation, which wouldnt cause such a large change. You cant say evolution doesnt exist because you cant see it. Thats just ignorant.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


Evolution isnt necessarily a largely visible change, nor is it such a large and unnecesary change like what you said, its adapting to an environment to survive, and usually its made by a genetic mutation, which wouldnt cause such a large change. You cant say evolution doesnt exist because you cant see it. Thats just ignorant.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen

Originally posted by weedwhacker

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



Carbon dating is not observable in a lab either, nor are estimates about the age of the Earth and the universe


WHAT????

seriously.....get some education.

Carbon dating is well-established science, not EVEN theoritical!!!

Lots of established science out there, if you open your mind to it!!

Doppler....ever heard of him? Not only in sound, but light, did his work help to achieve better understanding of the Universe we live in. Doppler, and astronomy, came together to help guage the age of the Universe....look it up, if you dare!




You can't prove that a mummy is 3,000 years old unless you sit there and watch it for 3,000 years

Carbon dating is only "established" by people who depend on it

Wait, are you saying that carbon dating is only accurate to people who believe in carbon dating as accurate????
I'm a bit confused, please explain citing example if you claim carbon dating is inaccurate.
Thanks.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by detroitslim

Originally posted by B.A.C.

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



You are arguing semantics. If I force the dog to evolve by breeding him, or a predator forces him to evolve, you end up with the same result.


I'm saying it isn't evolution, it's only breeding, forced at that.

Now if a deer can only eat something that is 12 feet in the air and he grows extra long legs so he can reach it, I would consider that evolution.



B.A.C., you are pushing the envelope of sematics pretty hard, and your judgement on what constitutes "proof" would fill a corrupt, third world bureaucrat with pride.

You demand proof of evolution, but you have re-defined evolution to an all-encompassing, diffuse concept with an impossible burden of proof. Then you scoff at evidence that does not clear your definitions, and evidence that comes close to your definition of "evidence" gets re-labelled as "adaptation", "forced breeding", or the like.

You're essentially asking the board to define "blue", and when someone suggests that the sky is blue, you reject that evidence because there are white clouds, red sunsets, shifting colors, and terrestrial blue things.

Scientific method puts the burden of dis-proving evidence on you. Summarily dismissing the genetics of fruit flies, wolf spiders, and wooly mammoths doesn't make evolution invalid, nor any other theory valid.

Evolution as a process has been factually proven several times in this thread, and with each instance, you reject that proof because it has not met your personal standards. I submit to you that your standard is humanly impossible to reach, and that even if you were granted immortality and were to watch with your own eyes how every species on the planet evolves over the next 50,000 years, you would still reject evolution as an unproven theory.


Ah, that was a nice break.

I've already said I AGREE with some of the examples I've been given. I AGREE with some parts of evolution. What I don't agree with is Origin of the Species.

And yes, I consider some of what is called "evolution", I even slipped and used the word "evolution" (surprised no one burned me for that), to be adaptation.

Like I said, it's been me against this whole thread. I'm sure there are other people to argue with.



B.A.C., you are pushing the envelope of sematics pretty hard, and your judgement on what constitutes "proof" would fill a corrupt, third world bureaucrat with pride.


Thank You. Sorry I don't just jump on board and believe scientific theories, because so many are proved wrong later.

KK now you guys find someone else to lambast, at least I had the guts to enter a debate with almost All against Me. LOL

Cheers.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu

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


Actually... I do believe we have seen this "theory" in action as germ evolve to endure the efforts we make to eliminate them.

Repeatable in the lab... Well, I am willing to bet that one can alter subsequent generations of germs through applying the same chemicals to the original strains. I will admit, this is speculation on my part because I am not a biologist.


If it helps, a page or 2 back, I posted proof that evolution is observable, testable and repeatable in a lab which makes BAC wrong again. Well at least BAC is consistent about being wrong consistently



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Like I said, it's been me against this whole thread. I'm sure there are other people to argue with.



Your crocodile tears are quite disingenuous, B.A.C. You entered a thread that started with a lengthy list of evidentiary claims for evolution and demanded proof that evolution existed. You then dismissed, refuted or re-defined every piece of evidence brought before you.

Your approach couldn't have been more isolating than if you were a holocaust denier crashing the high holy days at Beth Jacob.




Sorry I don't just jump on board and believe scientific theories, because so many are proved wrong later.


Wow, that's a great reason to disbelieve in facts and evidence... Wanting to be in on the ground floor of negation and deniability!

The problem with your whole line of reasoning is precisely that nihilism. You've taken no position of your own, you've made no defensible stands, you've put forward no content that can be challenged because you've offered up nothing. You're a broken record, stuck on saying "no" endlessly.

And in case you missed the sarcasm above, using the potential for error as a reason to disbelieve something is absolutely absurd. Medical practice is also just a theory, but if you needed chemo, would you turn it down because 50 years from now there might be a better cure?

So instead of throwing your arms up to the heavens and bemoaning your isolation, how about you put your candle on top of the bushel instead of cursing the darkness?



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

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.



www.notjustatheory.com... - this link is broken




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 talk.origins 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.



www.talkorigins.org... - this isn't a scientific website. That's like me sending you to a creationist website.




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


www.talkorigins.org... - again show me scientists that say this, not people that say scientists say this. The whole website is designed to debunk anyone questioning evolution. Again, thats like me sending you to a creationist website.



The answer to your question can be found here
with the following title
Observed Instances of Speciation


www.talkorigins.org... - same site again.



Sorry too much info to post on the thread.

Hope this helps.


It didn't.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Then how do you explain that evolution is FACT back up by incredible amounts of science ?


Yes ... there's that s-word again ...

Maybe the best way to answer that is to point out what others, much smarter than I am, have already said -


Ashley, G.O. - Like other occult techniques of divination, the statistical method has a private jargon deliberately contrived to obscure its methods from non-practitioners.

Baudrillard, Jean - Like dreams, statistics are a form of wish fulfillment

Belloc, Hilarie – Before the curse of statistics fell upon mankind we lived a happy, innocent life, full of merriment and go, and informed by fairly good judgment.

Unknown – A statistician is a man who comes to the rescue of figures that cannot lie for themselves.
Unknown - There are three types of people in this world: Those who can count, and those who can't.
Unknown - Statistics can be made to prove anything - even the truth.
Unknown – A statistician carefully assembles facts and figures for others who carefully misinterpret them.
Unknown - Without data, all you are is just another person with an opinion.

Source : Dr. Richard A. Heiens



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by andre18
 


Words have precise meanings in science. For example, 'theory', 'law', and 'hypothesis' don't all mean the same thing. Outside of science, you might say something is 'just a theory', meaning it's supposition that may or may not be true. In science, a theory is an explanation that generally is accepted to be true.

Hypothesis

A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.

Example: If you see no difference in the cleaning ability of various laundry detergents, you might hypothesize that cleaning effectiveness is not affected by which detergent you use. You can see this hypothesis can be disproven if a stain is removed by one detergent and not another. On the other hand, you cannot prove the hypothesis. Even if you never see a difference in the cleanliness of your clothes after trying a thousand detergents, there might be one you haven't tried that could be different.

Theory

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It is theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon, and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this this theory generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes.

Law

A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.

As you can see, there is no 'proof' or absolute 'truth' in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations. Note, however, if you define proof as arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the evidence, then there is 'proof' in science. I work under the definition that to prove something implies it can never be wrong, which is different. If you're asked to define hypothesis, theory, and law, keep in mind the definitions of proof and of these words can vary slightly depending on the scientific discipline. What is important is to realize they don't all mean the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably.

Thats good enough for me
I would say everything and anything is possible n science is part of that.....the good thing about mathematics is that u always get a right answer at the end of it,where as in science it is the universal mystery.......
and Darwin I must admit im no big fan.....

[edit on 2'3/2009 by surrealist1978]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by detroitslim

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Like I said, it's been me against this whole thread. I'm sure there are other people to argue with.



Your crocodile tears are quite disingenuous, B.A.C. You entered a thread that started with a lengthy list of evidentiary claims for evolution and demanded proof that evolution existed. You then dismissed, refuted or re-defined every piece of evidence brought before you.

Your approach couldn't have been more isolating than if you were a holocaust denier crashing the high holy days at Beth Jacob.




Sorry I don't just jump on board and believe scientific theories, because so many are proved wrong later.


Wow, that's a great reason to disbelieve in facts and evidence... Wanting to be in on the ground floor of negation and deniability!

The problem with your whole line of reasoning is precisely that nihilism. You've taken no position of your own, you've made no defensible stands, you've put forward no content that can be challenged because you've offered up nothing. You're a broken record, stuck on saying "no" endlessly.

And in case you missed the sarcasm above, using the potential for error as a reason to disbelieve something is absolutely absurd. Medical practice is also just a theory, but if you needed chemo, would you turn it down because 50 years from now there might be a better cure?

So instead of throwing your arms up to the heavens and bemoaning your isolation, how about you put your candle on top of the bushel instead of cursing the darkness?


I've admitted I agree with some of it. Did you hear me? The biggest problem I have is with Origin of the Species, did you hear that?

You're saying there isn't a potential for error in the Theory of Evolution? Of course you're not. Well until there isn't the potential for error, I won't believe it all.

Cheers



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by andre18
 


Sorry Andre18, you're only partially right. Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection, which is the basis for the idea of random evolution IS a theory but is NOT a fact. Gravity is a fact. That's why it's called the Law of Gravity. Einstein's theory of relativity is still called a Theory even after scientific experiments have validated it. Unfortunately, scientific nomenclature isn't always consistent. Newton proposed his three ideas on conservation of energy, etc. which he suggested be called Laws and ever since then they are referred to as Newton's Laws, but they're NOT laws because they haven't been proven either mathematically or experimentally to apply every where, all the time, without exception. Whenever someone does come up with what appears to be an exception, it's immediately dismissed because it violates Newton's LAWS.

The problem with the theory of (random) evolution, is that while there's a lot of evidence that organisms can adapt to changing environments just like the theory predicts, there are also a lot of unanswered questions which the theory just sort of glosses over. I wish I could remember the name of the Nobel prize winning scientist who said that if the theory of evolution was ever tested according to the same scientific standards as any physics theory, it would fail miserably. There are a lot of biochemists, biologists, geneticists, etc. who will not dare express their doubts about evolution in public due to the fear of their careers being destroyed but in private, amongst themselves, they are more and more saying that they are seeing things in their field of expertise that the theory of evolution says should NOT be there and therefore the theory has some major problems associated with it. Below is just a partial list of questions about evolution which no one has a definitive answer to, just assumptions or guesses.
1) How did DNA manage to build a membrane around itself in order to develop into a fully functioning cell.
2) How did single cell organisms come together to form multi-cellular organisms?
3) How did early animals develop eyes, which even Darwin felt could not be explained by his theory
4) How did sea creatures survive long enough on land to evolve lungs, legs, etc.
5) How was the first 46 chromosome hominid able to successfully reproduce 46 chromosome offspring when all other apelike hominids in the area had 48 chromosomes? In order to understand this, look at mules. Mules are a cross between horses and donkeys. Horses have 64 chromosomes and donkeys have 62. Mules therefore have 63 and that is why mules can NOT breed more mules. The odd number of chromosomes prevents conception. So millions of years ago, when ape ancestors somehow(again no one is sure exactly how this happened) managed to produce one offspring who had 46 chromosomes instead of the 48 that all apes had and still have. Now maybe that one 46 chromosome hominid MIGHT be able to conceive offspring(who would have 47 chromosomes), but even if that's the case, those offspring would have the same problem conceiving the next generation just like mules do.
6) Why is it that Humans and apes are closer genetically than horses and zebras? Does that make any sense? Except for skin color, horses and zebra look almost identical to the casual untrained eye whereas the differences between humans and apes is grossly obvious.

The fact that organisms CAN adapt to changing environments is an example of micro-evolution but there is no conclusive evidence of one species evolving into a completely different species because no fossils have been found that are half old species, half new species. This problem of missing links is also shrugged off by evolutionists. A very well written book, that is highly informative (and by the way more or less supports evolution) is A brief History of Almost Everything. It has a lot of interesting observations about how life began, evolved, etc. that highlights how many unanswered questions there still are.



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join