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.

 

Don't let them tell you that "The Theory of Evolution" is a fact.

page: 28
14
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ohh_pleasee
Interesting.

You know I have a friend who has yet to tell me his big theory on why Evolution was a lie and why he is a Creationist(Something along the lines of Darwinism is a religion?).


Why would you consult a friend when you can google Creation Science and get the answers right from creation scientists on the web.

At least ask yourself why some scientists are willing to come out of the closet and face the ridicule before jumping to conclusions. Could it be because they know evolution is scientifically and mathematically impossible and the creation model makes more sense?

Evolutionists say they have common ancestry with neanderthals. I'll be the first to admit they are correct.


As for me, my ancestors did not walk around with their knuckles dragging on the ground, nor did they swing from trees by their tails. My ancestors were just like modern humans because they were created that way.




posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
At least ask yourself why some scientists are willing to come out of the closet and face the ridicule before jumping to conclusions. Could it be because they know evolution is scientifically and mathematically impossible and the creation model makes more sense?


Good point. I mean they are risking their careers to come out, why would they do that? They must know something doesn't make sense. They must have finally woke up from their theory/dream.

Starred.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


That's not what I asked but I'll roll with it.

The definition of species isn't bad, and if it's changed, it's certainly better and more useful now than before.


The major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.


One species diverges into two distinct populations which can subsequently become so genetically distinct, via microevolution that they cannot interbreed.

That is speciation and it's happened plenty. Life wouldn't be able to continue of it could not speciate as things would go extinct leaving niches unfilled. Everything would go extinct leaving the land barren.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
As for me, my ancestors did not walk around with their knuckles dragging on the ground,


Nor did anyone else's ancestors, not that "evolutionists" are claiming so.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   

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


That's not what I asked but I'll roll with it.

The definition of species isn't bad, and if it's changed, it's certainly better and more useful now than before.


The major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.


One species diverges into two distinct populations which can subsequently become so genetically distinct, via microevolution that they cannot interbreed.

That is speciation and it's happened plenty.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by Welfhard]


Yes I know about Darwin's finch's, etc , I consider them to be the same species. Why do you think they had to redefine the word species to fit the theory?



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Yes I know about Darwin's finch's, etc , I consider them to be the same species.


But they aren't when they can't interbreed. Need I bring up all the other examples


Why do you think they had to redefine the word species to fit the theory?


Because the standing definition wasn't useful enough and the theory required a clear distinction between organism so taxonomy worked. Things get redefined all the time, you think there is a motive every time?

[edit on 9-3-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
[Nor did anyone else's ancestors, not that "evolutionists" are claiming so.


Well of course they do claim that. Unless their theory has evolved again and I am not aware of it.


Evolutionists say they descended from some kind of ape man species. They have said so ever since Darwitt dreamed it.

Somewhere along the evolutionists' family tree there was a ape type man that walked hunched over and used his hands and feet for walking and moving around, eventually evolving to a more upright bi-ped.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


Here's a different one:


www.biology-online.org...
(1) The lowest taxonomic rank, and the most basic unit or category of biological classification.

(2) An individual belonging to a group of organisms (or the entire group itself) having common characteristics and (usually) are capable of mating with one another.


Here's another:


www.biochem.northwestern.edu...
A group of organisms belong to the same biological species if they are capable of interbreeding to produce fertile offspring. However the biological test of a species is not always available, and so there is also a morphological species concept based on anatomical similarities.


These definitions are different than the one you provided, not much but enough to ask some questions about whether they can even define a species..

This is known as "The Species Problem":


www.scienceagainstevolution.org...
According to the theory of evolution, the differences in offspring from a common ancestor will increase over time, until the two lines of descent are so different that they become separate species. That sounds pretty reasonable, if you don’t know anything about genetics. Modern scientists know something about genetics. That’s why the traditional ideas about species pose a problem for the theory of evolution. The general public seems to be largely unaware that there is a serious “species problem” in the biological community.


Proving their theory is the agenda. I don't think they realize a lot of what goes on politically or socially. They'll do what their funders say, or lose funding, it's that simple.


[edit on 9-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


I'm saying they didn't drag their knuckles along the ground sporting a club, grunting like the stereotype. I hate the term "ape-man", after all, man is ape making it a fairly pointless term.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by John Matrix
 


I'm saying they didn't drag their knuckles along the ground sporting a club, grunting like the stereotype. I hate the term "ape-man", after all, man is ape making it a fairly pointless term.


According to The Theory of Evolution your ancestors did. If they had the technology of the club at that time, who knows. Maybe that evolved later.

Grunting, definitely.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


IT gets complicated because a population doesn't have a single genome, rather they have a gene pool. Speciation isn't an instant event, but a gradual one, making the lines blurred. That's just how it is.
Exceptions and amendments have to be made as the complications appear. like ring species.

"Proving their theory is the agenda."

They don't need to prove their theory to you or the fundies it's accepted in the wider scientific community due to there being no other theory with anywhere near as much evidence. It's be accepted for a long time, even before the discovery of DNA and the evolutionary cornucopia of genetics.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by John Matrix
 


I'm saying they didn't drag their knuckles along the ground sporting a club, grunting like the stereotype. I hate the term "ape-man", after all, man is ape making it a fairly pointless term.


According to The Theory of Evolution your ancestors did. If they had the technology of the club at that time, who knows. Maybe that evolved later.

Grunting, definitely.


No they didn't. Neither Neanderthal or Erectus are described as such any more.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
They don't need to prove their theory to you or the fundies it's accepted in the wider scientific community due to there being no other theory with anywhere near as much evidence. It's be accepted for a long time, even before the discovery of DNA and the evolutionary cornucopia of genetics.


I agree they don't need to prove it. They like to change a words meaning to fit the theory (species), or even MAKE a word (Evolution) a theory and a fact. What they want and what the people behind the scenes providing the funding wants are two different things.

Sorry, you'll never convince me to believe in The Theory of Evolution. No use trying. Unless you want to waste your time.

I do believe in Evolution as a fact though, I just think it is happening for a different reason than the theory does.

Faith is hard to explain I guess, I'll put mine in God before theories though.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard


What is this "loosing genetic information" that you speak of? Change (in this case size) isn't about 'how much information' you have in your DNA, it's what the DNA says. There are types of rice, for instance, that have many times more DNA than in the human genome. There are species of amoeba with many times that again. Add to that, a lot of human DNA doesn't do anything.

It's not how much, it's what it says that counts.


exactly, its what the DNA says that counts. Survival of the fittest explains "micro evolution". Small changes. This happens when one set of dominant characteristics dies out because the environment does not favor those dominant sets. That genectic information is either lost or deeply repressed. Another set of dominant characterstics come to for, because those animals that had those other sets as dominant, had the better chance for reproduction. In both animals. the same genectic information is present. When it comes to breading dogs, or moths changing colors, all the genectic information is in the original set of DNA. So the change here only occurs in the loosing of genectic information. Only so much change is possilbe in a creature from this method.

In order to get the vast changes proposed by the theory of evolution a mechanism is required to intorduce new genectic material. Mutation is put forth as the best possiblity for this mechanism. We haven't observed any real evolution along these lines. Not remotley to the level that is required to "prove" the theory of evolution.
Lenski E.coli experiment was put forth as an example earlier. Michael Behe points out that
1) Lenski experiment was highly controlled and the e.coli were placed in an environment that would be very condusive in allowing mutations to survive.

2) The mutation, in this particular example is another case of lost information, not gained information. The E.coli normally had a defense mechanism that would also inhibit them from getting "food" from a particular source. When the genectic info for that mechanism was lost or corrupted by mutation, they could now feed on a food source that was not availbel to them before.

3) Evolution that occurs because of lost DNA cannot be expected to produce the vast assortment of life we see today. DNA that continues to lose information or gets continually corrupted has limits as to how far it can go before it is useless.






They used to be wolves, but they're not anymore. Give them time, thousands of years and they could become genetically distinct again.


maybe. I don't think anyone has observed anything in the above statement however.


Can you define 'kind' and 'thing'?

I don't draw the line at compatable breeding. To me, a dogs a dog. A cat is a cat. A lizard is a lizard. and fish is a fish.
I don't see convincing evidence for bacteria becoming fruit flies, or lizards becoming birds, or cows becoming whales.

For the record, I am not dead set against evolution. I don't really mind that most people buy into it. And I don't see it as a threat to theism. I simply find the evidence less than compelling. However, I admit that if we limit the possibilities to strictly natural causes, the theory of evolution is the best we can come up for explaining the variation of life on this planet. It seems that in light of the known operations of the universe, that a supernatural cause is the most likley.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
No they didn't. Neither Neanderthal or Erectus are described as such any more.


They are still sometimes classified as a sub - species of humans (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) or as a separate species (Homo neanderthalensis). There's that nasty species problem again. They supposedly used and made their own stone tools as well. If you believe the theory. Which I don't.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 11:49 PM
link   

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


Here's a different one:


www.biology-online.org...
(1) The lowest taxonomic rank, and the most basic unit or category of biological classification.

(2) An individual belonging to a group of organisms (or the entire group itself) having common characteristics and (usually) are capable of mating with one another.


Here's another:


www.biochem.northwestern.edu...
A group of organisms belong to the same biological species if they are capable of interbreeding to produce fertile offspring. However the biological test of a species is not always available, and so there is also a morphological species concept based on anatomical similarities.


These definitions are different than the one you provided, not much but enough to ask some questions about whether they can even define a species..

This is known as "The Species Problem":


www.scienceagainstevolution.org...
According to the theory of evolution, the differences in offspring from a common ancestor will increase over time, until the two lines of descent are so different that they become separate species. That sounds pretty reasonable, if you don’t know anything about genetics. Modern scientists know something about genetics. That’s why the traditional ideas about species pose a problem for the theory of evolution. The general public seems to be largely unaware that there is a serious “species problem” in the biological community.


Proving their theory is the agenda. I don't think they realize a lot of what goes on politically or socially. They'll do what their funders say, or lose funding, it's that simple.


[edit on 9-3-2009 by B.A.C.]


I think the underlying problem here is that so many scientist base there research off the philosophy of naturalism. This bias often leads to what I see as illogical conclusion.
For example, Richard Dawkins admits that specified complexity is a good indicator of intelligent design. However he insists that any "specefied complexity" found in nature MUST be only an illusion of such. This is not based in scientific "facts", but on personal philosophy.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by hulkbacker
I think the underlying problem here is that so many scientist base there research off the philosophy of naturalism. This bias often leads to what I see as illogical conclusion.
For example, Richard Dawkins admits that specified complexity is a good indicator of intelligent design. However he insists that any "specefied complexity" found in nature MUST be only an illusion of such. This is not based in scientific "facts", but on personal philosophy.


Pretty soon he won't even have to argue about it. They'll just change the meaning of specified complexity.


[edit on 10-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 12:56 AM
link   
This shows the many questions that The Theory of Evolution raises:

www.scienceagainstevolution.org...
1. Initially, the Earth was a lifeless planet.
2. There is life on Earth now.
3. At some time in the past, life either originated on Earth, or came to Earth from outer space.
4. Regardless of where or when life originated, it had to originate sometime, somewhere, somehow.
5. Life either originated by purely natural processes, or else some supernatural element must have been involved.
6. Science, as defined by the American public school system, excludes supernatural explanations.
7. Science depends upon the “Scientific Method” for determining truth.
8. The Scientific Method involves testing hypotheses using repeatable experiments.
9. If there is a scientific explanation for the origin of life, it must depend entirely on natural, repeatable processes.
10. If life originated by a natural process under certain specific conditions, it should be possible to create life again under the same conditions.
11. For more than 50 years scientists have tried to find conditions that produce life, without success.
12. Fifty years of failed attempts to create life have raised more questions than answers about how life could have originated naturally.
13. Living things have been observed to die from natural processes, which can be repeated in a laboratory.
14. Life has never been observed to originate through any natural process.
15. “Abiogenesis” is the belief that life can originate from non-living substances through purely natural processes.
16. The theory of evolution depends upon abiogenesis as the starting point.
17. If the theory of abiogenesis is false, then the theory of evolution is false.
18. The American public school system teaches that somehow the first living cell formed naturally and reproduced.
19. There is no known way in which the first living cell could have formed naturally.
20. The first living cell would have needed some mechanism for metabolism.
21. There is no known natural process by which metabolism could originate in a lifeless cell.
22. The first living cell would have to grow and reproduce for life to continue past the first cell’s death.
23. Growth and reproduction require cell division.
24. Cell division is a complex process.
25. There is no known natural process by which cell division could originate by chance.
26. According to the theory of evolution, single-celled life forms evolved into multi-cellular life forms.
27. Multi-cellular life forms consist of an assembly of cells that have different functions.
28. There is no scientific explanation for how a single cell could or would naturally change function.
29. Single-celled organisms have a membrane which allows the cell to exchange some substances (“nutrients” and “waste”, for lack of better terms) with the environment.
30. Not all cells in larger multi-cellular organisms are in contact with the external environment.
31. Larger multi-cellular organisms need some method for the interior cells to exchange nutrients and waste with the external environment.
32. Very large multi-cellular animals require a complex system (typically including teeth, saliva, throat, stomach, and intestines) for absorbing nutrients from the environment.
33. Very large multi-cellular animals require a complex system (typically including lungs, intestines, heart, arteries, and veins) for distributing nutrients and oxygen to interior cells.
34. Very large multi-cellular animals require a complex system (typically including lungs, heart, arteries, veins, kidneys, and bladder) for removing waste from interior cells.
35. There is no satisfactory explanation how complex systems such as these could have originated by any natural process.
36. According to the theory of evolution, an invertebrate life-form evolved into the first vertebrate life-form.
37. Vertebrates have, by definition, a spine containing a nervous system.
38. The nervous system detects stimuli and reacts to them.
39. There is no satisfactory explanation for how the simplest nervous system could have originated by any natural process.
40. According to the theory of evolution, some of the first vertebrates were fish, which have eyes and a brain connected by a nervous system.
41. There is no satisfactory explanation how optical elements (typically including a lens, an iris and light sensors) could have assembled themselves by any natural process.
42. There is no satisfactory explanation how image processing algorithms could have originated in a fish brain by any natural process.
43. If the theory of evolution is true, then every characteristic of every living thing must be the result of a random mutation.
44. Mutations have been observed that increase or decrease the size of some portion (or portions) of a living organism.
45. Mutations have been observed that change the shape of a living organism.
46. Mutations have been observed that duplicate existing features (cows with two heads, flies with extra wings, etc.).
47. No mutation has ever been observed that provides a new function (sight, hearing, smell, lactation, etc.) in a living organism that did not previously have that function.
48. Cross-breeding and genetic engineering can transfer existing functionality from one living organism to another.
49. Cross-breeding cannot explain the origin of any new functionality in the first place.
50. Artificial selection enhances desired characteristics by removing genetic traits that inhibit the desired characteristics.


Continued....

[edit on 10-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 01:00 AM
link   
Continued....from last post

51. Artificial selection is more efficient than natural selection.
52. There are limits to the amount of change that can be produced by artificial selection.
53. Mutation and artificial selection have not been demonstrated to be sufficient to bring about new life forms from existing ones.
54. Similarity of features is not definite proof of common ancestry.
55. Similarity of features is often observed in objects designed by man.
56. The fact that one individual was born later than another individual died is not proof that the later individual is a biological descendant of the earlier one, especially if they are of different species.
57. Many different human evolutionary trees have been proposed.
58. There is disagreement about hominid lineage because the “evidence” is meager and highly speculative.
59. Darwin was correct when he said, “Any variation which is not inherited is unimportant for us.” 2
60. Acquired characteristics are not inherited because they do not cause any change in the DNA.
61. Explanations for how apelike creatures evolved into humans are fanciful speculations without experimental confirmation.
62. There is no evidence to suggest that offspring of animals that eat cooked food are smarter than offspring of the same species that eat raw food.
63. There is no evidence to suggest that mental exercises performed by parents will increase the brain size of their children.
64. There is no evidence that if apelike creatures sometimes stand upright to see over tall grasses, it will increase the brain size of their children.
65. There is no evidence that if apelike creatures sometimes stand upright to see over tall grasses, it will make it easier for their children to stand upright.
66. Sedimentary layers are formed in modern times by such things as floods, mudslides, and sandstorms.
67. The fossils in sedimentary layers formed in modern times contain the kinds of things living in that location.
68. The concept of geologic ages is based upon the evolutionary assumption that the kinds of fossils buried in sedimentary layers are determined by time rather than location.
69. All sedimentary layers formed in modern times are of the same geologic age, despite the fact that they contain different kinds of fossils.
70. Radiometric dating depends upon assumptions that cannot be verified about the initial concentrations of elements.
71. Radiometric dating of rocks brought back from the Moon is not a reliable method of determining the age of the Earth.
72. “Dark matter” and “dark energy” were postulated to explain why astronomical measurements don’t match predictions of the Big Bang theory.
73. When measurements don’t agree with theoretical predictions, it is generally because the theory was wrong.
74. “We didn’t see it happen, we can’t make it happen again, and we don’t know how it could possibly have happened, but it must have happened somehow!” is never a satisfactory scientific explanation.
75. Public schools should not teach any fanciful speculation that is inconsistent with experimentally verified laws as if it were true.

This last point shows there is a conspiracy by Scientists to say The Theory of Evolution is a fact. Because they do try to pass it off as fact. I'm not the only one who says this.

Why do they try to present it as fact? Probably because they are pressured to from the funding they receive. Or because they want to pursue their own research and disagreeing with The Theory of Evolution isn't going to get you much funding. Or it may be because they'd like to quiet Creationists and Believers. I'm not sure why, but there is definitely something going on.

[edit on 10-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

[edit on 10-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 02:37 AM
link   
reply to post by ohh_pleasee
 





Excuse me if I'm wrong, but I have heard directly that Creation was some 6,000 years ago roundabout, and the dinosaurs went around 65 MILLION years ago.

Creationists doesn't mean Christians. An individual who believes we are the product of a creator can be called creationist. Simple;



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join