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.

 

Scientists Unveil Missing Link In Evolution

page: 6
29
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by EnlightenUp
Really, I think evolution is an active process that the organism directly plays a role in perpetuating rather than simple passive adaptation by random changes; the changes are in part actively willed.

Who's the designer? The designed.


this last part you wrote is something i was pondering over last night, when i saw this image of the emperor moth www.geocities.com...
and couldnt help but wonder about the camouflauge seen here. How was the design to mimic a mammal so perfectly done, right down to light glinting in its 'eyes'..?
It was a deliberate attempt at fooling predators, but it is surprising that this miuch detail can be involved.




posted on May, 19 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by The Mack
 


Do a few hoaxes completely disprove all other evidence?
I think there have been a few religious hoaxes in the past as well.
Mankind is clever in good ways, and in bad ways.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Evolutionist make me want to vomit in terror everytime I hear there nonsense !



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by kidney thief
 


Wow nice. Amazing. Thats natural seletion(survival of the fittest ect),takes over millions and millions of years, to get that fine of detail.

Rabbits that live in snowy areas only being white is another example, as the dark colored ones are easily spotted and killed.This though would take a much shorter time than the Moth exaple you linked.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by spacedoubt
 


like i said earlier im not christian nor does my ID concept have to do much with my religion.
The point is evolutionists will become as gullible as any christian when a new find tells them somthing they want to hear. The fact is one side can explain no more than the other side. While a christian would say "god made it" and evolutionist would say "it happened randomly". One side is no better than the other. The creationist puts faith in there being a god while the evolutionist puts faith in they will one day discover enough transitional fossils to make their theory work.
lets clear a few things up.
Evolution does not mean athiest
ID does not mean christian or religion
people like to bring religion up in evolution talks because it is slightly better than name calling and in reality is just an assumption and when you assume...

[edit on 19-5-2009 by The Mack]



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Why do they think this is the "Missing Link"? They said it is over 40 MILLION years old. It seems like there should be ALOT more missing links. 40 million years worth. Next they gonna say "Dolphins used to be land animals some were found with a hip bone like land mammals." Dumb scientist. This is almost as terrible as the Big Bang theorem



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by The Mack
 


One side CAN explain more than the other.
The bible is not being re-written each time a new discovery is made.
However, science allows for rethinking, and rewriting.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by The Mack
 


I think the difference is that Creationist picks up 1 SINGLE fossil and says this is proof for what I believe and the Evolutionist takes up 200 Million fossils and says this is proof of what I believe.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacedoubt
reply to post by The Mack
 


One side CAN explain more than the other.
The bible is not being re-written each time a new discovery is made.
However, science allows for rethinking, and rewriting.



I hate to double post but it appears i have to. And contrary to the belief of many athiests and evolutionists the Christian religion is not the only religion in the world.
like i said earlier im not christian nor does my ID concept have to do much with my religion.
lets clear a few things up.
Evolution does not mean athiest
ID does not mean christian or religion
people like to bring religion up in evolution talks because it is slightly better than name calling and in reality is just an assumption and when you assume...


[edit on 19-5-2009 by The Mack]



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by MOTT the HOOPLE
Evolutionist make me want to vomit in terror everytime I hear there nonsense !


I know it kills you cause it makes you question your own faith, but here, I'll help you.

Relax, and praying for these people instead, to see the light? Isn't that what your TOLD to do anyway?

Just remember, evolution is being taught everyday in every public school across the United States, thankfully, so puke your brains out thinking about all those little minds learning and believe it as scientific fact, because it is.

People who believe in religion don't make me feel sick, they make me feel sorry for them.

If your not a religious fanatic, just someone who "pukes in terror" at the mention of evolution, nevermind the post.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by The Mack
 


I'm curious about the ID concept. It does entail the pre-existence of something (the designer) which begs the usual question. Who designed the designer(s)?
Forgive me for neglecting what you had stated earlier about ID.

Is there a decent set of explanations of ID on the web? And does it "evolve" as new discoveries are made?



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by spacedoubt
 


Well my concept of ID lies with the the life form its self, and in order to learn adapt and change the education process of an organisim would have to carry past death. unfortnately christians give it a bad name much the same way athiests give evolution a bad name (see posts by nola213) so getting the data on the net is hard. The whole who created the creator thing can be carried out ad infintum much the same way as what was before the big bang and what came before that and what made it go bang and did this happen only once, on and on and on.

I would have a hard time trying to argue somthing as fact when the odds are against me and history shows that the facts would only be valid for a few more years untill a new dicovery was made. see so the christians follow just as blindly as evolutionists, except the evolutionists know their facts will change over time.

[edit on 19-5-2009 by The Mack]



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   
ID can exist with only 1 of any fossil that you choose. ID can exist without ANY fossils. ID can point to any living thing on Earth or any fossil of any living thing on Earth independent of the rest of them and say that 1 single thing can Exclusively prove the Idea I subscribe to. It is proof that something created it.

Evolution can ONLY exist with EVERY SINGLE fossil. Evolution CANNOT exist without any fossils. Evolution CANNOT use a single fossil as proof without including every single OTHER fossil that exists and every single type of living creature on Earth.

That is the difference. No room for disagreement.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 08:30 PM
link   
Well lets take the dog for example, the doxon. Evolution can't explain the doxon but ID (by people) can. The way these fossil finds go there is a possibility that we may find a 50million year old modern man fossil some where. But that would be thrown out becuase it would conflic with the beliefs of both the evolutionists and the christians.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   
I cannot believe the hype and sensationalism over some lemur bones. Sure, it's interesting. It might even be important. But it doesn't "change everything". I don't even put it up there in the top 1000 scientific discoveries of all time. But what do I know? I still have to get up tomorrow and go to work. Lemur bones or no lemur bones.

The History Channel really blew it hyping this one. This puts them "up there" with the National Enquirer and Coast to Coast in my book.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 08:40 PM
link   
looks like a lot of over hype. I dont see any kind of missing link here.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by eniac
reply to post by emsed1
 


i'm the LAST person to stick up for creationists, but I have to laugh when I hear someone claiming to have 'proved' the theory of evolution. This will prove nothing, even if it might add more credence to the evolution argument. Darwinists are full of as much bs as creationists. OK maybe not quite AS much bs, but damn near.


Ha ha I am a creationist who also believes creationists trying to prove God is just plane sillyness when they are asked to use the scientific method to prove a supernatural being. It is very very refreshing to see someone from the opposition admit they too are notorious for embellishing data, fabricating or manufacturing evidence and saying a lot of BS although the darwinist do it a little more hehe.

nice to meet you eniac!



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   
its obvious that god put this here on earth to question our faith in him. dont believe what these 'scientist' have to say about the fossil.

/sarcasm



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   
this has no impact on religion what so ever. all they'll say is "god started the domino effect" and therefore it was still a divine hand in "lighting the match".



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


Excellent post.

Evolution is a program that's being ran by DNA.

Everything about it screams program and I think Darwin's version of evolution is holding back real progress. Our time and effort should be looking for the code not trying to support Darwin and his pie in the sky theory.

I built a simple website using HTML and you can look at DNA as the software and our bodies as the hardware.

My website would run correctly most of the time but every once in awhile it would get a bug and I would have to go into the HTML code and fix the problem. This is what they call mutations. These are just errors in the program.

Sometimes the error might actually look pretty good so I keep it and it becomes part of the website.

These things are random but they are a result of the program so they are still a product of design.

The reason Darwin has hurt the human race is because if we find the code we can cancel and close out diseases like Diabetes or Cancer in hours maybe minutes. We are to busy trying to find ways to support Darwin's fantasy theory.

Right now if an error occurs during transcription we just get sick and we have to try to fix the error through medicine or surgery. This is because we don't know the code. This is tied to Darwin and the materialist wanting a random process.

This is interesting:

As far back as 1994, pro-ID scientist and Discovery Institute fellow Forrest Mims had warned in a letter to Science[1] against assuming that 'junk' DNA was 'useless.'" Science wouldn't print Mims' letter, but soon thereafter, in 1998, leading ID theorist William Dembski repeated this sentiment in First Things:

[Intelligent] design is not a science stopper. Indeed, design can foster inquiry where traditional evolutionary approaches obstruct it. Consider the term "junk DNA." Implicit in this term is the view that because the genome of an organism has been cobbled together through a long, undirected evolutionary process, the genome is a patchwork of which only limited portions are essential to the organism. Thus on an evolutionary view we expect a lot of useless DNA. If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function. And indeed, the most recent findings suggest that designating DNA as "junk" merely cloaks our current lack of knowledge about function. For instance, in a recent issue of the Journal of Theoretical Biology, John Bodnar describes how "non-coding DNA in eukaryotic genomes encodes a language which programs organismal growth and development." Design encourages scientists to look for function where evolution discourages it.

(William Dembski, "Intelligent Science and Design," First Things, Vol. 86:21-27 (October 1998))

www.evolutionnews.org...

If we can concentrate on finding the code instead of supporting Darwin then we can save alot of lives and reach new heights for our species. Some are so closed minded they don't want a program because that would destroy their beloved theory.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join