Study Of Flower Color Shows Evolution In Action - More proof for Evolution!, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times


reply posted on 2-7-2009 @ 06:05 AM by pieman
Originally posted by PieKeeper
A population of flowers changing color to accommodate one species over another is actually remarkable. I don't know why so many of you don't get that.


not really, the flower can be either red or pale, humming birds prefer red so pollinate red flowers more often, this leads to more red flowers in humming bird pollinated areas. this is natural selection.

so yes, this study shows some small element of natural selection.

it does not show evolution by natural selection because the flowers are still the same flowers except that they have more red flowers in one area and more pale in another. evolution requires an irreversible change.

in an area pollinated by moths which then changes to birds and back to moths we can reasonably expect that the proportions of red to pale flowers will fluctuate accordingly.

neither man nor nature has been able to select to make a flower anything except a flower or a horse anything but a horse, the fossil records don't show it and there is no evidence for it here.

this darwinian idea is all rooted in how we define "species". we accept that a man is a man even if he has different physical features because of his natural environment. darwin suggests a finch is not a finch if it has different physical features because of its environment. changes in environment change the animal. why do we accept this in animals and not in humans?

the flaw in darwinism is that he assumes that the way victorians catigorise the natural world is accurate when i would suggest that this categorisation is itself in error. darwinism is logical only if you accept categorisation, which is a ridiculous idea.


reply posted on 2-7-2009 @ 06:11 AM by KarlG
reply to post by WhatTheory


You mean "God created Man" isn't lame?

Or do you have another alternative theory?

You haven't mentioned your beliefs yet, but I might like to garner that you're a creationist, which IMO is a much lamer theory, with even LESS proof and evidence.


reply posted on 2-7-2009 @ 06:17 AM by Totakeke
reply to post by KarlG


I'd like to know why scientists subscribe to the whole "carbon dating" idea even though it's clearly flawed and has been proven to be flawed on countless occasions.


reply posted on 2-7-2009 @ 06:20 AM by Kaytagg
Originally posted by Totakeke
reply to post by KarlG


I'd like to know why scientists subscribe to the whole "carbon dating" idea even though it's clearly flawed and has been proven to be flawed on countless occasions.


What are you talking about?

Please provide some sort of link showing what you're talking about, or i'll be forced to write this off as pure ignorance.


reply posted on 2-7-2009 @ 06:28 AM by Totakeke
reply to post by Kaytagg


This is just a small quote.


A critical assumption used in carbon-14 dating has to do with this ratio. It is assumed that the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is today (1 to 1 trillion). If this assumption is true, then the AMS 14C dating method is valid up to about 80,000 years. Beyond this number, the instruments scientists use would not be able to detect enough remaining 14C to be useful in age estimates. This is a critical assumption in the dating process. If this assumption is not true, then the method will give incorrect dates. What could cause this ratio to change? If the production rate of 14C in the atmosphere is not equal to the removal rate (mostly through decay), this ratio will change. In other words, the amount of 14C being produced in the atmosphere must equal the amount being removed to be in a steady state (also called “equilibrium”). If this is not true, the ratio of 14C to 12C is not a constant, which would make knowing the starting amount of 14C in a specimen difficult or impossible to accurately determine.


The rest can be found here: www.answersingenesis.org... The point is, carbon dating hinges upon the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 staying constant throughout history, which is just an assumption.

People have also tried to date things only a few years old with carbon dating and it gave erroneous results.

[edit on 2-7-2009 by Totakeke]


reply posted on 2-7-2009 @ 06:39 AM by max.is.awake
Reply to post by WhatTheory


YEP. This is just one of many many many new threads popping up to disprove God when all it really does is prove He works through mysterious ways. It is obvious all living things evolve and adapt depending on the surroundings or changes in surroundings. Just another example of how God takes care of all living things even a moth. Excellent thread OP. Thank you. Bring us more proof of Gods wonders and miracles and love.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com



reply posted on 2-7-2009 @ 07:25 AM by KarlG
Originally posted by max.is.awake
Reply to post by WhatTheory


YEP. This is just one of many many many new threads popping up to disprove God when all it really does is prove He works through mysterious ways. It is obvious all living things evolve and adapt depending on the surroundings or changes in surroundings. Just another example of how God takes care of all living things even a moth. Excellent thread OP. Thank you. Bring us more proof of Gods wonders and miracles and love.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com



Wow. How does that prove He exists?

Does he speak to you?

I don't understand.


reply posted on 2-7-2009 @ 04:35 PM by PieKeeper
reply to post by WhatTheory


My witty response is actually a reference to the ATS motto of "Deny Ignorance". You are simply wrong on all of your assumptions of how evolution works, and even your understanding of basic biology is sad. I have a clue, it's called education.

If I may ask, why are you so rude?



reply to post by paul762


Sir Fred Hoyle also believed that life evolved in space and came to this planet by comet.



reply to post by Totakeke


If carbon dating was so inaccurate they wouldn't use it.


reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 03:05 AM by Astyanax
Originally posted by WhatTheory
Ok, then show me the adaptations of one species changing into another.

Here are a few:

Transitional forms thread on ATS

More transitional forms

Still more transitional forms

All the transitional forms you could ever want

Species change into other species all the time; proving that they do is no problem. The problem is simply that some creationists are liars and other creationists are gullible swallowers of lies.

Common misrepresentations by creationists

Show me the evidence of one species evolving into another one.

I wonder how many times you have been shown it already.

There are none so blind as they who dare not see.


reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 03:10 AM by Totakeke
reply to post by PieKeeper


But it is inaccurate, and they do use it. As hard as it is to believe scientists aren't so objective any more.


reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 03:31 AM by Totakeke
reply to post by Astyanax


How can scientists use carbon dating when the most crucial piece of information is based on pure speculation?


reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 04:00 AM by Astyanax
reply to post by Totakeke

Which piece is that? The bit about isotopic proportions remaining constant? Do you know of any reason why they should not? All the carbon that exists on Earth - or as nearly all as makes no difference - comes from the same source: the original planetary nebula. Carbon-12 and carbon-14 are chemically almost identical, so one is not privileged over the other in any chemical reaction. The proportion of carbon composing the atmosphere may have changed, but not the proportion of carbon isotopes to one another - not, at least, until human beings started producing carbon-14 in nuclear reactors.

This quibble about isotope proportions was formulated to replace the exploded argument that perhaps isotope half-lives change over time (yes, I swear, creationists actually used to claim this, still do for all I know).

If you want to criticize science, you first have to know the science. That's the bit that creationists always get wrong.

That's all from me on carbon dating. Don't drag the thread off topic. If you want to discuss issues with carbon dating, find or start a thread on that topic. If it's interesting enough, I may add my two cents'-worth.


reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 04:07 AM by Totakeke
reply to post by Astyanax


I'm sorry, but after the years of fraud by scientists, not to mention the irregularities in dating methods, I really can't accept that carbon dating, let alone evolution, is right. Even if it were right it wouldn't explain all of the other evidence that the Earth isn't even billions of years old.

It's kind of funny. Last time I asked a question that someone couldn't answer I was accused of "derailing the thread". But what do I know?

[edit on 3-7-2009 by Totakeke]


reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 04:07 AM by apacheman
reply to post by Totakeke


What in the world are you refering to? What is speculative about it? Radiocarbon dating has been verified within the known limits, by comparing with tree-ring data, and good stratigraphy. Look, I understand religionists aversion to science and logic, but please don't make baldly wrong assertation concerning well-established facts,

By the way, were you aware that Jesus was a pervert?
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>    ^^TOP^^



EVOLUTION - Did YOU Know?
  Posted 16 days ago with 24 member flags
"I was raised an atheist"- Professor František Vyskočil
  Posted 6 days ago with 6 member flags
Evolution. Not a theory, but a fact!
  Posted 18 days ago with 4 member flags
Evolutionary theory: Gaps and not yet understood phenonemon
  Posted 18 days ago with 3 member flags