evolution: The greatest conspiracy , page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 16 times

Topic started on 3-10-2009 @ 07:08 PM by sisgood

Excerpt from "The Other Side of Evolution" by Jon Gary Williams
(I might also paraphrase a bit)

Chapter V "Problems of Evolution"

(I'm skipping statement one, The Origin of Life as it deals with how life began not how it continued on after life began.)

(I'm also skipping most references to one-celled animals.)

The Fossil record... (paraphrased)

Sudden appearance of flowering plants (paraphrased)

Like the animal, record, the plant record is equally as troubling to evolutionist. There is no sign of a "gradual evolution" of plant organs. The pistol, stamen, roots and other parts of flowering plants appear in the fossil record... fully formed.

No intermediate forms (paraphrased)

There are no intermediate links between different animals. There are not just missing links, the whole chain is missing! If evolution were true, the fossil record should be full of "links". There should be just as many dinos-birds as there are birds and dinos.

Unbridged gaps between body structures (paraphrased)

Focusing on the change from reptile to mammal, there is no half reptile half mammal on record. Also, in the jaw lines of the reptiles (the quadrate bone)
is required to link the jaw to the rest of the skull.
In mammals, the jaw is directly linked to the skull. There is no record of a transition in the fossils.

Origin of Vertebrates (paraphrased)

I'll make it simple. There's no evidence of a shift between invertebrates to vertebrates in evolution... nor is there evidence of a shift from exoskeleton to indoskeleton. They just. aren't. there.

Necessity of perfection in animal organs. (paraphrased and this is a huge one)

For spiders, if evolution were true, they wouldn't exist. What use would a half-formed spinneret be to a spider? Could a spider exist today if such an important organ of their bodies took millions of years to evolve.
Answer... NO!

It's the same way for bees! How in the world do evolutionist explain how the bee survived without their pollen baskets for millions of years?

There are millions more of these examples of how a half-formed organ simply WOULD NOT WORK!!!

Necessity of perfection in both plants and animals for cross-pollination (paraphrased... again)

Did you know that the Yucca plant could not survive with out the pronuba moth? The moth takes pollen from the plant, flies to another Yucca plant and lays it's eggs in the plant. The moth larva eat about a fifth of the plant seeds and the rest... well, they are the reason we have Yucca plants now.
There is NO POSSIBLE WAY that these two species could have evolved the way they are now.

What about the Portuguese man of war and the Nomeus fish? The man of war catches the fish and the Nomeus is the bait! The nomeus is immune to the poison of the jelly fish. Not only does a half-evolved system like this not work but it would be impossible for evolution to improve the situation. Poisoned, dead fish can't lay eggs.

(There are about fifteen other such examples and sections in the book that I will not touch on as I think I've proved my point in this and it's getting redundant. The other facts stand for themselves so I will just list them.)

"Extinct forms still are living and these creatures have remained unchanged for millions and millions of years."

Metamorphosis, cold to warm blood... I could go on and on.

Evolution cannot explain any of this.

Or can anyone prove me wrong?

[edit on 3-10-2009 by sisgood]

reply posted on 3-10-2009 @ 07:29 PM by Titen-Sxull

reply to post by sisgood

I'm no expert on Evolution but I'm aware there are some gaps in the evolutionary history, that does not, however, mean that some supernatural skybeing (God) or technologically advanced space men (aliens) had anything to do with life.

Evolution makes sense, look at Chimps, they look a lot like us, we are clearly more related to them then we are other animals. How do you explain the physical and genetic similarities then? If we are not apes than what are we? If not evolution, than what?

The fact is any theory to the contrary of evolution would have to be equally strange and hard to believe if not more so. Giant invisible deities, sounds pretty odd to me, alien intervention.

It also seems very obvious that animals do change, just look at humans, we used to be an average of 5 feet tall and now look at us. We are changing, as are many of our animal and plant species, those changes might not look like much now but I'm guessing somewhere down the line we will be so different that scientists will need a new species name for us.

reply posted on 3-10-2009 @ 07:43 PM by sisgood

... You were doing pretty well until you mentioned taller humans.
Humans today, as a rule, get better nutrition. Better nutrition makes humans taller because we have more resources to grow with.

Children who do not get good nutrition have stunted growth.

Try again

Also, chimps LOOK like humans!? No... chimps look like chimps. Humans look like humans.
There are dog owners that resemble their pets but did they evolve from them? No.
Should I mention that I KNOW people that have the bone structure of neanderthals?

[edit on 3-10-2009 by sisgood]

reply posted on 3-10-2009 @ 07:44 PM by VitalOverdose

I think this is why its known as the theory of evolution.

[edit on 3-10-2009 by VitalOverdose]

reply posted on 3-10-2009 @ 07:47 PM by sisgood

reply to post by VitalOverdose

Yes it is known as the THEORY of evolution but it is taught in schools as the only thing that makes sense!
Most people I encounter treat it as a LAW.

reply posted on 3-10-2009 @ 07:54 PM by VitalOverdose

reply to post by sisgood

I know what your saying. It annoys me to.

reply posted on 3-10-2009 @ 08:01 PM by sisgood

reply to post by VitalOverdose

It enrages me when people treat me as some sort of half-brain just because I don't buy into evolution!

I don't buy into a lot of Christian ideas either and THEY don't treat me as a freak!

reply posted on 3-10-2009 @ 08:05 PM by VitalOverdose

Ive always thought the the theory of evolution seems to be correct for most of the animals on the planet but you just cant use it to explain the unprecedented rapid development of the human species. Especially as there is no clear fossil record of human development.

Dont get stress yourself out because most people dont have the ability to think outside the box. Its just not worth it.

[edit on 3-10-2009 by VitalOverdose]

reply posted on 3-10-2009 @ 08:07 PM by Republican08

Reply to post by sisgood

True they may not attack you now, but back in the day it could've been house arrest or burnings. So your just lucky on timing.

And if an evolutionist calls you stupid, just glad he's not trying to kill you for blasphemy!!!

I'm also reserving this spot for when I get home and can add things in with sources easierly lol.

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply posted on 3-10-2009 @ 08:09 PM by mkross1983

This is very intriguing. I grew up in a Christian household but have lost that over the years as I became an Adult.

The evolution thing has always stumped me. I used to think "If we evolved from Apes, why do we still have Apes?". I've come to find out that isolated groups are the ones that evolved not the entire species. At least, that's what I've been told.

But, this presents some good questions to which I do not have the answers. Very interesting about the plants specifically.

I don't have any answers but I do have a Star and a Flag for you! lol

reply posted on 3-10-2009 @ 08:23 PM by ZombieOctopus

Your problem isn't with evolution, it's with this Jon Gary Williams fellow, he sounds like a moron.

How can you honestly claim evolution doesn't answer any of your gripes if you haven't actually looked? I know for a fact you haven't because most of your questions have rudimentary answers that could easy be explained by a 10th or 11th grade high school biology student.

Arguments from ignorance are easy, actually taking the time to learn something is hard, but worth it.

reply posted on 3-10-2009 @ 08:25 PM by Pauligirl

I think Mr. Williams may have missed a few things.

www.abc.net.au...
The term "cynodont" refers to a broad group of extinct mammal-like reptiles, the Cynodontia.

www.actionbioscience.org...
Evidence of Evolutionary Transitions

sci.waikato.ac.nz...
Plant Evolution

www.scientificamerican.com...
New study says tiny snippets of RNA co-evolved with vertebrates, likely accounting for the new organisms' complexity

www.talkorigins.org...
Cambrian fossils transitional between vertebrate and invertebrate

A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.

- Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15

reply posted on 3-10-2009 @ 08:26 PM by newworld

the theory of evolution consists of observations, models, evidence such as fossil records, embryological similarities between different species, DNA similarities (probably THE strongest evidence supporting evolution), micro-evolution observed in the labs, vestigial organ evidence, etc. there is a big difference of the use of the word "theory" in science and common usage. In common daily life, we use the word theory to refer to a guess, a hypothesis, a shot-in-the-dark idea. In science, the word theory "is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena."
www.fsteiger.com...

now let's define evolution.biological evolution "simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution and large-scale evolution ."
for a more complete definition check this link :evolution.berkeley.edu...

Now let's debunk a few of the things said by Jon Gary Williams. He said that there is no evidence of the change from reptile to mammal. this is in fact not true. in this link: cambrian.tripod.com... there is ample evidence of "transitional" species from one group to the next.
Also, it is important to be aware that what Jon Gary was having problems with is not evolution itself, but [www.msu.edu...]taxonomy[www.msu.edu...]. taxonomy separates species in different groups, but this is highly subjective, for if we humans lived several millions years ago our taxonomy would have been completely different.

Now the spiders. the spider does not have "semi-evolved" organs-it's organs are good enough for the survival of this species. In fact, there actually is evidence that spiders were also subject to evolution. blog.taragana.com...

Here is some interesting info about the bees. They in fact appeared before the flowers they pollinate: www.nytimes.com...

Also, there are plant fossils that demonstrate plant evolution; a little fact that apparently was left out. en.wikipedia.org... I know it's wikipedia and not viewed very well by many of you, but check the sources offered in the site if in doubt.

Evolution is the strongest supported theory of biology. the reason evolution is "pushed" into the school system is because without it many of our sciences such as paleontology, medicine, taxonomy, psychology, botany, among other fields in the medical sciences and biological sciences wouldn't make sense or exist.

in case more information is needed to have a better grasp of evolution, just check this: www.pbs.org...
also, just to add, it is somewhat misleading to declare something a "transitional species", because every species that exists now IS a transitional species.

even with all the evidence pointing to evolution being true, the only question one should have is exactly how the process works, because that evolution has occurred is a well-established FACT in the scientific community.

[edit on 3-10-2009 by newworld]

reply posted on 3-10-2009 @ 08:30 PM by newworld

Originally posted by sisgood
reply to post by VitalOverdose

It enrages me when people treat me as some sort of half-brain just because I don't buy into evolution!

I don't buy into a lot of Christian ideas either and THEY don't treat me as a freak!

you are no half-brain. It's probably that you don't completely understand evolution. It is possible to know about evolution and still believe in a god- god-guided evolution i think is how scientists of a religious faith call it.

If, however, despite all the evidence you still think evolution is BS, then I can't do anything but shake my head in sadness while the more agressive individuals start insulting you.

reply posted on 3-10-2009 @ 08:35 PM by mkross1983

Thank you NewWorld and Pauligirl for the information you posted, I'll be checking those out later.

I didn't really learn a whole lot about evolution when I was in school.

reply posted on 3-10-2009 @ 08:47 PM by Pauligirl

Originally posted by mkross1983
Thank you NewWorld and Pauligirl for the information you posted, I'll be checking those out later.

I didn't really learn a whole lot about evolution when I was in school.

Truth is, I don't think it was even taught when I was in school. If it was, I don't remember it, but that was 40 some years ago.

I guess the trick now is, if you are trying to get it off the net, is telling information from misinformation.

reply posted on 3-10-2009 @ 08:48 PM by sisgood

Originally posted by Pauligirl
I think Mr. Williams may have missed a few things.

www.abc.net.au...
The term "cynodont" refers to a broad group of extinct mammal-like reptiles, the Cynodontia.

(Me: Could I see not a scientist representation but actual fossils?)

www.actionbioscience.org...
Evidence of Evolutionary Transitions

(Me: The rendition looks like a species of bird to me. Also, on the bones, I can't see the fuzz. We know that some dinos had fuzz-like feathers. Are there feathers on the wings? From what I can see of the grooves in the rock around the "wings" the primary feathers are aimed away from the body. It looks like it would be, literally a ball of feathers.)

sci.waikato.ac.nz...
Plant Evolution

(Me: That said nothing about how flowering plants developed. Nor does it mention how seeding plants started... just the first mention of them.)

www.scientificamerican.com...
New study says tiny snippets of RNA co-evolved with vertebrates, likely accounting for the new organisms' complexity

(Me: That's interesting but it still doesn't show a half vertebrate, half invertebrate. It's just interesting data.)

www.talkorigins.org...
Cambrian fossils transitional between vertebrate and invertebrate

(Me: This is your best evidence yet. But couldn't the creatures listed have simply not needed the other parts of the vertebra? Also does the fossil record show a chain of evolution? (That is, that one species came after the other AND that the species before was the ancestor of the next species in the chain?)

A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.

- Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15

It's very nice to have someone on here that doesn't just huff and puff and call me a fool.

reply posted on 3-10-2009 @ 08:53 PM by VitalOverdose

reply to post by newworld

If theory really means fact in a science context then what do scientists call a bunch of ideas that have yet to be proven beyond a doubt?

reply posted on 3-10-2009 @ 09:00 PM by JPhish

Originally posted by newworld
you are no half-brain. It's probably that you don't completely understand evolution. It is possible to know about evolution and still believe in a god- god-guided evolution i think is how scientists of a religious faith call it.

If, however, despite all the evidence you still think evolution is BS, then I can't do anything but shake my head in sadness while the more agressive individuals start insulting you.