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: The greatest conspiracy

page: 23
16
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 05:35 AM
link   
reply to post by sisgood
 



What people don't seem to realize is that everyone has an agenda. Evolutionist are guilty of this also. Do you know what would happen if evolution was proven incorrect? Schools, museums, countries, colleges, and many other industries would loose billions of dollars.


Why exactly would they lose money? Why would scientists lose there jobs? Science has been wrong before, it happens. There is no agenda, except to find the truth. If the current methods are proven wrong, guess what? Science will admit and search out a new hypothesis.

You seem to think that the idea of creationism is water tight but the only evidence for it is a bible that reinforces its own ideas without any critical thought or science at all.

If it were found tomorrow that the entire fossil record was flawed and carbon dating was completely ineffective, science would move on to another hypothesis. Yes it would be dramatic but science would adjust in order to find the truth.

The arguments made by the people who are opposed to the theory of evolution are poorly formed and fallacious. As pointed out by some other posters. Many are open to other ideas but when you cannot even form a coherent thought or argument, that is based in logic and critical thinking. It is really hard to take any points seriously.




posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 06:37 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 




The creationist explanation for micro evolution is that DNA was designed to produce variation in species.


You are comparing apples to oranges...
The only way how DNA can change and produce variation is through random mutations.
If you are talking about adaptive responses (different gene expression) of the individual to the environment but the DNA stays the same, I have already shown that this is NOT the case (the changes get passed on, for example antibiotic resistance). Its like comparing suntan to black skin. One is simple adaptive response and the DNA doesnt change (or do you tell me that the suntan can be inherited?), the other is actual DNA adaptation which can be passed on to offspring (which is possible only through random mutations and nat. selection acting on many generations - evolution).



Like it or not, natural processes cannot cause non-living matter to become living organisms. The expert mathematicians have prove this as fact time and time again.


The only thing they disproven is completely RANDOM abiogenesis. Why it must be random? What if abiogenesis is a regular proces once the correct elements are present? Once the first self replicating RNA is produced, there is nothing to stop the process.



Micro-evolution does not prove Macro-evolution.


WRONG!
Micro implies macro.
In fact, macroevolution IS microevolution+longer time. You cannot separate the two, its against logic. Or do you know about some mechanism which stops change accumulation in a population after a certain amount of time/difference? Difference from what? There is no such thing as "default" unchanging species prototypes... And what synchronises the changes in population in the presence of a reproduction barrier, so they wont diverge? God?
Also see TalkOrigins refutation:
www.talkorigins.org...



Macro-evolution is Mathematically impossible.


So where is the proof? If you mean THAT proof, I have already pointed out abiogenesis is not related to evolution.

Regarding your numbered points in the quote:

1. So you are basically saying that all mutations are harmful. This is also proven wrong long ago on Talkorigins:
www.talkorigins.org...
Also see this:
www.talkorigins.org...

The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial. Harmful mutations does not matter in the long run, because they get eliminated by natural selection.
Thats a common mistake among people trying to disprove evolution. They say its random so its damaging for the population, but they forget that random mutations are only one side of the coin, which supplies variability. The other very important and non-random side is NATURAL SELECTION.

Here is another interesting lab example of using beneficial mutations for testing new drugs for mutagenic effects. Only mutated bacteria survive in this test:
www.fda.gov...

3. Classic flawed irreducible complexity argument.
The only thing that irreducible complexity says about a system is that it didnt evolve by addition of new parts. There are still plenty of ways it could evolve, like deletion of parts (yes, that simple!) or change in function. This argument along with the flagellum one has been proven false so long ago that even some serious creationists know it was a mistake.
TalkOrigins refutation:
www.talkorigins.org...

4. Of course the mutations evolution talks about must be in hereditary cells for organisms that reproduce sexually. I dont see a problem with this.

[edit on 7-10-2009 by Maslo]



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


Btw.. Why are you using the same old false arguments over and over again? They have all been refuted numerous times in the other ATS threads and TalkOrigins, I just have to copy-paste myself... Or do you think that a repeated lie will suddenly become truth?

Or are you making fun of us?


[edit on 7-10-2009 by Maslo]



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Maslo: Variation is not the result of mutations. Variation is the result of what is already programmed into the 3 billion letter application of DNA that exists in every living cell. The DNA program is why we have hundreds of different types of Dogs and why each human has unique identifiable features.

Adaptive responses are also part of the DNA program. Many species were created to adapt and present variations. Variation is not a result of mutations.....that is just nonsense. There is not proof of helpful mutations causing variations or leading to speciation. I have given you the proof, but you refuse to accept it.

I already showed you that mutations are rare, harmful, and not helpful to the species.

I showed you that abiogenesis is mathematically/scientifically impossible.

I showed you that micro-evolution has nothing to do with macro-evolution. Even your own side has declared that fact numerous times in these threads.

I came on these threads to Learn and to see if evolutionists have any new evidence to support their faith. I found that: from recapitulation to piltdown man, evolution is tainted with fraud and debunked evidence.


Mankind doesn't like the idea that he is accountable to a divine creator. That's why faith in evolution is so popular, even after it is shown to be a fraudulent religious belief system.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 09:49 AM
link   


i also suggest you research about.... the dna wave biocomputer.....



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   


I already showed you that mutations are rare, harmful, and not helpful to the species.


And I proved you wrong.




I showed you that micro-evolution has nothing to do with macro-evolution. Even your own side has declared that fact numerous times in these threads.


And you were proven wrong again.
Show me where our side declared this, its just not true.




Adaptive responses are also part of the DNA program. Many species were created to adapt and present variations. Variation is not a result of mutations.....that is just nonsense.



Could you elaborate how exactly you mean this, on DNA level?

(Are you implying that genetic code doesnt change?)

[edit on 7-10-2009 by Maslo]



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   
I will try to explain this to you as simple as possible...

There are only two options:

1. All variability within a species is a result of different genes expression and the DNA code is the same for all. (which you claim)

2. Variability is a result of not only different genes regulation, but actual DNA code differencies between the individuals in a population.

There are no other options and both cant be true at the same time... So which one is it?

If it was the first, then all individuals of the same species would have exactly the same DNA code. This is clearly not true. (CSI, anyone?
)
Also, the differencies between individuals would not get passed on to offspring, because adaptive responses which are not in the DNA (like suntan) just dont get passed. This is also in conflict with observation.

So we have arrived at the conclusion that 2. is correct. Now we ask, how could the DNA pool in a population differentiate? The only way how the DNA could change to adapt to its local environment is through random mutation and natural selection (evolution). There is no other way. Organisms CANNOT adapt theit own DNA purposely, like they do with for example skin (suntan). The only way how for example black people could adapt to intensive sun on the DNA level is (micro)evolution.
Understand what I mean?


[edit on 7-10-2009 by Maslo]



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by iamcamouflage
 


They would loose money... make no mistake about that. Can you even imagine the expense it would take to change all the information in textbooks around the world? Not to mention how expensive just ONE museum display is...
Oh yes... I think my price tag is pretty dern accurate.

As for credibility... they might not loose much face in the SCIENCE community, because after all, everyone would be just as proven wrong as the next scientist. But for normal, everyday people like me... they would loose all credibility. Perhaps not all... but some scientist have themselves convinced that they are so much smarter and thus, better, than everyone else...

I think that scientist have even more to protect than creationist. I think some of the more... vocal defenders of evolution would loose their jobs. I think that... should species to species evolution be proven untrue... the science community would almost literally blow up. I think the common man... the ones who really listen take what science says with a grain of salt already... I know I do as do most everyone I know in my life. If species to species evolution was to be proven wrong... Well, I think in about 10 years there would be a new crop of scientist and until then...
The public wouldn't trust the scientist as far as they could throw them.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


I agree with you and I've always said that the black/brown pigment is nothing more than an extreme suntan lol.

However... Africans are still human.

In the same vein, up north people lost pigment... their hair turned blond, their skin turned very pale, and their eyes turned blue.
These people, however, were still human. I am not disagreeing with micro-evolution WITHIN a species. Anyone that does so is an idiot. What I am saying is that, A: evolution would take too much time. For just one beneficial mutation it can take thousands of generation for the rest of the population to adapt that mutation. B: I do not believe that evolution can change the species of a creature nor the number of chromosomes an organism has.
THAT is the problem I have with evolution.

How do I know that some of the fossils found aren't just mutations of known species... I said SOME... please note.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by mcrom901
 


Thank you for posting that video. I hope everyone, regardless what side they are on, watches that video. Amazing stuff about the researcher and his conclusions regarding DNA and Intelligent Design.
I'm giving you a star.

Maslo: Watch the video micron901 posted above, then go back and edit your responses to me, otherwise you are going to look.......well....I can't say what you are going to look like.....but it isn't good.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


It's wishful thinking for you to say you proved me wrong. I supplied scientific opinions based on sound logic. You provided nothing to prove you are right.

You don't even know what your own side uses as arguments. Every evolutionist on here has a different understanding of what exactly evolution is. You are all confused.....and most people in the know.....are aware that Satan the God of confusion.

I never said the DNA code was the same for all.

How do you know that DNA is not responsible for adaptive responses such as a person's ability to suntan or inability to suntan?



[edit on 7/10/09 by John Matrix]



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Pauligirl
 


If you read the article about the Swedish spruce tree being 8000 years old, you would find that applies to the roots, and above ground is 600 years old......how they explain that discrepancy is another issue.

Besides, even if the flood was 10,000 years ago, so what. An 8000 year old root system on a tree speaks about something.....like maybe things are not what they appear to be?

Quit knit picking and give me some evidence for specialtion. I want you to provide evidence that a whale that turned into a crocodile or Northern Pike that turned into an alligator.....or a dinosaur that turned into a chicken........or a rabbit that turned into a kangaroo......give me something like that. You know what I mean? Something big that I can sink my teeth into, otherwise I believe your religion is a sham and your faith is misdirected.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   
This is one of your more extreme examples of making a claim, being refuted, refusing to acknowledge the refutation, and then propagating a bald face lie about the entire discussion.

Making an assertion is NOT 'showing' the proof. Pointing to or quoting references is showing some evidence, but evidence that turns out to be wrong or irrelevant is not proving a point. Saying that it is, especially after rejecting the counter argument out of hand is, doesn't make it so.

You are simply not an honest person, in thought, deed or agenda.


Originally posted by John Matrix
reply to post by Maslo
 


Maslo: Variation is not the result of mutations. Variation is the result of what is already programmed into the 3 billion letter application of DNA that exists in every living cell.


False. Completely and utterly false. You have been corrected on this many times.

Variation is absolutely the result of mutations. A mutation can be good, bad, or neutral. Variations between individuals in a population is the result of that individuals DNA as passed from the parents plus any mutations that occurred during that transmission.

Some mutations are bad, and that individual will not likely transmit the mutation to its descendent's because it won't have any. Some mutations are good and the individual will pass it on better than its cousins, so the mutation will come to dominate the population. Some mutations are neutral, so they just get passed on or die out depending on the nature of how the individual performs within the population because of other traits. Neutral mutations may prove beneficial in the future when conditions change for the population.

The key point here is that every individual undergoes mutation during reproduction. DNA replication is just not perfect, whether the chromosome gets hit by a cosmic ray, or the blood stream has too much alcohol in it, it isn't perfect.

Individuals are affected by the mutation. Populations are affected by useful traits spreading into the gene pool when an individuals mutations gives his descendants an advantage over others in the population.

You have heard this explanation dozens of times before, doubtless from better writers than I. Refusing to acknowledge this and continuing to maintain your ignorance of grade school biology is hypocritical and dishonest.



The DNA program is why we have hundreds of different types of Dogs and why each human has unique identifiable features.

Adaptive responses are also part of the DNA program. Many species were created to adapt and present variations.


Yes. That is fourth grade science. At least I read about it in fourth grade. Though I, of course, disagree with your use of the word 'created'.



Variation is not a result of mutations.....that is just nonsense. There is not proof of helpful mutations causing variations or leading to speciation.


No it isn't nonsense. It is fact. There is much evidence of helpful mutations leading to speciation. There is even more evidence of helpful mutations leading to variation.

I use the word 'evidence' here because Science doesn't like the word 'proof'. But when something is observed to happen, right in front of the researchers eyes, then it is a fact. And this has happened in many cases right listed in this thread.



I have given you the proof, but you refuse to accept it.


This is your central theme, which is a bold face lie. You have shown no proof what-so-ever. You have made assertions and claimed infallibility for those assertions, that's all.



I already showed you that mutations are rare, harmful, and not helpful to the species.


You have showed no such thing, and you cannot, because it simply is not true.



I showed you that abiogenesis is mathematically/scientifically impossible.


You have showed no such thing, and you cannot, because it simply is not true.

Why don't you start a thread on abiogenesis if you are so keen to discuss it. This is a thread on evolution.



I showed you that micro-evolution has nothing to do with macro-evolution.


You have showed no such thing, and you cannot, because it simply is not true.



Even your own side has declared that fact numerous times in these threads.


This is a bald faced lie and you cannot demonstrate it to be true. Reread the thread. Over and over if you have to.

Micro-evolution IMPLIES Macro-evolution.



I came on these threads to Learn and to see if evolutionists have any new evidence to support their faith. I found that: from recapitulation to piltdown man, evolution is tainted with fraud and debunked evidence.



This is demonstrably false. You have not come to learn, or you would have learned.

Asking the same question over and over and over and over again is clear 'proof' that you are making no attempt to learn anything.

Making the same assertion over and over and over and over again is clear 'proof' that you have come here with an agenda to preach and justify your own failed understanding of the content of the book you hold so dear.



Mankind doesn't like the idea that he is accountable to a divine creator. That's why faith in evolution is so popular, even after it is shown to be a fraudulent religious belief system.


That is just stupid from your own point of view. Mankind clearly does like the idea that he is accountable to a divine creator, or he wouldn't have clung to the concept for so long. Your refusal to acknowledge the wonder of the world and how it works is actually anti-God. To enter you world view for a moment, you are doing Satans work.

You are lying and libeling others for the sake of your own personal agenda. And that I have proven.



[edit on 7/10/2009 by rnaa]



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by mcrom901
 


Interesting video of one man's questioning his assumptions.

Since you seem to want to turn a discussion about evolution into a discussion about abiogenesis, here are a couple of videos, admittedly of lesser production values, but with a lot more science.






posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
reply to post by mcrom901
 


Thank you for posting that video. I hope everyone, regardless what side they are on, watches that video. Amazing stuff about the researcher and his conclusions regarding DNA and Intelligent Design.
I'm giving you a star.

Maslo: Watch the video micron901 posted above, then go back and edit your responses to me, otherwise you are going to look.......well....I can't say what you are going to look like.....but it isn't good.


I know you are talking to Maslo, but please watch the video's I posted above. Then go back and edit your responses to everyone, otherwise you are going to look......well.....I have already said what you look like in another post.

And if you would rather read something about it, review this link:

Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics,
and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations


And be sure to go back and edit your responses.





[edit on 7/10/2009 by rnaa]



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


rnaa: You sound like a broken record. You can attack me personally all you want.....I don't care. The reason I don't care is because you are an evolutionist Anyone who has common sense can see that evolution is illogical.




Every video and article I have posted deal with the issues in a respectful manner....unlike the adolescent condescending crap videos I've seen posted that are vitriolic nonsense designed to appeal to people's personal religious biases and dazzle ignorant people with bull plop.


I told you that evolution is dying....and people like you are it's last death throes. The top evolution scientists are beginning to turn from their foolish religious belief in a failed faith based system. I can picture them reading your defense of evolution with their faces in their hands as they shake their heads in embarrassment for you.

[edit on 7/10/09 by John Matrix]



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


I saw those videos a few times over the course of the last month. Thanks for posting them. Maybe someone else who is less informed than I am will be impressed.

Evolutionists might be able to fool some of the people some of the time, but JM, OT, and many other creationist believers are living proof that evolutionists can't fool all of the people all of the time.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


ROMCL while watching that second video. Not one self replicating cell has ever been made by man. The best I've heard about are synthetically produced cells supposedly made using real DNA from real cells....and that is not abiogenisis.
If billions of dollars, thousands of scientists, and a 100 years of lab work cannot produce one self replicating living cell, how can you tell anyone with a straight face that given enough time, a chemical soup is going to produce 2000 proteins in the right sequence and the precise 3 billion DNA instructions, and all that magically encased in a membrane? Why? Because oil collects together on water we are supposed accept that as an analogy for why abiogenesis can work....in theory? Forget it. It's a waste of time.

[edit on 7/10/09 by John Matrix]



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by sisgood
 



Can you even imagine the expense it would take to change all the information in textbooks around the world?

Textbooks are changed every few years whether new information is discovered or not. Believe me I have spent loads of money on college textbooks only to get no money back for it the following year because there is a new edition being used.


Not to mention how expensive just ONE museum display is...

Same here, museums change certain displays on a fairly regular basis. Yes, some would have to change but you are drastically over estimating the impact.


But for normal, everyday people like me... they would loose all credibility.

You would be a fool if you were to lose credibility in someone because something that was universally agreed upon was proven false. Science has been wrong on certain things for thousands of years and it still has more credibility than mystical beliefs. Science has been wrong before and I assume you still have enough credibility to take medications, get vaccines, trust that your computer will not explode in your face, that the computer systems in motor vehicles will successfully transport you.


I think some of the more... vocal defenders of evolution would loose their jobs.


There are several polls that show upwards of 90-95% of the science community believes in evolution. So you are saying that the science community would chastise their own for believing in something that was universally accepted?

Are you not aware that science has been wrong before? People still hold science to the highest respect, regardless of the mistakes of the past. Why? because the ultimate goal of science is the truth, even if it goes contrary to what we have known to be fact. If new evidence presents itself the theory or hypothesis must change. You would be considered a terrible scientist if you refused to change your view when confronted with evidence to the contrary.
I think you may not be very familiar with the scientific community and are forming generalizations from your own limited personal experience or from some other source. But there is no incentive to lie to oneself in science. The goal is to be correct not content.

I have notice a theme in your posts, you seem to inject a lot of "I think" and "I believe", this does not make things so. You are ignoring the evidence presented without providing any of your own to refute the currently accepted science. I know you want to "Believe" that evolution is wrong because it conflicts with your religious beliefs but that is not how science works. It is very clear that you are picking and choosing what science you choose to believe as long as it fits your belief system.



[edit on 7-10-2009 by iamcamouflage]



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by iamcamouflage
 


... The reason I state "I think and I believe" is because A: when I state this it is either my observations of the world or B: I wish not to get in trouble with the mods for stating that certain people are fools.

Two people have already gotten in trouble with the mods for statements they posted on this thread. I learned how to debate and yes, argue in *gasp* church. I Think and I Believe are non confrontational they also show that, unless cited, these are simply my observations.

I hate people that have such a confrontational tone to what they write and what they say... Like SOME people I could name.



You would be a fool if you were to lose credibility in someone because something that was universally agreed upon was proven false. Science has been wrong on certain things for thousands of years and it still has more credibility than mystical beliefs. Science has been wrong before and I assume you still have enough credibility to take medications, get vaccines, trust that your computer will not explode in your face, that the computer systems in motor vehicles will successfully transport you.


I would be a fool to loose trust in the "findings" of a person because it had been proven that they violently defended an idea that had been completely and totally proven false?

Ever heard the saying once bitten twice shy? I would still LISTEN to them but would simply require proof. Proof that any THINKING person should demand after something like that happening.

I may not be a fool but you are certainly treating me as one with your grammar-school examples above. Are you going to give me the chair example next? The technologies that you listed have been proven and re-proven. The only one I'm leery about right now is the swine flu vaccination... considering what happened to some people last time... (if you don't know look it up) But as soon as I am presented with proof that the vaccination does not have the same lethal side-effects as in the 70s... I will take it.

I have yet to see ANYone try and refute my claims that (excepting the newly found "missing link"... give it time though...) all "primate to man missing links" have been debunked.




top topics



 
16
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join