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.

 

10 Ways Darwin got it wrong - The Conspiracy of Evolution

page: 12
28
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by DisappearCompletely


Evidence for ID? Please feel free to post some, .and not assumptions based from complexity


In other words, nothing that proves you wrong.




posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 04:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Kerry_Knight
 


lol wtf?

The top 16? Can you provide a reference? I would consider myself a evolutionary biologist and havn't heard of any such thing.. some more middle American church camp bull#?



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 04:38 AM
link   
Could somebody please explain to me by U2U where my post went? Thankyou.

More importantly, why is it that these religious fundamentalists (I will continue calling you that, because that's what you are) can get away with spreading lies and verbal-poison on a site like this?

Darwins work is NOT a THEORY - it is proven, and as such is commonly referred to as Darwins Law. Some numpty tried to say that because he had some small inaccuracies in some of his lesser claims, his whole work could be questioned. This is simply not true, and is as usual, a creationist God-Squad cop-out.

Just so you know OP, when say to me "God Bless You", I regard that as a serious insult, so please don't say it.

I think there is a presence on ATS of religious cult recruiters. They should be watched and scrutinised at every turn. I believe there are several of them in this thread. Because as anyone in the religious recovery business knows - CULTS (Especially Christian ones) are a bad thing.

Science deals with FACT - and Darwins Law is based on FACT. It's typical that religious 'fundies' insult the entire scientific community by trying to enforce their fiction, on the worlds' facts.

The Para.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by cheeser
reply to post by Kerry_Knight
 


lol wtf?

The top 16? Can you provide a reference? I would consider myself a evolutionary biologist and havn't heard of any such thing.. some more middle American church camp bull#?


Oh Brother, ya wanna watch the language homicide? It makes it really hard to think someone acting so childish is actually a scientist.

I don't know why I am doing this after that last comment you made. Gee professor are you always THIS OBJECTIVE in science debates or is ad-hom ridicule your only forte?


www.jimmunol.org...


But will the A-16 deliver? Will they help rid us of the natural selection "survival of the fittest" mentality that has plagued civilization for a century and a half, and on which Darwinism and neo-Darwinism are based, now that the cat is out of the bag that selection is politics not science? That selection cannot be measured exactly. That it is not the mechanism of evolution. That it is an abstract rusty tool left over from 19th century British imperial exploits.

Or will the A-16 tip-toe around the issue, appease the Darwin industry and protect foundation grants?

Certain things look promising. First, while most of the A-16 have roots in Darwinian and neo-Darwinian theory, they recognize the need to challenge the prevailing Modern Evolutionary Synthesis because there’s too much it doesn’t explain.

For example, the Modern Synthesis was produced when genetics was still a baby and we’ve now discovered all the human genes there are to be found. We’ve only got 20,000 - 25,000 of them, roughly what other species have, and those genes arrived on the scene a half billion years ago. So there’s a push for more investigation into non-genetic areas, for how body plans originated, for instance. Charles Darwin never said.

Second, the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis event is being hosted by Konrad Lorenz Institute, where for years there have been discussions about self-organization.

Third, one of the stars of the symposium, New York Medical College cell biologist Stuart Newman, hypothesizes that all 35 animal phyla self-organized at the time of the Cambrian explosion (a half billion years ago) without a genetic recipe or selection (hardwiring supposedly followed).

Fourth, KLI’s chairman, Gerd Mueller has collaborated with Stuart Newman on a book about origin of form. And Newman has other allies within the group, including Yale biologist Gunter Wagner, Budapest biologist and KLI board member Eors Szathmary, as well as KLI’s science manager, Werner Callebaut – a Belgian philosopher who will deliver the non-centrality of gene paper.

I published a "first peek" at Stuart Newman’s concept (Appendix, "Stuart Newman’s High Tea") following his presentation at the University of Notre Dame in March. There has so far been a stonewalling on the science blogs about self-organization. The consensus of the evolution pack seems to be that if an idea doesn’t fit in with Darwinism and neo-Darwinism – KEEP IT OUT!

Meanwhile, Swedish cytogeneticist Antonio Lima-de-Faria, author of the book Evolution without Selection, sees any continuance of the natural selection concept as "compromise". He says Darwinism and neo-Darwinism deal only with the biological or "terminal" phase of evolution and impede discovery of the real mechanism, which is "primaeval" – based on elementary particles, chemical elements and minerals (Chapter 6, "Knight of the North Star").

Lima-de-Faria’s views are considered "extreme" by some science elites 20 years after publication of Evolution without Selection, his book about self-assembly – a phenomenon he defines as "the spontaneous aggregation of biological structures involving formation of weak chemical bonds between surfaces with complementary shapes". However, it looks like some other science elites may be warming up to concepts he laid down decades ago as evidenced by comments at June’s World Science Festival in New York.


Steve Benner, pioneer of synthetic biology and founder, Westheimer Institute for Science:

"But certainly our view of how life originated on Earth is very much dependent on minerals being involved in the process to control the chemistry. . . . So in that sense, I agree with my distinguished colleague from Lund ."

Paul Davies, theoretical physicist and astrobiologist, Director BEYOND Center, Arizona State University:

"There has to be a pathway from chemistry to biology – powerful levels before Darwinian evolution even kicks in."


www.democraticunderground.com...



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Parallex
 


I knew it would just be a matter of time before they started calling it Darwins Law of evolution. Too bad Darwin didn't come up with it.

Darwins Law,, HA HA HA THAT IS FUNNY!!


Read the above post smart guy, evolutionists can't even come to a Consensus what the hell it is to even call it a scientific fact much less a LAW! HA HA HA HA

[edit on 15-11-2009 by Kerry_Knight]



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 05:20 AM
link   
reply to post by savagediver
 


You are aware that most of the scientists listed here were born anywhere in between the dark ages and the 19 th century ? At a time when NOT being a creationist could get you fired, presecuted, or even burned at the stake.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Angus123


Humans and chimps are so similar they share all but one chromosome and can donate blood back and forth. The bones in a whales fins are identical to the bones in the human hand. I could go on and on.



The "bones" in whale fins? I thought that was cartelege?


Humans have 46 chromosomes chimps 48 and I wouldnt go swapping blood with them if I were you. www.jimmunol.org...




But you would only say "so" and I would only get a headache. You need your religio-crutch, and I'm content to let you hobble around with it.


What is with all this crap about my religious this or that? Have I once talked scripture with you ? Have I once tried to convert anyone?

Can you not discuss science without bringing up peoples effing religions! Jeez man get over it, I don't GO to church, GOT it? I'm not pushing no bible down your throat so knock it off



[edit on 15-11-2009 by Kerry_Knight]



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ismail
reply to post by savagediver
 


You are aware that most of the scientists listed here were born anywhere in between the dark ages and the 19 th century ? At a time when NOT being a creationist could get you fired, presecuted, or even burned at the stake.


Yeah and now days its the exact opposite, if they find out you are a Christian in science, they will ruin your career.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 05:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Kerry_Knight
 


So they should. It means you can't use reason. What point is there to reasearch something if you can't use reason ? A scientist who believes is starting out with a bias. Science and the scientific method don't work that way.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 06:02 AM
link   


Yeah and now days its the exact opposite, if they find out you are a Christian in science, they will ruin your career.


Not for being a casual christian, but if you believe a snake talked and all the unscientific stuff told in the bible, then yeah... you probably SHOULDNT be a scientist.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 06:04 AM
link   
reply to post by GorehoundLarry
 


I love it when people argue back my arguments as if I never made them. Read the history in particular my responses to doda.


reply to post by dodadoom
 


Yes, you believe "he" wants that but there are others that disagree. Thus my point.

reply to post by Lucius Driftwood
 


Considering your context is completely off from the intended context of that quote, I fail to see why I should answer beyond this.
Try again.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 06:04 AM
link   
#1 The warm pond theory


Darwin did not try to explain origins of life.


#2 The supposed simplicity of the cell.

Darwin was right about move in time from simplicity to complexity. Billion years ago life was much more simple than now. All of it.


#3 His ideas about information inside the cell.

Marvelous changes can occur for simple organisms. If you put some bacterial life in hostile environment, it will transform and adapt, and will use that environment to sustain life. Life is flexible indeed.

#4 His expectation of intermediate fossils

Changes of life forms occur only when environment is changing. If environment is stable, life is stable. There fore it would not produce transitional species. A good example is shark - has not changed a bit.


#5 His failure to see the limits of variation of species

This is true. Ancestors of dolphins and whales used to live on land - they, obviously, were and looked different then


This is all due to the change of environment. Everyone seems to forget that the common ancestor of human and ape was NOT ape, but entirely different being.

Of course fossil record shows plenty of transitional organisms. Stating otherwise is a lie.


#6 His discounting of the Cambrian Explosion.


This "Big Bang" is a good example of flexibility of life when environment is changing.

#7 His theory of homology

You argument is false. If it can be designers fault, it does not mean it wasn't common ancestry
And don't forget geography. Continents looked different and were linked together.


#8 His theory of human beings evolving from apes.



Humans and Apes have common ancestor. That ancestor is no Ape, for heavens sake. It is entirely different species that evolved into Humans and Apes.


#9 His theory of the tree of life.

This theory is adding more and more evidence - NOT less and less. More transitional species are found every day. More genetic predictions (based on theory of evolution) are made all the time.


#10 His rejection of biblical creation by God

If we assure you, there is no point bringing god into discussion of mutation of viruses every year, unless you think they are released by god at certain date and brought with the vessel from skies


------------------

It was shallow take. I could attempt to destroy Darwin with much more advanced evidence.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Daniem
 


And you get to dictate what exactly is and is not scientific? Perhaps a snake can be genetically modified to speak?
Can't imagine why anyone would want to do that but.....



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Daniem
 


And you get to dictate what exactly is and is not scientific? Perhaps a snake can be genetically modified to speak?
Can't imagine why anyone would want to do that but.....



And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth
- Revelation, 7/1

That answer your question? NOT the bible. Not the bible. It isnt scientific.


[edit on 15/11/2009 by Daniem]



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 06:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Daniem
 


Ever heard of allegory?



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 07:22 AM
link   
oh come on, lets be serious! Where is the thread about how Ohm, Henry Cavendish, Maxwell, Samuel F. B. Morse, William Gilbert, Nikola Tesla, Thomas Edison, Luigi Galvani, Alessandro Volta, etc, etc WERE ALL WRONG ABOUT ELECTRICITY?

It's true, all of these great men - 'fathers' of electrical theory - got it in some cases almost totally wrong.... does that mean electrical power doesn't exist?!?

How about when everyone was saying things like - The home computer will never catch on! No one will ever need more that 16kb of ram! These people - 'fathers' of modern computer theory - they being wrong somehow proves that computers don't exist right?

How about Aristotle, Galileo Galilei, Newton and Einstein - 'Fathers' of gravity theory - were all wrong about gravity - does that mean i am currently floating in mid air not using a computer which isn't plugged into the electrical grid?

Of course it doesn't, nor does Darwin being wrong prove that we didn't evolve - the entire science of biology is now organized around the evolution - without the ability to study things as small as nucleic acids their is no way darwin could have even guessed at the mechanics of hereditary traits - what he did was propose a theory of natural selection which started science along a whole new track of thinking (sort of, evolution as a word and theory did sorta exist before darwin but lets not bother going into that right now...) - from this point science was able to come up with ideas, test them, retest them, debate the results, propose other studies, perform more tests, some more tests and finally when they have a stable explanation with absolutely no contradicting flaws they produce it as a theory... The swarm of scientists then pick it to pieces, test it, evaluate it, re-test it, etc, etc, etc ad nausium.... This is what science is, it's the careful study of observable events - of course before we had all the information we weren't sure how it all worked, how could we have known?

Biology today not only understands the mechanism, action and results of evolution but it has used it to reorganize everything - as you would hope - the system works! Everything is being fitted into the right place, previously baffling things become sensible...

Whales for example... Since the development of DNA and Genetic Theory we have been able to investigate why wales are so darn weird. You would assume that a divine creator would just make a whale and chuck it in the sea, sorta like a big fish - only wales are nothing like big fish.... they're sorta like us landlubbers actually, not even being able to breath properly underwater and all.... Well there is something even odder about whales should you ever decided to cut one open, at the end of spine you'll find some hips and then a pair of fat stumpy little lets which look like hippo legs. These are totally useless as they're buried deep within the blubber and are unable to function, over the years uselessness they've become atrophied and deformed (not being important to evolution it ignores them or gives bonus points to against them)

Why did God put these useless legs inside a whale? I would love to hear your answer..... i guess he must just be crazy.

Why would Darwinian Natural Selection have put legs inside a whale? Quiet simple, the hippo who is often seen floating around in lakes with its mouth open feeding almost in the style of modern day whales at one point took to doing this as their main source of food, leaving the rest of the hippos they had a massive advantage foodwise and thus survivalwise the better they were at this feeding method - slowly they began to evolve away from their land loving brothers until they were so 'deformed' that they could only live in the sea - now totally separate from their hippo brothers, they became classed as a new species (couldn't cross breed between the two 'families') and now were free to evolve rapidly into modern day whales - the legs left hanging encased in blubber a pointless reminder of their past, much like much of the junk in our DNA (the bits which maybe once determined our phenotype as small and furry or described how to create vitamin C).

Darwin doesn't need to be one hundred percent accurate on how everything works, modern evolutionary theory doesn't even need to be one hundred percent sure how everything works - we know it does work, we use it everyday and it is the only rational answer for the weirdness which is the world.

Why did encode in out DNA the ability to create vitamin C (like dogs and cats do) but then break it by inserting a bit of code from further down the strand right in the middle of it totally ruining it and causing us scurvy unless we eat plenty of fruit? Evolution can explain it by simply pointing out at the time it happened our main diet was fruit, thus no one died because of it and natural selection could pay more attention to other traits.

So i would say to you rather than trying to debunk 150 year old science why not step into the modern age and deal with genetics, evolution and biological systems as we see them in the modern age?

and please tell me why god ruined my vitamin c and put hippos legs inside whales.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Kerry_Knight
 


actually plenty of prominent scientists hold a belief in some form of god without any problems, as long as they perform real actual science and submit it to the peer review process no one cares what they believe - it's when you get these incredulous lier fools who do nothing but twist scientific logic to push whichever theocratic dictatorship they happen to have been indoctrinated into at birth that real science has a problem with them.

Of course the very fact that science is now so advanced as to totally blow any concept of god right out the window in terms of biology, astrophysics (the old lie that we were the center of the universe seems kinda silly now we know how big this place actually is, in fact the universe is balanced more perfectly for black holes than it is for our puny little selves.), geology, archeology, etc, etc, etc.

To be a scientist in this day and age and still state that the world is about 6000 years old, we were created at the same time as all other animals, etc is just as foolish as saying the zodiac effects our lives or lightning is caused by angry Thor. Very few people with a comprehensive understanding of modern science hold a belief in organized religions view on the world, certainly though many still cling to the crutch of some pointlessly week Deist god.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 07:35 AM
link   
How does it feel to live in a world devoid of science. I never saw how anyone could take succor from the creationist drivel now being repackaged as ID. Spewing the same 'if we descended from monkees, why are there still monkeys?" non=argument, and continuing to ignore the real fossil record.
And let's explore the real intelligence of the "designer" who stupidly created organisms which daily threaten human existence, and who cruelly designs babies with birth defects. I would call such a designer a cruel, misogynistic SOB. I better get back to the lab before I say what I really think and really make the fairy tale believers mad.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 08:01 AM
link   
Evolution is a fact.

But the darwin theory of evolution is not perfect : you know scientist talked about the FACT of evolution and there are "other" theory of evolution ( but not so far from darwin one, on its principle ).

en.wikipedia.org...

Science is about fact (most of the time )
Religion is about superstition , and unknow known, and creation of myth : because they didn't know. And they wanted that their sheep to think there is a truth that the community know, more than other community : that's ideology, that is nationnalism, that is patriotism : that mean war, that mean to think you are superior to other people and the nature.

That comes with religion !

AND I know the differences betwean religion and spirituality ? But can you do the differences ?

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

A myth is a theory , ok. But when it is not build upon facts, scientific and mesurable FACTS, it is nothing less than bull#.

You chose if you want to be a sheep, but do not try to convert us, because we can oppose you more force and more intelligence on the subject : and moreover we can ignore you.

[edit on 15-11-2009 by psychederic]



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 08:29 AM
link   
OK how about I shed a little light on this? IM EXHAUSTED OF THIS TIT FOR TAT GARBAGE!

YOUR BOTH RIGHT
YOUR BOTH WRONG

You both fail to understand that you have correct points and points with giant holes in them.

First off evolution is also 'selective breeding' and we do know this can be done because we can breed animals a certian way ensuring we get the best genetics.

BUT the creationists always say "what about the missing link?"

.......now this is where it gets weird.

now in a short timeframe our thumb was placed up next to our main fingers..
and them slid down towards our forearm (as of today). With several other changes. could it be possible the neanderthal might have been what if evolution alone played its slow path?

I strongly beleive, with the sighting of human appearing entities from other worlds did indeed make us in their image. For what purpose I do not know, but they are referred to as 'the dead ones' in the old testament.



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join