10 Ways Darwin got it wrong - The Conspiracy of Evolution

Originally posted by rnaa

Congratulations. This is a prime example of intellectual imprisonment.
Thanks to DNA evidence Darwin's theory of evolution has been debunked.
You can sit around for another million years waiting for humans to evolve.
I've heard the wishy washy response from evolutionists to salvage their beloved theory to corroborate with the illusive evidence.
The fact is real evidence dictates human origins in a completely different direction.
Whether or not current belief systems can really fathom this is an entirely different question.
As a result of this, you will never find evidence that aligns with the theory of evolution.
You will set off believing evolution is the only real opposition to religion and will work within that intellectual confinement.

You'll be trying to piece together the 'new' types of spider that have actually always existed and have just been officialy inducted into the scientific community.

You will also have to contend with pro-evolution programmes like Inside Nature's Giants where the presenter states "this whale is more closely related to a mouse than a fish!"


You'll have a hard time piecing evolution together. The solid, undisputable, unquestionable evidence will never appear. It is a hopeless pursuit. Evolutionists, throw in the towel.



[edit on 17-11-2009 by IrnBruFiend]

Something i have noticed and have become astounded/confused over here at ATS is how certain threads (such as this for example) gets stars and flags when so many posts of far greater relevancy and knowledge are over looked or ignored for the most part.. whats up with that?!

Originally posted by IrnBruFiend

Originally posted by rnaa

Thanks to DNA evidence Darwin's theory of evolution has been debunked.

Show me how! DNA evidence confirms modern evolution perfectly. (and Darwin's evolution is outdated now, but not false - its the same like with Newton´s gravity and Einstein´s gravity)

Originally posted by Kerry_Knight

In fact, it more or less reboots itself after only two generations to the default template of the life form it is instructed to build to already digitally hard coded specifications.

This is just not true, and since your whole argument is built around this, its not true either. As long as the mutation is established (it escaped all control mechanisms), there is no way a cell can distinguish it from other DNA bases. So, evidence?

Originally posted by Full_Vision
Something i have noticed and have become astounded/confused over here at ATS is how certain threads (such as this for example) gets stars and flags when so many posts of far greater relevancy and knowledge are over looked or ignored for the most part.. whats up with that?!

My "trolling conspiracy" hypothesis could explain this.

If my hypothesis is correct, then the conspirators would want to set up a honey pot to draw in other posters in order to maximize their point score.

I personally haven't figured out the point of flags, but aren't they supposed to be a measure of readers approval in order to draw attention to the thread?

reply to post by dodadoom


My 2c is that yes, Darwin's theory has many, many holes that call into question its overall validity.
I think that evolution may well act as an agent of development in the REFINEMENT of species rather than CREATING them initially.

However, Creationism by a supernatural God is clearly bunkum as well.

My belief is that humans are a hybrid of earlier Homonids and something else, call them Aliens or human-like beings from another neighborhood or whatever.

**Remember that the Genesis PROPERLY TRANSLATED describes GODS PLURAL RATHER THAN SINGULAR thus adding much to lines like, "Then the God(s) said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness'" etc etc.

reply to post by rnaa


oh come on, you know as well as i do these threads are started #mostly# by the religious people who feel the only way they can feel secure about their little lives is if we all love their wizard - the rest of them, like i think maybe this one - is someone who's unsure of some talking points they've been emailed or picked up on their trip around the internet and so they throw them to the lions to get torn to shreds - as we pull them apart it's easy to see whats actually inside them...

That said i agree the argumentation style of the creationist party is almost always painfully incredulous - denying the importance of scientifically accepted standards like Evolutionary theory, RadioCarbonDating, Fossilization, Geology, Tectonics, etc, etc, etc but then they pull out a single study that has never even been close to anything like the peer review process and claim it blows all the other evidence out the water!

Either it went something along the lines of long ago in the belly of stars fission created heavy elements, those floated around for a bit before coalescing into stellar bodies - a hot spinning ball of molten metal formed a layer of cold slag on it's surface - this original rocks (well ones 4.28 billion years old) can be seen Nuvvuagittuq greenstone belt, exposed on the eastern shore of Hudson Bay in northern Quebec - over the years these rocks melted and reformed just like they do in my metal foundry to create other rocks mostly resembling pumice- the earth burned and bubbled becoming a balls of jagged igneous and metamorphic rocks. The sedimentary rocks like limestone which cover most of the surface didn't get created until the oceans were teaming with life, these organisms remains deposited one on top of the other slowly build up to form a solid layer of rock.

Life began to grow from it's most basic form, reacting nucleic acids shaped to act as catalyst's in their own dominance of the seas - more complex forms developed to take advantage of the changed condition developing towards a DNA, RNA relationship which would blossom eventually to encode all the complexity of life as we know it. Plants use a clever little trick called photosynthesis so much that soon the worlds atmosphere is vastly different - the air full of oxygen now it's only a matter of time before life if adapted to first resist it's massive power then to feast on it - a new form of life develops, oxygen breathing animals (couldn't have evolved before because there was no oxygen)

Those animals lived, fought, hunted, begat and died - millions, billions of time - slowly adapting to create the many amazing species around us today, including one which has developed the amazing ability to rationalize it's very own existence - cogito ergo sum - from this rationalization it managed to understand that the study of testable and repeatable events will help to better understand the world we live in -from here modern scientific method developed; double bind testing, peer review, theory and counter-theory, etc...

And so we humans reach the modern age... We can see the results of all these processes ALL over the planet, when people go out to find oil they don't just hold some divining rods - they are geologists - using all these theorys of how the rocks, forests and finally hydrocarbons developed and got where they are - every day people poor over maps, geosoundings, core samples, etc, etc and it WORKS - the oil companies with the best oil finds are the ones with the best geologists - simple and true.

In medicine, biology, anthropology and all the other natural sciences evolution is used to predict results and predict finds and when applied correctly then IT WORKS.

Well let me tell you this, in my life i have seen the sad faces hobbling away at the end of a show by faith healer benny him, I have seen the shambling hordes of people sick and crippled clutching their crosses and their bibles at llords, i have seen the tears caused when prayer isn't answered - it leads me to the simple conclusion - if by some bizarre world a god does exist - he has no intention of helping those who won't learn for themselves. Science works, it has created the modern world - i think it's clear that any gods who have made the world have done so in a way we can predict it with science.

I do not mean to support religion in this, but these are some more of my thoughts.

My first issue with evolution is words and human evolution. Sociologists say that we think in words. How can we think only in words? How can a monkey teach itself words if it has no words to think with? Where is there a tipping point that grunts became words, and how did they realize what they were saying?

My second issue is the "spark of life." It is easy to understand small changes to species when environments change. But how exactly did this start? Darwin only explained how species evolved/changed, not how life began. Look around at how wonderfully complex life is. Even bacteria. There is so much DNA in even them.

The simplest things are still incredibly complex. When does something turn from a bubble of chemical processes into a life? When it can replicate? Viruses replicate (albeit it in a parasitic type way). Are they alive?

Another thought I have pondered. We all evolved from bacteria/protbacteria w/e. Eventually there were more and more complex ones. Eventually also, some bacteria ate other ones. Endosymbiotic theory. Mitochondria and chlooplasts are bacteria, or they were once bacteria. They have their own DNA separate from our own.

It is fun to look at how two very separate lifeforms emerged just based on what some bacteria ate in the past. Eat versus produce. Plants and animals.

At he same time I wonder if our bodies are just a very complex bacteria colony, or a colony of bacteria working together to survive.

I do not like the religious arguments because really there is none. It is believe, conform, and accept or be damned. On the other hand, science sure does give us a lot to think about yeah?

[edit on 17-11-2009 by s373r3d]

reply to post by s373r3d


Actually we think in concepts, check out this wiki page for an introduction to the amazing way our brain constructs thoughts - en.wikipedia.org...

Ask yourself do dogs ponder concepts such as 'food' and 'walking' - do they construct grammatical arguments? How about pigs, cows, goldfish? A huge amount of action can be done using only impulse driven thought processes - it's not until you begin to reason and rationalize that you need complex grammatical structures like we use.

Again have a wiki page detailing some of the many possible ways that it could have began, the more science we do in this field the clearer it becomes... en.wikipedia.org... - i'm in a rush but i assume the article will mention the many experiments in labs which modern science has done creating and self assembling the building blocks and indeed life itself (although in a very early stage, where life begins is as you say a grey area)

Your next thought, i suggest a look at tolweb.org... , www.wellcometreeoflife.org... and the tree of life wiki page - it shows the complex and detailed relationships of all life on earth and all it's relatives dating right back...

And yes our bodies could be described much better as a host for bacteria than as a single concise being - we hold more bacteria, virus, etc in the palm of our hand than we will ever see other human people and thats before you even begin to mention the many which live in our gut as part of a symbiotic relationship - it has even been suggested that #just# our genetic code alone isn't enough to create a whole functional human - the various colonies of symbiotic life we get from our mother during pregnancy are required to finish us off. Science has many exciting discoveries to make yet but it's certainly on the right track, helping us understand the world, live our lives and see new beauty everywhere.

I have one more thing I wanted to try to explain. I might be able to explain here.

Where do thoughts come from? A thought based on no outside stimuli?

So what is a thought? It comes from our brain. It comes from a lot of neurons interacting. Trace thought backwards....

Thought....many neurons firing....a single neuron....a possible stimuli....a chemical reaction that causes the first neuron to fire...then? Is that as far back as it goes or are we just doing what we do based on a stimuli/a single random chemical reaction in our brain somewhere?

Is there free will? Are we just programs? Neurobiology has a long way to go, but it is depressing to think we are a sum of chemical reactions.

I guess if entropy is the law of the universe, you could say that we are very efficient entropy machines and that is our sole purpose. Just like a virus can destroy its host, we destroy our planet in our own way and push the universe towards greater entropy.

Why are we so complex then? Well the net result is more entropy than complexity. How did something ordered come out of chaos? It didn't. Entropy on the sun lead there to be able to be order here (something had to become disorganized to have order here). We are here to destroy that order and un-create the order to the universe. Aka entropy.

Or not. I don't know. These are just more random thoughts I have had from the past about science.

Edit~Natureboy-you are awesome. Props to you. You seem to be able to understand what I am trying to say, and you back it up with at least something. I am just talking on past experience/education. You are helping a lot to fill in the gaps and misconceptions here. I do not want to just post links and tell people to understand. I have a lot of thoughts on this and I like it when someone else can see where I am coming form. If the users are interested, they can find the info they seek. It is out there.

[edit on 17-11-2009 by s373r3d]

reply to post by IrnBruFiend


From PNAS:

www.pnas.org...

reply to post by s373r3d


Where do thoughts come from? - Well that's a complex question, a little less complex than the question where do gods thoughts come from (and by this i mean einstines god not creations, and by that i mean any form of higher will) - to put it simply that we are able to question our world is much easier to explain than what the questions exist.

Look at your computer, inside it has a pile of sand - that sand is able to perform mathematical computations so fast that even if we gave all the Chinese people a pen and paper and let them team up against it the computer would SILL be quicker! I know you don't want hundreds of links but sorry here's another one... www.bsu.edu... the human brain is vastly more complex than a computer of course, much better an many other forms of analytic, emotional and reactionary responses - it's development, not just in mammals to man but right back to the early starts of a central nervous system, autonomic reflex actions and even many would argue cytoplasm interaction -some degree of mathmatical interpretation of data has been taking place.

Now as for the question of questions, why is it that two plus two equal four? why is it that strong defeats week? why is it that big is larger than small? Well thats a question we might and most likely will never be able to answer - we can just glory in the fact that it is, of course we aren't the only ones that don't have a clue - religion will tell you 'why made god' isn't a valid question, they will never answer it - they will tell you that 'some things aren't for us to know' they'll never suggest reasonable answers...

Science and philosophy do have many, many opinions on this of course - my favorites include the multi-membrane 10 dimension froth created by black hole interaction to explain it from a physical perspective or the BECAUSE IF IT WASN'T THAT WOULDN'T BE THE QUESTION! logical argument which states that it's possible other universes, other physical laws, other mathematical systems have or do exist and that in those worlds people are asking, why does two plus two equal sevenhundred, why does week beat strong, why is small larger than big?

A very interesting side note on that is this little pet theory of mine, when nothing exists there is actually nothing - however only one thing actually exists that you can never get rid of, for nothing to exist it needs to be possible that something exists - from this tiny nut of truth all logic unfolds, certain things just have to be true - if there is one thing then there might be two of them, if there are two of them there might be four of them - two of something and two of something just make four, strong things just have more strength than week things, big things are just bigger than small things - these universal truths, these first principles can then be used to unfold the entire existence of all possible worlds and species and events that can ever happen.

Ok, heres another easy way to think about it - look at the screen you are using - lets just say that it's got 800x600 pixels, each pixel can display two hundred and fifty five colors - the total amount of combinations those pixels can display data is finite, somewhere they all exist mathmatically -even if the image has never been seen on a screen, somewhere in the mathmatical either for example is a picture of me standing on the moon exactly as accurate as if i had taken my cheep digital camera up with me! Well, the total amount of pictures a screen can display is HUGE - however it is a mathematically limited number, what too if existence and possibility is a mathematically limited number?

In the mathmatical either that my moon portrait exists in so too exists the possibility that i exist, that you exist and that we are having this conversation. Only a few small variables create such a gigantic array of images on a relatively small screen so the huge number of factors that determine life must create a staggeringly huge finite number of possible existences and life experiences for all who exist tobe able to experience it.

It could well be true that we only really exist in this possibility, that life is basically just the daydream of no one and nothingness - a bizarre and confusing concept sure, it beats 'a wizard did it' hands down every time though!

as for entropy, the more abilitys we have to change the world around us, the more types of people there are to interact with each other, the more situations we've had to learn from the more complex life becomes - thus an increase in entropy but also an increase in order.

I know this is hardly the place to say these words but... maybe the beauty of our existence can be summed up in the simple phrase not - ORDO AB CHAO - Order out of Chaos, but actually ORDO INTUS CHAO, Order in Chaos because after all chaos is not random it's chaotically ordered.

Are we just drifters on the winds of chaos? maybe we are, is this concept not more beautiful than any offer of slavery to a god? It gives us freedom to choose our own path, for when all things do or may exist it comes down to us to create or move into the type of existence we want to live - our destiny is in our own hands, we are in charge of our own lives.

-Well thx for your kind words and i'm glad you find what i say interesting, it's always good to have someone else's opinion on your thoughts -certainly if that person is actually willing to consider what you're saying and to think about it, alas that's almost rare these days So thanks for your participation in this conversation also

You've asked some big questions. I can add to this list, when dod we become conscious in evolution? What switched on and why has this not switched on for other animals.

It is fair to ask these questions and the scientific theory must stand up to this interrogation or change to answer these querioes. But they themselves do not just discount the theory.

What I have seen and read of DNA and evolution (Richard Dawkins a respected scientist from Cambridge Unitversity - worth reading his books or visti the web site), it really surprises me that we have so may threads contesting something that has a fair amount of evidence and yet very ittle on the quantum theory which I am convinced was made up after a session in the pub

Originally posted by virricocha
My 2c is that yes, Darwin's theory has many, many holes that call into question its overall validity.

No it doesn't.
Which is why you failed to show any such holes.

Evolution is an observed fact.
The only people who disagree are creationists who don't underdstand it.


K.

I seem to recall several articles in reputable science magazines pointing out many of the problems with Darwin's explanation of evolution and the driving force behind it.

Darwin was indeed a visionary but many of the conclusions he drew have been shown to be wrong or lacking adequate proof.

New Scientist for instance had an article named "Was Darwin Wrong About the Tree of Life?"
www.newscientist.com...

The concept of punctuated equilibrium was proposed to explain the explosion of so many different forms of life in a relatively short time span, overcoming the need for great quantities on intermediary transitional forms.


Regarding the primordial soup, many scientists had decided that it is unlikely to have occurred the way it has been explained in the past. For this reason some have looked to undersea vents, while some have proposed that clays would be a better medium for the formation of the first cells, or cells. Other scientists have proposed that the earth was seeded with all the necessary amino acids from material raining down from space.

Only time will tell whether these theories will someday be tossed out and derided as erroneous.


The point is that it is not only "Bible Thumpers" that find fault with Darwin's explanations.
To be fair, the vast majority of scientists who disagree with Darwin still believe in evolution, they just disagree with the way it happened.


[edit on 11/17/2009 by Sparky63]

reply to post by starwarsisreal


Evolution is not a "belief" it is a scientific theory that is upheld by a boatload of evidence and facts. No other theory has as good a hypothesis to explain life. Anything else is simply made up of whole cloth.

Originally posted by mrsoul2009
reply to post by starwarsisreal

 

Evolution is not a "belief" it is a scientific theory that is upheld by a boatload of evidence and facts. No other theory has as good a hypothesis to explain life. Anything else is simply made up of whole cloth.

Nope.
Evolution is a belief.


www.youtube.com...


Ali G:

"Evolution, what exactly is it?"

Prof James Hanken Harvard University Zoologist:

"it is the belief that all of the different kinds of life, on the world today, are descened from the same ancestral organism."

Debunked.

Originally posted by IrnBruFiend


Nope.
Evolution is a belief.


www.youtube.com...


Ali G:

"Evolution, what exactly is it?"

Prof James Hanken Harvard University Zoologist:

"it is the belief that all of the different kinds of life, on the world today, are descened from the same ancestral organism."

Debunked.

You're using a quote from the Ali G. show?

How about one from the Harvard Museum of Natural History on their new exhibit that puts evolution front and center:
harvardscience.harvard.edu...

Called simply “Evolution,” the exhibit, which opened in April, looks at evolution from a variety of angles, from tree-of-life relationships between creatures, to convergence that causes distantly related species to develop similar traits, to anatomical, fossil, and genetic evidence that evolution underlies life around us.

As it does so, the exhibit takes pains to highlight the role of Harvard faculty in important discoveries in the field, fulfilling the museum’s mission to be the public face of the collections and research that goes on beyond its galleries.

Among the faculty whose work is mentioned in the exhibit is Agassiz Professor of Zoology Farish Jenkins’ discovery of the missing link between fishes and terrestrial vertebrates. Called Tiktaalik roseae, the fossil was discovered in 2004 by Jenkins and colleagues from the University of Chicago and the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, filling a blank in the fossil record. A model of Tiktaalik, gleaming as if still wet and peering out of a shallow, prehistoric stream or pond, is the first thing visitors see when they enter.

Among the many topics included in the displays are the evolution of anolis lizards on Caribbean islands, research conducted by Lehner Professor for the Study of Latin America Jonathan Losos; the evolution of mammalian ear bones from analogs in reptilian jawbones, on which former Museum of Comparative Zoology Director Fuzz Crompton worked; and Anthropology Professor Maryellen Ruvolo’s work on the molecular roots of humankind. The exhibit includes an eye-catching "trophic pyramid" of beetles, conceived by Biology Professor Brian D. Farrell, with each specimen representing approximately 1,000 species, giving viewers a sense of the profusion of beetle species.

The exhibit tackles several major topics in evolution, including variation, which it terms the “raw material” of natural selection, natural selection itself, adaptive radiation, and convergent evolution, among others. It also presents a timeline of life, showing the progression from microbe to simple animal to complex animal to — very near the timeline’s end — humans.

The exhibit unequivocally highlights evolution’s central role in modern biological science, stating prominently that “evolution is a fact” and calling it “an essential truth supported by overwhelming scientific evidence.”

The evolution gallery is the first that visitors pass through when they enter the Museum of Comparative Zoology (MCZ), one of the HMNH’s three parent museums.

Though that location is partly due to available space, HMNH Executive Director Elisabeth Werby said the location is important because “Evolution” underlies the exhibits visitors will find beyond, in galleries dedicated to the development and use of color in nature and to the enormous diversity of arthropods, and in halls dedicated to fossils, mammals, and other creatures.

The exhibit was paid for with a gift from members of the Class of 1958, which last year celebrated its 50th reunion. MCZ Director James Hanken, Agassiz Professor of Zoology, said there was tremendous interest from class members in having Harvard weigh in directly on the issue, which has been under scrutiny in broader society.

“The enthusiasm was really overwhelming,” Hanken said.

[edit on 11/18/2009 by Pauligirl]

Originally posted by Full_Vision
Something i have noticed and have become astounded/confused over here at ATS is how certain threads (such as this for example) gets stars and flags when so many posts of far greater relevancy and knowledge are over looked or ignored for the most part.. whats up with that?!

Oh you mean like this one?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

yeah, that one was deep

reply to post by Pauligirl


Yes, that quote comes from the Ali G show.
And no, that quote is directly from Professor James Hanken.
It just happens he was interviewed by a comic genius.
It confirms evolution is a belief.
It is relatively simple.

Belief.
1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.

Evolution is a theory.

Theory.
7. guess or conjecture.

Evolution is not a scientific fact.

These are all simple facts surrounding the theory at the moment.

Thus, evolution could either:

1. Be the correct theory to explain the origins of all life on earth and is currently waiting for scientific confirmation.

2. Could be the incorrect theory to explain the origins of all life on earth.

This is very simple logic before jumping on any bandwagon.

PS. A retired evolutionist. DNA evidence has proven that evolution is impossible. Consequentially, any logical person would eat a slice of humble and then direct their attention towards the evidence unimprisoned by a belief system.

This last part is where most people fail, and this is exactly why anybody in defense of evolution will need to warp their theory or present wishy washy evidence to correspond with Darwin's theory.

Simple steps of logic overseen by too many people.



[edit on 18-11-2009 by IrnBruFiend]