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.

 

How accurate is the Theory of Evolution?

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by MinisterFortson
I understand micro evolution and as a Christian I don't have a problem with it. What I have a problem with is the lack of evidence for macro evolution. According to the theory we should be constantly evolving, but I've never seen a partially evolved human/ape walking around. In fact, I've never seen an actual skeleton of any of the evolutionary stages that supposedly exist. I challenge anyone to search the net for pictures of actual fossils, then reply with the link. All you will find are fragments, with which they make up drawings.


1. Micro evolution is macro evolution; you can not have micro without having macro evolution because eventually a chain of micro evolutions will be a macro evolution resulting in a new species.

2. We are constantly evolving, but you won't see a new human species crop up in 2, 10, or even 1,000 generations. Evolution happens on an incredibly large time scale compared to a human life.

3. There are intermediary fossils of different homo species in the fossil record. You don't see them anymore because they either branched into separate species or branched into new species and went extinct, such as homo floriensis and homo ergaster.

Rebuilt homo ergaster model. Looks pretty intermediary to me.


There seems to be a leap before you look attitude with science. All you have to do is Google "evolution fraud" and see how many fakes they accepted and promoted, only to say oops in the end, but the oops didn't get as much coverages as the discovery.


Of course there's been frauds out there who look for fame and notoriety over the truth, but can you really sit there and say with a straight face that the Church and Christianity as a whole hasn't perpetrated more fraud than some pseudo scientists? There is a mountain of evidence in the fossil record that lends evolution credence for not only humans but for many, many other species on Earth.


Another problem I have is how exactly did non-living matter turn into living matter? That's not something we observe ever. I've never seen anything go from disorder to very complex order.


That's abiogenesis and doesn't deal with evolution. Also, in the hundreds of millions of years Earth has existed, it supposedly only took one occurence of abiogenesis to start life on Earth. Do you really think it would be happening all the time when there's already life on Earth competing for the same resources?


Sure there are experiments conducted such as things with fruit flies, but what science fails to mention is that an intelligence is behind the experiment. If man didn't create the perfect conditions for the experiment to achieve the results they wanted, would the fruit flies have "evolved"? When have we observed one species of animal turn into a completely different species? Never. We have whales and we have hippos, but where are the in betweens?


Observed instances of speciation Here. When evolution causes a creature to speciate, it does so because the environment has changed and it's forced to adapt. This is why you don't see many ancient species or intermediary species (this is kind of a misnomer since we're all technically intermediary). When the environment forces a change, the animal either adapts and evolves into something(s) new, or becomes extinct.

Information on whale evolution and intermediary fossils showing movement of mammal species from land to water.


Common sense tells you that if you have a partially developed foot and a partially developed fin, you can neither swim nor walk efficiently. That increases the chances of being eaten by predators and decreases the chances of finding a mate. Science does teach that the female seeks out the fittest mates.


However if your environment provides your food in shallow waters on beaches, and most predators are in deeper waters or denser forests, you could adequately survive without being eaten to extinction. Evolution would work to follow the food source. Whale ancestors probably first ate near coastal areas. Their food source shifted to rivers deltas and beaches, and then as they grew they had to move farther and farther out into the ocean to sustain themselves. Eventually they no longer needed to go on land and the weakest swimmers died out while the strong, big finned swimmers proliferated. You should note that it doesn't take 100,000 creatures to make a species, it can be less than 10.


Another problem is mutations. How often is a mutation passed on to the next generation? Especially one such as the above partial flipper/foot? There are far too many questions. It seems like evolution takes more faith to believe in than God. In order to accept evolution, I have to have faith that:


Really? Could you provide some links to scientific studies proving God's existence? Religion is 100% faith-based, and usually the only observers to a deity's miracles are, oddly enough, people that worship said deity.


Everything just existed, then exploded, non-living matter came to life, DNA assembled itself, it then adjusted itself to survive in its environment, then learned to replicate itself into more complex life forms, then developed into mail and females of the bigger species, then developed the penis and the vagina to work together without knowing that other parts were needed from the same species of another gender, then became self aware...


Way too simplistic. You write your paragraph as if it happened in a week when all of this happened over 2 billion years. For instance, in comparison to the age of the Earth, dinosaurs are actually a very recent species.


Wow, that's a lot of things to believe without any evidence whatsoever that that's what really happened. Then scientists want to ban an actual science that challenges Darwin in anyway. I'm not talking about Creationism, but actual science that shows the faults in the theory. Its like the Pope decree that common people had to believe whatever the Pope said without being able to read the Bible for themselves.


False.

1. There is evidence (see my previous link to PBS and the mountain of data they have in that library).

2. Intelligent Design is not science. Scientific process goes hypothesis > test > conclude > results, then repeat by others to validate. You can't test intelligent design much less have the experiment repeated because God is too awesome and stuff for that.


They don't want all the evidence on the table, just what they want us to believe. Darwinism is nothing more than religion in different packaging and the scientists are the Popes and Priests of the new religion of Darwinism.


False again. Any evolutionary source you will visit will be completely clear in that we don't know all the facts of evolution and we won't any time soon. Each new find broadens our understanding of our origins and we incorporate that into what we know.

Gather your flock and try to come up with a scientific experiment to test God, and the scientific community will be happy to observe your test and try to repeat the results. Until then, religion and intelligent design have zero basis in science.




posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   


Common sense tells you that if you have a partially developed foot and a partially developed fin, you can neither swim nor walk efficiently. That increases the chances of being eaten by predators and decreases the chances of finding a mate. Science does teach that the female seeks out the fittest mates.


The first vertebrates on land didn't need to be fast runners. They had on land no natural enemies. Even today many fishes are able to move on land. Amphibians are neither good runners nor good swimmers, but they are nonetheless very successful. Amphibian biomass exceeds in many ecosystems, those of all mammals and birds.

Watch these mudskippers. Maybe you shouldn't rely on common sense and instead perform a google search.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 12:40 AM
link   
Remember the basic premise of evolution. Nothing created everything. You are more likely to find a perfectly formed Intel i7 microprocessor by accident on a beach of silicon sand than you are to find the much more complex self reproducing lifeforms we see all around us.

I don't believe in macro evolution either. There are no real transitional forms for the really big steps, like from invertebrates to vertebrates, or how the nervous system and the circulatory system appeared suddenly in tandem.

All these multi-dependent systems that a good engineer might design are simply too complex to happen by accident. I don't buy it.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Avenginggecko

1. Micro evolution is macro evolution; you can not have micro without having macro evolution because eventually a chain of micro evolutions will be a macro evolution resulting in a new species.


False: That has never been observed ever. We can observe changes within the species itself. The ASSumption is that they will turn into bigger species. That is the field of FAITH.



2. We are constantly evolving, but you won't see a new human species crop up in 2, 10, or even 1,000 generations. Evolution happens on an incredibly large time scale compared to a human life.


And by definition evolution is a continuing process, is it not? Science sure does give a lot of intelligent qualities to a blind force. I realize it is supposed to happen on a grand scale, but I'm asking why do we still have apes? We don't have anything in between. If it were true, apes would never have stopped evolving because random mutation is not intelligent.



3. There are intermediary fossils of different homo species in the fossil record. You don't see them anymore because they either branched into separate species or branched into new species and went extinct, such as homo floriensis and homo ergaster.

Rebuilt homo ergaster model. Looks pretty intermediary to me.


LOL. Where are the actual fossils? Drawings, sculptures, paintings, etc. only prove the human imagination. It is NOT proof that something evolved. Show me a picture of the ACTUAL fossil remains.



Of course there's been frauds out there who look for fame and notoriety over the truth, but can you really sit there and say with a straight face that the Church and Christianity as a whole hasn't perpetrated more fraud than some pseudo scientists? There is a mountain of evidence in the fossil record that lends evolution credence for not only humans but for many, many other species on Earth.


Please do provide a link to the "mountains" of evidence. I only ask that this proof not consist of artist renderings of any kind. I want to see the actual fossils. Not drawings made up from man's imagination.



That's abiogenesis and doesn't deal with evolution. Also, in the hundreds of millions of years Earth has existed, it supposedly only took one occurence of abiogenesis to start life on Earth. Do you really think it would be happening all the time when there's already life on Earth competing for the same resources?


Actually you're wrong. In order for evolution to happen, you first need abiogenesis. You can't have evolution without it, so they are indeed related.



Observed instances of speciation Here. When evolution causes a creature to speciate, it does so because the environment has changed and it's forced to adapt. This is why you don't see many ancient species or intermediary species (this is kind of a misnomer since we're all technically intermediary). When the environment forces a change, the animal either adapts and evolves into something(s) new, or becomes extinct.


Crocs and coelocanths seem to be doing quite well and the later is unchanged even though science said it had been extinct for millions of years. We now know that was a lie.



Information on whale evolution and intermediary fossils showing movement of mammal species from land to water.


Sounds more like science fiction since this wasn't actually observed. Again, its based on the human imagination on what people BELIEVE happened. Interesting how the word Belief pops up so much in a non faith based practice.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Sorry, couldn't answer it all in one post.



However if your environment provides your food in shallow waters on beaches, and most predators are in deeper waters or denser forests, you could adequately survive without being eaten to extinction. Evolution would work to follow the food source. Whale ancestors probably first ate near coastal areas. Their food source shifted to rivers deltas and beaches, and then as they grew they had to move farther and farther out into the ocean to sustain themselves. Eventually they no longer needed to go on land and the weakest swimmers died out while the strong, big finned swimmers proliferated. You should note that it doesn't take 100,000 creatures to make a species, it can be less than 10.


There's the word "probably" which is uncertainty. Probably is not FACT.



Really? Could you provide some links to scientific studies proving God's existence? Religion is 100% faith-based, and usually the only observers to a deity's miracles are, oddly enough, people that worship said deity.


I see you avoided answering the question of how often mutations can be passed on by choice. Before a mutation is fully developed, it is USELESS. I thought evolution was supposed to weed out the useless stuff?

Furthermore I can provide all kinds of links to studies proving God. Scientists however don't view the conclusion of God as an option. Even though TRUE science means you accept the data, whatever that data may be.

If one guy sees a tree and says, "this must have been made by a blind force" we say its science. LOL. If another guy sees the same tree, but concludes its too complex not to have an intelligent designer, science dismisses it as faith. What's the difference? Two people observed the same data and had different interpretations. That is TRUE research. Science likes to attack people more than the actual issues and that's a FACT.

DNA proves God exists. You expect me to believe abiogenesis led to evolution which read to the blind force writing a blueprint on how to create every living species on earth? LOLOLOLOL sounds like science fiction. Intelligent people can't write a blueprint for building life from scratch but we are supposed to believe an unintelligent force did it. WOW!


Way too simplistic. You write your paragraph as if it happened in a week when all of this happened over 2 billion years. For instance, in comparison to the age of the Earth, dinosaurs are actually a very recent species.


That's an assumption on your part. I just provided a summary of the main points we are expected to believe, simply because a group of people said so without any evidence to go on. Unlike people who actually claim to have witnessed Christ. Nobody has claimed to witness any of the main points that would prove evolution.


2. Intelligent Design is not science. Scientific process goes hypothesis > test > conclude > results, then repeat by others to validate. You can't test intelligent design much less have the experiment repeated because God is too awesome and stuff for that.


The data leading up to the conclusion of Intelligent Design is science. So speciation is a hypothesis. I've never seen a test that turned one species into a completely different species. If so, please provide a link that shows it. The only problem with the test is that it needs an Intelligent Designer (human) to set up the perfect conditions. The test cancels itself out because you need an intelligence to set up the conditions to prove that there was no intelligence behind it.


Any evolutionary source you will visit will be completely clear in that we don't know all the facts of evolution and we won't any time soon.


However, it is presented to the public as if you do know all the facts. Why not just say that?


Until then, religion and intelligent design have zero basis in science.


Where does abiogenesis fit in science? Observations? Proof? Religion!



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by SevenThunders
Remember the basic premise of evolution. Nothing created everything. You are more likely to find a perfectly formed Intel i7 microprocessor by accident on a beach of silicon sand than you are to find the much more complex self reproducing lifeforms we see all around us.


I agree. As the poster above stated. Intelligent Design doesn't have a place in science because they can't test it. However abiogenesis can't be tested or observed, yet they have FAITH in it and BELIEVE in it without one single shred of proof. Sounds hypocritical to me.



I don't believe in macro evolution either. There are no real transitional forms for the really big steps, like from invertebrates to vertebrates, or how the nervous system and the circulatory system appeared suddenly in tandem.


Very true and any "evidence" you see are not going to be actual fossils, but drawings made from the human imagination. That's not evidence.



All these multi-dependent systems that a good engineer might design are simply too complex to happen by accident. I don't buy it.


They know that if people had all the evidence nobody why buy into this crap. That's why they ban the teaching of discoveries that threaten the theory. Hoaxes are not allowed to be taught in school. Screw ups are not allowed to be taught in school. Challenges such as the nervous system and the human eye are not allowed to be taught in school. If its science it should be taught, but they want everyone to convert to their religion.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   
I think evolution makes alot of sense in terms of species moving forward and surviving long enough to pass on their traits, but I cant say in terms of how life began that its the best explanation. It all came from a big bang is no kind of explanation and Im not sure we can ever know for sure, you just have to have a little faith on this one.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   
It's easy to understand why you feel the way you do.

Adaptation is the FACT, we know it is encoded in DNA.

Evolution well it is a theory.

Everyone knows by now that science needs evidence and facts before
anything is believed to be truth.

For that to be true, wouldn't they be called adaptationists.

1. Fact adaptation

2 theory evolution

Clearly something is always a miss.
They've pulled the factual name adaptation and gave it the name of
a theory.
I find them just as hard to trust as a guy with a watch for sale.


There even a little worse, the guy with the watch will understand my distrust.
The scientist wants me lynched.


[edit on 5-12-2009 by randyvs]



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by MinisterFortson
 


I don't have time to reply to all of your posts, but you can find links I've provided in this thread to answer all of your questions. The PBS site I posted on page one has over 50 different documents, videos, interactive flash sources, Q&A resources, etc.

Talkorgins.org also provides an extensive FAQ with supporting articles. If you were truly interested about finding the truth out about evolution, it's easy enough to find with a 5 minute Google search, but alas you've only come here to try and push a very narrow fundamentalist viewpoint.


False: That has never been observed ever. We can observe changes within the species itself. The ASSumption is that they will turn into bigger species. That is the field of FAITH.


Uh, no. You're saying, "1 + 1 = 2, but that doesn't mean that 2 x 6 = 12". Micro and macro evolution work the same way, macro (multiplication) is the extension of micro (addition). Multiplication doesn't work if addition doesn't work. Easier to understand?


And by definition evolution is a continuing process, is it not? Science sure does give a lot of intelligent qualities to a blind force. I realize it is supposed to happen on a grand scale, but I'm asking why do we still have apes? We don't have anything in between. If it were true, apes would never have stopped evolving because random mutation is not intelligent.


I think you've completely neglected to get a point that's been addressed multiple times in this thread. Evolution happens as the result of adaptation to an environment. If gorillas are suitably adapted to their environment, then the mutations that change the species won't take hold because they don't help the species. For instance, if a gorilla has an immunity to a certain snake bite, but that snake is very rare in the environment, it is very unlikely to take hold in future gorilla populations. If the snakes become extremely common and start killing gorillas, then it's much more likely to take hold in the population because only the immune gorilla and its offspring will survive the snake bites.


LOL. Where are the actual fossils? Drawings, sculptures, paintings, etc. only prove the human imagination. It is NOT proof that something evolved. Show me a picture of the ACTUAL fossil remains.


Your fingers obviously aren't broken, so why don't you type "www.Google.com", and then in the search box, type, "homo ergaster fossil".

Here's a link in case you're lazy. By the way, they recovered 90% of the skeleton. Source.


Actually you're wrong. In order for evolution to happen, you first need abiogenesis. You can't have evolution without it, so they are indeed related.


Completely wrong and irrelevant. Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with abiogenesis. It is completely possible that gods/aliens/whatever initiated life on Earth and then let the process of evolution take over *but we won't know until we can TEST IT.


Crocs and coelocanths seem to be doing quite well and the later is unchanged even though science said it had been extinct for millions of years. We now know that was a lie.


Sigh. Read above about suitably adapted species. And by the way, who do you think rediscovered coelocanths? Some travelling pastor out to explore the Earth and do God's work? It was a scientist.

Unfortunately, you seem to think that all of the fields of science act in concert as a religion, and their fundamentals are resolute and unchangeable just like you're fundamentalist beliefs. Sorry to tell you this, but the vast majority of all fields of science happily accept new information that broadens our understanding of the universe. It is your clinging to fundamentalist beliefs that doesn't allow room for interpretation. Sucks, don't it?


Sounds more like science fiction since this wasn't actually observed. Again, its based on the human imagination on what people BELIEVE happened. Interesting how the word Belief pops up so much in a non faith based practice


Sigh again. It's not based on human imagination. It's based on proven fossil records. Funny how you ask for links and then discredit every one as nonsense because they don't fit your narrow religious view. I have yet to see you post any scientific data that proves the existence of God or Intelligent Design. Care to enlighten the world and provide some evidence and verifiable tests? Or is "Everything's just too complex and God is just too darn awesome" supposed to be good enough for us?


There's the word "probably" which is uncertainty. Probably is not FACT.


No, really? I gave you an example of evolution and how it might work, I have no idea if that's how things actually panned out. It was complete conjecture on my part, which is why I didn't link to any information on it. It's what we call a hypothetical. Multiple people have stated we don't know everything about evolution. How hard is that for you to understand?


Furthermore I can provide all kinds of links to studies proving God. Scientists however don't view the conclusion of God as an option. Even though TRUE science means you accept the data, whatever that data may be.


Glad to see you completely and utterly failed to provide one. I would have thought with all of these links proving God exists it would be on the news somewhere. I guess we've all missed the news for the last, I dunno, ever?


What's the difference? Two people observed the same data and had different interpretations


You have a fundamentally flawed view of what science actually is. I suggest you take a basic course on science or research what we call "the scientific process."


That's an assumption on your part. I just provided a summary of the main points we are expected to believe, simply because a group of people said so without any evidence to go on. Unlike people who actually claim to have witnessed Christ. Nobody has claimed to witness any of the main points that would prove evolution.


HOLY CRAP MAN! That's not science, that's faith. There is no way you can create a scientific test for God that people can observe and repeat. Otherwise, everyone would be repeating the same way to observably see Christ. I don't know if you know this, but anyone can say they see something or experience something. If I told you I saw an alien and it showed me that Christ never existed and God is a giant bunny that poops candy canes into the center of stars, there would be no way to test what I'd said. It's the same thing for people claiming Christ encounters.


The data leading up to the conclusion of Intelligent Design is science. So speciation is a hypothesis. I've never seen a test that turned one species into a completely different species. If so, please provide a link that shows it. The only problem with the test is that it needs an Intelligent Designer (human) to set up the perfect conditions. The test cancels itself out because you need an intelligence to set up the conditions to prove that there was no intelligence behind it.


No, it's not, it's your faith. Speciation is not a hypothesis it is an observed phenomenon. Did you even read the link I posted? Guess not, you're too worried about connecting abiogenesis to evolution in order to prove Jesus makes babies.

Everything you type about is a) faith based, b) unobservable (you want science to prove evolution but we don't need to see proof God makes DNA?) c) and completely outside of the scientific process.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL.


^ That's an extremely immature way to argue a point, by the way.

[edit on 5-12-2009 by Avenginggecko]

[edit on 5-12-2009 by Avenginggecko]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join