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.

 

Why is evolution still relevant?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2010 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by PieKeeper

Originally posted by six67seven

Originally posted by PieKeeper
Science learns from it's mistakes, and each one of those instances were proven to be fake... by science. Mistakes made in the past do not invalidate the entire field. The Theory of Evolution exists to explain the process of evolution. As we gain more knowledge as to how evolution works, the Theory grows. It's not something that's just done away with after a single incident.

People used to think the Earth was flat, so does that mean our current knowledge of Earth's shape is no longer relevant? No, it does not.


We keep correcting mistakes because we are human. Evolution is constantly changing because its constantly wrong or a hoax!!! I really don't care what you believe but I can point out how absolutely silly evolution has always been. People don't want someone telling them how to live, people want to see where they came from, people naturally lust after earthly possessions, people don't really know what the hell is going on, but they sure like to think they do.


You obviously have no understanding of the scientific definitions of Theory or Evolution.

A Theory, such as the Theory of Evolution, is a working (growing with new information) explanation of how and why a process happens. For there to be a Theory of something, that something has to be an observable phenomena. As new information on the phenomena is obtained, the understanding of it can be completely changed, and as a result grows. One of the great things about science is that it can correct previous errors and mistakes, and through the process of correction we learn even more.

Evolution, in the scientific use, is the change in the gene pool of a population. We know this happens. Right now Cheetahs are going through what is called a "Genetic Bottleneck", where a huge portion of a species suddenly dies, completely wiping out some traits, and altering the allele frequency in the gene pool of the population (allele frequency can be simply explained as the prevalence of a trait in the population). As a result of this bottleneck, there are quite a bit of male cheetahs with curly tails, much more than there were before the bottleneck. That is evolution: a change in the gene pool of a population.


Youre talking about Micro evolution. This is not what I'm addressing. Micro evolution within the species is real, its nothing more than adaptations. But one KIND producing a totally different KIND (macro evolution) does not happen and will never happen. It has never been observed in science. Ape to human is impossible PERIOD Cat to dog is impossible Cow to horse is impossible




posted on May, 14 2010 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Creationists believe species could not have evolved by random chance... and they're right. It would be impossible for the structure of life to organize from purely random changes.

The problem is that many don't understand that Darwin's major insight is that evolution is NOT random. The process we call Natural Selection, though brainless, is a non-random organizing force. Though mutations occur randomly, only the ones that allow individuals to survive and reproduce are propagated into the future. Evolution through random mutation, AND non-random natural selection.

What permits evolution is that the order of life is embodied in genes, and that you have to actually survive in order to pass on that order to the next generation. If genes were passed on whether or not you survived to reproduce, evolution would be truly random, and life would not be possible.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by six67seven

Originally posted by PieKeeper

Originally posted by six67seven

Originally posted by PieKeeper
Science learns from it's mistakes, and each one of those instances were proven to be fake... by science. Mistakes made in the past do not invalidate the entire field. The Theory of Evolution exists to explain the process of evolution. As we gain more knowledge as to how evolution works, the Theory grows. It's not something that's just done away with after a single incident.

People used to think the Earth was flat, so does that mean our current knowledge of Earth's shape is no longer relevant? No, it does not.


We keep correcting mistakes because we are human. Evolution is constantly changing because its constantly wrong or a hoax!!! I really don't care what you believe but I can point out how absolutely silly evolution has always been. People don't want someone telling them how to live, people want to see where they came from, people naturally lust after earthly possessions, people don't really know what the hell is going on, but they sure like to think they do.


You obviously have no understanding of the scientific definitions of Theory or Evolution.

A Theory, such as the Theory of Evolution, is a working (growing with new information) explanation of how and why a process happens. For there to be a Theory of something, that something has to be an observable phenomena. As new information on the phenomena is obtained, the understanding of it can be completely changed, and as a result grows. One of the great things about science is that it can correct previous errors and mistakes, and through the process of correction we learn even more.

Evolution, in the scientific use, is the change in the gene pool of a population. We know this happens. Right now Cheetahs are going through what is called a "Genetic Bottleneck", where a huge portion of a species suddenly dies, completely wiping out some traits, and altering the allele frequency in the gene pool of the population (allele frequency can be simply explained as the prevalence of a trait in the population). As a result of this bottleneck, there are quite a bit of male cheetahs with curly tails, much more than there were before the bottleneck. That is evolution: a change in the gene pool of a population.


Youre talking about Micro evolution. This is not what I'm addressing. Micro evolution within the species is real, its nothing more than adaptations. But one KIND producing a totally different KIND (macro evolution) does not happen and will never happen. It has never been observed in science. Ape to human is impossible PERIOD Cat to dog is impossible Cow to horse is impossible


The word "Kind" is not a part of scientific vocabulary, so as soon as you give a thorough explanation as to what a "Kind" is, I'll be happy to blow you out of the water.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by six67seven

Youre talking about Micro evolution. This is not what I'm addressing. Micro evolution within the species is real, its nothing more than adaptations. But one KIND producing a totally different KIND (macro evolution) does not happen and will never happen. It has never been observed in science. Ape to human is impossible PERIOD Cat to dog is impossible Cow to horse is impossible
Why should it be impossible? Micro evolution implies the existence of macro evolution. Macro evolution is just the effects of micro evolution compounded over long periods of time.

What is the difference between micro evolution and macro evolution other than one of degree?

[edit on 14-5-2010 by Tearman]



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tearman
Creationists believe species could not have evolved by random chance... and they're right. It would be impossible for the structure of life to organize from purely random changes.

The problem is that many don't understand that Darwin's major insight is that evolution is NOT random. The process we call Natural Selection, though brainless, is a non-random organizing force. Though mutations occur randomly, only the ones that allow individuals to survive and reproduce are propagated into the future. Evolution through random mutation, AND non-random natural selection.

What permits evolution is that the order of life is embodied in genes, and that you have to actually survive in order to pass on that order to the next generation. If genes were passed on whether or not you survived to reproduce, evolution would be truly random, and life would not be possible.





We are still talking about micro evolution. Micro = yes macro = no

[edit on 14-5-2010 by six67seven]



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by PieKeeper

Originally posted by six67seven

Originally posted by PieKeeper

Originally posted by six67seven

Originally posted by PieKeeper
Science learns from it's mistakes, and each one of those instances were proven to be fake... by science. Mistakes made in the past do not invalidate the entire field. The Theory of Evolution exists to explain the process of evolution. As we gain more knowledge as to how evolution works, the Theory grows. It's not something that's just done away with after a single incident.

People used to think the Earth was flat, so does that mean our current knowledge of Earth's shape is no longer relevant? No, it does not.


We keep correcting mistakes because we are human. Evolution is constantly changing because its constantly wrong or a hoax!!! I really don't care what you believe but I can point out how absolutely silly evolution has always been. People don't want someone telling them how to live, people want to see where they came from, people naturally lust after earthly possessions, people don't really know what the hell is going on, but they sure like to think they do.


You obviously have no understanding of the scientific definitions of Theory or Evolution.

A Theory, such as the Theory of Evolution, is a working (growing with new information) explanation of how and why a process happens. For there to be a Theory of something, that something has to be an observable phenomena. As new information on the phenomena is obtained, the understanding of it can be completely changed, and as a result grows. One of the great things about science is that it can correct previous errors and mistakes, and through the process of correction we learn even more.

Evolution, in the scientific use, is the change in the gene pool of a population. We know this happens. Right now Cheetahs are going through what is called a "Genetic Bottleneck", where a huge portion of a species suddenly dies, completely wiping out some traits, and altering the allele frequency in the gene pool of the population (allele frequency can be simply explained as the prevalence of a trait in the population). As a result of this bottleneck, there are quite a bit of male cheetahs with curly tails, much more than there were before the bottleneck. That is evolution: a change in the gene pool of a population.


Youre talking about Micro evolution. This is not what I'm addressing. Micro evolution within the species is real, its nothing more than adaptations. But one KIND producing a totally different KIND (macro evolution) does not happen and will never happen. It has never been observed in science. Ape to human is impossible PERIOD Cat to dog is impossible Cow to horse is impossible


The word "Kind" is not a part of scientific vocabulary, so as soon as you give a thorough explanation as to what a "Kind" is, I'll be happy to blow you out of the water.


Kind - any of the original created types of organisms that can bring forth offspring. For instance, the horse and zebra might be different species, but they can interbreed.
Microevolution - variation within a kind, i.e. dog, wolf, coyote are all different species but the same kind.
Macroevolution - change from one kind of animal to another kind, i.e. bird to reptile

do i need to define species for you too? maybe variation?

[edit on 14-5-2010 by six67seven]



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   
It's relevant in that things change over time... which is obvious. As far as general theory of evolution or Darwinism, well atheists do need a creation myth. They can't come up with any naturalistic explanation for how life got started so we have directed Panspermia. This put the general theory of evolution on the same level as L Ron Hubbard's Scientology. Aliens of the gaps... it solves nothing just pushes the origin of life problem to another planet.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   
I wonder has anybody ever Come to Christ, or turned away from thier faith from one of these Threads? it's just one of those questions that well never be answered until we die. reguardless of how much data science has, or how much faith one has.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   
If people only 2000 years before us were up to 1-2 feet shorter on average, then that right there is a form in evolution. You can't deny that either, or chalk it up to nutrition only.

With the many different makes and models of people in the world today, you'd think that evolution was the ONLY possibility. Eskimos have narrower eyes because the sun that was reflected off of the snow was just as damaging as the sun in the sky, so their lids evolved.

Africans developed (or maintained, probably) darker skin because the land was more arid, with much less cover from the sun..

I mean, we have fossils and skeletons of dinosaurs with feathers that almost assuredly tells us that the modern bird is an evolved form of reptile.

BUT, even if everything I just said is PROVEN false, there are still billions of other examples that science has, or will discover.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Target Earth
I wonder has anybody ever Come to Christ, or turned away from thier faith from one of these Threads? it's just one of those questions that well never be answered until we die. reguardless of how much data science has, or how much faith one has.


If they either found or turned away from their messiah because of the shallow evidence portrayed on this thread, then they aren't discerning enough to matter in the grand scheme of things.

If it turns them away, then their faith was hollow and uninformed anyway.

If it made them believe in a messiah, well then I bet I could make them believe anything.

There is plenty of belief in the world, but barely any fact. I find belief is more dangerous, so I try to keep myself open to all possibility.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by SantaClaus
 


Thing is Santa that even if it was just nutrition it would still count as evolution driven by environmental factors. The abundance of food is causing the evolution but its only in its early stages, its not altered our genetics yet. I read an article a while back about how eating meat altered our jaw bones.

Evolution has mountains of evidence supporting it while Creation can only attempt to poke holes at perceived flaws (most of which are not flaws but are based on the ignorance of the Creationist about how evolution works)... Pointing out a handful of flaws they then hope to have planted enough seeds of doubt to then indoctrinate those doubting the evidence for evolution into their religion. A religion that supports a week long magical creation ex nihilo which not only has no evidence to back it up but has the collective weight of evidence supporting evolutionary theory to contest with.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


That's definitely a less perceivable form of evolution, or rather, something I have a slightly harder time conceptualizing I suppose... But it doesn't make it any less a factor in evolution.

Thanks for that take on it. I'm certainly not even qualified to discuss this in an amateur forum, but it speaks volumes to me to just walk around in present day and see the amalgam of different coping mechanisms working within everything from grass to the human brain.

I see it as truth, but even if you aren't a proponent of evolution, it is still extremely relevant. You'll have to fight this battle your entire life if you think you can prove the theory wrong, and you probably will only be inundated with better and better evidence that it is a law of nature.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Target Earth
I wonder has anybody ever Come to Christ, or turned away from thier faith from one of these Threads? it's just one of those questions that well never be answered until we die. reguardless of how much data science has, or how much faith one has.


thats an interesting question, i'm sure some threads have been a stepping stone for some people.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


look I already like you, I have a Mystery Science Theater 3000 tattoo on my arm. but evolution does not have a moutain of evedince in support of it. and let us not forget that the Smithsonian throws away all fossil evidence that dosn't jive with the Evolution thing.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Target Earth
 




and let us not forget that the Smithsonian throws away all fossil evidence that dosn't jive with the Evolution thing.


Maybe you should start by proving that absurdly unfounded statement before we proceed. I'm imagining you heard it from some Creationist propaganda. Look I used to be a Creationist too, it's okay, but when you really start to look at the real evidence, you know the evidence without religious zealotry and bias, there is a mountain of evidence. Evolution is more well proven than the theory of gravity.





[edit on 14-5-2010 by Titen-Sxull]



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by six67seven

Originally posted by hippomchippo

Originally posted by six67seven
reply to post by six67seven
 


Let me clarify... hopefully this is common sense. Just because a human skeleton is found and is determined to be 40,000 years old doesn't mean it is not human. It is total indoctrination if you believe that X-number of years old means non-human, ape, caveman, what not. This is related to cro magnon man (classification homo sapien sapien). It only takes a few minutes of research to find evidence of the Smithsonian cover-up of many discoveries that would change the way we view human history.

Evolution isn't reliant upon human history though. You can't deny the entire theory just because we don't know that much about ourselves.


Evolution isn't reliant upon facts, thats why i deny it. Evolutionist archaeologists are nothing but subjective when digging. That have a picture of what they want to find, when they find bones, they fill the gaps. Science is suppose to be objective. You are supposed try to prove your theory wrong, not try to prove it factual.

Ok, so explain how you account for the fact that in the earliest layers of strata of the earth there are less complex creatures, then more complex, and so on, until today.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by hippomchippo

Originally posted by six67seven

Originally posted by hippomchippo

Originally posted by six67seven
reply to post by six67seven
 


Let me clarify... hopefully this is common sense. Just because a human skeleton is found and is determined to be 40,000 years old doesn't mean it is not human. It is total indoctrination if you believe that X-number of years old means non-human, ape, caveman, what not. This is related to cro magnon man (classification homo sapien sapien). It only takes a few minutes of research to find evidence of the Smithsonian cover-up of many discoveries that would change the way we view human history.

Evolution isn't reliant upon human history though. You can't deny the entire theory just because we don't know that much about ourselves.


Evolution isn't reliant upon facts, thats why i deny it. Evolutionist archaeologists are nothing but subjective when digging. That have a picture of what they want to find, when they find bones, they fill the gaps. Science is suppose to be objective. You are supposed try to prove your theory wrong, not try to prove it factual.

Ok, so explain how you account for the fact that in the earliest layers of strata of the earth there are less complex creatures, then more complex, and so on, until today.


how can there be earlier years of strata. the earth was created all at one time, not layer by layer, year after year. anyway, over 270 cultures throughout history have a story of a flood that covered the earth. water can rip up and deposit layers of sediment very easily.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by six67seven
 


Created all at one time? That sounds like less of a fact and more of an opinion.

What if I created a thread called "Why is creationism still relevant?"

This has degraded, as probably most of us suspected, into less of a discussion and more of a preachy, uninformed mess of opinion. Please don't come here thinking you'll turn people with real thoughts in their heads into mindless zombies who go to church and thump a book written by people.

I am not against religion, I am against organized religion, because they don't allow for anything other than their word.

I would never question your belief in God, but your logic has sadly gone missing.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Evolution happens...

(click to open player in new window)


Darwinism... not so much.

(click to open player in new window)



Evolution presupposes naturalism. The origin of life problem is a defeater for naturalism. Intelligent agency has more explanatory power in accounting for specified and sometimes irreducible complexity of some physical systems, biological entities and the existence of the universe as a whole.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by Target Earth
 




and let us not forget that the Smithsonian throws away all fossil evidence that dosn't jive with the Evolution thing.


Maybe you should start by proving that absurdly unfounded statement before we proceed. I'm imagining you heard it from some Creationist propaganda. Look I used to be a Creationist too, it's okay, but when you really start to look at the real evidence, you know the evidence without religious zealotry and bias, there is a mountain of evidence. Evolution is more well proven than the theory of gravity.





[edit on 14-5-2010 by Titen-Sxull]


www.unexplainable.net...



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join