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.

 

What is evolution?

page: 13
5
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by txpiper
 


He's right there are several theories.




posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by txpiper
 

Interesting .

I assume that had the writer of the piece simple removed the "mights" and "could haves" this would be enough to convince you.

I see that by his honesty, that of postulating possible scenarios that are not currently known for definite but which existing evidence suggests, he has total discredited all of the work done across all of the major fields of scientific research by countless individuals.

Had the author simply stated all as fact you would obviously see the truth of evolution.

The really sad thing is that creationist think they find a lack of evidence to support evolution, and try to apply a variety of scientific method to disproving it, but never, ever seem to spot the irony.

I suggest you turn your highly tuned critical eye briefly away from evolutionary theories and apply the same level of scrutiny to which ever creationist myth you currently believe in.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 



I assume that had the writer of the piece simple removed the "mights" and "could haves" this would be enough to convince you.

Of course not, but resorting to proclamations does happen a lot, often to do with supposed mountains of evidence that prove the theory.


I see that by his honesty, that of postulating possible scenarios that are not currently known for definite but which existing evidence suggests

Is that what this guy was doing here?

“An ion-powered pump for expelling substances from the cell might then have mutated to form the basis of a rotary motor”

You mentioned “possible” and “existing evidence suggests”. Can you flesh this guy’s postulation out a little with those things in mind? First, I’m interested in the original atomic pump, since I think he took a lot for granted with that before imagining it mutating into the motor. Also, I’d like to hear your thoughts on the mutations that would actually make that happen. Is the "existing evidence" that you mention available for a series of replication errors that expand and refine systems?


The really sad thing is that creationist think they find a lack of evidence to support evolution, and try to apply a variety of scientific method to disproving it..

But I would have thought that if this guy was going to explode the myth of irreducible complexity, he would have done it with some of the iron-clad evidence I always hear about instead of fantasies. I mean, wouldn’t that have been easier, and more scientific?


[edit on 17-6-2010 by txpiper]



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by txpiper
reply to post by idmonster
 



The really sad thing is that creationist think they find a lack of evidence to support evolution, and try to apply a variety of scientific method to disproving it..

But I would have thought that if this guy was going to explode the myth of irreducible complexity, he would have done it with some of the iron-clad evidence I always hear about instead of fantasies. I mean, wouldn’t that have been easier, and more scientific?


[edit on 17-6-2010 by txpiper]


fantasies....! sort of proves my point.

It is nigh on immpossible to accurately describe something that may have happened millions of years previously. It is just as immpossible to prove that parts of an organ that seem irreducibly complex could or could not have had a singular, solo, benefit to an organism that may no longer exist in an environmental condition that no longer4 applies.

What isnt immpossible is to extrapolate backwards and imagine a sequence of events or an environmental condition that known information suggests could have existing making such parts of an "irreducibly complex" organ able to stand alone and be of benefit.

Or, to put it into creationist speak.

God made each part seperatly to do a job which he made up specificaly for testing each part. Each part was put into a different creation to ensure they did what they were suposed to.
Satisfied with the working models, god reassembled the parts into on animal and sent it on its merry way.
God then removed the conditions that were specificaly set up for testing purposes.

From a "evo doesnt work" perspective, and from a "god is great" perspective, you can remove the test phase.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 




It is nigh on immpossible to accurately describe something that may have happened millions of years previously….It is just as immpossible to prove that parts of an organ that seem irreducibly complex could or could not have had a singular, solo, benefit to an organism that may no longer exist in an environmental condition that no longer4 applies.

Well, now you have added an imaginary role to an imaginary organism, and an imaginary extinction in an imaginary environment. So why is it so difficult to try to imagine a long and lucky sequence of replication errors that would assemble the ‘parts of an organ” in the first place? Is it too complex, unmanageable and unlikely? Unimaginable?

You know, when you are declaring things as “nigh on impossible” and “just as impossible”, there comes a point where it sounds like you are arguing against yourself. I mean, that is the gist of the intelligent design argument, that some things are just not possible.


What isnt immpossible is to extrapolate backwards and imagine a sequence of events or an environmental condition…

Well that’s fine, as long as this is presented as something imaginary and disconnected from the empirical demands of science. You said “First read this....” as if you were presenting evidence, but there was nothing factual in the article. It was just typical, quixotic evolutionary fluff.


… that known information suggests could have existing making such parts of an "irreducibly complex" organ able to stand alone and be of benefit.

What “known information” suggests things like this? I’m not sure that such information is not just as imaginary as the scenario.



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 10:39 AM
link   
We are told that in just a few million years, mutations and natural selection can perform miraculous things. But it seems like every time you turn around, the evidence is actually showing that the powerful tag-team has been rendered helpless.

New stories about non-evolution:

“…this tiny but specialized insect has remained virtually unchanged for over 34 million years”
Fig Wasps and Fig Trees

”What has surprised them most about this ancient pelican is that it is almost identical to modern species.”
Pelicans stuck in time










[edit on 18-6-2010 by txpiper]



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 11:24 AM
link   
One more that didn't want to work right in the previous post (and doesn't in this one either):

”In one amber fossil, a 100-million-year-old gecko shows the same sophisticated method of toe adhesion that allows it to walk easily on vertical and even inverted surfaces...when it was skittering away from dinosaurs...or is skipping through the jungles of Southeast Asia today."
Neither form nor behavior


[edit on 18-6-2010 by txpiper]



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 10:37 PM
link   
" "The marks stood out for me because I remember seeing the gnaw marks on the antlers of a deer my father brought home when I was young,"…But he points out that the Late Cretaceous creatures that chewed on these bones were not nearly as adept at gnawing as today's rodents, which developed that ability long after dinosaurs went extinct.” "
Gnawing Anomalously

But he’s an devoted evolutionist. What else could he “point out”? How interesting that he recognized the gnaw marks and then, apparently without even realizing it, says they shouldn't be there.


[edit on 18-6-2010 by txpiper]



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 10:40 PM
link   
Dating
“The development of radiometric dating techniques in the early 20th century allowed geologists to determine the numerical or "absolute" age of the various strata and thereby the included fossils.”

Anyone want to hazard guess as to why this is false?


[edit on 18-6-2010 by txpiper]



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by txpiper
 


Surprise me with a statement so fundamentally flawed that I can laugh all weekend. I know you are up to it.



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by txpiper
 


Why shouldn't there be gnaw marks on bones? I can see a creationist flaw just yearning to stun the crowds.



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 



Surprise me with a statement so fundamentally flawed that I can laugh all weekend. I know you are up to it.

Well, even if you don’t laugh all weekend, I hope you and everyone else has a great Father’s day.

There are a couple of problems with the dating statement that I quoted. For convenience, here it is again.

“The development of radiometric dating techniques in the early 20th century allowed geologists to determine the numerical or "absolute" age of the various strata and thereby the included fossils”

The biggest problem with this statement is that it implies that the strata are directly dated with RM techniques. The layers are composed of sedimentary rock which cannot be dated with such methods. The dates are applied to the nearest igneous intrusions, not sedimentary formations.

It also leaves the impression that the fossils are dated by RM dating the strata. The Wikipedia entry explains that the opposite happens:

“Index fossils (also known as guide fossils, indicator fossils or zone fossils) are fossils used to define and identify geologic periods…”
Index Fossils



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join