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.

 

Evolutionist I can prove to you that what you believe (evolution) is based on illogical reasoning, i

page: 32
26
<< 29  30  31    33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 09:16 PM
link   
What exactly is an Evolutionist? You make it sound as if it was some sort of philosophy like an Anarchist or socialist or something like that. it is simply a scientific model not some philosophical or religious identity.
I would not call myself an evolutionist simply because is see sufficient evidence that the theory of evolution works.
It would be like calling me a gravityist simply because I have an idea how gravity works.
edit on 4-1-2011 by ELahrairah because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by PieKeeper
 




The Theory of Evolution is regarded as the Unifying Theory of Biology, nothing else comes close to explaining biodiversity as well as the Theory of Evolution does.


That, I'm not surprise since most if not all major universities, most “naturalist, biologist, zoologist and botanist”, most scientists are geared towards the theory of evolution and most scientific studies (dealing with bio) are promoted, funded, supported, reviewed and peer-reviewed by proponents of evolution. Any dissenting opinion are quickly put down and oftentimes ridiculed. Case in point this thread and others.

So of course, “nothing else comes close to...” it. But just because majority rules doesn't mean it's correct - just like the 'flat earth' believers or the 'earth as center of the of the solar system' believers.


This isn't a case of "god of the gaps". The Theory of Evolution deals with the process of Evolution (which requires populations of existing organisms), not the chemical formation of life.


Yet, when asked how certain species evolved into a completely new species, the answer is universal / unanimous, that is:


“branched off millions of years earlier from a common primitive mammalian ancestor”.


As if time (in the millions) is relegated to / treated (knowingly / unknowingly) as an intelligent entity possessing powers and abilities to transform/change living things. Like a 'magic wand'. By a mere mention of it amphibians can changed into a mammals without any question as if a god spoke.

Tell me please, have you ever encountered this statement?


“branched off millions of years earlier from a common primitive mammalian ancestor”.


Or how about this statement by one of the most celebrated biologists, Prof Dawkins:


At some point a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident
-- The Selfish Gene.

As a highly intelligent person like you, how much faith do you have on such a statement? Do you consider such a statement scientific or a pseudo-science?

In other words do you consider such words as "accident, chance or unguided process" or “probably/possibly/might have been” to be scientific?

Do you treat such words as causal entities? That is, having abilities and powers to transform, change / evolve living things into different species? As if "gods"? By just a mere mention of it - wings are transformed into arms.  Hokus pokus - problem solved millions of years ago by chance through an unguided process – ergo evolution.

Is that true science or pseudo-science?


First, I'd like to point out that there are many species of finches. "After all the finches were still finches even today, not a new species." is an extremely inaccurate ...


Yet they are still bird species of the finch family, correct? That’s all I'm saying. Is that fact not also valid?


Given the fossil record and the genetics, we're pretty confident that these aren't just coincidences. There are many instances of parallel evolution, but what your talking about isn't one of those instances.


Again, referring to my original Q: is this the only possible interpretation of the data (fossil records)?

That's all I'm asking.

If so, then I rest my case as my original hypothesis has been proven correct. That is:

Due to preconceived ideas the data gathered through observation are interpreted or bent towards the theory of (org) evolution.



You're talking about Gene Expression. Gene Expression can cause changes in reaction to different stimuli. It wouldn't be instinct, animals don't consciously change their physical attributes to adapt to an environment.


You might need to reread what I said. I did not say “consciously change” but built-in instinct. A pre-programed ability to changed/adapt to their environment in order not just to survive but to thrive. That is, to further elaborate – the instinct gets triggered to adapt/change to thier environment – ergo: coat/finch beak. But back to Q: is this interpretation unacceptable too?

If so then I rest my case as my original hypothesis has been proven correct. That is:

Due to preconceived ideas the data gathered through observation are interpreted or bent towards the theory of (org) evolution.

Lastly:


Given your misunderstandings of Evolutionary Theory, I would say that you are definitely embarrassing yourself when you say "Evolution debunks itself."
edit on 4-1-2011 by PieKeeper because: I cleaned it up to avoid misunderstanding.


On the contrary, it's embarrassing for someone who claim to be scientifically grounded yet accept things that are based on pure assumptions and conjectures – millions and millions of years ago by blind unguided process. Based not on true science but pseudo-science or I might add blind “faith”.

But just to repeat:

True and proven science that enhance our lives and helps us understand the miracle of life and the awesome universe is not the issue. We are so grateful for these scientific achievements and advancements of man's knowledge. The issue is psuedo-science, that is – the theory of (org) evolution.


So how did evolution or to be correct organic evolution precisely occurred when noone witness it millions of years ago?

Or to quote madness:


Arthropods (which include crustaceans like crabs and lobsters) arose about 570 million years ago, whilst fish were a bit later to the party, showing up around 500 million years ago.


and you call this assumption scientific!?.. I call it pseudo-science – the magic wand filling the 500+ million years of evolution gap.

Elahrairah – do you subscribe to the same illogical reasoning?

Ciao,
edmc2

p.s: no human was present to witness the actual act of creation but we have a record of how and most importantly why it happened. In addition these creative events are scientifically verifiable and agree with true science!



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ELahrairah
What exactly is an Evolutionist? You make it sound as if it was some sort of philosophy like an Anarchist or socialist or something like that. it is simply a scientific model not some philosophical or religious identity.
I would not call myself an evolutionist simply because is see sufficient evidence that the theory of evolution works.
It would be like calling me a gravityist simply because I have an idea how gravity works.
edit on 4-1-2011 by ELahrairah because: (no reason given)


You might also need to take your case to "TalkOrigins.com" as the author has no problem using it too.

btw - I've seen this response from your fellow "EVOLUTIONISTS' so many times that I lost count of it.
do you guys visit the same site?

ciao,
ecmc2
edit on 4-1-2011 by edmc^2 because: same



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
So of course, “nothing else comes close to...” it. But just because majority rules doesn't mean it's correct - just like the 'flat earth' believers or the 'earth as center of the of the solar system' believers.


Unlike the "flat earth believers" or the "geo-centric astronomy believers", the Theory of Evolution is backed up by mountains of evidence. It wouldn't be a scientific theory otherwise. If there was another plausible explanation to take place of the Theory of Evolution and it had the empirical evidence, then so be it. So far, no one has come up with a better explanation or the evidence to show it.



Originally posted by edmc^2
Yet, when asked how certain species evolved into a completely new species, the answer is universal / unanimous, that is:


“branched off millions of years earlier from a common primitive mammalian ancestor”.



As if time (in the millions) is relegated to / treated (knowingly / unknowingly) as an intelligent entity possessing powers and abilities to transform/change living things. Like a 'magic wand'. By a mere mention of it amphibians can changed into a mammals without any question as if a god spoke.


This doesn't have anything to do with Abiogenesis.

Also, you're referring to "Layman's Terms", also known as "how to explain things to the general public and non-professionals."



Originally posted by edmc^2
In other words do you consider such words as "accident, chance or unguided process" or “probably/possibly/might have been” to be scientific?


How exactly are they not scientific? You do know what probability and statistics are, right?



Originally posted by edmc^2
Do you treat such words as causal entities? That is, having abilities and powers to transform, change / evolve living things into different species? As if "gods"? By just a mere mention of it - wings are transformed into arms.  Hokus pokus - problem solved millions of years ago by chance through an unguided process – ergo evolution.


Again, Layman's Terms.



Originally posted by edmc^2
Yet they are still bird species of the finch family, correct? That’s all I'm saying. Is that fact not also valid?


Well forgive me for apparently misunderstanding your poorly written original statement. What you had written conveyed the idea that all finches were of the same species. In any case, they are actually not "True Finches", being of a separate family from the "True Finches." So no, they are not part of the finch family.



Originally posted by edmc^2
Again, referring to my original Q: is this the only possible interpretation of the data (fossil records)?


Given the evidence, yes. This is the only possible interpretation.



Originally posted by edmc^2
Due to preconceived ideas the data gathered through observation are interpreted or bent towards the theory of (org) evolution.


This is incorrect. The evidence favors the Theory of Evolution. "Preconceived ideas" don't play any part of it.



Originally posted by edmc^2
You might need to reread what I said. I did not say “consciously change” but built-in instinct. A pre-programed ability to changed/adapt to their environment in order not just to survive but to thrive. That is, to further elaborate – the instinct gets triggered to adapt/change to thier environment – ergo: coat/finch beak. But back to Q: is this interpretation unacceptable too?


Again, you're referring to Gene Expression. Your interpretation is unacceptable because it's only a hypothesis, not an alternative to the Theory of Evolution.



Originally posted by edmc^2
On the contrary, it's embarrassing for someone who claim to be scientifically grounded yet accept things that are based on pure assumptions and conjectures – millions and millions of years ago by blind unguided process. Based not on true science but pseudo-science or I might add blind “faith”.


It's not based on pure assumption and conjecture. We have the fossil record and genetic evidence to base it off of.



Originally posted by edmc^2
So how did evolution or to be correct organic evolution precisely occurred when noone witness it millions of years ago?


Evolution doesn't have to be observed for it to take place. Again, we have the fossil record and genetic evidence to verify.



Originally posted by edmc^2

Arthropods (which include crustaceans like crabs and lobsters) arose about 570 million years ago, whilst fish were a bit later to the party, showing up around 500 million years ago.


and you call this assumption scientific!?.. I call it pseudo-science – the magic wand filling the 500+ million years of evolution gap.


He isn't saying that it magically happened, he's giving you a simple run down of events. If you find out that your favorite basketball team won the game by 5 points, do you just assume that person is trying to convey that the points magically appeared? No, you reasonably assume that the game was played out and that he's paraphrasing the series of events that occurred.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel
 


not to take one side or the other but i have seen more anti-religion/theist/God/christianity/creationist threads than the opposition.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 02:17 AM
link   
Sigh* yet another science bashing thread by some nutty brainwashed Christian.

If everything needs a creator like you said in your OP, then who created God?

Let me guess, he's doesn't need a creator because he's all powerful? Or he just appeared into existence?

Load of BS, this thread doesn't prove anything.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 06:26 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


We have actual evidence of arthropods arising around 570 million years ago, as well as evidence of fish arising about 500 million years ago through the fossil record. There's no magic here, we're not simply pulling numbers from thin air, these numbers are all based in scientific methodology.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 06:45 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


You can't be "geared" towards evolution...just like you can't be "geared" towards cell theory. You either accept reality, aka evolution happens, or you don't because it violates your religious belief. In option 2, you give up on rationality and logic in favor of protecting a fantasyland that only exists in your head and for which you have ZERO proof.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 

I checked out the talkorgin.com website and this is what I got


Welcome to the treehouse, Trygve Lode's official site, featuring movie trailers, film clips, music files, and music videos (available in RealPlayer, MPEG, MP3, and Quicktime (.mov) formats)

You'll also find homepages for the Usenet discussion groups misc.fitness.weights, and soc.singles; as well as the dictionary of weightlifting and bodybuilding; and FAQs for misc.fitness.weights, and soc.singles.

While you're here, you can also check out Trygve's picture galleries, illustrated journal, some of his short humor articles, and his almost daily ramblings and rantings in Trygve's WeblogJournalDiaryWhatsis, (updated 2009.10.31) in which he says,

"...that embarrassing incident when my sword got caught in the spokes...."

Looking for a different Trygve? Is your name also "Trygve"? Check the "Trygve Directory" for a list of webpages and contact information for other people named Trygve.




As for pseudo science I hope you are not getting your information here
www.answersingenesis.org...
www.icr.org...

These are all creationist sights that have an agenda and do they not apply the scientific method

Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[3]

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Um.. easy. That isn't really logical thinking. A pencil requires a maker because it didn't exist naturally as the universe did. It required the evolution of man to exist.

I don't understand why fight against the idea of evolution instead of coming back and saying the universe required the evolution of a god (not saying that's what I believe but it's a hell of a lot better argument than evolution not existing). Evolution happens guys, doesn't mean it disproves god or anything.

edit on 5-1-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by PieKeeper
 


If species don't suddenly appear, how do they become a different species?

You said that species will pass down traits/characteristics and mutations are responsible for the appearance of new species.

At what point does a trait or characteristic stop being classified as such and generate a new species?

You have brown eyes, I have blue eyes. Each of us have a gene responsible for that characteristic. You have a child and I have a child. Your child has an average of 50/50 chance of inheriting the gene for color, but it depends on alleles. If you have a non-dominant Blue eye allele, and a dominant Brown eye allele, the crossbreeding of a Blue eye dominant allele with a Blue eye non-dominant will result in a 1 in 4 chance of your child have Brown eyes.

My child instead has a mutation of the Blue eyed gene and gets purple eyes. Does that make him a different species?

Option A)No, it's merely a trait.

Option B)Yes, since he has a new gene not found in any other known human he is a new species.

If you chose Option A), what's the difference between that and Option B)?

You could say it's because it doesn't change how he thinks or behaves. I will actually referrence a video game for this. Morrigan in Dragon Age:Origins is a witch and can shapeshift. When you ask her if she can change into other people, she says she can change into other animals. She explains that they are still human and she would have to study a person to change into them. But if she were to turn into an animal it is far easier for she just adapts to how they look and act.

So, a Red Winged Black Bird Male has red tips and yellow bars on his wings, but the female is a nondescript Brown.

So, is this the same as a person that has mutations? Is it the same as someone with different traits than other people?

Is it also the same as the difference between a Red-and-Black Grosbeak and a Blue Bunting? Both reside in the Cardinal Family, but are different species. Each looks starkly different and acts/behaves differently and each live in different places. But are of the same family.

Or is this more of the difference between an African American and an Anglo-Saxon? The difference between a Spaniard and a Chinese man?

You know the difference between a Mac and a PC? The Operating System. Both are Personal Computers. The only real difference is the Operating System. The way it operates.

So if we're animals, then why do we classify ourselves diffrently? If our skin is a different color, or we eat any differently, why don't we classify each other as species? We do it to other animals, why can't we do it amongst ourselves?

What I'm trying to say is:If we do evolve, we evolve over time but introducing new traits. If Homo Sapien is so different from Cro Magnum, what happened in between the two species? You can't have a new species amazingly appear, so what is the connection between Cro Magnum and Homo Sapien? If one has a jaw the size of a Mongolian's head and the other hated Mongolians, are those not just traits of each species?



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Um.. easy. That isn't really logical thinking. A pencil requires a maker because it didn't exist naturally as the universe did. It required the evolution of man to exist.

I don't understand why fight against the idea of evolution instead of coming back and saying the universe required the evolution of a god (not saying that's what I believe but it's a hell of a lot better argument than evolution not existing). Evolution happens guys, doesn't mean it disproves god or anything.

edit on 5-1-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)


I never said it did, but it's got a few plot holes. Kinda like the gap between the Sun and the Earth.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Excellent post OP.


I have always found it funny that there has never been an observance of one species changing into another. lol. Some will argue fossils show a change into other species, but that is not observance, that is guessing.
I am not saying that evolution is wrong, I just believe that with such an abundance of life on this planet nature seems to be more specific than random.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Double post
.
edit on 5-1-2011 by Conclusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Conclusion
 



Originally posted by Conclusion
Excellent post OP.


I have always found it funny that there has never been an observance of one species changing into another. lol.


I don't mean to stop the fun, but here are some observed instances of speciation, the changing of one species into another. There are more that can be found here.



Some will argue fossils show a change into other species, but that is not observance, that is guessing.



No, the fossil record is a clear indication of evolution. We get a series of transitional forms. It doesn't make sense any other way.



I am not saying that evolution is wrong, I just believe that with such an abundance of life on this planet nature seems to be more specific than random.


How is it specific?
And evolution is nonrandom selection of random mutations.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Xen0m0rpH
 


Um...what holes does evolutionary theory have in it? I don't see any significant issues with it except that we haven't sequenced the genomes of every known species....but that's just a matter of more work, not an issue with the theory itself.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Xen0m0rpH
 



Originally posted by Xen0m0rpH
reply to post by PieKeeper
 


If species don't suddenly appear, how do they become a different species?


Look at my avatar now back to this post now back to the avatar and back to this post. Notice one word there? Gradual. It happens gradually. It's not sudden, but eventually there is a point where interfertility is impossible, therefore there is a difference in species.



You said that species will pass down traits/characteristics and mutations are responsible for the appearance of new species.

At what point does a trait or characteristic stop being classified as such and generate a new species?


Why is it that those that are most opposed to evolution are those least versed in it? Speciation is about fertility.



You have brown eyes, I have blue eyes. Each of us have a gene responsible for that characteristic. You have a child and I have a child. Your child has an average of 50/50 chance of inheriting the gene for color, but it depends on alleles. If you have a non-dominant Blue eye allele, and a dominant Brown eye allele, the crossbreeding of a Blue eye dominant allele with a Blue eye non-dominant will result in a 1 in 4 chance of your child have Brown eyes.

My child instead has a mutation of the Blue eyed gene and gets purple eyes. Does that make him a different species?

Option A)No, it's merely a trait.

Option B)Yes, since he has a new gene not found in any other known human he is a new species.

If you chose Option A), what's the difference between that and Option B)?


Because it doesn't relate to fertility. You've got no understanding of classification, yet you're arguing against a theory that relies on an understanding of it.



You could say it's because it doesn't change how he thinks or behaves.


Behavior and thought aren't necessary evolutionary changes.



I will actually referrence a video game for this. Morrigan in Dragon Age:Origins is a witch and can shapeshift. When you ask her if she can change into other people, she says she can change into other animals. She explains that they are still human and she would have to study a person to change into them. But if she were to turn into an animal it is far easier for she just adapts to how they look and act.


....this is a silly comparison, no offense. Humans are animals, because we're definitely not plants. This is basically a piece of both bad storytelling and bad science...the science bit I don't expect much from in a fantasy game though.



So, a Red Winged Black Bird Male has red tips and yellow bars on his wings, but the female is a nondescript Brown.


Yes, this is called sexual dimorphism, it's present in nearly every species. Those colorations are secondary sexual characteristics in red winged blackbirds, just like mammary glands are secondary characteristics in human females.



So, is this the same as a person that has mutations? Is it the same as someone with different traits than other people?


Nope, it's a secondary sexual characteristic.



Is it also the same as the difference between a Red-and-Black Grosbeak and a Blue Bunting? Both reside in the Cardinal Family, but are different species. Each looks starkly different and acts/behaves differently and each live in different places. But are of the same family.


No, it's a different difference. The difference between those two species of cardinal is at a point in their evolutionary history. They're different in the same way that humans, chimps, and gorillas are different.

I would honestly recommend that you learn more about Linnean classification and phylogeny, it might help clear up some of your misconceptions.



Or is this more of the difference between an African American and an Anglo-Saxon? The difference between a Spaniard and a Chinese man?


No, the difference between gender and racial differences are entirely different sets of things.



You know the difference between a Mac and a PC? The Operating System. Both are Personal Computers. The only real difference is the Operating System. The way it operates.


Except...that's a false analogy, as humans are nothing like computers.



So if we're animals, then why do we classify ourselves diffrently?


We are animals.

Classification of humans:

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiens
Subspecies: H. s. sapiens



If our skin is a different color, or we eat any differently, why don't we classify each other as species?


Because we're interfertile. People with different skin colors and dietary choices can still reproduce. With the example you gave, those two cardinals couldn't reproduce.



We do it to other animals, why can't we do it amongst ourselves?


Because it's an entirely different set of issues.



What I'm trying to say is:If we do evolve, we evolve over time but introducing new traits. If Homo Sapien is so different from Cro Magnum, what happened in between the two species? You can't have a new species amazingly appear, so what is the connection between Cro Magnum and Homo Sapien? If one has a jaw the size of a Mongolian's head and the other hated Mongolians, are those not just traits of each species?


Ok, let me try and break it down:

Want to find some transitions between species? Look all around you, even in nature. In humanity, we have some people who are stronger, taller, faster, smarter, tougher, more focused, have better senses, etc. There are certain genetic differences between us. But we can all reproduce amongst each other. Now, due to selective pressures within an environment and due to sexual preferences within a species, some of these traits will be favored, others will not be. Some might not be fast enough, so they die. They may have been stronger, but they just needed to be faster, so speed is selected over strength. Thus this trend continues, and eventually a new species emerges, with the marker being that it cannot produce offspring with the main branch, those that didn't become faster, if that branch is still around.

I hope that helped.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 11:52 AM
link   


Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.


Arthur C. Clarke

That quote pretty much shows how silly it is to claim something is created through magic (aka god) just because of complexity and because we don't (yet) fully understand it.

A few hundred years ago, people believed fire has to come from god as they couldn't explain it. It had to have a creator...which we now know is not true.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by edmc^2
 


We have actual evidence of arthropods arising around 570 million years ago, as well as evidence of fish arising about 500 million years ago through the fossil record. There's no magic here, we're not simply pulling numbers from thin air, these numbers are all based in scientific methodology.


OK so, with all of the books and publications ever written past to present about the subject, do you agree that evolution theory boils down to this:

(brought to you by the magic of animation)



(note: this is just one episode of the docu-animie produced by BBC – in consultation with 600 "scientist" – about the theory of evolution)

Or if you prefer to go back further in time, here's the late Prof. Carl Sagan's version.



Do you you accept these explanations/illustrations/animations? Accurate enuff? Or are they off based per your expert opinion? (just want to be sure)

What about you MrXYZ, Piekeeper, et al? Acceptable re/presentation of the entire theory of evolution?

Just wanna know in order to compress the voluminous publications written/produced (about the “TOfEVO”) into a manageable size/time.

Ciao,
edmc2


edit on 8-1-2011 by edmc^2 because: fix video embed



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


And once again you're trying to group abiogenesis with evolution



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 29  30  31    33  34 >>

log in

join