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 would it take for you to accept Darwin's Theory Of Evolution ?

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by nophun
 


Please allow me to redefine what evidence is....

What I need is evidence from plublished experiments, or evidence from the fossil record, or published evidence from discoveries that are documented and estblished as facts.

Your questions of the "tailbone" and the other statements you have just listed arent evidence at all but mysteries that you are giving your opinions on....remember this is a debate based on facts presented methodically and not just your opinons.




posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 



, in many cases bacteria are highly evolved and can acclimate to any environment, so any mutation that does occur will be neutral or negative and not persist through later generations.


I disagree. For one it is just a matter of scale. Bacteria in a lab can be scaled similarly to apes in a jungle. For example population density. "Beings" per "area."

Also, what you describe is mutation and/or adaptation, but the fact that it does not persist through later generations is proof that it is NOT evolution. It is merely adaptation.

To prove evolution, I would expect to see the bacteria develop new forms, or new strains that were superior to older strains. i would expect to see cooperation among the cells increase to reach a common resource. i would expect that if you took one generation out of this experiement and began a new experiement with them, that the evolution would persist and continue to improve. It shouldn't be "forgotten" once the bacteria are isolated in a new environment.

I must admit, this is much more research than I would want to undertake. I am a math and chemistry guy, not a biology guy. If I were a biology guy and a believer in evolution as a theory for creation, then I would be all over such a simple representation. This is Nobel stuff! Grants are out there, the layout is simple, the parameters will need to be tweaked and retweaked, but come on? If you believe then prove it?



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by nophun
 


Well havent I stumped you? You can't seem to provide "evidence" just emotion.... sorry



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 10:03 PM
link   
What about the geographical distribution of all the life here on earth ?
www.nyu.edu...

[edit on 18-7-2010 by nophun]



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by nophun
 


Again you only provide a question here, tell me what study or experiment proves your point. Im sure you can find something. Im rooting for ya!



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Observed speciation ? How is this not enough ?
www.talkorigins.org...



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 10:09 PM
link   
Fossil record ? how come there is never a bunny from the Cambrian period



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ccsct203
Real "Christians" do not believe in evolution

Where is it written about in the Bible?

It's not in my Bible...


So real Christians also must not believe in space travel, electricity, DNA, computers, television, and scads of other science and scientific innovation that was somehow left out of the Bible?

Help me here.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockstrongo37
reply to post by nophun
 


Again you only provide a question here, tell me what study or experiment proves your point. Im sure you can find something. Im rooting for ya!


I gave a link explaining . lol
Now I am sure you are a poe.


GTFO troll

No one can be this stupid


[edit on 18-7-2010 by nophun]

Just to add I am not joking. It is one of 2 things.

1. you are a poe.
2. you are to stupid to ever understand.

[edit on 18-7-2010 by nophun]

[edit on 18-7-2010 by nophun]



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockstrongo37
 


Observed Instances of Speciaiton

I will post my link again that outlines observed cases of speciation in both plants and animals. Furthermore, it contains a reference list so you can go back and read the primary sources if you so choose to. In fact here is an article you can start with.

Experimentally Created Incipient Species of Drosophilia



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by nophun
 


Hmmm not sure about that question but I will that to think about that indeed, adaptation isnt what we're debating about at all, and indeed species do make changes due to environmental changes, and we can argue I think intelligently about the subject of micro and macro evolution...but that wasnt my point and you know it wasnt, and now your simply trying to change the subject.

You still havent shown me anything that isnt simply conjecture or opinion, show us all the evidence from experiments or published discoveries that shows indeed evolution is viable.

Im starting to believe that you arent as educated as you have presented yourself, you cant seem to grant me this simple request.

Again, we're not talking about adaptation or Speciation, we are talking about how by chance life began and how through chance chemicals and base elements formed into simple cells, grew and evolved into more complex forms of life and somehow became man.

The ball is in your court my friend.

[edit on 18-7-2010 by Rockstrongo37]

[edit on 18-7-2010 by Rockstrongo37]



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockstrongo37
 





You still havent shown me anything that isnt simply conjecture or opinion


All those wikipedia articles have something called references, you can scroll down to the bottom of the page and see where the author is getting his info. Also, the Talk Origins site has a backlog of observed speciation with references to the scientific papers on the observation. Observed speciation could, by itself, prove Evolution.

Also, Macro and Micro, the difference is only in how many generations have passed. After a few hundred generations we have slight variations amongst populations, after a few thousand they are more considerable and so on. Eventually you reach a point where they are two separate species. The only difference is one of timescale.



we are talking about how by chance life began and how through chance chemicals and base elements formed into simple cells


Abiogenesis is not Evolution, the two are entirely separate. Scientists are still trying to figure this out. But the fact they don't have a certain answer does not mean we invent a God to fill in this gap in our knowledge. This is known as a God of the Gaps argument and it is a massive logical fallacy



The ball is in your court my friend.


Do yourself a favor. Read some wikipedia, or a Kenneth Miller biology text book. Do the research yourself. Don't come in here demanding that a user provide you with evidence as if he were a scientist (I have no idea what you do for a livng nophun), if you want the evidence go looking for it.

By the way adaptation is a synonym for evolution and Speciation IS EVOLUTION by definition.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockstrongo37
reply to post by nophun
 


Again, we're not talking about adaptation or Speciation, we are talking about how by chance life began and how through chance chemicals and base elements formed into simple cells, grew and evolved into more complex forms of life and somehow became man.

The ball is in your court my friend.

[edit on 18-7-2010 by Rockstrongo37]

[edit on 18-7-2010 by Rockstrongo37]


Once again, how life originated has nothing to do with evolution. Life was able to evolve into complex organisms through the same mechanisms as speciaiton, which is primarily mutation.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 10:40 PM
link   
Ok Ok I give up, only because its getting late. But for the record none of you have provided any evidence based upon published experiments or discoveries, just opinions and well....not much more.

If you want to live your lives in ignorance you can certianly do so and I wish you all well.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Darwin's theory consists of an answer for the evolution of animals. not existence itself. So do animals generate their cells randomly? Maybe, but all under certain laws. And under certain environments. If you call that random, the so be it.



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by ccsct203
 


that guy in the youtube video you linked is intense.
gonna listen to it a couple more times just to be sure i'm understanding him.



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 04:19 AM
link   
reply to post by nophun
 

your argument is flawed just like evolution jesus did fufill the law because we could not and gave us a new law that that combines all

4"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

and this is the law that christians are ment to follow and not the old laws that know one can keep that is why jesus was crusifide and as for your question i will answer with another question what would it take for you to come to jesus



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 04:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Rockstrongo37
 


Hey Rockstrongo - I have been reading this thread and wanted to make sure you saw what the problem was with your request for proof.

Others have stated it already, but you are asking for proof on how life began and that is not what Evolution defines. It is because of this that hardcore Christians can simultaneously believe in God AND Evolution at the same time. The Bible talks about the ORIGIN of life, while Evolution is a THEORY on how life has adapted, and evolved into different species. They are not independently exclusive.

Some believe that God got things started by setting the rules for things to happen the way they have. This is one of the reasons you hear Christians say that a day to God may have been 10,000 or more of our "human" days. We don't really know how long it took for God to make all this stuff and to set the wheels in motion, but we can see that the wheels are in motion. One could even argue that to study Evolution is to study the wonders of God's systems.

Oh and you should know. Theories are by their very definition not proven. Proven theories are called LAWS. Asking the OP to prove the Theory of Evolution right here on this forum is asking him to do something that no scientist in the world has been able to do. Does that mean Evolution is false? Absolutely not! Many religious people have a hard time understanding that the world is not all about True vs False, right vs. wrong. Life is somewhere in the middle.

Come see the beauty of gray.

You do have to admit it is really interesting that while science will refuse to state something as absolute fact (Law) until it can be absolutely proven, Christians will claim absolute truth based on a feeling. Science is about having ideas and then revising those ideas once more information is gathered. This can be done when there is no claim of absolute truth. Why do we not see this in the religious community?

It is our ego that tells us we have the answers. We all deeply WANT to have the answers, or believe we do. But don't forget: It's ok to say "I don't know". It's ok to say "I'm not sure if this is true, but I think..."

"Listen to those who seek the truth, but be wary of those that claim to have found it."

[edit on 19-7-2010 by TattarrattaT]

[edit on 19-7-2010 by TattarrattaT]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


getreadyalready, your test would actually be evidence of Evolution if the bacteria were separated into different environments. Changes in the environment is what forces adaptation and hence evolution to take place.

Bacteria in a controlled environment do not need to adapt to anything. Organisms don't evolve just because they feel like it. They have to be forced into it by their environment, in a life or death type of situation. The ones that survive have "offspring" those that do not, don't. The ones that survived had something about them that they will pass on to the next generations. Those that did not survive had something not compatible with the environment and will not pass anything on to the next generations.

We see this already with bacteria that are becoming immune to our medicines. It is why you shouldn't take antibiotics unless you have to. Only the bacteria that can adapt to the antibiotics are the ones that survive and have "kids", who share whatever DNA the parent had that allowed them to survive in the first place.



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 06:52 AM
link   
Well if there were any true hardcore evidence maybe a skeleton of an "inbetween" ancestor which there have been 0 found thus far, if we had all these different adaptions from older versions of ourselves (or any other animal for that matter) there would atleast be one skeleton to prove it. What Darwin and Spencer observed was natural selection not evolution. Im sorry but nothing+nothing does not = everything. And at what point did micro-organisms decide hey I wanna be a plant or did the plant say hey I wanna be a animal that crawls around. What I truely want to know is why evolutionists have to ridicule people who have different beliefs than there own. Like smug bratty children "your dumb because science is right" and no Im not very religious at all just observant.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join