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: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by nophun
This question is for people who do not believe in evolution. It is simple, what would it take to get you to accept evolution and common descent is fact ?

I want to stress there is already piles and piles of evidence showing common decent and theory of evolution is correct. This does not seem to be enough for some.

www.talkorigins.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

This question is not really for people who have not took the time to seriously look into the Theory of evolution, This is a question for people who have took the time but still do not know or are not sure.

That said I really do not think there are many "evolution deniers" around that have actually took the time to understand the theory.

This is a evolution and common decent thread please try to stay on that topic. (at least try I know some of you have problems with this)

I will answer any legitimate questions one has on the subject, and hope my other "Darwinist" chip in.

(Darwinist
am I also a Newtonist and Kochist ?)



Evolution without Creationism (and vice versa) are equally lacking. There had to have been a "source" from which all sprang. To say that "it just happened" is intellectually dishonest. To say that evolution "didnt" is equally so.




posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 06:55 AM
link   
If this is something we HAVE to believe in (because the men in white suits told us to) why is it still called the THEORY of evolution? Ah yes...because it hasn't been proven as fact. No one really knows...the story changes all the time.



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by TattarrattaT
 


Absolutely correct TattarrattaT! Why is it impossible for people to believe that God CREATED the universe and is allowing it to EVOLVE how it does? The 2 theories are not mutually exclusive.

Rockstrongo37, your example of the legos was really weak. Why? To start with, Darwin was discussing biological entities and legos don't quite qualify as living things. Sorry. To discuss why a clump of legos won't form into a house, my suggestion for you is that you study the Laws of Thermodynamics and you will find your answer there.



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 07:47 AM
link   
The horse provides one of the best examples of evolutionary history



Id love to see creationists discard this piece of evidence.




Originally posted by Brad-Hwhy is it still called the THEORY of evolution? Ah yes...because it hasn't been proven as fact.


Erhm.. no.

Anybody who uses the phrase "just a theory" when talking about evolution... or who says "there is no (hard) proof" ... or "it is not 100% proven" ... either knows *NOTHING* about science ... or is deliberately trying to deceive you (by implying that evolution is somehow "less certain" than other theories in science).

We actually understand evolution better than we understand gravity. (We know what *causes* evolution. We do not yet know what *causes* gravity.

A theory is the highest title you can give to a scientific study. There is more than enough evidence to substantiate that evolution has occurred, does occur, and will continue.)



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


Ok, I read your source on observed instances of speciation. Not trying to poke fun but that has got to be one of the most dry essays ever written. Like my old man used to say "Theres no need to use large words where a diminutive one will suffice."


All the same, on to the good part.
Having read over these examples, I think it's fair to say that even the scientists conducting the experiments failed to observe one very crucial detail. The thing they are trying to prove, please correct me if I am wrong, is spontaneous speciation.

However, they have not done so. Have they proved that cross-breeding is possible? Yes. This and nothing more. You see, in every instance, the test subjects were being acted upon by an intelligent outside force. The scientist themselves.

To the OP: What would it take? Are we talking of micro-evolution or macro-evolution?

[edit on 19-7-2010 by blood0fheroes]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 07:56 AM
link   
Very interesting topic!! 1 flag! I'll contribute something soon!



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Daniem
 


Hate to say it, but your argument is indeed flawed in many respects.

First to the horse argument, I could be wrong, but I do not believe we have found entire full skeletons of any of those "possible horse scenarios". At most a fragment of a bone. This is the most insidious type of lie because it is a half-truth. From this fragment of bone, an artist extrapolates a "rendering" of what they think the creature looked like.... Based on what? Is my question. To top it off, at best the diagram given only describes a horse beginning from birth! (At least im fairly certain they do not spring forth full grown baring a saddle and blanket....)

Second, on to the "theory" bit of the argument.




A theory is the highest title you can give to a scientific study.


I beg to differ. Law, and fact come to mind.




Anybody who uses the phrase "just a theory" when talking about evolution... or who says "there is no (hard) proof" ... or "it is not 100% proven" ... either knows *NOTHING* about science ... or is deliberately trying to deceive you (by implying that evolution is somehow "less certain" than other theories in science).



This is exactly the point that those whose religion is the Church of Science fail to grasp! We dont! We do not KNOW any damned thing!
There have been, fortunately, periods throughout history when men of reason were able to discuss a matter, and were just as excited to be proved wrong as they were to be proved right. These men were the only real scientists to ever live. Men called them philosophers.

They certainly did not believe anything with the tenacity that is required by faith in a religion.



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by blood0fheroes
 




I could be wrong, but I do not believe we have found entire full skeletons of any of those "possible horse scenarios".


You're wrong. The oldest known horse, Hyracotherium:


2 million years after, Orohippus:






I beg to differ. Law, and fact come to mind.


Weather you like it or not, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory.

An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why.

A theory ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. Evolution is not just a theory, it's triumphantly a theory!



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Daniem
 


Thanks for the pics, hadnt heard much on those in years, since gradeschool in fact! However just because someone says they "think" those were related to horses, does not indeed make it so. I'll have to do some research and get back to you on that one.
*edit to add* Again, this does not discern if we are discussing micro or macro evolution.

Yes I understand the principle of your hierarchy, however this is where we shall have to agree to disagree im afraid. It would seem we put them in differing order. A theory, put over-simply is a collective "best guess". A Fact, is indisputable. No room for change. Therefore to me, facts reign supreme over guesses.

I am not a creationist, nor evolutionist. I am not a christian, nor a pagan, nor an athiest.
I am a seeker of truth, and a humble student of Descartes' method for discovering it.


There are some things we may never discover the Truth of, I am fine with that. This doesnt mean that I will ever stop looking for the Truth in all things though.

I would rather not know the truth of something and continue searching for it, then to falsely assume a collective group of other mens guesses disguised as Truth.

[edit on 19-7-2010 by blood0fheroes]

[edit on 19-7-2010 by blood0fheroes]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by blood0fheroes
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


To the OP: What would it take? Are we talking of micro-evolution or macro-evolution?


See this is the biggest issue there is these days. Complete lack of understanding the "difference" between microevolution or macroevolution.

I am sure this has been explained a few times on these forums, so I will just ask you one question.

What is the biological barrier that stops microevolution's outcome being "macroevolution" ?

Hint:
None, see the Observed Instances of Speciation
Observed Instances of Speciation
www.talkorigins.org...
www.talkorigins.org...

[edit on 19-7-2010 by nophun]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 09:56 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by nophun
 





What is the biological barrier that stops microevolution's outcome being "macroevolution" ? Hint: None, see the Observed Instances of Speciation Observed Instances of Speciation www.talkorigins.org... www.talkorigins.org...


Again I do not see these as irrefutable proof, as in all cases the test subject were acted upon by an intelligent outside force.

To answer the question, though, as I am not a studied biologist, I cannot speak as though I am. I am not aware of any barrier, though that does not mean there isnt one. I recall reading the work of a microbiologist, (not sourced because it was a long time ago and I do not recall the name of the book, so circumstantial at best) who described how down to the infinitesimal level, life is simply too complex to be an accident.

I would say the only real barrier, as things do not change spontaneously, nor without need, is one of an intelligent hand at work to cause change.

To simplify, there is no proof to say that micro can lead to macro, nor is there any proof to say that it cannot.

Both intelligent design, and macro evolution require much faith. I do not deal in possibilities as in an infinite (seemingly) universe, all things are possible. I deal largely with probabilities. From the research that I have done, design by an intelligent hand is simply more probable, then for something to come from nothing.

[edit on 19-7-2010 by blood0fheroes]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 10:28 AM
link   
It would most likely take some form of mental illness, dementia, alzheimers, maybe a major head traumor.



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   


as they say we all have our price.
reply to post by stealthyaroura
 


You just can't beat honesty.



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 11:22 AM
link   
I may not know much im just a PHD in genetics; but the reason why I do not believe in evolution (of humans) is not because of religion, it is because there is zero evidence to suggest that we came from any of the early hominids. All the way from Australopithecus to Neanderthal they have enough physical resemblance to Homo Sapien Sapianus as to relate a sperm whale to a bull shark. Also the genetic evidence from the gene testing of the Neanderthal of 2009 cored us in at 63% genetic relation, as a side note K9s have about an 84% genetic relation to Homo.

If you really want to discuss this with a doctorate send me a U2U and I will explain to you all day how we are not descendants of early hominids.

By the way here is my little religious disclosure (I was born a Muslim in Iran... does not get much more at the core of faith than that, and I don't believe in anything more powerful than humans.) and I believe in evolution of other creatures.

[edit on 19-7-2010 by Aziroth]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Anyone that doesn't want to be in the dark ages should check with the CDC. Evolution is happening around us all the time, as we speak.

To address the post above ^^ -- The reason there is scant evidence for apes -->> humans is because that's not how it happened. An alien species came to earth and genetically engineered humans using both their own DNA and that of what was part of the ape lineage at that time. It's there in the oldest history known to man. Just look.

Edit: Typo

[edit on 19-7-2010 by pirhanna]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by blood0fheroes
reply to post by nophun
 





What is the biological barrier that stops microevolution's outcome being "macroevolution" ? Hint: None, see the Observed Instances of Speciation Observed Instances of Speciation www.talkorigins.org... www.talkorigins.org...


Again I do not see these as irrefutable proof, as in all cases the test subject were acted upon by an intelligent outside force.

To answer the question, though, as I am not a studied biologist, I cannot speak as though I am. I am not aware of any barrier, though that does not mean there isnt one. I recall reading the work of a microbiologist, (not sourced because it was a long time ago and I do not recall the name of the book, so circumstantial at best) who described how down to the infinitesimal level, life is simply too complex to be an accident.

I would say the only real barrier, as things do not change spontaneously, nor without need, is one of an intelligent hand at work to cause change.

To simplify, there is no proof to say that micro can lead to macro, nor is there any proof to say that it cannot.

Both intelligent design, and macro evolution require much faith. I do not deal in possibilities as in an infinite (seemingly) universe, all things are possible. I deal largely with probabilities. From the research that I have done, design by an intelligent hand is simply more probable, then for something to come from nothing.

[edit on 19-7-2010 by blood0fheroes]

blood0fheroes,
I will take the time to address the rest of your post latter today, for now I only got time to point out one thing.


I will try to make this simple for now. I am short of time.
The word "macroevolution" is used when cladogenesis happens. You would more likely heard of the term "speciation" this is when a new species splits from its ancestor. I will go into details on this when I have time latter today if needed.

The reason I asked you "What is the biological barrier that stops microevolution's outcome being "macroevolution ?"

Is simple, there is none. You are correct the burden of proof is on the science community to show ""macroevolution" .

That said luckly we HAVE observed speciation, They have been linked at least 4-5 time in this thread.

www.talkorigins.org...
www.talkorigins.org...





To the OP: What would it take? Are we talking of micro-evolution or macro-evolution?


You obviously do not even understand the defintion of "macroevolution" yet (I assmune) you are willing to argue against it. Now prove stance.

What is the biological barrier that stops microevolution's outcome being "macroevolution" ?

There is none. You cannot just make claims without understanding them or backing them up.

I never got into the countless other topics that show macro-evolution, but I will if you still are having a hard time understanding.


For now I recommend you check out TalkOrgins.

www.talkorigins.org...



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost in the Machine



This question is for people who do not believe in evolution. It is simple, what would it take to get you to accept evolution and common descent is fact ?


An actual logical explanation of why our universe works perfectly considering that it was formed by coincidence.

So, it just so happens that when nothing exploded and formed the universe everything was placed exactly where it was? Even though if a planet were a degree out of place or a gas was a degree to hot or cold it would effect the entire solar system.


You are simply looking at it from the wrong direction:
Earth doesn't fit us perfectly. We fit earth perfectly.
Propably because we happened to evolve here.

Imagine for a second, you were a silicium based lifeform, living on a slowly rotating planet, with 2000 Degrees celsius noons, and -200 nights. Days last months, and every time you pass the night side, you freeze, solid. You cease to exist, until you thaw again at dawn, except for wonderous dreams. If you met another of your species, would you not say "This world is perfect for us! Imagine, there are worlds out there with liquid water, carbon and lots of very agressive oxygen, forming compounds with everything it comes across. I can't imagine life evolving in such a hell."?



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by pirhanna
Anyone that doesn't want to be in the dark ages should check with the CDC. Evolution is happening around us all the time, as we speak.

To address the post above ^^ -- The reason there is scant evidence for apes -->> humans is because that's not how it happened. An alien species came to earth and genetically engineered humans using both their own DNA and that of what was part of the ape lineage at that time. It's there in the oldest history known to man. Just look.

Edit: Typo

[edit on 19-7-2010 by pirhanna]


Source?
2nd line



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Daniem
 


Um, it seems someone needs a lesson on the basics of The Scientific Method.

1. A person has an idea that becomes a hypothesis.

2. Test are created to try to prove the hypothesis WRONG! (emphasis here to point out that true scientific testing is done to try to prove the ideas incorrect.)
During the testing of this hypothesis, new data and facts are gathered.

3. A new hypothesis is created based on the new data/facts. Note that this is where science and religion have major differences. Religion claims to have the absolute truth and whatever claim is made cannot be changed. A scientific concept is ALWAYS changing based on the new data. That is why I find it so hilarious when people say things like "Scientist are always changing their mind!" OF COURSE THEY ARE! THAT'S THE POINT!

4. This revised hypothesis is tested and re-tested until a more solid hypothesis is formed. Once a test can be duplicated over and over without fail the hypothesis becomes a THEORY.

5. Once a theory can be PROVEN without a shadow of a doubt then, and only then, does it become a LAW.

Two things to note here:

1) Sometimes a Theory can never become a Law due to the logical impossibility to prove it. You can't prove a negative, but you can theorize about it. Evolution will likely always stay a Theory because it is describing historical events and we don't yet have time machines.

2) Even a Law can change with new data. Only a Fact cannot change. That's what a fact is. It is a Fact that you are reading this right now. But a fact is not a category of the Scientific Method It is a component of all the categories. Facts are what Hypotheses, Theories and Lawsare derived from.

Source:
4th Grade Science class

And for the more stubborn:
www.scientificmethod.com...



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join