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.

 

'Creationist Science' Proves Evolution?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 04:45 AM
link   

I used a statistical technique called classic multidimensional scaling, which creation scientists use to quantify morphological gaps between species. I wanted to determine whether morphological gaps separated Archaeopteryx - the earliest known bird - from the various non-avian coelurosaurs, the group of predatory dinosaurs ranging from tiny Microraptor to giant T. rex. I showed that within this group there is too much similarity to indicate separate baramins. Contrary to the previous creationist view that these animals were separately created, their own pet technique shows that these animals shared a common ancestor (Journal of Evolutionary Biology, vol 23, p 1732)


Playing Creationist at their own Game


Makes it difficult to refute when you use creationist arguments to prove birds evolved from dinosaurs!




posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 05:23 AM
link   
What similarities is he comparing other than bones? There is no DNA to compare. And even if there was, "morphology" is not proof of anything. My Buick's wheels fit my Monte Carlo. All this proves is that they had a common designer, not that they evolved from a "car like" vehicle 10 million years ago. I guess we can take observable reality and make up stories about unobservable realities that exist only in the imagination now? Is this what science has sunk to... for shame



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 05:41 AM
link   
reply to post by kingofmd
 


Do you have a number for a distribution center or warehouse where I can get universal bird legs? I have a sparrow that would look really cool with pheasant legs and considering you analogy, I should be able to make that switch.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 06:25 AM
link   
I'm not saying that Evolution didn't happen but where did protein molecules originally come from? These complex molecules don't form in nature and are formed when amino acids link up in a specific order as told by the information in DNA, so where did that information come from? If we take human DNA for example, the information in that would fill a book a 1000 pages long if there were a 1000 words on each page, there are no mistakes in this information and yet i'm told to believe that it came about by mistake.
I'm sure you have heard the idea that if a group of monkeys were to type on a computer randomly for eternity they would type the entire works of Shakespeare, but we aren't talking eternity we're talking 13.7 billion years, I don't believe that's enough time for complex and specific information to come about randomly.
Please feel free to tear this apart, I always like to learn



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ReturnOfTheOutlaw
 


This is probably one of the best videos you can find on the subject:

www.youtube.com...



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 05:02 AM
link   
reply to post by kingofmd
 


The article clearly states that :


Creationists believe different "kinds" of organisms - "baramins" - were created separately about 6000 years ago. They accept that diversification has taken place within each baramin and have methods for determining whether different species belong to different baramins, by finding morphological gaps between species, or large differences in genes or molecules.


They are regarding to a single model for similar species. ( Like birds and dinosaurs. ) Which can adapt and change. ( Speciation.) but not morphing into another species altogether.

Although... I don't understand their problems with evolution anyway.

Take for example a butterfly.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 05:07 AM
link   
reply to post by ReturnOfTheOutlaw
 



the information in that would fill a book a 1000 pages long if there were a 1000 words on each page, there are no mistakes in this information and yet i'm told to believe that it came about by mistake.


It is even stranger...

Within the pages, there are lots of mistakes. Somehow there are pages with words that are able to repair or correct those mistakes.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 05:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


Thank you for posting this.


It showed me new info. What is your perspective in the matter ? ( Creation / Evolution )

PS

Please visit this thread and share what you know. I created it a few days ago.
I get a few arguments that it was BS. I start a counter offensive... All of a sudden it stays quit.

It's called : New discovery makes us rewrite the theory of evolution.

[color=SkyBlue3]Reply to post by PieKeeper.
 




For ze link of course.




posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by kingofmd
What similarities is he comparing other than bones? There is no DNA to compare. And even if there was, "morphology" is not proof of anything. My Buick's wheels fit my Monte Carlo. All this proves is that they had a common designer, not that they evolved from a "car like" vehicle 10 million years ago. I guess we can take observable reality and make up stories about unobservable realities that exist only in the imagination now? Is this what science has sunk to... for shame


Buicks and Monte Carlo's don't reproduce. That's how we know they didn't evolve from a "car like" vehicle 10 million years ago. In order for something to evolve it has to reproduce. What part of that do you not understand?



[edit on 20-8-2010 by Firepac]



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by ReturnOfTheOutlaw
 


Here's an aid to help you visualize the enormous expanse of time

www.worsleyschool.net...

It's only 5 billion years not the whole age of the universe.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join