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.

 

Debunk evolution once and for all

page: 11
13
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ShakeNBake
 


Here you even have the links..


Introduction to Evolution

Main Evolution Article

Deny ignorance!




posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


You are right, I'm in way over my head here. But before I go, let me go out with a BANG.


Darwin once said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

So we see that the slow steps of evolution through selection can't explain the irreducible complexity of the 40-piece rotary motor in bacterial flagellum. If only one part of the motor is not in its place, then the motor won't work. Explain this Mr. Evolutionist.


[edit on 8/26/2010 by ShakeNBake]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ShakeNBake
 


How does complexity prove it hasn't evolved? The human body is complex too, and if you "take away a part" like the heart, we stop "functioning". Yet we know for a fact humans evolved...

The whole "complexity" argument is stupid anyway. A few centuries ago, we considered "fire" complex and therefore attributed it to god(s). After that the same with meteorites...and so on. Complexity doesn't equal proof of the existence of a deity.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Oh and you want to send me wiki links, here one for YOU


Ill post a few below:

Evolution can't explain butterfly evolving from caterpillar

Evolution doesn't explain morals

Evolution doesn't explain language ability

Why did sexual reproduction evolve when asexual reproduction is far more efficient?

Some one has some explaining to do!!



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShakeNBake
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Oh and you want to send me wiki links, here one for YOU


Ill post a few below:

Evolution can't explain butterfly evolving from caterpillar That's because the theory has nothing to do with that. That would be regular biology. We can explain how butterflies evolved though if you're interested.

Evolution doesn't explain morals That's because the theory of evolution has ZERO relation to morals. Morals are imposed by society...not exactly a field evolution is concerned with.

Evolution doesn't explain language ability It does explain how our speech organs evolved from one species to the other though. So in a sense it does...

Why did sexual reproduction evolve when asexual reproduction is far more efficient? It's only more efficient for some species of certain characteristics. It's not a good system for complex life forms for obvious reasons...

Some one has some explaining to do!!


Oh, and "Conservopedia"?? Really? That's where you get your "unbiased", educated information from?

Dude, if you want to learn about science, I suggest you read SCIENCE WEBSITES and websites that are properly peer reviewed. Not some propaganda machine



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by ShakeNBake
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Oh and you want to send me wiki links, here one for YOU


Ill post a few below:

Evolution can't explain butterfly evolving from caterpillar That's because the theory has nothing to do with that. That would be regular biology. We can explain how butterflies evolved though if you're interested.

Evolution doesn't explain morals That's because the theory of evolution has ZERO relation to morals. Morals are imposed by society...not exactly a field evolution is concerned with. No we were created with morals. And we formed a SOCIETY from those morals.

Evolution doesn't explain language ability It does explain how our speech organs evolved from one species to the other though. So in a sense it does... But it doesnt explain how we talk and communicate.

Why did sexual reproduction evolve when asexual reproduction is far more efficient? It's only more efficient for some species of certain characteristics. It's not a good system for complex life forms for obvious reasons...

Some one has some explaining to do!!


Oh, and "Conservopedia"?? Really? That's where you get your "unbiased", educated information from?

Dude, if you want to learn about science, I suggest you read SCIENCE WEBSITES and websites that are properly peer reviewed. Not some propaganda machine



Aside from what I underlined above, why havent humans from 100 AD to 2010 AD evolved? Shouldn't we be evolving right now?



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ShakeNBake
 


To be fair we have been evolving. Our life spans are longer. We are taller. We are resilient to different diseases. However, the reason we haven't evolved in the sense that you mean it is because our environment has remained fairly stable. Nothing has threatened our position in the food chain. Nothing has wiped out large numbers of us. Therefore, there is no bottlenecking, our genetic variation is not that great, and our environment is not selecting new traits as beneficial, so we are passing on the same general traits between generations.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ShakeNBake
 


I'm afraid you're wrong, we weren't created with morals! If that were the case, how do you explain morals changed so DRASTICALLY over time. And why are there so many different versions of what's considered morally correct?

Morals are imposed on you by society...which forms them based on how they live and the environment (that constantly changes).

Communication has nothing to do with evolution. It only explains how the organs were formed so we can communicate.

Oh, and humans very well evolved during the time frame you mentioned. Our hearing got a lot worse, and so did our sense of smell. Females are also getting smaller compared to then, and there's a number of other things that evolved. Either way, the time frame is really short in evolutionary terms, so I'm afraid you won't see us growing wings anytime soon


Please read the 2 links I gave you, it'll prevent me from having to answer 100 of your questions. It's all there, you just need to open your eyes.

Most of the questions you ask have NOTHING to do with evolution...which clearly shows you don't really know what "it" is.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ShakeNBake
 


Morals and language are both aspects of evolutionary psychology. For the most part they both stem from the evolution of our prefrontal cortex. This area is responsible for forward planning and social interactions, and is what led us to our place in the food chain. Pretty much we were better adapted at working in groups and looking to the future. In order to help this process along we started using rudimentary language which caused new connections within the brain. As generations went by these connections became hard wired and language evolved. As for morals they essentially started as biological imperatives, such as not killing members of your own species. This combined with our sociability and forward planning allowed us to realize what would be better for the group as a whole thus increasing the species chance at survival. Once again new connections were made in the brain and as generations passed became hard wired.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 05:48 PM
link   
I think its time to pull back the reigns and come back another time. I do still believe evolution to be false, but next time I come back(about 3 or so months) and post a new thread, I'm gonna get ya!



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ShakeNBake
 


Read the 2 links and you won't have to "get us" because you'll realize evolution as the fact it is.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ShakeNBake
 


Let me ask what exactly is preventing you from accepting evolution other than faith or denial? As has been demonstrated the fact that evolution occurs is a fact and has been observed in the laboratory. Even the Vatican and most religions around the world accept it as fact. This is not an appeal to authority, but demonstrating that it does not go against religious dogma to accept evolution as fact. So, I'm just utterly confused by people who vehemently refuse to believe that evolution occurred, is occurring, and will occur as long as there are organisms, including humans.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 06:11 PM
link   
It's because now political leaders get involved and help to spread the misinformation.




If you want to learn something, focus on scientists like Neil DeGrasse Tyson!



[edit on 26-8-2010 by MrXYZ]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 




a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"


A theory is fact based + hypothesis.

Define hypothesis:



hypothesis: a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was ...


The idea that we evolved from other species is merely a hypothesis, if true would explain why we resemble other species. If false we have to look for new hypothesis to take its place.



("Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh")

. . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.




Dobzhansky is credited for having studied the fruit fly in population cages,[4] and discovered that close regional varieties of flies were more similar to each other genetically than to flies from other regions.

In 1937 he published one of the major works of the modern evolutionary synthesis, the synthesis of evolutionary biology with genetics, entitled Genetics and the Origin of Species, which amongst other things defined evolution as "a change in the frequency of an allele within a gene pool". Dobzhansky's work was instrumental in spreading the idea that it is through mutations in genes that natural selection takes place...


Just posted that, so to put all sides on the line.

[edit on 26-8-2010 by oozyism]

Some more info about his essay "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution".



(Evolution) is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must henceforward bow and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow — this is what evolution is





[edit on 26-8-2010 by oozyism]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShakeNBake
Darwin once said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

So we see that the slow steps of evolution through selection can't explain the irreducible complexity of the 40-piece rotary motor in bacterial flagellum. If only one part of the motor is not in its place, then the motor won't work. Explain this Mr. Evolutionist.


[edit on 8/26/2010 by ShakeNBake]


Before you try to stump "evolutionists," you should check your facts and stop spreading intelligent design talking points and ignorance:





posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Why evolution has been the target of theists is beyond me. Other scientific theories such as germ theory, a heliocentric solar system, the round earth, etc. ALL contradict religious texts yet are no longer challenged by theists, but accepted. I guess evolutionary theory is the newest kid on the block so there exists the struggle against it. How embarrassing for the theist and what poor ambassadors to religion are the science deniers.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 




("Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh") . . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.


Note the word exception. Therefore, it has been observed. Not to mention that there are all of these cases as well.

Observed Instances of Speciation



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by oozyism
 




("Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh") . . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.

Observed Instances of Speciation

I highlighted another part of that quote.

And could you please post specifics, or at least one word from the places in that massive article you want me to read so I can use the search function rather than reading the whole thing.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


The whole article is talking about speciation that has been seen in the lab and therefore should be read by someone who claims it hasn't happened. However, since I don't see that happening start at section 5.3 and read to the end.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Why evolution has been the target of theists is beyond me. Other scientific theories such as germ theory, a heliocentric solar system, the round earth, etc. ALL contradict religious texts yet are no longer challenged by theists, but accepted. I guess evolutionary theory is the newest kid on the block so there exists the struggle against it. How embarrassing for the theist and what poor ambassadors to religion are the science deniers.


Once again they claim it is merely creationist bias. That is very old and getting boring.

It isn't just creationists, it is also non-creationist scientists who are questioning the theory of evolution, because it is a theory zzzzz

Isn't that what you suppose to do? Question it extensively which will cause more study and which will help advance that area of science.

Wouldn't it be great if we can evolve ourself consciously?

If evolve to this form out of mere chance and natural selection, can't we with our consciousness evolve ourselves>?

If we can't then it will continually be, what it is now, a mere theory with facts and hypothesis.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join