It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Masterjaden
Macro evolution does absolutely nothing except attempt to bolster the egos of those who attempt to use it.
There is no evidence for macro evolution, only conjecture in conjunction with evidence for microevolution.
But isn't it called "The Theory of Evolution"? The key word there is obviously "Theory", because that is what much of science is. It is called a theory because it can't be completely proven.
Originally posted by Aggie Man
If a creator created the universe, then who created the creator? If the creator spontaneously came to be, then why is it not possible that the universe spontaneously came to be? If both options are equally as probable, then I will go with the universe spontaneously coming to be, as there is absolute evidence of the universe, but zero evidence of a creator.
Originally posted by samaka
I'm going off from what conventional way evolution is used based off from what I've read, from people whom I spoke too and what was taught in school. So tell me how has biologist use evolution theory to cure dieses? What tenchonologies has been derived from evolution theory? None? It's useless…
DNA structure is very complex that NO ONE fully understands it, sure scientist understand certain operations and functions that DNA does but it's been said the more we try to understand DNA the more complexties arise simlar to what is said about the universe.
You are kidding about the links you provided to an evolutionist site? Which references an article of science daily wrote about a software program called Avida which is a simulation of how mutations COULD occur if we IMAGINE that's how life functions, oh please video games simulate physics and gravity but that doesn't mean thats how physics actually look like or function. Simulations are nowhere near to say that's evidence, because there are many problems with simulations for instance.
Constant variables are used in simulations , their values are given base from THEORY not scientific fact because in reality if we knew those real life values from which those variables are, then we would solve every diseases known. So what happens? They program those variables with values from what they THINK not from what they know and that makes the simulation flawed from the start.
There are far more variables in biology then science community knows of. So not all factors are calculated in which again could alter the outcome. Again that makes the simulation flawed.
They have the computer RANDOMLY generate mathematical numbers to fill in the gaps, whose say that Life randomly selects mutations? Which is far from what actually happens in real life. There are constant variables in the Laws of Physics, those numbers are used to generate everything that you and I see today, therefore life follows a certain mathematical algorithm, a structure so to say, thus you cannot randomly generate numbers and calculate them and say that's how evolution works and that's how the Avida simulation works. Sorry but it's flawed.
My point is... WHO or WHAT assign those values in everyday life to follow a structure as to say it was programmed. Thus it's far more logical to think it was GIVEN those values as to say it had randomly selected those number bases from unguided coincidental events and if that is the case then evolution will never be solved and you'll never find your answer.
For many not understanding that is ok, they are ok to go off speculation from others and build a foundation on that which quickly falls flat. I highly suggest you rethink from where you get your information.