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.

 

This Is What Evolution Is

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   
This is what evolution is, if you have a problem with evolution, then you have a problem with one or more of these 14 points. Which one is it? Provide evidence that any of these points are incorrect.

Variation:
1) Variation exists within all populations
2) Some of the variation is heritable
3) Base pair sequences are encoded in a set of self replicating molecules that form templates for making proteins
4) Combinations of genes that did not previously exist may arise via "crossing over" during meiosis, which alters the sequence of base pairs on a chromosome
5) Copying errors (mutations) can also arise, because the self-replication process is of imperfect (although high) fidelity; these mutations also increase the range of combinations of alleles in a gene pool
6) These recombinations and errors produce a tendency for successive for successively increasing genetic divergence radiating outward from the initial state of the population.

Selection:
7) Some of that heritable variation has an influence on the number of offspring available to reproduce in turn, including traits that affect mating opportunities or survival prospects for either individuals or close relatives
8) Characteristics which tend to increase the number of an organisms offspring that are able to reproduce in turn, tend to become more common over generations and diffuse through a population; those that tend to decrease such prospects tend to become rarer
9) Unrepresentative sampling which alters the relative frequency of the various alleles can occur in populations for reasons other than survival/reproduction advantages, a process known as genetic drift
10) Migration of individuals from one population to another can lead to changes in the relative frequencies of alleles in the "recipient" population

Speciation:
11) Populations of a single species that live in different environments are exposed to different conditions that can "favour" different traits. These environmental differences can cause two populations to accumulate divergent suites of characteristics.
12) A new species develops (often initiated by temporary environmental factors, such as a period of geographical isolation) when a sub-population acquires characteristics which promote or guarantee reproductive isolation from the alternate population, limiting the diffusion of variations thereafter.

Sufficiency
13) The combination of these effects tends to increase diversity of initially similar life forms over time
14) Over the time frame from the late Hadean to the present, this becomes sufficient to explain both the diversity within and similarities between the forms of life observed on Earth, including both living forms directly observed in the present and extinct life forms indirectly observed from the fossil record

While the origins of life are a question of interest to evolutionary biologists and frequently studied in conjunction with researchers from other fields such as geochemistry and organic chemistry, the core of evolutionary theory does not rest on a foundation that requires any knowledge about the origins of life on earth. It is primarily concerned with the change and diversification of life after the origins of the earliest living things - although there is not yet a consensus as to how to distinguish "living" from "non-living"

Evolution does not indicate that all variations are explained this way; that there are no other mechanisms by which variation may arise, be passed, or become prevalent; or that there is no other way life diversifies. Any of these may be valid topics for conjecture... but without evidence they aren't science

Other peoples opinions, presented in the form of quotes, are not evidence against the theory of evolution. They are merely opinions, and all people have opinions which turn out to be false. So let's stick to the facts




posted on May, 8 2011 @ 09:15 AM
link   
I'm afraid you are wrong, natural selection is not the driving force behind evolution. I'm just afraid Darwin was incorrect, and it's sad to see so many people take his theories as fact.

Species do not evolve over millions of years through situational survival scenarios, but rather through solar and magnetic cycles called Magnetic Reversal.

During the time of reversal solar radiation bombardment causes rapid and deadly mutation to the creatures of this planet. Luckily the magnetosphere recovers otherwise life couldn't exist here.

I'll just repeat this, evolution happens rapidly, in deadly fashion. It's not a slow calculated process.

It's not THE theory of evolution sir, you just present ONE theory on evolution.

That's how real science works, it's not a popularity contest.
edit on 8-5-2011 by Tephra because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tephra
I'm afraid you are wrong, natural selection is not the driving force behind evolution. I'm just afraid Darwin was incorrect, and it's sad to see so many people take his theories as fact.

Species do not evolve over millions of years through situational survival scenarios, but rather through solar and magnetic cycles called Magnetic Reversal.

During the time of reversal solar radiation bombardment causes rapid and deadly mutation to the creatures of this planet. Luckily the magnetosphere recovers otherwise life couldn't exist here.

I'll just repeat this, evolution happens rapidly, in deadly fashion. It's not a slow calculated process.


So corn evolved into what it was today by Indians harnessing solar radiation?



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Tephra
 


No, he provided the theory, the one of natural selection that's actually supported by all of the physical data available rather than your speculative dismissal of the 150 years that more or less support Darwin (sure, they say he was being a bit too conservative on the rate of change...but come no, man got so damn much right).

Seriously, give me a single academic work that demonstrates a link between magnetic and solar cycles and evolution. I'd love to read it over. Hell, give me a dozen if you have them.

Oh, and provide evidence that magnetic reversals kill magnetosphere protection, that would be nice too.
edit on 8/5/11 by madnessinmysoul because: Last line added.



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Sudden magnetic reversal -- give me a break.

Citations please -- citations that are not acceptable are those smothered in cheeto dust



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Well it would seem someone who's entire persona on this website revolves around Darwin, responding with blind rage towards a post in disagreement with Darwin would seem a little biased now wouldn't it.

I could ask for the same evidence from you, there is little evidence to support Darwinian evolution. Darwin's theories explain adaptation and the survival of species where others become extinct, but it does not explain evolution of new species or speciation. To be honest with ourselves, logically no species would ever evolve over time, as this would be survival of the unfit.

There is a reason why there are no missing links in the fossil record other than massive scientific stretching, there aren't any. Mass extinctions are followed by a major explosion of new species, not to mention the radioactivity, black soot carbon, and other anomalies found in the fossil record.

There is a plethora of evidence which shows magnetic reversals can cause a major influx in radioactivity and a variety of other anomalies. Without the magnetosphere there is little chance life would even exist at all. There is no arguing that the magnetosphere is weakening as the poles are drifting, every year the strength diminishes at an ever accelerating rate.

I could cite countless works, articles, etc. to support my claims. I'm not saying THIS IS EVOLUTION! I'm simply stating another theory of evolution, and there is definitely more than one. Regardless of how popular or fanatical you'd like to act in regards to this fact.



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Evolution = State Sponsored Religion.



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Tephra
 


Let's go through this point by point...oh, and there's not a single letter of green text. Not a citation. Not a response to my questions, not a reference to a single academic work in response to them either...huh.


Originally posted by Tephra
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Well it would seem someone who's entire persona on this website revolves around Darwin,


It actually doesn't. I really like the guy, he was a great writer, I admire his abolitionist tendencies in a period where it was nonsensical to think of Africans as being of the same species as Europeans, but my entire persona? Seriously? I would say my entire persona revolves around my opinions.

Oh, and this and the next line are a the logical fallacy of poisoning the well.



responding with blind rage


Ad hominem. I was responding with quite unblinded rational thought towards your incorrect assertions. Hell, blind rage doesn't tend to involve honest questioning and requests for sources.



towards a post in disagreement with Darwin would seem a little biased now wouldn't it.


Biased doesn't mean wrong. I have a bias towards what has been established in scientific research.



I could ask for the same evidence from you, there is little evidence to support Darwinian evolution.


Except that you're wrong.
Really wrong.



Darwin's theories explain adaptation and the survival of species where others become extinct, but it does not explain evolution of new species or speciation.


Oh come on! For the love of all things scientific! I actually made a whole thread that had references to papers that observed speciation. Not a single one of the papers referenced in the links provided in those threads finds anything other than Darwinian and Mendellian mechanisms at work. Mendel, the genetics guy, and Darwin, the natural selection guy.



To be honest with ourselves, logically no species would ever evolve over time, as this would be survival of the unfit.


No, it wouldn't. How would this be the case? How is speciation an unfit thing?



There is a reason why there are no missing links in the fossil record other than massive scientific stretching,
there aren't any.


Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.
I'm sorry, but humans alone have transitional fossils.

Archeoptryx. Microraptor. That's two 'missing links' in the same damn lineage.



Mass extinctions are followed by a major explosion of new species,


Of course they are, that's sort of something that follows via natural selection. If there is a mass extinction due to cataclysms then obviously there will be less competition for resources and there will be greater expansion into different territories.



not to mention the radioactivity, black soot carbon, and other anomalies found in the fossil record.


Citation needed. I already asked for references for your previous claims.



There is a plethora of evidence which shows magnetic reversals can cause a major influx in radioactivity and a variety of other anomalies.


Where is it?



Without the magnetosphere there is little chance life would even exist at all.


I'm sorry, but does the angler fish really need the magnetosphere? I'm a bit skeptical to this claim. Now, surface life would be very unlikely or it would be incredibly durable. But deep sea creatures don't rely on it nearly as much.



There is no arguing that the magnetosphere is weakening as the poles are drifting, every year the strength diminishes at an ever accelerating rate.


No arguing? I'm sorry, but you've provided no evidence, so I get to argue all I please.



I could cite countless works, articles, etc. to support my claims.


The please, cite one. Maybe even two or three. That is sort of what I asked for, isn't it. And I want properly scholarly articles that undergo proper peer review, not some thing from a website.



I'm not saying THIS IS EVOLUTION! I'm simply stating another theory of evolution, and there is definitely more than one.


Yes, there is. Lamarck had his own theory, but it was demolished. Hell, not a single non-Darwinian idea has been found to have any evidence to its name.



Regardless of how popular or fanatical you'd like to act in regards to this fact.


How can I act popular? Darwin's ideas haven't carried for 150 years out of popularity, they're merely supported by evidence.

And fanatical? I'm asking you to prove me wrong. How is this fanaticism? How is asking you to show me evidence in support of your claim, how is opening the possibility of being proven wrong, how is any of this fanaticism?

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were being something other than logically fallacious there for a second. You're engaging in name calling, you're poisoning the well, and you're not actually supporting your claims.



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Wow, that was a downright ignorant comment...granted, it's from someone ignorant of science. So...can't be expected to be any different.

Evolution is not a religion. It is a synthesis of scientific conclusions derived from tireless questioning of the established ideas. Most of the time, that testing reveals that we're either on the money or close but we have to modify things here and there. And over 150 years the data set has supported the general idea and refined the details of it.

Please, show me a single thing that shows that evolution is a religion or that it is anything other than true.

By your standards gravity, circuits, and physics are religions too.



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   
There is a huge difference between missing links and mutations that failed. You basically posting a Google of evolution as evidence is pretty interesting. I can do the same thing, doesn't make me right.

The greatest flaw in human progression and understanding of science is people like yourself.

Science isn't a popularity contest, the theory with the most followers doesn't make it the correct theory. Popular science is just that, popular. Darwinian evolution has about a thousand holes in it.

I'm not going to waste another breath, and I'm certainly not going to waste my time citing for a fanatical IM RIGHT YOURE WRONG individual. I noticed you didn't ask the OP to cite sources, or do you only do that for people not part of your blind faith.



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Tephra
 



Originally posted by Tephra
There is a huge difference between missing links and mutations that failed.


I'm sorry, but when we have a chain of creatures that show a clear progression in morphology that are spaced apart by appropriate years...it's not 'mutations that failed'.



You basically posting a Google of evolution as evidence is pretty interesting.


Apparently posting a search of medical and biological journals on both evolution and natural selection which returns results that are all immediately represent peer-reviewed scientific discourse is the same as just Googling things, nice to know.



I can do the same thing, doesn't make me right.


No, you really couldn't. You couldn't find a single scientific paper that supports your position, which is definitively why you haven't actually bothered to try after multiple requests.



The greatest flaw in human progression and understanding of science is people like yourself.


Hey look, it's a personal attack! I mean another one.



Science isn't a popularity contest, the theory with the most followers doesn't make it the correct theory.


I never said it was. Now, the theory with the most evidence? That theory definitely wins. I wasn't bothering to post a link to project Steve (which I only use as a response to those creationists who talk about the 'dissent from Darwin' petition), I posted links to searches of actual research. I was responding with a lot of evidence rather than people.



Popular science is just that, popular.


It's also a magazine...but I've already stated that the modern evolutionary synthesis has a lot of supporting evidence, I've even linked to two searches of medical journals that immediately turn up hundreds of supporting articles.



Darwinian evolution has about a thousand holes in it.


Name 100. Actually, just 50. No, I'll be generous, 25. Ok, that's too difficult, how about just 12. A dozen. Name a dozen holes in the modern evolutionary synthesis which gets its roots from Darwin that are crippling to it. I'm not talking things that are just little places where we need to dot the i because we're not 100% sure on something, I'm talking about something that would cripple Darwinian concepts.



I'm not going to waste another breath, and I'm certainly not going to waste my time citing for a fanatical IM RIGHT YOURE WRONG individual.


I'm not fanatical. I've repeatedly asked you to prove me wrong. How is that fanaticism? Oh...this is just another personal attack.



I noticed you didn't ask the OP to cite sources,


Because I've actually read the literature. I could cite some sources for what the OP said if you asked.



or do you only do that for people not part of your blind faith.


It's not blind faith. How is it blind faith when I actually bother to learn enough about the sciences to understand some of the fundamentals of molecular biology? How is it blind faith when I do my best to revise primary sources? Hell, I'm studying film and philosophy in university but I know stuff about biology just so I can understand evolution...how is this blind faith? I didn't even take anything beyond freshman biology yet I somehow can understand scientific literature.

Oh, this was yet another personal attack. Classy.

I'm asking you once more. Convince me. I'm keeping an open mind. I would like you to show me where I am wrong. Please, try to provide the following as I've requested so far in this thread:


-A dozen holes in modern evolutionary theory.

-A single academic work that demonstrates a link between magnetic and/or solar cycles and evolution. A dozen if you can provide.

-Evidence that magnetic reversals kill magnetosphere protection. Obviously from a peer-reviewed work. Oh, and don't worry, I have access to all sorts of journals through my university.

-An explanation of how speciation within a Darwinian context would be an example of survival of the unfit rather than the fit.

-Evidence that radioactivity, black soot, and 'other anomalies' (please define) are found in the geologic record around all mass extinction events.

-"a plethora of evidence which shows magnetic reversals can cause a major influx in radioactivity and a variety of other anomalies." (to quote your claim). Also, please define these anomalies.

-Evidence that all marine life requires the magnetosphere to exist.

-Citations of countless works that support your claims, articles, etc that support your claims.


Now, if you really, really think I'm a fanatic, if that's your absolute impression of me, please do this anyway. Why? Well, maybe my fanaticism is convincing people. Maybe I'm spreading misinformation. If you think you won't convince, fine. But there are probably other people reading this thread and maybe you'll convince them. That's personally why I don't stop arguing with creationists, no matter how obstinate their attitudes are.

So please, try to convince me. I'll bother to read the articles and works you provide (obviously this will delay my response as it takes a while to read through works) and I'll even concede points if you show me that I am wrong.

And if I don't...if you show me that I'm wrong and I continue to be stubborn...well...other people will see that. I'll have to deal with the stigma of being stubborn and you'll have another point in favor of your side.
edit on 8/5/11 by madnessinmysoul because: Quote fix



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Tephra
 


the internet is a wonderful invention with all of the worlds knowledge at your fingertips. so the vast majority of the scientific community is right or, some guy claiming solar radiation did it, with no evidence is right.

wiki

the references and citations are at the bottom of the page, the links will take you to where the information came from. it is all peer reviewed and unbiased.



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Evolution = State Sponsored Religion.


like the church of england or the islamic states in the middle east?

what exactly is the dogma of evolution?



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Wow, that was a downright ignorant comment...granted, it's from someone ignorant of science. So...can't be expected to be any different.

Evolution is not a religion. It is a synthesis of scientific conclusions derived from tireless questioning of the established ideas. Most of the time, that testing reveals that we're either on the money or close but we have to modify things here and there. And over 150 years the data set has supported the general idea and refined the details of it.

Please, show me a single thing that shows that evolution is a religion or that it is anything other than true.

By your standards gravity, circuits, and physics are religions too.



I couldn't care less about your hissy fit, sorry but Evolution is a religion.

And it's state supported.

P.S. save your personal attacks next time you speak to me, I'd hate for you to look like a raving hypocrite.
edit on 8-5-2011 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



Originally posted by NOTurTypical
I couldn't care less about your hissy fit,


Poisoning the well! Not a hissy fit, you just made an ignorant statement. To claim that the basis for modern biology is a religion is ignorant. To claim that a theory with more evidence in support of it than...well...take your pick of pretty much any other theory...is a religion is ignorant.



sorry but Evolution is a religion.


And I asked:
"Please, show me a single thing that shows that evolution is a religion or that it is anything other than true."

How is evolution a religion? Does it have to do with a jar of peanut butter?



And it's state supported.


Well, that's true. Because proper, evidence based science can be supported by the state.



P.S. save your personal attacks next time you speak to me, I'd hate for you to look like a raving hypocrite.


I'm not attacking your person. You are ignorant of science, specifically biology. You have demonstrated this. I'm ignorant of mechanical engineering, nothing wrong in that.

You made an ignorant statement, you are ignorant in that area by demonstration.



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 09:32 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 11:26 PM
link   
We use to think the world was flat, and you write out 14 points and say, "this is how it works."

We are all just flies on one big windshield, but we cant even see it.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


You seem to not understand science:

How

is

Evolution

a

religion?


Please, don't tell me it has anything to do with peanut butter or bananas, that would be a nightmare for me.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 05:40 AM
link   
reply to post by BornParadox
 


Yeah, we knocked out the flat Earth thing in...ancient Greece. We had a reasonable estimate of the Earth's circumference based on using shadows (which is brilliant by the way) at that point too. Some people were just sort of...ignorant. The same sort of people who today don't accept evolution.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join