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.

 

Demolishing the "how did anyone live while those organs evolved?” "argument"

page: 1
11
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2011 @ 07:31 AM
link   
I recently read this really, really, ridiculously stupid article. Yes, I'm aware I'm poisoning the well, but it's definitely a stupid article. Why?
Well...there's a lot of standard "Intelligent Design" (legally defined as "creationism") argumentation in here, but there's an argument in here that people who understand science rarely address.


If people die when hearts, kidneys and livers fail, then how did anyone live while those organs “evolved?” The obvious answer is that they didn’t. Man began as he is today.


This just goes to show the incredibly ignorance of creationists.

Why? Well, those organs aren't necessarily for all life. Those organs evolved as an assistance to living, not as a necessity. Humans are also not the only species that have those organs, our direct ancestors almost certainly had them.

So...creationists are quite silly in their arguments, aren't they?




posted on May, 10 2011 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 





Those organs evolved as an assistance to living, not as a necessity.


Well there's the answer right there. I tend to stay away from these evolution versus retardedness, er, i mean creationism as I have to ignore proven science to believe any of it. And they have to resort to sillyness like that to make their "point".

Man evolved, as did the organs inside him. This is why we have "useless" organs currently, evolution has made then redundant or un-needed, and eventually they will cease to exist altogether.

It's funny, I'm totally willing to say "Look, I don't know what SPARKED evolution, so if you want to throw your creator, or designer, in there that's fine with me, science isn't ruling that out yet.

but that's not enough, because it's not even about "creationism" or "intelligent design" it's about teaching RELIGION. A specific sect of religion that says god, the christian one of course, made the heaven and the earth and every creature on it, including man, in 6 days 6000 years ago and they aren't willing to budge.

They whine about the big bang, but again, that doesn't rule out some "creator" starting the whole game running, we're just explaining, with science, as much as we can. I refuse to ignore solid evidence in favor of religious dogma and that's exactly what it is.

It's neither intelligent, nor science, and shouldn't be taught as such and SHOULDN'T be given equal footing as actual HARD SCIENCE in school. If you want to brainwash your kid into being am imbecile that can't comprehend the world around him and is completely dependent on the government and church to give direction to his life, FINE, do it on YOUR TIME, not my tax paid teaching time.

Science can't rule out god, and probably will never try. This doesn't mean god made us like some lame book from the dark ages says, we can prove how we got here.

but where did we start?



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   
well, until proven otherwise i will stick with the god theroy lol, would rather believe that then believe we evolved from monkeys. but then i think monkeys are just a freak mutation caused by a nuke or some other radiation a from some past ancient civilization. an evolution brought on by nuclear radiation nothing natural. im still waiting to see some proof of tru evolution. and dont try and say lucy was that proff with parts from humans and monkeys they just thru together.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


People still believe in Evolution?


DNA cannot be altered.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Lionhearte
 


if dna cannot be altered how do they make glow in the dark mice?

news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by LadyTrick
 


I should say, it cannot be NATURALLY altered.. after all, there weren't scientists around to alter the genes of evolving species, were there?



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 






Why? Well, those organs aren't necessarily for all life. Those organs evolved as an assistance to living, not as a necessity. Humans are also not the only species that have those organs, our direct ancestors almost certainly had them.



You can not imagine how much I hope I am misreading this statement.

If you truely think you can live without any of the organs which you named; take it out for a few days and then get back to us on how you are doing!



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by unbanable123
 


We did not evolve from monkeys and evolution is a fact. If shutting out parts of reality to make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside is your thing then by all means go ahead, just don't attempt to drag children into it by robbing them of a good education and being unable to appreciate and understand the wonders of nature and variety of life on this planet.

edit on 10-5-2011 by Solomons because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Lionhearte
 


29,318 papers from medical journals would disagree with you. DNA can be altered. There are insertions, deletions, duplications, and substitutions.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by unbanable123
 



Originally posted by unbanable123
well, until proven otherwise i will stick with the god theroy lol,


Ken Miller, devout Catholic and evolutionary biologist. Active defender of evolution and witness against intelligent design in the Dover trial.



would rather believe that then believe we evolved from monkeys.


Well...in a sense we did evolve from something similar to a monkey, though definitely not modern monkeys.



but then i think monkeys are just a freak mutation caused by a nuke or some other radiation a from some past ancient civilization.


Evidence for this please?



an evolution brought on by nuclear radiation nothing natural.


Well, could you provide evidence to support this claim?



im still waiting to see some proof of tru evolution.


There's plenty.



and dont try and say lucy was that proff with parts from humans and monkeys they just thru together.


I'm sorry, but you seem to be misinformed. Australopithecus afarensis, a specimen of which was labelled 'Lucy', is anything but people throwing together human and 'monkey' parts. We have dozens of fossils that are definitively not human and not 'monkey' fossils. They also include a complete skull.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Lionhearte
 


Again, they can be naturally altered. It's been observed. Hell, speciation events have been observed.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by hdutton
 


You're definitely misreading the statement. There are forms of life that do not have hearts. There are forms of life that don't have kidneys. I may need them, but that's just because I've evolved them and I've gotten rid of systems that were in place prior to them. Just like I need blood, but blood is not a necessity for all forms of life.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Lionhearte
 

That's the dumbest thing I've read here this week. If DNA can't be altered, then how come all life isn't identical? How come you're different from your parents and siblings? Please think for a minute before you post, or better yet, don't post at all.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


Yeah, that's a good point. I didn't want to bring it up because it was...well...it's like being sent to the shooting range with a minigun and being asked to put just one bullet in a beach ball from 10 yards. Too easy.

Hell, there's documentation that humans have between 100-200 mutations separate from their parents...that alone demolishes the point. But "Why aren't we all the same thing" has a lot more brevity to it.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


Have you not heard of Dominant and Recessive traits? It's something even middle school kids learn about, surely you've heard of it? Of course this explains how none of us look identical, but that doesn't mean two people can have a, say, a Rhinoceros for a child - ie, a completely different species. HOWEVER, if you believe that a Rhino can be conceived from two normal Human beings over, say a billion years (or however long you people believe it was), that ISN'T mutation. That is selective breeding at it's finest, because it's obvious longer necked Giraffes will mate with longer neck giraffes until all their future generations have longer necks.

Not mutations. Selective breeding. DNA is NOT altered in this sense.

"Please think for a minute before you post, or better yet, don't post at all."

reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Posting your search results for Mutations don't automatically make all 29,318 papers disagreeing with me. Obviously I'm not going to sit here and go through all 29,318 of them either, so is this to assume you don't want to continue this conversation? Rather, why don't you try to select your own key points out of them, and present your own opinion so I get a better understand of what you think.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 

Based on the thread where you compiled that information, it seems to be, after quickly skimming it, to be selective breeding. How is this mutation?



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Lionhearte
 


...there ends up being a reproductive barrier. Now, if two species become unable to reproduce with one another, that's a genetic issue. How would such genetic differences to the point where reproductive isolation occurs happen without there being genetic change? This is change to the DNA. Selective breeding? It works through changing the gene pool in a population via artificially selecting out those that don't have the genetic traits.

Evolution is merely a natural version of what we do with selective breeding. Nature selects for what survives and populations select for what is most desirable to mate with.

Also, the fact that there are papers citing mutations means that they occur...which means that genetic code changes.

Oh, and even middle school kids are taught about insertion, duplication, substitution, and deletion.
And here's a paper on human mutation rates. AKA Changes to DNA.

edit on 10/5/11 by madnessinmysoul because: Added some.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by rhinoceros
 
Hell, there's documentation that humans have between 100-200 mutations separate from their parents...

I'm not one to argue against mutations not existing or anything like that, much less make a conspiracy out of it or anything.. so I no doubt believe this statement to be true.

However...

Googling this information brings me to the first site I find, which raises questions.

100-200 Mutations


Almost all were harmless, with no apparent effect on our health or appearance, and only four mutations accumulated over 13 generations.


Interestingly enough, it states right away that these have no effect on our health or appearance, and the insignificant size of this (four mutations) makes it sound like it truly has no impact on us at all - especially with this:

These four mutations gave us the exact mutation rate - one in 30 million nucleotides each generation - that we had expected,” said Dr Tyler-Smith.


That's quite insignificant indeed.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


...there ends up being a reproductive barrier.

You're referring to Reproductive Isolation, right? I don't see how I made any reference to it whatsoever, I'm well aware that two different species cannot breed and produce offspring.


How would such genetic differences to the point where reproductive isolation occurs happen without there being genetic change? This is change to the DNA. Selective breeding? It works through changing the gene pool in a population via artificially selecting out those that don't have the genetic traits.
I'm not sure if I fully understand you, but are you suggesting that because Reproductive Isolation exists solely because of a genetic change that occurred over several million years?


Selective breeding? It works through changing the gene pool in a population via artificially selecting out those that don't have the genetic traits.

Evolution is merely a natural version of what we do with selective breeding. Nature selects for what survives and populations select for what is most desirable to mate with.

That's exactly right - Survival of the Fittest, no? I have no argument against this, it's present in everyday life that the strongest survive. What it -doesn't- suggest, is how you can get all the species in the world today from a single celled organism that was, essentially, the first thing on Earth.


Also, the fact that there are papers citing mutations means that they occur...which means that genetic code changes.
As I just posted, they are too insignificant to have any affect on us, even in the long run - because even if there were a massive genetic change occurring over millions of years, it wouldn't explain how all species came from a single celled organism.

I will read that link about changes to DNA as soon as possible, but don't expect a response until I actually finish it. Wouldn't want to cut corners



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Solomons
reply to post by unbanable123
 


We did not evolve from monkeys and evolution is a fact. If shutting out parts of reality to make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside is your thing then by all means go ahead, just don't attempt to drag children into it by robbing them of a good education and being unable to appreciate and understand the wonders of nature and variety of life on this planet.

edit on 10-5-2011 by Solomons because: (no reason given)


I have to comment on this post. There is so much hypocrisy going on it can't be ignored - first off, you are clearly accusing the person you quoted of "shutting out parts of reality" when they are being more open-minded than most people, even coming up with his own theory.

It also must be noted of the accusation here clearly made at, what I assume, Christians. Robbing the children of a good education? If you had attended any school in your life you would know that our public AND private schools (I personally attended both) teach of one thing only: the Theory of Evolution. Private schools tend to be a bit more open and bring in the Creationist viewpoint as well, for the Children to decide for themselves.

The point being made here, is that the education today commits -most- of it's time in Science class teaching about the Theory of Evolution, and hardly, if ever, about the Creationists' view.

NOT the other way around.

If you want to place the Creationists' view separate from a "good education", as you stated, then you are clearly being closed-minded.

Also, claiming Evolution is fact when even Evolutionists still call it a "theory" is just ignorance.
edit on 10-5-2011 by Lionhearte because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Lionhearte
 



Originally posted by Lionhearte
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


...there ends up being a reproductive barrier.

You're referring to Reproductive Isolation, right? I don't see how I made any reference to it whatsoever, I'm well aware that two different species cannot breed and produce offspring.


Yes, and we've seen that speciation occur. How is it that we can go from one species to two separate species without their being change to DNA?




How would such genetic differences to the point where reproductive isolation occurs happen without there being genetic change? This is change to the DNA. Selective breeding? It works through changing the gene pool in a population via artificially selecting out those that don't have the genetic traits.
I'm not sure if I fully understand you, but are you suggesting that because Reproductive Isolation exists solely because of a genetic change that occurred over several million years?


No, I'm saying that it exists solely because DNA changes. We get reproductive isolation now because of changes that happened in the past, but we have observed it in the lab.




Selective breeding? It works through changing the gene pool in a population via artificially selecting out those that don't have the genetic traits.

Evolution is merely a natural version of what we do with selective breeding. Nature selects for what survives and populations select for what is most desirable to mate with.

That's exactly right - Survival of the Fittest, no? I have no argument against this, it's present in everyday life that the strongest survive. What it -doesn't- suggest, is how you can get all the species in the world today from a single celled organism that was, essentially, the first thing on Earth.


Well, that's common descent...and your problem with it is noted and entirely separate from evolution. Common descent is supported by genetics.




Also, the fact that there are papers citing mutations means that they occur...which means that genetic code changes.
As I just posted, they are too insignificant to have any affect on us, even in the long run - because even if there were a massive genetic change occurring over millions of years, it wouldn't explain how all species came from a single celled organism.


Well, that's a product of personal incredulity rather than anything else. You don't believe it, but where's the barrier to this happening?



I will read that link about changes to DNA as soon as possible, but don't expect a response until I actually finish it. Wouldn't want to cut corners


That's good to read.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join