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.

 

Can you prove evolution wrong?*

page: 206
31
<< 203  204  205    207  208  209 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Quadrivium
 
If the ref to day six is to see if I will start pushing you off the rock I aint biteing


I didnt doubt your sources or that you were not alone in what you wrote BTW

I thought you had already wrote that you accept evolution within the species i.e. there are lots of species of flies but they always remain flies.

As a counter point to your argument when I look at the explanations of those that believe we were put here I see nothing but assumptions, no hard evidence at all and it is that discussion I am interested in.

Yes you have the rabid closed off creationists that would not know the difference between evidence and fantasy but I am very aware that there are also many that can think logically and offer at least an insight into how they have reached their understanding and to me those same people must have an explanation for diversity.

Not all angels on the evolution side either so I am not trying to hold the high ground here, just my place on the rock.

So where do you put day six in earths history?
At what level do you maintain evolution does not play a part?

For anyone else that may join please remain firmly seated on the rock.




posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Well you have to understand, if your abilities are bottlenecked, and we had no way of knowing it, this myth could be true in a sense.
We know for a fact that the brain is capable of higher functioning through whats called a "Savant."
Per Wiki on savants, most exibit abnormalities but they don't have to. In other words they can get the brilliant side effects with no abnormalities. Oddly enough they call this a disability.
Wiki repeats over and over that we know very little about the brain, while maintaining that the 10% phrase is a myth. How they are able to do this I don't know. It sounds like they are talking out of there @$$.

One thing is clear, there had never been any test to disprove the theory that the brain is capable of higher functioning. So it cracks me up when mryz keeps saying its demonstrably wrong, there have never been any tests to indicate our brains opperate at peak ability.

Thank you for the link, but just like some of the others about this subject, there seems to be missing that one part about a test disproving the theory. The only thing people are able to produce at this time is observations based on current brain activity. If they are bottlenecked, thats not going to tell us much.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


You weren't even a little tempted to nudge me over the edge of our rock?

Hmmmm........ Not sure I said I agreed with the evolution in species. I did say I agreed with parts of evolution though. Evolution has become so bloated that it's kinda hard not to brush up against it when talking about anything scientific.
What I was referring to was adaptation, yes that is part of evolution but it does not come with all of the baggage when used separately.
I posted before that I believe we were given the ability to adapt. There are many different species of fly because they adapted to different environments and or food sources.
If our environment changes or we get pushed into a new environment we are able to change.
This happens automatically on a molecular level as the environment changes and causes us to adapt (I believe I called this a voluntary adaptation). There are also outside forces like desiese, radiation and ext. that can cause unwanted mutations.
I do not believe every change can be put down under the phrase "survival of the fittest". That simply does not work and it's not logical.
Here's a hypothetical example.....
There is a certain area of the earth that is wet and tropical. But it has been observed that it is becoming more arid and dry Very quickly.
A study is done and two insects of the same species area noticed. One is green, the other is brown.
As time goes by and the study goes on it becomes clear that the brown insects are becoming more numerous, while the green ones seem to be dwindling.
Why?
Well, as the area gets dryer, the green insects are easier to see by birds and other predators and they make a yummy snack. That's "survival of the fittest".
But the question needs to be asked.......
Why did the insects start turning brown to begin with?
Adaptation to the environment which led to their survival.
Quad


Oh yeah, as far as day six, I am not sure I understand what your asking.


edit on 28-1-2012 by Quadrivium because: Added about the flys



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Quadrivium
 
In my version we inherited the ability to adapt and I can see no reason why, given time and stimulas that cannot mean speciation.

Never liked survival of the fittest because quite often we see very successful species disapear. Makes people think evolution always means better or up graded.

Your scenario is flawed. If you had a green and a brown version in the same place of the same species you would also have all the shades between green to brown but I understand what you are going for.

My scenario would be just greenish, variations of green. As the enviroment dried the very green insects are eaten more than the darker green/brown. After enough time passes the predominant colour becomes brownish and then the birds that prey on them see and eat the very light brown and the very dark brown so the predominant colour is brownish.

So my answer is they turned from green to brown because of enviromental change (dry) and pressure (birds).

My question is how would someone exploring the area after it had become drier ever know the insects were once green or that any change had occured. Would he just take it for granted they were always brown and showed no signs of being affected by evolution?



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
One thing is clear, there had never been any test to disprove the theory that the brain is capable of higher functioning. So it cracks me up when mryz keeps saying its demonstrably wrong, there have never been any tests to indicate our brains opperate at peak ability.


Sorry, but what? It's not a theory in the first place if it was never proven! It's just an idea. The way you're talking, I could say that we're all going to teleport our minds into invisible space blobs when we die, and you would have to believe it until someone disproves it. It's completely ridiculous.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





Sorry, but what? It's not a theory in the first place if it was never proven! It's just an idea. The way you're talking, I could say that we're all going to teleport our minds into invisible space blobs when we die, and you would have to believe it until someone disproves it. It's completely ridiculous.
Well not really. We still have the savant to compare ourselves too, and thats real, its not a sci fi blob.
We also have the mysteries of the mind that we know very little about.
We also have vestigal organs, two of which are in our head.
We also have PYs' DNA findings that also support the idea that our Minds could be bottlenecked through DNA manipulation.
We also have the bible specifically pointing out that there is more to life than mortar and stone, more than wood and nails, there is supernatural intention and those things belong to god.
It's very possible that what they meant was that we have powers and he took them away.
We also have the commonality of life, which is in my 30 years of studying the supernatural and paranormal, it would appear that we have some abilities missing.
So I have six things that tell me your wrong, and they all point in the same direction.
edit on 28-1-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 

What you describe is natural selection, survival of the fittest.
I will admit that what I believe is very similar.
Using the "theory", many times adaptations are made to look like a natural extension of natural selection.
There is not much evidence that shows natural selection leading to adaptations, but there is much more evidence that adaptation actually can lead to natural selection.
An adaptation must appear for natural selection to act on it.
I ask again......What caused that adaptation to begin with?
And.... From where did the information come for the adaptation?
The only answer that makes since (to me) is a Creator, who instilled all the needed information in our genetic code.
Quad



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Seems too much to read through all the pages right now though may I ask any one in few words
what was so far the strongest argument in defense of creationism?

thank you good people
edit on 28-1-2012 by darkorange because: misspel



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by darkorange
 





Seems too much to read through all the pages right now though may I ask any one in few words
what was so far the strongest argument in defense of creationism?

thank you good people
"Flagellum" no one will even touch it with a reply.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by darkorange
 





Seems too much to read through all the pages right now though may I ask any one in few words
what was so far the strongest argument in defense of creationism?

thank you good people
"Flagellum" no one will even touch it with a reply.


I love the faith of the evolutionist. It could have evolved so it must have evolved. And they say bible believers speak in circular logic.


The first problem is there is no evidence to prove that anything that creationist claim irreducibly complex did in fact evolve. Second there is no proof that it can actually evolve.

So the theory of evolution is really summoned up like this. We believe that something that has not been proven to happen can actually happen. And because we believe that it could actually happen than it must have actually happened. This is what we call science.

I believe I could have been created; therefore I must have been created. At least I willing to admit that what I believe is based on faith.

edit on 28-1-2012 by sacgamer25 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by sacgamer25
 





I love the faith of the evolutionist. It could have evolved so it must have evolved. And they say bible believers speak in circular logic.

The first problem is there is no evidence to prove that anything that creationist claim irreducibly complex did in fact evolve. Second there is no proof that it can actually evolve.

So the theory of evolution is really summoned up like this. We believe that something that has not been proven to happen can actually happen. And because we believe that it could actually happen than it must have actually happened. This is what we call science.

I believe I could have been created; therefore I must have been created. At least I willing to admit that what I believe is based on faith.
I just had to tell you thats exactly why I call it "Evolutionism."



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


The reason we won't touch it is because it has been beat to death in every single evolution thread on here. If I remember correctly Answers in Genesis even says that it's a worthless argument. Also, I did address it. Pages ago when it was first brought up. I linked to a page that explains why the argument of irreducible complexity is not based in reality.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 





The reason we won't touch it is because it has been beat to death in every single evolution thread on here. If I remember correctly Answers in Genesis even says that it's a worthless argument. Also, I did address it. Pages ago when it was first brought up. I linked to a page that explains why the argument of irreducible complexity is not based in reality.


Well if you think this flagellum is a product of evolution, then you would have to be open to the idea that there could be an evolution bug that is so smart it can change our DNA and predict the future though adaptation.

When I look at it, its totally manufactured. No ands, ifs, or buts. It has creator all over it. Keep in mind it doesn't prove that EVERYTHING was made through a creator, just that the flagellum obviously was.

Just remember when you say that its not in reality, its just not in OUR reality.
edit on 28-1-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by sacgamer25
 
I would like to remind you that this thread is for you to explain diversity as you have already it seems dismissed evolution. Not for us to defend evolution.

Stop acting like a child and start explaining diversity without refering to evolution. My bet is, like everyone else from your side you will not because you cannot.

I dont expect you to answer as no one else has that maintains evolution is false. In terms evolution would use. That is a very common trait within the creationist group.

So again, not interested in your views on why evolution is wrong or in fact your opinion of evolution. All I want to read is how you explain the diversity we see around us today. Be the first to answer that question.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





All I want to read is how you explain the diversity we see around us today. Be the first to answer that question.


I believe that it is changes in dna over millions of years.

It is the tree of life.Something similar to this.

library.thinkquest.org/19012/treeolif.htm

Sorry for the huge pic.

Small genetic mutations that get passed down from generation to generation and spawning new traits further down the timeline.......

This can be achieved through solar and cosmic radiation of the span of hundreds of millions of years.......Not overnight.........the time span is obviously too much for some to get a grip on......


Life on Earth originated and then evolved from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.7 billion years ago. Repeated speciation and the divergence of life can be inferred from shared sets of biochemical and morphological traits, or by shared DNA sequences. These homologous traits and sequences are more similar among species that share a more recent common ancestor, and can be used to reconstruct evolutionary histories, using both existing species and the fossil record. Existing patterns of biodiversity have been shaped both by speciation and by extinction

en.wikipedia.org...

Throughout the span of time, the tree branches more and more........extinctions and all of the changes on earth affect which way life goes........

But anyway it is all about time......



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by sacgamer25
 
I would like to remind you that this thread is for you to explain diversity as you have already it seems dismissed evolution. Not for us to defend evolution.

Stop acting like a child and start explaining diversity without refering to evolution. My bet is, like everyone else from your side you will not because you cannot.

I dont expect you to answer as no one else has that maintains evolution is false. In terms evolution would use. That is a very common trait within the creationist group.

So again, not interested in your views on why evolution is wrong or in fact your opinion of evolution. All I want to read is how you explain the diversity we see around us today. Be the first to answer that question.



Creationism covers everything you want to know. Just because an organism can adapt does not mean it can evolve into something more complex. I thought that was pretty basic.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 05:03 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

Except actual biologists in a court of law, where they soundly ripped the concept of flagella being "irreducibly complex" to such shreds that even a judge recognized that the concept of "irreducible complexity" wasn't science. They did the same thing with the blood clotting cascade and another example used by the creationists as their gold standard of "irreducible complexity".

Itsthetooth's inevitable march toward becoming a creationist continues...



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 05:42 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


Colin, I read this several times and still not sure I understand what you're saying.


I dont expect you to answer as no one else has that maintains evolution is false. In terms evolution would use. That is a very common trait within the creationist group.

Explain please.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by sacgamer25
 



Creationism covers everything you want to know. Just because an organism can adapt does not mean it can evolve into something more complex. I thought that was pretty basic.
That is not an explanation of the diversity we see around us. Sorry but it just is not.

I am not daft, I know what creationism says about evolution, There are many threads on ATS alone giving the same circular argument. Creationists always step back from giving a description of diversity. 'Creationism covers everything you want to know' is no answer at all.

At least evolution is not scared to offer its evidence up for scrutiny which at the moment I cannot say for any school of creation. Prove me wrong.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Quadrivium
 



I dont expect you to answer as no one else has that maintains evolution is false. In terms evolution would use. That is a very common trait within the creationist group.
If you read the post I was replying too, (sacgamer25)I think it is pretty clear. If you read his/her reply I think it becomes even more clear.

This is the most common type of reply on this thread. ie 'it is easy to explain diversity but evolution says this and it is wrong'. Then going on to explain why evolution is wrong. This despite explicity being asked not to refer to the 'failed evolution, its only a theory explanation'.

Since your first post I have great hopes you are entering into the spirit of the thread but we are still discussing evolution not an alternative but I do understand you wanting to find some common ground in a discussion that is usually from one distinct end or the other without any middleground.




top topics



 
31
<< 203  204  205    207  208  209 >>

log in

join