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: 27
31
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 

the guiding hand would be the morphogenic field, no?




posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 09:06 PM
link   
I certainly can prove evolution wrong

biology.about.com...

I will highlight for those to "busy" to click the link

the Cell Theory states:

All living organisms are composed of cells. They may be unicellular or multicellular.
The cell is the basic unit of life.
Cells arise from pre-existing cells.

so if cells arise from pre-existing cells we would need at least one to start off with therefore evolution from microbes to humans is bull because where did the first cell come from to even start evolution?

have we evolved no have we adapted to our surroundings yes but i fear i cannot say we evolved do to the multiple organs that reside in the human body with no purpose
edit on 9/24/2011 by Immune because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Immune
 

What does that have to do with observed changes in allele frequency within a population over time aka evolution?



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 

the guiding hand would be the morphogenic field, no?


my point is just simply that everything we observe as a part of the genetic "mutation" aspect of evolution could be simply divine.

those classes were 26 years ago, I'm sure I'm off on the technical nitty gritty, but all I'm saying is if a being can create the universe, the being can operate, cause, manage, design, impact, influence every sub-atomic particle, atom, molecule, cell in every body on every planet in the universe it created in the first place including the morphogenic field

ok, Imma gonna have to look that one up

edit on 24-9-2011 by syrinx high priest because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


Who brought the creature of divinity into fruition that you propose created everything?



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tony4211
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


Who brought the creature of divinity into fruition that you propose created everything?


gandalf
edit on 24-9-2011 by syrinx high priest because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Immune
 


You must first know the basics of evolution before trying to debunk it.
edit on 24-9-2011 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest

Originally posted by Tony4211
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


Who brought the creature of divinity into fruition that you propose created everything?


gandalf
edit on 24-9-2011 by syrinx high priest because: (no reason given)

Good one! You made me laugh.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 09:48 PM
link   
genetic drift
The process of change in the genetic composition of a population due to chance or random events rather than by natural selection, resulting in changes in allele frequencies over time.


evolution
ev·o·lu·tion (v-lshn, v-)
n.
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
2.
a. The process of developing.
b. Gradual development.
3. Biology
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
4. A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.
5. Mathematics The extraction of a root of a quantity.

notice evolution is defined as a result of natural selection
allele frequencies is defined as genetic drift NOT a result of natural selection

therefore unrelated unless you are saying since every ones genes have slight variations that we are each our own species because after all if the frequency of an allele is 20% in a given population, then among population members, one in five chromosomes will carry that allele. Four out of five will be occupied by other variant(s) of the gene. meaning that the one in 5 carrying the allele is a new species



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 


one must first know the definitions of the words before you accuse others of not knowing things
edit on 9/24/2011 by Immune because: sorry mods pobably off topic



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Immune
 


one must first know the definitions of the words before you accuse others of not knowing things

True.


ev·o·lu·tion   [ev-uh-loo-shuhn or, especially Brit., ee-vuh-] noun
1. any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.
2. a product of such development; something evolved: The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.
3. Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
4. a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development, as in social or economic structure or institutions.
5. a motion incomplete in itself, but combining with coordinated motions to produce a single action, as in a machine.


therefore unrelated unless you are saying since every ones genes have slight variations that we are each our own species because after all if the frequency of an allele is 20% in a given population, then among population members, one in five chromosomes will carry that allele. Four out of five will be occupied by other variant(s) of the gene. meaning that the one in 5 carrying the allele is a new species.

Given that evolution can occur below the species level, multiple genotypes aren't necessarily indicative of speciation. Or are you asserting that it's only evolution if it occurs at a species level?



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Immune
 


I have adressed the argument from incredulity. Keep up.
Nobody knows what the most primitive cells looked like. All the cells around today are the product of billions of years of evolution. The earliest self-replicator was likely very much simpler than anything alive today. Self replicating molecules need not be all that complex and protein building systems can also be simple.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Not Authorized
 


No worries. It was an implied comment that your post was difficult to understand due to the technical wording.

I agree with you though people should not believe everything they are spoonfed.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


I think it's time for science to open their minds. For me there is no question there is some form of evolution going on. It's clear in the historic evidence. Most likely evolution is not the full story however current use of science can only find out after the fact (after they have observed scientific evidence).

Although unrelated, the recent finding by CERN of particles travelling faster than speed of light is a great example. We can find millions of pieces of scientific evidence that nothing can go faster than the speed of light. But what's all the existing evidence worth after someone finally observed something which disproofs it.

This is how it's been in known history all along and this is most likely also how it will be with evolution. It exists, but it's not the full story. Science is important however it seem to be very close minded as it only considers real what they can observe. I think science can be even more wonderful and helpful to life once they consider everything is possible even when it cannot yet be seen.
edit on 24-9-2011 by BlueSkies because: Spelling



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   
What a stupid question. The real question based on science is can Science prove evolution is true?
The answer is most definetly a NO.

Science cant even prove the Big Bang as logical and scientific, so how can they build a seriously flawed fundamentalist religion like evolution on no serious foundation.

I dont have to prove evolution wrong. Evolution has to be first proved. I cant prove something that doesnt exist is wrong, its absurd.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by Immune
 

What does that have to do with observed changes in allele frequency within a population over time aka evolution?


micro evolution ≠ macro evolution.

There's a difference between the two. Again, micro does not prove macro and any attempt to use it as 'proof' is a fallacious argument known as fallacy of division. You've been taught they are one in the same, that micro = macro = evolution.

We can argue all we want from genetic drift to irreducible complexity, but none of that addresses what he just stated. Biology is clear, that cells only come from other cells. You must address the elephant in the room. How can you get life, from lifelessness? Where did that first cell come from? Where is the documented evidence of such acts happening spontaneously?

It's special to note that even the OP already admitted defeat on this point, with his first post, by trying to steer away from the question where the first cell came from. NO ONE wants to address that, so all the other red herrings from evolutionists (such as micro-evolution) come out to play because they feel it's the only way to 'win' the argument and prove all those silly creationists wrong.

Either way it's the same game.
1.) God either created life.
2.) An updated 20th century version of Gaia worship, in which Gaia is the mother of all (the similarities are pretty striking) and thus "mother earth" has become your god, and you don't even realize it.

Both require faith on how it happened. I can state my belief that God spoke into existence life. You can state your belief that randomness somehow created the first cell in a primordial ooze. The rest is chicken fodder, because both are a system of beliefs, and neither can be unequivocally proven.

Even the current 'experiments' getting RNA to duplicate are in a controlled environment. Ironically it shows Intelligent Design as a valid model, as we are the ones designing and controlling it. But hey, it's all 'random' right? Oh wait, there is no such thing as 'true' randomness, as anyone that works with random number generators in a field such slot gaming knows that there can only be pseudo randomness.

In the past, God was insulted when we ascribed His creation to 'gods' made of wood, stone, or gold. We've found something even better to insult him with, and that is we didn't need him for creation.

I hope that your 20th century version of Gaia worship works out for you.
edit on 24-9-2011 by Not Authorized because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-9-2011 by Not Authorized because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by boony
What a stupid question. The real question based on science is can Science prove evolution is true?
The answer is most definetly a NO.

Science cant even prove the Big Bang as logical and scientific, so how can they build a seriously flawed fundamentalist religion like evolution on no serious foundation.

I dont have to prove evolution wrong. Evolution has to be first proved. I cant prove something that doesnt exist is wrong, its absurd.

I think they can proof evolution exists, however they can't proof evolution is exclusive or even a main contributor to the human race as it is today. There are definitely evolutions of species over time to adapt to changed environments.

I understand your reasoning, but the way you stated it is easy for them to proof wrong.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Not Authorized
 

I read it again and again got that lack-of-understanding look on my face. I suspect you are making an excellent contribution to the discussion. It would be helpful to rewrite it so people who did not study the topic (non-scientists) understand it.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Not Authorized
 


The Urey-Miller experiment

look it up and its latter follow ups.

see this is why you should study up on a subject before you post.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by vjr1113
reply to post by Not Authorized
 


The Urey-Miller experiment

look it up and its latter follow ups.

see this is why you should study up on a subject before you post.
Urey-Miller? Again? Click Here.

All these facts point to one firm truth: Miller's experiment cannot claim to have proved that living things formed by chance under primordial earth-like conditions. The whole experiment is nothing more than a deliberate and controlled laboratory experiment to synthesize amino acids. The amount and types of the gases used in the experiment were ideally determined to allow amino acids to originate. The amount of energy supplied to the system was neither too much nor too little, but arranged precisely to enable the necessary reactions to occur. The experimental apparatus was isolated, so that it would not allow the leaking of any harmful, destructive, or any other kind of elements to hinder the formation of amino acids. No elements, minerals or compounds that were likely to have been present on the primordial earth, but which would have changed the course of the reactions, were included in the experiment. Oxygen, which would have prevented the formation of amino acids because of oxidation, is only one of these destructive elements. Even under such ideal laboratory conditions, it was impossible for the amino acids produced to survive and avoid destruction without the "cold trap" mechanism.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join