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.

 

If evolution is not proven, why do we share 96% of our genetics with monkey?

page: 10
6
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
The term Darwinism is still widely used in the literature, from Szostak to Lenski. Look it up, try reading some actuall research instead of blogs from crusading atheists like Dawkins, PZ and Coyne.

You have some quotes (in context) for me? I highly doubt either one of them (the biologists, there are religious Lenskis so just want to make sure you're referring to the right one) refers to evolutionary biologists as Darwinists. They might say "Darwinian evolution" but that's not the same as calling something Darwinism.



but natural forces do create languages as solution for communication, how for humanoids, the same for animals. And of course, those languages evolve as complexity of life evolves.

OMG!!!! Can't we see the logical problem here?

Natural forces didn't create language. We created language. Natural forces are responsible for our intelligence and ability to speak, but that's not the same thing as language.




posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   
As for the modern synthesis here's a couple of peer reviewed papers discussing it and looking at the evidence.

www.springerlink.com...


We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes. We go on to discuss two conceptual issues: whether natural selection can be the "creative factor" in a new, more general framework for evolutionary theorizing; and whether in such a framework organisms must be conceived as self-organizing systems embedded in self-organizing ecological systems.


And no it is not from "creationists" they do in the end believe new elements will EVENTUALLY fill the gaps and we will have a new modern synthesis.


in the past, improved versions of Darwinism have taken the place of inadequate ones and that a new version -- a Darwinism of the future -- may well displace population genetical Darwinism without ending, but instead enriching, Darwinism as such.



Darwinism refers to its author's proposed causal explanation of evolution -- natural selection -- and to theories in which this process plays the dominant role in evolution, including human evolution.


Oh dear they use The "D" word quite a bit! And yet they are sympathetic towards it.

Here's another peer reviewed paper discussing the same issue.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


The discovery of pervasive HGT and the overall dynamics of the genetic universe destroys not only the Tree of Life as we knew it but also another central tenet of the Modern Synthesis inherited from Darwin, gradualism. In a world dominated by HGT, gene duplication, gene loss, and such momentous events as endosymbiosis, the idea of evolution being driven primarily by infinitesimal heritable changes in the Darwinian tradition has become untenable.


They do go on to state that of course there is no intentional design present. So don't twist this into another "creationist" propaganda thing. But of course we'll just filter this out won't we.


Even some evolutionist question NeoDarwinism, and also reject ID. But you guys cannot admit it.It's all 100% proven no question about it. You can't even admit that we are not 96 % similar chimps, except Rhino to his credit.
We then imply that it's a lack of intelligence or lack of understanding that prohibits acceptance. It's a blatant logical fallacy that shows only a weakness of argument. On top of that the irony of using the creationist term is completely lost in this whining about using the Darwinist term.

I do believe in evolution, what else am I supposd to call it? The inability to comprehend that it's not evolution that is in question but the mechanism is also completely lost on you guys.

Seems I'm the only one who provides any links for their claims.
edit on 15-6-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


Ah... because humans and animals are sentient beings, intelligent agents. Exactly my point to begin with.


And intelligence is God given?



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


The next quote is one of the main reasons why I highly doubt Darwin's "findings".

This is an excerpt from the Protocol of the Wise Men of Zion, written in 1867.

Here is Protocol 2, up to paragraph 3:




Protocol II

1. It is indispensable for our purpose that wars, so far as possible, should not result in territorial gains: war will thus be brought on to the economic ground, where the nations will not fail to perceive in the assistance we give the strength of our predominance, and this state of things will put both sides at the mercy of our international AGENTUR; which possesses millions of eyes ever on the watch and unhampered by any limitations whatsoever. Our international rights will then wipe out national rights, in the proper sense of right, and will rule the nations precisely as the civil law of States rules the relations of their subjects among themselves.

2. The administrators, whom we shall choose from among the public, with strict regard to their capacities for servile obedience, will not be persons trained in the arts of government, and will therefore easily become pawns in our game in the hands of men of learning and genius who will be their advisers, specialists bred and reared from early childhood to rule the affairs of the whole world. As is well known to you, these specialists of ours have been drawing to fit them for rule the information they need from our political plans from the lessons of history, from observations made of the events of every moment as it passes. The GOYIM are not guided by practical use of unprejudiced historical observation, but by theoretical routine without any critical regard for consequent results. We need not, therefore, take any account of them - let them amuse themselves until the hour strikes, or live on hopes of new forms of enterprising pastime, or on the memories of all they have enjoyed. For them let that play the principal part which we have persuaded them to accept as the dictates of science (theory). It is with this object in view that we are constantly, by means of our press, arousing a blind confidence in these theories. The intellectuals of the GOYIM will puff themselves up with their knowledge and without any logical verification of them will put into effect all the information available from science, which our AGENTUR specialists have cunningly pieced together for the purpose of educating their minds in the direction we want.

DESTRUCTIVE EDUCATION

3. Do not suppose for a moment that these statements are empty words: think carefully of the successes we arranged for Darwinism, Marxism, Nietzsche-ism. To us Jews, at any rate, it should be plain to see what a disintegrating importance these directives have had upon the minds of the GOYIM.




Zion arranged the success of Darwin. Basically they paid him to say what he said.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by onthedownlow

Originally posted by Barcs
Evolution as a process is a proven fact.


Humm? Is evolution a fact, or is de-evolution? Ooops! Evolution is merely a theory that has not been disproven. Instead of using double standards in the applications of qualifiers, apply them equally to all. By your standard, Creation and ID are facts as well.


Actually neither creation nor ID are facts by "his standards." They aren't even theories. Creationism isn't even good enough to qualify as a hypothesis much less a theory.

Now biological evolution IS a fact. It's as much a fact as the Earth being round. Just because you failed 3rd grade biology doesn't make evolution any less of a fact.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 04:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Firepac
 


You think insulting the other poster will back up your opinion and make you look smarter?



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by swan001
 


If you find the truth insulting, it means you're on the wrong side of the line (feel free to refute any of his "insults", though).



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


So you think you are right and that others are wrong. Very scientific of you. You don't pause, asking yourself: "Am I right? What if I am wrong?" You just watch TV and believe whatever BS (what you call "fact") they spoon-feed you.
I am sorry, but I went very deep into chaos theory and physics, and I can tell you, for now science never explained why we exist. Well, its explications are as far-fetch than ID or creationism's explication. All that science does is to make a guess and see if it holds (read Stephen Hawking's explication of a theory).
Truth is, NOBODY knows the truth.
No offence, mate, I just get a bit carried away when I see false "scientific thinking". I wish you a good day, peace and prosper, you know, the World is the way it is because it lacks peace so let's not do the same here,
Freedom and Joy.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by john_bmth
 


So you think you are right and that others are wrong. Very scientific of you. You don't pause, asking yourself: "Am I right? What if I am wrong?" You just watch TV and believe whatever BS (what you call "fact") they spoon-feed you.
I am sorry, but I went very deep into chaos theory and physics, and I can tell you, for now science never explained why we exist. Well, its explications are as far-fetch than ID or creationism's explication. All that science does is to make a guess and see if it holds (read Stephen Hawking's explication of a theory).
Truth is, NOBODY knows the truth.
No offence, mate, I just get a bit carried away when I see false "scientific thinking". I wish you a good day, peace and prosper, you know, the World is the way it is because it lacks peace so let's not do the same here,
Freedom and Joy.


Come on, now. Are you seriously saying that there isn't scientific evidence behind evolution? Is that SERIOUSLY your claim? I know if I ask for proof of that, or for you to show me exactly where the science is wrong you will just pretend I didn't say it like all the others do. Of course science doesn't know the exact origin of life right now. That doesn't mean evolution is false, or creation is true. If you think it is, then prove it and post science that shows otherwise. The great thing about science, is that if you do not think something is accurate, you can run your own experiments and tests to try and falsify it, but in 150 years or so, nobody has been able to do it. I still have great difficulty understanding why people are so quick to attack science. Shouldn't you be focusing on the good things associated with your religion rather than attacking the basic pillar of our society? Studying chaos theory or physics does not qualify you to speak about biology.

Nobody is saying science is absolute 100% set in stone. It is changing and updating as we learn more. At least learn the basics of what constitutes as a theory and what counts as a hypothesis before attempting to debunk something. Creationists crack me up.
edit on 17-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by john_bmth
 

Truth is, NOBODY knows the truth.


Yet some of us seem to be scared to even seek it.
Dismiss scientific advancement all you will, but that is where the actual seekers of truth reside.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by john_bmth
 


So you think you are right and that others are wrong. Very scientific of you.

We know you're wrong. Every creationist claim has been refuted and/or shown to be a fallacy and absolutely no objective evidence has been presented in favour of creationism. The science of evolution has built up an enormous body of evidence and has yet to be refuted in over 150 years, the fact you creationists are stuck in a time warp is no fault of ours. It's not a matter of opinion, you creationists are literally denying reality in favour of your iron age myths.The science is there for all to see, feel free to train as a scientist and independently verify them yourself, no one is stopping you.

You are the very definition of closed minded. You absolutely refuse to accept any evidence that contradicts your preconceptions and beliefs yet expect everyone else to take what you say at face value without a shred of evidence. The world has moved on from looking to magic men to explain the wonders of the universe. Come join us in the 21st centenary, it's not all that scary, I promise.
edit on 17-6-2012 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by swan001
You don't pause, asking yourself: "Am I right? What if I am wrong?"

What if?

At least you got major point on ID/creation mistake... there is no room to ask yourself if you are right or wrong. You have to believe it being right, even everything we discover shows as being completely wrong. See where we going with this?




Originally posted by swan001You just watch TV and believe whatever BS (what you call "fact") they spoon-feed you.

Science is observed and learned trough TV? Have you seen any links on this forum? Please do so...


Originally posted by swan001I am sorry, but I went very deep into chaos theory and physics, and I can tell you, for now science never explained why we exist. Well, its explications are as far-fetch than ID or creationism's explication. All that science does is to make a guess and see if it holds (read Stephen Hawking's explication of a theory).

One smart man once said, that all that complexity in the world from ID design is made just so priest can tell young not to jerk off.


Originally posted by swan001Truth is, NOBODY knows the truth.
No offence, mate, I just get a bit carried away when I see false "scientific thinking". I wish you a good day, peace and prosper, you know, the World is the way it is because it lacks peace so let's not do the same here,
Freedom and Joy.

World is dark place still, and mostly because of religion... How many wars started because of it, how many terrorist attacks in last 15 years only because of conflicts between religion and inside religions... Don't be blind...



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


I like your post better than the others, so I'll take some of my limited time to grace your post with an answer.
Thank you for your politeness and your civilized manner. I did not see those qualities in the other posters so I won't reply to them. They are brain-washed by the media into believing only one thing and some of them actually called the religious world "a dark place".
I do, for one, favour a scientific approach to things. If that approach fails, then I use a metaphysical approach to a problem. And if that fails, then I try to find a logical explanation using the only data available: our ancestor's stories.
I think evolution plays a small part in, well, evolution. We see it everyday.
But evolution is too damn slow. It's too slow to explain mankind's sudden leap forward.
It takes tens of millions of years for an insect to develop a armour on its wings (coleopteran specie). Yet, we attained armour technology in the Middle age, only 4 million years after LUCY.
Does that mean creationism is the answer? No. Creationnism is a POSSIBILITY. Why not try something in-between, grouping science and ID? What if mankind has been created by advanced beings (some say Vegan, other say Sirians) that took millions of years to evolve?
edit on 18-6-2012 by swan001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by Barcs
 


I like your post better than the others, so I'll take some of my limited time to grace your post with an answer.
Thank you for your politeness and your civilized manner. I did not see those qualities in the other posters so I won't reply to them. They are brain-washed by the media into believing only one thing and some of them actually called the religious world "a dark place".

ouch....

Reply even without intention... My friend, we all had different experience in life, and my one was to see religion as it is, very dark place that makes people believe and do things that not sane person would ever do. At age of 20 I found my self in middle of war that was based on religion and ethnic groups and was lucky to survive thanks to people who did not have their brains washed by their 'faith' leaders. Just check all religious wars in past (and present day) and you will see religion as biggest divider of people... Religion is not just something you believe, today is organized and imho vary dangerous thing of the past.



Originally posted by swan001
I do, for one, favour a scientific approach to things. If that approach fails, then I use a metaphysical approach to a problem. And if that fails, then I try to find a logical explanation using the only data available: our ancestor's stories.

Yep, people who did massacre in Srebrenica, Bosnia in 1995 believed to their ancestor's stories, and believed to be doing 'right' thing by killing 8,000 unarmed man and children.




Originally posted by swan001
I think evolution plays a small part in, well, evolution. We see it everyday.
But evolution is too damn slow. It's too slow to explain mankind's sudden leap forward.
It takes tens of millions of years for an insect to develop a armour on its wings (coleopteran specie). Yet, we attained armour technology in the Middle age, only 4 million years after LUCY.
Does that mean creationism is the answer? No. Creationnism is a POSSIBILITY. Why not try something in-between, grouping science and ID? What if mankind has been created by advanced beings (some say Vegan, other say Sirians) that took millions of years to evolve?
edit on 18-6-2012 by swan001 because: (no reason given)

Yep, millions of years are too slow.... generations upon generations.... but nothing to worry, if everything was created in 7 days, it makes perfect sense...



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by Barcs
 


I like your post better than the others, so I'll take some of my limited time to grace your post with an answer.
Thank you for your politeness and your civilized manner. I did not see those qualities in the other posters so I won't reply to them. They are brain-washed by the media into believing only one thing and some of them actually called the religious world "a dark place".
I do, for one, favour a scientific approach to things. If that approach fails, then I use a metaphysical approach to a problem. And if that fails, then I try to find a logical explanation using the only data available: our ancestor's stories.
I think evolution plays a small part in, well, evolution. We see it everyday.
But evolution is too damn slow. It's too slow to explain mankind's sudden leap forward.
It takes tens of millions of years for an insect to develop a armour on its wings (coleopteran specie). Yet, we attained armour technology in the Middle age, only 4 million years after LUCY.
Does that mean creationism is the answer? No. Creationnism is a POSSIBILITY. Why not try something in-between, grouping science and ID? What if mankind has been created by advanced beings (some say Vegan, other say Sirians) that took millions of years to evolve?
edit on 18-6-2012 by swan001 because: (no reason given)


I can see where you are coming from, I see religion / belief in god along with evolution being completely compatible. The time frame involved with evolution is completely dictated by the environment. I don't see it being too slow at all. What drives evolution more than other factors, is major changes to the environment that cause mass extinctions. This is why it "seems slow", but until natural selection is applied, not much change will occur. Sometimes the pressure to survive is much higher than others. Humans should be proud that we've already survived a few of these, but could we survive a big one? I sure hope so, but this is the reason I promote science so strongly. It may one day save our species from the cycle that keeps wiping hominid ancestors off the earth. When we can do this, our species will truly progress to the next level, technology wise. It happened to Neanderthals, Denosivans, homo erectus, and almost to humans at least once. Hopefully we can do what they could not and break the cycle with our science.


edit on 18-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


Yes.
A pressure does trigger evolution.
This pressure came from the Ice Ages. If I remember correctly, the last one was in -100 000. We started to cloth, hunt, stay warm (and that meant we had to build tools).
But why only "we"? Why this pressure didn't trigger that same evolution unto other human-like mammals?
Why were evidences found that our ancestor's brains literally outgrew its skull capacity?



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by Barcs
 


Yes.
A pressure does trigger evolution.
This pressure came from the Ice Ages. If I remember correctly, the last one was in -100 000. We started to cloth, hunt, stay warm (and that meant we had to build tools).


We clothed, hunted, and had fire LONG before 100,000 years ago. Tools have been found dating back a couple of million years. And we're not the only animal that uses tools, you know.


But why only "we"? Why this pressure didn't trigger that same evolution unto other human-like mammals?


I guess the Neanderthals, Denisovans, and Hobbits weren't human-like mammals?
Why were evidences found that our ancestor's brains literally outgrew its skull capacity?



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


We are the only animal that can create fire.
We are the only animal who achieved high technology... just because of an Ice Age?



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by Barcs
 


Yes.
A pressure does trigger evolution.
This pressure came from the Ice Ages. If I remember correctly, the last one was in -100 000. We started to cloth, hunt, stay warm (and that meant we had to build tools).
But why only "we"? Why this pressure didn't trigger that same evolution unto other human-like mammals?
Why were evidences found that our ancestor's brains literally outgrew its skull capacity?


I'm not trying to be a smart alec, but a brain can never outgrow its skull capacity. The skull can change, and the brain size is directly proportionate to cranial capacity. Looking back at our ancestors, brain size shows slow change over time as well. Last "ice age" (glacial period) was from around 10,000 BC to 110,000 BC give or take. That's about a hundred thousand years. Humans aren't the only ones. We once shared the earth with several hominid species with similar intellect as us. We survived while they did not.


We are the only animal that can create fire.

Nope. Homo erectus used fire as did several other hominids.


We are the only animal who achieved high technology... just because of an Ice Age?

Certainly not JUST because of an ice age. For the past 2.5 million years we have been in an ice age that has bounced back and forth between warm and cold. We are in a warm interglacial period right now. Humans are the sole survivor out of all the hominids, probably because of our intellect. It makes sense that we achieved what they could not.. and who knows, time erases all evidence, there could have been advanced technology in the past, we just haven't found it yet. If humans disappeared from the planet right now, the only technology that could survive 100,000 years is Hoover Dam, Mt Rushmore and the pyramids at Giza. All that metal, plastic and other stuff would be completely broken down in just over 10,000 years unless fossilized or preserved in a special manner.

edit on 19-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


We are the only animal that can create fire.
We are the only animal who achieved high technology... just because of an Ice Age?


Define "high technology." Just because they didn't walk around with cell phones glued to their ears doesn't mean they weren't sophisticated, thinking people in their own way.

H. erectus used fire about 2 million years ago--that would be 1.8 million years BEFORE we arrived on the scene.

That's just your modern "we're better than they were" Eurocentric mentality talking.

As for the Ice Age, necessity is the mother of invention. It's amazing what the human brain can come up with when it needs to.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join