Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Evolution - defies accepted science

page: 1
23
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+9 more 
posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 01:45 AM
link   
I will try to keep my post to the point. In my opinion, Evolution has no place in schools; however, science has no other way to explain how mankind is in its existence. So at the least, Evolution and Creation should be taught in schools. Hopefully my grammar and spelling isnt to bad.

The Law of Biogenesis
All observations have shown that life comes only from life. There is no way, according to observations and this accepted law, that life can come from nonliving matter using a natural process. One either believes that life (mysteriously) came to and evolution began, or life was created and evolution began from that point.

Acquired Characteristics (some call it)
Characteristics cannot be passed to the off spring that was acquired after birth, for example, a body builder's physique. Another example, Giraffes could not get long necks because they began having to reach higher and higher for food (stretching their necks).

Mendel's Law
Breeding experiments and other common observations have confirmed his law. Genes are simply "reshuffled" from one generation to another. No new genetics are created, but simply changed around. Another example, microbials have massive numbers per species, un countable numbers, and are dispersed throughout most of the world's environment types. However, there are only a relatively few species. Apparently, variations in characteristics are bounded, or otherwise these microbials would have many varieties species. According to Macroevolution, microbials have the greatest opportunity to evolve new features and species, which they are failing to do.

Natural Selection
True, and has been observed. I do no dispute this. I am unsure how this supports evolution personally; it is just an observation. Natural selection only "selects" from pre-existing genetics and does not create new ones. The gene pool actually decreases with Natural selection; variations are eliminated. For example, people believe that insect or bacterial infections can evolve to form new species.

- Why couldn't the bacteria have reestablished a trait that was it was no longer using in its genetics pool? The environment or anti-biotics activates this trait through stress that it began to replicate in the replications process. Making it seem like it evolved.

- Perhaps it had a mutation which made it harder for pesticides or antibiotics to bind to an organism's proteins, or a mutation changed the regulatory function / transport function of certain proteins.

- Perhaps a few resistant insects and bacteria were already in existence to that specific antibiotic or pesticide. We finally killed off most of the competition for the resistant bacteria or insects, and now we are left with those that we are having a hard time killing. Natural selection.

Natural Selection stops major evolutionary changes ...

Mutations
Almost all mutations are harmful, meaningless, or are simply lethal. As far as we know or have observed, no mutation has ever created a more complex life form than its parents.

- Fruit flies, for example, 3000 consecutive generations prove, for now, that no natural or "artificial" act can make a life form more complex or viable. None of the experiments used to try to cause a meaningful mutation has worked.

Complex Organs
DNA, RNA, and proteins are very complex. So complex, in fact ... there is absolutely zero experimental evidence supporting they can evolve "create" new genetics, other than mutations, which again, has never produced a more complex or viable organism.

- The human eye, ear, and brain are very complex. The brain alone has 10 to the fourtenth (a hundred thousand billion) electrical connections. Some how, radiation caused that to mutate into existance? Right?

Fully-Developed Species
All species seem to be fully developed, and not partly into the evolutionary process. No feathers, eyes, skin, tubes (internal - veins, and intestines) show part way developed. For example, a leg of a lizard or reptile is not half mutating into a wing. The leg would become a hazard way before it became a functional and viable wing. Natural Selection would obviously kill off this mutation.

Distinct Species
If evolutionists are right, one would see small transitions or gradual, I should say, among most living things. For example, a dog might be veritable with a cat. The platybus is an excellent example. The animal's organs are total unrelated to its supposed ancestor's organs. It has fur, warm-blooded, and it acts more mammal like than anything. It also has a single ventricle opening. It literally looks like a bunch of random animals coming into one animal. This is called "Mosaics." I have no idea how this animal would fit into the evolutionary chain.

Language
Children as young as 7 months old can learn and understand grammatical rules. There are also 38 documented cases of kids raised without human contact (feral). They show that language is learned only from other people, humans do not automatically speak. There is no evidence supporting language evolved. If it did, our earliest languages should have gone from being simple to being more complex. Exactly the opposite happened. We went from complex languages to simpler languages. For example, Latin, Greek, Linear, and Vedic Sanskrit was all complex languages, and we dumbed them down. If we evolved, shouldnt we have had a very basic language forming into a complex language, evolving with us?

Speech
Only humans have a "pre-wired" brain (from birth) capable of learning and to convey abstract thoughts. We are also the only organisms made with such an ability to produce such a wide range of sounds, only a few animals can approximate the sounds of humans. Apes do not have a "pre-wired" brain remotely close to humans in terms of speech and abstract thought. Apes also do not even have the required physical traits to produce human speech.

Codes and Information
Morse Code and Braille are the form of code I am speaking of. The genetic "code" or material that control the physical aspects of life are obviously "coded" information. The genetics code permits functions such as transmission, translation, correction, and duplication. Without the Genetic Code, life would not be possible. If you think for a moment, doesn't it seem obvious that the genetic code and its accompanying processes it governs transmission, translation, correction, and duplication were I don't know ... "created or came into existence" at the exact same time. You cannot have one without the other. No natural process has ever been observed to create / make a "program." By definition (Program) is a planned sequence of steps to accomplish some goal. Take computers, for example, we had to create the computer with our "intelligence," and it wasn't a natural process from nature.

Evolution or Design?
It doesn't make sense to say that similarities between different forms of life always relate to a common ancestor. It seems to imply a common "designer" more than a common ancestor. For example, the small bones in the ears of mammals came from the reptiles' jaw. That doesn't make sense, why didnt natural selection destroy the transitionary species who couldn't hear because the bones from the jaws were growing slowly into their ears long before they became their final product?
edit on 12-10-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 02:06 AM
link   
Vestigial Organs
Some organs in humans were believed to have come from our evolutionary ancestors. Take the appendix, for example, we now know the appendix is very much active in the human body. The appendix helps produce antibodies, protects the intestines from disease, prevents tumors, and stores good bacteria for an emergency. This organ isn't very useless.

Cell Life
A lot of single-celled forms exist, but as far as we know, no 2,3,4, or 5 celled animals exist. 6-20 cells are considered parasites; they need a complex life form to exist. According to evolution, shouldn't we be finding many life forms between 2 and 20 cells? You know, showing the transition from one-celled forms to a many-celled form?

Missing Fossils
I find it weird how they say "links" are missing from the evolutionary chains. No, no it's not. Entire CHAINS are missing, not just links.

Earliest Fossil Records
The lowest sedimentary layers, life starts SUDDENLY, I mean out of no where, complex, and diverse. I find it strange how many of today's plants and animal phyla (vascular and vertebrates) show up at the very bottom of the fossil record. Actually, they found many MORE phyla than there exists today. Not to mention, you have picture perfect fossil records matching insects, fish, jellyfish, ect. I guess they didnt evolve.

Weird Sequence of Fossils
Hmm, if i remember correctly 80+ HOOF prints, consecutive, were found in the rocks dating back to the age of the dinosaurs. Doesn't that predate hoofed species by 100 million something years? I find it weird how pollen was also found in pre-Cambrian rock, 200 million years plus, before they were supposed to be there. Petrified trees in, I believe Arizona, show fossilized nests of bees and cocoons of wasp. Isn't that almost 100 million years to early? Furthermore, let's not forget the fossilized insects and flies who have tubes perfectly suited, like today, for sucking nectar from flowers, and they were about 25 million years to early, according to their dating process.

Early Man?
-Piltdown man, was acknowledged as a hoax. However, it was in text books for 40 years.

-Ramapithecus (man) was nothing but teeth and a few jaw fragments. Today, we know Louis Leakey incorrectly pieced them together. It ended up being an Ape.

-Nebraska (man) was nothing but a pig's tooth.

- Java (man) Eugene Dubois finally said that it was not a man. It was most like a large "gibbon" or ape. He even mentioned he withheld four other bones he found in the area, that proved it was an ape. I believe they were thigh bones.

- Peking (man) was remains of an Ape who was beheaded and eaten for food by humans.

- Homo Habilis (man) showed in more studies this animal had "ape" like proportions and should not have been classified as (Homo).

- The Australopithecine, recent computer modeling how shown this animal not to be "intermediate" with actual man. In another study, the inner ear bone resembled that of a Chimpanzee and Gorilla. Their dental development was that of a chimpanzee, and not humans. Recent studies have shown that it would have been very hard for Lucy to walk up right like a man (full skeletal analysis and not just the knee-joint). Lucy was more likely to swing from trees like a pygmy chimpanzee. The three-year old baby announced (related to Lucy) was clearly apelike, and not human like.

- Neanderthal, was believed to be more like humans because it was stooped and had bone diseases (arthritis and rickets). A recent study that examined their teeth and provided more x-rays have shown they were actually "Humans" but matured at a slower rate (grew older much more slowly) and lived to be much older than people today. Neanderthal man, Heidelberg Man, and Cro-Magnon man are now considered completely human. All the "Artist" depictions of these humans are imaginative, and not based upon facts, but what they THINK they looked like, or hoped.

Fossil Man
We have found fossils to be in existence much earlier than what evolutionist said. For example, the Castenedolo and Reck's skeletons are found deep in un touched rock. Incomplete skeletons, are Swanscombe skull, Steinheim fossil, and the Vertesszollos fossil. These are ignored ...

Chemistry
- Rocks that we believe were in existence before have very little carbon. You would need a very toxic carbon-rich environment for life to have evolved. Today, the atmosphere is only 1/80,000 of the carbon that has been around since the first fossils formed. Why is that?

- Why does Earth still have so much oxygen if we have been evolving for so many billions of years? I mean, even if oxygen managed to be this plentiful, what about the Amino Acids need to evolve? Wouldn't oxidation destroy those Amino Acids? Okay, then we had no oxygen, but if we had no oxygen, you have no Ozone, which is death for all life. Hmm, weird.

- How come the sediments which proceeded life have very little nitrogen? Doesn't clay and some types of rocks absorb nitrogen? If i am correct, we have never found any such sediment.

Proteins
In the early stages of life, proteins could not have formed because it would be no way for the Amino Acids to exist in a non pure state of liquid. Obviously, lots of things were occurring on Earth, and the oceans / water would have been ... not very pure. So, how do Amino Acids link up to form proteins if the earth's heat, electrical discharges, and solar radiation destroy the protein products many times faster than they could form?

Everything created out of nothing
Last but not least, evolutionist also say the big bang was the start of the universe. However, how did the gases come into existence, or the particles? In other words, you believe something was created out of nothing or you believe the universe has existed forever and you should be able to understand the God argument easily.
edit on 12-10-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by milkyway12
 


You didn't mention how it is obvvious that environmental changes effect the dominance or expression of certain genetic traits, at differnt times depending on environmental stimuli.

Just for example, the common pig. If kept in the pen and born and raised in captivity for many generations, it remains the cute pink hairless tuskless animal we have all seen on the farm.

Yet if set free, it will immediatley begin to grom very course fur, tusks, an elongated snout and change its entire behavior. In less than 3 months a once cute pink little piggy will not even be recognizeable as the same animal, having grom in overall size, and changed physically into its more wild cousins twin.

If you take the same pig and put it back in the pen, within a few short months it will revert back to its former self.

How is this even possible? Does DNA somehow have a consciousness that can interpret its needs and thus changing its useage to further suit its environment?

Also bacteria have a very unique ability to swap gened with other bacteria, this is how they can become resistant to chemicals and antibiotics so rapidly, as soon as one "lears" it can survvive the chemical, it will spread its relative genes to other bacteria helping them survive the smae chemicals without the need to regrow the entire populous from the one bacteria that was able to survive in the first place.

SnF op this is a very facinating subject, that we know so little about, yet claim and teach our children we are quite knowledgable on.


+13 more 
posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 02:16 AM
link   
Evolution makes perfect sense and does belong in schools. Creationism doesn't because it is not science.

There is literally no difference between saying "A giant unicorn with seven legs created the universe from his sparkly faeces" and "God created the universe". Both statements have the same amount of evidence to back it up, and both are as scientific as each other.

I really don't have the enthusiasm to read all that text, but if you want to keep it to small points I'll be happy to tell you why evolution doesn't defy science, maybe I'll read parts of the original post.

Acquired Characteristics -
Evolution has NOTHING to do with acquired characteristics, it's mutations. I do hope all of your points aren't like this.

Mutations -
Not true at all. Can you drink milk? That's a result of a mutation in Europe about 7000 years ago, adults are not meant to be able to digest lactose, this is why cats and other animals aren't meant to drink milk or they get the runs. This is an example of modern evolution. A mutation can be either harmful, beneficial or neutral.

Speech -
You can thank evolution for that, and it's part of the reason we are so successful. Although a lot of animals do have amazing communications abilities, we are the best. You haven't even made a point here, the whole idea of evolution is that we are different from other organisms...

Missing Fossils -
There have been millions of species on the planet earth, 1% of them exists today (species, not living things), now if it was common for fossils to form, don't you think we'd be tripping over them? It's an extremely rare thing, the conditions have to be perfect, it's not surprising that so many links are missing.

Distinct Species -
Again, that's what evolution does. Do you expect them to stay the same? Species grow apart from each other over millions and millions of years.

I think I'll leave it there, like I said I really don't have the enthusiasm. This is a very ill-informed thread, I don't think you really understand evolution and how it works (a lot of people that believe evolution don't either) but it makes perfect sense, it happened, it happens. The sooner this is accepted by everyone, the sooner we can move on and become a smarter race.
edit on 12-10-2012 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by milkyway12
 

Here is where Evolution shows itself very plainly. A Human Fetus as it develops goes through stages where it shows signs of it's evolutionary past. A Fetus will develop a form of gills that eventually become lungs. We all develop with a tail which becomes shorter and for some people...does not and they are born with a tail. We also show signs of many species within our development....and we all breath fluid in the womb.

Split Infinity



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 02:49 AM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


False. Ernst Haeckel deliberatley falsified his data. The embryonic tissue (the so called gills) develop into parts of the face, bones of the middle ear, and endoctrine glands. It has nothing to do with breathing. They are not slits, or gills.

reply to post by SpearMint
 


Is it just me, or did you miss the entire post? I mean ... what? You did very little reading.

reply to post by inverslyproportional
 


It has been observed that traits can be activated ( defensive traits) in extreme stress. These can also be prioritized to be passed along to your off spring. Did your body create new genes? No, it did not. Pretty much ALL species have a gene pool. That 95% of "junk" DNA in your body is not junk DNA, but it actually serves a purpose.

Genetic code is a program. It will give your offspring, and if possible, YOU the best chance of survival from the gene pool stored inside of you.

Most arguments for Evolution are outdated, however, what can science do? Nothing. They dont know, but they cant just say ... well, everything is wrong, sorry..
edit on 12-10-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 02:58 AM
link   
double post.
edit on 12-10-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 03:07 AM
link   

The sooner this is accepted by everyone, the sooner we can move on and become a smarter race.



^^^^^^^^ what he said



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 03:13 AM
link   
reply to post by CrimsonMoon
 


I am sorry that Evolution defies our own science and established methods. Let's ignore the faults of evolution and teach it like facts, it's okay if it defies established science. It's our best guess; it's all we got! So let's teach it to our off spring.

I much rather be ignorant than wrong.

So if Evolution defies our own established methods and science i much rather choose God than best guess.
edit on 12-10-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 03:14 AM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 





There is literally no difference between saying "A giant unicorn with seven legs created the universe from his sparkly faeces" and "God created the universe". Both statements have the same amount of evidence to back it up, and both are as scientific as each other.


But evolution isn't an explanation for how the universe was created or anything else for that matter. Seems to me that Creation gives us a more in depth explanation and makes just as much if not more sense than evolution.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 03:19 AM
link   
The animals, humans, the earth and even the universe are a mere 6,000 years old... Yeah, because that’s logical and that makes sense... I suppose the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus are real too.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by milkyway12
 


First of all, mutations can either be deleterious, beneficial or neutral. You claim that "almost all mutations" are harmful, what exactly are you basing this off of?

Acquired Characteristics - Lamarckism is not a completely discredited theory. I suggest you research more about epigenetics and soft inheritance.

Natural Selection - Natural selection is one mechanism of evolution.

A population contains certain organisms with characteristics that are advantageous in respect to their environment. Those well suited enough for their environment will pass on their genetic information to their progeny, and perpetuate certain traits.

Selective pressures against a species will determine which genes get passed on to future generations.

Variation -> Differential reproduction -> Heredity = Natural Selection

You are forgetting that even though natural selection tends to deplete variation (mutations add variation to a population by continuously introducing new alleles), A LOT OF VARIATION IS PROTECTED FROM SELECTION - this is known as hidden variation. Remember that natural selection works directly on phenotype and indirectly on genotype.

Evolution or Design? - You are confusing derived and ancestral traits.

Missing Fossils - The "missing link" is an unscientific term.

Fossil Man - The Swanscombe and Steinheim skulls belong to the species Homo heidelbergensis and it is possible that it may be a direct ancestor of Homo sapiens and Neanderthals.

Concerning the Castenedolo skeleton...



A radiocarbon date obtained on the ribs in 1969 confirmed the recent date of the skull, with a determination of 958±116 bp (847-1271 Cal AD; BM-496); the presence of a second skeleton in a grave makes it likely that Ragazzoni had unknowingly stumbled upon a forgotten medieval cemetery.
edit on 10/12/2012 by IEtherianSoul9 because: (no reason given)

Source


You choose to denigrate evolution by making claims devoid of any scientific merit, not to mention you do not take the time to thoroughly research these topics. Why not speak to an actual anthropologist or evolutionary biologist, rather than posting this on ATS?
edit on 10/12/2012 by IEtherianSoul9 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 03:27 AM
link   
A fish trying to walk on land will die. Every fish that tries, (why would they try?) would die. You can't pass on a gene for trying to walk on land if your a fish if you die because you can't reproduce if your dead.

There is no argument to reverse this death producing a gene that creates a fish that successfully grows legs because the gene cannot be reproduced.

Those that believe in evolution have more faith than those that believe in God.

And THAT ... I can respect! Evolutionists have awesome faith.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 03:33 AM
link   
If we were designed by something intelligent why were we so badly designed?
2nd....



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 03:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by boymonkey74
If we were designed by something intelligent why were we so badly designed?
2nd....


Odd that some people see things completely backwards from what they truly are. If we just evolute how do we evolute so perfectly ?


It would take evolution an infinite amount of time just to get started in a harsh environment.
edit on 12-10-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by CrimsonMoon
 


I much rather be ignorant than wrong.


I would never have guessed....

Its ideas and beliefs like this that are holding the human race back. We can be so much more if we cut this baggage loose.

If all the religious extremists keep going to war over religion and fighting each other maybe one day they will become extinct. Now that would be natural selection and survival of the fittest at its finest.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 03:40 AM
link   
reply to post by IEtherianSoul9
 


Mutations have never been observed to create a more complex life form or to make an organism more veritable. Now, science develops all the time, i do not search the web 24/7 in the name of evolution. So my argument may not be perfect, however, i do not think you can deny that at this current moment, Evolution has more going against it than for it.

If you CANNOT see that. Then you have just as much "Faith" in evolution as i do in God.

I think Evolution and Creation should both be taught in schools. Evolution is certainly not more valid than creation at this current moment in time.
edit on 12-10-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by CrimsonMoon
 





If all the religious extremists keep going to war over religion and fighting each other maybe one day they will become extinct. Now that would be natural selection and survival of the fittest at its finest.


If we hadn't lost our relationship with our Heavenly Father we'd be populating the cosmos by now.

Evolution just doesn't hold enough proof by the protocols of science itself.
edit on 12-10-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 03:46 AM
link   
reply to post by milkyway12
 



The Law of Biogenesis

...One either believes that life (mysteriously) came to and evolution began, or life was created and evolution began from that point.
Or... one believes that abiogenesis occurred just once a few billions years ago, at which point the first simple celled organisms were spawned. We only see life come from other life because the probability of abiogenesis happening is extremely small, and the probability of witnessing it happen is even smaller. We will most likely never see it happen unless we develop a way to artificially force it to happen in a lab.


Acquired Characteristics

... Characteristics cannot be passed to the off spring that was acquired after birth, for example, a body builder's physique. Another example, Giraffes could not get long necks because they began having to reach higher and higher for food (stretching their necks).
A Giraffe does not have a long neck because they have to reach higher... the fact they have to reach higher leads to them having longer necks. Some giraffes just have longer necks than others. Now natural selection comes into play, the giraffes which have longer necks obviously have a higher chance of reaching more food, and therefore their chance of living longer and having offspring are slightly increased. The genes which give them long necks are passed onto their offspring.


Mendel's Law

... Breeding experiments and other common observations have confirmed his law. Genes are simply "reshuffled" from one generation to another. No new genetics are created, but simply changed around.
This is a really good point in relation to the last one. Of course the giraffes aren't getting new genes, it's just that their genes are getting "reshuffled", and the ones who end up with strong genes (longer neck etc), are the ones who are able to spread their genes throughout the population, and that's one way a species can "evolve" over a period of time. But is that really evolution? Well yes, it's one way in which a species can develop more streamlined genetics over time... but there are other ways, such as mutations, which we will come to in a moment.


Natural Selection

... Natural selection only "selects" from pre-existing genetics and does not create new ones. The gene pool actually decreases with Natural selection; variations are eliminated.
As I already stated, natural selections helps pick out the strongest individuals and over time that has an effect of restructuring the DNA of that species into something more efficient. Each new generation will bring new genetic mixes to the table, natural selection refines those mixes down to the best ones and ensures the best traits will propagate through the species. It doesn't create new genetics but it helps restructure the genetics in a better way, which is essentially the same as creating new genetics in reality.


Mutations

... Almost all mutations are harmful, meaningless, or are simply lethal. As far as we know or have observed, no mutation has ever created a more complex life form than its parents.
Natural selection also comes into play with mutations. If an individual possesses some type of genetic mutation which is beneficial to them, that individual will have an extremely high chance of propagating his genetics through the species. Of course the chances of a mutation being beneficial is highly unlikely, but the possibility is there and it does happen countless times over billions of years. We can even replicate this process with computer simulations. By applying random mutations to the "genes" of virtual creatures, and letting them multiply and applying natural selection to each new generation, it's very easy to develop complex creatures capable of complex tasks, and their entire "brain" has been generated randomly.

And I think I'm going to stop at this point because I hate debating nonsense and my brain is hurting.
edit on 12/10/2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs

Originally posted by boymonkey74
If we were designed by something intelligent why were we so badly designed?
2nd....


Odd that some people see things completely backwards from what they truly are. If we just evolute how do we evolute so perfectly ?


It would take evolution an infinite amount of time just to get started in a harsh environment.
edit on 12-10-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


My point is with evolution imperfections can and do carry on through the generations but if someone designed us why did he/she it for example put out food hole right next to our breathing hole so we can choke to death? why did this designer give a Chimp a way how to eat and breath at the same time but not to give his chosen people (made in his own image) the same thing?.
Hold on does that mean God can choke to death too?. lol

BTW proof that evolution takes an infinite amount of time to get started or it didn't happen
lol





new topics

top topics



 
23
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join