Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Evolution - defies accepted science

page: 2
23
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 03:52 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Your heavenly Father not mine so do not use Our please.
Ah I'am out no point to this discussion, to many blind people here...




posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 03:53 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


You sort of just made a circular argument, which does us not much good.


The very Basis Evolution is ... founded on, has holes all in it. Much of my post mentioned them, surely i wont have to repeat it?
edit on 12-10-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by IEtherianSoul9
 

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)


"Evolution has more going against it than for it." - But it does not.

I am completely dumbfounded right now...

You do NOT believe or have faith in evolution. You either accept it or reject it as a plausible theory (evolution is also a FACT, it does happen - allelic frequencies in populations do change over time) to explain the diversity of organisms on the planet.

The main mechanisms of evolution: genetic drift, mutations, gene flow, natural selection with two ancillary processes known as nonrandom mating and recombination all influence populations of species. Yes, speciation is difficult to study empirically, but that does not mean one should invoke a supernatural explanation at the limits of their knowledge.

edit on 10/12/2012 by IEtherianSoul9 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 03:56 AM
link   
reply to post by IEtherianSoul9
 


Okay good, you basically just confirmed Microevolution. Which is different from Macroevolution. Breeding dogs is microevolution, gene shuffling is Microevolution. However, Microevolution does NOT create new genes, it simply shuffles them. Then Natural selection will choose which Genes are the best. Again, it doesnt create the new Genes, it simply chooses which genes are best based off the current environment situation. However, in the case of humans, we are over coming Natural Selection.
edit on 12-10-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by milkyway12
 

You really don't know very much about the FACTS as the information you list is mostly wrong. This JUNK GENOME ENCODING is the passing along from our ancient species that we have evolved from....VIRAL INFECTIONS which have been passed on down through Millions upon Millions of Years.

When the HUMAN GENOME MAPPING PROJECT was completed and the HUMAN GENOME was compared to the THOUSANDS of other Species Genomes that we have already Mapped and are still mapping...all species has one ORIGINAL VIRAL INFECTION ENCODING. Now this was just Junk Encoding and not used but ALL SPECIES HAD IT. This is PROOF POSITIVE that at one time ALL SPECIES ON EARTH EVOLVED FROM A SINGLE CELLED LIFE FORM.

This is the only possible way that all species would have this encoding. By the way...EVOLUTION stopped being a THEORY quite some time ago as it is a PROVEN FACT! Your evidence to the contrary is written by people with an agenda...that being the COMPLETELY LACKING OF ANY SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN! Split Infinity



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 04:00 AM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


ENCODE Project Finds Most Junk DNA Is Actually Useful, Just Misunderstood




It’s been almost 10 years since the Human Genome Project shed light on just what it is that makes us tick. While it was a huge step forward and a massive achievement in the field of science, it still left a lot of things to be explained. It also left us with the awkward prospect that a lot of our DNA — the vast majority of it, in fact — didn’t really seem to be doing anything. Most of the approximately 3 billion base pairs that make up the blueprints for a person, it seemed, were just loafing around, letting the 23,000 genes that make up only about 1% of the genome take care of business. To square this circle, researchers around the world formed the research group ENCODE to look for the purpose of all that so called “junk DNA.” Today, the project, coordinated by the National Human Genome Research Institute, announced that they’ve pinpointed more than 4 million sites where specific proteins interact with DNA making significant strides toward that goal.


Rest of article is here.
www.geekosystem.com...
and here
www.guardian.co.uk...
edit on 12-10-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)


reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


You also didnt read my post, or else you would see the argument against what you just said.
edit on 12-10-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 04:03 AM
link   
reply to post by milkyway12
 



surely i wont have to repeat it?

Hmmm, right back at you. Have fun in fantasy land.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


reply to post by SpearMint
 


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


I addressed quite a lot of what you said, you dismissed that easily, didn't you?



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 04:05 AM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 


You addressed but you just said exactly what I was arguing against. It is a circular argument. If you read the rest of the post, there are a lot of un-answered questions when dealing with the basis of evolution. If the basis for evolution cannot be explained, how is evolution even a theory?



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by IEtherianSoul9
 


Okay good, you basically just confirmed Microevolution. Which is different from Macroevolution.


Wrong. Micro-evolution + Micro-evolution = ???. No need for separation.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 04:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by SpearMint
 


You addressed but you just said exactly what I was arguing against. It is a circular argument. If you read the rest of the post, there are a lot of un-answered questions when dealing with the basis of evolution. If the basis for evolution cannot be explained, how is evolution even a theory?


I don't feel like reading a couple of pages of text filled with uninformed drivel, make a statement or ask a question and I will reply. There aren't as many holes in it as you think, just because you don't know the answers doesn't mean nobody does.

And I explained why the points I replied to are wrong, it's not a circular argument, I corrected your mistakes and misconceptions (some of them, anyway).
edit on 12-10-2012 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 04:10 AM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 


What is microevolution?

Microevolution is simply a change in gene frequency within a population. Evolution at this scale can be observed over short periods of time — for example, between one generation and the next, the frequency of a gene for pesticide resistance in a population of crop pests increases. Such a change might come about because natural selection favored the gene, because the population received new immigrants carrying the gene, because some nonresistant genes mutated to the resistant version, or because of random genetic drift from one generation to the next.

evolution.berkeley.edu...

What is macroevolution?

Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree.

Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.

It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using multiple lines of evidence, including geology, fossils, and living organisms.

evolution.berkeley.edu...

There is a clear difference.
edit on 12-10-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by IEtherianSoul9
 


Okay good, you basically just confirmed Microevolution. Which is different from Macroevolution.


Wrong. Micro-evolution + Micro-evolution = ???. No need for separation.
Exactly... it seems some people simply can't understand the fact that over billions of years, many tiny micro-evolutions build up into massive changes. It's as if they're waiting for a parrot to suddenly one day evolve into a pidgeot, and only when they see that sudden magical transformation will they ever believe evolution is possible. I think the main problem is that many people fail at thinking super long term. They want to witness life spawn from inanimate objects before they believe abiogenesis. It's simply absurd.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 04:12 AM
link   
Evolution should be taught because it is real and has been proven. Here are a few biological effects you can see in humans today. listverse.com...



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by SpearMint
 


What is microevolution?

Microevolution is simply a change in gene frequency within a population. Evolution at this scale can be observed over short periods of time — for example, between one generation and the next, the frequency of a gene for pesticide resistance in a population of crop pests increases. Such a change might come about because natural selection favored the gene, because the population received new immigrants carrying the gene, because some nonresistant genes mutated to the resistant version, or because of random genetic drift from one generation to the next.

evolution.berkeley.edu...

Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree.

Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.

It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using multiple lines of evidence, including geology, fossils, and living organisms.

evolution.berkeley.edu...

There is a clear difference.
edit on 12-10-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)


And 1 is different from 2, but 1 + 1 = 2.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 04:15 AM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 


You only have 1 + 0. You're making the mistake in making Macro evolution a fact. Micro evolution has been observed. Macro has not.

Evolution is still a number because it's called Micro-evolution. So instead of just saying 1 all by its lonesome. Ill give it a 0.
edit on 12-10-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 04:15 AM
link   
reply to post by milkyway12
 

OH...I read it...but you can't have it both ways. School is a place where only FACTS or THEORY that has a LINE OF LOGIC that can be followed to give a person a reasonable concept of what is going on...is the ONLY THINGS THAT SHOULD BE TAUGHT!

Intelligent Design is NOT within those parameters. If a person wishes to believe in a GOD then they can practice their religion at a church or temple or mosque. SCHOOL IS FOR MATH AND SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY.
Split Infinity



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 04:16 AM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


Evolution sure isn't within those parameters either. They ignore the things they cannot figure out.

Micro-Evolution is ADAPTATION.

The species which has the best genes in action from the Genetic Shuffle will have more opportunity to mate, natural selection. However, you do not create new species, you simply survive as your current species with the traits you already posses.
edit on 12-10-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by SpearMint
 


However, you only have 1 + 0. You're making the mistake in making Macroevolution a fact. Micro evolution has been observed. Macro has not.


You have wondered off the path of logic. If you understand 1 + 1, you can understand what macro-evolution is. Of course macro-evolution has not been observed, has anyone ever lived millions of years? It will never be observed, stupid argument. There is, however, proof. The proof is the species alive today.

There is no 0, 1+1 was a simple example I used to explain how micro-evolution becomes macro-evolution...
edit on 12-10-2012 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 04:20 AM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 


If it has not been observed, then it is not fact. It is a Theory, which is being accepted as fact with a very faulty basis.

I didn't think my mathematical sarcasm would be that hard to understand. Guess i was wrong.
edit on 12-10-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join