It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I only read about 25% but I didn't see anyone with this answer yet:
No, it's not a good argument against intelligent design.
IN FACT FROM A DESIGN POINT IT WAS ALMOST PERFECT.
Humans had back teeth when they needed them. When they didn't, it coincided with medical advancements that allowed for the removal of teeth.
If someone did want the human race to flourish, they did a pretty good job - the proof is in the results.
Originally posted by freedomlover79
reply to post by SplitInfinity
But WHAT definitively proved as FACT? I'm looking for concrete evidence here... Not just your word that it is fact.
Italian wall lizards introduced to a tiny island off the coast of Croatia are evolving in ways that would normally take millions of years to play out, new research shows.
In just a few decades the 5-inch-long (13-centimeter-long) lizards have developed a completely new gut structure, larger heads, and a harder bite, researchers say.
In 1971, scientists transplanted five adult pairs of the reptiles from their original island home in Pod Kopiste to the tiny neighboring island of Pod Mrcaru, both in the south Adriatic Sea.
Genetic testing on the Pod Mrcaru lizards confirmed that the modern population of more than 5,000 Italian wall lizards are all descendants of the original ten lizards left behind in the 1970s.
Orgel's Second Rule is intended as a rejoinder to the argument by lack of imagination. In general, this rule expresses the sometimes experienced fact that "trial and error" strategies are better than centralized intelligent human planning.
Orgel's rule can also be used to counter creationist arguments in which often the hidden and non-provable presumption is suggested, that human intelligent planning is in general superior to trial and error strategies used by evolution.
The same principle has been given as an analogy to software developed in an evolutionary sense by group collaboration, as opposed to software built to a pre-ordained design that was created without reference to previous implementation. Although, the development is not claimed to be of the same random nature as is by evolutionary genetics.
So it was all a lucky accident? Sorry, too much in "reality" that makes me to think otherwise.
It's also interesting that you hold all your beliefs on Science. Something that changes it's mind constantly. Perhaps we don't know everything yet. Some of the most vastly believe theories throughout time have proven to be wrong. Tell me that in 300 years from now, people will be laughing at us for the conclusions we've made.
Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by Credenceskynyrd
it takes a leap of faith to believe that we were once fish though, regardless of where we think the evidence leads
Does it also take a leap of faith to believe we were once Stardust? That took place before the fish, and yet we once were.