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.

 

Is evolution just a "theory"?

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle
OK, then prove evolution is real.
It's gonna take a long time to prove that theory ;-)



Semantic word games again.
Even if evolution was proven to be true by every test possible, it would STILL be called a "theory" because thats the scientific term.

Anyway, even the creationist website answersingenesis have got more brains than some people in this thread:

Arguments that should be avoided ...
Evolution is just a theory. (“Theory” has a stronger meaning in scientific fields than in general usage...



Emphasis of "Even IF evolution was proven to be true by every test possible..." Well it has not be proven true 100% using empirical and repeatable data. Using a "scientific" term, in this case "theory" appears to be more of a political tool or a trend in mass world view manipulation. BTW, I am not a creationist and my having long term roles as both an engineer and a physicist tends to drag me more towards a request to "prove evolution is a fact" and as I said, it will take a very long time to run those experiments.

Evolution, if it is a fact should be easily proven, in the same manner we can theorize about proton decay (10^37 years). Develop a theory based on the statistics and probabilities of mutation/adaptation, eg, 1 in "n" number of years, determine the maximum population density of a specific organism over that number of years and then place that total number of organisms in test (varied conditions) and control (normal conditions) "cells" over the requisite period of time and look for adaptation. Let's say the average population density is a million per year and change/adaptation might occur over say 10^21 years, your population density in each "cell" (test and control) should be roughly a million times a million over a one year period. Just an idea, the way I have explained it may not be perfect but the premise is correct, at least as it applies to physics, eg. an proportionate increase in test subjects allows for a proportionate decrease in time.

You could do it with insects, you can do it with bacteria, microbes, any living organism you want. So you could run this experiment, right? It would only take a year plus the setup (DNA confirmation) and final (DNA) analysis time. You'd have to start with genetically pure organisms however as you would want to make sure that both control and test groups were identical from the get-go.

Cheers - Dave
edit on 7/8.2013 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Its funny how some people here try to say Creation and evolution so they both suck equally.

Creationism has NOTHING! Evolution at least has something, our modern medicines were based on theory of evolution.

Did you know what gravity called? its not LAW of Gravity, it is called the Theory of Gravity. Why the heck am i standing on ground if theory of gravity is just theory?


It is said theory because it cannot be > 100% < proven, but it has evidence(a %) that it exist. Just like gravity.



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy
 

No problem my friend! Life is too short...so...thanks for playin!!

See you 'round the boards!!! MS




posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by luciddream
Its funny how some people here try to say Creation and evolution so they both suck equally.

Creationism has NOTHING!

Hmmm. Let's look at it philosophically, okay? (Bear in mind, again, that I am not a creationist, but I do recognize their argument.)

Proof of existence is a significant argument within the field of philosophy, and it was once adroitly summarized as:


"Cogito ergo sum" ("I think, therefore I am")

- René Descartes

In other words, we can only prove that we exist, and that only to ourselves.

However, that has taken a bit of a smack of late -- since memories are electrical connections in the brain, they are malleable -- they can be changed by disrupting the brain, so we can only prove to ourselves that we exist, in the moment of that proof.

There now exists a pill that can erase traumatic memory (a fascinating article, read it even if you have no interest in the subject,) so is it too much to imagine that a day will come (or may already have come,) when memories may be disrupted in order to create, rather than erase, memories? Take a normal person, wipe their memories, and implant completely new ones? I don't think such a thing is very far off.

With that in mind, can you prove that you existed prior to, say, five minutes ago? Let us say that the technology to create something out of thin air, complete with a set of electrical impulses that comprise that previously mentioned complete set of memories, which are fictional, already exists.

The bottom line is that, as ludicrous as it sounds, there is no way to disprove such a thing. We just accept that this is not what reality is -- the memories that I have of last week or last year are the fragments of me actually experiencing them -- but I have no proof of it, and it is conceivable that, with our level of technology, or something not too far from it, my memories can be convenient fictions.

Therein lies the creationist's argument -- given an omnipotent God, whose ability to modify reality is without equal -- there is nothing to say that, 6000 years ago, he didn't just wake up, decide to create reality and do so, out of nothing, and with the "memories" of the prior billions of years in place.

Now, you will most likely dismiss such claims as being folly, and I would agree, but under the terms laid out by the creationists' variables, it is impossible to disprove, just as it is impossible to disprove your having been brought into existence five minutes ago.



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


of course the brain can be corrupted. it is of the flesh and all things of the flesh or material world we live in , this 'Seen world' can be manipulated or changed in some way and this changing proces is viewed as corruption. especially when the changes are undesirable.

however.. tho the brain can be assisted in programming by chemical equations. the spirit or soul hold's it's own intelligence and memories which do not require a physical vessel to exist. thus..the spirit could reprogram the brain at any time either back in the same location or store it in another location.

we ignore our soul so much and think of ourselves as robots that anything affecting this body we believe to affect our entire being. this couldnt be further from the truth. a bullet can destroy the body, but the spirit will look at that bullet and laugh.

the 'Unseen world' has living things too. this much we ignore.. and it isnt that it cannot be proven. in fact has been proven by many on the face of the earth thru time. but on a personal level. u see.. u cant go to the store and buy a third eye like an iphone. so for those who need a pressure sensor and dont have one, they just have to walk into a store and trade some cash for it. however.. the third eye requires a more involved method of payment to be activated and reach fullness. and each person must do it for themselves.. some ppl will work hard and build a house, while some ppl will find it too hard and choose to rent all their life, or stay in their mom's basement. the sacrifice required is what deters man from discovery.. science doesnt know how to build a 3rd eye yet.. at least.. not published science!
edit on 8-7-2013 by filledcup because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Thought I might give you an interesting page that probably will be debunked but still read it and see what you think,
www.pureinsight.org...
www.freerepublic.com...
Good reading but the science of the time may have been less than accurate, still bears thinking about especially when considering the theory of evolution.
edit on 8-7-2013 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by danielsil18
 


It is not a theory. Evolution is just a hoax. The human race is a lot older than we are taught in grade school.They start with one lie for whatever reason and they have to lie again to cover up the first one and so on. Now today we are in the center of a great cover up. We can handle the truth about our true origins. Well I know I can and most of ats but the masses? I don't know but it would probably shatter most belief systems. The fabric of society would be ripped in half. Of course this is not proven but its my opinion.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 08:06 PM
link   
That was just my wild thoughts but I can believe what I said way before I started believing we was once apes. Which are still around. I dunno I just can't believe we evolved from an ape.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by DarkNite
 


Facepalm...

We are Great Apes, other great apes are like our evolutionary brothers we shared an ancestor.

en.wikipedia.org...

Evolution has been seen happening in the past 30 years in the Italian wall lizards read more here.

news.nationalgeographic.co.uk...

Heck just look at Madagascar and how the same species evolved differently because they grew in a different enviroment.

Evolution has been proved ask any geneticist .
edit on 9-7-2013 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by boymonkey74
 
Boymonkey I believe you probably evolved from apes, but I'd like to think I evolved from cats!



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by littled16
 


I agree and since time began my evolutionary great grandad has been trying to get your evolutionary grandma clean

Scrub that kitty



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by boymonkey74
 
Woohoo!!! Pre-historic bubble baths!!!





posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by boymonkey74
 


I still disagree. I agree there is variation in species. But there are limits to variation that are never crossed. When variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish. But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. Evolutionists say that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles. Thats hard to believe and that is where it breaks down. The imaginary part was added later to help explain evolution. Lies on top of lies. But I'm not against anyone's beliefs. We should all be able to believe what we want. Eventually we will know where we came from. And it wasn't apes.
edit on 9-7-2013 by DarkNite because: Fix



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by DarkNite
 


AGAIN I know we didn't come from apes because we ARE GREAT APES...did you even read my post?



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by boymonkey74
 


If we are great apes then at one time we wasn't great if evolution is not a theory. I'm not bashing you man just saying if we are great apes and evolution is fact then at one time we must of been a regular ape that evolved to what we are now. But I don't believe this. We can all believe what we want without being criticized. At least we should. I must agree it seems more plausible than a creator. There is strong evidence supporting evolution. There is also flaws as I pointed out. See you around guy. Good day



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by DarkNite
 


The Theory of Evolution is not 100% yet, we are not sure when it would reach 100%, but we sure hope it does someday.

What we have uncovered in the last 250 yrs, is sooo much information, our modern medicines would not work if it weren't developed following the pattern on evolution.

Also, you are wrong about how hybrids do not continue their genes, most do, some don't, the ones that don't pass their genes are forced to be like that by humans.

When people look at evolution, they should not look at mutation is needed to go to next stage.

In fact, we mutate not because of evolution but the reverse... we evolve because of mutation.

For example...(this is exaggerating to prove a point).. lets say a group of apes are divided by a huge flood, one group take refuge in land.. and other take refuge in shallow waters. Here is where most people get mixed up.... the water apes do not mutate to become swimmers... they stay the same... but lets say a ape born from the water ape family has a "defect".... wider feet.

This just means the wider feet ape will be able to stand against whatever nature throws at it and live long enough to pass the genes of the wide feet.. while the other normal water apes... even tho they can still live and pass genes, they would not have the same advantage thus... 99% gene passing for wider feeted ape and less % for the other water living apes....

Then you have to make sure the wider feet trait is actually dominant or recessive trait, and how would the Apes that took refuge in land will compete with the water living apes and the wide feeted apes...



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by luciddream
 


I understand your point. I don't know too much about evolution but I've heard something about a missing link? Is that what is needed to make evolution 100% fact? And I've heard if there was a global flood and we had to spend thousands of years somehow surviving with water covering 100% of earth we would eventually adapt and maybe have webbed feet.. Reminds me of the movie waterworld.. A classic by the way.. But could that happen you think? And is that kind of the mutation you was talking about?



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarkNite
reply to post by luciddream
 


I've heard something about a missing link? Is that what is needed to make evolution 100% fact?


The missing link not what makes it 100%, The missing link also called the transitional fossils is wrongly used by many... for example everything is actually a link at the same time creates a new missing link.

Example. You find A and B. and someone will ask you "where is AB?", When you find AB, they will ask you "what is between AB and B?" so its never ending. Since we are always evolving, even as we speak now..so all fossils we find will be the "missing link" but at the same time, create another missing link.

What makes Evolution 100% is time and what we can observe in our limit human lifetime and successfully pass the to next generation.




And I've heard if there was a global flood and we had to spend thousands of years somehow surviving with water covering 100% of earth


The global flood is not really proven, the water level might have be higher during ancient times, but now receded. Certain "global floods" in ancient books might actually be a major local floods but looks big(or "global") for the person living inside the flood affected area.



we would eventually adapt and maybe have webbed feet..


Not really, we would still be normal, however, a baby born with a web feet can use 100% of his environment and will be advantages in many aspects. If this baby was born in desert... he might actually die faster because webbed feet might make him slow runner(thus the webbed feet is not a natural selection that would pass in desert)



Reminds me of the movie water world.. A classic by the way.. But could that happen you think? And is that kind of the mutation you was talking about?


Water world was an interesting movie.

But like i previously mentioned, people will not just mutate to produce what the environment wants them to produce.. but rather.. some defect actually becomes a benefit in the new world.. then it gets passed on to new generations and if its useful defect, it will spread to millions and millions of people and becomes the "normal"...
edit on 7/10/2013 by luciddream because: (no reason given)

edit on 7/10/2013 by luciddream because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by DarkNite
 


The Theory of Evolution is not 100% yet, we are not sure when it would reach 100%, but we sure hope it does someday.


That's the problem with (some) science, "you hope". For some reason you'll never find the missing link. And they got the nerve to say those waiting on "Christ's Return" is hopeless. So can you hope, but believer's can't



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker
 


What are you comparing? do you even see that?

"our hope" is just more answers..its already proven,, so our % is just increasing every time we find a new discovery...

Not some fairy tale that does not even have any ounce of truth but tries to be the "ultimate truth"..

The missing link part is already mentioned above. Its just a poorly used term by the people that don't really know the fact.
edit on 7/11/2013 by luciddream because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join