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.
reply to post by leostokes
Do you mean Macroevolution?
Micro and Macroevolution are the same processes on different time scales. There is plenty of evidence for it. This is referred to as "Speciation" and it's easy to accomplish.
reply to post by TLomon
What's even funnier? Some of you on here believe we came from monkeys....LOLOLOL
WOW, we have so many smart people on here......How did that monkey get here?? hmmmm...
Oh we developed from bacteria....Okay, I will play ball....Where did that bacteria come from?? hmmm....
Anything you link to intelligent life points back to intelligent creation....Sorry evolutionists but you can't evolve into an intelligent species from nothing.....Take bacteria, any kind you like, and run an experiment to turn it intelligent over time.....It won't happen...
But I am leaving, so don't try to bash me as a bible thumper....Just some food for thought.
This just shows how much America has fallen. I don't know of a single other First World country where the reality of evolution is still consistently debated. How can we ever hope to be the best when a third of our population can't even grasp basic scientific principles?
The theory of evolution serves the same purpose that the theory of creation does....and that is to shut down a discussion that should never be shut down.
Perhaps our existence is a combination of evolution and creationism. I appreciate the fact that we don't all follow the same dogma.
reply to post by BlueMoonJoe
I never said this in the post you replied to. Are you just making things up now?
I think some people are forgetting that Creationism does NOT equal Intelligent Design. One does not have to be the adherent of a religious tradition to believe in Intelligent Design. As an irreligious agnostic, I lean more towards the possibility of Intelligent Design (regardless who/what created all life, e.g.: God, Aliens, or our Higher Selves) than Evolution.
reply to post by peter vlar
A lot of us will believe evolution when we are presented with an example of an animal that links two major animal groups.
Wow. A surprising number of ATS posters do not believe in evolution either.
Like a posted before, science and religion have different goals. Science is based on observations, fact and the scientific method. Religion is based on faith.
The downside to evolution, at least macro evolution is we simply cannot observe it directly or recreate it under a controlled environment so it will always be a theory because it can never be fully proofed.
Another thing most anti-evolutionist miss understand is the time it takes for evolution to do its thing on a large scale. A million years is essentially an unimaginable frame of time and the Earth is over a billion years old. Also I think it is likely we live in a multiverse with an unlimited number of possibilities so the fact we are here and able to comprehend our existence merely by coincidence is entirely possible.
This begs the question, what created the universe/multiverse. The answer to that is of course is 42!
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
No after life makes sense. Do you think animals have souls and have an after life too?
The reason I am okay with macro-evolution is because there is evidence to support. Just because it can never be fully proofed does not mean it is not true.
Many math theorems were just theorems until the computer age. It would have taken a person thousands of years or more to prove them by doing the math needed to proof it. A super computer can do that in the blink of an eye.
So if i don't personally verify the evidence it doesn't count? Why would i waste time verifying the fossil record? I am that well renowned that its up to me to make sure everyone else is doing their job? Its not my responsibility to verify evidence that has already been verified. That's what the peer-review system is for, every last bit of accepted evidence for evolution has been peer-reviewed over and over again, yet no one has been able to show that it is false. It IS the responsibility of those that claim a theory is false to provide evidence that shows it to be false.
I don't "believe" in the fossil record because i don't need to have any faith to know it's real.
There is zero faith in peer-reviewed science, you may like to think there is, but there is not. period.
You tell me i am wrong, that there is evidence, yet you fail to provide any of this so called evidence? Please share with the class. Before you do, a feeling is not evidence, A story or book is not evidence.
"Darwin’s prediction of rampant, albeit gradual, change affecting all lineages through time is refuted. The record is there, and the record speaks for tremendous anatomical conservatism. Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record." Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, The Myth of Human Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982), 45-46.
“It is hard for us paleontologists, steeped as we are in a tradition of Darwinian analysis, to admit that neo-Darwinian explanations for the Cambrian explosion have failed miserably. New data acquired in recent years, instead of solving Darwin’s dilemma, have rather made it worse.”
-Dr. Mark McMenamin - 2013
Paleontologist at Mt. Holyoke College and author of The Emergence of Animals
"Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them."
David Kitts - Paleontologist - D.B. Kitts, Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory (1974), p. 467.
"Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series." -
Ernst Mayr-Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University
"What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types."
Robert L Carroll (born 1938) - vertebrate paleontologist who specialises in Paleozoic and Mesozoic amphibians
"Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums now are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species. The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What is the picture which the fossils have given us? ... The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wider and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record."
Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma 1988, Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition, Master Books, p. 9
"The evidence we find in the geological record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be .... We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than in Darwin's time ... so Darwin's problem has not been alleviated".
David Raup, Curator of Geology at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History
"A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God."
Paleontologist, Mark Czarnecki
Anybody can make any claim they want, but until its peer reviewed its meaningless. This is where the so called evidence for anything supernatural gets rejected. If it cant stand up to peer review then it is meaningless and worthless. It doesn't matter what a scientist believes, all that matters are the facts and data.
Turning peer review into modern-day holy scripture
The treatment of peer-reviewed science as an unquestionable form of authority is corrupting the peer-review system and damaging public debate.
For Science's Gatekeepers, a Credibility Gap
Recent disclosures of fraudulent or flawed studies in medical and scientific journals have called into question as never before the merits of their peer-review system.
Publish-or-perish: Peer review and the corruption of science
Pressure on scientists to publish has led to a situation where any paper, however bad, can now be printed in a journal that claims to be peer-reviewed www.theguardian.com...