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.

 

Surprising Number Of Americans Still Don't Believe In Evolution

page: 12
14
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Brotherman
 


Isn't that the whole point though, to ask questions and learn something new? It's almost a mind f%&# because, at least in my case, the more I learn the I realize I don't know anywhere near as much as I thought. It's humbling and gratifying at the same time. Oh and Kudos on your most excellent example of natural selection in the wild!




posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 


I for one am always trying to know more but then I keep coming to road blocks and have to ask more questions it is a mind *&^k. And yes there is evidence all around us hahahahaha thought I would put this out there.



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 12:13 AM
link   
And so it appears a surprising number of ATS members refuse the science of evolution.













sad



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


A surprising number of ATS'ers fail to even grasp the basic meanings of words, which is just depressing, much less the science behind evolution. What is even worse is the amount of people calling for "evidence", yet it is out there in abundance - but when you provide it, it is simply ignored.



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 12:43 AM
link   

stumason
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


A surprising number of ATS'ers fail to even grasp the basic meanings of words, which is just depressing, much less the science behind evolution. What is even worse is the amount of people calling for "evidence", yet it is out there in abundance - but when you provide it, it is simply ignored.


The irony of your statement being that you claim I don't know the definition of scientific theory when I linked to it earlier this very thread . . . .

So if you would kindly find me a list of all the scientific theories which are held to be true without any laws to support them I would be grateful.

-FBB

There is a difference between correlation and causation.



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 01:34 AM
link   
Furthermore, in regards to your Wikipedia links . . . Spiegelman Monster
( en.wikipedia.org... )


Description

Spiegelman introduced RNA from a simple Bacteriophage Qβ (Qβ) into a solution which contained the RNA replication enzyme RNA replicase from the Qβ virus Q-Beta Replicase, some free nucleotides and some salts. In this environment, the RNA started to replicate.[1] [2] After a while, Spiegelman took some RNA and moved it to another tube with fresh solution. This process was repeated.[3]

Shorter RNA chains were able to replicate faster, so the RNA became shorter and shorter as selection favored speed. After 74 generations, the original strand with 4,500 nucleotide bases ended up as a dwarf genome with only 218 bases. Such a short RNA had been able to replicate very quickly in these unnatural circumstances.

In 1997, Eigen and Oehlenschlager showed that the Spiegelman monster eventually becomes even shorter, containing only 48 or 54 nucleotides, which are simply the binding sites for the reproducing enzyme RNA replicase.[4]

M. Sumper and R. Luce of Eigen's laboratory demonstrated that a mixture containing no RNA at all but only RNA bases and Q-Beta Replicase can, under the right conditions, spontaneously generate self-replicating RNA which evolves into a form similar to Spiegelman's Monster.


It is indeed impressive however it does not address how RNA strands would lengthen into something more useful . . . It is one thing to show that RNA can begin replicating but it is another to address the exponential decay of the RNA strands which stands counter the exponential increase in complexity of organisms.

Miller–Urey experiment
( en.wikipedia.org... )
Again it is impressive that the amino acids were reproduced, however RNA is FAR more complex than an amino acid. The problem again arises that Spiegelman's Monster decayed rather than maintained it structure.

Also I am glad you did not bring up Mendele . . .
Superseded scientific theories
( en.wikipedia.org... )


Mendelian genetics, classical genetics, Boveri–Sutton chromosome theory - first genetical theories. Not invalidated as such, but subsumed into molecular genetics.



molecular genetics
( en.wikipedia.org... )


Molecular genetics is the field of biology and genetics that studies the structure and function of genes at a molecular level. Molecular genetics employs the methods of genetics and molecular biology to elucidate molecular function and interactions among genes. It is so called to differentiate it from other sub fields of genetics such as ecological genetics and population genetics.

Along with determining the pattern of descendants, molecular genetics helps in understanding developmental biology, genetic mutations that can cause certain types of diseases. Through utilizing the methods of genetics and molecular biology, molecular genetics discovers the reasons why traits are carried on and how and why some may mutate.


Genetics operates with the laws of physics and is therefore subject to the prevailing theories and laws involved in such.

If you want a better idea of the approach I am talking about and the implications that must be taken into account here is a short little program you can listen to.

The Physics of Evolution
www.mos.org...


Dr. Jeremy England, a biophysicist at MIT, describes the natural and artificial evolution of life from a physics point of view.


Interplay of physics and evolution in the likely origin of protein biochemical function
www.pnas.org...


Abstract

The intrinsic ability of protein structures to exhibit the geometric and sequence properties required for ligand binding without evolutionary selection is shown by the coincidence of the properties of pockets in native, single domain proteins with those in computationally generated, compact homopolypeptide, artificial (ART) structures. The library of native pockets is covered by a remarkably small number of representative pockets (∼400), with virtually every native pocket having a statistically significant match in the ART library, suggesting that the library is complete.


Like I have stated earlier MUCH more information concerning the physics of proteins is required before definitive proof can be claimed.

Physics of Evolution: Selection without Fitness
arxiv.org...

Until quantum theory is more fully fleshed out in its relationship with the chemistry of life (whenever that definition is fully agreed upon and technical distinctions made between various forms of life beyond single or multi celled organisms) then the theory is really much ado about nothing as it is seemingly too random to predict and will remain as mysterious a "phenomena" as it currently is.

There are major problems that need to be worked on before claiming victory and your attitude reminds me of a recent high school graduate who thinks they are king of the world until they go off to the university and realize they are actually just average.

-FBB



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 05:23 AM
link   
People are quick to point out the advancements in science, but rarely mention the limitations. For example, Can science alone properly explain Consciousness, Dreams or the Nature of Reality? We know these things are real, but science struggles to utilise the scientific method to explain them clearly and sufficiently.



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 06:28 AM
link   

stumason
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


A surprising number of ATS'ers fail to even grasp the basic meanings of words, which is just depressing, much less the science behind evolution. What is even worse is the amount of people calling for "evidence", yet it is out there in abundance - but when you provide it, it is simply ignored.




The "science behind evolution"? Last I heard it was still a theory. If the science behind it is honest unto itself, please explain how evolution produced the human being (as we are today) which cannot survive naked, with just its own body to defend itself, its territory, and procure enough food. (Can't use fire as a tool, that's cheating). Especially when every indigenous tribe, every culture, believes it was Taught to: sew, make music, farm, read and write, etc. How can science explain the evolution that produced the human being also explain that without the human being the Earth's ecosystem would hum along just nicely, not even missing our presence?



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 08:02 AM
link   

missvicky
The "science behind evolution"? Last I heard it was still a theory.
Please go look up 'scientific theory' before you continue the discussion, ok?



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 12:28 PM
link   

missvicky
Especially when every indigenous tribe, every culture, believes it was Taught to: sew, make music, farm, read and write, etc. How can science explain the evolution that produced the human being also explain that without the human being the Earth's ecosystem would hum along just nicely, not even missing our presence?

None of that represents anything contrary to the proven mechanics of biological evolution.

The evidence that supports the science of evolution is overwhelming and accepted by generations of scientists across the globe.

If one believes in a creator, why is it not possible to believe that the creator also put in motion evolution as a tool to ensure that which they created continued to improve for the better?

If one believes in a creator, doesn't the presence of evolution as a process to improve the quality, quantity, and diversity of species make that which was created all the more astounding?



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 12:34 PM
link   

missvickyHow can science explain the evolution that produced the human being also explain that without the human being the Earth's ecosystem would hum along just nicely, not even missing our presence?


Humans are not required for evolution at all, we just named the process. Science has no problem with that concept at all.



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 12:35 PM
link   

SkepticOverlord

missvicky
Especially when every indigenous tribe, every culture, believes it was Taught to: sew, make music, farm, read and write, etc. How can science explain the evolution that produced the human being also explain that without the human being the Earth's ecosystem would hum along just nicely, not even missing our presence?

None of that represents anything contrary to the proven mechanics of biological evolution.

The evidence that supports the science of evolution is overwhelming and accepted by generations of scientists across the globe.

If one believes in a creator, why is it not possible to believe that the creator also put in motion evolution as a tool to ensure that which they created continued to improve for the better?

If one believes in a creator, doesn't the presence of evolution as a process to improve the quality, quantity, and diversity of species make that which was created all the more astounding?


You make an excellent point, this is also one major reason I have such an issue dismissing the notion that being created was just as likely as not. I do very much dislike trying to find the adverse as far as evidence from the creationist sources as many of them I have encountered are heavily biased and most evidence presented is anecdotal at best in many circumstances mixed with almost a vicious campaign against disproving or discrediting other scientists in the field. Where as in the science camp for the evolutionary model this is not always so prevalent. Do you have or know of any decent places of information from the creationist stand point? I tend to still be on the fence about the issue at large so I don't claim to go one way or the other entirely and like to read at least the most compelling evidences from each of the camps. Thanks in advance!

B-Man



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 12:37 PM
link   

SkepticOverlord

missvicky
Especially when every indigenous tribe, every culture, believes it was Taught to: sew, make music, farm, read and write, etc. How can science explain the evolution that produced the human being also explain that without the human being the Earth's ecosystem would hum along just nicely, not even missing our presence?

None of that represents anything contrary to the proven mechanics of biological evolution.

The evidence that supports the science of evolution is overwhelming and accepted by generations of scientists across the globe.

If one believes in a creator, why is it not possible to believe that the creator also put in motion evolution as a tool to ensure that which they created continued to improve for the better?

If one believes in a creator, doesn't the presence of evolution as a process to improve the quality, quantity, and diversity of species make that which was created all the more astounding?


Ugh boss . . . . cooommmoooonnn

I literally just linked you to studies challenging some the basic premises of the current Darwinian model of survival of the fittest where they demonstrate that it is not necessarily true . . . . please review them before making such a bold statement.

-FBB



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


Nothing you linked "disproved" the massive body of science that represents biologic evolution in any way. The Miller–Urey experiment has nothing to do with evolution, instead, it looked to origins based on testing a hypothesis.



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Brotherman
Do you have or know of any decent places of information from the creationist stand point?

Answers in Genesis is the least aggressively biased… which is not to say it isn't biased.

I've only seen occasional videos or opinion snippets from religious scientists that could be classified as "creationists" insofar as they support a very-old earth model and evolution as the process of creation. It's rare as they seem cautious about expression such views.



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 01:11 PM
link   

SkepticOverlord
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


Nothing you linked "disproved" the massive body of science that represents biologic evolution in any way. The Miller–Urey experiment has nothing to do with evolution, instead, it looked to origins based on testing a hypothesis.


I was responding to the Miller-Urey which Stumason presented . . . .


Interplay of physics and evolution in the likely origin of protein biochemical function
Jeffrey Skolnick and Mu Gao

Author Affiliations

Center for the Study of Systems Biology, School of Biology, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30318

Edited by Nick V. Grishin, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Dallas, TX, and accepted by the Editorial Board April 23, 2013 (received for review January 2, 2013)

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
PNAS, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

www.pnas.org...


The intrinsic ability of protein structures to exhibit the geometric and sequence properties required for ligand binding without evolutionary selection is shown by the coincidence of the properties of pockets in native, single domain proteins with those in computationally generated, compact homopolypeptide, artificial (ART) structures.


Do you understand what they are saying here?

-FBB



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 01:42 PM
link   

FriedBabelBroccoli
Do you understand what they are saying here?

That's the first sentence of the hypothesis abstract. Did you read the last paragraph of the actual study PDF?



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 01:49 PM
link   

SkepticOverlord

FriedBabelBroccoli
Do you understand what they are saying here?

That's the first sentence of the hypothesis abstract. Did you read the last paragraph of the actual study PDF?


Yes I have and my point was that there is a lot of work to be done in understanding the actual mechanisms.

The "science" is not settled on the matter, the theory is accepted as valid and worthy of continued study.

-FBB

PS
If you have a list of other theories accepted as truth without any supporting laws I would be very grateful. Especially theories which are over a hundred years old.
edit on 2-1-2014 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 101



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 02:10 PM
link   

FriedBabelBroccoli
If you have a list of other theories accepted as truth without any supporting laws I would be very grateful.

From a science standpoint, that's a silly question. A scientific theory is a group of one or more hypothesis that have been confirmed accurate or true via a repeatable series of tests and/or observations.

You don't expect not to fall off a building because gravity is "only a theory" do you?



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 02:30 PM
link   

SkepticOverlord

FriedBabelBroccoli
If you have a list of other theories accepted as truth without any supporting laws I would be very grateful.

From a science standpoint, that's a silly question. A scientific theory is a group of one or more hypothesis that have been confirmed accurate or true via a repeatable series of tests and/or observations.

You don't expect not to fall off a building because gravity is "only a theory" do you?


LoL honestly this is the most lame response in response to this issue. There is a law which describes how fast I will fall with repeated results. You can describe it and predict how objects will act under its influence.

This is where the theory of evolution has many holes in it. The idea that it is proven without doubt is ridiculous until it is actually demonstrated. I have outlined many of the actual, physical aspects which have yet to be addressed in terms of physics or chemistry.

The cause of the denatured DNA/RNA which arises to the ability of continued replication of the mutation is severely lacking. The chemistry of which is also working to incorporate quantum theory which brings up several other issues as well as solving a few problems.

Right now these issues remain unresolved though they are the source from which your magical "survival of the fittest" model has yet to evolve out of.

There are hardly any models outlining what we think "fit" is or how much genetic variation actually differentiates one species from another.

Macro-evolution has not been confirmed through repeatable experiments, it is supported via modeling derived from fossil records. LoL it could turn out the scientific community was suffering from pareidolia.

Too bad eye-balling fossils has NOTHING to do with identifying the genetic mutations which would lead to such result.

It has become very clear that most people on this website have no clue about the scientific method or what a proper proof entails.

-FBB

I would still love a list of ANY other scientifically accepted theory which has no laws describing its action.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join