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.
Originally posted by knkevinuk
reply to post by sisgood
The very fact that evolution is taught to children in the first place is evidence enough to suggest its a deception!
Originally posted by sisgood
Necessity of perfection in animal organs. (paraphrased and this is a huge one)
For spiders, if evolution were true, they wouldn't exist. What use would a half-formed spinneret be to a spider? Could a spider exist today if such an important organ of their bodies took millions of years to evolve.
Answer... NO!
It's the same way for bees! How in the world do evolutionist explain how the bee survived without their pollen baskets for millions of years?
There are millions more of these examples of how a half-formed organ simply WOULD NOT WORK!!!
Necessity of perfection in both plants and animals for cross-pollination (paraphrased... again)
Did you know that the Yucca plant could not survive with out the pronuba moth? The moth takes pollen from the plant, flies to another Yucca plant and lays it's eggs in the plant. The moth larva eat about a fifth of the plant seeds and the rest... well, they are the reason we have Yucca plants now.
There is NO POSSIBLE WAY that these two species could have evolved the way they are now.
What about the Portuguese man of war and the Nomeus fish? The man of war catches the fish and the Nomeus is the bait! The nomeus is immune to the poison of the jelly fish. Not only does a half-evolved system like this not work but it would be impossible for evolution to improve the situation. Poisoned, dead fish can't lay eggs.
Or can anyone prove me wrong?
Originally posted by newworld
the theory of evolution consists of observations, models, evidence
In science, the word theory "is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena."
As I am sure most of know, abiogenesis is the idea that life can evolve from non life particles floating around in a chemical soup.
This was dealt with on another thread and the evolutionists got so beat up by the Mathematical evidence against the possibility of this ever happening through random natural processes that they abandoned the argument
.....
Then they distanced themselves from micro-evolution....which we demonstrated was just another name for variations in species with no evidence to support speciation or transformation. In other words, micro-evolution, although observable to the extent that we have variations within species, does not prove macro-evolution which involves transformations or speciation.
So, There is no evidence for macro-evolution.....None, zilch, zero, nana.
If you think there is. Bring it on.
Please give me the evidence you have for one animal spicies transforming into a new species. Just one please. If you have several I prefer to deal with one at a time.
Thanks.
Originally posted by Maslo
Here is that thread, so you can witness the amount of stretching and lying he is spoonfeeding you...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
..who has "beat up" who?
Originally posted by Maslo
But if by transforming you mean more than (relatively) small genetic and morphologic differences and reproductive barrier (macroevolution - for example bird from a reptile), I of course cannot give you direct observations in a laboratory, but geologic column, altough sometimes incomplete, speaks volumes.
Originally posted by John Matrix
1. It's not me that fights over these terms. On another thread, creationists were accused of inventing the term "micro-evolution."
I'm not making this up. I did the research and proved that creationists did not invent the term micro-evolution.....it's in fact a term that was used by evolutionists and according to some of the better proponents of evolution on ATS such as my respected friend "Welfard" that term is not used anymore. But apparently not all evolutionists have gotten that message.
2. The problem with your math (above) is that buying a lottery ticket is an act of human will and consciousness. The addition of acts involving human will and consciousness to make choices and decisions definitely changes the odds. The problem is, those elements do not come into play, since we are talking about the beginning of life from non life matter, without the possibility of human actions involving will, consciousness, choice, etc.
For life to come from non life particles floating around in a chemical soup in the absence of anyone making a conscious decision does in fact defy Mathematical odds even if that soup has all the perfect ingredients.
Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
Evolution makes sense, look at Chimps, they look a lot like us, we are clearly more related to them then we are other animals. How do you explain the physical and genetic similarities then? If we are not apes than what are we? If not evolution, than what?
Read More at Source
1- Mutations are harmful. Since they occur randomly, they almost always damage the organism. Any unconscious impact on a perfect and complex structure will lead to destruction, not to improvement. In this respect, mutation in an organism is similar to, taking a microchip out of its place and throwing it away or mounting it to somewhere else in a computer. This only gives damage to the computer, not any benefit. This is just like how the mutations are; they seriously harm the genetic material.
2- As a result of mutations, no new additions are made to the DNA. Mutations can only tear or change the places of the existing genetic material. Therefore mutations can not produce new organs or characteristics for the organism.
3- Complex organs like the brain, eye or the reproduction organs, or characteristics like symbiosis or camouflage can unquestionably not be explained by mutations. It is illogical to claim that nearly forty organs from the retina to the eyelids which constitute the eye, can result because of mutations. In order for an eye to perform its function, all of its parts must exist concurrently and this is impossible by any spontaneous occurrence and without any conscious interference.
4- Mutations has to be in the hereditary cells in order to be transferred to the next generations. Changes in any somatic cell or any organ other than hereditary cells are not transferred. For example, the eye may mutate and change due to radiation or some other external effects, but this change will not be carried to the descendants.
A new study has come out that tracks ‘tracks’; i.e., reptile ‘tracks’. It seems that the transition from a straddled to an upright position of reptilian limbs took place almost immediately. So scientists say that have studied fossilized tracks prior to, and immediately after, the end-of-the Permian mass extinction........................
Scientists (=evolutionists) were of the assumption that this pre-to-post Permian transition took 20-30 million years. It now appears to have been almost immediate.
Originally posted by texastig
Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
Apes and humans and kangaroos share 98% of the same DNA.
This is false info. The guys that came up with that figure used bad info.
The folks that discovered the error did not do the research to find the correct percentage.
Originally posted by Maslo
www.talkorigins.org...
Pick one.
De Vries had assumed that tetraploid Oenethera plants would ‘breed true’, forming a distinct species. However, the tetraploid specimens of Oenothera that de Vries and other botanists cultivated did not form their own self-perpetuating populations, requiring constant special care and consistently generating a range of chromosome sets (diploid, triploid, tetraploid, etc.) in their offspring. In his zeal to provide evidence for evolution, de Vries had presumptuously proclaimed tetraploid Oenotheras to be a new species, but this was in spite of direct evidence to the contrary, including from his own breeding efforts. The idea that these plants constituted an example of speciation is wrong, and this was realized at least as long ago as 1943,7 more than six decades ago.
That O. gigas is still presented as an evidence for evolution reflects very poorly on evolutionists. The situation is similar with many other evolution evidences, such as Haeckel’s notorious embryo diagrams, which continue to be used as evidences for evolution generations after they have been discredited.
And make no mistake, satan is a very clever angel. He can, as the Bible says, appear as an angel of light.
Originally posted by John Matrix
[
Gee, could that be why the oldest coral reef is estimated to be 4400 years old? Could that be why the oldest living tree ever found tested out to be about 4400 yrs old?
Swedish spruce may be world's oldest living tree
Fri Apr 11, 2008 9:01am EDT
By Niklas Pollard
STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - Scientists have found a cluster of spruces in the mountains in western Sweden which, at an age of 8,000 years, may be the world's oldest living trees.
The hardy Norway spruces were found perched high on a mountain side where they have remained safe from recent dangers such as logging, but exposed to the harsh weather conditions of the mountain range that separates Norway and Sweden.
Carbon dating of the trees carried out at a laboratory in Miami, Florida, showed the oldest of them first set root about 8,000 years ago, making it the world's oldest known living tree, Umea University Professor Leif Kullman said.
California's "Methuselah" tree, a Great Basin bristlecone pine, is often cited as the world's oldest living tree with a recorded age of between 4,500 and 5,000 years.
Two other spruces, also found in the course of climate change studies in the Swedish county of Dalarna, were shown to be 4,800 and 5,500 years old.
"These were the first woods that grew after the Ice Age," said Lars Hedlund, responsible for environmental surveys in the county of Dalarna and collaborator in climate studies there.
"That means that when you speak of climate change today, you can in these (trees) see pretty much every single climate change that has occurred."
Although a single tree trunk can become at most about 600 years old, the spruces had survived by pushing out another trunk as soon as the old one died, Professor Kullman said.
Rising temperatures in the area in recent years had allowed the spruces to grow rapidly, making them easier to find in the rugged terrain, he added.
"For quite some time they have endured as bushes maybe 1/2 meter tall," he said.
"But over the past few decades we have seen a much warmer climate, which has meant that they have popped up like mushrooms in the soil."
(Reporting by Niklas Pollard; Editing by Jon Boyle)
Originally posted by John Matrix
reply to post by rnaa
I am pleased you don't have a problem with the term micro-evolution.
As far as defining micro-evolution.....creationists don't define it so your comments about that are moot. Creationists just have a better explanation for micro-evolution. The creationist explanation for micro evolution is that DNA was designed to produce variation in species.
There is nothing wrong with my math.....it's not my math anyway....it's the
math of expert scientists and mathematicians.
Like it or not, natural processes cannot cause non-living matter to become living organisms. The expert mathematicians have prove this as fact time and time again.
Micro-evolution does not prove Macro-evolution.
Macro-evolution is the fantasy that says multiple consecutive mutations (that are not harmful to the species) lead to speciation.
In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch", see Fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted [See Note 1]). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels.
This is not because species do not change over time – some do. This is because there is no objective and common criterion for when a species has changed enough to count as a new species. The decision to count a species as a new one when there is no splitting of the species into two or more is a matter of personal taste or convention, which means that such decisions tell us more about the preferences of the scientist than they do about the organisms.
Macro-evolution is Mathematically impossible:
1- Mutations are harmful. Since they occur randomly, they almost always damage the organism. Any unconscious impact on a perfect and complex structure will lead to destruction, not to improvement. In this respect, mutation in an organism is similar to, taking a microchip out of its place and throwing it away or mounting it to somewhere else in a computer. This only gives damage to the computer, not any benefit. This is just like how the mutations are; they seriously harm the genetic material.
2- As a result of mutations, no new additions are made to the DNA. Mutations can only tear or change the places of the existing genetic material. Therefore mutations can not produce new organs or characteristics for the organism.
3- Complex organs like the brain, eye or the reproduction organs, or characteristics like symbiosis or camouflage can unquestionably not be explained by mutations. It is illogical to claim that nearly forty organs from the retina to the eyelids which constitute the eye, can result because of mutations. In order for an eye to perform its function, all of its parts must exist concurrently and this is impossible by any spontaneous occurrence and without any conscious interference.
4- Mutations has to be in the hereditary cells in order to be transferred to the next generations. ...
Fossilized reptile tracks have shrunk the evolution time line for the Cambrian Explosion(see source link below for the full article):
A new study has come out that tracks ‘tracks’; i.e., reptile ‘tracks’. It seems that the transition from a straddled to an upright position of reptilian limbs took place almost immediately. So scientists say that have studied fossilized tracks prior to, and immediately after, the end-of-the Permian mass extinction........................
Scientists (=evolutionists) were of the assumption that this pre-to-post Permian transition took 20-30 million years. It now appears to have been almost immediate.
Incredible Shrinking Timeline
Originally posted by John Matrix
Fossilized reptile tracks have shrunk the evolution time line for the Cambrian Explosion(see source link below for the full article):
A new study has come out that tracks ‘tracks’; i.e., reptile ‘tracks’. It seems that the transition from a straddled to an upright position of reptilian limbs took place almost immediately. So scientists say that have studied fossilized tracks prior to, and immediately after, the end-of-the Permian mass extinction........................
Scientists (=evolutionists) were of the assumption that this pre-to-post Permian transition took 20-30 million years. It now appears to have been almost immediate.
Incredible Shrinking Timeline