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 templar knight
You've asked some big questions. I can add to this list, when dod we become conscious in evolution? What switched on and why has this not switched on for other animals.
It is fair to ask these questions and the scientific theory must stand up to this interrogation or change to answer these querioes. But they themselves do not just discount the theory.
What I have seen and read of DNA and evolution (Richard Dawkins a respected scientist from Cambridge Unitversity - worth reading his books or visti the web site), it really surprises me that we have so may threads contesting something that has a fair amount of evidence and yet very ittle on the quantum theory which I am convinced was made up after a session in the pub
Originally posted by Sparky63
I seem to recall several articles in reputable science magazines pointing out many of the problems with Darwin's explanation of evolution and the driving force behind it.
Darwin was indeed a visionary but many of the conclusions he drew have been shown to be wrong or lacking adequate proof.
New Scientist for instance had an article named "Was Darwin Wrong About the Tree of Life?"
www.newscientist.com...
The concept of punctuated equilibrium was proposed to explain the explosion of so many different forms of life in a relatively short time span, overcoming the need for great quantities on intermediary transitional forms.
Regarding the primordial soup, many scientists had decided that it is unlikely to have occurred the way it has been explained in the past. For this reason some have looked to undersea vents, while some have proposed that clays would be a better medium for the formation of the first cells, or cells. Other scientists have proposed that the earth was seeded with all the necessary amino acids from material raining down from space.
Only time will tell whether these theories will someday be tossed out and derided as erroneous.
The point is that it is not only "Bible Thumpers" that find fault with Darwin's explanations.
To be fair, the vast majority of scientists who disagree with Darwin still believe in evolution, they just disagree with the way it happened.
Originally posted by Kapyong
No it doesn't.
Yes it does,
Which is why you failed to show any such holes.
Stay tuned,
Evolution is an observed fact.
says you, But if you're talking about a suntan, then yeah, that can be observed. Big Deal.
If you're talking about transmutation, you're mistaken and most likely a product of the public school system that indoctrinated you into believing mutants lucky enough to have another mutant attracted to the other, (as we all know mutants are sexy) who just happen to have the same mutation that just happens to give them advantages, the other normal creatures of their species and their mutant off spring pass on their mutations but they took offense to that word so they decided to call it "modificaton's . Surprisingly other species were also having similar strokes of luck with such ideas as having them arise while a female of that species just happens to have a similar weird mutation and happening in the same places that entire kingdoms of animals had the same exact mutation of enamal coated structures growing in the large facial orifice called the mouth. The enamal coated growths are called teeth and just happen to be located in a place where such a strange mutation would work best and just in time too because by this time, the creature needs a new food source to chew on and GUESS what! Yep, THAT too just happend to be evolving just in time to be the new hunted prey for the aforementioned mutants with teeth.
Mutants seem to have all the luck don't they
The only people who disagree are creationists who don't underdstand it.
Ha ha ha AGAIN we see the unbiased, impartial mindset of the scientific community in action showing just how much they have evolved while they make absolute and uncorroborated presumptuous assertions, then bitch when stereotypes are made about them, while at the same time insist, anyone not agreeing with evolution is because they "don't understand it"
AS IF
[edit on 18-11-2009 by Kerry_Knight]
Originally posted by IrnBruFiend
reply to post by Pauligirl
Belief.
1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
Evolution is a theory.
Theory.
7. guess or conjecture.
Evolution is not a scientific fact.
Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural the·o·ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theōria, from theōrein
Date: 1592
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : speculation
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : conjecture c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject
These are all simple facts surrounding the theory at the moment.
Thus, evolution could either:
1. Be the correct theory to explain the origins of all life on earth and is currently waiting for scientific confirmation.
2. Could be the incorrect theory to explain the origins of all life on earth.
This is very simple logic before jumping on any bandwagon.
PS. A retired evolutionist. DNA evidence has proven that evolution is impossible. Consequentially, any logical person would eat a slice of humble and then direct their attention towards the evidence unimprisoned by a belief system.
This last part is where most people fail, and this is exactly why anybody in defense of evolution will need to warp their theory or present wishy washy evidence to correspond with Darwin's theory.
Simple steps of logic overseen by too many people.
Originally posted by IrnBruFiend
reply to post by rnaa
And you will never see humans evolve into anything more than humans.
Originally posted by rnaa
Originally posted by IrnBruFiend
reply to post by rnaa
I interpret your assertion to mean that I will never see a speciation event in human kind. Well, you are right, I wouldn't expect to live long enough to see that, but I hope the conditions arise to permit it.
two completely different species of animal mated and created a new species?
yet out of the blue
Life, organisms, animals have gone from more complex to less complex throughout the span of life on earth.
As I said, a new species of finches is still considered "finches" and not some other type of bird.
In contrast, Coyne said that creation by design predicts that no such genes would exist. "And the evolutionary prediction that we'll find pseudogenes has been fulfilled," he wrote. "Our genome—and that of other species—are truly well populated graveyards of dead genes" [p. 67]. But Coyne was dead wrong. A growing mountain of data from genome-sequencing projects shows that most DNA performs essential functions.