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 ShakeNBake
Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by ShakeNBake
We have witnessed minor mutations and speciation in the lab.
Really send me an article. Oh wait you cant, because evolution cannot be scientifically proven in a lab. Just because ur minor 1-inch dick "mutates" into 1.5 inches it doesn't mean anything except ur probably Asian.
Originally posted by ShakeNBake
reply to post by MrXYZ
snip
Scientists working in relevant fields accept evolution as fact, it's not something that's really debatable. The only ones debating it are the religious hardliners because it goes against their belief, or so they think.
it has never been a fact
Just like there are religious scientists, there are Atheist scientists, and there are Agnostic scientists.
which scientists do you believe it, hence believe
Originally posted by ShakeNBake
reply to post by MrXYZ
Whats will you and all the wacky cartoons? So now theory means something else. Come on dude, get your stuff straight. I did come across this though.
1. Provide an explanation and evidence of how all life does NOT show a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism. Why would such a unity contradict evolution?
2. Provide an explanation and evidence of how a common descent does NOT predict a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups, and that the tree of life is invalid. The tree of life is EXACTLY showing the hierarchy and patterns of how species evolved from one to another.
3. Provide an explanation and evidence of how morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits have absolutely NO meaning. What do you mean they have no meaning?? Why don't they have no meaning?
4. Provide an explanation and evidence of how fossil animals DON'T fit in the tree of life; DON'T appear in a chronological order; DON'T show changes consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years; and that fossils are instead consistent with sudden creation. Actually, every fossil we found to date fits chronologically and clearly shows how species evolved. Works even for us humans, we know where the human species comes from geographically. We can even take the DNA of anyone and find out exactly which race/tribe his ancestors belonged to. They just did it with Hitler's DNA...his ancestors came from North Africa, which is ironic.
5. Provide an explanation and evidence of how rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight, and atavisms DON'T support evolution. That supports evolution, lol. An ancestor of a fish wiht no non-functioning eyes maybe had eyes, or not...and the fish you see now is the "in-between". If he lived in the dark for generations, his body will adapt and EVOLVE and not consider eyesight important anymore.
6. Provide an explanation and evidence of how ontogeny does NOT give information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. What? Explain this quesiton better please!
7. Provide an explanation and evidence of how the distribution of species is NOT consistent with their evolutionary history. It actually is...so far every fossil we found and today's species all fit perfectly.
8. Provide an explanation and evidence of how homologous traits (including genes) do NOT reflect evolutionary history. Given that we can test someone's DNA and tell him exactly where his ancestors came from, that statement is scientifically wrong. Genes reflect our evolution very very well.
9. Provide an explanation and evidence of how suboptimal structures and functions are NOT explained by evolution. Suboptimal under which conditions? Evolution doesn't happen from one day to the other, it takes A LOT of time. Changes in the environment can happen a lot quicker. In any case, the fact that we have to breathe through the same orifice as we eat doesn't exactly support an "intelligent" design theory either!
10. Provide an explanation and evidence of how speciation has NOT been observed. You keep on repeating that disinformation. Speciation HAS been observed...multiple times!
11. Last but not least, propose an alternative hypothesis to evolution that is both TESTABLE and FALSIFIABLE Why would I??? We have TESTED and VERIFIED evolution through careful peer reviews. It works, we're using the findings in today's medicine and gene therapy. Evolution works and is a fact.
Link
Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by oozyism
You don't understand what "theory" means in science. It doesn't mean the same as the word you use on a daily basis.
Scientific theory
And one more...
Evolution is fact...no matter how hard the religious groups are trying to argue "science is just as much faith as religion". Sorry, but religion doesn't have peer reviews
Science is right, and creationists are illiterates who dont understand what they read.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by spy66
Not really, it states birds came before reptiles and we know for a fact that's not true. We also know that men didn't just appear in his current form. We evolved and have scientific evidence of that.
If you really wanna stick to your belief, you could argue god used evolution as a tool. But I'm afraid the Genesis account is wrong for the most part.
Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by spy66
Science is right, and creationists are illiterates who dont understand what they read.
Is there anyway you can reform what you said. I for one would be more comfortable, if instead you made the same point centered around the fact that Genesis can be very vague. I guess cause that's better than being swept away with that dusty old illiterate crowd.
edit to change spelling of there. must be getting senial.
[edit on 25-8-2010 by randyvs]
Originally posted by spy66
Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by spy66
Not really, it states birds came before reptiles and we know for a fact that's not true. We also know that men didn't just appear in his current form. We evolved and have scientific evidence of that.
If you really wanna stick to your belief, you could argue god used evolution as a tool. But I'm afraid the Genesis account is wrong for the most part.
Well you say this because you dont read your facts properly.
What we know for a fact to day might change tomorrow.
Originally posted by ShakeNBake
reply to post by MrXYZ
Whats will you and all the wacky cartoons? So now theory means something else. Come on dude, get your stuff straight. I did come across this though.
1. Provide an explanation and evidence of how all life does NOT show a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism.
2. Provide an explanation and evidence of how a common descent does NOT predict a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups, and that the tree of life is invalid.
3. Provide an explanation and evidence of how morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits have absolutely NO meaning.
4. Provide an explanation and evidence of how fossil animals DON'T fit in the tree of life; DON'T appear in a chronological order; DON'T show changes consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years; and that fossils are instead consistent with sudden creation.
5. Provide an explanation and evidence of how rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight, and atavisms DON'T support evolution.
6. Provide an explanation and evidence of how ontogeny does NOT give information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution.
7. Provide an explanation and evidence of how the distribution of species is NOT consistent with their evolutionary history.
8. Provide an explanation and evidence of how homologous traits (including genes) do NOT reflect evolutionary history.
9. Provide an explanation and evidence of how suboptimal structures and functions are NOT explained by evolution.
10. Provide an explanation and evidence of how speciation has NOT been observed.
11. Last but not least, propose an alternative hypothesis to evolution that is both TESTABLE and FALSIFIABLE
Link
Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by spy66
I don't know! I was asking you. Was I being to vague?
Nevermind
[edit on 25-8-2010 by randyvs]