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.
FreeMason
Evolution is not linear progressive? Perfect, find me where evolutionary biologists have found multiple evolutionary trees of major organs common to animalia.
alfa1
FreeMason
Evolution is not linear progressive? Perfect, find me where evolutionary biologists have found multiple evolutionary trees of major organs common to animalia.
You mean like, the multiple competely independent times an "eye" has evolved among different creatures?
link
FreeMason
If someone would kindly explain if they have found such a hypothesis for the most important evolutionary step, the prokaryote to the eukaryote, then we'll be on track.
But if not that is still a tremendous hurdle, after all how has the most requisite evolutionary step occurred only once?
The thylacine for example, a marsupial, with all the characteristics of a canine. Evolved entirely separate from all other animal life, in a completely different environment.
FreeMason
If someone would kindly explain if they have found such a hypothesis for the most important evolutionary step, the prokaryote to the eukaryote, then we'll be on track.
But if not that is still a tremendous hurdle, after all how has the most requisite evolutionary step occurred only once?
flyingfish
reply to post by bitsforbytes
Some are content in ignorance, but fortunately for you society hasn’t listened to ignorance and has come to realize the benefits of science in exchange for relinquishing its grasp of ancient fairy tails, no matter how comforting they are.
I for one am grateful to live in an age where I can share in understanding at least a little of our wondrous Universe instead of making up primitive and childish fables to explain it.
If it were up to fellow delusional, brainwashed creationists, we’d still be spending our winter nights living in caves huddled around campfires praying to a magic sky daddy to make our lives better, instead of huddled around our computers laughing at dipsh#t creo's.edit on fThursday13171010f171110 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)
alfa1
I've never seen a creationist who actually knows what evolution is.
Its like creationists walk around with a distorted weirdo view of evolution, and attack that instead.
Its like a "straw man" argument, except that in this case the creationists are too dumb to know the straw man isnt actually real.
A Bacteria never becomes more than a Bacteria
theorists are starting to consider multiple evolutions of the same trait.
alfa1
I've never seen a creationist who actually knows what evolution is.
Its like creationists walk around with a distorted weirdo view of evolution, and attack that instead.
Its like a "straw man" argument, except that in this case the creationists are too dumb to know the straw man isnt actually real.
Unified Serenity
Why is it that attacking members through snide words is ok in threads like this?
Prokaryotes evolved into Eukaryotes only once in history. Prokaryotes still exist, and have not evolved into Eukaryotes again in over 2 Billion years. This is one but also the most prominent example that all evolutionary theory is "linear progressive".
I use this term to explain and show that evolution is mankind placing human qualities onto nature, more specifically human psychology. Since the industrial revolution mankind has thought in terms of "linear progressive", history has been reinterpreted as linear progressive by Marx. Science has been seen as linear progressive and is generally accepted to be such by technological progress.
It's only sensible, that Biologists, would see the natural world as linear progressive.
The march of progress is the canonical representation of evolution – the one picture immediately grasped and viscerally understood by all.... The straitjacket of linear advance goes beyond iconography to the definition of evolution: the word itself becomes a synonym for progress.... [But] life is a copiously branching bush, continually pruned by the grim reaper of extinction, not a ladder of predictable progress.
Why do you harbour so much dislike towards the creationist?
you sound like you believe you are SUPERIOR
I know for a fact the theory of gravity is flawed because of "mechanical ionization." Gravitationalists don't realize that gravity can't be true because the bending of space-time does not consider "mechanical ionization," and its such a gaping hole in the theory of gravity that planetary geodesics violate the principle of "mechanical ionization."
TerraLiga
Eukaryotes didn't evolve from prokaryotes.
Eukaryotes were a certain type of cell invaded by a parasite, the byproduct the infection was to give its host access to new acids and proteins that were previously unavailable. In return, this parasite demanded almost all the energy that the host cell could produce – and still does in its form we know today.
The parasite once was an entirely different type of organism with no parallel or equivalent in its DNA coding. Today that parasite is called Mitochondria. It's still largely independent in its DNA structure, although it has adopted some of eukaryotes' DNA to enable it to communicate more efficiently.
Eukaryote cells have evolved into every single living organism on our planet – past and present – where prokaryotes have remained as they always have done, although they have evolved slightly over time.
If I were a creationist I wouldn't bother with trying to disprove science with half-baked ideas or resort to an old storybook written by ancient tribesmen, I would learn science and use that. The first question I would research is "Where did mitochondria come from?". It's a real and genuine mystery. Maybe God put it there or perhaps aliens? Who knows.
Evolutionists certainly don't hold all the answers, and there are some huge holes in the theory, but I can absolutely assure you that Creationism holds precisely zero answers. Nothing in Creationism is true, logical or viable. Nothing.
peter vlar
doesn't change the fact that only viruses, bacteria, eukaryotes and mitochondria have circular DNA.