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.

 

There's the Theory of Evolution and the Interpretation of Evolution

page: 9
9
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2018 @ 07:49 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

The moon is simultaneously moving past and away from the earth and at the same time being pulled toward the earth, it fall's but is moving fast enough that it never reaches the ground this is called a stable orbit and it work's.

The fact is that the time we live, the moon earth and sun and all those mysteriously almost perfect ratio's is far too unlikely to just be chance so the solar system in at least some measure show's the presence of an intelligence behind it's form.

Gravity is real, the moon is a separate body from the earth but has a necessary stabilizing effect upon our climate and rotation, it is however the most unlikely moon in our solar system BUT then there are the mysterious moon'let's of mars which also defy standard model's with one having to be a hollow body to account for it's orbit and having all those lovely perfectly linear scar features on it's surface?.


When you fire a bullet it does not immediately fall to the ground or gun's would not work, if the bullet was moving fast enough then it would simply never reach the ground as it would fall at the same rate as the curve of the earth's surface fell away beneath it - of course a bullet would slow down because of wind resistance so it would never maintain such an orbit and our ground is not level so it would hit terrain at some point but the argument stand's.

The moon is like that bullet, it is passing the ground at the right speed so that it follow's the curve of the earth and never reaches the ground, it is both large enough and there sufficiently little impedance to it's motion in space were there is very little gas that it's inertia is not slowing down, in fact the moon may be receding from us about 1 meter per year which will actually slowing increase over the millions of years until it break's away from the earth's orbit entirely and goes off on it's own path through the solar system but that is a very long time from now AND if it's orbit was engineered then it is possible that some unknown force would once again intervene.




posted on Jun, 24 2018 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
We have never, ever, found a single species, on Earth, to show any indication of 'evolving' into a different species.

Not over 10,000 years.


Complete nonsense. Everything evolves constantly. Thre is no end goal of "evolving into" anything. Organisms just slowly change.



Let's consider the odds...

Every species is evolving, continually, into different species, and we are all evolving now...

About 8.7 million different species exist on Earth, today, by current estimates.

That's a fairly decent sample size, to find 'evolution' of just one, single species.... isn't it?

Over 10,000 years, nothing.


Evolution is measurable and testable. It has been seen dozens upon dozens upon dozens of times. Why make a dishonest argument like that? The genetic mutations can be measured in every single replication.



How many thousands of years does it take before they finally have no choice but to admit 'evolution' was all made up, it's just a bunch of BS, and how sorry, and ashamed, they all are?


As soon as somebody can falsify ALL the evidence and come up with a better or more accurate explanation for the diversity of life on earth.



So what are the odds?

Multiply 10,000 x 8.7 million.

87 billion to 1.


LOL! You might want to brush up on your math. That isn't how it works or how you determine odds.


Floating around, within 0 gravity of space, is not exactly being "held in place".

If there is a force on Earth, which pulls everything towards the Earth, it cannot suddenly 'hold' things far away, in place, at a distance. I know you have no other excuse, but that's not even close to reality!


Complete nonsense. You may want to look up the mechanics of being in orbit. There is ABSOLUTELY still gravity while orbiting earth, but the momentum of the craft is moving just fast enough to even out the pull, which is why it stays in orbit instead of falling to the earth. This makes the rest of your 2 responses completely bunk. Why the unwillingness to even look it up? You just assume flat earth propganda videos are automatic truth without even fact checking them. This why people are so quick to dismiss science. Science takes work and effort. You can't just watch a youtube video and fully understand it.



posted on Jun, 24 2018 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
When I prayed, It rained a deluge, enough to put out a house fire, out of a cloudless sky,within seconds of praying (and I didn't pray for rain). The circumstances were particularly weird.


So again, you prove confirmation bias because you have no idea the prayer is the cause. You just assume, when sudden rainstorms happen all over the world on a consistent basis. When I was into new age meditation, my grandfather was dying in the hospital and given a 20% chance to live. I focused my energy via chakra meditation and within an hour of that, he suddenly he woke up and was fine. Obviously the meditation didn't heal him, either the doctors made a mistake (or intentionally said the odds were low to avoid a disappointment if he died) or my grandfather simply beat the odds, which happens. Funny enough my aunt was deeply religious and says her prayers are what healed him. Nobody actually knows, and inserting the explanation YOU WANT is a poor method of determining truth. The situation with my grandfather helped me realize that spiritual mumbo jumbo does nothing for the person being prayed/meditated for, it helps the person DOING IT because it makes them feel better and gives them hope. That is how it always has worked. It's a crunch to help keep us hopeful.

Plus this creates a huge dilemma of why god only would selectively answer prayers. What about the billion starving children around the world that are prayer for by millions of people on a daily basis? God comes and intervenes in YOUR situation just because YOU prayed, while ignoring all the kids dying from cancer, starving, sick or being abused. That is quite the ego you have there if you actually think that is what happened. Why do people that get prayed for the most still end up dying? There is literally no connection between prayer and health, it just gives hope.


You still haven't given any explanation as to what in the 'Omega idea' was absurd. When I asked last time, you told me how hypotheses were testable.


I'll discuss that idea when testable evidence that supports the premise can be provided.


But sure, ridicule all you want. Ad hominem is usually a sure fire indicator that you have run out of legitimate argument.


I don't use ad hom, I explain my points. You have already proved you don't grasp what that or other fallacies are.


Self contradictory.

Either testable or not.

Either there is gradualism or there isn't.

Absolute laughable nonsense.


Nothing I said was self contradictory. Your claim was not testable. Gradualism is not the be all end all. There are other mechanisms like punctuated equilibrium. This is just your all or nothing mentality shining through again. You can't even understand that just because most evolutionary changes show gradualistic principles does not mean that every single transition in history was gradual. You keep using the false dilemma (black and white) fallacy repeatedly. There are many methods involved, it's not simply all gradualism or all not gradualism.



edit on 6 24 18 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2018 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

You will find that some places (like the USA) continued Heoric medicine into the 20th century. The Spannish flu stopped that in the end (actualy scientific medicine helpd, leaches did not)



posted on Jun, 24 2018 @ 09:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0nautWhen I prayed, It rained a deluge, enough to put out a house fire, out of a cloudless sky,within seconds of praying (and I didn't pray for rain). The circumstances were particularly weird.
So again, you prove confirmation bias because you have no idea the prayer is the cause. You just assume, when sudden rainstorms happen all over the world on a consistent basis. When I was into new age meditation, my grandfather was dying in the hospital and given a 20% chance to live. I focused my energy via chakra meditation and within an hour of that, he suddenly he woke up and was fine. Obviously the meditation didn't heal him, either the doctors made a mistake (or intentionally said the odds were low to avoid a disappointment if he died) or my grandfather simply beat the odds, which happens. Funny enough my aunt was deeply religious and says her prayers are what healed him. Nobody actually knows, and inserting the explanation YOU WANT is a poor method of determining truth. The situation with my grandfather helped me realize that spiritual mumbo jumbo does nothing for the person being prayed/meditated for, it helps the person DOING IT because it makes them feel better and gives them hope. That is how it always has worked. It's a crunch to help keep us hopeful.

Plus this creates a huge dilemma of why god only would selectively answer prayers. What about the billion starving children around the world that are prayer for by millions of people on a daily basis? God comes and intervenes in YOUR situation just because YOU prayed, while ignoring all the kids dying from cancer, starving, sick or being abused. That is quite the ego you have there if you actually think that is what happened. Why do people that get prayed for the most still end up dying? There is literally no connection between prayer and health, it just gives hope.


Does confirmation bias preclude the possibility that something did occur as believed, because it would seem that you are suggesting that it didn't occur for those reasons 'because there may have been confirmation bias involved in interpreting the observation'.

As an argument aginst those occurrences happening in the way that the the bias suggests, it isn't particularly strong. It is, in effect, saying 'I don't really know and you don't really know'.

If you recall, back to that distant topic thread, I also suggested that perhaps there was a naturalistic explanation that would also account for it and I proposed that perhaps a high water content cometary fragment happened to hit the atmosphere above. Did that also evice confirmation bias?

If evolution is a supposition, guess, hypothesis or theory, and even if experiments have been performed on parts of it, your assertion of its predominance over alternate explanations is an example confirmation bias. Because it cannot be asserted as fact, it cannot be asserted as fact!

You have consistently drawn absolutist conclusions from from suppositions, hypotheses and theories and then chided me (and others) from doing the same, seemingly oblivious to the application of your own confirmation biases.



You still haven't given any explanation as to what in the 'Omega idea' was absurd. When I asked last time, you told me how hypotheses were testable.
I'll discuss that idea when testable evidence that supports the premise can be provided.


So, you will reason about something only when reasoning is no longer required?





But sure, ridicule all you want. Ad hominem is usually a sure fire indicator that you have run out of legitimate argument.
I don't use ad hom, I explain my points. You have already proved you don't grasp what that or other fallacies are.


Then explain what in the 'Omega idea' is absurd.

You said it was absurd and I asked for explanation (several times).

Testability is a non-answer.

Tell me what is absurd in the 'Omega idea' and why.



Self contradictory.

Either testable or not.

Either there is gradualism or there isn't.

Absolute laughable nonsense.
Nothing I said was self contradictory. Your claim was not testable. Gradualism is not the be all end all. There are other mechanisms like punctuated equilibrium.


Punctuated Equilibrium is not part of the MES. Punctuated equilibrium is also more of an outcome of observation than a particular and mechanistic cause and effect process. Punctuated Equilibrium was proposed because it became obvious that the gradualism required by the MES could not have occurred in the much of the observed data.


This is just your all or nothing mentality shining through again. You can't even understand that just because most evolutionary changes show gradualistic principles does not mean that every single transition in history was gradual. You keep using the false dilemma (black and white) fallacy repeatedly. There are many methods involved, it's not simply all gradualism or all not gradualism.


In the case of speciation, according to the MES, gradualism and partitioning of populations are mandatory components. There is no mechanism to speciate, according to the MES, in their absence.

If there are examples proposed as explicatory of evolution, where there is no gradualism, or no population partitioning, or (usually) both, then they simply are not examples of evolution as proposed in the MES. This has not stopped people from proposing that the data evidences evolution.

edit on 24/6/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2018 @ 09:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0nautYou will find that some places (like the USA) continued Heoric medicine into the 20th century. The Spannish flu stopped that in the end (actualy scientific medicine helpd, leaches did not)


People even today still think the Earth is flat.

It wouldn't surprise me if there were people out there even now peddling bleeding by leeches to remove bad humors from the blood.

Kooks are.



posted on Jun, 24 2018 @ 09:51 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

The point returns however, when you talk about evolution. Its a science. Thus you need to talk science.

If we were talking magic or prayer, then another tool would be appropriate.

This particular forum suffers from people using the wrong tool, to talk about something.



posted on Jun, 24 2018 @ 10:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: turbonium1We have never, ever, found a single species, on Earth, to show any indication of 'evolving' into a different species.

Not over 10,000 years.
Complete nonsense. Everything evolves constantly. Thre is no end goal of "evolving into" anything. Organisms just slowly change.


i.e: it is travelling quite well... but it is going nowhere.





Let's consider the odds...

Every species is evolving, continually, into different species, and we are all evolving now...

About 8.7 million different species exist on Earth, today, by current estimates.

That's a fairly decent sample size, to find 'evolution' of just one, single species.... isn't it?

Over 10,000 years, nothing.
Evolution is measurable and testable. It has been seen dozens upon dozens upon dozens of times.


Parts of evolution have been shown to occur, even experimentally.

The whole string of processes, end to end, not so, though.

There are some parts of the process, that we cannot directly observe or experiment on. This means that evolution doesn't even have the evidential strength for us to call it a scientific hypothesis.

Doesn't stop some people from calling it that, though.


Why make a dishonest argument like that? The genetic mutations can be measured in every single replication.


It is nowhere near as frequent as that. If it were, we'd be a scrambled genetic mess in a few hours.

As it is,the average mutation rate for the human genome is between 100-200 point mutations per generation.

and, for example, In E-Coli, the measured mutation rate per replication event is 10^-10.



How many thousands of years does it take before they finally have no choice but to admit 'evolution' was all made up, it's just a bunch of BS, and how sorry, and ashamed, they all are?
As soon as somebody can falsify ALL the evidence and come up with a better or more accurate explanation for the diversity of life on earth.


There exist right now other equally scientifically evidenced and plausible explanations for biodiversity.

Not to mention there is also some evidence of biological diversity where evolutionary models (such as the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis) are evidenced against.



So what are the odds?

Multiply 10,000 x 8.7 million.

87 billion to 1.
LOL! You might want to brush up on your math. That isn't how it works or how you determine odds.


Actually, turbonium1 was mathematically correct in calculation of simple possiblility. But in truth, considering the total field of outcomes is usually mathematically factorial, the probability is magnitudes closer to zero, which, I believe, is the gist of his point.



Floating around, within 0 gravity of space, is not exactly being "held in place".

If there is a force on Earth, which pulls everything towards the Earth, it cannot suddenly 'hold' things far away, in place, at a distance. I know you have no other excuse, but that's not even close to reality!
Complete nonsense. You may want to look up the mechanics of being in orbit. There is ABSOLUTELY still gravity while orbiting earth, but the momentum of the craft is moving just fast enough to even out the pull, which is why it stays in orbit instead of falling to the earth. This makes the rest of your 2 responses completely bunk. Why the unwillingness to even look it up? You just assume flat earth propganda videos are automatic truth without even fact checking them. This why people are so quick to dismiss science. Science takes work and effort. You can't just watch a youtube video and fully understand it.


I believe the confusion comes from the fact that, for something in orbit, all directional force vectors counterbalance and the sum of those vectors is zero.

This is one of those relativistic things dependent upon viewpoint.



posted on Jun, 25 2018 @ 03:17 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut



Punctuated Equilibrium is not part of the MES.


Punctuated Equilibrium is generally accepted by Biologists as an important part of evolution.

ERGO: Punctuated Equilibrium is part of the MES.

Why do you continue to deny something that is fact, and not even controversial? Your entire thesis seems to be to argue just for the sake of arguing.

(source)

The concept of punctuated equilibrium was, to some, a radical new idea when it was first proposed by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge in 1972. Now it is widely recognized as a useful model for one kind of evolutionary change. The relative importance of punctuated and gradual patterns of evolution is a subject of debate and research.
...
Although the patterns predicted by punctuated equilibrium have been observed in at least some cases, debate continues over how frequently this model of evolutionary change occurs -- is it the norm, or only an exception? Punctuated equilibrium also generates interesting questions for further research. What, for example, are the processes that produce rapid evolution? Population genetic studies show us that small changes can accrue quickly in small populations. And evolutionary developmental biology is revealing new mechanisms that regulate the expression of small genetic changes in ways that can have a large effect on phenotype. Which evolutionary factors are primarily responsible for the periods of stasis -- in which lineages persist without change -- that can be observed in the fossil record? In seeking the answers to these questions, researchers will continue to advance our understanding of the evolutionary processes that produced the remarkable variety of life on Earth.



posted on Jun, 25 2018 @ 04:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: chr0naut

Punctuated Equilibrium is not part of the MES.

Punctuated Equilibrium is generally accepted by Biologists as an important part of evolution.

ERGO: Punctuated Equilibrium is part of the MES.


So are magic pink unicorns, too, I suppose.



You can't arbitrarily make stuff up and expect anyone to believe it.

"The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis" was coined and fully defined in Julian Huxley's book "Evolution: The Modern Synthesis", back in 1942.

It doesn't mention punctuated equilibrium, epigenetics or horizontal gene transfer. They just weren't ideas in biology or genetics back then. We have learned a few things since then.

They just aren't part of the MES.


Why do you continue to deny something that is fact, and not even controversial? Your entire thesis seems to be to argue just for the sake of arguing.

(source)

The concept of punctuated equilibrium was, to some, a radical new idea when it was first proposed by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge in 1972. Now it is widely recognized as a useful model for one kind of evolutionary change. The relative importance of punctuated and gradual patterns of evolution is a subject of debate and research.
...
Although the patterns predicted by punctuated equilibrium have been observed in at least some cases, debate continues over how frequently this model of evolutionary change occurs -- is it the norm, or only an exception? Punctuated equilibrium also generates interesting questions for further research. What, for example, are the processes that produce rapid evolution? Population genetic studies show us that small changes can accrue quickly in small populations. And evolutionary developmental biology is revealing new mechanisms that regulate the expression of small genetic changes in ways that can have a large effect on phenotype. Which evolutionary factors are primarily responsible for the periods of stasis -- in which lineages persist without change -- that can be observed in the fossil record? In seeking the answers to these questions, researchers will continue to advance our understanding of the evolutionary processes that produced the remarkable variety of life on Earth.



Punctuated evolution is one way that evolution may occur. But many evolutionary biologists also disagree with it, too.

edit on 25/6/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)







 
9
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join