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.

 

The Scientific Impossibility of Evolution

page: 16
31
<< 13  14  15   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2019 @ 11:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

Let's not talk about honesty when you blatantly lied in the other thread about what I said was proven and what I said was a work in progress. Where is the testable dissenting evidence? Please post it instead of all these anecdotes.


I posted real science. The neuroanatomy of ocular system is not an anecdote. It's actual observable science. And it's generation is inexplicable through conventional piece-by-piece mutations as proposed by evolutionary theory. There are too many parts and they all need to be present for working vision. There is no conceivable mechanism as to how these complex structures could have evolved. It is not scientific to have the faith that "evolution must have done it".



That is one piece of evidence among many. Are you going to actually refute the research? Just stating that it doesn't count based on your warped standards is not good enough. The genetic history is all there in the non coding DNA. There is no way to even pretend to say you know what would be expected with an intelligent designer.


So evolutionists are allowed to make assumptions, but no one else can? That's some impenetrable defense you got there. I deny no science. Homology shows biochemical similarities among phenotypically similar organisms, nothing more, nothing less. This would be expected in an Intelligent Design model as well.



What about the fact that we wouldn't see so many design flaws?


When a machine is used improperly it will lead to dysfunction. This is the nature of all sin.




LOL @ using the word "kinds" in biology.


the word "species" has so many definitions it is much simpler to use a word that even kids can understand. No reason to overcomplicate things. that's part of the evolutionist's game: overcomplicate it and don't let the commoner's opinion be considered.


Organisms adapt and change over time and those changes are not limited in any way.



Despite the countless generations of fruit flies that have been recorded in the lab that observed no distinct change of kind, or "family", or even "genus" for that matter. Same thing with antibiotic resistance, they resume normalcy once the selective pressure is removed: source. So despite all the experiments attempting to prove evolution there is not one that has a distinct change in an organism. That is all that is needed to prove the possibility of evolution, yet it has never happened, despite immense efforts. This demonstrates that it is not happening.




posted on Jan, 8 2019 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

I posted real science. The neuroanatomy of ocular system is not an anecdote. It's actual observable science. And it's generation is inexplicable through conventional piece-by-piece mutations as proposed by evolutionary theory. There are too many parts and they all need to be present for working vision. There is no conceivable mechanism as to how these complex structures could have evolved. It is not scientific to have the faith that "evolution must have done it".


You posted no relevant science. Yes without backing it up your claim, you are posting nothing but anecdotes and straw man arguments. No conceivable mechanism is a blatant lie. The mechanisms are well known. You just deny them.

Again, your thread title says "scientific impossibility" which means you can PROVE definitively that it is impossible, but you have shown no such research or tests and this thread in on page 16. Where is the proof of your claim of scientific impossibility???



So evolutionists are allowed to make assumptions, but no one else can? That's some impenetrable defense you got there. I deny no science. Homology shows biochemical similarities among phenotypically similar organisms, nothing more, nothing less. This would be expected in an Intelligent Design model as well.


Evolutionists? What are you 5? SCIENTISTS don't make assumptions, they run tests and experiments to find out in things hold weight. Again, I posted hard evidence supporting evolution, and you still have yet to address a single one of them. There is no intelligent design model. It is 100% assumed while evolution is backed by so much evidence it would take ten years to even read though it all. LMAO!



When a machine is used improperly it will lead to dysfunction. This is the nature of all sin.


LOL @ answering with yet another anecdote.


the word "species" has so many definitions it is much simpler to use a word that even kids can understand. No reason to overcomplicate things. that's part of the evolutionist's game: overcomplicate it and don't let the commoner's opinion be considered.


Yeah, it's easier to use words kids can understand when you are dealing with KIDS. You are talking about scientists and using dishonest straw man arguments. The only reason you even say that is because speciation has been proved in a lab and you have no argument against it. "Durrrrr, you can't watch a process for a million years," isn't an argument.


Despite the countless generations of fruit flies that have been recorded in the lab that observed no distinct change of kind, or "family", or even "genus" for that matter.


Your dishonesty holds no bounds. The fruit flies proved speciation! Speciation is not a change of genus or family. LMAO @ no distinct change, the genome has been mapped and the differences are known, they are a different species.



So despite all the experiments attempting to prove evolution there is not one that has a distinct change in an organism. That is all that is needed to prove the possibility of evolution, yet it has never happened, despite immense efforts. This demonstrates that it is not happening.


Dude, distinct small changes have been shown constantly in evolution. They are literally ALL OVER THE ANIMAL KINGDOM. Sorry, your main argument here is blind denial and straw manning evolution over and over.



posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 10:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

You posted no relevant science. Yes without backing it up your claim, you are posting nothing but anecdotes and straw man arguments.


So neuroanatomy is an anecdote to you? You need to start critically analyzing empirical fact (science) on your own, rather than following a dogmatic belief system that is based on theoretical speculation



No conceivable mechanism is a blatant lie. The mechanisms are well known. You just deny them.


Evolution is theorized to work through genetic mutation. Genetic mutation acts on protein modification. Show one proof that a new functional protein was made through selective pressure in a lab... It should be easy to find since there are countless experiments that attempt to force evolution in a lab setting. I'll save you some time, because there are no experiments that demonstrate a novel gene arising from selective pressure, despite the immense efforts to do so. You are relying on a fairy tale, and your aspiring beliefs are based in meaningless speculation.


Again, your thread title says "scientific impossibility" which means you can PROVE definitively that it is impossible


As it pertains to current scientific observation, evolution in terms of changing an organism is impossible. Sure you can have the belief that it is possible, but that is purely a faith-based speculation that has no scientific support that it can actually happen.



"Durrrrr, you can't watch a process for a million years," isn't an argument.


Here you are admitting that you beliefs are based on faith that your speculation about the past is true... even more absurd you propose that it cannot be refuted because we cannot know how it happened.... Further demonstrating the speculative nature of the entire theory.



Your dishonesty holds no bounds. The fruit flies proved speciation! Speciation is not a change of genus or family. LMAO @ no distinct change, the genome has been mapped and the differences are known, they are a different species.


Use all the semantics you want, but despite millions of generations of selective pressure on fruit flies, they remain fruit flies. If you think single nucleotide changes are proof of evolution you are grasping at straws and don't understand the complexity involved with creating a new functional protein - which would theoretically require thousands of successful successive mutations. It is entirely faith-based and not founded in scientific research.




Dude, distinct small changes have been shown constantly in evolution.


Again you are demonstrating your impalpable faith. You see everything through the lens of evolution. If an organism adapts to its environment it is not proof of evolution especially since the adaptive advantage was already present in the possibilities of that organism before the selective presssure


I know what you are going through because I have been through it... just keep researching biological mechanisms and you will realize it is unobtainable through accidental mutation.
edit on 10-1-2019 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
So neuroanatomy is an anecdote to you? You need to start critically analyzing empirical fact (science) on your own, rather than following a dogmatic belief system that is based on theoretical speculation


Nothing about neuroanatomy backs your claim that evolution is scientifically impossible, so yes, it's an anecdote.


Evolution is theorized to work through genetic mutation.


No, this is proved.


Genetic mutation acts on protein modification. Show one proof that a new functional protein was made through selective pressure in a lab...


Genetic mutations change the code sequences. This is a red herring asking for a new protein. The existing proteins are modified, brand new ones don't just show up out of the blue.


there are no experiments that demonstrate a novel gene arising from selective pressure, despite the immense efforts to do so. You are relying on a fairy tale, and your aspiring beliefs are based in meaningless speculation.


A "novel" gene? What are you talking about? New genes don't arise from pressure, different code sequences arise from the modification of existing genes. Plus the human lactose tolerance mutation is well known.


As it pertains to current scientific observation, evolution in terms of changing an organism is impossible. Sure you can have the belief that it is possible, but that is purely a faith-based speculation that has no scientific support that it can actually happen.


100% nonsense. There is no faith, I gave you the huge list of evidence and you ignored it completely.


Here you are admitting that you beliefs are based on faith that your speculation about the past is true... even more absurd you propose that it cannot be refuted because we cannot know how it happened.... Further demonstrating the speculative nature of the entire theory.


Nope. Dozens of transitional fossils have been found. To say we don't know how it happened is a complete lie. This further demonstrates how dishonest creationists usually are.



Use all the semantics you want,


SEMANTICS???? It's been done in a lab. You claimed that speciation was not valid because genus didn't change, when speciation is a change of SPECIES. You are the one using semantics.


despite millions of generations of selective pressure on fruit flies, they remain fruit flies.


Sure thing, Kent. They are a different species of fruit fly. You seem to think evolution requires a fruit fly to turn into a giraffe.


Again you are demonstrating your impalpable faith. You see everything through the lens of evolution.


Because it's been goddamn proved!! That's like accusing somebody as seeing everything through the lens of gravity or the laws of physics. Of course we will, because it's been slam dunk verified. You could easily prove me wrong by refuting a single piece of the evidence posted, but we already know you can't do it, so you resort to straw man arguments and red herrings.


If an organism adapts to its environment it is not proof of evolution especially since the adaptive advantage was already present in the possibilities of that organism before the selective presssure


That's where genetic mutations comes in. I can't believe you don't grasp the very basics of evolution after all these years.


edit on 1 11 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)




top topics
 
31
<< 13  14  15   >>

log in

join