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 ohh_pleasee
Interesting.
You know I have a friend who has yet to tell me his big theory on why Evolution was a lie and why he is a Creationist(Something along the lines of Darwinism is a religion?).
Originally posted by John Matrix
At least ask yourself why some scientists are willing to come out of the closet and face the ridicule before jumping to conclusions. Could it be because they know evolution is scientifically and mathematically impossible and the creation model makes more sense?
The major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
Originally posted by John Matrix
As for me, my ancestors did not walk around with their knuckles dragging on the ground,
Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by B.A.C.
That's not what I asked but I'll roll with it.
The definition of species isn't bad, and if it's changed, it's certainly better and more useful now than before.
The major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
One species diverges into two distinct populations which can subsequently become so genetically distinct, via microevolution that they cannot interbreed.
That is speciation and it's happened plenty.
[edit on 9-3-2009 by Welfhard]
Originally posted by B.A.C.
Yes I know about Darwin's finch's, etc , I consider them to be the same species.
Why do you think they had to redefine the word species to fit the theory?
Originally posted by Welfhard
[Nor did anyone else's ancestors, not that "evolutionists" are claiming so.
www.biology-online.org...
(1) The lowest taxonomic rank, and the most basic unit or category of biological classification.
(2) An individual belonging to a group of organisms (or the entire group itself) having common characteristics and (usually) are capable of mating with one another.
www.biochem.northwestern.edu...
A group of organisms belong to the same biological species if they are capable of interbreeding to produce fertile offspring. However the biological test of a species is not always available, and so there is also a morphological species concept based on anatomical similarities.
www.scienceagainstevolution.org...
According to the theory of evolution, the differences in offspring from a common ancestor will increase over time, until the two lines of descent are so different that they become separate species. That sounds pretty reasonable, if you don’t know anything about genetics. Modern scientists know something about genetics. That’s why the traditional ideas about species pose a problem for the theory of evolution. The general public seems to be largely unaware that there is a serious “species problem” in the biological community.
Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by John Matrix
I'm saying they didn't drag their knuckles along the ground sporting a club, grunting like the stereotype. I hate the term "ape-man", after all, man is ape making it a fairly pointless term.
Originally posted by B.A.C.
Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by John Matrix
I'm saying they didn't drag their knuckles along the ground sporting a club, grunting like the stereotype. I hate the term "ape-man", after all, man is ape making it a fairly pointless term.
According to The Theory of Evolution your ancestors did. If they had the technology of the club at that time, who knows. Maybe that evolved later.
Grunting, definitely.
Originally posted by Welfhard
They don't need to prove their theory to you or the fundies it's accepted in the wider scientific community due to there being no other theory with anywhere near as much evidence. It's be accepted for a long time, even before the discovery of DNA and the evolutionary cornucopia of genetics.
Originally posted by Welfhard
What is this "loosing genetic information" that you speak of? Change (in this case size) isn't about 'how much information' you have in your DNA, it's what the DNA says. There are types of rice, for instance, that have many times more DNA than in the human genome. There are species of amoeba with many times that again. Add to that, a lot of human DNA doesn't do anything.
It's not how much, it's what it says that counts.
They used to be wolves, but they're not anymore. Give them time, thousands of years and they could become genetically distinct again.
Can you define 'kind' and 'thing'?
Originally posted by Welfhard
No they didn't. Neither Neanderthal or Erectus are described as such any more.
Originally posted by B.A.C.
reply to post by Welfhard
Here's a different one:
www.biology-online.org...
(1) The lowest taxonomic rank, and the most basic unit or category of biological classification.
(2) An individual belonging to a group of organisms (or the entire group itself) having common characteristics and (usually) are capable of mating with one another.
Here's another:
www.biochem.northwestern.edu...
A group of organisms belong to the same biological species if they are capable of interbreeding to produce fertile offspring. However the biological test of a species is not always available, and so there is also a morphological species concept based on anatomical similarities.
These definitions are different than the one you provided, not much but enough to ask some questions about whether they can even define a species..
This is known as "The Species Problem":
www.scienceagainstevolution.org...
According to the theory of evolution, the differences in offspring from a common ancestor will increase over time, until the two lines of descent are so different that they become separate species. That sounds pretty reasonable, if you don’t know anything about genetics. Modern scientists know something about genetics. That’s why the traditional ideas about species pose a problem for the theory of evolution. The general public seems to be largely unaware that there is a serious “species problem” in the biological community.
Proving their theory is the agenda. I don't think they realize a lot of what goes on politically or socially. They'll do what their funders say, or lose funding, it's that simple.
[edit on 9-3-2009 by B.A.C.]
Originally posted by hulkbacker
I think the underlying problem here is that so many scientist base there research off the philosophy of naturalism. This bias often leads to what I see as illogical conclusion.
For example, Richard Dawkins admits that specified complexity is a good indicator of intelligent design. However he insists that any "specefied complexity" found in nature MUST be only an illusion of such. This is not based in scientific "facts", but on personal philosophy.
Excuse me if I'm wrong, but I have heard directly that Creation was some 6,000 years ago roundabout, and the dinosaurs went around 65 MILLION years ago.