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.

 

What is evolution, not what some think

page: 41
12
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: anafanil

Howdy,

The only claim that I make is that Neanderthal DNA is present in small and varying amounts (sometimes none at all) throughout modern humans, thus implying some interbreeding. I make no claims as to what has been passed on, as that is beyond my current knowledge. You, on the other hand, have made positive claims about such things and I have asked YOU for evidence of said claims.

Here is a generalized source of information about some of the claims I make...
www.livescience.com...

See, evidence. Now you can discuss that, right? When you don't provide some supporting evidence, that is an assertion and assertions are terrible for conversations.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman




posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: anafanil
lactase deficiency is a disease . it is not the norm.


so you keep saying. but I've yet to see you support the notion with anything but bluster and bravado. It depends on geography. Those of European and North African lineage for example have high percentages of Lactase Persistence where as SubSaharan Africans and East Asians are more likely to not be Lactase Persistent.


Not only did HSS adapt to having lactase persistence, the cows co-evolved at the same time to alter the enzymes in their milk to essentially meet people half way and make their milk easier to digest with lower degrees of lactase persistence.


blue eyes is a recessive mutation can not overtake all neanderthals species unless neanderthals were a sub branch of humans who the recessive muation is in both parents!


You have, as usual, got the entire thing backwards. You aren't looking at the fossil record and the associated data, you're starting off with the end result you want and then making a story to go along with it that fits into your narrow narrative. Blue eyes is a recessive gene in humans of European descent TODAY. That it appeared as recently as 10,000 years ago is not proof that it's origin lies solely with HSS. In fact from what I have read, it appears that we did inherit that particular genetic trait from our cousins with the protruding supraorbital torus.




the light hair light skin cvolor is found in both neanderthals and humans and of same gene mutation:

Neanderthal Origin of the Haplotypes Carrying the Functional Variant Val92Met in the MC1R in Modern Humans

mbe.oxfordjournals.org...

"Neanderthal introgressive haplotypes (into europpeans and others) carry the Val92Met variant"


Exct that in modern day HSS, its a totally different gene that codes for red hair than in HNS
.


all three dna mutations are found in neanderthals and also found in human populations separated by ions (europpeans and melanesians) but are novertheless branches of the same human branch from Y chromosomal Adam The haplogroup K (europpean r, melanesian k)


Sure thing Starbucks. Why don't you show me a citation for your mysterious Y chromosome Adam who live 50,60, 80 or 100,000 years ago depending on which thread you're flooding that day. Seriously,its been a full week and 2 screen names and you still cant cite this amazing man and his magical genes.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 08:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: anafanil
so you are saying that neanderthal indeed passed these three mutations (blue eyes, red hair and skin, lactose intolerance ) to humans?
but only to humans of the same haplogroup?


Hi again Starbucks! Didn't you take any time off to research anything?



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 08:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Murgatroid

originally posted by: Pauligirl
You have been called out about quote mining before. Why do you keep doing it? It certainly does not help your cause.

Has it never occurred to you that just MAYBE some here on ATS actually believe what they are posting?

Although I realize it would be rather naive to believe that everyone here is honest.

While I am sure that ATS does attract a lot of deliberate liars, some of us here just don't like to roll that way.

I happen to be one of them.

BTW, I actually had to go look up 'quote mining' now to find out just what the heck this horrendous 'crime' I am so guilty of...

The first thing I noticed was that one can be guilty of 'quote mining' without actually being aware of it:


In either case, while quoting a person out of context can be done intentionally to advance an agenda or win an argument, it is also possible to remove essential context without the aim to mislead, through not perceiving a change in meaning or implication that may result from quoting what is perceived as the essential crux of a statement.

en.wikipedia.org...

Evolutionists are notorious for expressing objection when their quotes are used against them. This reveals the dogmatic nature of their faith, because real scientists always welcome evidence which contradicts mainstream theories (see scientific method). While the entire fields of law and politics encourage quoting an adversary to discredit him, evolutionists do not feel their quotes should be used to criticize evolution, and have invented the term "quote mining" to criticize that practice. They have tried to make quote mining a pejorative term, but the neologism has yet to be recognized by major dictionaries

www.conservapedia.com...


Your second quote there is incorrect. It isn't evolutionists that don't accept quotes. It's ANY scientist. Quotes aren't evidence of anything in the world of science and your crappy quote above is mixing legal evidence with scientific evidence both of which have two different criteria for accepting evidence. Quotes are just opinions. Science doesn't deal in opinions.

If in the world of science you find yourself repeating quotes from other people to try to prove your point, you are doing it wrong and your conclusion is probably flawed as well (though that isn't necessarily true).
edit on 25-8-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 07:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: Murgatroid

I notice you like to poke your head into these threads every now and then and insult evolution by calling it "darwinism" or some other outdated nonsense. This isn't 1850, it's 2014. You shouldn't argue against theories using the level of knowledge from 150 years ago.

There isn't a single piece of objective evidence that points to god or creator entity.

There are mountains of evidence in favor of evolution.

God requires faith, evolution merely requires acknowledging scientific discovery. You need to stop using the fallacy of appeal to authority. It doesn't prove anything.


I explained in my opening post why i dont believe in evolution, why I think it requires more faith than a deity.

Not one of the questions was ever scientifically addressed and or explained.
I heard a lot of thinks, assumed, believed and supposed, sadly not a serious answer, nothing repeatable observable or testable.
There isn't a single piece of objective evidence that answers any of those questions.
outside of those questions being answered, evolution does not happen, it is impossible.
No universe, no world, no elements, no abiogenesis, no evolution.

Sorry.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 08:01 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

Your entire post and belief system is built upon the back of a flaming straw man. You can't completely redefine for your own purposes what and how evolution is defined. If you want to actually argue the merits of the science then argue how science defines it instead of creating your own parameters upon which to draw an argument from. You never had any intention of an honest discussion. You simply wanted to reinforce your own ignorance to make your own paradigms warmer and fuzzier. The entire premise is ludicrous right from the get go when you begin with an entire redefining of the premise of evolution and evolutionary study while dismissing out of hand all legitimate data. And honestly, that's all fine and good. If you wish to remain happy in the bliss of ignorance, that's your life but don't walk around throwing out euphemisms and epithets like you know what you're talking about if you're completely unwilling to entertain a rational dialogue based on the accepted definitions and how eviction is actually studied by biologists and anthropologists. It's beyond intellectual dishonesty to approach it that way and then Arrogantly claim victory because there was never any hope of a rational dialogue about the science when your basing everything on a straw man and running a gish gallop a mile a minute. Best of luck to you and whatever god created your world.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Your evolution is a strawman built on fairytales

You call me ignorant but cant answer the questions scientifically, we must both be ignorant as each other.
You cant do anything, all you can do is address me and belittle me.


The arrogance doesnt come from me, I admitted I was a gullible foolish Christian searching answers.
The arrogance is yours, demanding I accept your lack of evidence.

The answers are still unbreached. You have the courage to speak of intellectual honesty

Gish gallops and strawmen, is that your answer, piffle.

Nah, you can be the winner, just wanted to get a few more posts on this thread and make it the most commented topic in the C and E forum. Yay me.



thanks for playing

Now go ahead and over react



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

The only answer you were looking for was "Yes, your preconceived notions about evolution are correct". Unfortunately, reality says otherwise.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch
Your evolution is a strawman built on fairytales


Sorry that is your religion. Evolution is built on MOUNTAINS of evidence.


You call me ignorant but cant answer the questions scientifically, we must both be ignorant as each other.
You cant do anything, all you can do is address me and belittle me.


Actually, Peter CAN answer the questions scientifically; I've seen him do it. It's just that you don't know what it means to answer a question scientifically and you are just spouting evolution denial buzzwords trying to (and failing) to put together a cognitive argument.


The arrogance doesnt come from me, I admitted I was a gullible foolish Christian searching answers.
The arrogance is yours, demanding I accept your lack of evidence.


What lack of evidence? Seems to me, just on Google scholar (since 2010) there are just over 1 million different pieces of evolution you can search and review yourself WITHOUT talking to Peter or myself about it. So if you were TRULY a "Christian searching answers (sic)" then you'd go read those articles and educate yourself WITHOUT us.


The answers are still unbreached. You have the courage to speak of intellectual honesty


Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.


Gish gallops and strawmen, is that your answer, piffle.


That's what YOU do, not evolution proponents. Heck your OP IS a Gish Gallop. How can you have the GALL to accuse others of it when you literally used one in your OP? WOW!

We don't need to rely on fallacies since we have evidence backing our claims.
edit on 11-9-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

I know for a fact that plenty of scientific links were posted for you. If you choose to ignore them, that's on you, not us. I've provided evidence based on scientific research papers for you on multiple occasions in multiple threads. I'm not doing it again. You pretend it didn't happen or blindly dismiss it. You intentionally altered the definition of evolution for this thread which makes the entire thing a straw man. What is evolution? Not what YOU think and that's obvious.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 06:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

That's what YOU do, not evolution proponents. Heck your OP IS a Gish Gallop. How can you have the GALL to accuse others of it when you literally used one in your OP? WOW!

We don't need to rely on fallacies since we have evidence backing our claims.


There you go again, Piffle, I repeat.

Your post offered nothing relevant or of value.

Here you are being offered the opportunity to show repeatable, observable and testable evidence for your beliefs and all I get is "You Christian, you fool".

Great amounts of evidence and effort, well done.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 06:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: borntowatch

I know for a fact that plenty of scientific links were posted for you. If you choose to ignore them, that's on you, not us. I've provided evidence based on scientific research papers for you on multiple occasions in multiple threads. I'm not doing it again. You pretend it didn't happen or blindly dismiss it. You intentionally altered the definition of evolution for this thread which makes the entire thing a straw man. What is evolution? Not what YOU think and that's obvious.
Bah humbug.

You post a link, I read it, I disagree and see flaws, should I post a link that disagrees with your link and we can link argue with out saying or typing anything.
Sounds fun and challenging, maybe not.

I didnt alter the definition of evolution, if you cared to see my LINKS you would see evolution covers many more aspects than the one field you believe you have some scientific evidence for.

Evolution is defined by the dictionary as thus
noun
1.
any process of formation or growth; development:
the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.
2.
a product of such development; something evolved :
The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.
3.
Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
4.
a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development, as in social or economic structure or institutions.
5.
a motion incomplete in itself, but combining with coordinated motions to produce a single action, as in a machine.
6.
a pattern formed by or as if by a series of movements:
the evolutions of a figure skater.
7.
an evolving or giving off of gas, heat, etc.
dictionary.reference.com...

So as far as i am concerned I am not the one being intellectually dishonest.

I get it, you believe in evolution, I dont.
Why cant you simply accept I dont see the evidence

I can accept you dont see the evidence for God, yet your arrogance denies that I cant see the evidence for evolution.
I think you are more fundamental than many religious people in your chosen belief.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

You can provide dictionary links all day long, it simply further demonstrates your intimate lack of knowledge on the subject of evolution. In the biological sciences, Anthropology, Evolutionary Biology, Paleontology et al. there is but one definition. It's massive cognitive dissonance to look up a dictionary and post every synonym that could possibly refer to or include a variation of evolutionary studies. Just because Mirriam-Webster's big ole book lists multiple synonyms does not mean you are using the grammar appropriately. So yes... it is intellectual dishonesty on your end.

You're basing your entire argument, its very premise, on faulty information right out of the starting gate. Perhaps you did so unintentionally, but the end result is the same rendering your premise moot. You claim there is no evidence or testable data yet its been presented repeatedly over the course of 40+pages of text. The only options then you are either being willfully ignorant or are simply trolling for your own amusement.

Ask any professor at a university, any scientist in any field to describe evolution and you will get one response, a reference to biological evolution and the concrete evidence detailing several million years of divergence, mutations and occasionally convergent evolution by the family of Great Apes which includes humans and how bipedalism set a particular group of apes on a wildly separate journey that allowed them to adapt to an amazing variation of ecological niches and habitats from tropical to temperate to arctic conditions and literally everything in between. Refusing to accept the data in favor of the easy way outdoes not make the data go away nor does it become invalid simply because you deny its value or accuracy.

Again, if you choose to be oblivious to the mountains of evidence proving evolution to be true, that's your prerogative. However, if you're going to insist its not true in a debate forum, the onus then is upon you to demonstrate why the theory is wrong and support your supposition with facts. since your god isn't my cup of tea, may the force be with you and guide you in your journeys.



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 04:09 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

The problem was that you equivocated all of those definitions into one in an attempt to "disprove" biological evolution (the one you hate because of your faith). You just proved my point for me and I didn't even have to type a rebuttal. Choose one definition of evolution and we'll debate it. You refuse to do this and think they are all one big all encompassing process that includes abiogenesis, big bang, origin of matter, formation of galaxies and solar systems, origin of heavy elements, etc, when each one is governed by different mechanisms and laws. Pick a definition and stick with it. Surely you're not here to argue that a figure skater's routine cannot evolve or that nothing can change over time.
edit on 12-9-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 06:33 AM
link   
No
You are wrong....again.

I didnt put all those definitions in to one basket and claim they were the same, thats bafflingly blind to the fact.

I stacked them on top of each other and discredited the foundations so biological evolution stood alone in its ineptness

Choose 1 definition? I choose stella evolution, hell, how about the big bang, both forms of evolution.

Why not elemental evolution, well studied in that farce, I bet you are not.
No wait, I choose all of them, thats my choice, you dont dictate my choice, if you cant answer, just run along, thats fine, thats allowed

This thread is not about biological evolution, its about the theories of evolutions listed.
You cant debate those listed so you run and hide behind Darwins assumptions, as baseless in my opinion as the big bang.

The crazy thing is you seem at such a loss as to how to handle this discussion, you need to define it to justify your position

Go start your own thread.

I am discussing the different evolutionary theories, biological evolution is just one.

I have picked my definition, evolution, and all the different contexts it encompasses, oops, didnt want to hear that did you.


Now remember that science must be repeatable observable and testable, not assumptions and best guesses, not mountains of evidence written by men who make lots of money to get grants.

You have offered nothing because you have nothing.

Read the first post again and stop trying to be the winner, its not about winning, its a discussion.

You sound like a loser trying to sound like a winner.

Get some irrefutable evidence or you are wasting your time here. Evidence on any of the types of evolution listed in the opening post



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 06:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: borntowatch


Ask any professor at a university, any scientist in any field to describe evolution and you will get one response, a reference to biological evolution and the concrete evidence detailing several million years of divergence, mutations and occasionally convergent evolution by the family of Great Apes which includes humans and how bipedalism set a particular group of apes on a wildly separate journey that allowed them to adapt to an amazing variation of ecological niches and habitats from tropical to temperate to arctic conditions and literally everything in between. Refusing to accept the data in favor of the easy way outdoes not make the data go away nor does it become invalid simply because you deny its value or accuracy.



Ok here is a question Mr Vlar.

How can anyone seriously consider the random chance of biological evolution, when simple abiogenesis cant be explained, how can abiogenesis be explained when nobody understands where all the elements that make up this universe originate.
Then to compound the crazy belief we have planets and stars that, against the laws of nature form, and then produce energy.
As amazing as that, how did the universe just happen, what suddenly a big POP and splash, we have a Van Gough by chance.

Do you get it mr Vlar, its not stand alone, its a link in a chain.
Complain and rant all you like, but they are links in a chain and the logic is ludicrous when we look at one of the last links that is biological evolution.

Tell you what, you explain the science of the big bang, the logic and the validity of the science and I will throw a few questions at you till you tap out. Or I do. Most of the amateur arguers are gone, why not step up and show the proof.

If its that easy, I am not interested in biological evolution, just yet.
I will ridicule that when we get to it

Up for it?



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 07:04 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

So you cut out the part of the post that ACTUALLY had links to evidence and how you could go about researching evolution only to tell me that I provided none. Quote bombing at its best. AND that's with my post two posts above yours where anyone can see that you did that. Well done sir. You make your fellow Creationists proud.

Like I said, you don't need us to learn about evolution. If you were truly looking for answers, you'd go research the information yourself and come to your own conclusions, but you are content to just stand back with a predetermined answer and hand wave away anyone's attempt to educate you. Which can be evidenced by this entire thread and all your posts in it.



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 07:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch
How can anyone seriously consider the random chance of biological evolution, when simple abiogenesis cant be explained, how can abiogenesis be explained when nobody understands where all the elements that make up this universe originate.


None of those things are contingent on the other. I don't know why you keep insisting they are. That's like trying to argue that 1 doesn't equal 1 because 2 doesn't equal 2. There is just so much wrong with that argument.


Then to compound the crazy belief we have planets and stars that, against the laws of nature form, and then produce energy.


Planets and stars don't produce energy... They just convert it. Aren't you aware of the Law of Conservation of Energy? Energy is neither created nor destroyed. It just changes form.


As amazing as that, how did the universe just happen, what suddenly a big POP and splash, we have a Van Gough by chance.


We don't know anything about the beginning of the universe. If you are referring to the Big Bang, that isn't the beginning of the universe. Before the Big Bang, there was the singularity which contained all of the universe condensed to a tiny point. That isn't nothing. That is everything!


Do you get it mr Vlar, its not stand alone, its a link in a chain.
Complain and rant all you like, but they are links in a chain and the logic is ludicrous when we look at one of the last links that is biological evolution.


How can you not get that that ISN'T the case. You are creating a strawman and arguing it until you are blue in the face despite us telling AND showing you OVER and OVER again that you are wrong.


Tell you what, you explain the science of the big bang, the logic and the validity of the science and I will throw a few questions at you till you tap out. Or I do. Most of the amateur arguers are gone, why not step up and show the proof.


Since I already did this earlier in the thread and you just ignored it then, I'd suggest that Peter not do that all since you will do the same thing to him.


If its that easy, I am not interested in biological evolution, just yet.
I will ridicule that when we get to it


This translates to, "Even though we aren't discussing this topic yet, I've already determined you are wrong despite anything you provide to the contrary when we do start discussing it."
edit on 12-9-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 07:25 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

They are two completely seperate processes and areas of study. Abiogenesis looks at how various chemical compounds can be stimulated to create organic matter. Its a valid hypothesis. The fact that we don't know all the specifics yet is why it is still a hypothesis, but the hypothesis has been repeatedly tested and shows that the processes can yield biological results. In fact, one of the little known facts of the Miller-Urey experiment was that they produced in excess of 20 different amino acids during their fist experiment. Only 20 occur naturally. The process can work, has been tested and has been independently repeated. Argue all you like but the science is sound. Your inability to be able to seperate a chemical process from a biological one such as biological evolution is very telling, nearly as telling as the "tone" your posting now takes. Nobody knows where all the elements that make up the universe originate do they? This is a joke right? You've got to be trolling me because I know middle school students who can answer that with more confidence than your imaginary friend Jesus. Do you type this tripe with a straight face or are you drooling on yourself from laughing at your own punchline?

I tell you what, go piss into the wind. All the processes you demand answers to have been given repeatedly. If you're not willing to read through your own thread or accept the answers within, go get yourself a library card. Its not my job to hold your hand and explain multiple scientific disciplines, particularly those not within my purview. You're not interested in biological evolution? Boo hoo. That's the only kind on the table today. The actual scientific kind. I'm not playing an elementary school game of gotcha because you want to discuss what you think is evolution when you haven't got the faintest clue what you're talking about in the first place. This is overly tedious at this point. Go learn about what is taught as evolution and come back to discuss it before you try to ridicule something you don't understand. You're in way over your head and have no idea.

I've got work to do, enjoy your games and fairy tales and adulterated world view as you wander through threads redefining science to fit your game of the day. Sorry that nobody wants to play a game where the rules change to suit your every whim because you can't be bothered to understand the science. Or maybe you're just afraid of it because it threatens your paradigm? either way you haven't a clue and your argument, if you can call it that, has become so disheveled its not worth the effort to try to keep track of who you are today or which of your personal versions of evolution you think you're arguing against.
edit on 12-9-2014 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 07:35 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar



This is just borntowatch's playpen. The rules are posted on the back of borntowatch's hand.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join