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.

 

New Resarch Suggests Chimp/Human Fossil Record May Be Inaccurate Depiction Of Divergence

page: 15
18
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Cypress
You are almost clever
I have decided to do what evolutionists do
Attack their belief in all sciences like they attack my belief in science

Clearly you can see I have issues with the pseudo science of evolution, yet to patronise me, you say I deny all science
I intend to poke fun at the fault in evolution and do what you are doing, suggesting that those acolytes of evolution hate all science

I know I am being dragged down to your level but there is a truth to what I say.
To make science a religion of theory, unproven untested belief, science is watered down to religion

I hold science to a greater standard than the evolutionist who drags science down to the level of religion, a belief

So now please tell me cypress, why do you hate science, why do you hate all sciences that you want them reduced to a religios belief, why do you want to reduce scientific validity to assumption and religion

It's a serious question




posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 04:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agartha
a reply to: Raggedyman

How do you explain genetic diversity? We have measured the rate of genetic change and we know that there are about 140 differences between us and our grandparents, 210 differences between us and our eight-great-grandparents and so on. This has enabled us to calculate the genetic diversity between two species, like us and chimpanzees for example which lead us to a common ancestor.

So how do you explain genetic diversity without evolution?

Or how do you explain that we share 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees?


Genetic diversity does not make evolution, we are talking about species from species, not genetic diversity

Humans seem closely related to pigs as well, common designer

I don't need to answer your question, I am not offering the theory

Genetic diversity is the mixture of the parents Dna enhanced by the environment

Genetic diversity is not special evolution.



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
common designer


Was god being lazy? he just went with a very similar basic design for everything?



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: Agartha
a reply to: Raggedyman

How do you explain genetic diversity? We have measured the rate of genetic change and we know that there are about 140 differences between us and our grandparents, 210 differences between us and our eight-great-grandparents and so on. This has enabled us to calculate the genetic diversity between two species, like us and chimpanzees for example which lead us to a common ancestor.

So how do you explain genetic diversity without evolution?

Or how do you explain that we share 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees?


I can answer that for him

*cough cough* *Clears throat*

The answer is "lies"
O

Let me quote and analyse this to show everyone the quality of you and your argument

Basically, you answer this question for me as a person to control others thoughts about me
Effectively here you are stealing my identity to help others reflect your own personal hate onto me.

You see me as untouchable to your argument so you assume my identity before others so I appear as weak as you want me to be to others
You are disguising yourself as me to make me out to be inferior and easily attacked by others for your own benefit and amusement

You are trying to be me to make me insecure as an individual

You know ghost, there is a clinical description for people who do what you are doing in this post, it's not flattering

Edit you are doing this not for science or evolution but to make yourself feel better, to validate yourself
edit on 8-2-2016 by Raggedyman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Obviously I am in agreement with you as science knows information runs the show in biology...

This information is predetermined and safe guarded...

When DNA Polymerase performs it's function it assures the information or code remains accurate and true to itself as it does the following...

Replication of the DNA strand by performing 3 DNA proof reading functions then it repairs any mismatch by "chewing back" over any mismatch and restarting...

This eludes to the fact that things are and remain what they are supposed to be and is a clear argument over random alterations or mutations occouring to cause things to become something new...



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369

I don't see any other options considering the environmental factors

As for cars and roads, diversity on the roads for transport, though they have many common features because that is what the environment requires
Light, temperature, sustenance and relationship, what alternatives could fit into this environment and still function as life and coexist



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 05:31 PM
link   
One reason evolutionary scientists use simple organisms as examples of mutation is because the code is no where near as large as that of complex organisms...

This means that the code can be broken much easier...

When dealing with complex organisms the odds of cracking said code to see evidence of random mutation jumps into the trillions then when you introduce the odds of each random chance to cracking it the odds become insurmountable...

By knowing this you can safely assume there has not been nearly enough time for life to have progressed to where we are now...

I suppose evolution will soon peddle the belief that the universe and all life is much older then they assumed to allow for the time need for such chance to be once again considered to be viable...

What makes me think that? The title of this thread itself is a good indication of what I'm saying...
edit on 8-2-2016 by 5StarOracle because: ...

edit on 8-2-2016 by 5StarOracle because: ...



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
I have a challenge, how about answering my question. Why do people who have questions and issues with what scientist say or do have to go into a lab


You can question anything you want. That's not the issue.

The issue is when you claim to have knowledge that [this and that] are lies, or are faked or are really [this link from a creationist website]. Your claims are based on opinion, which you're more than welcome to have, but you try to represent it as absolute truth, in which case you need to provide evidence.

The creationist websites citing 'creationist science' as evidence are the people that actually need to step in the lab before throwing claims here and there. Why? Because many scientific hypothesis require closed systems to provide evidence and show differences between control subjects and non-control subjects.



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Basically, you answer this question for me as a person to control others thoughts about me


Yup, nothing gets passed you does it



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle
The world is older than it seems is a common mantra in evolution

It seems every decade they add millions of years onto its existence, I didn't understand why or the relevance.
Interesting point 5 star

On the surface evolution sounds valid, the deeper you go the sillier it becomes
Bit like Alice in wonderland



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: 5StarOracle
The world is older than it seems is a common mantra in evolution


Actually, that's science in general. The age of the planet doesn't even have anything to do with Biology, let alone evolution.


originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: 5StarOracle
It seems every decade they add millions of years onto its existence, I didn't understand why or the relevance.


Here's a good history lesson on the changing views of the age of the Earth. Just for additional information if you're curios.


The pre-scientific period before AD 1600. In the pre-scientific era the Biblical account and the speculations of the Greek philosophers were accepted without great question.

The era of speculative cosmogonies ran from AD 1600-1700. In this period a number of comprehensive cosmogonies were proposed. These were long on armchair speculation and short on substantive supporting evidence. These cosmogonies were part of the new emphasis of science in seeking rational explanations of the features of the world.

The disestablishment of Genesis ran from AD 1700-1780. This period was marked by a great deal of field geology rather than grand cosmogonies. It became clear that there had been significant changes in the Earth's topography over time and that these changes could neither be accounted for by natural processes operating during the brief nor by the postulated Noachian flood. Notable observations included:

~ Studies of strata suggested that they were laid down by natural processes in which the sea and land had changed places several times.

~ Studies of earthquakes and volcanoes showed that the surface crust is subject to massive natural transformation.

~ Observation of rain, wind, water erosion, and sea erosion in action showed that they were forces capable of reducing mountains and creating valleys.

The catastrophist-uniformitarian debate ran from about 1780-1850. By the end of the 18'th century it was clear that the Earth had a long and varied history. Interest in major cosmogony was revived. The major debate was between the catastrophists, e.g., Cuvier, who held that the history of Earth was dominated by major catastrophic revolutions and the uniformitarians, e.g. Hutton and Lyell, who held that the history of Earth was dominated by slow relatively uniform changes in an Earth with a static over all history. During the early part of this period there was a considerable amount of activity by scriptural geologists who attempted to reconcile Genesis and geology. The efforts of the scriptural geologists failed signally; by 1830 scriptural geology was a dead issue in Science.

The modern period runs from AD 1850 to the present. The great debate was won by the uniformitarians, so much so that the degree of gradualism was overstated and the importance of catastrophes was unduly minimized. The modern period has been marked by an enormous expansion of the detailed knowledge of the geological history of the Earth and the processes that have acted during that history.

Notice how Evolution or biology isn't written anywhere within that history.

More info here if you're curious



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 05:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Raggedyman

"Why do they have to go into a lab"




Anyone else need a dry martini?



Are you poking fun at me

I have a challenge, how about answering my question

Why do people who have questions and issues with what scientist say or do have to go into a lab

Are you actually saying only people who go into a lab have the right to question other lab workers

That's pure insanity, please think about what you are sayin, really put thought into what you think

You are making science a religious cult

Why do you hate science, why do you deny science, why make science evil and corrupt


(Hysterical laughter)
You really, really, don't understand science, do you? One last thing. There is no such word as 'Evolutionist'. It's a term invented by ignorant creationists. Please don't use it.



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
One last thing. There is no such word as 'Evolutionist'. It's a term invented by ignorant creationists. Please don't use it.


You seem to be mistaking Raggedyman for an individual whom has respect of others that don't hold his view.



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Evolutionists like yourself deny the reality of science

Your post holds not one single valid statement

You attack me directly in relation to my knowledge of science and then turn to pedantic

Not a valid argument in the context of the thread in reality is it


Btw, try dictionary dot com

It's ok to be wrong, it's how we learn



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 06:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
One last thing. There is no such word as 'Evolutionist'. It's a term invented by ignorant creationists. Please don't use it.


You seem to be mistaking Raggedyman for an individual whom has respect of others that don't hold his view.


As I said, I once believed in evolution, know many Christians who do as well. I can't deny their faith in God so how can I deny their choice of evolution. I respect them and their choice

It's not for me to say, it is for me to question and pull apart the theory

I am not interested in arguing, belittling or wasting my time reading your pages of lecturing ghost

it does bother me that you need to project your own insecurities on to me

Again you are telling people things about me that you don't know, can only assume

That's a disorder, get help



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Heh

And evolutionist is an actual word...

An "evolutionist" is anyone who prescribes to the faith that all life forms evolved from a few simple life forms...
edit on 8-2-2016 by 5StarOracle because: word



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 06:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: AngryCymraeg
Your post holds not one single valid statement


It would seem uneventful even if he had posted information about evolution, cited is information, provided peer reviewed articles and experiments, or anything else to substantiate the functionality and mechanisms behind Evolution or the Theory of Evolution.

You haven't posted a single citation in this entire thread, yet you readily scold others for not doing so?

The closest thing to a link that you've presented is "Dictionary dot com"

How about before you go off being a referee of the topic, you yourself provide citations for your claims?

So far there has been practically no rebuttal from the members who claim evolution to be false in any form.



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Cypress
You are almost clever
I have decided to do what evolutionists do
Attack their belief in all sciences like they attack my belief in science

Clearly you can see I have issues with the pseudo science of evolution, yet to patronise me, you say I deny all science
I intend to poke fun at the fault in evolution and do what you are doing, suggesting that those acolytes of evolution hate all science

I know I am being dragged down to your level but there is a truth to what I say.
To make science a religion of theory, unproven untested belief, science is watered down to religion

I hold science to a greater standard than the evolutionist who drags science down to the level of religion, a belief

So now please tell me cypress, why do you hate science, why do you hate all sciences that you want them reduced to a religios belief, why do you want to reduce scientific validity to assumption and religion

It's a serious question


It isn't assumption. It is not a religion. Calling it as such is a tactic used when a person cannot present a counter to the evidence provided in support of evolution. You have presented nothing to support your stance and try to play word games as you troll. You are the one trying to lower the standard of science in an attempt to give your argument credibility.

So lets put it in simple elementary school science terms.
DNA determines an organisms physiology. DNA changes from one generation to the next. If the organism lasts long enough to pass on those traits the changes stay in the population.

DNA acts on basic universal chemical principals. We call this organic chemistry. Changes in DNA is based on these principals and does not violate any of them. Adding genes or deleting genes from DNA does not violate these principles.

The term species is only a classification. It is part of a classification system just like the periodic table. The classification is arbitrary, especially in regards to fossils. We use it to understand the changes in physiology over time. We call this taxonomy. There is no specific barrier between species, otherwise you could not get interbreeding between species.

In the case of the OP, scientists are using new methods to come to an understanding when the genetic separation occured as part of human history.



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 06:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: AngryCymraeg
Your post holds not one single valid statement


It would seem uneventful even if he had posted information about evolution, cited is information, provided peer reviewed articles and experiments, or anything else to substantiate the functionality and mechanisms behind Evolution or the Theory of Evolution.

You haven't posted a single citation in this entire thread, yet you readily scold others for not doing so?

The closest thing to a link that you've presented is "Dictionary dot com"

How about before you go off being a referee of the topic, you yourself provide citations for your claims?

So far there has been practically no rebuttal from the members who claim evolution to be false in any form.


I havnt made any claims, just questioned yours
I don't suffer the burden of proof, I am not saying evolution s a fact

I am questioning your fact, I don't need citations to assumptions

Same for you cypress, I am not establishing fact, I am questioning theory

Where and when did the separation occur and what evidence do you have



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Raggedyman

Obviously I am in agreement with you as science knows information runs the show in biology...

This information is predetermined and safe guarded...

When DNA Polymerase performs it's function it assures the information or code remains accurate and true to itself as it does the following...

Replication of the DNA strand by performing 3 DNA proof reading functions then it repairs any mismatch by "chewing back" over any mismatch and restarting...

This eludes to the fact that things are and remain what they are supposed to be and is a clear argument over random alterations or mutations occouring to cause things to become something new...



So are you denying mutations exist? Are you denying that scientists have been able to manipulate DNA to force mutations causing changes in physiology such as goats containing the glands to form spider silk? Are you denying cancer? How about viruses such as HIV? How do you explain sickel cell anemia?



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join