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: 16
18
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Cypress

How did this occour by chance randomly if it was a forced mutation?

Your point is irrelevant...
edit on 8-2-2016 by 5StarOracle because: ...

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




posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 06:59 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


Simply because if you had a question about research that included physical evidence, analytical techniques such as radiometric dating, data analysis and statistics, you would have to understand how the experiment was conducted as well as understand the instrumentation, data, and statistics. Otherwise, you can't ask an intelligent question. For instance, if you questioned the validity of a fossil that was dated using the Rb-Sr (rubidium/strontium) technique, you would have to know:

1. How isotopic decay works
2. Why Rb-Sr can be used for dating
3. How to interpret an isochron
4. How the slope is calculated
5. Why the resulting age is within statistical reliability

So if you said: "I don't believe it. Radiometric dating, isotopic decay, blah, blah, blah, is all wrong", it would be incumbent on YOU to point out the errors in the research. And the only way you could do this is to repeat the experiment.

The only way you can repeat the experiment is to:

1. GO INTO A LAB
2. Understand the instrumentation
3. Repeat the experiment
4. Draw a different conclusion from your results.
5. Compare your data with the original researcher.
6. Discuss the discrepancies and attempt to elucidate why they are different.

This is logic, not rocket science.



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 07:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
I havnt made any claims, just questioned yours


Is that so?

Well, I've gone ahead and compiled every single claim you've made so far in this topic from page 1 to present.

None of which you have ever provided any citation, reference, or any source of information to substantiate these claims. If you really believe you haven't made a single claim this thread, then you're beyond simple delusions, you're actually completely psychotic.

~ Most of that [fossil] record consists of a few bones that scientists have created a whole species from.
~ Just recently we all discovered Neanderthal was human
~ [Evolutionary Biologists] have evidence on the table? Yeah, just not the public table, just behind closed doors
~ There is nothing objective about studying bones
~ Evolution has never been observed
~ Evolution is not objective.
~ No direct evidence is observed
~ You [Ghost147] wont address [questions]. You will answer the questions in a manner that appeases your own curiosity level, a level that is 100% accepting of evolution
~ [Evolution] is a lie, an assumption, a best guess as I have stated
~ [Evolution] is a stupid belief that has no valid scientific argument
~ If we believe in intelligent design then the design is perfect, the environment has changed, the situation since the designer created the perfect design
~ Science is about observing what happened [Subjectively]
~ Hey Phantom, I will have a crack without reading your link. It's all imaginary, assumption, make believe. The evidence doesn't exist, it's all assumption just like the op,s address
~ [Radiocarbon dating doesn’t] have evidence for a constant
~ Ghost147 is misrepresenting science, dating, nobody knows the earths environmental conditions with any certainty 1000 years ago never mind the conditions associated with dates you imagine
~ If you address a post to me I won't bother reading it (yet here we are 5 pages later, you still responding to my comments)
~ I am, poking holes in your faith, asking real questions, pushing science for answers.
~ Monkeys to mankind, no evidence, none at all, just assumption, no proof, just bones in the ground
~ That's right, science is testable, evolution is not, therefore evolution is a religion, a faith, a belief
~ Evolution is not testable, never as, never has been
~ Evolution is a theory with no foundation outside of faith
~ atheists hate science so much
~ [you] just make stuff up and reposts it over and over again, with the premise assumed science
~ Not one genuine scientific answer based on evidence was ever offered in that thread, a complete failure as I saw it.
~ Ghost you dont answer questions, you dont seem to understand your answers are invalid, you offer no answers, just rhetoric
~ Genetic diversity does not make evolution
~ Humans seem closely related to pigs as well, common designer
~ Genetic diversity is the mixture of the parents Dna enhanced by the environment
~ Genetic diversity is not special evolution.
~ The world is older than it seems is a common mantra in evolution
~ every decade they add millions of years onto [Earth’s] existence,
~ Evolutionists like yourself deny the reality of science


And just for fun, this is you responding to one of my comments where I accurately addressed and debunked the claims you had made about Radiocarbon dating.


originally posted by: Raggedyman
I don't respect your science or opinion

edit on 8/2/16 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Ghost, getting back to your original post, I haven't been able to find the author or citation from PNAS. Do you have a citation because I would like to read the research paper from Columbia. Thanks.



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 09:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Cypress

How did this occour by chance randomly if it was a forced mutation?

Your point is irrelevant...


I'm guessing you are refering to the goats. I figured you would only select that one piece. You stated DNA polymerase would correct any defects. If animals are designed and DNA polymerase corrects any change from an original blueprint, then should it not be impossible to create a mutation? You also fail to address how we have mutations arise naturally as well.
edit on 8-2-2016 by Cypress because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 10:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Ghost147

Ghost, getting back to your original post, I haven't been able to find the author or citation from PNAS. Do you have a citation because I would like to read the research paper from Columbia. Thanks.


Absolutely!

Here you are:

~ Life history effects on the molecular clock of autosomes and sex chromosomes.

~ Direct link to the full article is here

edit on 8/2/16 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

I could address all that but its not worth my effort

You believe in a false religion called science and I like to have fun poking holes in it

I don't respect your science or opinion


edit on Mon Feb 8 2016 by DontTreadOnMe because: Quote Crash Course



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 10:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: Raggedyman
I havnt made any claims, just questioned yours


Is that so?

Well, I've gone ahead and compiled every single claim you've made so far in this topic from page 1 to present.

None of which you have ever provided any citation, reference, or any source of information to substantiate these claims. If you really believe you haven't made a single claim this thread, then you're beyond simple delusions, you're actually completely psychotic.

~ Most of that [fossil] record consists of a few bones that scientists have created a whole species from.
~ Just recently we all discovered Neanderthal was human
~ [Evolutionary Biologists] have evidence on the table? Yeah, just not the public table, just behind closed doors
~ There is nothing objective about studying bones
~ Evolution has never been observed
~ Evolution is not objective.
~ No direct evidence is observed
~ You [Ghost147] wont address [questions]. You will answer the questions in a manner that appeases your own curiosity level, a level that is 100% accepting of evolution
~ [Evolution] is a lie, an assumption, a best guess as I have stated
~ [Evolution] is a stupid belief that has no valid scientific argument
~ If we believe in intelligent design then the design is perfect, the environment has changed, the situation since the designer created the perfect design
~ Science is about observing what happened [Subjectively]
~ Hey Phantom, I will have a crack without reading your link. It's all imaginary, assumption, make believe. The evidence doesn't exist, it's all assumption just like the op,s address
~ [Radiocarbon dating doesn’t] have evidence for a constant
~ Ghost147 is misrepresenting science, dating, nobody knows the earths environmental conditions with any certainty 1000 years ago never mind the conditions associated with dates you imagine
~ If you address a post to me I won't bother reading it (yet here we are 5 pages later, you still responding to my comments)
~ I am, poking holes in your faith, asking real questions, pushing science for answers.
~ Monkeys to mankind, no evidence, none at all, just assumption, no proof, just bones in the ground
~ That's right, science is testable, evolution is not, therefore evolution is a religion, a faith, a belief
~ Evolution is not testable, never as, never has been
~ Evolution is a theory with no foundation outside of faith
~ atheists hate science so much
~ [you] just make stuff up and reposts it over and over again, with the premise assumed science
~ Not one genuine scientific answer based on evidence was ever offered in that thread, a complete failure as I saw it.
~ Ghost you dont answer questions, you dont seem to understand your answers are invalid, you offer no answers, just rhetoric
~ Genetic diversity does not make evolution
~ Humans seem closely related to pigs as well, common designer
~ Genetic diversity is the mixture of the parents Dna enhanced by the environment
~ Genetic diversity is not special evolution.
~ The world is older than it seems is a common mantra in evolution
~ every decade they add millions of years onto [Earth’s] existence,
~ Evolutionists like yourself deny the reality of science


And just for fun, this is you responding to one of my comments where I accurately addressed and debunked the claims you had made about Radiocarbon dating.


originally posted by: Raggedyman
I don't respect your science or opinion


I could address all that but its not worth my effort

You believe in a false religion called science and I like to have fun poking holes in it

I don't respect your science or opinion



So in other words you have no answers.

You reject everything because your god is right and everything else is wrong.

I'd hate to be you using science right now.

ETA The theory of evolution isn't a science. It uses multiple sciences to become the theory it is.
edit on 081008/2/1616 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 10:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
I could address all that but its not worth my effort


I know you won't put the effort into addressing any of them, you never did it the first time, why would the second be any different?

You're here to slander, and that's it.

~ You claim to be here to ask questions, but you also directly state that you aren't going to listen to responses

~ You claim to 'poke holes in the theory of evolution and our science', but you don't substantiate anything you say

~ You claim to know specific things about the topic at hand, and that our version is a lie, and you state it in such a way as it's a 'matter of fact' but you don't actually present your facts.

You are a troll, or you are delusional, and your lack of everything but slander and unsubstantiated claims demonstrates that.

Leave science to the intellectuals. If you want to discuss something formally and really want to do more with your words other than empty slander, we're always willing to converse with you. Until then, it appears you need to mature a little before entering the room for adults.



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 10:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Cypress

Natural mutations normally caused by aging and the energy deficiency that is evident is known to cause disease...

It is also known that some cells that are always present in an organisms are already predisposed and only need to be activated to cause the disease to take hold...

Furthermore such can not be a valid claim for evolution as it is not considered to be a progression...
edit on 8-2-2016 by 5StarOracle because: ...



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 10:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
I could address all that but its not worth my effort


I know you won't put the effort into addressing any of them, you never did it the first time, why would the second be any different?

You're here to slander, and that's it.

~ You claim to be here to ask questions, but you also directly state that you aren't going to listen to responses

~ You claim to 'poke holes in the theory of evolution and our science', but you don't substantiate anything you say

~ You claim to know specific things about the topic at hand, and that our version is a lie, and you state it in such a way as it's a 'matter of fact' but you don't actually present your facts.

You are a troll, or you are delusional, and your lack of everything but slander and unsubstantiated claims demonstrates that.

Leave science to the intellectuals. If you want to discuss something formally and really want to do more with your words other than empty slander, we're always willing to converse with you. Until then, it appears you need to mature a little before entering the room for adults.


The difference is Ghost I know how stupid it is wasting my time and breath

I have no interest in your boring rhetoric

What I will do is question and poke holes in your scientifi religios jargon nonsense

Let me again ask what these words are doing in a theory that is proven
mired in uncertainty, new estimates, previously thought, time estimates appear, at odds ,
Based on this model, using what we know, suggests, supporting the notion of a mutational slowdown, time estimates reconcile , they suggest, may have occurred.


Now ghost I dont read your posts, just the intro and final few lines, I dont care to read your sidestepping, half truths

Evolution is a religion, not a science

Its a bit like other types of evolution, nobody gets answers because you are to afraid to address them

Evolution, flys turning into flys, Woopy doo

You may imagine yourself the grand poobah of atheism and evolution but to many you are a little bit silly



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 10:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

As has been explained to you MULTIPLE TIMES.

Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is the best well-substantiated explanation of said fact.

Here's a quick wiki page you probably won't read due to your abundant ignorance.

EVOLUTION AS FACT AND THEORY

It's not a big page. I'm sure you can read it pretty quick.

ETA Just to add AGAIN. Evolution isn't A science. It is derived from multiple sciences.
edit on 085308/2/1616 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 11:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
The difference is Ghost I know how stupid it is wasting my time and breath


Right... which is why you're still in this topic on the 16th page, 5 days after the original post.


originally posted by: Raggedyman
What I will do is question and poke holes in your scientifi religios jargon nonsense


You can't 'poke holes' in anything when you're providing nothing but opinion and unsubstantiated claims. Just because I say "The flying spaghetti monster is a lie!" doesn't automatically validate my claim. I actually have to prove my claim with evidence; something you are not willing to do.


originally posted by: Raggedyman
Let me again ask what these words are doing in a theory that is proven
mired in uncertainty, new estimates, previously thought, time estimates appear, at odds ,
Based on this model, using what we know, suggests, supporting the notion of a mutational slowdown, time estimates reconcile , they suggest, may have occurred.


Here's the answer, again:

Nothing in science deals with Absolutes. You're arguing a point that doesn't even exist.


originally posted by: Raggedyman
Evolution is a religion, not a science


Still waiting on your citation for that


originally posted by: Raggedyman
Evolution, flys turning into flys, Woopy doo


Evolution doesn't claim that flies turn into flies. The only thing that makes Evolution, Evolution is changes in allele frequencies over successive generations; something you seem to readily admit occurs. For some reason you just think that there's something different happening at a timescale that looks at it from a macro-perspective; a concept that has been explained to you time and time again.


originally posted by: Raggedyman
You may imagine yourself the grand poobah of atheism and evolution but to many you are a little bit silly


Yes. I am superior to all, none are as atheistic or evolution believing as I. Bow to my greatness feeble minded fools who do not have as much faith as I do, for you are not true Scotsman, only a true Scotsman is as great as me...



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 11:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Cypress

Natural mutations normally caused by aging and the energy deficiency that is evident is known to cause disease...

It is also known that some cells that are always present in an organisms are already predisposed and only need to be activated to cause the disease to take hold...

Furthermore such can not be a valid claim for evolution as it is not considered to be a progression...


Citations or it didn't happen



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 11:26 PM
link   
My brother and I were watching a National Geographic show about the universe, and I turned to him and asked "So, Creationists can't watch this show?"

I mean, it's got astrophysicists talking about the age of things in space.



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 11:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: kkrattiger
My brother and I were watching a National Geographic show about the universe, and I turned to him and asked "So, Creationists can't watch this show?"

I mean, it's got astrophysicists talking about the age of things in space.


Well, I'm not sure about "can't watch it", but if they want to hold on to their faith-based concepts, it may not be the best idea



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 12:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

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


Yes! That enhancement you mentioned are mutations to the DNA. That is how we evolve.
You've just confirmed evolution, my friend!



Genetic diversity is not special evolution.


You are correct again: it is not special evolution, it simply is EVOLUTION.

edit on 9-2-2016 by Agartha because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 01:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: Raggedyman

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


Yes! That enhancement you mentioned are mutations to the DNA. That is how we evolve.
You've just confirmed evolution, my friend!



Genetic diversity is not special evolution.


You are correct again: it is not special evolution, it simply is EVOLUTION.
Now you get it!


Sorry Agartha
I chose the word enhancements in relation to environmental factors, not in relation to evolving into a new species.
Black skin, white skin, almond eyes, round eyes, thicker blood, thinner blood, height, et al.
None of those enhancements makes us anything other than human.
More importantly they dont make us less human either

I guess this is where macro and micro fit in nicely, dont be confused by the nonsense above, its all conjecture and assumption



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 01:07 AM
link   
www.mayoclinic.org...

Here is something on what I spoke on...

I'm not about regurgitation or having to prove what I share, I find it much more fun to just converse...

And I'm not just making things up, I have opinions based on information I find relevant that lives in my brain which I share... it's no fun having to find something to back me up...

None of this information shows any sign of progression...
edit on 9-2-2016 by 5StarOracle because: ...



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 01:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Raggedyman

As has been explained to you MULTIPLE TIMES.

Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is the best well-substantiated explanation of said fact.

Here's a quick wiki page you probably won't read due to your abundant ignorance.

EVOLUTION AS FACT AND THEORY

It's not a big page. I'm sure you can read it pretty quick.

ETA Just to add AGAIN. Evolution isn't A science. It is derived from multiple sciences.


No I wont read your link to lies.

Evolution is a fact is a lie

Here's a quick page you probably won't read due to your abundant ignorance.

humansarefree.com...

It's not a big page. I'm sure you can read it pretty quick.

ETA Just to add AGAIN. Evolution isn't A science, its A religion

I can be just like you

But where does it get me or you, nowhere.

Dont waste my time I wont waste your time




top topics



 
18
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join