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.

 

Man didn't evolve from fish or monkeys

page: 13
13
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 10:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cypress


Every fossil is a transitional fossil but not every bone or imprint becomes fossilized; however, this concept is beyond your comprehension.


I have read that, just havnt seen any evidence that they are

Where is the evidence, prove that they are not individual species

Use science as your guide, I am almost a believer in evolution now, just need hard scientific evidence, data

Off you go




posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 10:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

Start here: en.wikipedia.org...


Those preety pictures and words prove nothing

You could get a Russian Babushka doll and do the exact same thing

Big, medium, small and smaller proof that the dolls evolve slowly, No?

Its just an assumption, Wikipedia are a joke as was your evidence, nothing of value or worthy of my time



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 10:31 PM
link   

edit on 9/3/16 by Astyanax because: Ftt



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 10:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman


What evidence?

The specific, detailed links with which you were earlier provided.

Stalling only makes you look stupid as well as mendacious.

This is your last chance to impress anybody. Even your fellow-creationists have abandoned you.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

You do know the onus is on you to prove evolution false (with evidence) as you made the claim?

Off you go.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 11:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

originally posted by: peter vlar
understand what MES postulates?

Since you brought it up, could you lay out exactly what MES postulates as you understand it? I'm concerned the framework leaves out a lot, and I haven't been able to find, beyond folks around here saying so, any reliable source or reference that shows it's expanded the framework to include anything other than PE.

Appreciate any help.


I would concede that there are some mechanisms like Epigenetics that are not included that a small group insist should be. With that said, epigenetics don't seem to have an effect on complex organisms and when it does, the traits do not persist as a genetic mutation would throughout a given population. Perhaps with more research and data that will change as Epigenetics are basically in their infancy in regards to being researched, especially compared to well known mechanisms such as descent through modification and Genetic Drift. Keep in mind that PE took a couple of decades worth of research before PE was accepted much like recognizing that Clovis First was indeed incorrect.

On a basic level, MES is about change in allele frequency over time through natural election, Mutation, migration (gene flow), genetic drift, PE and natural selection. Aside from understanding genes and genetics which would have been a foreign concept to Darwin, the biggest differences between what Darwin postulated and MES I that Darwin looked at evolution on an individual scale whereas with MES we measure evolution on a scale across a given population. The following quote is 30 years old and doesn't include PE but aside from that, the rest holds true.



"The major tenets of the evolutionary synthesis, then, were that populations contain genetic variation that arises by random (ie. not adaptively directed) mutation and recombination; that populations evolve by changes in gene frequency brought about by random genetic drift, gene flow, and especially natural selection; that most adaptive genetic variants have individually slight phenotypic effects so that phenotypic changes are gradual (although some alleles with discrete effects may be advantageous, as in certain color polymorphisms); that diversification comes about by speciation, which normally entails the gradual evolution of reproductive isolation among populations; and that these processes, continued for sufficiently long, give rise to changes of such great magnitude as to warrant the designation of higher taxonomic levels (genera, families, and so forth)."
- Futuyma, D.J. in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates, 1986; p.12



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 11:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Noinden

Not everyone has lactose intolerance...


Actually, most people world wide are lactose intolerant. The phrase you were looking for is "lactase persistence". Two single nucleotide polymorphisms are associated with lactase expression. C−13910 and G−22018 are related to lactase nonpersistence, while T−13910 and A−22018 are related to lactase persistence. In addition to that, the degree of lactase persistence is determined by geography. These mutations are fairly new and only appeared in the last 10 KA when HSS switched from HG life style to an agrarian one.




Most people cannot drink milk as adults without the symptoms of lactose intolerance, and most lactose intolerance is due to absence of the lactase enzyme in the gut. This presence/absence is a genetic polymorphism commonly called lactase persistence/nonpersistence, depending on whether or not lactase activity persists from childhood into adulthood.1 In Northern Europe, lactase persistence is common and many people not only drink milk, but culturally it is seen as a healthy and nutritious food.


www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

www.nature.com...

www.nature.com...



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 11:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Raggedyman


What evidence?

The specific, detailed links with which you were earlier provided.

Stalling only makes you look stupid as well as mendacious.

This is your last chance to impress anybody. Even your fellow-creationists have abandoned you.





They were assumption, I saw no evidence at all, nothing

Repeating yourself over and over again makes you look a little afraid of answering, detailing evidence

Providing vague pointless links, not providing your own answer, reasoned, logical, concise and clear evidence makes you look ............

It makes you look like you cant



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 11:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: TerryDon79

Oh I dunno I'll take a guess...
They were living far under ground cause they were scared of dinosaurs...
That or they were not created until after dinosaurs were eliminated...
If dinosaurs are humans ancestors and they went extinct how did we evolve from them?
Or do you suppose a magical collision happened on earth and that dinosaurs were not wiped out but we're instead morphed into many new forms of life as they were genetically altered in an instant?


Who said dinosaurs were human ancestors? Nobody with a library card and at least a C average in high school biology thinks that is true. Just like Humans and the other great apes share a common ancestor, so do mammals and the dinosaurs in Amniotes. We didn't evolve from them, we evolved from mammals who lived concurrently with dinosaurs because with the extinction of dinosaurs, nearly every ecological niche was opened up and ready to be taken over by new species once the Earth recovered from the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event. Please try to engage in some basic due diligence before you roll out such ill informed nonsense.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 11:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Raggedyman

You do know the onus is on you to prove evolution false (with evidence) as you made the claim?

Off you go.


How many marbles in the bag?

I cant prove what is not proven to be false.

That is just silly
If you cant work that out TD I am sorry for you



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 11:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Raggedyman

You do know the onus is on you to prove evolution false (with evidence) as you made the claim?

Off you go.


How many marbles in the bag?

I cant prove what is not proven to be false.

That is just silly
If you cant work that out TD I am sorry for you


So your whole argument is...
"Evolution is false, but I can't prove it and don't have any other explanation"?

You've been provided with a lot of information. Try going through it and proving it wrong. Or are you too scared to be proven wrong yourself?



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 01:01 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Again I have seen no evidence that justifies evolution being a scientific fact, its a theory. I accept there Is circumstantial evidence
Personally I don't think the evidence that exists, weighs in evolutions favour, you do, hence the opposition

I have seen no evidence except stupid links that are irrelevant

Here is a link that shows you evidence that the earth is young

answersingenesis.org...

The 10 Best Evidences from Science that Confirm a Young Earth

"Locked" articles (indicated by the red padlock icons below) can be opened by magazine subscribers. Simply enter secret code from page four of your copy of this issue!

#1 Very Little Sediment on the Seafloor

For Additional Information:
•The Sands of Time: A Biblical Model of Deep Sea-Floor Sedimentation
•The Sands of Time: A Biblical Model of Deep Sea-Floor Sedimentation (pdf)
•“Sea Salt, Erosion, and Sediments” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past1 (pdf)


#2 Bent Rock Layers

For Additional Information:
•Rock Layers Folded, Not Fractured
•“Soft-Sediment Deformation Features” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past2 (pdf)
•“Megasequences of North America” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past3 (pdf)


#3 Soft Tissue in Fossils

For Additional Information:
•Two: Those Not-So-Dry Bones
•More Soft Tissue in “Old” Fossils


#4 Faint Sun Paradox

For Additional Information:
•The Young Faint Sun Paradox and the Age of the Solar System


#5 Rapidly Decaying Magnetic Field

For Additional Information:
•The Earth’s Magnetic Field Is Young
•The Earth’s Magnetic Field and the Age of the Earth
•“The Earth’s Magnetic Field” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past4 (pdf)


#6 Helium in Radioactive Rocks

For Additional Information:
•Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay
•Young Helium Diffusion Age of Zircons Supports Accelerated Nuclear Decay
•The Age of the Earth’s Atmosphere Estimated by its Helium Content
•“Helium in Rocks and in the Atmosphere” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past5 (pdf)


#7 Carbon-14 in Fossils, Coal, and Diamonds

For Additional Information:
•Carbon-14 in Fossils and Diamonds
•Carbon-14 Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth
•Measurable 14C in Fossilized Organic Materials: Confirming the Young Earth Creation-Flood Model
•“The Pitfalls in the Radioactive Dating Methods—The Radiocarbon Dating Method” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past6 (pdf)
•“Carbon-14 Dating” from Thousands . . . not Billions7 (pdf)


#8 Short-Lived Comets

For Additional Information:
•Comets and the Age of the Solar System
•Kuiper Belt Objects: Solution to Short-Period Comets?
•More Problems for the ‘Oort Comet Cloud’


#9 Very Little Salt in the Sea

For Additional Information:
•The Sea’s Missing Salt: A Dilemma for Evolutionists
“Sea Salt, Erosion, and Sediments” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past8 (pdf)

#10 DNA in “Ancient” Bacteria

For Additional Information:
•Bacterial Life in Ancient Salt


Now you can dismiss my evidence like I dismiss yours

See TD, there is a balance. I can hack at you and then you at me.

I have shown you evidence to the young earth, posted it, linked it and if you care you can research and debunk it


You've been provided with a lot of information. Try going through it and proving it wrong. Or are you too scared to be proven wrong yourself?!%#@)(



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 01:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

So you want me to go through your "evidence" and prove that wrong, but you won't go through what has been posted here and prove that wrong?

It's not down to me to prove anything. It's all down to you to prove the data for evolution is wrong. So far you haven't done it.



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 01:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: TerryDon79

Oh I dunno I'll take a guess...
They were living far under ground cause they were scared of dinosaurs...
That or they were not created until after dinosaurs were eliminated...
If dinosaurs are humans ancestors and they went extinct how did we evolve from them?
Or do you suppose a magical collision happened on earth and that dinosaurs were not wiped out but we're instead morphed into many new forms of life as they were genetically altered in an instant?


Who said dinosaurs were human ancestors? Nobody with a library card and at least a C average in high school biology thinks that is true. Just like Humans and the other great apes share a common ancestor, so do mammals and the dinosaurs in Amniotes. We didn't evolve from them, we evolved from mammals who lived concurrently with dinosaurs because with the extinction of dinosaurs, nearly every ecological niche was opened up and ready to be taken over by new species once the Earth recovered from the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event. Please try to engage in some basic due diligence before you roll out such ill informed nonsense.


Yeah, they are not, but they come from dirt and water, space dust and space water if you like, our common non biological pappy, if you will

That's the issue at hand



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 01:06 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

and I wont because I don't care enough to play this silly game with you

I have researched plenty in the past and am content to believe what I believe, you can do likewise

Just think its silly to think we were all once space dirt and space water and now poof, here we are



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 01:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

So this whole thread was actually a statement?

You do realise this is a discussion board?



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 02:28 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Wow, that surprises me, you caught on

Let me see

"Man didn't evolve from fish or monkeys"

You see the "DIDNT" part of the title
It makes the sentence a statement, makes it more than a question

Didn't is a contraction of "did not"
Did is a verb, past tense, not is an adverb, modifying the verb
Get it yet?


Just think its silly to think we were all once space dirt and space water and now poof, here we are



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 02:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

No, the issue at hand is your willful ignorance towards a topic you know very little about along with your clear need to create a false paradigm with which you prop up your multitude of strawman statements that lack all critical thinking due to confirmation bias. All you've done for over a dozen pages is repeat the same mantra over and over and over again. We get it, you have zero interest in due diligence or autodidactism. You have neither supported a single one of your statements/opinions with anything resembling facts not have you falsified a single aspect of MES while attempting to bring cosmology and astrophysics into the saddest premise I may have seen in all the years I have visited ATS. It's sheer insanity and beyond redundant at this point.



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 03:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Noinden

No its supposition based on fragmentary evidence that requires a leap of faith to connect the dots and ascribe to the faith of evolution...


Especially when there is only a toe bone left of the entire animal.



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 03:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: TerryDon79

Oh I dunno I'll take a guess...
They were living far under ground cause they were scared of dinosaurs...
That or they were not created until after dinosaurs were eliminated...
If dinosaurs are humans ancestors and they went extinct how did we evolve from them?
Or do you suppose a magical collision happened on earth and that dinosaurs were not wiped out but we're instead morphed into many new forms of life as they were genetically altered in an instant?


Chickens, they turned into chickens when humans came. Ever try to deep fry a T-Rex?

And penguins because the antarctic got really cold so they had to do something.






edit on 3 10 2016 by burgerbuddy because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
13
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join