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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Watch Evolution in Action

page: 6
32
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Raggedyman

No you didn't. You're just here to ignore science and evolution. Because with it, your young earth religion is false.

Adaptation is change. Change is a part of evolution. You've been told this multiple times, yet ignore it.


Again Td, you and your religion nonsense, why go down that road all the time

What new information was added to the bacteria
It's a science question, it's about science
Science allows, encourages questions
Religion doesn't, you don't allow me to ask questions, is yours a religion
Why do you hate science, hate questions, hate people pushing science

Yes adaptation is change, change is not evolution, evolution is as Darwin quoted, or has that changed
Ooooooh, mandella effect, maybe it is true after all

See that TD, I am using science, Charlie Darwin and his definition of evolution.
Nothing about religion, you are using religion again
Oh, you crazy religious fundy atheist, evolutionists
Us crazy young earth creationists
All mad fundies are we not😱
You and me, just the same, you deny anyone questioning your faith, me the same?

Now don't forget, evolution according to Charlie Darwin

If you want to change the definition, please let me know




posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Post above mine that you responded to shows you. It's even got pretty pictures so the hard of learning can understand it.

BTW, evolution isn't about just Darwin. It's come a long way since then. Medical sciences are HEAVILY influenced by the data found on evolution.

But all this has been explain ad infinitum. You'll just ignore it because you need it to be wrong.

ETA: And this is my last reply to you. There's no debating with someone who won't look at data. So long man of straws.
edit on 992016 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

It doesn't even look rellevant or related to me
It's late, have a read and study tomorrow'



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 12:31 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Phantom423

It doesn't even look rellevant or related to me
It's late, have a read and study tomorrow'



It doesn't look relevant because you don't know what you're looking at and don't understand "new information" as it relates to genetics.

The wild type molecule mutated as per the illustrations. The mutation sites contain new inserts of amino acids WHICH WERE NOT THERE BEFORE AND WERE NOT DERIVED FROM THE WILD TYPE. In layman's language, IT IS NEW INFORMATION
ADDED TO THE ORIGINAL MOLECULE.

And that's why THEY FUNCTION DIFFERENTLY. Do you get it now???

New inserts of amino acids = new functionality (in this case drug resistance) = NEW INFORMATION



edit on 9-9-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Ya I shouldn't bite.
edit on thFri, 09 Sep 2016 12:39:14 -0500America/Chicago920161480 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 12:35 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 12:35 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 12:36 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 12:46 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 12:47 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Phantom423

It doesn't even look rellevant or related to me
It's late, have a read and study tomorrow'



It doesn't look relevant because you don't know what you're looking at and don't understand "new information" as it relates to genetics.

The wild type molecule mutated as per the illustrations. The mutation sites contain new inserts of amino acids WHICH WERE NOT THERE BEFORE AND WERE NOT DERIVED FROM THE WILD TYPE. In layman's language, IT IS NEW INFORMATION
ADDED TO THE ORIGINAL MOLECULE.

And that's why THEY FUNCTION DIFFERENTLY. Do you get it now???

New inserts of amino acids = new functionality (in this case drug resistance) = NEW INFORMATION




So where did the new information come from, magic, a mini Big Bang in the DNA

It needs evidence
I can see the pretty colours, I can't see the evidence, does the pretty colours match the evidence, can you show me that

There is no evidence it's new information, it even states in the document it's pre existing information
You think I would take your word for it, highly unlikely

All I have seen is pretty colours, you have no evidence at all

New inserts of existing amino acids and that's not new information

Just existing being utilised, what can't you understand about english



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: TzarChasm

I agree. I not sure why I started replying to him again. I'm going with boredom lol.


if you are truly that bored, there is a fascinating article in the op that promises to educate anyone who feels like brushing up on their microbiology (as well as plenty of peripheral content). lots of fun for people who have time to kill and neurons to exercise.



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 12:49 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Phantom423

He won't get it. He'll strawman some other wild claim that it's not evolution.

You can teach those who don't want to learn.


Very true. I just despise the way they have manipulated the hard work of real science into a fraud.



What new evidence, it's just a new experiment being utilised
They even admit in the paper it's nothing new, it's just a pretty experiment

Why be dishonest about this

The experiment offers nothing new at all, no new information, nothing that hasn't been seen before

TD talking strawman arguments, that's funny



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

I know, but if they believe evolution is wrong, in their minds the only answer left is "Goddidit".

I just find it amusing that they accept adaptation, accept change, but don't accept evolution. It's mind boggling.



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 12:53 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

I'm reading up on a few things. Especially what Kandinsky posted on page 2 (harvesting bacteria we couldn't before). It's fascinating stuff.



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Phantom423

I know, but if they believe evolution is wrong, in their minds the only answer left is "Goddidit".

I just find it amusing that they accept adaptation, accept change, but don't accept evolution. It's mind boggling.


not true. there is quite a variety of creationist/intelligent design proponents who are more than willing to accept the theory of evolution...provided the obligatory divine influence caveat is present. god of the gaps and whatnot. its a transparent tactic but a popular one no less.
edit on 9-9-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Oh, I know. Just seems that, on here, it's evolution or god (apart from a select few). I didn't mean to tar every religious person with the same brush. I guess it looked implied.

ETA: I've got a friend who lives 2 doors down. He's a YEC who also believes evolution. He just thinks evolution happened in a few hundred years. His arguments seem pretty good too. The difference between him and some on here, is he like to keep it to himself and don't cry foul at every possible opportunity.
edit on 992016 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
32
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join