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.

 

Evolutionists, how do you explain this?

page: 17
17
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2017 @ 11:27 PM
link   
If evolution is fact, there would be zero chance of anything ever evolving. The first life form would have absolutely no motivation to evolve. Nothing stands above the top of the totem pole which is where that life form would be because it's the only life form.




posted on May, 27 2017 @ 12:14 AM
link   
So how come no other species evolved to be civilized? Why not rats, like NIHM? Why didn't slug evolve into a space fairing species? Why only Apes? Is it because of the thumb? or was it the large brain?



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 12:59 AM
link   
Oh my - the idiots are here!

Do you believe you're better than all Christians on the planet?
edit on 27-5-2017 by MarsIsRed because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 01:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: MarsIsRed
Oh my - the idiots are here!

Do you believe you're better than all Christians on the planet?


I deny God Because all people on earth deny god? Most Christians accept evolution... Did you even know that?



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 01:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: arcnaver
So how come no other species evolved to be civilized? Why not rats, like NIHM? Why didn't slug evolve into a space fairing species? Why only Apes? Is it because of the thumb? or was it the large brain?


Because evolution apparently favors mammals, especially bipeds.

The ones that can speak, create cultures and technologies... To be more specific.




posted on May, 27 2017 @ 01:07 AM
link   
a reply to: firefromabove

There's dumb, and then there's really dumb... What sort of dumb are you?



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 01:09 AM
link   
a reply to: MarsIsRed

Ad hominem attacks prove you've lost the argument. But we already knew that



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 01:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
The other night it popped into my head: how the hell did insects evolve?

I'm not talking about the creatures themselves, I'm talking about this design where they all go thru a larval stage, and then nymph into their 'proper' creature form later.

The happenings to foster the blueprint for what would become the most diverse 'animal' family, seems like a real cluster-F to me.


Humans are more Like Insects
Humans Live is a insect ( Wasp / Ant / Termite ) Society
then what our 98% Gene Cousins are , the Great Apes

There no other in the Animal Kingdom that come close of the Ability's that We Humans Have

Hey Ants Build, Construct, underground network system with ventilation ins and outs, they Improvise, Team Work , Farm Plant and Use other insects as Livestock , Harvest,
Fight, make war, Battles, Defend, Invade, Police, Guard , give directions too locations , Nurseries , and even have Slaves , in the Hive or Mound

just as humans do

we are not much different ,

the Great Apes only have a few of those abilities ,

ASU scientists discover that ants, like humans, can change their priorities
asunow.asu.edu...

How Ants and Humans Are Alike ( video )
bigthink.com...

Human Societies Starting to Resemble Ant Colonies
www.seeker.com...



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 01:20 AM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX




posted on May, 27 2017 @ 01:34 AM
link   
i am almost ashamed to be sharing ATS with crazy deluded folks lol i can only imagine the IQ levels...

But it is proving to be a funny read lol



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 01:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: arcnaver
So how come no other species evolved to be civilized?

Stuff about ants


or was it the large brain?

Bingo



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 01:50 AM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss


And that totally vulnerable insect larval form stage isn't quite a good design. At all.


just a Human newborns are Helpless until they are like close to two ,
much like a larva toddler a nymph stage ,

a new Born Baby Chimp can latch on to its mother for a Ride
pretty much skips the ( helpless larva part )

Man isn't a good Design at Birth Either for survival
unlike our 98% Genetic Cousin ( The Great Apes )

The Biggest Difference between Man and Ape is

That Humans have 3x times more Neurons in the Brain then humans do ,

so wrap around 3 more times of Neurons in a Apes Brain , and we have competition



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 02:12 AM
link   
The Question I would like to Know!

Man has Been on this Earth Around 250,000 Plus
as Some claim 400,000 Years

and the recorded Earliest Known Written History as in a Written Language
was 8 thousand years ago
and Cave Paintings that were from 40,000 years ago ( in France ) and
a Figurine ( man body with Lion head ) carbon dated 40,000 years ago
and the Site Göbekli Tepe that close too being 11,500 years old


So what the Hell was Modern Humans ( Homo Sapiens) Doing ?..
Around for 200,000 years ?




well the oldest Australian Aborigines remains found was 40,000 to 68,000 years old

Lake Mungo remains
en.wikipedia.org...



there inst much of a transition from just a big spacial gap





mock up of a neanderthal


Julia Pastrana a Famous Mexican Native Dancer/singer
that lived in the mid 19th century


She is 100% Human yet her features looks too me Neanderthal

but from her Genes

Her Genes were Doubled in some places in the DNA
and were Missing in others from Studies from other
people in China that have the Same Diseases as she did

Some Theorized Julia's Ancient dormant genes kicked in
to replace the missing Genes , causing Atavism


what is ?

Atavism
en.wikipedia.org...


In biology, an atavism is an evolutionary throwback, such as traits reappearing that had disappeared generations before.[3] Atavisms can occur in several ways. One way is when genes for previously existing phenotypical features are preserved in DNA, and these become expressed through a mutation that either knocks out the overriding genes for the new traits or makes the old traits override the new one. A number of traits can vary as a result of shortening of the fetal development of a trait (neoteny) or by prolongation of the same. In such a case, a shift in the time a trait is allowed to develop before it is fixed can bring forth an ancestral phenotype.[4] In the social sciences, atavism can also describe a cultural tendency of reversion—for example, people in the modern era reverting to the ways of thinking and acting of a former time. The word atavism is derived from the Latin atavus. An atavus is a great-great-great-grandfather or, more generally, an ancestor.


that is the best evidence of Evolution

Atavisms

if Man was Created or Any Species in the Animal kingdom

There Should Not be One Shred of Genetic Disease, or Any imperfections
in the Body or Mind ! yet there is .





edit on 62017SaturdayfAmerica/Chicago5146 by Wolfenz because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 05:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: firefromabove
a reply to: SanitySearcher

I don't believe in evolution

But great points



I don't believe in gravity, or germs, or MRI, or dentistry, etc. That would make me an idiot...



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 08:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

HAHA, did anyone say that it disproves evolution. I think I missed that part. I think the point the OP was trying to make was that they hide behind SCIENCE when anyone questions their methods, but really all they are doing is pontificating and making most # up from the air. What they claim is fact, in many cases is anything but.

Look at the evidence for gigantopithecus....lol some molars and a partial jaw bone, yet you have to DIG AND DIG to find the actual evidence. Lucy, the most complete hominid skeleton ever found, try and find pictures of the actual skeleton parts found. It is difficult and usually includes modified renderings and casts along with the actual bones making it difficult to find what is actually what.

I only ask for one thing. Don't mislead people with bull#. Give the actual evidence, not contrived evidence, and certainly not conjecture. Call a theory a theory, not a fact. Call conclusions what they are, your best guess based on your interpretation of the available evidence, not a fact. Also, include what evidence was excluded and give specifics on why the evidence was excluded. If all of your peer reviews have the same outliers removed, guess what? They AREN'T outliers.

Jaden

just go to college and get a degree, then you'll understand. Nobody can bring even a semester of the knowledge you would need to understand evolution to this tiny forum.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 08:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Toolman18
If evolution is fact, there would be zero chance of anything ever evolving. The first life form would have absolutely no motivation to evolve. Nothing stands above the top of the totem pole which is where that life form would be because it's the only life form.
Go to school.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 08:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: firefromabove
a reply to: Phantom423

Evolutionists live within their own fantasy world. They write "papers" on a fantasy subject, get their own peers to review those "papers" and hi-five each other and congratulate themselves for being so smart. In case you cant see it, it is not science, its their own show

All youre doing is being a fan of that show and demanding everyone else do the same



There are over 500 journals reporting on thousands of research projects. See the list below. I challenge you to select any article from any journal, analyze the methods and materials, review the results and then describe in detail why they're "fantasy". You can't do it. But you can certainly blabber about it.

Science is about discovery and evidence. That's it. No discovery, no evidence, no science. It's not a religion or a belief system. It's simply the state of knowledge on any particular topic at the time of publication.

Mouthing off that the science of evolution is "fantasy" without a shred of evidence, only your uneducated opinion, is meaningless and ignorant. Who do you expect to convince? Have you or any one else published a credible research paper that refutes ANYTHING in evolutionary science? No. Every "research" paper published at the Creationist website has been refuted and disproven. Do the Creationists come back with a retort? No. In the real world of science, research is challenged all the time. That promotes further research, more knowledge and better insight into any particular area of science.

The anti-evolution, anti-science crowd is simply a cult of willful ignorance.

Here's the list of journals. I challenge you to select any journal, any research article - anything you find - and describe why it's "fantasy". Knock yourself out. Like everyone on this board who has been presented with this challenge, not one ever responded in kind.




Links to lists:

www.scimagojr.com...

www.omicsonline.org...

evolution-textbook.org...



edit on 27-5-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-5-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 08:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: ReyaPhemhurth

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: firefromabove
a reply to: Phantom423

In that case, shalom aleichem

But still....


But still you don't provide evidence for your claim. You made a statement and can't back it up. I have the original research paper from SCIENCE with the data. What you suggest i.e. that a head can't tell you anything about the entire body is simply not true.



I love the "But still" OP left followed by those beloved vague ellipsis. Pair that with the fact OP still can't provide evidence and also cannot just admit defeat.


The "but still" simply means he has nothing else to say - that's the best he can come up with.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 08:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Toolman18
If evolution is fact, there would be zero chance of anything ever evolving. The first life form would have absolutely no motivation to evolve. Nothing stands above the top of the totem pole which is where that life form would be because it's the only life form.


The problem here is that you so badly want to falsify evolution they you are conflating abiogenesis/panspermia (which are unproven hypotheses) with "evolution" (Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is a Scientific Theory which is different from a lay person having a pet theory or hunch). "Evolution" has no roll in the appearance of archaic life on Earth. It is only the process that occurs once life is there and documents hanged over time. So the strawman you just built collapsed under its own weight because it has nothing to support it. Modern Evolutionary Synthesis on the other hand is the theory that explains HOW evolution works. There is actually far more scientific evidence supporting the veracity of evolution as a biological process than there is for Gravity and I don't ever see people up in arms over Gravity being false.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Tinystarlight

Evidence of breaking the barrier

Neanderthals and humans interbred '100,000 years ago'

www.bbc.com...



Neanderthals and modern humans were interbreeding much earlier than was previously thought, scientists say. Traces of human DNA found in a Neanderthal genome suggest that we started mixing with our now-extinct relatives 100,000 years ago. Previously it had been thought that the two species first encountered each other when modern humans left Africa, about 60,000 years ago.




top topics



 
17
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join