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.

 

Can you prove evolution wrong? -- Part 2

page: 39
14
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2019 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

I can. Your first paragraph explains very nicely your total IGNORANCE of the subject (apologies for the caps to everyone else, but this guy is a deliberate and serial liar).

Evolution is not exclusively speciation (evolution can produce different species within a given taxonomic category) and it HAS been observed many many times within a laboratory environment, particularly with the creatures you’ve listed.

That’s the first of your questions answered. It’s my bedtime now but I’ll see if I can get onto the others another time.




posted on Jul, 29 2019 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

It seems that something has happened to you (please do not place blame where it does not belong regarding this change).
I will go slow so maybe I can get through to you on some level.
Hmm... where to begin?


Nope, which is why I go with how HE explained it, not your stupid misinterpretation and disingenuous quote mine out of context.

It does not matter how he or you explained (spin) it after the fact. The truth remains that stating something "Just is! end of story" is faith based. It is an explanation that avoids explanation. Much like the Creationist saying "God did it, end of story". It shuts down any futher dialog. Science has moved cautiously but steadily towards the provision of a true understanding but it is not there yet.
By stating "Evolution just is, end of story", you and he are saying that you have all the answers. This is blatantly untrue as no one knows everything. We take some things on faith Barcs, but we don't KNOW.

I told you that this thread was never meant to prove evolution wrong, in which you responded:

You are as delusional as it gets. Context eludes you yet again.

Look at my first post on Part 2 of this thread:

I remember part 1 of this. For some reason the mods had changed Colin42's original title. It was supposed to be a thread to discuss the diversity we see today without invoking evolution.
I enjoyed that thread, for the most part.
I learned new things as well as imparted a few things.
Think that's where I had my first conversation with Barcs.
Haven't read though this one yet put I will leave you with this tid bit:

IF A POSTER SHOWS UP WITH THE SCREEN NAME "ITSTHETOOTH"....................
RUN!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

But don' take my word for it. Here is what Colin42 (the threads originator) had to say about HIS thread:

It does not matter where life began. Only the path it has taken since it began.

Lets just get one thing right before you start, if you decide to contribute. The title of the thread was changed by the mods, not me. I do not want anyone to prove evolution wrong. I want those that say evolution is incorrect to explain the diversity we see around us today without it.

So I actually do not want you to explain why you dont believe in evolution it is clear you dont. That has been done to death in other threads and unfortunately this one as well.


I wait in hope you do not open with. 'We have hands that shows we dont fit and came from another planet abandoned by angry gods.'

www.abovetopsecret.com...
See? you were wrong again. It's your bias bud, that is what has changed. You need to work past it. It is blinding you.
Not everyone on the "other side" is the enemy, unless you are so engrained in your dogma that you see them as such.

I told you before about my hypothesis on the purpose of evolution. The purpose is survival. Life was given all the information it needed to survive.
When the environment changes or there is increase competition for a food source, life will adapt. It is an involuntary change. The body senses a change on a molecular level and starts adapting accordingly.
Your response at the time:

I disagree with the notion that mutations are voluntary, or a result of the body reacting to the environment. No scientific study has ever suggested that. Some mutations are small, they aren't noticed for thousands of generations until they combine with other mutations. They aren't just one-lifetime changes that are determined by a consciousness. If that were the case, I'd expect a lot more big changes, rather than tiny changes that add up over hundreds of thousands of years.

From a non scientific perspective, I do like that idea. I agree that we have a lot more control over our own bodies than many folks realize. The brain is incredibly powerful, but I'm not convinced it would choose so many small insignificant mutations that eventually make a big difference over millions of generations. You'd also have to consider the evolution of bacteria, viruses, and other microscopic organisms that are not conscious and do not have a brain. How does it work in this case. What would be the actual mechanism for replicating the new genetic code if not causes by one of the other factors? I'll admit that this is a pretty interesting hypothesis, however. Do you have any reading material I could check out?

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Even though I didn't have anything solid to back up my hypothesis, at the time, you still showed interest. I have always remembered that post and I admired you for it.
A short while back I ran across a paper and I thought of you and this thread (well part 1). Then, oddly enough, Akragon started the thread back up with part 2.
The paper is here, if you would like to give it a go.
It does not prove the hypothesis I gave you so long ago but it is a start.
When you stated:

I don't play silly semantics games. Prove any one of those piece wrong and then we can BEGIN to discuss it. Thus far you have brought absolutely nothing to the table but distractions.

You were wrong again.
I did not come here to prove evolution wrong, that is not what the thread was supposed to be about. I asked you for your best evidence because I figured you would say something like:
"It's a fact of nature that copy errors happen during replication and that the better adapted organisms have a better chance at surviving and passing down genes to offspring." or something similar and we would be able to continue our discussion from a few years ago.
I am sorry that what ever happened has happened and I will leave you with this:

"All that we think we know is but a drop in the ocean of knowledge we still have to learn" ~Me.
Later Barcs.








posted on Jul, 29 2019 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero
Nicely put for the most part!




edit on 29-7-2019 by Quadrivium because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2019 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Quadrivium

There yah go, implying something about a poster, once again with "attacking the man" not the argument.

You are stuck on the idea of evolution needing to have a purpose. With out proving it is so.

Evolution occurs, whether you think it needs a purpose or not. It is not a sentient thing. So it has no purpose.



posted on Jul, 29 2019 @ 07:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Quadrivium

There yah go, implying something about a poster, once again with "attacking the man" not the argument.

You are stuck on the idea of evolution needing to have a purpose. With out proving it is so.

Evolution occurs, whether you think it needs a purpose or not. It is not a sentient thing. So it has no purpose.

LOL at least read the entire post before you comment. Deflect much?
I did not attack. I stated the obvious.



posted on Jul, 29 2019 @ 08:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
you have a human compared to a chimp (98% matching DNA)


The chimpanzee genome is 6% larger than the human genome... how could it be a 98% match? You have to check the empirical data for these outlandish claims that are published in sci-fi blogs. Evolution is rampant with claims not based in any sort of reality


originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: cooperton

I can. Your first paragraph explains very nicely your total IGNORANCE of the subject (apologies for the caps to everyone else, but this guy is a deliberate and serial liar).


Haha what? Who are you? Where did I deliberately lie?


it HAS been observed many many times within a laboratory environment, particularly with the creatures you’ve listed.


An organism has never been observed to evolve into another organism, even given the countless generations of selective breeding from labs all over the world.
edit on 29-7-2019 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2019 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton
You of course can post links to your claims right? Rather than just say it?

You are also showing an ignorance of what a percentage similarity means.



posted on Jul, 29 2019 @ 09:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: cooperton

I can. Your first paragraph explains very nicely your total IGNORANCE of the subject (apologies for the caps to everyone else, but this guy is a deliberate and serial liar).


Haha what? Who are you? Where did I deliberately lie?


it HAS been observed many many times within a laboratory environment, particularly with the creatures you’ve listed.


An organism has never been observed to evolve into another organism, even given the countless generations of selective breeding from labs all over the world.

Micro vs Macro.
Macroevolution has never been observed in a lab.
The evolutionist, however, will tell you that it has been observed because Macroevolution is microevolution on a grander scale.



posted on Jul, 29 2019 @ 11:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

The chimpanzee genome is 6% larger than the human genome... how could it be a 98% match? You have to check the empirical data for these outlandish claims that are published in sci-fi blogs. Evolution is rampant with claims not based in any sort of reality



Why do you believe one thing while ignoring all the rest?


The number of genetic differences between humans and chimps is ten times smaller than that between mice and rats.


In the end Chimps are a very close relative...period.

You need to figure out that the term "life" is a human creation. The universe doesn't know life... Just because humans say "life" what the hell does that mean outside of what we humans say it is. You light a match...BAM! you created life...lol
edit on 29-7-2019 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2019 @ 04:13 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

You deliberately lie, distort and deflect in your many creation-inspired posts. There are dozens of them, so there are dozens of examples.

Forced evolution has been observed many times in a lab, with single-celled life right up to fruit flies. Any creature that has a fast enough metabolism and the time and conditions to allow it will show signs of natural selection over time. You are confusing evolution with speciation. A fly will never change into a rabbit, so it is pointless looking for that to happen, and it is deliberately deceptive on your part to ask for examples.

Despite you claiming to be a person representing your god, I say you bring shame on that deity for what you are doing here. I imagine it is part of your mission or calling to ‘spread the word of God’, which is admirable in its own way, but you are choosing to do so in a maliciously deceitful way that is designed to obscure truth and blend fiction into fact. You are the worst kind of religious. Your god must be ashamed of you.



posted on Jul, 30 2019 @ 09:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: cooperton

You deliberately lie


This is particularly disconcerting, I could understand that you think I am misled, since what I am saying goes against your belief system, but you think I am purposefully contriving a lie? I have come to my conclusions through rational discourse, and an unbiased search for the truth. I was in the atheist camp for a long time, but the more you learn about science, the more you realize the necessity of a designer for the system. I have dedicated my life to truth, and put all else on the back burner.

Please realize that you assuming that I am purposefully lying, just because I believe different than you, is extremely bigoted, and is a bias that prevents you from reading my words objectively.



Forced evolution has been observed many times in a lab, with single-celled life right up to fruit flies.


Organisms and populations adapt, but they cannot evolve into another organism. A fruit fly cannot evolve into another kind of fly, it always remains a fruit fly. That is a fact according to the extent of laboratory data from across the world. You are free to believe otherwise, but it is not based in empirical data.



posted on Jul, 30 2019 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Quadrivium

You are STILL harping on BS semantics? In order to refute a scientific theory, you either have to show the evidence to be wrong, or provide an alternate explanation backed by empirical testing and evidence as Colin asked for. Have you done either of these? NOPE.

I can't believe how downright silly and pedantic you are being here. Clearly something has happened to you. You asked for the best evidence, I gave it, you whined that it is too much evidence and you only want one piece. Then when I gave you the option to hand pick any one of them you wanted, you completely ignored it.


originally posted by: Quadrivium
Micro vs Macro.
Macroevolution has never been observed in a lab.
The evolutionist, however, will tell you that it has been observed because Macroevolution is microevolution on a grander scale.


Complete nonsense. The process is EVOLUTION, and the mechanisms for micro and macro are IDENTICAL. Macro is just more time and hence more accumulated changes. LMAO @ this old tireless strawman of evolution directly from Kent Hovind.




edit on 7 30 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2019 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
The chimpanzee genome is 6% larger than the human genome... how could it be a 98% match? You have to check the empirical data for these outlandish claims that are published in sci-fi blogs. Evolution is rampant with claims not based in any sort of reality


Wrong again, Coop. It depends on whether you are describing just coding DNA or all of the genome, and you still haven't explained why this is a problem for evolution. I clearly refuted you a page back and you completely ignored it LOL!



posted on Jul, 30 2019 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Rational discourse with whom? Your church? The contributors of ATS?
(No offence implied to either)
I suggest you have discussions with genealogists and biologists to start with, and I’m sure they could answer all or most of your questions to your satisfaction. You will not be able to hoodwink them with you loaded questioning and false representation as easily as you do the people here.

Yes, I do firmly believe you deliberately mislead and lie in your presentations. You seek out the most obscure examples of your subject matter and present those as commonplace, as one example. Your search for the truth is quite obviously driven only to prove your particular point of view. I also believe you know your viewpoint is incorrect, and it is part of your healing or reaffirmation to find ways to prove to yourself and others that your chosen path is the correct one.

Again you have confused evolution/adaptation/natural selection with creating new species exclusively. You are totally correct that thousands or even millions of generations of fruit fly bred in a lab will not create a new type of creature, and not one single person or organisation that I know of suggests otherwise. If you were to change some conditions of your experiment you may see some changes though, but it will not turn into a pig or a fish.

It’s my belief, and there has been a fair bit of research that may support this, that most speciation (in the form that you would accept as such) was started just after the first ‘snowball Earth’ event and continued through the Cambrian. I can give you the title of a good book to read if you like, with research by eminent scientists in their fields, and all peer-reviewed. I stress, a significant amount is evidence-based conjecture and evaluation of the facts known. It is simply too far back in time to know much with absolute certainty.



posted on Jul, 30 2019 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerraLiga

I suggest you have discussions with genealogists and biologists to start with


Don't appeal to authority. You are fully capable of coming to truth on your own, without having to have it spoon fed to you by experts. I have a degree in neuroscience and chemistry. I know the frontiers of the empirical data and it is consistently demonstrating the impossibility of evolution.


Yes, I do firmly believe you deliberately mislead and lie in your presentations.


Can you point out a specific example where I am deliberately lying? Or are you saying this just because I have a different viewpoint than you? I studied neural circuits, and they humble even the greatest electrical job done by any electrician on earth. The 100,000,000,000 neurons and 1,000,000,000,000 supporting glial cells did not arrange by random chance into a coherent order to allow you self-awareness, emotions, and the ability to rationalize. It would be equivalent to an AI robot emerging by random chance - absolutely impossible.



posted on Jul, 30 2019 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Were you not spoon fed data and information by these same experts to earn your degrees that you are now using as ammunition to claim superiority?

Just so I understand your viewpoint, because you personally do not understand something you must then assume it has been designed?
edit on 30-7-2019 by TerraLiga because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2019 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerraLiga
Were you not spoon fed data and information by these same experts to earn your degrees that you are now using as ammunition to claim superiority?


Empirical data is different than the theory and opinion of 'experts'. Remember when gluten and refined grains were the essential base of the food pyramid recommended for the American diet?



Just so I understand your viewpoint, because you personally do not understand something you must then assume it has been designed?


No, I understand the interconnectedness of the components of biological organisms. Successive random mutations could not have sufficed to create systems that have multiple components. Take for example the muscle unit needing actin, myosin, titin, and so on to be able to function properly. How could these have arisen by step-by-step mutations? It is totally unfounded in empirical science that these proteins can arise by random chance... Not to mention the multitude of factors that are required to organize these components into working synchrony. Titin is over 100,000 base pairs (DNA units) in length, that is absolutely impossible for random chance to create that many successful mutations... althewhile actin and myosin are waiting patiently for it to happen to allow a functional muscle unit? No way...

It could not have happened by random chance.



posted on Jul, 30 2019 @ 05:23 PM
link   
I have heard this and many other irreducible complexities that are ‘evidence’ for creation. I can’t answer those questions, and I suggest it is difficult for many to answer anything like that fully and with authority. That said, however, we are looking at modern biology (muscles in this case) and asking how that can evolve on its own, at a single point in time, and fully functional. It is much much more likely that the muscle started as a simple set of fibres with basic function and slowly evolved; as demands on the fibres grew the capacity for evolution/adaptation was in place and the chemistry to allow that to happen grew into our DNA. Nothing at all started as a fully formed organ or structure. Eons passed before anything like what we see today appeared.

Remember, we are talking of almost a billion years to allow for muscles to evolve into what we know today. That is a very long time.



posted on Jul, 30 2019 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerraLiga
It is much much more likely that the muscle started as a simple set of fibres with basic function and slowly evolved


But there's no such thing found in nature... None of these incomplete components are found in nature. The muscle unit is irreducibly complex, it can't function without all the components. Therefore it could not have arisen by slow evolution.



Remember, we are talking of almost a billion years to allow for muscles to evolve into what we know today. That is a very long time.


An unfathomable amount of time is the magic wand of evolution. But that timescale is also not supported by empirical evidence. It's all a house of cards. Take for example
humans co-existing with dinosaurs, soft tissue being found in dinosaurs (demonstrating they existed too frequently for the evolution timescale to be correct), carbon-dating dinosaurs to be between 4,000-40,000 years old etc, etc



posted on Jul, 30 2019 @ 07:02 PM
link   
I’m ignoring the second part of your response.

All of nature has evolved, but you can still find examples of the evolution of some body parts, like several types of simple eye, or various types of lung and even simple twitch fibres that were the forerunners of muscles. It is there in nature today, although in a more refined form from the ‘experiments’ nature created in the Cambrian.

The more an organism relies on a function, the more it is refined over time. It’s also the case, in some instances, that the more refined a function has become (by natural selection or random mutation), the more the organism relies on it.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join