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.
originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: Raggedyman
Evolution theory = lots of supporting evidence.
originally posted by: ClovenSky
I have my own personal tribulations that I am in fully support of
I would say that I fairly confident in my assertions. I could discuss my experiences but I have a feeling they would be quickly dismissed by your current mindset. I am certainly willing to try with the full understanding of the ridicule that will follow.
The honeybadger is one of my favorite animals.
What questions do you have or would you like me to start?
My apologies to Raggedyman for this will most certainly be off topic.
originally posted by: ATruGod
There should be no ridicule, this is a ridiculous bait post. He posted a topic with the intent to "make fun of others lack of scientific knowledge and childlike faith in scientific Wooo". Just another Holier than thou trying to get His rise...
originally posted by: paraphi
originally posted by: Raggedyman
Evolution didn't cure any diseases, scientists did.
Now, that's not actually true. In natural selection (aka survival of the fittest) organisms that are able to survive against disease pass on those genetic traits to their offspring. There are examples of this if you look.
originally posted by: Raggedyman
originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Raggedyman
Evidently evolution has so much solid evidence that evolution doesn't need any more evidence, no I don't get that either
Theres a stack of threads that show things you clearly "don't get"... but as for your question
Sure... We like more evidence, to stack upon the pile...
Plus the fact that we can observe it happening... not that its actually needed
Obviously you've seen this... but i figured we should add a few of your excuses to deny the theory to the first page
Oh come on Ak, that proves nothing more than adaptation.
The word mutant gives it away, those bacteria did not evolve, what they did is mutate, they didn't evolve, they actually lost information
Again, those bacteria lost information, they de evolved, check the research
You are a scientific imbecile, I am sorry, as rude as that sounds, that is a fitting statement, you have no idea of what you have linked, go study the outcome of the experiment
It was not evolution, the bacteria lost information, the bacteria got worse and became weaker
How sad you don't know what you are talking about, no wonder people are so gullible, they believe anything
And having said all that, I don't think you are capable of understanding what I said or the experiment and even sadder, you won't investigate the experiment either
DNA mutates. Continually. That has a lot to do with why living things change (there are also epigenetic factors). Often the mutations are meaningless (things like 6 toes), often they are fatal. Sometimes, they offer some small advantage. The meaningless things get passed on. The advantageous things get passed on. The fatal ones don't if the organism dies before reproducing.
these types of genetic defects shouldn't even be present in the human DNA, being breeded out long time ago.