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.

 

There's the Theory of Evolution and the Interpretation of Evolution

page: 25
12
<< 22  23  24   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2018 @ 05:26 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

The article is right in front of you. Stop asking stupid questions when they have been answered numerous times. You're becoming a bore.

Mods, please take over. Thanks.




posted on Nov, 10 2018 @ 05:30 AM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Yes, you're right. No hope for the hopeless!



posted on Nov, 10 2018 @ 06:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: turbonium1

The article is right in front of you. Stop asking stupid questions when they have been answered numerous times. You're becoming a bore.

Mods, please take over. Thanks.



No, you posted a link, with many articles on it. Stop asking me to do your work for once, and point out a SPECIFIC article, which is something you should have already done by now.

Do you have anything to point out, or not?

You don't even quote anything from the articles. Do you expect me to be a mind reader, too?



posted on Nov, 10 2018 @ 06:16 AM
link   
Maybe you haven't even read the articles, which would explain why you are avoiding it?



posted on Nov, 10 2018 @ 06:24 AM
link   
Simply cite the article, where it supports your case, and then we'll both know what your argument is supposed to be here...

A pile of unquoted, random articles, is NOT how to support a case, btw.



posted on Nov, 13 2018 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

You seem to be missing the point. You have been asked to cite, and you are deflecting that point. Thus you would be the one avoiding.



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 06:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: turbonium1

You seem to be missing the point. You have been asked to cite, and you are deflecting that point. Thus you would be the one avoiding.


I'm asking you to show me evidence, it's up to you to show it...

What is your proof, here?



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

No one is responsible to give you "proof" or anything else. If you're so interested in the subject, then review the research and challenge their results. If you disagree with something someone has said, then it is incumbent on YOU, not them, to challenge their statements.

A scientist does his/her own work. They publish their work for everyone on the planet to read.

You, on the other hand, are lazy. You're a clone of some other freaks on this board who are trolls of the worst kind.
Nothing more means to be said.



posted on Nov, 17 2018 @ 03:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: turbonium1

No one is responsible to give you "proof" or anything else. If you're so interested in the subject, then review the research and challenge their results. If you disagree with something someone has said, then it is incumbent on YOU, not them, to challenge their statements.

A scientist does his/her own work. They publish their work for everyone on the planet to read.

You, on the other hand, are lazy. You're a clone of some other freaks on this board who are trolls of the worst kind.
Nothing more means to be said.


All I've asked you for is any one, or two, specific example(s), which support your argument.


What you have is a link, to multiple articles, which I'm supposed to read, and then explain how any claims of evolution, of every species, which 'evolve' into another species, has no evidence, no proof, within those articles.....is that what you're saying here?


You present no evidence from your source(s), which you claim support your argument, and call me a troll because I've asked you, repeatedly, to merely cite just one, single, specific example, to support your argument.

You don't even present sources, you give me a link. Then, I'm supposed to click on this link, to find where your sources are...

Thanks a lot for showing me a link to your sources, which are not really sources', but just by saying you have 'sources', it sounds good!


If you hope to understand why it's nonsense to say this or that 'source' would prove your argument, that is because any one document, or article, or paper, will contain specific details that explain specific points, or that may have allowed them to reach specific conclusions, or so on...

Sources mean nothing by you pointing at it, crying out 'here is my proof!'


Get the point here?



posted on Nov, 17 2018 @ 07:20 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Did you ever look at the ATS LIbrary website which I started a few years ago. All the evidence is there. Anything you don't understand, I and others are happy to explain.

Maybe you'll be our miracle person who finally reads something?

ats-library.wixsite.com...



posted on Nov, 17 2018 @ 09:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: turbonium1

No one is responsible to give you "proof" or anything else. If you're so interested in the subject, then review the research and challenge their results. If you disagree with something someone has said, then it is incumbent on YOU, not them, to challenge their statements.

A scientist does his/her own work. They publish their work for everyone on the planet to read.

You, on the other hand, are lazy. You're a clone of some other freaks on this board who are trolls of the worst kind.
Nothing more means to be said.


All I've asked you for is any one, or two, specific example(s), which support your argument.


What you have is a link, to multiple articles, which I'm supposed to read, and then explain how any claims of evolution, of every species, which 'evolve' into another species, has no evidence, no proof, within those articles.....is that what you're saying here?


You present no evidence from your source(s), which you claim support your argument, and call me a troll because I've asked you, repeatedly, to merely cite just one, single, specific example, to support your argument.

You don't even present sources, you give me a link. Then, I'm supposed to click on this link, to find where your sources are...

Thanks a lot for showing me a link to your sources, which are not really sources', but just by saying you have 'sources', it sounds good!


If you hope to understand why it's nonsense to say this or that 'source' would prove your argument, that is because any one document, or article, or paper, will contain specific details that explain specific points, or that may have allowed them to reach specific conclusions, or so on...

Sources mean nothing by you pointing at it, crying out 'here is my proof!'


Get the point here?



It's called doing your homework. Being lazy is why you can't refute even one piece of evidence for evolution. Except by misrepresentation.



posted on Nov, 18 2018 @ 01:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: turbonium1

No one is responsible to give you "proof" or anything else. If you're so interested in the subject, then review the research and challenge their results. If you disagree with something someone has said, then it is incumbent on YOU, not them, to challenge their statements.

A scientist does his/her own work. They publish their work for everyone on the planet to read.

You, on the other hand, are lazy. You're a clone of some other freaks on this board who are trolls of the worst kind.
Nothing more means to be said.


All I've asked you for is any one, or two, specific example(s), which support your argument.


What you have is a link, to multiple articles, which I'm supposed to read, and then explain how any claims of evolution, of every species, which 'evolve' into another species, has no evidence, no proof, within those articles.....is that what you're saying here?


You present no evidence from your source(s), which you claim support your argument, and call me a troll because I've asked you, repeatedly, to merely cite just one, single, specific example, to support your argument.

You don't even present sources, you give me a link. Then, I'm supposed to click on this link, to find where your sources are...

Thanks a lot for showing me a link to your sources, which are not really sources', but just by saying you have 'sources', it sounds good!


If you hope to understand why it's nonsense to say this or that 'source' would prove your argument, that is because any one document, or article, or paper, will contain specific details that explain specific points, or that may have allowed them to reach specific conclusions, or so on...

Sources mean nothing by you pointing at it, crying out 'here is my proof!'


Get the point here?



It's called doing your homework. Being lazy is why you can't refute even one piece of evidence for evolution. Except by misrepresentation.


No, it's called doing someone else's homework, who seems incapable of even TRYING to support an argument with anything. Like a lazy college kid, who tells the professor his answer is in a book. 'It's right here in this book, Professor. Why should I quote from it, I know what it says. Why should I do YOUR own homework for you??'


I'm sure you didn't try that in school, right? Maybe you did, who knows?


Sources are not a pile of articles you link on a post, and say 'here it all is, now try and prove me wrong'. It is utterly idiotic.


Sources are what we use to specifically support our claims, with QUOTES, and CITATIONS, provided by THOSE SAME SOURCES.

I almost feel as if I'm trying to explain this basic concept to someone who never even went to high school before, or something.

Sheesh.



posted on Nov, 18 2018 @ 02:09 AM
link   
Here is an example of something I spoke about earlier, from one of your 'sources'..

'Recent genomic data has shown that the rhesus macaque, which split from humans 30 MY ago, has an almost identical Y gene set as humans21. This implies that the gene content of the human Y has been stable in the past 30MY and that the last common ancestor had already reached an equilibrium Y chromosome gene number."

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


Look at the very first sentence.

This article begins with one, very intentional, and very wrong, claim. They claim that the rhesus macaque 'split from humans 30 MY ago', as if it were a well-proven, well-established fact, or something.


It also provides support for the rest of his paper, which is really helpful, indeed.



I don't recall there being any sort of valid proof for rhesus monkeys splitting off from humans 30 MY ago, do you? It's your side's source, isn't it?

I suppose you'll tell me that I should find it, and show you where it's wrong....



posted on Nov, 18 2018 @ 02:24 AM
link   
The so-called 'evidence' for rhesus monkeys splitting from humans 30 MY ago is, as usual, having similarities in DNA.

While it completely ignores the fact that humans share much more DNA with modern gorillas, and chimps.

It proves DNA similarities CANNOT be considered the slightest bit evidence for common ancestors that 'split off' millions of years ago.

Just ignore the real evidence, and pretend it doesn't even exist. This works just swell, for any theory on evolution!!


Quadrillions of species have never changed, into another species - just ignore all that overwhelming, undeniable body of evidence, too!!



posted on Nov, 18 2018 @ 06:31 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

You don't understand why it's written that way because you haven't reviewed the references. When you read a research paper, the references are as important as the work being presented. Unfortunately, that means more work for you.

If after reading the references and researching the subject you still don't agree with the author, then it's up to YOU to challenge the author's work with your own.




This article begins with one, very intentional, and very wrong, claim. They claim that the rhesus macaque 'split from humans 30 MY ago', as if it were a well-proven, well-established fact, or something.


You claim that it's "intentional". How so? If the claim is wrong, what evidence do you bring to the table to prove that the author is wrong? If I made the claim that pigs fly and you said they don't, who would have to provide the evidence? Both parties would. In the case of the rhesus monkey data, the author provided evidence by way of the reference material. Now it's your turn to provide the evidence that the author is wrong.

That's how all science works.



posted on Nov, 18 2018 @ 08:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
What you have is a link, to multiple articles, which I'm supposed to read, and then explain how any claims of evolution, of every species, which 'evolve' into another species, has no evidence, no proof, within those articles.....is that what you're saying here?


So dozens of corroborating sources don't mean anything to you but one single article by itself holds more weight? Maybe you don't grasp how scientific theories work. You don't just have one single paper that proves everything. You have thousands upon thousands of papers that all together paint the big picture. This is the problem with creationists. They are afraid of doing research, and dismiss it by default. They want everything spoon fed to them, and even when it is they still ignore it.

You shouldn't be attacking things you have never attempted to research or learn about, just saying. I wouldn't be going up to nuclear physicists and claiming nuclear physics is all wrong because I know almost nothing about it. You're asking people to prove something, when scientists have already done it and the information is already all out there and being applied in things like medicine and vaccines. As a society, we're a little past the point of "Is evolution true?"


This article begins with one, very intentional, and very wrong, claim. They claim that the rhesus macaque 'split from humans 30 MY ago', as if it were a well-proven, well-established fact, or something.


It is my understanding that they are talking about the split from old world monkeys that led to great apes. You do realize common ancestry does not mean we only share a common ancestor with our closest relatives, right? We share a common ancestor with all primates, it just goes back much further than chimps.


edit on 11 18 18 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2018 @ 08:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: turbonium1

Did you ever look at the ATS LIbrary website which I started a few years ago. All the evidence is there. Anything you don't understand, I and others are happy to explain.

Maybe you'll be our miracle person who finally reads something?

ats-library.wixsite.com...


Come on, Phantom! You know as well as I do that none of that counts unless it's all condensed into a single paragraph that definitively proves every detail of evolution from start to beginning.



posted on Nov, 18 2018 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

My bad. Thanks for reminding me!




posted on Nov, 18 2018 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
The so-called 'evidence' for rhesus monkeys splitting from humans 30 MY ago is, as usual, having similarities in DNA.

While it completely ignores the fact that humans share much more DNA with modern gorillas, and chimps.

It proves DNA similarities CANNOT be considered the slightest bit evidence for common ancestors that 'split off' millions of years ago.

Just ignore the real evidence, and pretend it doesn't even exist. This works just swell, for any theory on evolution!!


Quadrillions of species have never changed, into another species - just ignore all that overwhelming, undeniable body of evidence, too!!


yes, humans share more DNA with member of the ape family such as certain gorillas and chimpanzees than we do with the rhesus monkeys because the rhesus diverged from the catarrhini of the primate order before the hominidae further developed.

tolweb.org...

genomics.senescence.info...


edit on 18-11-2018 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2018 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

In the first instance it was you who posted. THUS, the burden of proof is yours. Not ours. QED




top topics



 
12
<< 22  23  24   >>

log in

join