It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Evolution Proven False

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 08:59 PM
Yeah, and if European americans were derived from Europeans, why are there still Europeans?

posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 09:05 PM
You didn't answer my question.

Europeans are not a a part of an evolutionary chain, they are a class of nationality named by humans. Your simile has no backing.

Let me ask it again.

Evolution is about natural selection, which means that after that species has been evolutionized, it dies off.

Why are there still Monkeys if we have evolved from them.

Do not dance around the question.

[edit on 10-11-2007 by linkjoy124]

[edit on 10-11-2007 by linkjoy124]

posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 09:07 PM

Originally posted by linkjoy124

If evoluton is about Natural Selection and one species dieing off after another was has "evolutionized"


Why are there still Monkey's here?
Is it me, or are Monkeys no where nears dieing off?

[another one
] this is one of your first posts here so..maybe you could have a look at some other threads and actually learned something about the TOE before arguing against it?
Humans and other monkeys etc. share a common ancestor. There is no reason for one to replace the other unless they are in direct competition.

What about the hundreds of gaps between fossil records?
They have more fossil records to fill a huge museum, all piled up. not one of them finds missing links to this evolutionary chain.

See above. Hundreds of gaps? What.. are you expecting a fossil record of a humans entire ancestorial tree or something?

[edit on 10-11-2007 by riley]

posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 09:09 PM
One second.

[edit on 10-11-2007 by linkjoy124]

posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 09:11 PM
The idea was to get you to think about the possible answer, rather than me just spout it out.

I guess it's the teacher in me.

You don't understand how evolution works. It isn't a simple linear ladder-like progression. It's like a branchy bushy thing.

So, what happened in the past, millions of years ago, is that populations split. Keeping up the analogy I tried to use, at one time a group of Europeans split from the larger population and moved to a new environment they called America. Then over time they became European Americans, they even split further within this 'family' into Californians, Texans etc etc

Now apply this to a group of monkeys. Evolution shows as a nested heirarchy.


Evolution is about natural selection, which means that after that species has been evolutionized, it dies off.

No, they really don't. Please get a good book on evolution. You don't need to accept it, but at least learn what the theory is. I suggest Richard Dawkins' book 'the ancestors tale'.

(also, the word you're looking for is 'evolved')

[edit on 10-11-2007 by melatonin]

posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 02:08 AM
reply to post by riley

scientificly why not take this to a more extreme level and say how did a single cell start the creation of ALL organic life. Im pretty sure one cell didnt have the genetic material for eveything, and if its a mutation that did it, I would like to say a cell that asexually reproduces ALWAYS makes an exact copy of itself. What about the trees/plants water and the chemicals in everything, were they created from the 1stchemical do they have an evolution, or hav they always been. Natural selection could be used to argue your theory about apes, like look at all the different finches on all the islands, humans can be compared to them(somehow). Its not that i dont believe in evolution its just it needs to be better explained and justified, plus i think you need alot of faith to believe monkeys turned into is humanity evidence that evolution does not exist?

posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 08:55 AM
reply to post by Anonymous ATS

It has been explained perfectly well. Read up on wikipedia, and you'll see it requires absolutely no faith at all. Do you need faith to know that 2+2=4? Nope. Same with evolution. If, though, you didn't know what '2' was, you'd need faith to know that 2+2=4. That's what we're dealing with here.

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 08:04 PM
reply to post by SpilledBeans

You are rediculous as i believe in creation i believe that we did over the hundreds of millions of years we did in fact evolve...
It has already been proven that humaniods way back when were similar to cro magnum men.
White people have most of the features of the cromagnum man only because he the last race to evolve meaning that they right now are less evolved.. deosnt mean they arent smart whites just arent as evolved as africans..,..
Africans the first race ever created or the first race that came about has had millions of years more to evolve meaning that they are the most intellegent...
Not saying that the other races arent intellegent but the afrcians are most advanced physically and psycologically...

I have studied the evolution of man for 13 years now and i have come to the conclusion that whites are only most affluent only because of their climate and africans even though they have the intellegence they have a harsher climate meaning that they arent able to refine their inventions or trade inventions like the whites did... they had access to africa middle east and asia.....

another finding of mine is that africans the creaters of the pryramids were infact hundreds of years ago the most technologically advanced...
they had furnaces to smelt ore into metalics hundreds of degrees hotter than the modern day furnaces hundreds of years ago.

they had created the first flying machine. the blue print was found and in fact the measure ments were precise enough to fly

45-50 thousand years ago they disected things using written mathematics which the europeans hardly even had a spoken one.. or a written language...haha
but finally i have to say that we as people have come a long way and that both creation and evolution occored.

thanks for your time readers.

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 08:20 PM
reply to post by Anonymous ATS

Logically, if there were conditions for 1 cell to form, then the conditions were probably (most likely) also right for other similar cells to form. If you had a soup full of protiens and such building blocks, it would be highly unlikely that only ONE cell would have formed. Many different cells could/would have formed, each with potentially different properties.

dont be so narrowminded. take a look at the big picture.

PS. that wasnt name calling, it was only a suggestion.

posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 06:13 PM
reply to post by SpilledBeans

Evolution doesnt say we evolved from monkeys. Evolution says we share a common ancester.

posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 07:09 PM
reply to post by SpilledBeans

...of course we didn't evolve from monkeys, nobody in the field of evolutionary biology is stating that we did.

we evolved from proto-apes
not monkeys

case closed.

posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 10:24 AM

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher

"Carbon dating" is one argument that creationists use, because there were some problems with it when the system was first developed... in 1950. They like to pretend that nobody has ever worked on carbon dating or tried to correct it or has even tested it since then.

it still doesnt work, many things have been tested with known age and the results come out to be very incorrect with an error greater than 75% most of the time.

you are so correct in that. I guess that maybe why we call that age "Pre-History" since there are no written records of anything only a few cave drawings

maybe they used drawings as text, kinda like chinese and japanese characters.


Uh, not to show how biased you are but... When Creationists "tested" Carbon Dating what they did was take living, organic, material and then used the testing WRONGLY and got a wrong answer. Do you understand me? THEY USED IT WRONG SO GOT A WRONG ANSWER!

If I try to use a calculator to write a paper and it doesn't write a paper does that mean calculators don't work? No, it means I used it wrong!

posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 02:51 PM

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 03:37 AM
i didnt read the whole thing i just read a paragraph and i already found a flaw

we didnt originate from monkeys, homosapiens were not monkeys and were never labeled as one

the first part FAILS
i dont hav the time to read the rest but for those who do, don't take my answer seriously, i just read one part out of many

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 02:30 PM

I see people still believe that we evolved from monkeys/apes. The amusing thing is that we are apes definitely and definitively.

Go look up human evolution before you make these kinds of assumptions.

Here, I'll give you a hand.

As for the "where did the first cell come from" question, you're talking Abiogenesis, not evolution, a common misconception.

I'm tempted to start an 'Abiogenesis for dummies' thread so we can put this misconception to bed.

posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 07:50 PM
I 100% agree with you and also if we evolved from apes the why arent apes still evolving into humans.

posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 08:54 PM

posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 10:10 PM
Some athiests would also agree that man didn't come from apes.

posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 10:29 PM

Originally posted by MegaBears
Some athiests would also agree that man didn't come from apes.

Some atheists are morons, man is ape.

posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 07:59 PM

Originally posted by SpilledBeans

As many "evolutionists" claim, we evolved on Earth from monkeys.

[edit on 13-11-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]

This the most common and very gross oversimplification of evolution. Please read more about what Evolution really entails.

Watch this video if you'd like to see a simple example of why evolution is very obvious...

[edit on 28-10-2008 by panda319]

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in