This topic is in the Origins & Creationism Conspiracy discussion forum.  (rss)


Evolution Proven False


<<  2    3    4    5  >>



reply posted on 10-11-2007 @ 08:59 PM by melatonin


Yeah, and if European americans were derived from Europeans, why are there still Europeans?



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 10-11-2007 @ 09:05 PM by linkjoy124


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]



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 10-11-2007 @ 09:07 PM by riley



Originally posted by linkjoy124
Question:

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]



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 10-11-2007 @ 09:09 PM by linkjoy124


One second.

[edit on 10-11-2007 by linkjoy124]



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 10-11-2007 @ 09:11 PM by melatonin


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.

ABE:


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]



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 3-6-2008 @ 02:08 AM by Anonymous ATS


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 humans.ps is humanity evidence that evolution does not exist?



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 3-6-2008 @ 08:55 AM by dave420


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.



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 17-7-2008 @ 08:20 PM by MockedUnicorn


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.



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 20-7-2008 @ 06:13 PM by Drakula

(REPLY DRAFT) Evolution Proven False

reply to post by SpilledBeans



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



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 20-7-2008 @ 07:09 PM by madnessinmysoul


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.



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 23-7-2008 @ 10:24 AM by Krieger



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.

EC


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!



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


<<  2    3    4    5  >>







Top Topics Right Now:



Active Topics Right Now:



ATS MIX Podcasts:











Newest Topics:


















ATS Thread Tag System
Members can add a custom descriptive tag to any thread on ATS. Thread Tags will help categorize our site content, help to cross-reference similar threads, and improve the searchability of all ATS threads. This thread is currently defined by these tags:

, , ,
















ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Powered by AboveTop:Board v2.3
Header data processed in 0.007 seconds
Page processed in 0.113 seconds
7 total database queries (1)









The Above Top Secret Conspiracy Community Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.





thread