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.

 

Major component of evolution theory proven wrong

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2008 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Video about cells and what scientists used to think about the past
www.youtube.com...

It would seem these days that they are still teaching people in schools that they have "plant" DNA and "bacteria" DNA in them. As evidence for this claim, the textbooks claim people have cells in them which were "swallowed" by other cells at some point in the past. They claim this is because we were at one time more like plants, and even before that point we were more like bacteria than humans. They say in the past that a plant cell "swallowed" the bacteria cell, or that one bacteria cell swallowed another bacteria cell, and that led to evolution or is somehow a mechanism that would make macro-evolution possible. They claim the plant cells or Eukaryotes somehow directly came out of bacteria cells or Prokaryotes. They call this the "endosymbiosis" components of the theory of evolution.

Well, this was all proven as nonsense back in 2003 when for the first time in history, scientists found a free-floating organelle inside a primitive cell.

Sorry, you don't have "plant" DNA in you. Just because plants came later than bacteria doesn't mean plants came directly out of bacteria, or that plants were created by bacteria cells swallowing each other. In fact, if this actually did ever occur, the swallowed cell would be instantly destroyed.

Scientists have found an organelle - an enclosed free-floating specialised structure - inside a primitive cell for the first time
New discovery contradicts theory of evolution.
news.bbc.co.uk...



Finding a self-contained organelle inside a prokaryote is a puzzle as it suggests that the evolution of cells - the basic building blocks of higher organisms - may have to be reconsidered.




and-
photo.minghui.org...

Oh #, a major evolutionary theory down the toilet!


The Endosymbiosis Hypothesis and Its Invalidity. The new discoveries throw doubt on the idea it could ever be possible
www.darwinismrefuted.com...

So do you still belive your great great grandfather was a bacteria flagellum?


[edit on 16-5-2008 by Hollywood11]




posted on May, 16 2008 @ 01:28 PM
link   
I answered t'other thread, but I guess you had no decent answer.

Hello j*?

This thread is essentially the same as those of yours at internet infidels and dawk's site. You have answers there. Is the I-ching stuff next?

[edit on 16-5-2008 by melatonin]



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 01:45 PM
link   
The fact remains you don't have plant DNA in you, and your great great grandfather wasn't a bacteria flagella. Endosymbiosis is down the toilet, which IMO, is fatal to the whole theory of evolution.



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Yes, of course.

That's why the bbc news article contains quotes from one of the study's authors talking about evolution:


"It appears that this organelle has been conserved in evolution from prokaryotes to eukaryotes, since it is present in both," he says. "This argues against the belief that all eukaryotic organelles were formed when early eukaryotes swallowed prokaryotes."

link in OP

and that 4 years after the study, evolution is just as solid as before. There's not much to say that hasn't already been said to you, J*.

Hit and run just ain't fun.



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 04:00 PM
link   
This shows that scientists will never give up on their theory of evolution and darwinism no matter how many problems and holes are found.

[edit on 16-5-2008 by Hollywood11]



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 04:42 PM
link   
You have to remember that Darwinists are answering to random mutations and not to structured evolutionary impulses.
To an evolution-theorist (dam that felt good) nature works with random changes and nature is not a logical succession of interactions and reactions to actions, so, ofcourse, they just defend their religion. Zealots always do.
The problem with Darwinists is that they fail to see the obvious, because they always expect you to be a creationist. Which ofcourse is nonsense and the same mistake Christians or creationists make when you say you do not believe in creation.
Perhaps some day, there will be enough people who understand that it is not a battle between illogical theories, but rather an attempt to open the doors to a greater understanding that works best when we will all work together.
But hey, they probably do not want to have greater understanding; they have at least found a group with whom they belong...and that is for most people the thing they are looking for.
Others on the other hand keep searching and sharing, we have found our group long ago; we are humans innit?

[edit on 16-5-2008 by dervishmadwhirler]



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by dervishmadwhirler
You have to remember that Darwinists are answering to random mutations and not to structured evolutionary impulses.
To an evolution-theorist (dam that felt good) nature works with random changes and nature is not a logical succession of interactions and reactions to actions, so, ofcourse, they just defend their religion. Zealots always do.
The problem with Darwinists is that they fail to see the obvious, because they always expect you to be a creationist. Which ofcourse is nonsense and the same mistake Christians or creationists make when you say you do not believe in creation.
Perhaps some day, there will be enough people who understand that it is not a battle between illogical theories, but rather an attempt to open the doors to a greater understanding that works best when we will all work together.
But hey, they probably do not want to have greater understanding; they have at least found a group with whom they belong...and that is for most people the thing they are looking for.
Others on the other hand keep searching and sharing, we have found our group long ago; we are humans innit?

[edit on 16-5-2008 by dervishmadwhirler]


have you your own theory. i dont consider myself a Darwinist or whatever but i suppose i probably am. I believe the theory of evolution to be correct its not an intelligent force bending and shaping things to its will ultimately leading to better and more developed species, its just species surviving and those who manage it pass on their DNA and those who dont cant. A simple and stunning theory and one i havent found the need to question yet but i come on sites like this looking for the questions i wouldnt think of asking . what do you believe, im curious



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by R-evolve
 


I do not believe in a guided and planned creation by a whatever superior being.
I also dont belive in random mutation, like Darwinists.
I believe that in nature, evolution is a constant tweaking of interrelations.
No random mutation, for that is rather naive to believe, its like the creationists' story.
Life does not do too much randomness; everything is interconnected and therefor constantly tweaking the relationships. One thing always leads to another.
Mutations do not occur randomly.
And how it all precisely works is the work that we together are doing, living and trying to understand things by learning and observing. Not acting knowledgable and forgetting the biggest part of what we see.



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Well, it is true that some people will never give up on evolution no matter how many mistakes and misinterpretations of data it has led to.

So if you still want to believe that evolution did and does occur in some sense or another, well ok. It's true in the sense that yes, over millions of years the animals and creatures, and even the plants, have changed over time. Some become extinct and new ones somehow emerge. This of course does happen, it's just not really like how any scientist can envision or understand, so they just call it "evolution".

So we can all believe in evolution in the most general sense, but you don't have to then take that belief to the extreme of thinking that humans evolved out of animals and before that bacteria. You can believe in evolution without having to be as extreme as thinking humans are apes or are related to apes when there is absolutely no lineage ever constructed by the tunnel-vision scientists of ape, to cave-men, to modern man.

The real bottom line of this thread, is that you don't have "plant" DNA or "bacteria" DNA like some evolutionists had believed, and your great, great, great, grandfather wasn't a bacteria flagella.



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 05:52 PM
link   
My ancestors weren't plants or bacteria, man is original and actually comes from higher dimensions. As long as scientists' observations are confined to the material plane, everything they see is wrong and illusion.

[edit on 23-9-2008 by Hollywood11]



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hollywood11
My ancestors weren't plants


I strongly doubt the veracity of that statement, both as a scientist and as a human.


As long as scientists" observations are confined to the material plane, everything they see is wrong and illusion.


Scientists study matter in all its staggering complexity. Please note that you used MATERIAL findings in your desperate attempt to disprove evolution, and not some kind of insight projected into your head from an astral plane. Isn's that ironic...



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Most people are not at a level to understand information from higher levels, so for the purposes of a discussion forum I will often use lower level methods of gathering information, material methods.



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hollywood11
Most people are not at a level to understand information from higher levels, so for the purposes of a discussion forum I will often use lower level methods of gathering information, material methods.


We the lowly humans, incapable of reading from interdimensional sources of divine truth, are forever in your debt for your titanic effort to explain same, in material terms. We regret to inform you that you have, unfortunately, failed and the net result looks rather silly. Still, it is all but certain that your posts are of much higher quality when you post on bulletin boards of the "higher level" internet, in whatever astral plane or neutron star you belong - without the need to use plain, material language, logic and facts to which we, the humans, are unfortunately confined.



[edit on 23-9-2008 by buddhasystem]



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hollywood11
My ancestors weren't plants or bacteria, man is original and actually comes from higher dimensions. As long as scientists' observations are confined to the material plane, everything they see is wrong and illusion.

[edit on 23-9-2008 by Hollywood11]


That sounds like a hugely ego-driven statement right there. Unfortunately you do yourself no favours talking down to us lowly Homo sapiens sapiens.

I personally, find it quite humbling, amazing, and wonderful that one of my ancestors could well have been Yunnanozoon lividum. There's a depth of history and a wealth of 'experience' right there.



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hollywood11
My ancestors weren't plants or bacteria, man is original and actually comes from higher dimensions. As long as scientists' observations are confined to the material plane, everything they see is wrong and illusion.

[edit on 23-9-2008 by Hollywood11]


Well you can believe what you like but no one else has too.

Love how your have no proof for your own perspective on things, but can dig up so called 'proof' to debunk a theory you disagree with.

Go back to High school.



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 07:09 PM
link   
I don't have to explain how human beings first appeared on Earth in order to disprove any specific theory about it.

Burden of proof is not on me.

However, if you are interested, I will tell you this much, humans first appeared on Atlantis and it was completely unlike anything you were ever taught in any modern textbook on history or biology.



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hollywood11
I don't have to explain how human beings first appeared on Earth in order to disprove any specific theory about it.

Burden of proof is not on me.

However, if you are interested, I will tell you this much, humans first appeared on Atlantis and it was completely unlike anything you were ever taught in any modern textbook on history or biology.


Now, after a statement like that, the burden of proof is on you.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. How are you so sure of this? Where is/was Atlantis? Come on, no dilly-dallying, I'm curious as to your answers.
As far as I know, there is no proof whatsoever for what you are claiming. That is a heck of a lot less than the proof for evolution.

[edit on 23/9/08 by ChChKiwi]



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Hollywood11
 


Hollywood, since you've joined, on nearly every single thread I've seen you on you make posts that contradict most of known history, and expectations and evidence supporting theories about unknown history. You base these assertions on your own word.
Your word runs against the evidence, until you give some proof otherwise, it is you who is denying evidence, no matter what you think of Plato's story.



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hollywood11
However, if you are interested, I will tell you this much, humans first appeared on Atlantis and it was completely unlike anything you were ever taught in any modern textbook on history or biology.


But you got it all wrong! Humans are the result of a genetic experiment of the Supreme Being Zmorrg, who resides in the center of a massive neutron star and broadcasts his will on a subspace frequency. Atlantis was in fact destroyed on his orders, by the budding human race! It was completely unlike anything you were ever taught in any modern textbook on history or biology.

Since you can't prove me wrong, I will laugh at all and any feeble attempts of yours to promote Atlantis as the birthplace of humans.



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 09:25 PM
link   
No, wait!
I thought that Humans were the result of pig-dog-rat interactions with the pyramid builders of Mars who came here to steal the souls of soon-to-be-deceased cockroaches to power the soulcatcher on the moon and that Atlantis was originally from Venus but was jettisoned during a close encounter with the Earth and when it landed in the Atlantic Ocean it caused a massive tsunami that is now recorded as the flood of noah by the judaeo-christian powers that be who hold the true knowledge and teach the myth of evolution to keep the masses in thrall?

It was completely unlike anything you were ever taught in any modern textbook on history or biology.

That's for sure!

What a fun game.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join