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.

 

Evolution, It's only a theory

page: 77
65
<< 74  75  76    78  79  80 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro

Originally posted by rhinoceros
No, because "genome scientists" are more than aware that RNA predates DNA. Do you want to know what possibly predates RNA?

I know this. But new knowledge is raising questions about these.

Bull#. But go ahead, if you're not lying do post a link to a scientific article or something that confirms your claim. It's a fact that RNA predates DNA.


Originally posted by atlasastro

Originally posted by rhinoceros
DNA can't account for photosynthesis? Whaaat?

No Evolution. Given that the thread is about evolution.

How exactly does photosynthesis go against theory of evolution?


Originally posted by atlasastro
Show how multicellular, multicellular is also reliant on earlier symbiosis is it not.

Sorry your sentence doesn't make much sense. Show how multicellular what? Yes, obviously unicellular life predates multicellular life.


Originally posted by atlasastro
Thanks, I think I actually bring up SET theory in earlier post, as I have been on this thread long before these more recent posts, and how it argues against Darwins original theory.


You know we have moved past Darwin's original theory.


Originally posted by atlasastro
Sudden abundance of resources lol. What! the planet suddenly changed into a resource rich planet where there was no resources before and this suddenly enabled life to rapidly diversify. Organisms had to evolve to make use of any change be they atmosphere, soil etc. As any benefit would be as per random mutation and then advantage over other organisms, yet it is all this is still relying on symbiosis too.

Multicellular life (=massive biomass increase) > Terrestrial plants (=massive biomass increase) > Organic material to soils > Tons of food that was never there before > Tons of new opportunities (=niches) > Photosynthesis output increase (a massive one) > Change in atmosphere composition

Mutations are random, but natural selection is not.


Originally posted by atlasastro
Oh sorry, I didn't get the memo where we had a unified theory explaining everything. Can you link it, cheers. As I would love to read just one, complete, agreed upon, theory that explains evolution.

en.wikipedia.org...


Originally posted by atlasastro
So where is your noble prize. You fool. Abiogenesis is the Holy Grail. Why are these still being studied if they are all explained.

We've theorized (and partly experimented) how it might have happened. We haven't said how it did happen. And anyways this topic is about evolution, not chemical evolution or abiogenesis.


Originally posted by atlasastro
Everything about our existence as a probability is also actually atronomically small. But I am sure you can explain it all. Nice appeal to authority on the Professor. It is funny how this DNA thing keeps popping up. Please keep explaining exactly how we know how it came to be. I mean right from the start. Because you said it has been explained, but obviously I, and the rest of the Planet have missed it.


Here I was answering this:
when we can know and not suggest that eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes
and you just ignored my reply and switched the topic. What's up with that? I told you that we know for a fact that eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes one way or another. We don't maybe know exactly how, but we do know it happened.




posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


"I know this. But new knowledge is raising questions about these. "

The "new knowledge" atlasastro is talking about it probably a creation of the ICR or the Discovery Institute. "New knowledge" is created when old knowledge is swallowed, digested, and excreted by creationists to justify their theories. It has another name, but that turns up here as "#", so I won't use it.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro
Because I asked the professor guy. Yeah. You Know. Everyone else doesn't because you read the book, and that guy told you and everyone else will just look dumb if you just paint them as a stereotypical religious simpleton. I mean look everyone, he asked the professor.

What's wrong with that then? I'm not appealing to authority here.
p.s. this professor is more accomplished than you or I or anyone in this phorum will ever be.



Originally posted by atlasastro
Please go back to my earlier posts. No one answered these questions, as I have raised them before, or challenged the sources I linked in my earlier posts.

Which post?



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 



I didn’t suggest they were; I’m telling you that based on what I consider a human being to be, they were. Please, what do you believe qualifies someone as a human being? i have a feeling I’ll enjoy your answer.


What?

Ok...lol.

You did suggest it, now lets use our brains! Here we go. Based on what YOU consider what a human is, you define them as human. Now, what I believe and what the scientific community consider and believe humans to be is homo-sapiens...... Neanderthals are not homo-sapiens.

Yeah, enjoy being owned...sigh.


[edit on 29-4-2009 by andre18]



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by JPhish
I already freaking said that . . . Microevolution: organisms exhibiting genetic variations over time..


So what's the difference between having different genomes and being dissimilar organisms? Since they exhibit different genomes aren't they by default dissimilar organisms?

No, what would make them dissimilar organisms would be their inability to mate and produce fertile offspring. Something you can readily test and observe.


Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by JPhish
I'm not going to answer that question for the same reason I didn’t “try” it the first time. It’s a LOADED QUESTION. Within itself, the question implies that macro-evolution happens; when there is no conclusive proof it does.


You're not answering it, because you can't answer it.

Bad logic; it was a loaded question. If you want to rephrase the question I will answer it accordingly.


There is undeniable evidence for macro-evolution all around. Human chromosome 2 is a good example of it.
no, and no.


here.
yeah, sorry, but that’s complete rubbish, that entire post is a causal oversimplification which is a logical fallacy of causation.

You’re also saying these things as if you know them to be truths, and that alone is reason for anyone to doubt you.



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by andre18
reply to post by JPhish
 



I didn’t suggest they were; I’m telling you that based on what I consider a human being to be, they were. Please, what do you believe qualifies someone as a human being? i have a feeling I’ll enjoy your answer.


What?

Ok...lol.

You did suggest it, now lets use our brains!

No, I had not suggested that Neanderthals were human beings. If I did, you should have no problem finding the quote. Please no quote mining.


Here we go. Based on what YOU consider what a human is, you define them as human.
yes that’s what I said, nearly verbatim.


Now, what I believe and what the scientific community consider and believe humans to be is homo-sapiens...... Neanderthals are not homo-sapiens.

Here’s a question for you, and this is a trick question mind you; I’ll tell you right now that you are going to fail at answering it miserably because your belief system is tragically flawed.

Let’s say that at some point in the recent past; there was a group of humans who were isolated and evolved into another species (meaning they can no longer reproduce with homosapians) yet they retained our level of consciousness and apparent physical form. You would not consider them human?


Yeah, enjoy being owned...sigh.
did you just beat up a straw man without typing it on the forum? Did you win some sort of mental victory inside your own head? Because as far as I can see you’re merely regurgitating what I’ve spoon fed you.


[edit on 4/30/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


JPhish, and to all recent contributors, greetings again.

I have followed this thread, with interest. At least, at first. Then, it has of late become more difficult to understand, because as some members respond to another, the posts being responded to are chopped up (parsed) in such a way that the flow of any valid conversation is lost....

Gives me a headache...

With apologies to the OP, andre18 (or by now, maybe he's andre19?) Yeah, just a joke, a little levity....

I happen to see the ironic point of the OP. It is brilliant, really, in its ability to foment controversy!!! Kudos, and I bow to your creativity!!

It seems, with all of the 'back-and-forth'....of the "believers" versus the ones who have rational thought on their side, it boils down to this: Purely dogmatic deference to some made-up imaginary 'friend' in the sky vs. a true, rational observance of life and events that are undeniably evident, all around us.

Just because those with heads in the sand cannot or will not accept the reality around them....they, as I said, just 'blind' themselves to concepts that they don't wish to acknowledge.

It's like 'Santa Clause'...I'd rather keep believing in a mythical being that will always give me presents every year....until I realize that 'he' is a fantasy. It's dificult to come to face with the facts......



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 02:02 AM
link   
I believe in both.

There is plenty of stuff around the internet that say "God" created MAN, and there is no "Evolution." Others Say there is no "God" Only "Evolution" which brought man were we are today.

But in my opinion both are correct..

There is no "Evolution", Only micro evolution which we see with animals good example is Dogs, Mixing X & Y to get a Z. It's been done for many years to get a mix or a full breed.

"They don't spawn vocal cords or gills, jus because they talk to humans or live/swim in area with water."

And a "God" which created All Life. --REALLY?--
There are many paintings both egyptian and modern man which show painting of "gods"; "aircrafts"; "light from above"; "angels" and so much more. As humans you guys are so blinded by your own believes and struggling so hard to make others follow your believes that you can't really see the truth..

soo to sum it up.

Yes, There is a god or gods or lots of being which are smarter faster and better looking then you!

Yes, Humans were created, using micro evolution the breeding of X + Y to get Z.
"They took Smart subject X & Smart Subject B to create a even faster stronger smarter "Human"

Some questions to ask would be...

Why were you created, to be a puppet or to seek the truth.... ?

[edit on 30-4-2009 by xXGrimSlayerXx]



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 04:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
No, what would make them dissimilar organisms would be their inability to mate and produce fertile offspring. Something you can readily test and observe.


Ah, but then also *macro*evolution has been empirically proven to be a fact because not all dogs can interbreed. Thanks




yeah, sorry, but that’s complete rubbish, that entire post is a causal oversimplification which is a logical fallacy of causation.


How many times have I asked you now to freaking explain human chromosome 2? Your first excuse for not answering was that you didn't understand the connection. I provided an answer. Now here we have another excuse. I don't mind you pointing out where exactly all these causal oversimplification lie, but once again I ask you to also explain why there are telomere sequences at centerish parts of human chromosome 2 and also why this particular chromosome has 2 centromeres and also why we find the same genes in Chimpanzees, only in their case they reside in 2 seperate chromosomes? No more excuses please. It's time to stop dodging the question.

[edit on 30-4-2009 by rhinoceros]



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 05:38 AM
link   
reply to post by xXGrimSlayerXx
 



"There is plenty of stuff around the internet that say "God" created MAN, and there is no "Evolution." Others Say there is no "God" Only "Evolution" which brought man were we are today.

But in my opinion both are correct.. "

I suspect a better BS filter is required. The evidence for the fact of evolution is massive. The evidence for the existence of gods is hearsay, at best, and outright lies at worse.

Ask yourself one question: Why would "god" have created a world where 99.9999% of the species that have so far lived be extinct?



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros
Evolution is a phenomenon. Theory of evolution tries to explain it. Gravity is a phenomenon. There is not a single theory that explains it. We've got 2 theories that explain gravitation on different scales. There's a problem thou. These 2 theories are not compatible with each other. One might say that gravity is a theory in crisis


[edit on 28-4-2009 by rhinoceros]


This is exactly the point.

It is just as ridiculous to say the evolution might not be real because it is a theory as it is to say gravity might not be real because it is a theory.

We observe gravity.
We observe evolution.

We have theories to explain gravity.
We have a theory to explain evolution.



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by JezusIt is just as ridiculous to say the evolution might not be real because it is a theory as it is to say gravity might not be real because it is a theory.


The problem isn't evolution per se, it's the threat to the ecumenical dogma. The fundies have no problem with electricity, they drive automobiles, and they would run like bunnies if they thought they were in a nuclear bomb test site. But God made people and any disagreement with that is frightening to them.



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


You said –

I'd be willing to bet that if Neanderthals were around today, they'd be able to mate with us and baer fertile offspring. There are not enough apparent differences between us that would lead me to believe otherwise at the moment.


Then i said

We were so different genetically we couldn't interbreed. We don't cary neathderthal genes and we evolved as a seperate line in paralel with the neathderthal line.


And so you were wrong, they weren’t able to mate with us. And in the video it reveals that there are enough differences between us that should make you believe otherwise.

Then you said -

i never suggested otherwise.


Clrearly you did say otherwise - you said – “if Neanderthals were around today, they'd be able to mate with us” I said “We don't cary neathderthal genes.”

We don’t cary neathderthal genes so we weren’t able to mate.

Then I said -

Yes you did. You said "i still consider them human none the less" neathderthals were not human. You suggested they were, they're not.


Then you said –

Simply because I consider them human, does not mean that i believe that we possess Neanderthal genes or that we descended from them..


Then I said –

Based on what YOU consider what a human is, you define them as human. Now, what I believe and what the scientific community consider and believe humans to be is homo-sapiens...... Neanderthals are not homo-sapiens.


Then you said

I had not suggested that Neanderthals were human beings.


And so now im saying – Yes you did you said – “i still consider them human none the less” Even though you said “Simply because I consider them human, does not mean that i believe that we possess Neanderthal genes or that we descended from them”

that still doesn’t matter because you still haven’t defined what you mean by human so all I have to go on is norm of what a human is.


Let’s say that at some point in the recent past; there was a group of humans who were isolated and evolved into another species (meaning they can no longer reproduce with homosapians) yet they retained our level of consciousness and apparent physical form. You would not consider them human?


Sounds like a matter of semantics.

So again, how exactly are you defining "human"?



[edit on 30-4-2009 by andre18]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by JPhish
No, what would make them dissimilar organisms would be their inability to mate and produce fertile offspring. Something you can readily test and observe.


Ah, but then also *macro*evolution has been empirically proven to be a fact because not all dogs can interbreed. Thanks

Besides your claim being absolutely bogus because it’s a blatant causal oversimplification . . . All dogs can interbreed, they are merely physically incapable at times because of size/figure disparity. Though it would be difficult and probably prove fatal to a mother Chiuwawa, even a Chiuwawa and a Great Dane could produce fertile offspring. They are the same specie. They are all dogs.


How many times have I asked you now to freaking explain human chromosome 2?
logically or illogically? From what I can tell, you haven’t logically asked me once.


Your first excuse for not answering was that you didn't understand the connection.


Let’s try this AGAIN . . .

P = I understand the connection
Q = I answer your question

If P, then Q
⌐Q is undesirable for you (because it doesn’t animate your straw man)
Therefore ⌐P

Argumentum ad consequentiam AGAIN . . .

You have yet to show that there is a connection at all; when you tried; your entire post was an illogical fallacy of causation.


I provided an answer.

An illogical one . . .


. . . once again I ask you to also explain why there are telomere sequences at centerish parts of human chromosome 2 and also why this particular chromosome has 2 centromeres and also why we find the same genes in Chimpanzees, only in their case they reside in 2 seperate chromosomes? No more excuses please. It's time to stop dodging the question.
The question and any possible answers to it bear no weight because it has been illogically inserted into the discourse. I’m afraid you’ll have to answer your own rhetorical question.


[edit on 5/1/2009 by JPhish]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 01:08 AM
link   
In regard to your plethora of quotes, they were so garbled that any response I could assemble in an attempt to untangle them would be senseless.

Just read these two posts over for me please.

this one and then this one

Notice I partitioned your post into 2 sections when I responded and was not responding to it as a whole. I think this is where some of your confusion may lie.


Originally posted by andre18
reply to post by JPhish
 
Sounds like a matter of semantics.

It’s not; it’s a matter of terminology.


So again, how exactly are you defining "human"?


Someone that shares our semblance
Someone who has introspective ability
Someone that applies logic
Someone that can communicate through language
Someone that can express itself through art and music
Someone with emotions

My list assumes that the person doesn’t have a genetic defect or injury that prohibits him/her/it from performing these things.

[edit on 5/1/2009 by JPhish]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 01:20 AM
link   
CREATION, it's only a theory....

This little video sums it up well.



link to it, find a lot more....



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 03:18 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


sums what up well? how fools debate on youtube???

the video seems completely off base from what we've been discussing in recent posts.

what gives?


[edit on 5/1/2009 by JPhish]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


You're just dodging the question. You saying that my post is illogical fallacy of causation, does not make it so. I won. Evolution won. End of debate.

p.s. all dogs cannot interbreed and thus by YOUR definition they're not of same species.

[edit on 1-5-2009 by rhinoceros]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
Someone that shares our semblance
Someone who has introspective ability
Someone that applies logic
Someone that can communicate through language
Someone that can express itself through art and music
Someone with emotions

My list assumes that the person doesn’t have a genetic defect or injury that prohibits him/her/it from performing these things.


Well, by your definition of "human", an alien species could be considered human without sharing any of our DNA.

So, a neanderthal could be considered "human" by such a definition without being a homo-sapien.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by andre18

Originally posted by JPhish
Someone that shares our semblance
Someone who has introspective ability
Someone that applies logic
Someone that can communicate through language
Someone that can express itself through art and music
Someone with emotions

My list assumes that the person doesn’t have a genetic defect or injury that prohibits him/her/it from performing these things.


Well, by your definition of "human", an alien species could be considered human without sharing any of our DNA.

without any of our DNA? i'm not sure how similar they could possibly be to us without sharing ANY of our DNA. But in theory, yes.


So, a neanderthal could be considered "human" by such a definition without being a homo-sapien.
yeah pretty much. This isn't the way most people see it i understand. But i'm comfortable with this definition because of its versatility. In case we do find relatives on some remote island on earth or even in another galaxy, i'd like to be able to say they're human beings without pricking their fingers and doing a DNA test.



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 74  75  76    78  79  80 >>

log in

join