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.

 

Can you prove evolution wrong?*

page: 104
31
<< 101  102  103    105  106  107 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


True but its the drop in calcium thats causing the hormonal inbalance.


No, it isn't. It's the pituitary gland. Sheesh.




posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Ya but at least gravity is observed!


Evolution is observed on the small scale through currently living beings, and through the large scale through fossilization evidence and similarities in organisms.



Actually I never made any claims about how or what made us, just that we aren't from earth. Could be creation, could be evolution, could be something else we don't know yet. I go with the 3rd since both creation and evolution always put us back to which came first the chicken or the egg.


So you know, claiming that we aren't from Earth is a claim. It requires proof.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





The Agricultural Revolution was a man-made construct, a social experiment on a huge scale. Do you have any idea how many thousands of years of trial and error must have gone into that before someone found something that worked? The process of selecting crops and animals and breeding them for their desirous traits evolved over a long time.
It would appear that you are headed in saying we werent suppose to grow in population to where we had to move to cities.


That's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that it was a drastic change from their previous lifestyle, and 8,000 years is a drop in the bucket genetically and geologically. We simply haven't had time to adapt completely.

Now you're bringing in predestination vs. free will--it has no place in this discussion. We could do it, therefore we did it. That's all there is to it. Our ancestors were just as clever and intelligent as we are today--and they were curious. We will never know what made the first genetic engineer manipulate a plant seed, but it's our curiosity and desire to make things better that have gotten us where we are today. No alien and no god is responsible for that.




There's no such thing as balance in nature. That's a myth.
I challange this becuase in most things on this planet you can see them in a type of balance.

Name one example.





But to answer your question. A species evolves into another species because it was able to through a series of adaptations. The species evolved to exploit local resources. If there wasn't food for it, it would have died out.
Exactly or they would have started making there own food like we do. How many other species on this planet do you see that make there own food other than us.

Rubbish. We make our own food now, but we didn't always. But there are animals that use tools to catch their food. Chimps are famous for it. So are dolphins and killer whales.





Breast milk has every nutrient and other protective compounds a baby needs, except maybe iron. And no, we aren't supposed to drink cow's milk but it's a good thing we have it. Not every baby can nurse and they still die.
And did you ever wonder why that is? It's because the mother is deficiant in her calcium and so she can't pass it on.

You're not very educated in this subject, are you? Go read up on lactogenesis--there, I've spelled it for you so all you have to do is google it.

Calcium has NOTHING to do with it. Please educate yourself before you throw out demonstrably false statements.




It's not that labor intensive if you know what you're doing.
by comparison to all other species on this planet, your wrong.

We do it because it tastes good. And because we can. By the way, plants, protists, and monerans can make their own food.


Name one other species out of the 5 million that has to have medical intervention before puberty to avoid death?

What is this nonsense?


name one other species that has as many differnt types of sickness to face like we do. I'll give you a hint, we have hospitals, we have meds, we have doctors, how much do they have? 25% of my phone book is medical related genre.

Ever heard of a veterinary hospital?



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





That's another thing, if we were "dumped" here, we'd most likely have died off pretty quick simply because we wouldn't have been able to eat anything.
Well your forgeting that we were helped. God also provided us with necessary things knowing we would need them.


Good grief!


It's all a big mess because you might think we should be fine but from a technical point of view we will never be fine on this planet.


This is a prime example of the myth that nature is balanced. It isn't. That's why you feel we're not fine.

What did you expect? Everlasting life?

Keep dreaming.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





So true. Of all the diseases I hope stay eradicated, it's that one. No other microbe has caused so much sickness, disfigurement, and death.
Not that we would never get sick on our home planet but the vast array of sickness we face each day should earn a spot on 1000 ways to die.


Let me say it again. Every organism gets sick. Every single one. It doesn't matter if it's from Earth or Betelgeuse or Alpha Centauri or Kepler 22b.

There are roughly 1,000 microbes on Earth that make us sick, out of the millions of species that exist and have existed. Now, we can be forgiven for thinking that's way too many, but most of them are neutral to us or even helpful. They break down our food and wastes. They created the very atmosphere we breathe and are vital to the carbon cycle and the nitrogen cycle. They are symbionts--we couldn't live 2 seconds without them. How then can you say we didn't evolve alongside them?

Go look up Biosphere 2 and see why it failed. Tell me then that we're alien to them.

Microbes outweigh the rest of the biosphere many times over. They were here at the very beginning, and they'll be here when the sun explodes. Get used to it.


We seriously struggle and things are getting worse. I even asked my counselor, straight up, are people today sick and she agreed yes they are. There are new strains always surfacing and now things are so bad that when they give someone antibiotics, they have to give them two different sets because a strain is immune to them. We only have 3 to play with FYI.


It's not even that many, and the ones that are left will kill you with the side effects. Genetic resistance to antibiotics in microbes goes back to the beginning of life on Earth. We might have caused them to become resistant through overuse (veterinarians and farmers especially) but we haven't had an entirely new class of antibiotics in almost 40 years. Well, that's not entirely true. They're working on the Archaeocins but there's no guarantee they're going to work. That's because there's no profit in it for drug companies or researchers. What may save us is a better understanding of how they become resistant in the first place and pass that information on to other microbes. (They info share, by the way.)




Back in the 70's, there was a population on an island in the South Pacific that had never seen westerners before. They all contracted measles.
You think about how serious all of this is yet we say this is the least of our worries.

It could be a disaster. Measles is no joke.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





First, Pye said two dozen. Looks like you need to work on your listening comprehension skills.
Oh yes thank you for clearing that up for me.




Second, what is Pye's source for those claims? He's amazingly evasive about it when asked directly.
Well of course his sources are these expensive DNA labs that he has been working with.




Third, he's talking about potential defects, like the genetic defect that causes cystic fibrosis. Not everyone carries the gene and it's autosomal recessive, so it requires a person to have one of those genes from each parent.
I'm not getting that, I'm getting that we all have them.




Fourth, counter to Pye's claim, we're not the only species that has genetic disorders like that. In fact, we share some with other primates. Which would be evidence for common ancestry.
Shared disorders is not proof of ancestory but it is suspicious for sure. At the same time I know for a fact they don't have near what we do in defects. Primates dont require medical intervention from birth just to stay alive.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





No, you have what you perceive as a lack of evidence for evolution. It boils down to an argument from ignorance -- we don't know everything yet, therefore aliens did it. You have zero objective evidence to support your claims of interventionism. I'm not sure why you're doing such an about-face on this, as you've admitted that there's zero evidence in other threads.
Well there is always a lack of of proof when it comes to evolution. None of the theory of macroevolution has evern been proven or witnessed in ANY of the 5 million species here on earth. In addition we don't have any branched species either. It's all a crock.




Yes, and it's already been presented multiple times to you, in this thread and others.
I know and Von daniken got busted on non related things so hes a flake and all of them are wrong and your right.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


I allready commented after reading about folic acid.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





Evolution is observed on the small scale through currently living beings, and through the large scale through fossilization evidence and similarities in organisms.
Similarities do not create an ancestorial connection. Small scale could but in this case doesn't make a connection either. There are too many assumptions being made here and this is why it looks so wrong.




So you know, claiming that we aren't from Earth is a claim. It requires proof.
The bible states if for one, Sitchen states it. The bible was to remind us of what has heppened to us, but some people either understand it wrong or don't accept it al all.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





That's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that it was a drastic change from their previous lifestyle, and 8,000 years is a drop in the bucket genetically and geologically. We simply haven't had time to adapt completely.
We were slammed with needed adaptation from the first day we were brought here. This is why Adam and Eve were noted not being ashamed from not wearing clothing. We have always known that aliens have the ability to erase memory. It would appear that Adam and Eve were abudcted, memories erased, and any belongings removed from there possesion to avoid total recall of there memory. Any time you subject someone with erased memory to something they are familliar with, it could bring back the rest of there memory. God knew this and knew that if he showed his face, or left them with clothing on, there memorys would come back and they would realize they have been abducted.

My find BTW.




Now you're bringing in predestination vs. free will--it has no place in this discussion. We could do it, therefore we did it. That's all there is to it. Our ancestors were just as clever and intelligent as we are today--and they were curious. We will never know what made the first genetic engineer manipulate a plant seed, but it's our curiosity and desire to make things better that have gotten us where we are today. No alien and no god is responsible for that.
Your missing the point completly. There wouldn't be a need for us to do these things if the accomidations fit us to being with.




Name one example.
Oh its everywhere. Plants give off oxygen, animals breath oxygen. Haven't you ever bought a fish in a sealed eco system? That has water, a plant and a fish and they keep themselves in balance. The fish eats the plant, his poo also feeds the plant and sunlight, also balances with the water.




Rubbish. We make our own food now, but we didn't always. But there are animals that use tools to catch their food. Chimps are famous for it. So are dolphins and killer whales.
Examples please.




You're not very educated in this subject, are you? Go read up on lactogenesis--there, I've spelled it for you so all you have to do is google it.

Calcium has NOTHING to do with it. Please educate yourself before you throw out demonstrably false statements.
I allready addressed this issue on folic acid.




We do it because it tastes good. And because we can. By the way, plants, protists, and monerans can make their own food.
So your trying to tell me we breed, and imunize and feed cows so that we can harvest, fortify, pasturize, and homogenize and store and ship and package the milk just because we like the taste. I guess mothers breast milk must not taks that good.




What is this nonsense?
Do you know any other species that has to imunization from birth? NOPE.




Ever heard of a veterinary hospital?
Now your going to try to tell me that animals have just as much sickness as humans because we have veterinarian hospitals. FYI there are 5 million other species, and we have more medical intervention than all 5 million put together, figure it out.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





Good grief!
What you don't know the history ? Read the bible.




This is a prime example of the myth that nature is balanced. It isn't. That's why you feel we're not fine.
I attribute most of the problems from man being brought here. What do you not think we are messing up the planet?




What did you expect? Everlasting life?

Keep dreaming.
Well we originally lived 1000 years according to the bible, but after punishments 120 years.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 





As I said, the calcium is primarily for the mother's benefit. It makes it so the baby doesn't start leeching calcium from the mother's bones. Everything else in prenatals is for the baby. As I mentioned before the folic acids are for the prevention of certain complications. The mother doesn't need those folic acids, as even if she stopped anything at all the mother would still have several months of it in reserve. In fact the reason many doctors will prescribe prenatals before pregnancy is for the folic acids as the time when it is most needed is in the first few weeks when the mother may not even know she is pregnant.



Ok now your contradicting what you said earlier, which is cool cause now your agreeing with me. FYI did you not get the link I posted? On the last part you are correct, and there is actually more folic acid then calcium but I was always taught the calcium was the important part, websites are saying the folic acid is the key.



It is recommended that reproductively active females receive oral folic acid supplementation at 400 mcg/dayfor the month prior to conception to minimize neural tube defects. This vitamin is routinely provided in most adult human vitamin supplementations. Routine iron supplementation during pregnancy is not needed to prevent anemia in either the dam or fetus but may be provided in known cases of iron-deficiency anemia of the Dam


From www.lpzoosites.org...



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


You mean those labs that Pye has not provided the names of nor have they come forward to corroborate Pye's claims? You also seem to once again be taking the history of the past few centuries and applying that to all of human history. Things such as inoculation and vaccination did not exist until the 18th century and did not find widespread use until the past 60 years. Yet we had been making it to our teen years long before that. What about Christian Scientists, who refuse modern medical treatment, or remote indigenous tribes with no access to or knowledge of modern medical practices? Both of these groups are also able to produce healthy offspring without medical intervention. Your claim is illogical and complete bunk.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Since you clearly didn't read the links I posted to observed instances of speciation I will detail a very famous case for you. At the start of the 20th century three separate species of goatsbeard was brought into the US from Europe. Within a few decades these species encountered each other out West and began cross-pollinating. This produced sterile hybrids. Then suddenly at the end of the forties two new species of goatsbeard emerged from these populations of the original three species.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


So, empirical evidence isn't good enough to prove evolution? Then explain to me how a book written by an economic history major that had no clue about anything related to archaeology or Assyriology and a book that even experts argue about are supposed to be sufficient evidence for the claim that we don't belong on Earth.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



So your trying to tell me we breed, and imunize and feed cows so that we can harvest, fortify, pasturize, and homogenize and store and ship and package the milk just because we like the taste. I guess mothers breast milk must not taks that good.


Oh my God, this claim again? I have already explained that an adult female would not produce enough milk for an adult. It's enough for a newborn, but not an adult. Not to mention that humans only really produce milk following pregnancy. If humans stopped drinking milk as adults like every other mammal then we could suffice with the milk from our mothers.


Now your going to try to tell me that animals have just as much sickness as humans because we have veterinarian hospitals. FYI there are 5 million other species, and we have more medical intervention than all 5 million put together, figure it out.


You must remember that most animals have lived in stable environments for hundreds of thousands of years. Therefore, they have had plenty of time to develop immune systems that are optimal for that environment. Humans on the other hand have had a massive change of environment over the past 6,000-10,000 years. Therefore, our immune systems are still adapting to the types of diseases our new environment presents us with. You must also remember that if an animal in the wild gets sick it's most likely going to die. So, there's one reason you don't see too many sick animals.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 







Let me say it again. Every organism gets sick. Every single one. It doesn't matter if it's from Earth or Betelgeuse or Alpha Centauri or Kepler 22b.
Which we know to be true at least here on earth. But keep in mind that Earth is a planet infested with things not intended to be here. Now I'm not saying its proof but a valid possibility.




There are roughly 1,000 microbes on Earth that make us sick, out of the millions of species that exist and have existed. Now, we can be forgiven for thinking that's way too many, but most of them are neutral to us or even helpful. They break down our food and wastes. They created the very atmosphere we breathe and are vital to the carbon cycle and the nitrogen cycle. They are symbionts--we couldn't live 2 seconds without them. How then can you say we didn't evolve alongside them?
Well just because we breath air doen't mean that everything will be in our favor. Of course there is going to be things working good for us, it's not proof we belong here. All life as we know it breaths air. Keep in mind, as we know it. Thats not to say there isn't life elsewhere that breaths something else.




Go look up Biosphere 2 and see why it failed. Tell me then that we're alien to them.
I didn't read it all but the best guess I can see is that they possibly did not include some vital things that would have been part of the eco system. It's big, real big. So big that we are able to somewhat live here on earth, with a lot of help of course.




Microbes outweigh the rest of the biosphere many times over. They were here at the very beginning, and they'll be here when the sun explodes. Get used to it.
But you have to also keep in mind that ours is infected with things not from here. Again its not proof but it is something that needs to be considered.




It's not even that many, and the ones that are left will kill you with the side effects. Genetic resistance to antibiotics in microbes goes back to the beginning of life on Earth. We might have caused them to become resistant through overuse (veterinarians and farmers especially) but we haven't had an entirely new class of antibiotics in almost 40 years. Well, that's not entirely true. They're working on the Archaeocins but there's no guarantee they're going to work. That's because there's no profit in it for drug companies or researchers. What may save us is a better understanding of how they become resistant in the first place and pass that information on to other microbes. (They info share, by the way.)
Get used to it, we are a virus on this planet and will always be rejected.




It could be a disaster. Measles is no joke.
I would be interested in knowing if measles only attacks humans.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 





You mean those labs that Pye has not provided the names of nor have they come forward to corroborate Pye's claims? You also seem to once again be taking the history of the past few centuries and applying that to all of human history. Things such as inoculation and vaccination did not exist until the 18th century and did not find widespread use until the past 60 years. Yet we had been making it to our teen years long before that. What about Christian Scientists, who refuse modern medical treatment, or remote indigenous tribes with no access to or knowledge of modern medical practices? Both of these groups are also able to produce healthy offspring without medical intervention. Your claim is illogical and complete bunk.
Yes good point, it probably did take mother earth some time to start rebelling against us in obvious ways. Oh like the amish, they die when they get sick, thats all. Your wrong, people around the world get inncoulated against things that can kill them from birth. If they don't than it could just be they don't live in a populated area, or don't have access to the sickness or the help. And Pye always gave the names of the labs, Lab 242 out of CA I believe did the last one.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Well of course his sources are these expensive DNA labs that he has been working with.

No, that's a total fabrication on your part. He's been making these claims since he published his first book in 1997. He didn't obtain the skull until 1999. So, again, please provide a complete list of these 4000 genetic defects claimed by Pye and some kind of citation for each one.


I'm not getting that, I'm getting that we all have them.

Then you clearly don't understand what you're talking about if you think that we all carry the gene for cystic fibrosis.


Shared disorders is not proof of ancestory but it is suspicious for sure.

It's far more evidence for common ancestry than for anything you've claimed so far.


At the same time I know for a fact they don't have near what we do in defects.

And I'm assuming you have a source for that fact? I mean, other than "because Lloyd Pye said so" because he's seems to be pretty poor about providing sources for his claims as well.


Primates dont require medical intervention from birth just to stay alive.

And we are primates, so we don't either. Glad you finally understand that.
edit on 8/12/2011 by iterationzero because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 







Since you clearly didn't read the links I posted to observed instances of speciation I will detail a very famous case for you. At the start of the 20th century three separate species of goatsbeard was brought into the US from Europe. Within a few decades these species encountered each other out West and began cross-pollinating. This produced sterile hybrids. Then suddenly at the end of the forties two new species of goatsbeard emerged from these populations of the original three species.
You better go back and re-read what you just wrote.I just went through this with someone else about a polar bear mating with a kodiac bear.

You started with bears, you ended with bears.
In your case you started with goatsbeard and ended with goatsbeard. Nothing changed.
Oh sure there might be some allowed differences like eye color, or skin color or fur color but you have the same thing people.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 101  102  103    105  106  107 >>

log in

join