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: 111
31
<< 108  109  110    112  113  114 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by vasaga
You know, now that I think of it, this thread is very funny. When a creationist asks "can you prove creation wrong", all these evolutionists jump on him and start yelling "we don't have to prove anything to you! The burden of proof is on you!!!".
But now, suddenly when the question is asked in exactly the same context regarding evolution, this is suddenly a very valid question, and the ones who have doubts regarding evolution, are suddenly seen as incompetent for not disproving it. Hypocrisy at its best..


What is really funny is how many times It has been stated here the mods changed the title and this thread is for you to explain the diversity we see. Despite the OP still being clear showing you dont read anything before you comment, par for the course.

Even funnier is that none of you have. So when you’re laughing you are actually laughing with us, laughing at you.




posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





You have made it clear that you intend to remain the see no evidence monkey. You admitted you wont read anything that is 'a bit long', the read no evidence monkey.

Your ideas fly in the face that even daily experience shows to be nonsense.

OK. So being more informed than anyone else and knowing things only you understand. EXPLAIN THE DIVERSITY WE SEE TODAY WITHOUT EVOLUTION.
At least I'm not the learn nothing monkey. Anyhow, I think I allready said this a few times. We don't know everything, or at least I don't. I think its possible there is something else out there that is neither creator nor evolution. The chicken or the egg theory seems to squash both of those.

If a creator made us, than who made the creator? If we evolved from slime than who made the slime? It's quite east to patch together a puzzle of evolving species simply because we all share the same structures of DNA. It's also just as easy to say a creator did it because we were told this in the bible and its all we have ever understood. There is the possibility we were frankenstiened by god, from different DNA. That could explain why our DNA has so much damage to it, who knows? I don't believe however that this giant mess of our DNA being tampered with and over 4000 defects is all from evolution.

If you were a creator of life, would you stop at making humans? Seriously think about this for a second. If you had made all 5 million species, then humans, would you stop there or continue to make more? It is still possible that a creator made all this.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


You still haven't explained why you assume there must have been a creator. Also, you seem to continuously track back to the slime thing, saying that everything must have a creator. You can't have a creator without the creator having first be either created as well or generated through some natural process. No matter what, there is always a starting point to the existence of something in the universe. That's why the big bang is so intriguing, because we can chart the expanding universe from essentially the beginning of time by looking at farther and farther sources of light.

But this thread isn't about the creation of the universe. It's about explaining the diversity of life without the aid of evolution. You seem to automatically reject evolution without fully understanding it, so what theory do you have if you have one? And if you don't, and will continuously say "I dunno, maybe god dunnit," then this is not the thread for you. Your musings about how you think humans are extraterrestrial have nothing to do with explaining the diversity of life.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by steveknows
 





No. The reason a human baby is so defenceless is because evolution had a choice to make. Either wait until the baby could be born and take care of itself in a relativaly short time and then have humans die out because its big brained head can't fit through the birth canal. Or have the most powerful brain on the planet come out with an undeveloped body and have that infant be dependant on a parent for what is a long long time compared to other animals. The under devoloped body is a trade off to the large brain.
And see evolution making choices just makes no sense. If your right however then please explain why evolution has completly seperated us from this planet as well as everything else on this planet?




And we are the only species this has happened to. No other species gives birth to an infant which is so defenceless for such a long time. And this is because it takes so long for the body to catch up. any other beast can stand or walk or cling within a few hours of being born.
In a way your agreeing with me here. There is no excuse as to why we are so defenseless for so long.




Nothing you have said is educated or researched but all guess work. You respond with claims that a quick google search would show you is wrong. The truth is you have no idea what you are talking about and you can't even give a plausable example of anything. All you cando respond in such a way which shows you fail to have even the most basic understanding of evolution and human biology. You surely aren't worth debating with. You go for the ailen thing because you fail to grasp the basic concept of evolution.
I don't know why you would thing its not educated or researched. I allready said the direction is the same with Sitchen, Von Daniken, Pye and the bible. Well not everything on the internet is accurate in case you didn't know. No I think I have more than the basic concept of evolution down. It's just a series of unconnected theorys, most of which have never been witnessed.




Aliens pffft How foolish and kindagarden. Where's your evidence? Where's your space craft? In fact why don't you point us to the planet we come from if not earth? Where is anything of scientific standing that backs up the crap you vomit?
Well now your clearly showing why you don't believe in anything I have placed on here. Just because you were brought up to believe wrong doesn't mean your right.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

Sorry but your last post shows above all you are the learn nothing monkey.

111 pages many of which contain. 'Evolution does not discount a creator.' and 'Evolution has nothing to say about a creator'.

111 pages and you are still saying 'we came from slime'. despite being corrected many times by many people

111 pages and you still dont understand saying god did it, the bible says does not explain the diversity we see today.

111 pages and you again repeat 'we have been frankenstiened without showing the doctor or the tools he used.

111 pages and you are still writing about our damaged DNA and still have not show anything to back it up.

111 pages and you still are saying over 4000 defects and your only proof is Pye said so. This despite having this shown wrong to you just one or two pages back.

111 pages and you are still asking me to put myself in the place of this 'alien' creator when I have made it quite clear I see no evidence for it and in fact see more against it.

111 pages on and you persist in informing me about 5 million species and have yet to explain it. AS IN. Explain the diversity we see today if evolution is wrong.

111 pages on and I still would not be suprised if you are still clining to, 'I have never seen a monkey give birth to a human or a cat to a duck'.

Your are indeed the learn nothing monkey above all.


edit on 10-12-2011 by colin42 because: gramma



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Evolution is not conscious. It is a description of a natural process that simply happens. Evolution is not driving to make us fit the planet best. Evolution is not driving to make us better as we evolve. Evolution is simply changes in organisms over time as a result of the things happening to them genetically and environmentally. The survivors spread their slightly changed genes and after a great deal of generations, the small changes accumulate and would appear to be large changes if you put it next to its ancestor.

I don't know why you feel that other animals are so perfect for the environment. There are thousands of accounts of animals driving themselves to extinction simply because they killed all the food that was available. There are accounts of predator-free islands where a deadly creature and its family will wash up and reproduce, causing completely new evolutionary pressures on the peaceful life there.

Dodo birds, for example, had no defense mechanisms because there were no predators on the island. Humans show up, and the birds walk up them inquisitively. Humans being the animals that we are, started up and killing them for fun, even though they didn't taste good. It is just fun to kill as a human, and that's another reason we are a dominant species on the planet. There is nothing alien about it.
edit on 10-12-2011 by Varemia because: typo



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Look you silly person. Sometimes you need to read something that may take an hour to either confirm your viewpoint or LEARN new information. The TV and Wiki just does not cut it. You are a very good example of that.

So you roll out the nonsense about chimp 98% la la la. How many hoops do you have to jump through to avoid facing the truth? Please do not explain to me again your idiotic view on DNA differences gained by reading some one stop god shop wiki page.
Actually its 97% (I caught you trying to steal some DNA there you silly goose) and I never got it from wikipedia I got it from Pye.




Like it or not you are related to all Apes and at the moment the rest of Apekind are showing a higher level of evolution than you. Like it or not yes we are related to rats but a lot further away. And after 100 pages you still are asking the same questions on page 1, still spouting the same fundemental errors.
So if your correct what did we actually start as and who made that starting life? Also why do seem to be missing one shred of evidence showing that any of the 5 million species here on earth have evolved? Why is it that only humans evolved. Somewhere out there is a creator laughing saying, these idiots will never figure this one out.




Because you have something lacking in your life you wish to blame on aliens rather than face the problem and correct it does not make evolution wrong.
Your not the only one that has suggested this to me. I could say the same thing about evolution, that you just want so bad to have something to believe in. You want to be buddy buddy with primates and have a friend to lean on. At least with the alien theory you can't accuse me of that one. There is nothing positive about whats been done to us here. I never wake up in the morning and say its a great day now that I have realized that someone abducted us and moved us to the wrong planet, its a wonderfull day because I'm going to spend the rest of my life fighting the forces of being on the wrong planet.

ET is NOT our friend, and in the 30+ years that I have studdied reports of such I can honestly say I have never heard anything thats positive.




Again you talk utter garbage. Look around you. Blue tits have 16 to 20 chicks per nest and the parents will be lucky if one survives to adulthood. This is repeated throughout nature at every level in the food chain and before you say it, yes even man was and sometimes still is on the menue.
I don't know what a blue tit is, anyhow take your own example of the food chain to understand just how bad things are for us here. We are NOT part of any food chain here on earth and nothing here would miss us if we disappeard.




Nature does not care if you are human, insect, fish or fowl and everyone of the species contained in that struggles for life without exception.
Lets pretend for a moment that planets are made by either creation or evolution. You do realize that each planet must be a balanced eco system. Humans are NOT part of any balance on earth, in fact the planet is rejecting us.




Yes and as I knew you ignore all the simularites between man and chimp. All the proofs that you say lead you to believe man 'does not fit' also applies to chimps from aliens hands to illness but you choose again the 'see no evidence monkey' to suit your argument.
Well I never ignored them. We are both humanoid but that alone is not proof we are related. I digress back to a bicycle tire not fitting on a car. Sure they are both tires but very different. Your taking the whole idea of all DNA being similuar here on earth as proof of evoution and I'm saying no its just as easy that a creator used recycled parts.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by colin42

What is really funny is how many times It has been stated here the mods changed the title and this thread is for you to explain the diversity we see. Despite the OP still being clear showing you dont read anything before you comment, par for the course.

Even funnier is that none of you have. So when you’re laughing you are actually laughing with us, laughing at you.
You expect me to read 111 pages while none of you even dare to address the videos I posted? And honestly, what happened to "the pro evolution group to resists for a while"? It took less than a handful of posts for these evolution supporters to jump in the thread, so why should I take the opening post by heart if that proposal has already been violated?
edit on 10-12-2011 by vasaga because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by stgazza
 


First off I had to comment because I'm agreeing with you...


What evidence is there for evolution? I would be surprised if you could give me 10 examples that are scientifically proven to be the result of evolution. Darwins theories are seriously flawed if looked at closely and contradictions within his published theory show that as he neared completion of his work he no longer had the belief that evolution was the answer as there were more examples to refute his theory than there are to support it. As our knowledge grows we should question the theories and accepted notions of what was written hundreds of years ago as our knowledge of nature and our world are much greater than in Darwins time. Science can see that there is a design in make-up,our DNA. We are not a result of evolution but of creation.There is no evidence for evolution. A few bones dated to 4 million years ago does not prove we have a common ancestry with those bones ( ie:Lucy).It just shows some type of homonid was around at that time..not neccesarily an ancestor of man. Remember,I need at least 10 examples that are scientifically proven to be the result of evolution. There is No Missing Link and none will ever be found..false flags will be flown but under scrutiny will be found to be false.Accept that the creator (God) made us in his own image and that we didn't evolve. What happened to the evolution of the crocodile? the trilobyte? Why have they not evolved?
Speciation is apparently real, and falls into microevolution. They have actually been able to witness microevolution but in that its looking more like its simply allowed variences within a species. For example blue eyes, brown eyes, green eyes.
Macroevolution has never been witness but they might have a good excuse, it takes millions of years to develope. The problem here is that if macroevolution were true we would have a hell of a lot of subspecies in the transformation stages. And the ONLY thing we have on earth that is even close to that is primates and humans. So what about the other 5 million species, do they just not get to evolve?

They have found 19 skulls that they tout to be possible relitives, they could in fact be aliens for all we know. There has never been anything that was able to directly link them to humans. The term common ancestor was brought into the picture because of the inability to find that missing link. It's just had at how many straws they are grasping at and they don't see it.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by steveknows
 





So you've conducted a log term analysis of Darwins and others works on evolution have you. Was this while you were getting your Phd and honours and such? I hope it was because that's what you're going up against when you give your layman opinion.
So are you saying that Darwin had a phd and because of such he couldn't possibly be wrong?



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

So lets add to the list. I will not count the 5 mill species and the creation thing just spewed out again. A blue tit is a bird, the part about a nest was a bit of a give away.

111 pages and you still cherry pick what part of a reply you choose to give your stock answer too. Point in question you address the food chain but not the fatility rate of blue tit chicks.

111 pages and you again talk about all planets having life and an eco system and a balanced one at that depsite having it pointed out to you no one has discovered any life anywhere else than this planet. Our home.

111 pages and we are still treated to the bike tyres and the tornado in a scrap yard despite, as has been made clear them being a very bad analogy.

I expect the list to grow.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 

So you knew what the OP asked? well dont get upset when you are corrected then.

Diversity?



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





No, I'm not taking Pye at his word without evidence. You're more than happy to take him at his word because of confirmation bias. I'll be more than happy to take him at his word once he starts publicly providing sources for his claims.
Well I don't think thats the problem. I think its that your unhappy he hasn't gone public in a specific way that YOU want to see happen. You see it is public in a way, how do you think I got ahold of his information. Your just disgrutled because its not in a media type that you want. Tis tis.




Again, this is a total fabrication on your part. He first started making these claims in 1997. He didn't start working with genetics labs until 1999.
You know Itera, it again just looks like your unhappy he hasn't gone public the way you want him too. And I have to say, for someone that hasn't gone public you sure do know a hell of a lot about the guy. I have no idea about the dates your quoting, I haven't studdied his unaccesable public information to the extent you have.




No, he doesn't. But he was a "colleague" (his word) of Sitchin, who based his work on von Däniken, who included the Bible in his work. See how easy it is to see why it would agree with what you were seeing in the Bible?
You know you said this in the past as well, and there could be some truth to it. I dunno how you found out so much if Pye isn't public, anyhow. Lets argue for the moment that they are all working off von daniken. It's just as possible that he was right from the start. I think the golden thing your missing here is that the only thing they all share, Possibly is that god was a space alien. Now with that they have all found there own proprietary facts that support and back up that direction, but none of them are the same material. So your fooling yourself, your wrong and they are all in fact on the right track. God was a space alien.




You don't seem to understand what a source is and how it's different from a claim. You make the claim that we have over 4000 genetic defects and that 24 of them will kill us before puberty. Your source for this claim, i.e. the citation you would attach if you were writing a paper, is Pye's video. What is Pye's source for making that claim i.e. what citation would he attach if he were writing a paper?
Well your assuming he didn't do the work himself.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





Except that website still doesn't confirm your claim that all of us have all 4000 genetic defects. So upon what are you basing your claim that we all have 4000 genetic defects, 24 of which will kill us before puberty? Note that the first one mentioned is sickle cell anemia. I don't have sickle cell anemia and I'm willing to bet you don't have it either. So do I have the other 3999? The next one mentioned is Down's Syndrome. I don't have Down's Syndrome. So do I have the other 3998? I don't have Turner's syndrome, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, fragile-X syndrome, hemophilia, Huntington's chorea, Tay-Sachs disease, or cystic fibrosis. So do I have the other 3991? So it seems that your claim that we all carry all of the genetic defects that Pye is talking about is bunk. Or is he working off of some other list that none of us are privy to?
OMG, Itera I have watched that video over 30 times, I'm sure I don't need to go back and guote the marker time for you. Just becaue you don't sickel cell does not mean that its not in your genes. OMG. Yes you don't have any of them, you have them in your genes, they will get passed on to your children as well who could in fact surface with some of them.




Pye is talking about potential genetic diseases that people may or may not have. Further, if Pye's claims were correct and these diseases were the result of genetic tampering on our species by aliens, then why do we share so many of these diseases with primates?
Thats a loded question. Do you know how many we share? And which ones?




And since you keep making that claim that we can't "survive to puberty without constant medical attention", can you provide a list of the 24 genetic defects that we all have that prevent us from surviving to puberty without medical attention? Because I'm willing to bet that I don't have any of those either.
Most of those Itera are in the form of imunization at birth. I dunno, are you living in some remote part of the world and have never seen a doctor from birth?



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

Have you ever played a game of cluedo. Pye could say Reverand Green did it with a rope in the library. The game is not over until he opens the envelope and shows the evidence.

Pye is claiming victory whilst keeping the proof in the envelope. If you believe that is realiable evidence more fool you.


edit on 10-12-2011 by colin42 because: Spelling



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





No, I was hoping that itsthetooth would do her own homework and see that her claim that we all have the 4000 genetic defects Pye is talking about is ludicrous.
Not that its important people but I'm a guy. Itera you probably understood differently when I was talking about prenatel vitamins. I never cleared up that I'm not a woman just that my calcium is in fact low and I would have to take them myself (provided I was a preggo woman anyhow)



Why would I deny the information you've presented? I've seen the site before and, more importantly, I've read actual peer-reviewed research on some of the diseases mentioned in that article. Specifically Tay-Sachs, because my wife is Jewish, and sickle-cell anemia, because I wrote a paper on it for one of my grad classes. Since you're so quick to assume that I'll deny what's on that site, I'm inferring that you accept what's there as well. So keep in mind that source of many, if not all, of these genetic diseases is well understood. We can observe the mechanisms by which they occur and they weren't put there by evil aliens.
Now I had to comment on this, this is weird. The only thing I ever learned about sickel cell is only black people get it.




Ah, yes... the old "out of the blue" argument. Less hyperbole.
I don't think hes picking on you, I think we would all pee on an electric fence to get some closure on this part.




Because your claim of interventionism is based on several things. First, that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe. While I agree with this claim, there is still no objective evidence for it. Second, that the intelligent life that exists elsewhere in the universe visited us. I don't agree with this claim for several reasons, and there is still no objective evidence for it. Remember the preamble to Occam -- "All other things being equal..." So since you can't offer up objective evidence for the existence of aliens or that they've visited us, the naturalistic explanation given by evolution is the correct one.
Itera, I know you haven't watched von danikens charriots of the Gods. There is oodles of proof around our globe that we were visited and possibly inhabited by other beings. Or is it because daniken got busted for something that your now prejudice? It wasn't even work related. What happened anyhow, did he get a speeding ticket?



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Thats a loded question. Do you know how many we share? And which ones?


www.honoluluzoo.org...


As our closest relatives, non-human primates can transmit mild to highly dangerous diseases to their owners, their owners' family and friends. Diseases like the common cold, internal parasites, hepatitis A, tuberculosis and even the often fatal Herpes B virus.


debatewise.org...


Currently it is believed that we share about 98% of our DNA with chimps. Chimps are prone to many viral diseases that humans are, such as Ebola and HIV.


As you can see from a couple results after a five minute Google search, we share a lot of diseases with primates.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 

And also as you may note 98% the same as opposed to 97%. Maybe one of us just evolved or Pye picked the lowest figure to back his story.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Well I don't think thats the problem. I think its that your unhappy he hasn't gone public in a specific way that YOU want to see happen. You see it is public in a way, how do you think I got ahold of his information. Your just disgrutled because its not in a media type that you want. Tis tis.

He makes public claims, but provides no evidence to support those claims to he public. This has nothing to do with my personal preferences. It has to do with providing support for ones claims.


You know Itera, it again just looks like your unhappy he hasn't gone public the way you want him too. And I have to say, for someone that hasn't gone public you sure do know a hell of a lot about the guy. I have no idea about the dates your quoting, I haven't studdied his unaccesable public information to the extent you have.

So you're admitting that you just made it up?


You know you said this in the past as well, and there could be some truth to it. I dunno how you found out so much if Pye isn't public, anyhow. Lets argue for the moment that they are all working off von daniken. It's just as possible that he was right from the start. I think the golden thing your missing here is that the only thing they all share, Possibly is that god was a space alien. Now with that they have all found there own proprietary facts that support and back up that direction, but none of them are the same material. So your fooling yourself, your wrong and they are all in fact on the right track. God was a space alien.

Von Däniken was correct from the start? The man plagiarized his early material from "The Morning of the Magicians", which in turn plagiarized H. P. Lovecraft, who was a science fiction author. Von Däniken has admitted to fabricating evidence and committing acts of fraud to sell books. If you're foundation is von Däniken, you're in for rude awakening when it comes time to face the facts.


Well your assuming he didn't do the work himself.

Given that his biography on his website indicates that he became a fiction writer immediately after graduating from Tulane with a BS in psychology, there's no reason to believe that he did any research of any kind on his own. Can you provide the name of the institution at which he did the research? Or the publications in which he presented his findings to the public?



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by Varemia
 

And also as you may note 98% the same as opposed to 97%. Maybe one of us just evolved or Pye picked the lowest figure to back his story.



There's usually a small margin of error in percentiles that deal with something as fluid as DNA comparisons.

Edit: Ah, oops, I did respond to the wrong person. My bad.
edit on 10-12-2011 by Varemia because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
31
<< 108  109  110    112  113  114 >>

log in

join