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: 118
31
<< 115  116  117    119  120  121 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


This is getting really silly





I have asked over a dozen times for someone to explain to me why evolution has never been observed in humans and why we have never found one shred of bones or species that prove transgression.


Fossils back up human evolution

Here's how DNA fully backs up human evolution:



More proof that DNA backs up human evolution

The above are FACTS, if you continue to state your above quotes, it's pretty clear that you don't care about facts and simply come here to PREACH your IRRATIONAL BELIEF


And guess what, not only did we evolve...we are STILL EVOLVING!!

So no, if your goal here was to debunk evolution, you haven't done a great job...you merely came here to preach, and if debunking the theory was your goal, you did a pretty piss poor job




posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





You have yet to present the facts that support your claims of interventionism.
Well thats because you have proven to have selective acceptance. You only accept what you want. And if it doesn't support the posibility of evolution, then its simply not possible.




By all means, keep confirming that you've repeatedly just made things up like you are here.
I never once claimed that pye made reference to those and in fact have told you that now 3 times.




Pye hasn't produced the facts that support his claims, either.
I think he in fact did an excellent job presenting the facts. Remember just because there are no sources does not mean he is hiding any work. For all you know he did the work himself, and I'm still not being provided with anything at this point that proves him wrong, either directly or indirectly.




So when he makes a claim, it's up to his discretion as to whether or not he presents evidence to support that claim, but we're supposed to believe him anyway? Ludicrous.
Well I think that depends on a lot of factors. All of which Pye is lined up to pass for.
You have to remember that some people don't want there name involved with these findings because they might be tied to religious groups for funding. It has to do with the nich of the subject. And I'm not sure if you were bright enough to understand the aspect of the findings but they totally squash all religion as we know it.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





I think he in fact did an excellent job presenting the facts. Remember just because there are no sources does not mean he is hiding any work. For all you know he did the work himself, and I'm still not being provided with anything at this point that proves him wrong, either directly or indirectly.


If that's the "logic" you work with, let me do the same as Pye:

Giant purple unicorns (with yellow stripes) roam the universe, but the are invisible to the human eye. They feed on sun rays and their farts not only create life, they also smell like roses and chocolate. Those unicorns wanted water (because like horses they drink water...duh), and even though the universe is full of water, they figured it's more convenient to enslave humans to put water into giant buckets they could drink out of.

What proof and sources do I have to back any of this up? Tons, but I won't share it with you. Just believe me, trust me...it's the truth


"Science" according to Pye, comedy gold



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Most of the fossils shown are not considered direct ancestors to Homo sapiens but are closely related to direct ancestors and are therefore important to the study of the lineage


en.wikipedia.org...

This is exactly what I'm talking about. We always seem to find that distant relitive but never the common ancestor. For all we know it could be an alien.




The above are FACTS, if you continue to state your above quotes, it's pretty clear that you don't care about facts and simply come here to PREACH your IRRATIONAL BELIEF

And guess what, not only did we evolve...we are STILL EVOLVING!!

So no, if your goal here was to debunk evolution, you haven't done a great job...you merely came here to preach, and if debunking the theory was your goal, you did a pretty piss poor job
I totally care about the facts. They keep telling us we don't have proof of evolution. Do you realize that if primates werent here on this planet we would be trying to make the same fairy tale connection between some other type of species. Its only many millions of genes so your sold on it.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





If that's the "logic" you work with, let me do the same as Pye:

Giant purple unicorns (with yellow stripes) roam the universe, but the are invisible to the human eye. They feed on sun rays and their farts not only create life, they also smell like roses and chocolate. Those unicorns wanted water (because like horses they drink water...duh), and even though the universe is full of water, they figured it's more convenient to enslave humans to put water into giant buckets they could drink out of.

What proof and sources do I have to back any of this up? Tons, but I won't share it with you. Just believe me, trust me...it's the truth

"Science" according to Pye, comedy gold
Well if they are invisible, how do you know about them?



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 







But we HAVE observed evolution in humans for crying out loud. What are you talking about???

And the old macro vs micro evolution argument has been debunked so many times, I can't believe you still bring it up when it's a complete and utter nonsense argument: LINK

Of course you're going to ignore those links and facts, just like you continue to ignore anything that goes against your irrational BELIEF.
I know the OP was can you prove evolution wrong, And I think I have done more than a fair job here. I have asked over a dozen times for someone to explain to me why evolution has never been observed in humans and why we have never found one shred of bones or species that prove transgression. I'm not able to get anyone to touch this, and I think I know why. There is no answer.
Probably just like there has never been an author debunking the whole idea of god being a space alien, or that we have been visited before by other life.
The silence says it all.

Itsthetooth

You really appear to be the most selective reader I have ever seen. The OP has nothing to do with prove evolution wrong. The title was changed, badly by the mods. If you had read the OP or noticed on almost every other page the reason for this thread is for you to explain diversity without evolution. Which you have been told many freaking times.

Believe me you have done an astoundingly bad job of proving anything other than how ignorant of evolution, biology, history natural and ancient. Your so bad at it you would make a creationist cringe.

You have ignored any and all proof shown and are so deluded you think you have put a good case forward?

You just wrongly again said no one has observed evolution in humans so you must agree no one has observed Pyes so called proof you base your idiotic ideas on so they must be wrong as well. If you now say they are not then you prove yourself a total fake.
edit on 11-12-2011 by colin42 because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-12-2011 by colin42 because: pointed to isthetooth as he would not understand it is for him

edit on 11-12-2011 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I think he in fact did an excellent job presenting the facts. Remember just because there are no sources does not mean he is hiding any work. For all you know he did the work himself, and I'm still not being provided with anything at this point that proves him wrong, either directly or indirectly.


As I have stated previously it is impossible to provide evidence for Pye being wrong as he has presented no evidence to refute. He claims to have taken this thing to a number of labs. He has provided the names to none of these labs and none of the labs have stepped forward. He claims that he has received results that state the skull is anomalous. He has provided absolutely no lab reports. All we have to go on is his word. With that I can just counter him by saying that I know one of the scientists who performed the tests and he says Pye is lying. You can't prove me wrong as you can't contact any of the labs to verify my story and you can't point to lab results as they have not been provided. This is not how science is done. If Pye had actually discovered what he claims to have discovered, the scientists who performed the tests would be eager to publish their results. They would have been the discoverer of the most important find in human history and they would be able to get funding for any project they wanted. Not to mention the cash from the inevitable book deal and lecture tour.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 

I was keeping this to myself but I worked at two of the labs where the skull was tested as the scientist in charge. Each time we tested the DNA it was found to be 100% human and residue on it found to be bull excrement, we believe this came from Pye.

Pye cried a lot when I told him he would not be able to use this info as it would negatively affect his book sales.

I am waiting for the right time to release both the results of the testing and photo's of Pye blubbing like a baby. Trust me the documents exist but I have to be careful how I release them.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


Well here is the title of the OP Can you prove evolution wrong?*,
I took that as a challenge looking for people to prove evolution wrong, was I wrong?




You really appear to be the most selective reader I have ever seen. The OP has nothing to do with prove evolution wrong. The title was changed, badly by the mods. If you had read the OP or noticed on almost every other page the reason for this thread is for you to explain diversity without evolution. Which you have been told many freaking times.
Well no one directed it at me, and if they did I totally missed it. I read other people talking about the OP being changed by the admin but I didn't give to much attention to it. My bad.




Believe me you have done an astoundingly bad job of proving anything other than how ignorant of evolution, biology, history natural and ancient. Your so bad at it you would make a creationist cringe.
Well seeing how everyone has continued to avoid my very direct questions on the missing proof, I would say I have done a hell of a job.




You have ignored any and all proof shown and are so deluded you think you have put a good case forward?
I don't ignore them, I repost them showing that they aren't in fact any type of proof.




You just wrongly again said no one has observed evolution in humans so you must agree no one has observed Pyes so called proof you base your idiotic ideas on so they must be wrong as well. If you now say they are not then you prove yourself a total fake.
No one has ever been able to prove evolution in humans. In addition we never will find that missing ancestor, because he isn't there.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I totally care about the facts. They keep telling us we don't have proof of evolution. Do you realize that if primates werent here on this planet we would be trying to make the same fairy tale connection between some other type of species. Its only many millions of genes so your sold on it.

Did you really write this, really.

The problem you have is other primates DO share this planet. Yet the only one making up fairytales is you. Mate you would not know a fact if it slapped you in the face and was labeled FACT.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 





As I have stated previously it is impossible to provide evidence for Pye being wrong as he has presented no evidence to refute. He claims to have taken this thing to a number of labs. He has provided the names to none of these labs and none of the labs have stepped forward.
You must suffer from selective reading as well. All of Pyes sources (and your talking about star child, even though our recent posts are talking about human genetics and not the skull) have been exposed and willing to have there names used. 242 I believe was the last one, and trace genetics was the first. Now how could I know that if he didn't expose it ?????????




He claims that he has received results that state the skull is anomalous. He has provided absolutely no lab reports. All we have to go on is his word. With that I can just counter him by saying that I know one of the scientists who performed the tests and he says Pye is lying. You can't prove me wrong as you can't contact any of the labs to verify my story and you can't point to lab results as they have not been provided.

He has revieled lab reports in detail and even explained them so that people that are not DNA savvy would understand them. He even gave the name of the labs which I also just shared with you.
Well I'm sure I would take Pyes word over yours, after all he has the skull and you don't.



This is not how science is done. If Pye had actually discovered what he claims to have discovered, the scientists who performed the tests would be eager to publish their results. They would have been the discoverer of the most important find in human history and they would be able to get funding for any project they wanted. Not to mention the cash from the inevitable book deal and lecture tour.
That depends on how you look at this. If that funding is suppose to be coming from church or religious joineted funds, then no. They don't want there own money squashing religion.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



You just wrongly again said no one has observed evolution in humans so you must agree no one has observed Pyes so called proof you base your idiotic ideas on so they must be wrong as well. If you now say they are not then you prove yourself a total fake.

you replied



No one has ever been able to prove evolution in humans. In addition we never will find that missing ancestor, because he isn't there.

Now address what was written. If you say no one has observed evolution in humans so you must agree no one has observed Pyes so called proof you base your idiotic ideas on so they must be wrong as well. If you now say they are not then you prove yourself a total fake.

If you avoid the question again then you still show you are a total fake.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Did you really write this, really.

The problem you have is other primates DO share this planet. Yet the only one making up fairytales is you. Mate you would not know a fact if it slapped you in the face and was labeled FACT.
Not at all, like I just reposted a section of wiki on there that clearly states that the skulls found are at best still missing a common ancestor

You have to learn how to read and understand that facts are not what you want them to be, they are what they are. Some are supported, and some are assumed. Mine are backed by a plethora of sources all pointing in the same direction. So when you challenge me on one, your just saying that the other four just happen to be coincedince and don't count.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





I was keeping this to myself but I worked at two of the labs where the skull was tested as the scientist in charge. Each time we tested the DNA it was found to be 100% human and residue on it found to be bull excrement, we believe this came from Pye.
Well then you would have had to have worked for Trace which only had the ability to test mtDNA, and Pye had to wait years for nuclear testing to be invented so that he could do a real test.

Once he did, the old test was found to be innacurate becaue the nuclear DNA is not human. I could tell he was being nice talking about your lab, in a nice way saying he could just tell from the unclear answers that you guys did not know what you are doing.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Well thats because you have proven to have selective acceptance. You only accept what you want. And if it doesn't support the posibility of evolution, then its simply not possible.

That's pretty rich, coming from you. I apply the same requirements for evidence to anything presented. You, on the other hand, do not. My evidence for this? I find it exceedingly amusing that I've presented evidence for you in other threads for the types of genetic changes introduced into species by ERVs to refute Pye's claim that genetic insertions only occur in a lab and never in nature, and you've called that peer reviewed, journal published evidence a "fake". Yet you just tried to use the same argument for calling herpes a genetic defect. Granted, you were wrong, but I find it fantastic that when I present the argument, it's a fake. When you present the argument, it's as if it's falling from the lips of your messiah, Lloyd Pye, himself. That's the very definition of confirmation bias.


I never once claimed that pye made reference to those and in fact have told you that now 3 times.

I know. Which is how I know that you made it up on the fly and tried to pass it off as truth. Ergo, you're a liar. And not a very good one at that.


I think he in fact did an excellent job presenting the facts.

He presents claims. His facts are either wrong or non sequitur to his arguments.


Remember just because there are no sources does not mean he is hiding any work.

Except you said earlier that he had sources, but wasn't presenting them. So which is it? And if there are no sources to back up his claims, then his claims are baseless and should be treated as such.


For all you know he did the work himself,

You've made the claim that he's some kind of genetic researcher. Prove it.


and I'm still not being provided with anything at this point that proves him wrong, either directly or indirectly.

So his claims have no evidence to back them up, but it's up to others to prove him wrong? You have the way science works completely backward. It's up to the claimant to present the data to back their claims.


Well I think that depends on a lot of factors. All of which Pye is lined up to pass for.
You have to remember that some people don't want there name involved with these findings because they might be tied to religious groups for funding. It has to do with the nich of the subject. And I'm not sure if you were bright enough to understand the aspect of the findings but they totally squash all religion as we know it.

This is fun. I feel like we should start a catalogue of your excuses for why there's zero objective evidence to support your claims. Pye's hiding it, there is no data, it's being hidden for religious reasons... Blah blah blah.

You've been presented with evidence supporting evolution at every turn of this thread. But it's not conclusive enough for you or it's fake or you don't understand it, so it can't possibly be true. But all anyone else gets out of you is excuses about why there's a lack of evidence for your claims. You are a case study in confirmation bias.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Five sources is considered a plethora? Then what do you consider the 150 years of scientific research that support evolution? Since I'm pretty sure you didn't read these links here they are again:

Fossil Hominids: The Evidence for Human Evolution
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

There's even an entire journal dedicated to the study of human evolution:
Journal of Human Evolution

And just for fun here is a Google Scholar search for the phrase "human evolution:"
Google Scholar

Is that enough evidence for you or are you once again going to ignore all of it because it doesn't fit your worldview?



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by vasaga

Originally posted by Barcs
What lie did he tell? This thread is about showing evidence for the diversity of life on earth in any other way but evolution. Practically every single person that has come into this thread has ignored the main purpose of the thread, including you.
If you're doing the same thing, what right do you have to tell me that I did something wrong? It was also asked for evolution supporters to refrain from posting, but, that didn't stop you, now did it? Stop being hypocritical.


The only thing I've been doing is responding to people's bogus claims and setting the record straight when people attack a field of science that is crucial to biology and medicine. People think that subjective evidence like the bible and complexity of nature somehow prove evolution wrong, but it clearly does not. I have not provided the evidence that proves another theory besides evolution because it does not exist, regardless of how creationists/interventionists in this thread interpret it. I didn't say you did anything wrong. I said that you were off topic, like most others. It's probably not your fault, however, it's because the title of the thread was changed. So you can prove your alternative theory now, offer scientific evidence that goes against evolution, or you can find a better thread to suit your needs. There's plenty of em.


Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Five sources is considered a plethora? Then what do you consider the 150 years of scientific research that support evolution? Since I'm pretty sure you didn't read these links here they are again:

Fossil Hominids: The Evidence for Human Evolution
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

There's even an entire journal dedicated to the study of human evolution:
Journal of Human Evolution

And just for fun here is a Google Scholar search for the phrase "human evolution:"
Google Scholar

Is that enough evidence for you or are you once again going to ignore all of it because it doesn't fit your worldview?


I wish I could save this post as a template, so I can post it easily every time someone gives the tired old claim, "but there's no evidence for evolution, not a single transitional fossil has been found and there's no evidence humans evolved". Why actually yes, there is!
edit on 11-12-2011 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-12-2011 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





That's pretty rich, coming from you. I apply the same requirements for evidence to anything presented. You, on the other hand, do not. My evidence for this? I find it exceedingly amusing that I've presented evidence for you in other threads for the types of genetic changes introduced into species by ERVs to refute Pye's claim that genetic insertions only occur in a lab and never in nature, and you've called that peer reviewed, journal published evidence a "fake". Yet you just tried to use the same argument for calling herpes a genetic defect. Granted, you were wrong, but I find it fantastic that when I present the argument, it's a fake. When you present the argument, it's as if it's falling from the lips of your messiah, Lloyd Pye, himself. That's the very definition of confirmation bias.
Well I'm sure he makes his share of mistakes like all of us, and its not that hes the new mesiah, its just that he has to much making sense in the correct direction. You have to remember that I found pyes work as the last thing in all that I found, and it was in total hindsight. I knew that the only way god could do what he did to us was through genetics.

Now thats not even Pye's claim, so you can't make any claims about fake motives here. Pye has nothing to do, and could care less about anything in the bible. What he doesn't know is that the DNA findings he presented acutally complete missing pieces of a very large puzzle. What are the chances I ended up with the understanding (through the bible anyhow) that aliens altered our DNA, and found Pye's video?




He presents claims. His facts are either wrong or non sequitur to his arguments.
Honestly the only way you can dispute them is to either find another lab that dissagrees or go out and do the lab work yourself. None of which do I hear you doing.




Except you said earlier that he had sources, but wasn't presenting them. So which is it? And if there are no sources to back up his claims, then his claims are baseless and should be treated as such.
Neither if you talking about star child, he has given the labs names.
If your referring to human genetics I haven't heard anything.




You've made the claim that he's some kind of genetic researcher. Prove it.
I never claimed he was a genetic researcher I asked you how you know he didn't do the work himself.




So his claims have no evidence to back them up, but it's up to others to prove him wrong? You have the way science works completely backward. It's up to the claimant to present the data to back their claims.
We we do all have to play on equal terms right.




This is fun. I feel like we should start a catalogue of your excuses for why there's zero objective evidence to support your claims. Pye's hiding it, there is no data, it's being hidden for religious reasons... Blah blah blah.
I'm going to assume that Blah blah blah is short for "I have no way to disprove this."




You've been presented with evidence supporting evolution at every turn of this thread. But it's not conclusive enough for you or it's fake or you don't understand it, so it can't possibly be true. But all anyone else gets out of you is excuses about why there's a lack of evidence for your claims. You are a case study in confirmation bias.
Every evidence (as you tout) to have shared with me either clearly explains that its still under investigation or that we have never identified that missing link. In other words, we have no proven connection.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 





Five sources is considered a plethora? Then what do you consider the 150 years of scientific research that support evolution?
A very sad waste of time.




Since I'm pretty sure you didn't read these links here they are again:
I will peruse these now....

The Denisovans
Is providing no clear connection to humans and in fact looks like it could even be alien.

Even more interestingly, analysis of the genome seems to show that Neandertals interbred with humans
www.talkorigins.org...
We did have another alien species in the bible that interbred with humans so this is entirely possible. It's looking like they have mistaken it for being a neanderthal. Whats funny is there is no way they could prove cross breeding occured if our DNA could simply have overlap. Just like we have 70% overlap with rats, but I'm sure we didn't make any babies with them.

Australopithecus sediba
Is another NON human species.
Fossil Hominids: Ardi
Is another NON human species.
The first complete Neandertal mtDNA genome
Proves nothing more than our DNA is very simular. Either way, its not human.
Fossil Hominids: Selam (DIK-1-1)
AKA Lucy's child is just another species. Non of these are proving any connection to humans so far.
Homo floresiensis: the Hobbit
This thing is NOT human and bares no resemblence, no connection to humans at all.

I think where people are getting off track on all of this is assumptions are being made that if its humanoid, it must be related. Probably due to the fact that we have very few humanoid species here on earth. The fact is there are probably billions of humanoid species out in the stars that are also of no relation to us, other than being humanoid.

Stratigraphic gaps
Is a BS theory, AKA the hiding transitional species. Why aren't we hiding ????
It will take me days to read up on most of the links, which I saved and thank you. So far they look a hell of a lot better than wikipedia.



Is that enough evidence for you or are you once again going to ignore all of it because it doesn't fit your worldview?
There is no smoking gun, in what little I looked at here. They do always end up the same way explaining gaps with additional unseen theorys. If I put my mind to it I could conjur up ( just ask Itera if you don't believe me) 3 very nice theorys that explain missing sections in intervention. Put this up against the 15 or so that evolution has and Mine looks way better for sure. There are enough theorys in evolution to excuse missing bones, missing genes, missing species and missing gaps. It just doesn't work for me. There are to many holes.
I may not have presented everything I know about intervention but I'll tell you there isn't holes like there is in evolution.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





The only thing I've been doing is responding to people's bogus claims and setting the record straight when people attack a field of science that is crucial to biology and medicine.
What specifically are you talking about when you say this? I have to know because nothing beats Pye's findings for health and medicine.




People think that subjective evidence like the bible and complexity of nature somehow prove evolution wrong, but it clearly does not. I have not provided the evidence that proves another theory besides evolution because it does not exist, regardless of how creationists/interventionists in this thread interpret it. I didn't say you did anything wrong. I said that you were off topic, like most others. It's probably not your fault, however, it's because the title of the thread was changed. So you can prove your alternative theory now, offer scientific evidence that goes against evolution, or you can find a better thread to suit your needs. There's plenty of em.
I think it can be subjective when you read it wrong, and like I have mentioned before, thats not anyone else fautl but your own.

I looked at the links and find the same things ( just easier to read) that I was finding in wiki. There is never any proof that connects us to an ancestor. Now there are other beings, and NON human species, but they are just that. Does it shock you that there has been other humanoid life here on earth?




top topics



 
31
<< 115  116  117    119  120  121 >>

log in

join