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: 127
31
<< 124  125  126    128  129  130 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





Sure it has. Or are you claiming that there's no genetic variation in humans?
Your talking about two different things. There is a big difference between us not being identicle and having different eye color.




Because the resulting organisms would no longer be human. That's why macroevolution is also referred to as speciation.
Not if it didn't start out as human.




So it has nothing to do with evolution, but you're using it as an argument against evolution? That's the logical fallacy known as a strawman argument.
I lost track of what exactly this part was about.




See above. Speciation is an observed phenomenon. Can you explain the mechanism why which it can happen in all species except ours?
Only on the molecular level, never enough to allow a species to change its origin.




What's redundant? And what's a theory about fossil formation? We know under what conditions they can form. In fact, we have such a good grasp on this concept that we can target areas in which to search for fossils. Sorry if there aren't enough fossils to satisfy your unreasonable burden of proof for evolution. Can you show me the fossils of aliens upon which you're basing your claims of interventionism?
It's redundant how unproven theorys are backed up by other unproven theorys. It's just a bunch of connecting dots that don't connect.




There's no such thing as a missing link. The fact that you persist in claiming that missing links disprove evolution only highlights that you don't really understand the claims made by evolution. In effect, you've generated another strawman argument.
So now your trying to tell me that they have found a direct relitave to humans.




There's fossil evidence, morphological evidence, genetic evidence... so your claim that it's only been observed in writing is just a display of your own ignorance.
There has NEVER been evidence of morphological events in human genetics.




The fact that you don't think transitional forms are the same as what you keep calling a "missing link" is your scientific ignorance on display again. By all means, keep strawmanning yourself to death.
Well your not just missing one, but hundreds possibly thousands of different tied species which equates to roughly millions of bones.




More fabrication on your part. Not only are the common intra- and interspecific hybrids (hybrids at the subspecies and species level), but there are intergeneric hybrids (hybrids at the genus level) and even interfamilial hybrids (hybrids at the family level). All you have to do is a little research on the hundreds and thousands of observed hybrids to know about this. Instead, you make up a lie. Will you ever get tired of making up lies to support your argument since you have no evidence?
No wonder you believe this garbage, your mixing plant DNA with human DNA. OMG come on people.




And the fact that there are other species with higher brain-to-body mass ratios proves that it doesn't correlate to intelligence. So unless you can directly explain what it has to do with evolution, it's just another strawman argument from you.
You don't know that, and there is no way to disprove it. We know very little about them.




I wasn't talking about the others. I was talking about everything Pye has written being an intentional farce, designed as part of a grand psychology experiment because he decided to go back to school and earn his PhD in psychology. You're the rat in his maze.
I see and your just totally convinced that he is armed to the teeth with alien skulls and altered DNA findings. He picked a crappy choice if your right.




posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Nucleardiver
 





Can you prove it to be right?


Personally I believe in a quasi-creationism/evelotionism idea. Nothing can come from nothing so there had to be something that created it all, whether you want to call it God, The Creator, Bhudda or any other name. I am not saying that i believe in "God", but I do believe in a creator and also believe that things were created to exist in a dynamic state rather than a static, non changing state. Evolution cannot be proved correct anymore than creationism can be. Therefore I tend to believe that there was some mysterious force that gave everything in the universe a start and then nature ran its course.
Now this guys seriously on the right track. I told you guys earler that there are just some problems with both creation, and evolution. If you want to believe god or any creator made us, who made the creator? If you want to believe that we evolved from slime, who made the slime.

I always end up back at square one. There is another answer, one we don't know of, and its out there.

One thing is for sure, each planet is created with a balance of life, a balance eco system, and if I'm wrong, nothing would live for to long. It's another reason I know evolution isn't correct. It's not possible for a species to change, and change diet as well and assume it will have the needed food. The cycle of life is oh so precious. I stick to my guns that humans are NOT from earth. We are NOT part of this eco system and in fact we are destroying the planet while mother nature continues to push us off. No one has ever been able to explain differently to me.

I said this before but a tele program I watched ( even though I know some people snicker about this ) showed what appears to be planets forming from gasses in the galaxy. On them is automatically life as we understand it to be. It would again have to be balanced as well. It's weird, very weird. Someone jokingly told me its Trevor the giant celestial squid that poops out planets and life.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
You know something I think you guys are totally missing on the SC skull is that even if Pye had never eluded to the idea that its alien, I still would have drawn that conclusion with eveything he has presented.


he had me at lack of an inion



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I hope the aliens explain it to us one day... that is IF even they understand it. So far they don't seem so perfect what with all the feuding and raping and lying and cheating. They have characteristics just like us or dare I say we have their's? That's not a good sign. Luckily I hear there is like a council that oversees outer space stuff like the galactic federation (reminds me of Rush 2112) and there are rules you have to abide by. I just hope there is some interstellar sense of justice and fairness.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   

I have a plethora of proof even in documentation, which you have chosen not to be any form of proof.
How do you make a statement like this but not provide a shred of evidence? Game over man. You're not fooling anyone. It honestly makes me feel ashamed that we have similar views on aliens and ancient cultures. Ditch the evolution bit. It doesn't help your case at all. Lets pretend that Pye was right. It STILL wouldn't prove anything about evolution or the diversity of life on earth, or that humans were originally created. It would only prove there was an experiment 900 years ago, and obviously it was a failure. You are in the wrong thread, my friend.
edit on 15-12-2011 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


Very very well said. A star for you.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nucleardiver
reply to post by colin42
 


Can you prove it to be right?


Personally I believe in a quasi-creationism/evelotionism idea. Nothing can come from nothing so there had to be something that created it all, whether you want to call it God, The Creator, Bhudda or any other name. I am not saying that i believe in "God", but I do believe in a creator and also believe that things were created to exist in a dynamic state rather than a static, non changing state. Evolution cannot be proved correct anymore than creationism can be. Therefore I tend to believe that there was some mysterious force that gave everything in the universe a start and then nature ran its course.
Actually this thread title was changed by the mods. It has nothing to do with proving evolution wrong.

The fact that a creative force is/was in play is undeniable and life, the universe and everything is the evidence to back that up. Some wish to name it others try to describe it.

Evolution describes the path towards diversity life has and is taking once it starts and nothing else. I also hope that we never find all the answers as knowing everything leaves you with nothing.

Picture an all knowing god. What is the point in getting up in the morning if you know everything that will happen or ever will happen. Even if you decide to change things you always knew you would. I think god, if he exists is on constant suicide watch and it also knows the outcome of that.

So this thread is a challenge to those that believe evolution is wrong to explain the diversity we see today. No one has taken up that challenge. You can only conclude it is because they cannot.
edit on 16-12-2011 by colin42 because: Reply



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 03:07 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Nucleardiver
 





Can you prove it to be right?


Personally I believe in a quasi-creationism/evelotionism idea. Nothing can come from nothing so there had to be something that created it all, whether you want to call it God, The Creator, Bhudda or any other name. I am not saying that i believe in "God", but I do believe in a creator and also believe that things were created to exist in a dynamic state rather than a static, non changing state. Evolution cannot be proved correct anymore than creationism can be. Therefore I tend to believe that there was some mysterious force that gave everything in the universe a start and then nature ran its course.
Now this guys seriously on the right track. I told you guys earler that there are just some problems with both creation, and evolution. If you want to believe god or any creator made us, who made the creator? If you want to believe that we evolved from slime, who made the slime.

I always end up back at square one. There is another answer, one we don't know of, and its out there.

One thing is for sure, each planet is created with a balance of life, a balance eco system, and if I'm wrong, nothing would live for to long. It's another reason I know evolution isn't correct. It's not possible for a species to change, and change diet as well and assume it will have the needed food. The cycle of life is oh so precious. I stick to my guns that humans are NOT from earth. We are NOT part of this eco system and in fact we are destroying the planet while mother nature continues to push us off. No one has ever been able to explain differently to me.

I said this before but a tele program I watched ( even though I know some people snicker about this ) showed what appears to be planets forming from gasses in the galaxy. On them is automatically life as we understand it to be. It would again have to be balanced as well. It's weird, very weird. Someone jokingly told me its Trevor the giant celestial squid that poops out planets and life.


Mate I think a mosquitto gave birth to a human in your case as you are very annoying and keep making the same whinning noise page after page.

How many effing times do you need to be told evolution has noting to do with creation. Whats that buzzing noise?

Yep, one true thing you have wrote, you keep going back to square one. That is the point of ignorance. Buzzzzzzz

As you have been asked before show one, just one planet we know of with a balanced eco system. Your constant ignorant, illogical uneducated bull shine is what attracts the flies. Buuuuuuzzzzzzzz. I dont wonder that no one can tell you different. Trying to hold a conversation with you is like talking to a plank of wood, a vey thick plank at that. Buzzzzzzz

You love your television. Did you ever find the switch that allowed you to turn to a channel other than Sci Fi? The reason why people laugh is because you have watched a Disney film and based your whole belief system arround it. Whats more you cannot even link to this bit of often repeated nonsense. BUZZZZZZZ

In the 40+ pages you have posted in (it feels like thousands) you have not provide any evidence to back your childish claim or show any signs of getting even a basic grasp of what evolution says. You certainly show signs of being unable to evolve.

I noticed you again writing about 5 million other species. 5 million and you cannot address the OP to explain diversity if evolution is wrong.

Get me that fly swat I've had enough
edit on 16-12-2011 by colin42 because: spelling

edit on 16-12-2011 by colin42 because: same



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 05:21 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Your talking about two different things. There is a big difference between us not being identicle and having different eye color.

No, I'm not. Microevolution occurs within a species. So I'll ask again, are you claiming that there's no genetic variation within the human population?


Not if it didn't start out as human.

Exactly. Which is why we see a population shift from H. heidelbergensis (not a "human" my modern standards) to H. sapiens in Africa over several tens of thousands of years.


I lost track of what exactly this part was about.

I am completely unsurprised.


Only on the molecular level, never enough to allow a species to change its origin.

We're not talking about a species "origin", whatever that means. Please provide the mechanism by which it is prevented.


It's redundant how unproven theorys are backed up by other unproven theorys. It's just a bunch of connecting dots that don't connect.

I think you need to look into the definition of "redundant" before you try and use it in a sentence again. How, exactly, are fossils theoretical?


So now your trying to tell me that they have found a direct relitave to humans.

That's what most of the people in this thread have been trying to tell you. Repeatedly. At the risk of sounding redundant, I won't report the "oodles" of links that you've continuously ignored throughout the thread but will instead suggest that you go back and actually read them.


There has NEVER been evidence of morphological events in human genetics.

See above.


Well your not just missing one, but hundreds possibly thousands of different tied species which equates to roughly millions of bones.

The decomposition of bones and relative rarity of fossil formation has been explained to you ad nauseum.


No wonder you believe this garbage, your mixing plant DNA with human DNA. OMG come on people.

You either need a basic primer in taxonomy or are trolling at this point. I'm going to assume that you're trolling because no one with more than a middle school education could possibly be stupid enough to think that plants and animals are different families on the taxonomic hierarchy; they are different kingdoms, which are a full four ranks above families on the hierarchy. But by all means, keep making up easily refutable lies to support your case.


You don't know that, and there is no way to disprove it. We know very little about them.

So you're now claiming that ants and birds are smarter than we are because they have similar or higher brain-to-body mass ratios?


I see and your just totally convinced that he is armed to the teeth with alien skulls and altered DNA findings. He picked a crappy choice if your right.

"Armed to the teeth with alien skulls"? Ludicrous. He has one skull that he's gotten a few hundred base pairs out of, and those results are inconclusive for reasons already explained to you. And its not even a skull from when you claim we were put here on Earth, it's a skull from 900 years ago. If the aliens were here as well, where are the oodles of bones? By my calculations, there should be billions of bones of aliens all over the place. Where are the bones?



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 06:25 AM
link   
Just to add to your reply to Toothy.

I have asked but why is Pye only interested in the skull. What happened to the rest of the body and why is this not being looked at?


never recieved a reply though
edit on 16-12-2011 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by HappyBunny
 

the teeth prove it's not a child. The chemical composition of the bone and structures inside the bone prove it is not human or even a defective human. You guys need to understand there is more than just the dna that shows this is not a human. You're stretching reason. You have to (well you don't have to but the smart people will) accept this for what it is and it is not human.

ONE MORE TIME. I know it's human, but just at the outside chance it isn't, it doesn't automatically follow that it's an alien. Why is that tiny logical leap so hard for you to grasp?

The child is human, and Pye is taking you for a ride both intellectually and financially.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I hope the aliens explain it to us one day... that is IF even they understand it. So far they don't seem so perfect what with all the feuding and raping and lying and cheating. They have characteristics just like us or dare I say we have their's? That's not a good sign. Luckily I hear there is like a council that oversees outer space stuff like the galactic federation (reminds me of Rush 2112) and there are rules you have to abide by. I just hope there is some interstellar sense of justice and fairness.


And more speculation


So now you have proof that there's something like the "federation" in Star Trek? Just more fiction unless you can present hard proof


And NONE of Pye's statements are credible as long as he doesn't present hard data and facts...which even after years he hasn't.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Just to add to your reply to Toothy.

I have asked but why is Pye only interested in the skull. What happened to the rest of the body and why is this not being looked at?

never recieved a reply though
OH there is a different video that explains the details on that. He was close to haveing most of the skeliton but the girl that was gathering all of it didn't want her parents to know cause they would freak out. She hid it in a tree and a small flood took most of her findings down water. They were able to save skull and upper maxila.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 

the chemical composition of the bone is not human. the features are not human, they are symmetrical and not deformed. the way the muscles attach to bone and even the configuration of muscles IS NOT HUMAN.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 

you're absolutely wrong about everything you have been saying. not one shred of proof to negate the chemical composition of the bone or any of the morphological and physiological non-human features. if it looks walks and quacks like a duck it is what? that's right not human



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by HappyBunny
 

the chemical composition of the bone is not human. the features are not human, they are symmetrical and not deformed. the way the muscles attach to bone and even the configuration of muscles IS NOT HUMAN.


It's a SKULL. There aren't any muscles.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





Just to add to your reply to Toothy.

I have asked but why is Pye only interested in the skull. What happened to the rest of the body and why is this not being looked at?

never recieved a reply though
OH there is a different video that explains the details on that. He was close to haveing most of the skeliton but the girl that was gathering all of it didn't want her parents to know cause they would freak out. She hid it in a tree and a small flood took most of her findings down water. They were able to save skull and upper maxila.


So another excuse why he cannot provide any evidence. I see a pattern here.

Still if he had most of the skeleton he must have more to show than just the skull and seeing as though he and you maintain it is not human there would be major differences there too.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by HappyBunny
 

the chemical composition of the bone is not human. the features are not human, they are symmetrical and not deformed. the way the muscles attach to bone and even the configuration of muscles IS NOT HUMAN.


It's a SKULL. There aren't any muscles.


that comment just won you the foot in the mouth prize of the year. shows how ignorant people are who try to debunk this without knowing wtf they're talking about


www.bmhlinguistics.org...
edit on 16-12-2011 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by MrXYZ
 

you're absolutely wrong about everything you have been saying. not one shred of proof to negate the chemical composition of the bone or any of the morphological and physiological non-human features. if it looks walks and quacks like a duck it is what? that's right not human


What do you mean when you say "negate the chemical composition"? It's not as if Pye presented facts or hard data, he made RANDOM CLAIMS and won't allow any peer reviews or objective research. He's stating a blief that clearly isn't based on rationality, logic, or objective evidence.

So why would anyone have to "debunk" it? That's like asking someone to debunk the crazy guys on Times Square holding "the end is near" signs


I mean, if Pye's claims are your only proof (and it seems that way), then you might just as well quote the next random crazy person you find




The above is especially true if you believe it's somehow debunking evolution. I mean, we're ACTIVELY APPLYING the theory in modern medicine. If the theory were wrong, we wouldn't have a lot of the meds we have today

edit on 16-12-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-12-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 124  125  126    128  129  130 >>

log in

join