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: 132
31
<< 129  130  131    133  134  135 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


However, you have only approached this topic from the aspect of Homo sapiens sapiens. You have not explained how your intervention theory explains all biodiversity on the planet. That is the topic. Not explain how humans emerged without evolution.




posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





Yes you cannot even see it when it is in your own lingo. Evolution does not create anything. That is the thing about evolution as you have been told many times but failed to grasp. Evolution is change over time.

The tripe (rubbish) you are peddling is everything you have wrote. You are so poorly informed you would make a creationist blush. FYI tripe is offal that I dont eat cooked so I wont be eating it raw fed from you.

It is ironic that you preach about us being special page after page. Special enough for your Alien to be so angry with us he steals powers and abandons us on planet where we dont fit. Maybe to mine gold, with hands that show we dont belong even though you ignore primates share the same deformity. (sorry about giggling).

Then YOU accuse us of believing we are special.
I see, so the fact that we have simular hands to primates pretty much seals it for you huh? Well I have two eyes just like fish, and cats and dogs, am I related to them too?
By jove I think you got it.

Yep, you are related to every living thing on this planet. Its not the hands that seals the deal it is every piece of evidence that point to the same answer EVOLUTION.

I have no doubt you will embrace the three monkeys of ignorance despite the above but at least I know the concept is not beyond you now.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by colin42
Evolution is change over time.


still trying to figure how plants changed into animals though
I am taking this as sarcasim because I am sure you have a better understanding of evolution than that



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 02:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 



We have hypotheses, but the evidence is still insufficient to declare one as being correct. We do have a theory that explains the biodiversity of life on Earth. That is the modern evolution synthesis. Now the topic of this thread is whether you can provide an alternative theory that explains the biodiversity of life on this planet. So far you have yet to provide a sufficient answer to the question. Instead you have spent numerous page expounding on alien intervention theory. If that's what you want to discuss make a separate thread. It is not the topic of this thread.
Well thats probably because I assumed most poeple would be smart enough to realize that there is so much other life out there, we could in fact be made from another life form. Not in the form of evolution but in the form of creation or even intervention.
Ok. So you believe every life form, 5 million plus, as you keep saying and that ignores extinct species that greatly out weigh the living.

1. Explain how that works?
2. Was every species created in one go or is it continuous on this planet?
3. How long ago?
4. How is there life everywhere we look despite the fact we live on an ever changing planet?
5. Are you finally going to address the OP?



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 06:05 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





Well thats probably because I assumed most poeple would be smart enough to realize that there is so much other life out there, we could in fact be made from another life form. Not in the form of evolution but in the form of creation or even intervention.


Yet you completely fail at presenting any objective evidence that would support your claim. The theory of evolution on the other hand IS backed up by objective evidence.

Also, you REALLY have to learn the difference between abiogenesis and evolution, they're entirely different.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   
When in doubt, ignore the question and pretend it was never asked. Both of you guys need to present evidence to back up your theory on diversity of life on earth or make you own thread about interventionism. I don't see what is so complicated to understand about that. It's been thoroughly explained to you every single time but you ignore the topic of the thread, constantly, despite being reminded of it several times.
edit on 21-12-2011 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 





However, you have only approached this topic from the aspect of Homo sapiens sapiens. You have not explained how your intervention theory explains all biodiversity on the planet. That is the topic. Not explain how humans emerged without evolution.
Oh well I would probably believe more in the idea that a creator made everything, but I have to tell that both creation and evolution have one slight problem. How did they start? It's because of this that I lean on the idea that there is something we are not seeing.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





By jove I think you got it.

Yep, you are related to every living thing on this planet. Its not the hands that seals the deal it is every piece of evidence that point to the same answer EVOLUTION.

I have no doubt you will embrace the three monkeys of ignorance despite the above but at least I know the concept is not beyond you now.
If evolution was so sure about how we evolved and came into existance, I don't see what the fuss would be about DNA.

Anyhow just because all life shares the basic elements of DNA is NOT proof that we are related. It is just as possible that a creator still made all life as we understand it, and just used the same DNA concepts through out each.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





I am taking this as sarcasim because I am sure you have a better understanding of evolution than that
No I think he is baffled just like I am at grasping how this part happened. Of course I have about 50 others just like this. I'm assuming there is a theory for the connection of plants and animals.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Ok. So you believe every life form, 5 million plus, as you keep saying and that ignores extinct species that greatly out weigh the living.

1. Explain how that works?
2. Was every species created in one go or is it continuous on this planet?
3. How long ago?
4. How is there life everywhere we look despite the fact we live on an ever changing planet?
5. Are you finally going to address the OP?
There is a real easy way to squash this problem. DNA. DNA should be able to allow us to compare time life pictures with all life on the planet. Where it gets confusing is how you say that life was branching out in parallel ways at the same time. Now whats funny is we have no life branching out today, we have none leaving proof of branching out, and we have none showing proof that anything branched from anything else. Like I said it just appears to be a giant Rube Goldberg machine that stops at every possible section.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Yet you completely fail at presenting any objective evidence that would support your claim. The theory of evolution on the other hand IS backed up by objective evidence.
Your fooling yourself. There is not one shred of evidence that I have been able to find that proves we evolved. If there was, NO one on this planet would be having this conversation, right?

We just seem to be lacking evidence that humans evolved from primates. We are lacking the primates evolving, any proof of intermediate species, and also lacking proof that we had evolved from anything else to boot. Now just multiply those three important missing factors times the 5 million species here on earth and you can see your being taking for a ride.




Also, you REALLY have to learn the difference between abiogenesis and evolution, they're entirely different.
Ok but even so, does this make up for the 15 or more million missing species? Not to mention I'm not even counting intermediate species. I'm sure we didn't just grow in one step from primates to humans. There were probably hundreds of stages or steps. Now multiply that times your 5 million species and your not looking to good. We don't have a damn thing that proves any steps of transgression from ANY of the 5 million species. This should really be an eye opener for anyone that believes in this crap.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Evolution does need to know how life started to be correct. We can see the biodiversity of our planet. We can see such things as the fossil records and genetic mutation. We can even see new species emerging from other species. All of this is evolution and it is all independent from the origin of life.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I will once again bring up the example of goatsbeard. At the beginning of the 20th century three species of goatsbeard were introduced to the US from Europe. This plants reproduced until they all converged out West. At first the different species interbred producing sterile hybrid offspring. Now however there are two new species of goatsbeard that have emerged from this hybridization that are capable of producing of viable offspring within their new species, but not with the species that preceded them. The initial three species still exist, both here and in Europe, but so do the two new species. These new species branched off from the old species so now there are five distinct species of goatsbeard growing in the US.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





When in doubt, ignore the question and pretend it was never asked. Both of you guys need to present evidence to back up your theory on diversity of life on earth or make you own thread about interventionism. I don't see what is so complicated to understand about that. It's been thoroughly explained to you every single time but you ignore the topic of the thread, constantly, despite being reminded of it several times.
Well its honestly not fair to demand objective evidence when evolution has zip to begin with. Evolution has 0 objective evidence when it comes to connecting any species to any other species. And I'm speaking about the 5 million that we know about. 5 million is a pretty big number and if you can't find evolution anywhere in that pot, you have problems.

The answer is actually quite simple, its because it just doesn't exist, which is what I have been saying all along.
Now to answer the question you keep asking, and explain diversity. Please copy the following and save it to a thumb drive because I think I have presented this over 10 times now.

If you had the power to create life, just like you see here on earth, would you stop at one species, no you wouldn't. Diversity could easily be understood in the hands of a (or several) creators. Now I'm not saying there is any proof of this, anymore than there is of evolution. But I will point out one major flaw in evolution that your not seeing. It would appear that a form of LOVE is behind this work. I use that word because it's just a little to quaint how all life also has the ability to make ongoing life. Who ever or what ever made us must LOVE life, there is no question about it.

I'm not a religious person, but if you want to think god did this, fine. If you want to think harry the harry ape did it, fine. IMO its a little to complex to lay in the lap of evolution. GMO's smart enough to not only change DNA but make decisions on our future and evolution has to be the shortest sited idea I have ever heard.

Not believing in creation you might feel the same way, I mean after all, how in the world could some one, or ever several creators make so much life. Well I look at it like this, you think we know that life evolved from other life and branched out to give us all we have today. Unfortunatly detectives need that little thing called evidence. We don't know squat from the angle of creation so there is a big difference in how this is looked at. You think you know, and you have nothing to back it up, while we don't know anything about creation. At least at this point its still plausible. Evolution is busted, and creation is at least plausible. Now intervention only comes into play with how we got to earth, its not about what created us. However you must first understand this before you will ever be able to figure that out, which is why evolution will always fail, because we aren't from here. You need to open your eyes, and understand what I"m saying and get off your high horse because this isn't about who is right or wrong, or who has the biggest stick, its about common sense.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Well its honestly not fair to demand objective evidence when evolution has zip to begin with. Evolution has 0 objective evidence when it comes to connecting any species to any other species.


Here you go again since you clearly haven't read it the five other times I've posted this link. The fact of the matter is that Evolution is probably to most supported theory in all of science currently. Yet I don't see you arguing against things such as the theory of gravity, cell theory, germ theory, circuit theory, or valence bond theory.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





Ok. So you believe every life form, 5 million plus, as you keep saying and that ignores extinct species that greatly out weigh the living.

1. Explain how that works?
2. Was every species created in one go or is it continuous on this planet?
3. How long ago?
4. How is there life everywhere we look despite the fact we live on an ever changing planet?
5. Are you finally going to address the OP?
There is a real easy way to squash this problem. DNA. DNA should be able to allow us to compare time life pictures with all life on the planet. Where it gets confusing is how you say that life was branching out in parallel ways at the same time. Now whats funny is we have no life branching out today, we have none leaving proof of branching out, and we have none showing proof that anything branched from anything else. Like I said it just appears to be a giant Rube Goldberg machine that stops at every possible section.
Oh dear I had such high hopes that you finally understood, (does not mean accept) what Evolution says. Then you go and avoid answering the points 1 - 5 and then go on to answer others with the same dumb answers.

DNA supports evolution and shows not a jot of evidence for anything else. So what's your problem. That crap about only goes back 200K? If it is then that too has been explained to you many times. YOU choose not to aknowledge it or cannot grasp it. Either way you should be ashamed.

That you do not understand how plants evolved also does not suprise me as you do not understand anything and yet believe you have all the answers.

So stop preaching your beliefs and start answering the points I asked (1 - 5). Evolution can and does. You say its wrong now start laying out your evidence.

Just once explain the diversity we see and no, your post saying. 'One last time, save it to a thumb drive' does not cut it in any way, shape or form. In fact it the most confused post from you yet.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





Your fooling yourself. There is not one shred of evidence that I have been able to find that proves we evolved. If there was, NO one on this planet would be having this conversation, right?


Everyone who bothered to read up on it, or study it realizes we clearly evolved. Hell, we're actively USING the theory in modern medicine...a FACT you continue to ignore, just like all the other facts people posted.

It's really quite amazing. People post objective sources that completely prove their point, and you simply ignore them.




We just seem to be lacking evidence that humans evolved from primates. We are lacking the primates evolving, any proof of intermediate species, and also lacking proof that we had evolved from anything else to boot. Now just multiply those three important missing factors times the 5 million species here on earth and you can see your being taking for a ride.


People have posted link after link highlighting that all the things you say are "lacking" have in fact been proven





Ok but even so, does this make up for the 15 or more million missing species? Not to mention I'm not even counting intermediate species. I'm sure we didn't just grow in one step from primates to humans. There were probably hundreds of stages or steps. Now multiply that times your 5 million species and your not looking to good. We don't have a damn thing that proves any steps of transgression from ANY of the 5 million species. This should really be an eye opener for anyone that believes in this crap.


Again, for once...just once...actually bother reading the links people post. Everything you wrote above has already been explained MULTIPLE TIMES, and it only shows you never bothered to actually read the theory.

Look, not knowing isn't bad...but you clearly don't want to know in the first place. I guess ignorance is bliss, right?



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by colin42

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by colin42
Evolution is change over time.


still trying to figure how plants changed into animals though
I am taking this as sarcasim because I am sure you have a better understanding of evolution than that


why don't yo enlighten me with some objective evidence?



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 





Here you go again since you clearly haven't read it the five other times I've posted this link. The fact of the matter is that Evolution is probably to most supported theory in all of science currently. Yet I don't see you arguing against things such as the theory of gravity, cell theory, germ theory, circuit theory, or valence bond theory.


Thats because gravity can be observed anytime, anywhere on our planet and it's not hiding like evolution. There is not one shred of evidence that suggest any species has morphed into another species.

Thanks for the link and just like I assumed the theory postulates. It's never been witnessed, its only assumed.
edit on 22-12-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





DNA supports evolution and shows not a jot of evidence for anything else. So what's your problem. That crap about only goes back 200K? If it is then that too has been explained to you many times. YOU choose not to aknowledge it or cannot grasp it. Either way you should be ashamed.
No YOU choose not to aknowledge the fact that it also supports creation as well.




That you do not understand how plants evolved also does not suprise me as you do not understand anything and yet believe you have all the answers.
Well if I'm the first person to tell you I don't understand theorys based on postulation, I guess you have just been asking the wrong people.




1. Explain how that works?
2. Was every species created in one go or is it continuous on this planet?
3. How long ago?
4. How is there life everywhere we look despite the fact we live on an ever changing planet?
5. Are you finally going to address the OP?


1 is simple, a creator armed with much more than your willing to imagine has decided to start creating a plethora of different life, sort of like how humans do with our own creations.
2 Either or. It's is possible that we were all made at once, or made at different times, also possible that there was more than one creator.
3 That depends on which species your talking about. If you mean humans specifically I'm guessing about 60 billion years ago. Our mitchondrial DNA findings are letting us know we have a common ancestor 200,000 years ago while at the same time the have purposly left out our actuall age. It would appear this is because we are older than earth, and they know that just wouldn't set well with our current beliefs.
4 Our plant is going through non speciation changes all the time. At the same time other species that are not from this planet have also been introduced and causing problems to the planet.
5 a creator could have made us, a creator might have made us, a creator would have made us, a creator decided to make us, a creator selected to make us, a creator set out to make us. I'm sorry but I'm running out of different ways to say it.
Evolution and diversity do not explain each other. It's just another postulated theory like the Rube Goldberg machine that attempts to make it work. There is no proof of evolution so there couldn't possible be proof of evolution proving biodiversity. There is no more proof of either of them nor is there proof of a creator, that is as long as you choose to ignore that big document we have called the bible that tells us otherwise.




top topics



 
31
<< 129  130  131    133  134  135 >>

log in

join