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: 133
31
<< 130  131  132    134  135  136 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





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.
I have asked multiple times for an example of what your talking about using theory in modern medicine.

I never got an answer from you so I will ask again, would you be kind enough to link me to what in the world your talking about when you say using the theory in modern medicine?




It's really quite amazing. People post objective sources that completely prove their point, and you simply ignore them.
Postulated theorys will NEVER prove anything in anyones book, and if it does, than it just goes to show you the IQ of the people your dealing with. I'm shocked you call the bible a fairy tale while at the same time your whole heartedly accepting postulated theorys as proof.

By the way if I forgot to ask could you please send me something that ties this theory to modern medicine.




People have posted link after link highlighting that all the things you say are "lacking" have in fact been proven
Everything I have read that you guys have tossed at me either claims that the work is unfinished, or inconclusive, or is a postulated theory. These mean 0 in my book.

Would you be kind to update me on this brilliant claim your making of how evolution is being used in modern day science.




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?
Your confusing me not reading them, with me reading other ones that explain this in totally different ways.
It doesn't matter how you want to think we evolved. Parallel, or in single file. Either way, the numbers are staggering and we are coming up short no less than 15 million species. Granted it could have been years ago and hard to find fossile and bones but why are we able to find dinosaur bones that were here much longer than that, and not find our ancestors? I'll give you a hint, they don't exist.

Dont forget to update me on how medical science is working with evolution.




posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


You know speciation was only ever observed in AQUATIC life. So maybe I'm not asking you the right questions here and this is why we are stuck.

Lets postulate for a moment that evolution is possible with the primate and human species.
Can you give me a rough idea of how many offspring it might have taken, over what period of time, to become humans from primates.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

Your question goes to show that you either haven't been reading replies to your posts or that you're not comprehending the replies you are reading.

Humans are primates.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


If the theory were wrong, we wouldn't have antibiotics!

To make this perfectly clear: The very theory behind antibiotics relies on the theory of evolution to be correct. If it weren't, we wouldn't have antibiotics!!




Postulated theorys will NEVER prove anything in anyones book, and if it does, than it just goes to show you the IQ of the people your dealing with. I'm shocked you call the bible a fairy tale while at the same time your whole heartedly accepting postulated theorys as proof.

By the way if I forgot to ask could you please send me something that ties this theory to modern medicine.


The theory is TESTABLE and fully backed up by the fossil record and DNA. In short, we have OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE.

When it comes to the bible, we don't. All we know is what people BELIEVED to be true back then based on their limited knowledge. For crying out loud, they believed people lived inside whales!! The bible isn't objective evidence...




Everything I have read that you guys have tossed at me either claims that the work is unfinished, or inconclusive, or is a postulated theory. These mean 0 in my book.

Would you be kind to update me on this brilliant claim your making of how evolution is being used in modern day science.


Click the first link....or click this link giving concrete UNDENIABLE example. I've posted this at least 4-5 times throughout this thread.




Your confusing me not reading them, with me reading other ones that explain this in totally different ways.
It doesn't matter how you want to think we evolved. Parallel, or in single file. Either way, the numbers are staggering and we are coming up short no less than 15 million species. Granted it could have been years ago and hard to find fossile and bones but why are we able to find dinosaur bones that were here much longer than that, and not find our ancestors? I'll give you a hint, they don't exist.

Dont forget to update me on how medical science is working with evolution.



I already posted concrete examples more than once. Apart from that, less than 99% of the species that ever lived on this planet are now dead. Your "calculation" only makes sense if you assume all those species would still have to be alive today...but as the theory of evolution clearly explains, that's simply not the case.

I really think you should at least re-read the base article on evolution on Wiki, because a ton of your claims just show that you don't really know what you're talking about. Also, look into the difference between "objective" and "subjective"...it's the very basis of scientific method and fully explains why the bible is NOT objective evidence



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


You know speciation was only ever observed in AQUATIC life. So maybe I'm not asking you the right questions here and this is why we are stuck.

Lets postulate for a moment that evolution is possible with the primate and human species.
Can you give me a rough idea of how many offspring it might have taken, over what period of time, to become humans from primates.


And more disinformation


We witnessed it not only in the lab, and are using this on a daily basis in medicine (please at least click the link in my previous post), we also witnessed insects and other speciation. And of course the fossil record and DNA all confirm speciation...like for humans for example.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
just by your questions it shows you haven't done your homework on this subject so why not do that and then make up your own mind?


Which part am I not familiar with?


I'm an Occam's kinda guy and I've determined the skull is not human because there aren't any other more plausible explanations.


Based on your opinion, not empirical evidence.


The skull is not a deformed human, it has morphological and physiological features that are not human, it's chemical composition is not human and the dna (whether you want to believe it or not) is not human. That makes it not human, it's actually very simple.


Which does NOT equal alien. I really don't understand why you can't grasp that very simple idea. But then, your logic is so flawed I shouldn't be surprised you don't get it.

It's not enough to say it's not human. You must PROVE that it's alien. Just saying "it's not human therefore it's alien" isn't enough. You have to show via the DNA evidence that it is a creature not of this world.


I think the thing getting in the way is peoples' inability to actually accept the reality of it.


No, we just want proof that it's alien. I could accept that it's not human if that's what the evidence says. (That's not what the evidence says, though.) I am not prepared to accept that it's alien without something more than "I say it is, therefore it is."


I'm not trying to prove evolution wrong, I just think the skull makes the subject moot because it proves aliens were tampering with dna 900 years ago and probably longer just like we're told by the ancients. It's not "myths" anymore, it is literally true and that is going to upset many people who've based their lives works on the wrong things.


It shows no such thing.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 09:58 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


Oh my God. You know absolutely nothing about this subject, do you?



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 10:03 AM
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


Just the fact that he asked the question shows he doesn't know anything.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


If the theory were wrong, we wouldn't have antibiotics!

To make this perfectly clear: The very theory behind antibiotics relies on the theory of evolution to be correct. If it weren't, we wouldn't have antibiotics!!

Quite incorrect, and as usual very misleading. We are most definitely NOT seeing evolution in action where bacterial adaption to antibiotics is concerned. In fact, if you place the resistant bacteria back into a mix with its parent bacteria, they lose out and die off, so it's a trade-off.

And in all the billions of reproductions witnessed since using bacteria in the lab, no new species has ever been recorded. Stasis is the provable fact here, we have not witnessed any such evolution even with this rapidly reproducing organism.



The theory is TESTABLE and fully backed up by the fossil record and DNA. In short, we have OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE.

Absolute rubbish. Who are you trying to fool but yourself. I wouldn't mind so much but intellectual dishonesty on this level is criminal.

You'll be telling us next that whales & dolphins have vestigial limbs, when what you actually see are structures absolutely necessary for reproduction & their continued existence. But hey, don't mind me, keep on peddling the myths that fraudulently misrepresent true scientific inquiry.


edit on 22-12-2011 by chocise because: obligatory XYZ smilie added



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   
^So post the objective evidence that supports your theory on the diversity of life on earth? Hello? That's the topic? Intellectual dishonesty will get you nowhere unless you have facts to back it up.


Please copy the following and save it to a thumb drive because I think I have presented this over 10 times now.

This should be good.


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.

Are you joking? You are seriously claiming that is objective evidence? Everything you have said is, x could have happened, y could have happened. Objective evidence is observable repeatable and testable.

www.dbskeptic.com...
^Macro Evolution observed in a lab.

blogs.scientificamerican.com...


Laboratory evidences of microevolution
A change in the proportion of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in a population, after exposed to an antibiotic, is an example of microevolution.

In the laboratory, biologists have demonstrated microevolution involving organisms with short lifecycles, such as fruit flies, guppies, and bacteria, which allow testing over many generations.

Endler (1980) set up populations of guppies (Poecilia reticulata) and their predators in artificial ponds in the laboratory, with the ponds varying in terms of the coarseness of the bottom gravel. Guppies have diverse markings (spots) that are heritable variations and differ from individual to individual. Within 15 generations in this experimental setup, the guppy populations in the ponds had changed according to whether they were exposed to coarse gravel or fine gravel. The end result was that there was a greater proportion of organisms with those markings that allowed the guppies to better blend in with their particular environment, and presumably better avoid being seen and eaten by predators. When predators were removed from the experimental setup, the populations changed such that the spots on the guppies stood out more in their environment, likely to attract mates, in a case of sexual selection.

Likewise, bacteria grown in a Petri dish can be given an antibiotic, such as penicillin, that is just strong enough to destroy most, but not all, of the population. If repeated applications are used after each population returns to normal size, eventually a strain of bacteria with antibiotic resistance may be developed. This more recent population has a different allele frequency than the original population, as a result of selection for those bacteria that have a genetic makeup consistent with antibiotic resistance.


Like seriously, what is your response to all this? You make blatantly false claims, like "there is no evidence for evolution". So respond DIRECTLY to these scientific studies with your evidence that contradicts this. If you can't do that you are in the WRONG THREAD. Could please post interventionism being observed in a lab or any objective evidence whatsoever? Where are the thousands of alien bones throughout earth's history, that would indicate aliens created billions of species for 3 billion + years. These alien bones should be consistent throughout the fossil record, regardless of what fossil layer they are found in if your theory is true. Where are they? Can you find one single creature that has ever been found in more than one layer? Nope, because evolution is an undeniable fact and evidence of designers does not exist. Wouldn't we have found ancient fossils of their technology from 3 billion years ago?


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 objective evidence. Your opinion.


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.

Wrong, it's about objective evidence, which this is clearly not. Are you ever going to post actual objective evidence to support your theory on diversity? You still have yet to that. This thread is about presenting evidence to support your hypothesis. Please do it. We've been waiting for 50+ pages. Don't lie and say you are presenting evidence when not a single thing you said can be backed up.
edit on 22-12-2011 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by chocise

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


If the theory were wrong, we wouldn't have antibiotics!

To make this perfectly clear: The very theory behind antibiotics relies on the theory of evolution to be correct. If it weren't, we wouldn't have antibiotics!!

Quite incorrect, and as usual very misleading. We are most definitely NOT seeing evolution in action where bacterial adaption to antibiotics is concerned. In fact, if you place the resistant bacteria back into a mix with its parent bacteria, they lose out and die off, so it's a trade-off.


Got a cite for that? It's the parents that pass on the genes to their offspring. Resistance can also be acquired through horizontal gene transfer.

The genes for antibiotic resistance are ancient. Susceptible bacteria die while the resistant ones don't. It's as simple as that. And considering how fast bacteria reproduce, you can get a completely resistant population in no time flat.


And in all the billions of reproductions witnessed since using bacteria in the lab, no new species has ever been recorded. Stasis is the provable fact here, we have not witnessed any such evolution even with this rapidly reproducing organism.


There are tons of examples of speciation in nature, so I don't know what you're talking about here. It's not static--Gould probably got it right when he called it punctuated equilibrium.

Oh, but you guys don't like the biological equivalent of catastrophism. I guess God created everything to run smoothly...no change, no extinctions, no nothing, for all eternity.

How boring.


You'll be telling us next that whales & dolphins have vestigial limbs, when what you actually see are structures absolutely necessary for reproduction & their continued existence. But hey, don't mind me, keep on peddling the myths that fraudulently misrepresent true scientific inquiry.


Straw man. That's not what he said at all.

And just for the record, whales and dolphins do show signs of vestigial limbs.


edit on 12/22/2011 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by HappyBunny
And just for the record, whales and dolphins do show signs of vestigial limbs.


OMG! But if you remove the limbs they will die!!!

Haha just wanted to post it before they did because you know its coming



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Your confusing me not reading them, with me reading other ones that explain this in totally different ways.
It doesn't matter how you want to think we evolved. Parallel, or in single file. Either way, the numbers are staggering and we are coming up short no less than 15 million species. Granted it could have been years ago and hard to find fossile and bones but why are we able to find dinosaur bones that were here much longer than that, and not find our ancestors? I'll give you a hint, they don't exist.


It's the way in which fossils form. We find dino fossils a) because of where they are; and b) because they are huge. Our ancestors came from the rain forests--not a very conducive place to find fossils at all. It's wet, it's dense, and the forest renews itself. Not many bones survive those conditions, and yet we do find them near lakes or in woodland. We find dino fossils in very dry, hot areas like the Badlands.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by HappyBunny
And just for the record, whales and dolphins do show signs of vestigial limbs.


OMG! But if you remove the limbs they will die!!!

Haha just wanted to post it before they did because you know its coming




It'll be rubbish, for no other reason than they can't accept it because the Bible doesn't tell them so.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by HappyBunny
Which part am I not familiar with?


the parts that had to do with the questions you were asking


Originally posted by HappyBunny
Based on your opinion, not empirical evidence.


it's not my opinion that the chemical composition of the bone has high carbon and oxygen levels and low calcium which makes it more like tooth enamel than human bone. I don't think you'll find that anywhere on Earth. The cancellous holes in the bone have a red residue which is not found in any bone on Earth. The fibers embedded INSIDE the bone matrix is not found in any living organism on Earth. There are tons of empirical evidence to support something other than human, it's not my opinion.


Originally posted by HappyBunny
Which does NOT equal alien. I really don't understand why you can't grasp that very simple idea. But then, your logic is so flawed I shouldn't be surprised you don't get it.

It's not enough to say it's not human. You must PROVE that it's alien. Just saying "it's not human therefore it's alien" isn't enough. You have to show via the DNA evidence that it is a creature not of this world.


not found on this Earth in my humble opinion can be considered alien I don't know what you would call it.


Originally posted by HappyBunny
No, we just want proof that it's alien. I could accept that it's not human if that's what the evidence says. (That's not what the evidence says, though.) I am not prepared to accept that it's alien without something more than "I say it is, therefore it is."


why is it not what the evidence says? It is a humanoid skull with chemical, morphological and physiological features that are not human, that is a fact. The amount of nuclear dna recovered so far indicates it is not even close to human. Neanderthal is not human and it matches our genome closer than this thing so wtf would you call it?

Unless you can come up with a better explanation for all those anomalies you are not an Occam's type person, you are someone flailing around looking for any other excuse why it is not alien.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by HappyBunny

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


Just the fact that he asked the question shows he doesn't know anything.


why? where is the empirical evidence that proves what you believe? do we know how plants reproduced before there were insects? don't be so enigmatic



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Its a continuum of differential reproduction. Its silly to think in higher organisms with relatively long life spans we could actually witness a large scale speciation event. What future animal will a bunny turn into?

Its also silly to assert there being a lack of fossils that outline are evolution from a troglodyte ancestor. I suggest either google, museum, or just go jump into a lake.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





Your question goes to show that you either haven't been reading replies to your posts or that you're not comprehending the replies you are reading.

Humans are primates.
No humans are humans, and primates are primates. What exactly are you reading?



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





The theory is TESTABLE and fully backed up by the fossil record and DNA. In short, we have OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE.
Well its easy to say, would you happen to have any sources on this subject?




When it comes to the bible, we don't. All we know is what people BELIEVED to be true back then based on their limited knowledge. For crying out loud, they believed people lived inside whales!! The bible isn't objective evidence...
What you meant to say was what people were led to believe, in the way things were understood at that time. Keep in mind that people ( just like you ) would never believe in intervention back then and most still wouldn't today.




Click the first link....or click this link giving concrete UNDENIABLE example. I've posted this at least 4-5 times throughout this thread.
So let me get this straight, just because they have fast evolving viruses, your confident to say this is proof evolution worked on us as well from primates?

Of course it could NEVER just be the planets natural way to keep things in order. That would just never happen would it. In other words your trying to convince me that human evolution was accelerated at some point just like in the viruses? So with this rapid acceleration why don't we see it in us today? I'll answer for you, because it's not there.

Your taking off chance occurances with viruses and trying to afix them to the human species. Nice try but thats a little frankenstienish don't you think?




I already posted concrete examples more than once. Apart from that, less than 99% of the species that ever lived on this planet are now dead. Your "calculation" only makes sense if you assume all those species would still have to be alive today...but as the theory of evolution clearly explains, that's simply not the case.
If that were true there would be over 5 million different types of species bones and fossils, and someone on here says we are racking up 19 humanoid skulls at this time. Thats a little short considering our species never dipped below tens of thousands.




I really think you should at least re-read the base article on evolution on Wiki, because a ton of your claims just show that you don't really know what you're talking about. Also, look into the difference between "objective" and "subjective"...it's the very basis of scientific method and fully explains why the bible is NOT objective evidence
I know what the difference is but your overlooking the fact that it can NEVER be objective evidence. It's just not possible. So does that mean there is no way shape or form that its true and accurate? No, I think it can be.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





We witnessed it not only in the lab, and are using this on a daily basis in medicine (please at least click the link in my previous post), we also witnessed insects and other speciation. And of course the fossil record and DNA all confirm speciation...like for humans for example.
I checked out the link, and I comment about your claim. Evoltuion of a virus has nothing to do with evolution of humans, or other life for that matter. Your placing an automatic association with all of them just because it occurs in those situations.

I'm going to go back to what I was saying about each planet being made as a balanced eco system. Does it shock you that this package could include a highly advanced and highly evolved bio protection sector as well?




top topics



 
31
<< 130  131  132    134  135  136 >>

log in

join