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: 134
31
<< 131  132  133    135  136  137 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by chocise
 





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 trade offs (or what you consider a trade off) happens...just like we have not enough hair to keep our entire bodies warm. It's a "trade off". Perfectly explained in the theory of evolution





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.


Except...WE HAVE!

In fact, we have witnessed so many instances of speciation, the above quote is just plain ridiculous. For crying out loud, the bird flue is nothing but a new type of virus for example...it EVOLVED from something else. And the HIV constantly evolves too, which is why patients need to change their medication once the virus changes enough to become resistant. Either way, there's dozen more examples: LINK




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.


I apologize in advance for making you look silly:

Fossil record fully backs up the theory

What missing link???

UC Berkeley also found out what nonsense the "missing link" is.

And more proof...

Using the missing link argument is beyond nonsense.

And even more proof...

DNA and genetics confirm the theory too.

Yup, you read correctly…DNA and genetics confirm the theory.

And anotherone...

We are actively using the theory in modern medicine…and it works accurately!!

Kinda funny though how you came here calling my post "foolish" and "nonsense" without providing at least a shred of objective counter evidence or facts. How about some content instead of just claims?




posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by chocise
 






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.
It's a good point and one I forgot to address in my last reply to myz. If that strain were evolving, at least in what we are agreeing to be talking about. Then the strain would become a new strain, and of course would have to be given a different name as well. None of which I noticed. Even if it did go that far, it would die fast, oh wait, thats exactly what happened.

And remember I'm the guy that gets slapped on here for not knowing anything.




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.
I had to comment further, that its clear we have never witnessed anything changing into another species. If we had, it would have been that missing link that evolutionists have been looking for all of there life, and will continue to create theorys on why we aren't seeing it.




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.
I think its important that you guys need to keep your eyes open on these evolution links that just come out to let you know upfront that its an unproven theory, or a highly speculative theory.

My first OP with this site was instantly moved to skunk works and I often wonder if I'm the one that should be allowed in the normal section, and they should be in skunk works.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





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.


You are correct, there wasn't a crazy rapid acceleration...just as the theory states. Because our birth rates and those of our ancestors were much longer than that of a virus for example, human evolution obviously took a lot longer. Glad you understand that





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.


Why should they, or anyone really, believe in something we have ZERO objective evidence for?




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?


Given that we know humans are still evolving today, and given that both the fossil record and DNA fully back up that conclusion...nope, not frankesteinish...it's called LOGICAL




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.


We have literally THOUSANDS OF HUMAN FOSSILS.





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.


Of course objective evidence exists...it's the very cornerstone of scientific method.




My first OP with this site was instantly moved to skunk works and I often wonder if I'm the one that should be allowed in the normal section, and they should be in skunk works.


Nah...pretty sure that thread deserved to end up there. Especially if like in this one your posts are absent of objective evidence and facts...or simply a sign of someone completely ignoring facts.

edit on 22-12-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





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.
I think you know objective evidence is not possible from biblical times, much less anytime before hand.

On the other hand, you have NO excuse for not having it yourself. All of your evidence should be here, and easily accessable, yet there is none.

The links you posted don't pertain to humans, so its not objective.




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?
Intervention is not a recreatable event, at least not in our power anyhow. And you know this is what kills me. Aliens don't live on earth so there is good reason why we have none here. We have never found any fossils that connect humans to any other life here on earth. I'm not including overlap.




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.
Objective evidence from biblical times, give me a break.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


I'm telling you guys that it honestly looks like everything is suppose to be in a balanced eco system.
I'm not one to have an interest in such things but recently I can see that there is just no other way for a planet to function. Humans are NOT part of the eco system here, so we are being rejected.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I think your confusing the fact that we can't get objective evidence from biblical times with there never being any to begin with.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I think your confusing the fact that we can't get objective evidence from biblical times with there never being any to begin with.


We can get tons of objective evidence about stuff from the time when the bible was written...and before too of course. Just none that prove a lot of the claims in the bible. Some of the claims are also DEMONSTRABLY wrong.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Some of those in that fossil list are human, no doubt, some are not human. So some human fossils, and some not human fossils were found.

So how does this by any way, shape, form, or contrast prove evolution?
Did they happen to find one that had human hands and a monkeys head? Now that would be specieal.

I can see that its more like people are so eager to find anything, I mean anything that COULD be proof of evoltuion.
Your eagerness will ramp up with time, as you are still unable to find any missing links. FYI that list was an overview and not complete. And it never will be. The problem here is that they will never find that missing common ancestor. In reality all of these finds are usless to us. It's that common missing ancestor that matters, thats the one thats going to prove things different. Now they can find familys of other life, but no common ancestor.

Honestly the only thing I can say positive about this link is that they appear to be using the correct method to date the finds wtih radiometric dating. You can produce finds like this untill your blue in the face, but untill you have one that connects us to another species, your wasting all of our time.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





Did they happen to find one that had human hands and a monkeys head? Now that would be specieal.


Please at least read the links people post...because the above simply shows you have no clue about the theory whatsoever. And it's not a mere lack of knowledge, it's pure ignorance because people have posted the info showing you exactly how stupid that statement is multiple times by now





Your eagerness will ramp up with time, as you are still unable to find any missing links.


First post on this page has numerous examples of why the "missing link" argument is laughable. Of course you're just going to ignore all those facts and continue to claim there's a "missing link"





The problem here is that they will never find that missing common ancestor.


Except...as has been proven and linked dozens of times over the 130+ pages, we HAVE found tons of common ancestors





Honestly the only thing I can say positive about this link is that they appear to be using the correct method to date the finds wtih radiometric dating. You can produce finds like this untill your blue in the face, but untill you have one that connects us to another species, your wasting all of our time.


And we have done all that as is clearly shown in the first post on this page


You're simply ignoring facts now, and it's getting a bit silly...



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Please at least read the links people post...because the above simply shows you have no clue about the theory whatsoever. And it's not a mere lack of knowledge, it's pure ignorance because people have posted the info showing you exactly how stupid that statement is multiple times by now
I have read the links, I'm not understanding what you feel is so convincing about them.




First post on this page has numerous examples of why the "missing link" argument is laughable. Of course you're just going to ignore all those facts and continue to claim there's a "missing link"
So in other words your saying this is an accepted unprovable theory. If there is never any trace evidence linking us to anyother life, then it cant be.




Except...as has been proven and linked dozens of times over the 130+ pages, we HAVE found tons of common ancestors
Well like I said, a rat can be considered a common ancestor with over 70% of simular DNA.




And we have done all that as is clearly shown in the first post on this page

You're simply ignoring facts now, and it's getting a bit silly...
I don't think so. When you the links your sending me to clearly prove to be incomplete connections to huamns and some are even admitting upfront that they are postulated theorys. I mean if its just theorys you wanted that weren't backed by anything then man could I write you one hell of a book.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 01:56 AM
link   
He's a troll Mr. X. His half-man half-monkey comment is a bit too conspicuous on the matter. Thread should be closed



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by uva3021
He's a troll Mr. X. His half-man half-monkey comment is a bit too conspicuous on the matter. Thread should be closed


Fully aware of that by now...I mean, tons of objective evidence and links have been posted, and he just continues to ignore it. But that's not why I keep on posting! I just keep on posting whenever he makes more nonsense claims so others reading it have at least all the facts



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Did they happen to find one that had human hands and a monkeys head? Now that would be specieal.

If you had read the references provided to you in reply to your posts, you'd know about fossil remains found displaying what are referred to as "mosaic" features.

By all means, keep claiming that you've read and understood the information that's been provided to you. Every time you post a question like this, it's puts the lie to your statement that you have.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Did they happen to find one that had human hands and a monkeys head? Now that would be specieal.

If you had read the references provided to you in reply to your posts, you'd know about fossil remains found displaying what are referred to as "mosaic" features.

By all means, keep claiming that you've read and understood the information that's been provided to you. Every time you post a question like this, it's puts the lie to your statement that you have.







posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
the parts that had to do with the questions you were asking


I guess I didn't ask a question you had a script answer for, so you accuse me of not being familiar with it. Whatever.

Tell me something. When you check the references in the 2010 paper, why does Robinson cite himself so much? I don't know about you, but I was taught that self-citing was a no-no.


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.


Oh, you don't think we'll find that anywhere on Earth and that makes it alien? LOL


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.


You just said it--I bolded it. In your opinion.

Also, that "red residue" could be the remains of red bone marrow, which is frequently found in spongy (cancellous) bone. It's caused by hematopoiesis. And guess what? Cancellous bone is where the exchange of calcium ions takes place. That's why that type of bone is more prone to osteoporosis.




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


Gee, how about a deformed human? Or another subspecies of human? It was only a few years ago that they discovered "The Hobbit", which outlasted all of our relatives until the astonishingly late 12,000 years ago. I was just reading that our common ancestor was H. erectus. We and the Neanderthals branched off and went in one direction, the Hobbit in another. Yet we had no idea they even existed.

Making an automatic leap to alien isn't justified, not when we KNOW there are humans other than the Starchild who are and have been afflicted with the same genetic abnormality.

When they discovered the first dinosaur bone they didn't say, "Aliens from outer space!" They said, "Previously unknown creature."




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?


That's not what the nuclear DNA evidence says at all. The last I heard, they'd only sequenced 30,000 base pairs, which is just a fraction of the total number of pairs. In other words, they sequenced ONE GENE, not the whole genome.

What NIH database did he use?

And actually, Neanderthals were human and those of us of European ancestry have anywhere from 1-4% Neanderthal DNA. Looking at it that way, the Neanderthals are still with us. If they weren't human, that wouldn't be possible. Can Pye explain how an alien from another planet had the same number of chromosomes as humans in order to breed with them?


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.


Stop using the principle of exclusion. The evidence supports the fact that the Starchild was not an alien, as it suffered from various human congenital defects that are known and well documented.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

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


I'm not being enigmatic, but if I was your high school biology teacher I'd be really ashamed that I hadn't taught you any better. It's not my job to explain it to you. If you really cared to educate yourself on the topic, you'd have done it already.

I guess ignorance really is bliss.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


I'm telling you guys that it honestly looks like everything is suppose to be in a balanced eco system.
I'm not one to have an interest in such things but recently I can see that there is just no other way for a planet to function. Humans are NOT part of the eco system here, so we are being rejected.


One last time: there is no such thing as balance in nature. Once you let go of that myth, everything will make a lot more sense, I promise.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 

It's not my job to explain it to you. If you really cared to educate yourself on the topic, you'd have done it already.

I guess ignorance really is bliss.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by HappyBunny
 

It's not my job to explain it to you. If you really cared to educate yourself on the topic, you'd have done it already.

I guess ignorance really is bliss.


You don't HAVE to present objective evidence and proof...but it would certainly help to give your point a bit more credibility



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by uva3021
He's a troll Mr. X. His half-man half-monkey comment is a bit too conspicuous on the matter. Thread should be closed


Fully aware of that by now...I mean, tons of objective evidence and links have been posted, and he just continues to ignore it. But that's not why I keep on posting! I just keep on posting whenever he makes more nonsense claims so others reading it have at least all the facts


I reply because all the time he posts his infantile, ignorant replies it shows he has no contact with reality. I hesitate to say the creationist group as I dont believe he even represents them.

Basically it shows the importance of 'The Sceintific Method' and how without it we would still be in caves, if bears allowed it.
edit on 23-12-2011 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 131  132  133    135  136  137 >>

log in

join