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: 135
31
<< 132  133  134    136  137  138 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 01:37 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.


Did you actually have a response, or were you just trolling?




posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by colin42

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)


Agreed, but it gets old after awhile. There are some people you just have to leave in Plato's Cave. They don't know and what's worse, they don't want to.

I know several creationists and they're not like that at all. They'll listen, but they're so set in their religious dogma that they don't know any other way to view the world.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


I'm tired of spelling things out for you only to have (when I ask you a question) you give me a reply like that which indicates to me you don't know wtf you're talking about.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I just copied her stupid reply to my question and gave it back to her just like I do to you when you say stupid things



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I just copied her stupid reply to my question and gave it back to her just like I do to you when you say stupid things


Well, he made a valid point. While he and others back up their claims with objective evidence, you present ZERO proof or objective evidence. And all the while you pretend your claims are a "valid alternative", or even worse, "definitely correct while evolution isn't". It's really quite laughable


130+ pages, and you haven't presented anything even remotely resembling objective evidence. In essence, you're just rambling and stating a belief that lacks any rationality or logic



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I doubt seriously that I"m the ONLY one that has noticed that all the links either indicate to be postulate theorys, or inconclusive, or still under investigation or they simply don't apply to humans. Most are all the above.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





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.
I do recall that. Either way, regardless, where are they?




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.
Well some of them do let you know early on in the read that they are fiction and I quickly lose interest about that point.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


This was perhaps the best thing I have seen yet proving evolution. Take a good look at that picture of Crocoduck.
It might seem foolish to absorb at first but with everything I have read, this would be a good example of evolution in action.

So can someone explain to me why it is that we have nothin like this?



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I doubt seriously that I"m the ONLY one that has noticed that all the links either indicate to be postulate theorys, or inconclusive, or still under investigation or they simply don't apply to humans. Most are all the above.


No they're not





This was perhaps the best thing I have seen yet proving evolution. Take a good look at that picture of Crocoduck.
It might seem foolish to absorb at first but with everything I have read, this would be a good example of evolution in action.


If that's how you think evolution works, it's no wonder you doubt it...




So can someone explain to me why it is that we have nothin like this?


Here's why:




Modern species share a common ancestor, but are neither descended from each other nor from some crude composite chimera, and ducks are not descended from crocodiles.


Crocoduck's story

And here's a link to the basic evolution Wiki article about evolution. From your posts, it's pretty clear you never even fully read it:

Intro to evolution
Evolution in more detail



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





Oh, you don't think we'll find that anywhere on Earth and that makes it alien? LOL
They allready gave a comparison, they said it was more like tooth enamel.




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.
But did you miss the part where it's explained that the old blood is red in color rather than black like out blood would be when its dried and old.




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.
So you think it could be a neanderthal with over 30% brain mass compared to humans, and no sinuses, several sets of adult teeth, and a bone composite that does not fit earths standards. Having bone thats more like tooth enamil is not close to anything we have here. The oxygen phosperus, calcim and carbon line up ALONE prove without a doubt it aint from around here.




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
Genetic abnormalities were easily ruled out as its symetrical. In most cases it would not be.




When they discovered the first dinosaur bone they didn't say, "Aliens from outer space!" They said, "Previously unknown creature."
Well thats a good point but we always knew dinasours were here before us so NOT.




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?
There is only ONE NIH data base.
I'm going to take a good guess and say that those types of bones are in the NIH. So if it were neanderthal, or any others that match up with we think could be relitives, it would have matched.
Thats not the case, it's an unknown, but its coherent.




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?
I never wanted to go here, but looks like I will have to. You guys need to realize that its very possible that humanoids of inteligent design (in other words excluding primates) might be able to mate with others that are also intelligent design.

I'll explain why and how I came to this conclusion. In many things that I have uncovered from the bible using a supernatural understanding, probably the most important was the power we have all heard about called telepathy. From my over 30 years of research in these fields, I was able to establish several solid things that we would otherwise never know about.
First is that Telepathy has a limitation in range. This is why God was not able to mind control an entire planet all at once. It's also why radio devices were also used in biblical times as well. There are distance limitations with this power. The other is that its universal. What I mean is that any other humanoid of intelligent design would be able to telepathy with others provided they too were designed with that same power. Where it gets real strange is that there is no language used, its some universal type of way to communicate without you ever having learn how to speak.

Now I'm guessing but if a creator made us all ( inteligent designed humanoids anyhow ) with these compatible qualities, its just as possible that mating with other humanoid species could produce offspring. There is no doubt in my mind that it was intentional someone wanted us to all be able to work together.




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.
Well exclusion may not prove its an alien but there were NO defects found in the skull so what does that leave? Another unknown.
It's the same reason science will NEVER admit something is alien, without ET's verified DNA, how do we honestly know?



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





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.
If there is no balance, or not suppose to be any balance than I want you to explain to me how it is that most things on this planet, not only fit into an enviroment, but even have special food that fits there needs.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


The term "common ancestor" was just a convenient way of saying there is a connection between two species, and we just haven't found it. Straight up, thats all that means.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





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.
If there is no balance, or not suppose to be any balance than I want you to explain to me how it is that most things on this planet, not only fit into an enviroment, but even have special food that fits there needs.


There is never a perfect balance as things are always changing and evolving. 99% of all life forms that ever lived on earth are now extinct, which shows exactly how things are constantly evolving.




The term "common ancestor" was just a convenient way of saying there is a connection between two species, and we just haven't found it. Straight up, thats all that means.


We've found a TON of common ancestors...which is well explained in the last links I posted. But once again you ignore facts and don't even bother doing the slightest bit of research

edit on 23-12-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


If you really believe in this garbage, answer me some questions, and I want honest answers.

Why is it that none of this has ever been confirmed in humans?
"Evolution is more death than survival and over time this has shaped the branching structure in the tree of life" Is a quote from the wiki introduction to evolution en.wikipedia.org...
So I think its pretty safe to say that everyone at this point would agree that more humans make it and live, then die. We have a pretty darn good success rate. So in other words, we are no longer evolving, at least according to wiki. So why is that?



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
You are making up your own theory of evolution in order to refute it. Your posts suggests you are waiting for proof of something teleological, or with foresight, which evolution is not, has never been, or never well be. Again, I think its obvious to this point you are a troll, because nobody could be this stubborn. Essential you are asking of evolution to provide you at any point in time proof of what future animal will evolve from any given animal. Which is absurd. That's not evolution, not even in the same ballpark as evolution. And if the "crocoduck" did in fact exist, it would disprove evolution, adding to one of the thousands of ways evolution could be falsified. Perhaps you are working on your debate strategy, or taking a Calculus of the Argument class and using this thread as a sort of project to demonstrate your progress. However, if I were teaching the course, I would have to give you a D. Asking for evidence, being presented with evidence, then ignoring what was presented to you is not sound debate tactics, neither is creating your own arguments to debate against.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 

Why is it that none of this has ever been confirmed in humans?
"Evolution is more death than survival and over time this has shaped the branching structure in the tree of life" Is a quote from the wiki introduction to evolution en.wikipedia.org...
So I think its pretty safe to say that everyone at this point would agree that more humans make it and live, then die. We have a pretty darn good success rate. So in other words, we are no longer evolving, at least according to wiki. So why is that?
Just making stuff up now, lol. Somehow all the germ plasm in the world stops anymore mutations from ever occurring if the population of the whole grows at a rate above 0%? How do they contact each other, do they use the cloud, maybe they send out mass tweets?
edit on 23-12-2011 by uva3021 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

The fact that you think the existence of the crocoduck would support evolution further proves how little you actually know about the scientific theory you're trying to argue against. The existence of a crocoduck, as pictured in XYZ's post, would actually falsify the theory of evolution, not support it.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





Why is it that none of this has ever been confirmed in humans?


It has been confirmed that humans evolved...




So in other words, we are no longer evolving, at least according to wiki.


The Wiki article doesn't claim humans aren't evolving any longer...and why would they? We are clearly still evolving.

Look...how about you actually bother doing some research before claiming stuff that 5min of research could have proven nonsense?



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I just copied her stupid reply to my question and gave it back to her just like I do to you when you say stupid things


Well, he made a valid point. While he and others back up their claims with objective evidence, you present ZERO proof or objective evidence. And all the while you pretend your claims are a "valid alternative", or even worse, "definitely correct while evolution isn't". It's really quite laughable


130+ pages, and you haven't presented anything even remotely resembling objective evidence. In essence, you're just rambling and stating a belief that lacks any rationality or logic


for what it's worth "he" is a "she" and she obviously hasn't a clue what I'm talking about. When I mentioned the red residue inside the cancellous holes, she said it's obviously dried blood. Dried blood inside 900 year old bone? First of all when blood dries it turns black and then after bacteria have scoured it from the bone there is nothing left but pure white bone. She has no empirical evidence to support anything she's been saying.

things like that lead me to believe she hasn't done her homework and I don't have time for poseurs



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by uva3021
 





You are making up your own theory of evolution in order to refute it.
I'm not making anything up, I'm quoting from wiki and I even provied the link




Your posts suggests you are waiting for proof of something teleological, or with foresight, which evolution is not, has never been, or never well be. Again, I think its obvious to this point you are a troll, because nobody could be this stubborn.
There is no issue of being stubborn, but there is an issue of not finding anything proving any of this ever or for that matter will happen in humans.




Essential you are asking of evolution to provide you at any point in time proof of what future animal will evolve from any given animal. Which is absurd. That's not evolution, not even in the same ballpark as evolution. And if the "crocoduck" did in fact exist, it would disprove evolution, adding to one of the thousands of ways evolution could be falsified. Perhaps you are working on your debate strategy, or taking a Calculus of the Argument class and using this thread as a sort of project to demonstrate your progress. However, if I were teaching the course, I would have to give you a D. Asking for evidence, being presented with evidence, then ignoring what was presented to you is not sound debate tactics, neither is creating your own arguments to debate against.
I have never been presented with any evidence. It's alwyas been the same thing over and over. It's either inconclusive, or under observation or straight out tells you that its a postulated theory.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 132  133  134    136  137  138 >>

log in

join