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: 136
31
<< 133  134  135    137  138  139 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 






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
I understand that, and still it would have been the best connection for evolution considering everything I have been presented with so far.




posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by uva3021
 





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?
I wasn't making anything up, it was a quote, and I provided the link, which was first given to me.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 






It has been confirmed that humans evolved...
So now your admitting we are no longer evolving at this time, why is that exactly?




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?
Due to the fact that its based on death rate, and our death rate has gone down yes it does.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 





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
This is also why Pye said that its NOT blood, at least not any type of blood that we are familliar with because it's red not black, and still sitting there.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


You know its occuring to me that your just missing a tad bit of proof for anything. I made a list.

There seems to be no proof of....

Humans evolving in the past.
Humans evolving in the present.
Any fossile or skelotole remains linking anything to evolution.
Any connection between viruses evolving and humans evolving.
Proof of specieation in humans.
Proof of microevolution or macroevolution in humans.
Proof of what we were before we were primates.
evidence of any of the other 5 million species evolving, or having evolved.
The mass amounts of species variations from all 5 million evolving and having evolved.

You have zip, nada, nuka.

Now on the flip side we have clear documentation that tells us we aren't from earth, and that we were placed here.
And still you struggle with connecting theorys to bridge the aforementioned.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
HO HO HO. I picture you red faced, fingers in ears stamping your feet denying anything those nasty bigger boys tell you about nasty old evolution.

Yelling at the top of your voice, 'I do believe in aliens, I do, I do'.

Trouble is no ones listening and you cant make them. Have a great christmas and try not to get abducted by Santa's little grey helpers. Tuck into your turkey that tastes of dinosaurs as birds are a direct relation to them the evidence of which we have in abundance even down to the feathers.

Yo ho ho.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

You claim to understand that the existence of a crocoduck would not support evolution, but rather refute... and then immediately state that you think it's the best evidence for evolution. You just contradicted yourself within a single sentence.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 





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
This is also why Pye said that its NOT blood, at least not any type of blood that we are familliar with because it's red not black, and still sitting there.


I'd like to see him get the residue analyzed. I'll bet it's a component in the alien blood that is not on our terrestrial bacteria's menu.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   
just want to say merry christmas everyone all the best wishes



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


OMG, you can never tell when I'm being sarcastic.
Of course it wouldn't be proof, I was only saying it would be the closest thing at this point if it was real.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

This has nothing to do with sarcasm. You said this again:


I was only saying it would be the closest thing at this point if it was real.

Once again proving that you don't even understand the scientific theory you're trying to argue against. The existence of a crocoduck would be the exact opposite of what you're claiming it is. You're claiming that if it were real, it would be the closest thing to "proof"* of evolution that exists. I, and others, have pointed out to you that if it were real it would completely falsify the theory of evolution. Ergo, it's the opposite of what you claim it to be.

* I placed "proof" in quotes because you still seem unaware of what constitutes "proof" vs. "evidence". You repeatedly use them interchangeably when they mean two completely different things when discussing science.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by admiralmary
just want to say merry christmas everyone all the best wishes


thank you and same to you



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


so let me see if I have this correctly: you guys are saying that it's perfectly reasonable that all of a sudden or due to climate change or some other environmental stress, a new species can basically emerge by a random mutation that results in a complete transformation of morphology and physiology within a few generations, or something like that? You're saying you wouldn't have the crocoduck because the changes don't happen like a blending from one species to another but instead make these massive jumps into a whole separate other species then. Is that right? Does it happen with one individual entity of that species or simultaneously across several of the species randomly? or how do you explain these jumps across some pretty wide gaps and how does time factor in to that? Can you guys dumb it down or something so it makes sense?



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





Once again proving that you don't even understand the scientific theory you're trying to argue against. The existence of a crocoduck would be the exact opposite of what you're claiming it is. You're claiming that if it were real, it would be the closest thing to "proof"* of evolution that exists. I, and others, have pointed out to you that if it were real it would completely falsify the theory of evolution. Ergo, it's the opposite of what you claim it to be.

* I placed "proof" in quotes because you still seem unaware of what constitutes "proof" vs. "evidence". You repeatedly use them interchangeably when they mean two completely different things when
Again I was being sarcastic meaning if it were possible, of course knowing its not, its the closest thing to proof that evolution would have at this point.

Evolution is ranking just a tad low on the evidence list right now.
If there were 20 theorys working together to prove evolution I can honeslty say that only one I have read is plausible and doesn't even apply to humans.
So I dunno, Crockoduck or crock o anything is still a crock at this point.



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 





so let me see if I have this correctly: you guys are saying that it's perfectly reasonable that all of a sudden or due to climate change or some other environmental stress, a new species can basically emerge by a random mutation that results in a complete transformation of morphology and physiology within a few generations, or something like that? You're saying you wouldn't have the crocoduck because the changes don't happen like a blending from one species to another but instead make these massive jumps into a whole separate other species then. Is that right? Does it happen with one individual entity of that species or simultaneously across several of the species randomly? or how do you explain these jumps across some pretty wide gaps and how does time factor in to that? Can you guys dumb it down or something so it makes sense?
It has to be the biggest crock (no pun intended) I have ever heard of. Species morphing into other things, and even odder is how they leave no trace, and aren't showing any signs of this currently happening. With exception to viruses and specific marine life anyhow. Because we all know how easy it is to compare our genetics to these things, right?

You guys are talking a few select occurences that I must add only happen in strict situations, then die quickly and then you try to apply them to species that they have nothing to do with. Your rules are completly open on all of this and not a single one of your theorys is backed by a second non related source. To make matters worst, most of the links you have provided clearly state they are either incomplete, or under investigation, or plainly just a postulated theory.
Honestly you have no right to compare such gargabe to intervention, and in fact should be seeing for yourself if there is any truth in your own findings. Perhaps some of you are suffering from existentialism. I would never tell anyone that you must believe in something, but I can see today that everyone feels they have to. There is nothing positive about intervention, and I get nothing out of it, other than laughing at evolutionists.

At least in intervention almost everything I have uncovered is not only confirmed by multiple sources but also reduntantly verified in multiple ways. There is nothing closer to the truth especialy when you can get it from something that happened back in biblical times.



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 05:27 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Again I was being sarcastic meaning if it were possible, of course knowing its not, its the closest thing to proof that evolution would have at this point.

And you've now claimed it for a third time, and are completely wrong for a third time. Hypothetically, if the crocoduck existed, it would falsify evolution, not prove it as you keep claiming it would. The fact that you keep claiming the crocoduck would prove evolution once again shows how little you know about the scientific theory.



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 05:40 AM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 

Given the information that's been provided so far in this thread, I'm not sure any further dumbing down is going to help. Further, it's not the point of this thread. The point of this thread is for people who reject evolution to provide evidence for their hypothesis explaining biodiversity. So far we've gotten "God did it" and "aliens did it". And the bulk of the "evidence" provided to support those hypotheses hasn't even been positive evidence for those hypotheses, it's been trying to show that evolution couldn't happen. It's a logical fallacy called a false dichotomy.



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


typical inability to explain wtf you mean. thanks



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


typical inability to explain wtf you mean. thanks

Why bother? It's been explained multiple times in this thread. Will one more really switch on the lightbulb and make you say "Ah ha! I understand now!" when all of the previous attempts haven't?

Your post essentially consisted of five questions. For reference, here it is again:


so let me see if I have this correctly: you guys are saying that it's perfectly reasonable that all of a sudden or due to climate change or some other environmental stress, a new species can basically emerge by a random mutation that results in a complete transformation of morphology and physiology within a few generations, or something like that? You're saying you wouldn't have the crocoduck because the changes don't happen like a blending from one species to another but instead make these massive jumps into a whole separate other species then. Is that right? Does it happen with one individual entity of that species or simultaneously across several of the species randomly? or how do you explain these jumps across some pretty wide gaps and how does time factor in to that? Can you guys dumb it down or something so it makes sense?

Your first question is a strawman description of evolution that's already been addressed in this thread. Your second question is a basic misunderstanding of what the crocoduck represents and why it's incorrect that's already been adressed in this thread. Your third question is a valid one regarding propagation of genetic changes through a population and has already been addressed in this thread. Your fourth question is indicative of your "aliens of the gaps" argument which has already been addressed in this thread. Hopefully this breakdown of why your previous four questions are either irrelevant or have already been answered is sufficient to answer your fifth question; if not, then I'll make it clear -- no, I don't think I can re-explain it or dumb it down any further to be able to have it make sense to you. Sorry.
edit on 25/12/2011 by iterationzero because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





And you've now claimed it for a third time, and are completely wrong for a third time. Hypothetically, if the crocoduck existed, it would falsify evolution, not prove it as you keep claiming it would. The fact that you keep claiming the crocoduck would prove evolution once again shows how little you know about the scientific theory
Well first of all I never said it would be proof, you need to learn how to read. Especially on some of the links I have been provided where they clearly state they are not confirmed.

I said it would be the CLOSEST thing to proof. I can understand what your looking at because of two different species mating. Of course your also making an assumption that thats how it went. I was just looking at the end product.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 133  134  135    137  138  139 >>

log in

join