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: 144
31
<< 141  142  143    145  146  147 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by steveknows
 





The reason you don't see is because you don't understand that we human have managed to manipulate our environment. We're no longer subject to it on a day to day basis like other animals.
Manipulating our enviroment is NOT a form of evolution its a form of adaptation.




Humans no longer need to show teeth as a sign of agression, though we still do, but our eyes and other body language tells the story. In fact so much of what's going on in the human mind is shown through our eyes that we have become the only animal with the whites always on display so that at any given time the iris gives the truth away. We started doing this when we started talking because we can lie with words. Most of our communication is done visually not verbally but the movement is very minute.
No longer need? We are still here on earth, the need is still here, and why did we choose to distance ourselves in this manner?




Did you know that there's ants which harvest like we do? Did you know that there's ants that milk aphids? Does that mean that ants are aliens? No it means that they've managed to manipulate their environment. Not to the level we have but they've done it. Humans aren't the only ones who milk cows. An aphid is an ants cow.

Anyone knows to not take notice of wikki. We are primates and a member of the great ape family.
Not to the level we have was my answer as well.
I'm hung on the primate thing, I will have to investigate this as a lot of link I get tossed are one sided.




posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

From your own post:


Well thats the whole point. Assumptions are being made that we all evolved from slime, and are all related just because we share the same DNA. We share 70% of the same DNA with a rat, but are we related? We share 97% of the same DNA with primates, does it mean we are related? No it doesn't. First of all that 3% diff in DNA with primates is Millions of genes. They are trying to convince us that a smart virus knew exactly how, and what DNA to alter and went to work making us.

The 3% difference is in base pairs, not genes. We only have about 1.5M genes, so a 3% difference wouldn't be "millions of genes", it would be thousands of genes. But the difference would involve millions of base pairs. So you apparently don't know the difference between a gene and a base pair.

But by all means try and weasel out of this one by claiming that you were being sarcastic. See how far it gets you.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


If it was to hide the prior work, why even let people know about that work to begin with?



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


I wasn't able to make that connection. It looked more like NIH is here in the states and Blast was out of the country.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by steveknows
 


Anyone knows to not take notice of wikki. We are primates and a member of the great ape family.

Except itsthetooth is blatantly lying about the content of the wiki page he linked to. It clearly states in the third paragraph that humans are primates:


Order Primates has traditionally been divided into two main groupings: prosimians and anthropoids (simians). Prosimians have characteristics more like those of the earliest primates, and include the lemurs of Madagascar, lorisiforms and tarsiers. Simians include the monkeys, apes and humans.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


BLAST is the algorithm that is used to compare DNA sequences. The actual database that contains this information is maintained by the NIH.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


The initial tests actually show how Pye doesn't care about the results of the tests. When he told that both the skull's parents were human he then concocted some story about how this was actually proof of alien intervention. Of course when the second test was unable to retrieve any nuclear DNA he removed any reference to these initial results from his site and created the theory that he currently hypes.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by uva3021
 


Primates are NOT human.




On the off-chance you're a visual learner, check this out.

www.imgt.org...
edit on 12/28/2011 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





How about right on Pye's website? See here:
Must be the part where he says some of it comes back human. But where did you get the part that it was the father specifically?




I was talking about your alien assumption, not the portion we share with rats.
I lost track, sorry I'm replying to a lot of others.




We've moved beyond the morphological, can't you tell? You're the one who's hyping up the DNA "evidence." And morphologically, the child is human. Really.
First I better make a temporary correction that I mean neanderthals as some peeps on here are claiming humans are primates.

So your saying we are no longer morphing but growing in mind?




No, it's really very simple. You're the one who's making it complicated because you don't want to believe what's in front of your face.
Well I'm not making anything out to be any certain way, overlap is real.




How about this plea right on Pye's homepage?
So the book hasn't even boon written yet he is looking to get funding for it? Does it look like hes making a killing?




And you obviously don't know the difference between a base pair and a gene.
And I guess I still dont.




The 1999 test showed a Y chromosome. Period, end of story.

If it doesn't have to have an X and Y to be alien, then the presence of the X and Y shows it's not alien. Ergo, it's human. Finite, the end, goodbye.
You don't know that. You have never studdied alien DNA so your making a pretty bold statement, in addition to the fact that they could be referring to mtDNA and not nuclear DNA.




If the evidence showed the Starchild to be anything but human, I'd definitely be interested. But the evidence doesn't show that. Keep deluding yourself--that's up to you.
I'm shocked you evolutionists havent jumped on this claiming THIS is the missing link. Because its the closest to that from anything thats been presented. It just has way to many differences to be human is the problem. I believe that DNA appears human in part because it is humanoid. Just like how a rat shares 70% overlap with us as well.

No deluding needed, I realized overlap long before it was ever brought up to my attention, its complex but has to do with how the DNA is coded. Keeping in mind that we are all made up of the same protiens and amino acids.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





That's a blatant lie given the information that I just made available to you using the link you provided.
Can you quote what your talking about here, I'm lost.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





Then you obviously didn't click the links. The site I'm referencing is Wikipedia. In fact, it's the exact wiki page that you claimed said primates aren't human in this post. From the third paragraph of the link you provided
Yo ugueys are correct, I never saw it before and never heard it before in my life. So I"m referring to apes and monkeys.




So are you a liar, a troll, or just stupid? Because those seem to be the only three possibilities when you claim the exact opposite of the information provided on a page that you yourself linked to
Your profiling me again.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 





The initial tests actually show how Pye doesn't care about the results of the tests. When he told that both the skull's parents were human he then concocted some story about how this was actually proof of alien intervention. Of course when the second test was unable to retrieve any nuclear DNA he removed any reference to these initial results from his site and created the theory that he currently hypes
I think you have the tests backwards.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Yo ugueys are correct, I never saw it before and never heard it before in my life. So I"m referring to apes and monkeys.

So once again, you were just making stuff up as you go to support your case? I find your claim that you "never saw it before and never heard it before" to be doubtful because the information was on the page that you linked to in your post.


Your profiling me again.

I'm trying to determine whether you were too stupid to understand the information you provided in your own post, dishonest enough to try and claim the exact opposite of the information you provided in your own post and hope that no one would catch on, or if this is all just a big troll on your part. If that's your definition of "profiling", then so be it.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetoothWell I'm not ignoreing you, I have responded to everything. I just don't buy a different race as a different species. Now you ask, it was pages ago, send the link again.

You asked for evidence of MICROEVOLUTION in humans. You claimed it hasn't been observed. I never said different races of human were different species. Nice straw man, again, but the various races are slam dunk evidence for microevolution in humans, especially when you look at which races have the more favorable traits to surviving the climate they originated from. That debunks your point about microevolution not being seen in humans. If you have a better theory of how race originated, post your evidence (not like you actually will but I'm trying to keep you on topic).

This image clearly shows small change over a long period of time. If you go from A straight to N (roughly 7 million years), it's like OMG big change, but going from one to the other is a small. Homo sapiens have changed quite a bit in the few hundred thousand years that we've been technically labeled a species. We like labels so we give things names. We are homo sapiens, currently. We'll be something a bit different in a few million years. We were able to breed with Neanderthal at one point, it's in our DNA. Today if Neanderthal was still around it wouldn't be possible. Creatures don't magically poof into a new species. They just change slowly. You don't observe speciation in real time, you observe it based on the fossil record and genetic variance. Our ancestors have survived a few billion years on earth including at least 6 extinction level events, and here we are, the dominant species on earth (now). That in itself means a lot. Don't downplay our existence. Genetic tampering is possible, but creating human from scratch then bringing them here when several human like species already exist here isn't logical.



Depends on how you look at it. If you think people living up to the age of 10 is not dying then your correct. IMO I think not, especially when they don't reach mature age to reproduce. So no, your wrong.

I don't think people dying before becoming an adult because they haven't recieved any vaccinations is my personal belief.

You still haven't backed that statement up. It doesn't depend on how I look at it. Are you claiming that no human on earth would ever live past 10 without vaccines? Prove it. There are countries in the world that don't have vaccines for the general public, and there are plenty that survive. If the world is over populated you can blame it on vaccines.



Well I appreciate your candor but no one has presented me with anything in evolution that seems to be what is.


www.talkorigins.org...
Last time I'm posting this. Please refer any further posts to addressing this evidence. Science is CONSTANTLY under investigation, because that's where it comes from. You show me any one of these that says it's inconclusive. There's always more to be learned, but we've learned quite a bit.


Now when you reply about this dont attack me for having fantasy beliefs. Read it again and tell me what happiness I'm suppose to get out of it.

I'm merely trying to get you to post the evidence. You are posting beliefs. There's nothing wrong with them at all, but they are beliefs, dude. Your attack on a proven field of science is where you are in the wrong.
edit on 28-12-2011 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





So once again, you were just making stuff up as you go to support your case? I find your claim that you "never saw it before and never heard it before" to be doubtful because the information was on the page that you linked to in your post.
No its because I only read the first two paragraphs.




I'm trying to determine whether you were too stupid to understand the information you provided in your own post, dishonest enough to try and claim the exact opposite of the information you provided in your own post and hope that no one would catch on, or if this is all just a big troll on your part. If that's your definition of "profiling", then so be it.
No your wrong again I only read the first two paragraphs. And your profiling me again.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





You asked for evidence of MICROEVOLUTION in humans. You claimed it hasn't been observed. I never said different races of human were different species.
If you go back and read what you wrote you would see.




Nice straw man, again, but the various races are slam dunk evidence for microevolution in humans,
If you start with a pair of humans, and you mate them and end up with humans, nothing has changed.




especially when you look at which races have the more favorable traits to surviving the climate they originated from. That debunks your point about microevolution not being seen in humans. If you have a better theory of how race originated, post your evidence (not like you actually will but I'm trying to keep you on topic).
Those are nothing more than allowable differenes within the species to begin with, nothing in the realm of evolution has happened.




This image clearly shows small change over a long period of time. If you go from A straight to N (roughly 7 million years), it's like OMG big change, but going from one to the other is a small. Homo sapiens have changed quite a bit in the few hundred thousand years that we've been technically labeled a species. We like labels so we give things names.
No one has ever produced evidence that we have in fact evolved from any other species,for that matter. You started with humans, and ended up with humans, nothing has changed.




We are homo sapiens, currently. We'll be something a bit different in a few million years.
Especially socially but I'll bet we are still huamns.




We were able to breed with Neanderthal at one point, it's in our DNA. Today if Neanderthal was still around it wouldn't be possible. Creatures don't magically poof into a new species. They just change slowly. You don't observe speciation in real time, you observe it based on the fossil record and genetic variance. Our ancestors have survived a few billion years on earth including at least 6 extinction level events, and here we are, the dominant species on earth (now). That in itself means a lot. Don't downplay our existence. Genetic tampering is possible, but creating human from scratch then bringing them here when several human like species already exist here isn't logical
This timed synopsis has never been observed in humans much less any other species here. The excuse is that it works to slow to see. The problem is that there would still be evidence of transitioning and prior evidence of species mutating into something else, as well as inbetween breeds. None of which do we have, its a crock.




You still haven't backed that statement up.
I'm backing it up by saying if you believe we were only suppose to live to be 10 years old then die from the elements, then you are correct, otherwise your not.

Here is one example...
42 states have mandatory vaccine policies, and many children are required 22 shots by first grade
www.aapsonline.org...
Now I wonder why they would make it mandatory?




embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses.
www.talkorigins.org...
Rigth off the bat in the first sentance. They are clearly stateing they are not fact. But hey if it makes you feel better to accept it as such more power to you.




I'm merely trying to get you to post the evidence. You are posting beliefs. There's nothing wrong with them at all, but they are beliefs, dude. Your attack on a proven field of science is where you are in the wrong.
Evolution is NOT a proven fact of science. If it were we would have 0 religion and it would be mandatory in all schools.




edit on 28-12-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 02:59 AM
link   
Evolution is a fact. its a fact and its not hard to see how it works at all, there are so many examples of evolution that its not funny, like vistigial organs and things of that nature, humans are evolving, like some people not having wisdom teeth because they werent selected for in evolution.

That being said, if you all want to look in the jungle for your ancestors go ahead but i know i didnt evolve from any ape

You cant prove evolution wrong because any body with any logic and reasoning can see how it works, and evolution is taught in every single biology class in schools around the world



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 03:11 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





If you start with a pair of humans, and you mate them and end up with humans, nothing has changed.


If you start with a large group of humans and put them in the jungle, the ones with the most suitible attributes will be the ones that survive to sexual maturity and produce offspring, this offspring will inherit the favorable genes so the group will evolve to contain more individuals posessing those genes.

I hope this doesnt sound racist because its not but just look at african americans, they are so athletic and muscular because the weaker ones would have died on the slave ships and the slave owners would pair up the individuals who could do the most work. Thats why african americans are often so large and muscular.

Heres an animal example with the belgium blue bull where they selectivley breed the bulls with the greatest muscle mass and the end result was this monstrosity....



so there ya go man, evolution at work (even though its not natural)
Natural selection drives evolution in nature in a similar fashion where the selective breeder is mother nature....

The driving force of all evolution BTW is mutations in DNA, while most mutations are detrimental, some times the mutation will produce a favorable or selected trait in the phenotype of the organism and this will increase the organisms chance of mating and passing on the gene for example skin colour: In colder climates a mutation resulting in lighter skin would be selected for and in warmer climates more pigment would be selected for.
edit on 29-12-2011 by BillyTJames because: mutations



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 04:31 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Evolution is NOT a proven fact of science. If it were we would have 0 religion and it would be mandatory in all schools.

You mean like the proven fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun and how it was immediately accepted by everyone and how 100% of everyone in the world accepts it today? There's little correlation between something being a fact and whether or not people accept it.

Evolution doesn't conflict with religion; there are plenty of theists out there who accept evolution. Actually, there are plenty of theists out there who are also biologists who do research in the field of evolution. Ken Miller is the first one that comes to mind and even wrote a book about how he reconciles his faith and the fact of evolution. The conflict comes from people taking their creation myths literally regardless of the scientific evidence presented to them. Because, after all, when a story written several thousands of years ago and scientific fact are in conflict, it must be the story written several thousand years ago that's correct.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by steveknows
 





The reason you don't see is because you don't understand that we human have managed to manipulate our environment. We're no longer subject to it on a day to day basis like other animals.
Manipulating our enviroment is NOT a form of evolution its a form of adaptation.


But you used our environment as evidence that we haven't evolved and aren't native to our planet. I was explaining that you're not seeing it because you can't get see the hunter gatherer due to the laptop. And adaption and evolution are very close together as there's biological adaptions ie white skin for humans who walked out of africa and became europeans. And inovative adaptions ie developing the use of fur lined shoes.




Humans no longer need to show teeth as a sign of agression, though we still do, but our eyes and other body language tells the story. In fact so much of what's going on in the human mind is shown through our eyes that we have become the only animal with the whites always on display so that at any given time the iris gives the truth away. We started doing this when we started talking because we can lie with words. Most of our communication is done visually not verbally but the movement is very minute.

No longer need? We are still here on earth, the need is still here, and why did we choose to distance ourselves in this manner?
Because as I said we have developed speech. Our visual cues are more subtle. We no longer have to emphasises our feelings as because of the evolution of speech we can say "you're a tool" and just give our heads a bit of a shake left and right to back up visually what we're saying. It would be very hard for me to point out how wrong you are through grunts and gestures.




Did you know that there's ants which harvest like we do? Did you know that there's ants that milk aphids? Does that mean that ants are aliens? No it means that they've managed to manipulate their environment. Not to the level we have but they've done it. Humans aren't the only ones who milk cows. An aphid is an ants cow.

Anyone knows to not take notice of wikki. We are primates and a member of the great ape family.

Not to the level we have was my answer as well.
I'm hung on the primate thing, I will have to investigate this as a lot of link I get tossed are one sided.


Good. Get researched
edit on 29-12-2011 by steveknows because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-12-2011 by steveknows because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 141  142  143    145  146  147 >>

log in

join