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: 154
31
<< 151  152  153    155  156  157 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Here is an interesting tid bit that sort of blows evolution out of the water...
gametic isolation
This neat little fact of science basically tells us that nature doesn't want anything creating crossbread species.
Now the only difference between this and evolutionism is that GI would block specific attempts between two different species.
While evolutionism doesn't involve two different species, it could allow the result of such creations by chance. In other words, A crock mating with a duck would yeild nothing in the wild but through evolutionism, it is actually possible. Only because I am being told over and over that there is no intelligence behind this force, so it has to just be chance.

Agreeing with the possibilities is like saying that the good old fashioned way of reproducing was just not enough, we had to throw in this wild card that allows probability of the unthinkable.
On top of this leave no trace of the actions like through bones or fossils.
Leave no trace of it happening in real time, like right now, we aren't seeing any of this going on.
leave no traces back with any of the 5 million species that we have on earth.

I call total BS on this.

I'm going to side with Darwin when he stated that without proof of the aforementioned, its just not happening. He was a smart guy for sure.




posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 





Once again you are ignoring two vital factors in the false claim of the unnamed creationist site you are using.

1.) The concept of entropy does not apply to Earth as it is not a closed system. In fact the concept of entropy does not apply to anything except, possibly, the universe as a whole. There are many examples of negentropy. For example, the Sun is constantly creating new energy.
That doesn't make any sense, as though earth is not part of the universe.

No, it's because you don't know what a closed system is.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Sorry I lost track here.
Go back and get back on track. I cant keep spoon feeding you.



Well ya I had assumed it wasnt possible without explaining the begining. On the other hand I always heard we started from slime. It's just a tad to tough to believe.
Then as has been pointed out to you many times you assumed wrong. Evolution shows how life progressed and diversified NOT how it started.



If your referring to making tools, tools are a form of adaptation, not evolution. So thats not possible.
What a load of cobblers. Using tools is a trait. There are few animals that use tools and none as adept as us. Using tools is what gives us the edge and we would not be as succesful without them. It gives us the chance to survive long enough to pass on our genes. Basic evolution. You should read up on it some time.

Besides that we are omnivours which means we have a large diet and so are not dependant on one source for food. We use our tech to survive in many enviroments we are not suited too. which is why we live in and thrive in every Niche.



That makes no sense. It's as though your saying that this evolution bug, as I like to call it, was smart enough to know that by equipping us with tool making abilities, we would be ok.
Have you really so little understanding of evolution as I like to call it?

The evolutionary force does not think. It does not care. It is the driving force behind diversity, nothing more. Nothing less.

Humans are slow, weak, poor sighted, poor hearing compared to the specialist species. If we never devoloped the use of tools we most likely would be extinct or at least very different than we are now. We used tools and thrived. Evolution 101 that you should be able to understand by now but you are to deep in denial.



My 30 years is in supernatural and paranormal, not evolutionism.
That explains a lot. With science you MUST produce proof. You never have. Spooky.



Its hard to imaging life as we see it, without some intelligent force behind it. Who knows, that intelligence could be in the form of the evolution bug. I'm not 100% sold on any of it because you still end up with that same old question, who made the creator.
This gets very boring you know.

You want a creator, thats fine with me. I dont care. No evolution is a name we gave the driving force that produces diversity. You want evolution to show you a creator then you will never understand it because it cannot. Get it. Evolution does not explain creation.



Well probably what your detecting is my choice in order. I would belive in creation long before I would believe in evoltuion. The problem is that they both have open ends at the begining. Again, I'll say there is something out there that we haven't even began to understand.
Your choice is to make up a creator as your comfort blanket. I dont care. Evolution has nothing to say about creation so why you need to discard one so that you can keep the other is beyond me.

I will agree that there is a big wide world out there that you appear unable to understand at even the simplest level.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





The master of avoidance points the finger at me

You have been shown 'the missing link' is a complete falasy but you have avoided and ignored that everytime you have been shown. Why would I waste my time doing the same thing only to get the exact same response from you????????????????????
So now your admitting that we are not all related to anything else. Thus no proof of a connection.


No I am telling you that the missing link rubbish has been shown to you by many others on this thread to be false. You have chosen to ignore every and all explanations. Now tell me why I would waste my time repeating it so that you can ignore it?



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





No, it's because you don't know what a closed system is.
The laws of thermodynamics do not only apply to things outside of earth.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





No, it's because you don't know what a closed system is.
The laws of thermodynamics do not only apply to things outside of earth.



Really? I had NO idea.

Your point?



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Hi Itsthetooth,

www.talkorigins.org...

Still waiting for you to answer this link in detail. Explain to me PRECISELY what is wrong and demonstrate why. Stop posting strawman arguments about evolution like "we didn't just wake up one day a new species". Of course we didn't. It takes hundreds of thousands to millions of years. That's been explained countless times but again, you pretend it wasn't said and continue to dishonestly promote your hypothesis. I'm beginning to think you are a bot that responds with generic responses to everything.
edit on 1-1-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Then as has been pointed out to you many times you assumed wrong. Evolution shows how life progressed and diversified NOT how it started.
I understand what your saying, but I'm saying that it hasn't




What a load of cobblers. Using tools is a trait. There are few animals that use tools and none as adept as us. Using tools is what gives us the edge and we would not be as succesful without them. It gives us the chance to survive long enough to pass on our genes. Basic evolution. You should read up on it some time.

Besides that we are omnivours which means we have a large diet and so are not dependant on one source for food. We use our tech to survive in many enviroments we are not suited too. which is why we live in and thrive in every Niche.



That makes no sense. It's as though your saying that this evolution bug, as I like to call it, was smart enough to know that by equipping us with tool making abilities, we would be ok.

Have you really so little understanding of evolution as I like to call it?

The evolutionary force does not think. It does not care. It is the driving force behind diversity, nothing more. Nothing less.

Humans are slow, weak, poor sighted, poor hearing compared to the specialist species. If we never devoloped the use of tools we most likely would be extinct or at least very different than we are now. We used tools and thrived. Evolution 101 that you should be able to understand by now but you are to deep in denial.
ok then if your correct, you still never answer my question on how a change to a species will still afford that species something to eat? Lets not use humans as an example because some of our diet was brought here. Lets look at cows, cows eat grass. But lets say when that species evolved, he was actually made to eat kidops. Now we don't have kidops here on earth, so how is he suppose to eat?




That explains a lot. With science you MUST produce proof. You never have. Spooky.
I am the furthest from being metaphysical too.




This gets very boring you know.

You want a creator, thats fine with me. I dont care. No evolution is a name we gave the driving force that produces diversity. You want evolution to show you a creator then you will never understand it because it cannot. Get it. Evolution does not explain creation.
Neither of them fit into a nice picture, thats what I have been trying to tell you all along.




Your choice is to make up a creator as your comfort blanket. I dont care. Evolution has nothing to say about creation so why you need to discard one so that you can keep the other is beyond me.

I will agree that there is a big wide world out there that you appear unable to understand at even the simplest level.
The only reason I keep looking at a creator is because the odds way outweigh chance creating all of this by accident. It's just not possible. I think that analoge about a tornado building a jet plane from a junkyard is very accurate. It's just not going to happen.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Just because your close minded and not able to comprehend how a creator could easily explain diversity does not mean I'm avoiding.
Open my mind then. Explain how a creator could explain diversity. That is the point of this thread you know.



Well now you got side tracked, the OP was never about who created us, its about diversity, or dissproving it, which Is not hard to do considering the lacking evidence of evolutionism.
What? WHAT. I wrote the OP. It is about explaining diversity without refering to evolution. Something I have reminded you of constantly but you seem unable to grasp even this.

You cannot dissprove diversity. It is there infront of your face. Do you even think before replying?

You wrote:


I find it impossible to simply believe there is one or more creators, because someone would still have to make them.
I find it impossible to simply believe we started from slime. Who made the slime?


So I ask you again. If you cannot believe in a creator that you have been going on and on about and also cannot accept evolution then what are all these pages of drivel you have posted about??????????



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





No I am telling you that the missing link rubbish has been shown to you by many others on this thread to be false. You have chosen to ignore every and all explanations. Now tell me why I would waste my time repeating it so that you can ignore it?
All I was ever told was that changes happen in small ways through generations. First of all we are missing proof of all of those generations. Then to top it off, your now trying to say they never existed to begin with. What is this, a new theory. Species popping up out of thin air?



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Ok so what other life here on earth depends on humans, aside from domesticated animals.
You amaze me. Just how ignorant are you?

There are very few places on this planet that are not affected by man. Every choice we make or dont make which changes the enviroment hinges on us.

When we make poor choices and we suffer along with all the other life affected. All life is symbiotic and we destroy diversity at our peril.

Are you really telling me you dont not understand even this?



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Pye never gave names, and neither did I. All I said was there are sure a lot we would have been dead from without medical intervention. Thus, the list I provided you.

So you don't know which genetic disorders Pye was talking about, so you just went and found lists of diseases and hoped you were right, even though the major diseases you listed aren't genetic disorders but external pathogens? That's an honest approach to making your arguments...


It did only take out 70 million people but another one took out over 300 mill. Do you honestly question something of that size.

And none of those pandemics prior to our current level of medical technology caused us to go extinct, so you have absolutely nothing to back your claim that they would have without medical intervention. I think you don't question enough.


Actually it seemed more like you were, so this is why I was quizing you. I noticed you didn't answer.

Given that you don't seem to understand that wild bananas and cultivated bananas are two different species, I think you're lying about knowing what the definition of a species is. Then again, you don't think humans are primates, so you've hardly been a reliable source information thus far.


Your assuming that group is one that traveled here later, it might not have been.

No, it would have had to be here earlier. The ones found in France are from 24kya, which is before 10kya. You claimed that our species arrived on this planet 10kya. There are human -- not "other humanoids" or "human like" -- remains that were here 14k years before you claim our species was brought here. Your hypothesis has been falsified.


It's pretty hard to prove or disprove and I have allready thought about all of this.

No, you were pretty clear in your assertion. I asked you specifically when our species was brought here. You said 10kya. Stating that our species has only been on this planet for 10k years is demonstrably wrong. Your hypothesis has been falsified.


If your saying that it looks like the group that was here before 10kya is the one still here, then its also possible most of them got to go back home.

It doesn't look like it, they belonged to one of the Homo sapiens haplogroups.


It's a mess of possibilities as you can see.

No, your hypothesis is a mess of wrong based on the claims you've made. Feel free to change your claims and provide evidence for your new claims. Given that you can't provide evidence for your current claims, I can't wait to see what you come up with for this batch.


Its also possible that through cross breeding, and idendifying groups, those were removed and sent back home. The ONLY thing about having that pre dated group still here tells me, is that they were here before 10k and are still here. It has little to nothing to do others that could have come, and gone. However it makes you wonder if those groups were singled out by there group and returned, which is also possible.

What were removed and sent back home? The ones found in France that are 14k years older than they should be according to your claims are modern humans and belong to a haplogroup that people currently living still belong to.

Let's recap:

You claimed that our species (H. sapiens) was brought to this planet 10kya. I provided you with peer-reviewed and published objective evidence that we have H. sapiens remains from France dated to 24kya. And that these aren't even the oldest remains we have. Your claim that we have only been here for 10kya is demonstrably wrong.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quadrivium

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by Quadrivium
 
(Sighs with relief)

I would expect life would have needed to have began in water whether that be a puddle, ocean or something in between. The how I leave to others to decide.


So we agree that life on earth began in water.

So in your opinion what came next? Dinosaurs, mammals, birds or reptiles?

On a side note........
I find it rather intriguing that most of the people in this thread, who believe in evolution, say that it has nothing to do with the beginning of life.
Twenty years ago that was all you would here from an evolutionist............. how life started as pond scum and evolved into one species, then that species evolved into several differnt species and so on.
Now it would seem that evolution is just used to explain the diversity of life not the origins of life.
Ah.......the theory of evolution is evolving!!
Or is it adapting to survive?
(Just an observance Colin, did not mean to derail our discussion.)

This thread has been derailed for over 60 pages as you may have noticed. As far as I know what came next was simple single cell and progressed through multicellular algea and so one.

I think that twenty years ago we also listened to the evidence presented with a different mind set. I dont think the message has changed just the way the information is explained to an audience with a wider world view.

Yeah. Everything evolves



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





You amaze me. Just how ignorant are you?

There are very few places on this planet that are not affected by man. Every choice we make or dont make which changes the enviroment hinges on us.

When we make poor choices and we suffer along with all the other life affected. All life is symbiotic and we destroy diversity at our peril.

Are you really telling me you dont not understand even this?
If I'm ignorant then you should have NO problem answering this. I wanna know what life here on earth would suffer or miss us if we left earth. What life here on earth depends on us, aside from ones that we have set up to do so.
What other animals on this planet would suffer or die, if we dissapered.
Is there any species you can think of that depends on us for anything.
Now I purposly asked the same question in 5 different ways so there is no confusion.

Now while your avoiding the answer and scrambling to come up with even one, at the same time I want you to also think the complete opposite.

What species would benefit from us leaving earth.
Is there any life forms here that man has caused harm to or even made extinct.
Our destructive ways are so clear that we even try to preserve some life knowing our existance could easily kill them.

When your list is 0 for the first part, and several for the second part, its a clear indication we aren't from here.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Not even putting much thought into it, there are plenty of species that have either thrived or who came about due to intervention by humans. I once again bring up those two species of goatsbeard. If it hadn't been for human intervention they would have never existed.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





So you don't know which genetic disorders Pye was talking about, so you just went and found lists of diseases and hoped you were right, even though the major diseases you listed aren't genetic disorders but external pathogens? That's an honest approach to making your arguments...
OH I was talking about medical intervention.




And none of those pandemics prior to our current level of medical technology caused us to go extinct, so you have absolutely nothing to back your claim that they would have without medical intervention. I think you don't question enough
Well you cant prove could have would have should have.




Given that you don't seem to understand that wild bananas and cultivated bananas are two different species, I think you're lying about knowing what the definition of a species is. Then again, you don't think humans are primates, so you've hardly been a reliable source information thus far.
Well just think about how sad you would be if I wasn't here for you to profile.




No, it would have had to be here earlier. The ones found in France are from 24kya, which is before 10kya. You claimed that our species arrived on this planet 10kya. There are human -- not "other humanoids" or "human like" -- remains that were here 14k years before you claim our species was brought here. Your hypothesis has been falsified.
What was used for the dating, DNA ?




No, you were pretty clear in your assertion. I asked you specifically when our species was brought here. You said 10kya. Stating that our species has only been on this planet for 10k years is demonstrably wrong. Your hypothesis has been falsified.
Not at all, it is still entirely possible that small groups of people were brougth here prior to the biblical event.




It doesn't look like it, they belonged to one of the Homo sapiens haplogroups.
Sorry it doesn't prove anything other than the same haplo group was here prior to the biblical event, which could have brought all new groups or some of the same.




What were removed and sent back home? The ones found in France that are 14k years older than they should be according to your claims are modern humans and belong to a haplogroup that people currently living still belong to.
You have to remember, we know for a fact there was life here before the arival of adam and Eve. It's even possible that we, the humans remaining here originated from that earlier batch that was here. But make no mistake, we are not indigonus to earth. If you check in the early section of genesis, you will see that right after Cane and Able, they head out to the city. It's a shocker because we were thinking adam and eve were the only. They weren't.




You claimed that our species (H. sapiens) was brought to this planet 10kya. I provided you with peer-reviewed and published objective evidence that we have H. sapiens remains from France dated to 24kya. And that these aren't even the oldest remains we have. Your claim that we have only been here for 10kya is demonstrably wrong.
Its hard to say because I'm assuming of course that I was of the species brought here, but in fact I have no proof of that so there is no way to know. On the flip side there is no way to know because of the exising people that were here prior to biblical times. They too were placed here obviously but we have no story on that.

The only thing that is clear is that those that did not serve god to his liking, get left here. I'm here.




edit on 1-1-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I understand what your saying, but I'm saying that it hasn't
And I am asking you to explain the diversity we see if evolution is wrong. Still waiting.



ok then if your correct, you still never answer my question on how a change to a species will still afford that species something to eat? Lets not use humans as an example because some of our diet was brought here. Lets look at cows, cows eat grass. But lets say when that species evolved, he was actually made to eat kidops. Now we don't have kidops here on earth, so how is he suppose to eat?
First. What parts of our diet were brought here as this could back up your argument?

The rest shows how far you have not progressed in your (and I use the term lightly) understanding of evolution. Remember small changes over time? You do go to sleep after a good meal of grass and wake up unable to eat grass but need kidops.

If all grass died out and a cow was able to get energy required by eating available kidops or it was able to live on kidops and there was little to no competion then over time it would adapt to be able to thrive on kidops.

Thats the best answer I can give to your rediculous question.



Neither of them fit into a nice picture, thats what I have been trying to tell you all along.
Life does not exist for you to 'fit' it into a nice picture. Grow up and get over it.



The only reason I keep looking at a creator is because the odds way outweigh chance creating all of this by accident. It's just not possible. I think that analoge about a tornado building a jet plane from a junkyard is very accurate. It's just not going to happen.
Oh please not this again. You are the only one that thinks your tornado bilge is an accurate analogy because it is infantile. Again I dont give a dam if you feel the need to explain how things started with a creator.

I do want an explanation of the diversity we see without refering to evolution. When are you going to try it?



All I was ever told was that changes happen in small ways through generations. First of all we are missing proof of all of those generations. Then to top it off, your now trying to say they never existed to begin with. What is this, a new theory. Species popping up out of thin air?
You really are clueless arent you. This has been explained over and over. You have chosen to ignore it and state the same uneducated statement again and again. I refer you to why would I bother to respond only for you to ignore it again?
edit on 1-1-2012 by colin42 because: Save making new post



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





And I am asking you to explain the diversity we see if evolution is wrong. Still waiting.
There are a lot of things I can't explain, and just because I can't expalin it does not mean that evolutionism is the answer.




First. What parts of our diet were brought here as this could back up your argument?
Thats a damn good question, and all I know is much of the food we eat, was provided for us. Think of noahs ark. It's possible this is a good clue as to what we were helped with.




The rest shows how far you have not progressed in your (and I use the term lightly) understanding of evolution. Remember small changes over time? You do go to sleep after a good meal of grass and wake up unable to eat grass but need kidops.

If all grass died out and a cow was able to get energy required by eating available kidops or it was able to live on kidops and there was little to no competion then over time it would adapt to be able to thrive on kidops.

Thats the best answer I can give to your rediculous question.
Ok here is where it gets complicated, and you have to seperate the whole idea of adaptation from evolving. The example you gave is a complete contradiction to how humans are making it right now. We don't evolve, we adapt, like you say, we make tools. It's a cold hard fact. I know that doesn't prove we never evolved but I'm just saying at least now your seeing whats going on. It's very easy to confuse adaptation with evolution. The difference is real simple to identify. Adaptation is where we do something to make things work for us, while evolving is where our bodies adjust to the need, through molecular changes.

So when you talk about us evolving, I honestly don't find any proof of molecular changes going on that backs that up. All I see is adaptation. Dont get me wrong, we need to adapt, because we aren't home.




Life does not exist for you to 'fit' it into a nice picture. Grow up and get over it.
You missed my point.




Oh please not this again. You are the only one that thinks your tornado bilge is an accurate analogy because it is infantile. Again I dont give a dam if you feel the need to explain how things started with a creator.

I do want an explanation of the diversity we see without refering to evolution. When are you going to try it?
Well I would be inclined to believe more that there is an evolution bug, that is way more intelligent than we could ever imagine, and it has the ability to hide so we can't find it anywhere.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



If I'm ignorant then you should have NO problem answering this. I wanna know what life here on earth would suffer or miss us if we left earth. What life here on earth depends on us, aside from ones that we have set up to do so.
There is no if about it, you are ignorant, and purposely so.

If we disapeared all animals that rely on the food and enviroments we build would be affected both negatively and positvely. The blackbird in the UK was a woodland bird on the verge of extinction. That is until the English fell in love with gardening and now the blackbird is a very common sight in all gardens and parks.

The population of rats has exploded along with ours as they thrive on our waste.

The house sparrow so named because it nests in the eaves of houses was so common it became a pest. Double glazing became popular and soffit boards were also replaced when the windows were fitted and the house sparrow population plumetted to a point where concern was shown for their survival.

The great panda would be extinct now if man had not stepped in because it has become to narrow in its food source of sugar cane that when it fails they die and given their birth rate in the wild they faced extinctiony

The examples are numerous and most likely an impact either positive or negative can be seen in all species on this planet.

As for the list you touted is as much bunk as the rest of the story you bring to the table.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 






Still waiting for you to answer this link in detail. Explain to me PRECISELY what is wrong and demonstrate why. Stop posting strawman arguments about evolution like "we didn't just wake up one day a new species". Of course we didn't. It takes hundreds of thousands to millions of years. That's been explained countless times but again, you pretend it wasn't said and continue to dishonestly promote your hypothesis. I'm beginning to think you are a bot that responds with generic responses to everything.
edit on 1-1-2012


I answered this a long time ago, but here it is.

This is what happens when you guys don't read your own links.
This site is clearly stating its made up of .... theories and hypotheses.

At least they are honest and not trying to pass it off as something solid.
Read the first sentance.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 151  152  153    155  156  157 >>

log in

join