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: 158
31
<< 155  156  157    159  160  161 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





Don't forget bananas. Those bananas you buy in the store would be come extinct in a single generation if it weren't for us. They lost the ability to sexually reproduce because of the way we've cultivated them.


Bravo, you once again answered your own problem. You need to look at where the problem started here. Your clearly admitting that the problem started when humans started to cultivate them. So in other words everything was fine untill we started to clutivate them. Thats intervention that caused this problem, so we also fixed the problem.

Now the example I gave collin on saving the birds can also apply to banannas.

Heres a scenerio, I hold a gun to you, you talk me out of killing you, and now your going around saying I saved your life.

The banannas were find untill we started to cultivate them, the bottom line is WE caused the problem to begin with. You have to remove man from the picture completly before you can award the result.




posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





Given that you couldn't answer a simple question about when our species arrived on this planet correctly based on your "documentation", it's not as clear as you seem to be claiming... is it?
The bible is clear on the time reference, however I'm willing to look at some possible variations.
I don't think thats where the problem is so much as us not knowing much about the life in the city.

And just because of this, does not mean it didn't happen.
edit on 2-1-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Quadrivium
 
I dont intend to flame anyone. These are your honest opinions and as long as we can discuss them with open minds there is no need to.

What you have been seeing here lately is no where near that so I guess this is why you are expecting to be flamed and that this thread is flame bait.

As you would expect I dont believe all species were here pretty much as is from day one. The logistics of every creature that ever lived being in direct competition for a finite food source is one objection.

The fossil records do not bear out all species including humans were here from day one either.

I am open to the idea that a creator could be using evolution to produce diversity as the time factor to achieve a given result would not matter. To accept that man and dinosaur shared the planet is a step too far I'm afraid as all the evidence says the opposite.

On a personal note. I dont need a creator or faith in a higher power but I am not arrogant enough to deny others that belief. Diversity within the herd applies here as well in my book.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Possibly, it was many replies ago.

It's not my problem that you lack the faculties to follow a conversation.


Because of to many factors yes.

Glad to hear you admit it.


DNA doesn't tell you what planet we were on at what time.

The dating methods are in the paper I linked for you. If you think they used DNA to date the fossils, then you obviously still haven't read the paper. This is what I was talking about when I brought up your lack of respect for the other people participating in this thread. We read what you link to, you don't return the favor but still claim that it's wrong or faked. It's incredibly dishonest on your part.


No its even more complicated than that, we could have bread with those species as well.

Bred with what species? The remains from the research I cited for you are of Homo sapies -- our species. Not another species, not a similar species, the exact same species that you and I belong to.


Well thien I eaiter failed to understand the question or failed to remember that important fact. According to the bibel there was people here prior to Adam and Eve.

So you can't read a simple, short, one sentence question correctly and then you make up new lies to tack on to your old lies when the facts don't support your answer.


If you want to look at it like that, sure, and that the fact we seem to not have a clue where we came from has nothing to do with it, sure.

I agree -- where your fictitious other home world of Homo sapiens may be is completely irrelevant to the fact that you can provide no evidence to back your claim that we were brought here.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Quadrivium
 





It is my belief that the species on earth today were here in the beginning.


There is no evidence of this in the geological time scale. In fact go back far enough life was primitive for most of earths history.

It is written in stone.

Did you know in all creatures there are genetic switches/gene regulatory proteins and the specific DNA sequences that these proteins recognize. These components operate to turn genes on and off in response to a variety of signals.
This is were your fruit fly always fruit fly falls apart or any other animal for that matter. The fruit fly has the genetic information in it's DNA to become an entirely different species. This is just more proof of evolution, as animals became more complex some genes turned on some off, but even if they turned off they still remain in the code and new code keeps evolving through mutation.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


The bible is clear on the time reference, however I'm willing to look at some possible variations.
I don't think thats where the problem is so much as us not knowing much about the life in the city.

Yes, your interpretation of the Bible is clear on the timing for when we were brought to this planet. And it's clearly wrong based on the facts that have been presented.


And just because of this, does not mean it didn't happen.

So just because the facts disagree with your claims, doesn't mean your claims aren't correct? Ludicrous.
edit on 2/1/2012 by iterationzero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





It's not my problem that you lack the faculties to follow a conversation.
Not at all, but that is why I copy and past them so the person knows what in the hell I'm talking about.




The dating methods are in the paper I linked for you. If you think they used DNA to date the fossils, then you obviously still haven't read the paper. This is what I was talking about when I brought up your lack of respect for the other people participating in this thread. We read what you link to, you don't return the favor but still claim that it's wrong or faked. It's incredibly dishonest on your part.
If you gave me a link, I did read it, but obviously forgot which one it is, as I have looked at a hell of a lot of them.




Bred with what species? The remains from the research I cited for you are of Homo sapies -- our species. Not another species, not a similar species, the exact same species that you and I belong to.
true but your result came down to the haplo group matching which you have to also weigh in breeding.




So you can't read a simple, short, one sentence question correctly and then you make up new lies to tack on to your old lies when the facts don't support your answer.
No its just that we are incorrectly taught to believe that Adam and Eve were the first when even the bible says they were not.




I agree -- where your fictitious other home world of Homo sapiens may be is completely irrelevant to the fact that you can provide no evidence to back your claim that we were brought here.
Well they are not fictious, I mean your the one that found the haplo group, which could, or could not be them.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Maybe its my fault for not clairifying that you have to exclude ones sucked in by our intervention.
I answered your question and now you change the parameters of that question.

My answer to that is now your question is now irrelevant as all life, all species affect all other life, all other species on purpose or by accident.

I build a stone wall to keep my animals in one place. A buddleia plant grows in it because it mirrors its preferred environment. That’s how it works whether you like it or not.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyingfish
reply to post by Quadrivium
 





It is my belief that the species on earth today were here in the beginning.


There is no evidence of this in the geological time scale. In fact go back far enough life was primitive for most of earths history.

It is written in stone.

Did you know in all creatures there are genetic switches/gene regulatory proteins and the specific DNA sequences that these proteins recognize. These components operate to turn genes on and off in response to a variety of signals.
This is were your fruit fly always fruit fly falls apart or any other animal for that matter. The fruit fly has the genetic information in it's DNA to become an entirely different species. This is just more proof of evolution, as animals became more complex some genes turned on some off, but even if they turned off they still remain in the code and new code keeps evolving through mutation.


Exactly. All it takes is a slightly different coding, maybe only a single letter deviation, on a growth or regulatory hormone gene and there you go.

A long time ago, someone tried an experiment in which they implanted a human eye gene into a fruit fly just to see what they'd come up with. To everyone's surprise, not only did the fly create an eye, it created a fly's eye. Not some grotesque thing. The fly put the gene (read: proteins) to work as though it were its own.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





I answered your question and now you change the parameters of that question.

My answer to that is now your question is now irrelevant as all life, all species affect all other life, all other species on purpose or by accident.

I build a stone wall to keep my animals in one place. A buddleia plant grows in it because it mirrors its preferred environment. That’s how it works whether you like it or not.
I just assumed it was obvious and you would have known this. I'm shocked with it not being clear that you didn't throw in cats and dogs.

Anyhow if you can think of any species that wasn't burdend by man to begin with. Of course this should have been common sense. Look at the example Itera threw at me with banannas. They developed a problem after man started to cultivate them. Well then man had to alter them so that they could handle the cutivating wtihout going extinct.
The problem here is where man first cultivated them, not that we simply saved them.

This is why I gave you that example of holding a gun to you, then you talk me out of killing you, so now your telling people I saved your life. Wrong, had I of not held the gun on you to begin with, there wouldn't have been a problem.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Not at all, but that is why I copy and past them so the person knows what in the hell I'm talking about.

You're not copy-pasting any more of a reply than anyone else, but you'r the only one having problems following the conversation.


If you gave me a link, I did read it, but obviously forgot which one it is, as I have looked at a hell of a lot of them.

Obviously not if you think they dated the fossils via DNA.


true but your result came down to the haplo group matching which you have to also weigh in breeding.

And now you've made it apparent that you don't really understand what a haplogroup is.


No its just that we are incorrectly taught to believe that Adam and Eve were the first when even the bible says they were not.

Which has nothing to do with your answer to the question I asked. I asked when, according to your hypothesis, Homo sapiens were brought to this planet. The totality of your reply was 10kya. This is demonstrably wrong. And now you're trying to claim that you didn't read the question correctly, forgot the right answer, were taught incorrectly, or some combination of the three. You're just piling lies upon lies upon lies.


Well they are not fictious, I mean your the one that found the haplo group, which could, or could not be them.

Yeah, you have no idea what a haplogroup is. You saw me talking about it so now you figure you can just throw it into questions and sound legitimate.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





You're not copy-pasting any more of a reply than anyone else, but you'r the only one having problems following the conversation.
True but I'm also not the one quoting things from pages ago.




Obviously not if you think they dated the fossils via DNA.
I wouldn't think so.




And now you've made it apparent that you don't really understand what a haplogroup is.
Are you sure your not confusing it with possibly not meaning what you think it does if we were planeted here.




Which has nothing to do with your answer to the question I asked. I asked when, according to your hypothesis, Homo sapiens were brought to this planet. The totality of your reply was 10kya. This is demonstrably wrong. And now you're trying to claim that you didn't read the question correctly, forgot the right answer, were taught incorrectly, or some combination of the three. You're just piling lies upon lies upon lies.
No what I said was not knowing in reference to which group of people because I wasn't thinking about all of them.

And your profilling me again.




Yeah, you have no idea what a haplogroup is. You saw me talking about it so now you figure you can just throw it into questions and sound legitimate.
Well thats because what it means to you is different than what it means to me if we were planeted here. I'm sure you don't understand.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Once again, what animals benefit from the existence of lions? What animals benefit from the existence of wolves? You can ask the same question with pretty much every animal, especially those at the top of their food chain, and you're going to get a similar answer. Does that mean there are no native animals to Earth?



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyingfish
reply to post by Quadrivium
 





It is my belief that the species on earth today were here in the beginning.


There is no evidence of this in the geological time scale. In fact go back far enough life was primitive for most of earths history.

It is written in stone.

Did you know in all creatures there are genetic switches/gene regulatory proteins and the specific DNA sequences that these proteins recognize. These components operate to turn genes on and off in response to a variety of signals.
This is were your fruit fly always fruit fly falls apart or any other animal for that matter. The fruit fly has the
genetic information in it's DNA to become an entirely different species. This is just more proof of evolution, as animals became more complex some genes turned on some off, but even if they turned off they still remain in the code and new code keeps evolving through mutation.


Yes but all 500 species of fruit flys are still fruit flys. One or more common ancestors. As they spread out in the world they adapted to their surroundings, the genetic switches allowed this, which brought about diversity in the fruit fly.
If you can show me proof that any species of fruit fly has ever been anything but a fruit fly, you may persuade
me.
Quad



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 





Once again, what animals benefit from the existence of lions? What animals benefit from the existence of wolves? You can ask the same question with pretty much every animal, especially those at the top of their food chain, and you're going to get a similar answer. Does that mean there are no native animals to Earth?


Thats a damn good point. Bravo.

Only problem is that there are other animals that eat them, probably not so much depend on eating them so wont fit my example. On the flip side they are scavengers and kill off and depend on eating a lot of other animals.

Now we do the same thing but to the point that we breed them to maintain the stock.

So what animal depends on eating a healthy diet of humans?
Even fairer what animals might we need to feed on.
This gets compicated because there is speculation as to if we should be eating animals at all.
IMO we have a gall bladder so possibly.
The only problem is that some non animal foods do contain oil, and judging from our teeth and the fact that we have to process the hell out of food to eat it, I would say probably not.
Then the question comes up about iron, where are we suppose to get it if not from animal.
Again, if our diet isn't here, then that explains this gap.


Well we have viruses and such but for compicated reasons wont include them, they are scavengers too.
Doesn't really seem to be anything that depends on eating humans.


You have to also realize that not everything that is here on earth is from earth. Now I don't have any reason to believe that lions aren't from here but it is possible.

Excellent answer, I will have to think about this one and get back to you.

Either way, we still have nothing that has depended on man without man making it so.
edit on 2-1-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 

Thank you for your comment on the flys eye
.
I know was not meant to encourage me but it did.
The human eye gene became a flys eye because it was injected into a fly..................did they really expect a human eye to form?
The fly's genetics adapted the gene so that it could be used.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


True but I'm also not the one quoting things from pages ago.

Given that all of the posts in this thread are readily accessible, it's clear that you just don't care enough to follow the conversation.


I wouldn't think so.

Then why did you claim they dated the fossils by DNA? You never read the article.


Are you sure your not confusing it with possibly not meaning what you think it does if we were planeted here.

I'm clear on what a haplogroup is, how they're determined, and what it means. You're the one claiming that different haplogroups of Homo sapiens are somehow different species.


No what I said was not knowing in reference to which group of people because I wasn't thinking about all of them.

Keep backpedaling, it's fun to watch.


And your profilling me again.

You keep lying, I'll keep "profiling" you by pointing it out.


Well thats because what it means to you is different than what it means to me if we were planeted here. I'm sure you don't understand.

Yeah, that's what I thought... you really don't understand what a haplogroup is.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   


If you can show me proof that any species of fruit fly has ever been anything but a fruit fly, you may persuade me. Quad
reply to post by Quadrivium
 


Glad you ask, there is a new and unexpected findings: Link


the oldest groups (or, as the authors call them, “the earliest extant fly lineages”) are semi-aquatic: they are two families (Deuterophlebiidae and Nymphomyiidae) in which both larvae and adults are associated with water. These habits, and similar aquatic tendencies in nearby dipteran groups, suggest that the ancestors of all modern flies were also semi-aquatic. The authors call the Deuterophlebiidae and Nymphomyiidae “rare and anatomically bizarre.”

Link



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





I'm clear on what a haplogroup is, how they're determined, and what it means. You're the one claiming that different haplogroups of Homo sapiens are somehow different species.
WTH, you must be confused.




Keep backpedaling, it's fun to watch.
I'm not back peddling, I'm explaining, the question is are you understanding.




Yeah, that's what I thought... you really don't understand what a haplogroup is.
I would think they are pretty usless based on us just dropping in from another place. There is no telling who they dropped off where.

My understanding was that it was groups that were assigned locations baed on DNA patterns. I'm just unsure of the timeline.
edit on 2-1-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 


New and unexpected discoveries? (how did I let myself get sucked into this? You know I actually told myself I wouldn't lol)
Did you read your links? The pdf clearly states that the flys have a common ancestor which was a type of fly.
As for the other link, I didn't find it much more informative.
Liked the bit about the bee fleas though. I am a bee keeper and did not know that the mites were a species of fly.
It feels good to admit that I am still able to learn new things. It is nice to know and understand that I do not have all the answers. Colin was right about women's clothing after all lol.




top topics



 
31
<< 155  156  157    159  160  161 >>

log in

join