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: 162
31
<< 159  160  161    163  164  165 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


And as someone pointed out, the theory gets it right far more than it gets it wrong.


That's just it, The theory of evolution hasn't.
Each time a problem with the theory comes up, it is changed to include that problem, assumptions are made to allow for the problem and to work around it.
Assumptions like PNA.
Leslie Orgel may have been a proponent of Evolution but he still said...
“The prebiotic synthesis of nucleotides in a sufficiently pure state to support RNA synthesis cannot be achieved using presently known chemistry.”
So this tell us they are working from chemistry they one day hope to have.
It just keeps stretching.




posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Darwin got a lot right in regards to natural selection and species changing. "Evolution" happens everyday.

But extrapolating that into a mysterious cell blindly turning into everything we see on earth is not supported by the evidence, and every assumption Darwin made that would support THAT portion of his theory has been shown to be wrong.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quadrivium
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


And as someone pointed out, the theory gets it right far more than it gets it wrong.


That's just it, The theory of evolution hasn't.
Each time a problem with the theory comes up, it is changed to include that problem, assumptions are made to allow for the problem and to work around it.
Assumptions like PNA.
Leslie Orgel may have been a proponent of Evolution but he still said...
“The prebiotic synthesis of nucleotides in a sufficiently pure state to support RNA synthesis cannot be achieved using presently known chemistry.”
So this tell us they are working from chemistry they one day hope to have.
It just keeps stretching.



What, so theories are written in stone forever and ever? Sorry, that's not how science works.

What he meant by evolution being cleverer than you and me is that nature can do things with a better result than they can cook up in a lab. We simply aren't that advanced--YET. We're just starting learn about this at the molecular level, and even though we've learned an awful lot in the last 50 years, no one claims to know everything yet.

Unlike the creationists, who change their story at every turn, and many of whom don't know any science at all. My 9th grader knows more about biochemistry and molecular biology (that's what high school biology is these days) than some posters in this thread and could wipe the floor with them even with that rudimentary knowledge.

At least we're being honest. We admit we don't have all the answers. Can you do the same?



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by crimsonhead
Darwin got a lot right in regards to natural selection and species changing. "Evolution" happens everyday.

But extrapolating that into a mysterious cell blindly turning into everything we see on earth is not supported by the evidence, and every assumption Darwin made that would support THAT portion of his theory has been shown to be wrong.


That's because you don't understand how genes work. I've already posted a link to the Hox gene that was responsible for turning a fin into a hand. It's plain as day.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 



What, so theories are written in stone forever and ever? Sorry, that's not how science works.


You are correct, that is not how science works and that is exactly why Evolution is not a good scientific theory.
It has grown more complicated in response to the evidences of the natural world, requiring many epicycles.


What he meant by evolution being cleverer than you and me is that nature can do things with a better result than they can cook up in a lab. We simply aren't that advanced--YET. We're just starting learn about this at the molecular level, and even though we've learned an awful lot in the last 50 years, no one claims to know everything yet.


How can evolution be "clever"?
How can nature "do things"?
Are we waiting to catch up to the advancements of nature?
Happy it sounds as if you might actually believe in ID.


Unlike the creationists, who change their story at every turn, and many of whom don't know any science at all.


Not sure who you are referring to but what I believe has been written down for more than 2500 years. If you actually read the Creation story in Gennisis with science in mind it ties together with it.


At least we're being honest. We admit we don't have all the answers. Can you do the same?


Me? So far Bunny, you, colin and I are the only ones I have seen admit this.
please see Page 157 www.abovetopsecret.com... , shortly after is when I started catching it on this thread.




www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Here... I got something for others to think about.

mankind is really old right?...millions of years of painfully slow evolution that is so slow no one is supposed to be able to see it happening. Well, can't EVERYONE see the nature of man change right in front of them?

Do you remember the day when cell phones were something that only guys with red sports cars had? i do.

First cave paintings thirty something thousand years ago... First written languages appearing approx3000BC.

We are talking less than 6000 years ago that man was so NOT evolved that his ass didn't even have crayons yet.
So if mankind has been around for millions of years, why was he so damn dumb just a few thousand years ago.

OH BUT THERE IS MUCH EVIDENCE.... yeah, that there were GREAT ancient works.... GREAT ONES...masterful ones, like the pyramids.

mkkkay. firstly you have to prove they were even built by humans before you could ever use that example when history shows that the people who lived in them often died very early in life because their medical care sucked. NO technology to save lives... just sharp knives and stuff....WHAT?... but they made great art...ok, fine but there is not much before that to show that mankind was very evolved even just a few thousand years before THAT stuff started appearing.

To have been evolving for so long, mankind sure did evolve his brain LAST, aye?

Even if you do believe mankind has been around a very long time (i don't think it's impossible) his history....not to mention his earlier NON EXISTENT history shows that you CAN see him changing. changing very fast actually.
As a matter of fact, his nature seems to be CONSTANTLY changing.

Animals, not so much, right?



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by BlackSatinDancer
 


The first two chapters in Gennisis actually deal with why humans really started progressing around 6 to 8 thousand years ago,



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quadrivium
reply to post by HappyBunny
 



What, so theories are written in stone forever and ever? Sorry, that's not how science works.


You are correct, that is not how science works and that is exactly why Evolution is not a good scientific theory.
It has grown more complicated in response to the evidences of the natural world, requiring many epicycles.


Would you mind translating that into English? Because evolution does, well, evolve, as new information becomes available, it is a good scientific theory, not a bad one.


What he meant by evolution being cleverer than you and me is that nature can do things with a better result than they can cook up in a lab. We simply aren't that advanced--YET. We're just starting learn about this at the molecular level, and even though we've learned an awful lot in the last 50 years, no one claims to know everything yet.



How can evolution be "clever"?

Because nature is more adept at the process than we are. We don't know everything yet--that's not nature's fault. It's ours.


How can nature "do things"?
Are we waiting to catch up to the advancements of nature?
Happy it sounds as if you might actually believe in ID.

No. Unlike you, I see no reason to invoke a creator of any kind. But I believe that we will find an answer, and that answer will be found in science, not a manmade book proclaiming to hold the secrets of Life, the Universe, and Everything.



Unlike the creationists, who change their story at every turn, and many of whom don't know any science at all.


Not sure who you are referring to but what I believe has been written down for more than 2500 years. If you actually read the Creation story in Gennisis with science in mind it ties together with it.


I have read Genesis, many times. I see no reason to think it anything more than the writings of a people desperate to create a history for themselves, just as the Hindus, Greeks, Romans, Celts, Maya, Aztec, Inca, Native Americans, Maori, Polynesians, Norse, Eskimos, Lapps, etc. have done. Why are their versions any less likely to be true than yours? And why is evolution less likely than any of them to be wrong?

You cannot use the Bible as evidence. It's not empirical. It's not based on observation. It says, "In the beginning..." but provides no evidence to support that assertion. Saying that creationism is true because the Bible says so is a circular argument. In the end, you have to test what the Bible says, come up with an experiment and a null hypothesis, and test it by observation. Can you do that?



At least we're being honest. We admit we don't have all the answers. Can you do the same?


Me? So far Bunny, you, colin and I are the only ones I have seen admit this.
please see Page 157 www.abovetopsecret.com... , shortly after is when I started catching it on this thread.

Glad to hear it. Maybe you can talk some sense into your fellow creationists, then. To them, the Bible is the end all, be all and they will brook no argument, even if it means making things up to support their points.
edit on 1/3/2012 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   


You guys are missing the mark here. I'm looking for other life that has always been dependant on humans, not ones that end up at our door step just because we feed them, thats called cupboard love. I'm looking for something solid that there is no question about we can say has needed man from the get go.


Pubic lice?

What do you reckn?



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackSatinDancer
Here... I got something for others to think about.

mankind is really old right?...millions of years of painfully slow evolution that is so slow no one is supposed to be able to see it happening. Well, can't EVERYONE see the nature of man change right in front of them?

Do you remember the day when cell phones were something that only guys with red sports cars had? i do.

First cave paintings thirty something thousand years ago... First written languages appearing approx3000BC.

Actually, it's 4000 give or take, but that doesn't mean we won't uncover something older. Don't forget, most of the Northern Hemisphere was covered by an ice cap for almost 100,000 years. Ice is very destructive, but it when it melted, it melted in a hurry (geologically speaking). The remains of the earliest civilizations and cultures are on the bottom of the seas, off the coasts. That was dry land 15,000 years ago, but when the ice caps melted they were drowned by a 300 foot increase in sea level.

You try advancing when you're busy staying alive through an Ice Age and a volcanic eruption that almost wiped us out 74,000 years ago, and then trying to stay afloat when the climate keeps yo-yoing back and forth for a few thousand years.

We couldn't get going until the climate warmed up and stabilized.


We are talking less than 6000 years ago that man was so NOT evolved that his ass didn't even have crayons yet.
So if mankind has been around for millions of years, why was he so damn dumb just a few thousand years ago.

You're confusing a sophisticated culture with gadgets and assume that all progress is linear. Don't make that mistake.


OH BUT THERE IS MUCH EVIDENCE.... yeah, that there were GREAT ancient works.... GREAT ONES...masterful ones, like the pyramids.

mkkkay. firstly you have to prove they were even built by humans before you could ever use that example when history shows that the people who lived in them often died very early in life because their medical care sucked. NO technology to save lives... just sharp knives and stuff....WHAT?... but they made great art...ok, fine but there is not much before that to show that mankind was very evolved even just a few thousand years before THAT stuff started appearing.


Actually, they didn't kick off that early. They probably lived as long as we do. They were bigger and stronger than us, and probably MORE healthy, no less.


To have been evolving for so long, mankind sure did evolve his brain LAST, aye?


Um, no.


Even if you do believe mankind has been around a very long time (i don't think it's impossible) his history....not to mention his earlier NON EXISTENT history shows that you CAN see him changing. changing very fast actually.
As a matter of fact, his nature seems to be CONSTANTLY changing.

Animals, not so much, right?


Technological advances are exponential, not linear.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by crimsonhead
Darwin got a lot right in regards to natural selection and species changing. "Evolution" happens everyday.

But extrapolating that into a mysterious cell blindly turning into everything we see on earth is not supported by the evidence, and every assumption Darwin made that would support THAT portion of his theory has been shown to be wrong.


Darwin never made any guesses as to the beginnings of life. That's been said a hundred times in this thread.

The idea of a supernatural all-powerful deity that created everything isn't supported by the evidence.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by crimsonhead
Darwin got a lot right in regards to natural selection and species changing. "Evolution" happens everyday.

But extrapolating that into a mysterious cell blindly turning into everything we see on earth is not supported by the evidence, and every assumption Darwin made that would support THAT portion of his theory has been shown to be wrong.


That's because you don't understand how genes work. I've already posted a link to the Hox gene that was responsible for turning a fin into a hand. It's plain as day.


Did you read the "hox gene" link? Or just link to it, thinking that no one would understand it or contest you?

In layman's terms, basically there are similar genes that control similar body parts in many different animals. Somehow, evolutionists try and use this basic fact as evidence that this proves that these animals evolved from each other.

Basically they looked for conserved sequences surrounding the hoxd-12 gene. They found only two conserved sequences between chickens, mice and zebrafish.

Quote: "The second, RXI, is more problematic. As shown in Figure 4, it is conserved at 56 percent over 206 bp between mouse and chick. Between chick and zebrafish, in contrast, the region of homology is much smaller, covering only 56 bp with 12 bp gap in the middle. Within this range the similarity is 60 percent. Even more perplexing, virtually no sequence similarity exists observed between zebrafish and mouse if it is calculated over the same region. The only similarity which does exist is in a 32bp subregion, in which the similarity is 53 percent. "

So these "similar areas" aren't identical at all times, and sometimes are identical! Also, some of what was found here seems to suggest that the chicken is more related to the zebrafish and the mouse than the zebrafish and the mouse are to each other...which contradicts what most of evolution teaches!

The truth is that one would think a designer would use similar designs across his designed creatures. Many animals have limbs. That hox genes have similarities across different species doesn't prove that they evolved from each other or that they were created.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   

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..



LMAO Haplogroup


Didnt they support Boyz Own on the comeback tour



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by crimsonhead
Darwin got a lot right in regards to natural selection and species changing. "Evolution" happens everyday.

But extrapolating that into a mysterious cell blindly turning into everything we see on earth is not supported by the evidence, and every assumption Darwin made that would support THAT portion of his theory has been shown to be wrong.


Darwin never made any guesses as to the beginnings of life. That's been said a hundred times in this thread.

The idea of a supernatural all-powerful deity that created everything isn't supported by the evidence.


The idea that life began on it's own isn't supported by the evidence either.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by crimsonhead
Darwin got a lot right in regards to natural selection and species changing. "Evolution" happens everyday.

But extrapolating that into a mysterious cell blindly turning into everything we see on earth is not supported by the evidence, and every assumption Darwin made that would support THAT portion of his theory has been shown to be wrong.


It's plain as day.


I have to give some good quotes from that article to show just how "plain as day" it is.


"attempting to tease out the details of how these phases are regulated"
"The second, RXI, is more problematic"
"Even more perplexing, virtually no sequence similarity exists observed between zebrafish and mouse if it is calculated over the same region"
"Why, then, is the element so poorly conserved? A few possibilities exist."
"The above data all emphasize, for the most part, the evolutionary novelty in tetrapod limb development" (this one in particular is great. Animals have a lot of "novelty" in their particular limb development genes! Well, duh!)


There are many more. But it wasn't "plain as day" for these scientists. They struggled to piece this stuff together and still really don't understand it all. Great work on learning where the hox genes are and what they do. But when trying to draw them all together in some sort of timeline, AND fit them into the evolutionary tree, they are unable to do so.
edit on 3-1-2012 by crimsonhead because: add something



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Glad to hear it as well Happy. Maybe you can talk some sense into your fellow evolutionist then. To them, the theory is the end all, be all and they will brook no argument, even if it means making things up to support their points.



Hmm kinda works both ways huh?



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





Such as? Genetics and the fossil record recreates the history of our planet.
And what exactly do you think this has to do with evolutionism?




Worst argument ever made, and already been debunked.
Really, well Darwin himself claimed that if he was unable to find eoluvion in the works, that his theory was false. I agree with him.




You mean like aliens bringing us to earth from another planet?
We have clear written documentation from multiple sources stating that we were brought here. In recent history we have tallied over 4 million reports of contact from other life. Now if you think they are just having a nighmare, its a little odd how they are all having the same dream, especially when some of them don't even believe in aliens.




Random acts of speciation???? You keep making stuff up. Species don't change overnight. You're not going to have a pig wake up one day as an ape. Why are you still having trouble grasping that very basic concept?
It doesn't matter if you look at it from microevolution or macroevolution (which is my favorite) they are all false. The only micro that has ever been witnessed is in small organisms like viruses and some aquatic life. NEVER in humans and the majority of the life here on earth. It's a hoax, and not even a good one.




please read a book. Wowzers, nothing you say makes any logical sense.
Maybe your right cause none of the links you guys sent me to sold me on any of it.




That is exactly what the fossil record shows. Microevolution is proven, macroevolution is micoevolution on a long term scale. Nothing more.
Just without leaving any trace for us to verify anything. It's odd how the changes are suppose to be subtle over long periods of time, but still able to convert into an unrelated species with no trace either.




Proof? Oh wait, you don't do that kind of thing. You just spout nonsense.
At least what I spout has a damn good reason for appearing as such.




Outright lie.
Everything I have read up on in the links I have been provided have never agreed that evolution is recreatable. I do have to cut you some slack here though because we also can't recreate creationalism either.




Let me guess, your disney channel documentary told you so. Evolution isn't conscious, it's just a fact of nature. Certain events cause genetic mutations, and sometimes the traits caused are more favorable.
People tell me conflicting things which is cool, I know you all don't speak as one. Point is the evolution bug is either intelligent, or its not. So you choose. Now if its intelligent, than like I said it would have to be smart enough to not only know how to change our DNA but also do it in a way that seems to be baffling us, while still smart enough to turn us into a cutting edge species from monkeys. At the same time what was the whole purpose of our species brancing out and becoming alienated from everything else on this planet. Whats the purpose, I mean its not for the better of anything that I"m able to find.

Now on the other hand, if you wanna think its random, then how can this randomness allow changing of a species and the species still have something to eat? You can't, and this is a catch 22 question, niether one is possible.




www.talkorigins.org...

Just to remind you about the link you've dodged about 10 times now, while still spouting the same old nonsensical arguments about evolution. EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANCIENT ALIENS. Leave it out of the discussion, or show how diversity got here using evidence.. we know that's not happening


I havent dodged anything, in fact I have quoted parts from this page twice now and you must have missed it. "embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses." www.talkorigins.org...
Clearly states that it's made up from hypothetical theorys.
Again your buying into a fantasy and its telling you so, and its right in front of your eyes in black and white, and you buy it.

edit on 3-1-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 





Tooth...you have a TAIL BONE. You have WISDOM TEETH which some children are now evolved to the point that they are being born without them as they are teeth that were used by our ancient ansestors to grind heavy plant matter.
Come on, we have more in common than that...
We also breath air, eat food, drink water, pee and poo, have two arms and two legs, two eyes, two ears, a mouth, a nose, teeth, a brain, nails, a buttox, two nipples, hair on our heads, the ability to make sounds and hear them. Now from this basic list, the ONLY thing that most other life doesn't also have is two arms and two legs. It's called overlap, and its lapped you a few times.

We might have a tailbone but what was the purpose for losing our tails? So we could sit in cars?




In the womb a developing fetus goes through a process where by which it shows various forms of our development...at one point it has reptilian traits...it has amphibian traits...it shows traits of Aquadic ancestors as we all breath liquid like a fish for 9 plus months before we finally breath air...so we have a type of gill system.
I have read this as well but I don't think it proves relation.




You cannot deny Evolution because it has become a provable fact....all Humans originated from the African continent....
Wait a minute, aren't you saying that there is no way africa could have had white people at one time ???
Granted its mostly black now, but do we know for a fact that it has always been that way ?




As Humanity in it's various stages of development spread to colder climates where the Sun was not as strong...those in the Northern areas became white in skin tone....those in eqatorial zones stayed black and those in the inbetween zones took on a medium dark tones.
This looks good on screen but how come we never have any proof of the transgression? Or are you going to tell me this is where brown people came from.




You really must abandon the idea that Evolution is a myth as it reflects poorly on your ability to see reason and logic. Split Infinity
I beg to differ, everything I have been presented seems to defy logic, and there seems to be no reason for evolution to occur either, as we allready have a reporductive design in order with each species. There is no sense in all of this.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 



Would you mind translating that into English? Because evolution does, well, evolve, as new information becomes available, it is a good scientific theory, not a bad one.

How else would you like me too put it, Bunny?
I said........

"You are correct, that is not how science works and that is exactly why Evolution is not a good scientific theory. It has grown more complicated in response to the evidences of the natural world, requiring many epicycles."

That is plain english.
The theory of evolution, in the case I laid out above, is comparable to the theory of geocentrism.
Both are bad theories because they have grown more complicated in response to the evidence of the natural world. Both requiring many epicycles.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





Pubic lice?

What do you reckn?
Someone brought this up months ago as well but I think it was hair lice. So the question becomes, are humans the ONLY ones this lice attacks?




top topics



 
31
<< 159  160  161    163  164  165 >>

log in

join