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: 165
31
<< 162  163  164    166  167  168 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Connector
 





Dude....this "edit in", is simply foolish. I would have edited to take this out. Guess you've never been survival camping or have seen starving wild life.......
of course it happnes. You have to rule out the ones that we caused to happen, usually inadvertantly. Like starving polar bears because of global warming.



millions of creatures that are extinct through no hand of ours, would beg to differ.




posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Connector
 





I don't even know how to reply to this.......your right, before mass consumption and processing, humans never thrived

BTW your examples of processing for lactose and dirty drinking water making some of us sick........is an example of evolution.....different physical responses to external stimuli to weed out the weak.
No, your confusing adaptation with evolving.

Very easy to do I might add, but I'll explain how things would have gone, had we of evolved.

First this dilemma of having to drink cows mucous woudln't have been a problem because our bodies would have evolved to accept the shorted calcium. Had we of evolved, we would have been more equiped to drink nasty water.
Now FYI there is some leeway here for example, people in Mexico drink buck nasty water that even has bad chemicals in it and they never get the runs, but everytime I drink the water I do. Within reason though. I'm sure they have built up an immunity to whats in the water. Even then, we would be very limited on where we could live, if we didn't adapt and drill for water. If we didn't adapt and drink from the cows teat.

Evolving means we automatically fit in, adapting means we force ourselves to fit in usually though tools or sorts.

Another example for you.

Behold, the shoe.
Where would we be wthout it. Well had we of evolved our feet would have tuffend up and we would just deal with the elements. And again to some degree our feet can toughen up, but again within limites.

So we made shoes, mother nature kicked back at us by giving us fungus on our feet so we fought back by making socks. She doesn't want us here FYI.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Connector
 





millions of creatures that are extinct through no hand of ours, would beg to differ.
Well two things here. you need to first of all realize that we might be doing damage in more ways than you realize, and some of it could just be natural. It is possible that our presence has caused a domino effect.

This is why I have been telling these guys that each planet must be created in a ballanced eco system, it has to be it just has to be. If evoltuion was real and new species could just pop up over time, what would be here to feed them. It makes no sense. We can't evolve. When god dumped us here he did a horrible thing, and screwed up the balance of life on this planet.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





Evolving means we automatically fit in, adapting means we force ourselves to fit in usually though tools or sorts.


Actually that is the complete opposite of evolution.....we evolve to better dominate our surroundings and part of evolution is adapting.



Behold the shoe


I just wanted to quote that


Night.....

~edit to add~

this quote from your new reply




When god dumped us here he did a horrible thing, and screwed up the balance of life on this planet.


So your god is Evil and Mean? Like the old testament? The new Christian god is loving and merciful.

OK...really night. This seems to be one huge trolling fest.
edit on 3-1-2012 by Connector because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Connector
 





Actually that is the complete opposite of evolution.....we evolve to better dominate our surroundings and part of evolution is adapting.
And do you think that having to go out of our way to process milk, process water, process oranges, material for clothing and shoes, is dominating? Looks more to me like we lost that one.




I just wanted to quote that

Night.....
Have a good night, you must be in a way differnt time zone.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I am.....late here.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Connector
 





I just wanted to quote that

Night.....

~edit to add~

this quote from your new reply




When god dumped us here he did a horrible thing, and screwed up the balance of life on this planet.



So your god is Evil and Mean? Like the old testament? The new Christian god is loving and merciful.

OK...really night. This seems to be one huge trolling fest.


I guess I missed this last part or you added it later.
I haven't read both versions but can tell you its more than obvious that he was a monster. Some people would argue simply because he could have just killed us, and that is true, but do you know what he did to us, do you understand the irreparable damage he has done to us?
All through out the bible all he does is punish us, and while all this punishing is going on, we are always told what the punishment will be in certain words but its never explained exactly how they are executed.
I think this has been found recently.
It appears from findings in our DNA that he used DNA to control us through our DNA.
Check out Lloyd Pye's Human genetics video.
Over 4000 gross defects, over 2 dozen that wont allow you to live past puberty.
He dropped atomic bombs on us in the bible and killed masses of people. Not my best idea of a creator.
Also in the bible and matching with the findings in our DNA, in addition to vestigal organs, it also looks like we have disabled powers.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Humans don't evolve from animals. We have a soul, a conscience.

Darwin's brother said he saw the holes but Darwin was going go with
his theory anyway. Base something on a lie. Okay, that's your belief.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 03:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Flint2011
 
I agree and have wrote simular views to those you expressed. I also dont need any god and dont need a kiddy fiddlers book to tell me right from wrong.

I'd go further. Unless life is eternal with no begining and no end then there must be a creator or creative force. We are evidence of that.

Evolution does not need a creator to be true or false for evolution to work as evolution has nothing to say about creation.

Creationists should have no problem with Evolution and many with faith dont. The fundementalist groups however do as what evolution does show is many of the stories in their handbook that they hold as the literal truth is shown to be less valid than any other childrens story



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
Still touting that brain dead nonsense despite beeing shown with links/examples that you are talking complete nonsense.

I dont eat processed food. I grow my own. Cook my own. So do I come from one of the groups that was not dropped off/picked up 10k years ago.

You like repeating nonsense like a mantra, heres mine. You are totally ignorant of the world around you.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 04:01 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
Part one of your monologue re inforces your ignorance of biology as well. You even dismiss even your own edvidence of mexicans that drink 'nasty' water and dont get ill when you witness it yourself.





Evolving means we automatically fit in, adapting means we force ourselves to fit in usually though tools or sorts.
Good god. 165 pages and your understanding of evolution has not moved forwards a jot.

Evolving does not mean we automatically fit in. Evolution is change that gives advantage to an organism to survive long enough to pass on its genes. The enviroment weeds out those less suited. Evolution in action.

Why are you using Behold at the beggining of every paragraph now? Are you writing from a pulpit or do you have the film mosses on a continuous loop?

Behold no shoes.

Are you so closed off that you dont realise that many people never wear shoes? Dont need shoes? Do you never believe your own eyes. Our life style gives an advantage to wearing shoes. Behold safety boots. Padding underfoot for joggers. Behold trainers. Designer Fashion shoes behold women.




So we made shoes, mother nature kicked back at us by giving us fungus on our feet so we fought back by making socks. She doesn't want us here FYI.
Shoes provided ideal conditions for the fungus to thrive. Mother nature did not give us it as a punishment. Mother nature does not give a dam whether we are here or not. Do you need to make up childish stories to explain every natural process?
edit on 4-1-2012 by colin42 because: Still thought we were only 150 pages into this nonsense



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quadrivium
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.



I see now. You're using the term epicycle as slang. I thought you were referring to the Ptolemaic model. I don't see how you're right at all. The new knowledge has made evolution easier to understand, not less. It's simpler, not more complicated. We know the mechanism and we have a good handle on that mechanism, what it does, and what the effects are. These things are measurable and predictable.

If you really want to go there, the entire creationist argument is epicyclic!
It seems to me that you'll go to any lengths to point out problems with evolution, but you can't have a scientific revolution before you propose your own theory: creationism. The problem with that is that you're creating a false dichotomy. You're assuming that it's either creationism or evolution, and that one of them MUST be true. So if you eliminate evolution then creationism MUST be the correct answer. And what do you do? You create your model before the data, and you'll twist and turn the data six ways to Sunday trying to get it to fit your ideas. For example, you try to take biology and squeeze it into Genesis' "God created the Earth in six days, and on the seventh he rested" nonsense.

Now, you might admit--because you can't escape--that there are many fossils that show a linear progression from ape-like creatures to humans. But what you guys do is insist that they must belong to some side branch or some other extinct creature that can't possibly be in our family tree. So what do you do then? You refuse to admit that there are transitional forms, but shout "where's the missing link" from the rooftops, even when you know full well--as has been pointed out several times--that there is no such thing as THE missing link, and that those fossils are all examples of transitional forms.

Talk about an epicycle.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quadrivium
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?


Most of the people here defending evolution are willing to allow the possibility of a creator. You almost never hear of a bible thumping creationist admitting that maybe it was evolution. And even if they do, they still insist that God created and then left us alone to evolve willy nilly.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by crimsonhead

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


It's plain as day in this day and age. But like anything new, it took time for them to understand it. We get it because that's what we learned, but all new learning requires someone to do the groundwork and that's what they did. Do you expect them to have the mental powers to see that it's obvious?

Why do you expect scientists to have superhuman powers of understanding and deduction? That's very unrealistic.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quadrivium




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


Actually he did:
In a private letter to Joseph Hooker in 1871:

"It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, &c., present, that a proteine (sic) compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were found."



In private, yes. He can say anything he wants in private--that's why it's private. So what? It wasn't a formal part of his theory and that's what counts.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackSatinDancer
mkkkay. firstly you have to prove they were even built by humans


Oh my God you've got to be kidding. Sorry, the burden of proof is on you to prove that they were built by non-humans, be they aliens or whatever. Occam's razor says they were 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.


Our health care sucks, too. Until the smallpox vaccine was invented 40 years ago, 300 million people in the 20th century died of smallpox. Even today, people die from treatable diseases like heart disease and infectious disease.

In the Stone Age, if you made it to your teen years, you had a really good chance of living to 55 or so. We wouldn't come close that until the 20th century with the invention of antibiotics and sanitation systems, better working conditions, and reduced infant mortality. If you were a male in the early 20th century Britain or America, your life expectancy was about 40. The worldwide average life expectancy at birth in 1900 was a whopping 31 years. And even with all our wonderful medical care, if you were born in 2010, your life expectancy is 67.2 years.

And even our top of the food chain 21st century medical care isn't perfect. MRIs didn't exist until about 20 years ago. Chemotherapy is barbaric--surely we could have come up with something better by now? Malaria and measles still kill millions every year. The common flu kills 37,000 in the US alone every year.




Technological advances are exponential, not linear.


i'm looking at definitions here to make sure I'm getting this right.

so you are saying that technological advances are not "in a line" but they are "representative of something else"

I have NO idea how that is supposed to be relevant.

Go do some more research. I don't have time to hold your hand and connect all the little dots for you.


alright, let me try this again. Archeological studies show that a lot of mummies found in tombs died of really stupid treatable diseases. ok?... that means poor health care. the survival instinct is very strong. If they could have dreamt it up, they would have done what it took to preserve their own lives. Trouble is, they simply did not seem to have the background.

furthermore, the inclination to be aggressive is shown by science to be mostly of anatomical and hormonal causes on top of lack of teaching restraint from such activities and is a dominant inclination among man and beast (survival of the fittest)

The fact that we are smarter might be what makes us loose that inclination towards a lot of warring. even wars these days are the lazy mans wars where instead of a lot of strenuous headlopping, he pushes a button and a missile comes out.

This is your Eurocentrism showing, that because we live further in time, therefore we MUST be smarter. If you need another example, see earlier in your post where you claim that humans couldn't have built the pyramids.


so, mankind develops his brain LAST.

Ummm.... YES.


That's debatable.


thirdly, the last ice age was a long time ago and they put a nice big gap in the approximation.... conveniently for you.


Do you know what an oxygen isotope ratio is?


this way you only have tens of thousands of years time frame for which to come up with an excuse as to why they didn't get their crap together in EVEN MORE time than what mankind has achieved in just a few thousand years.

Now you're just ranting. You know nothing about biology, geology, or anthropology. Where did you get your degree from, diplomamillsrus.com?


I guess you'd say those tens of thousands of years were spent teeth chattering.... and of course hunting/gathering... else they'd all be dead anyway.

and in those tens of thousands of years they never once thought of... oh, let's say... a heater? a car to drive somewhere warmer? an alphabet for which to write "#, it's COLD"


Did it EVER occur to you that writing grew out of necessity due to the invention of farming and a huge explosion in population? Do you even understand that when Toba blew, we nearly checked out altogether, along with the Neanderthals? It takes TIME to rebuild a population. It's estimated that the climate was screwed up for 20,000 years. The temp was already on its way down, but Toba pushed it into the freezer.


Not buying it.

That's entirely up to you.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by crimsonhead

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


It's plain as day in this day and age. But like anything new, it took time for them to understand it. We get it because that's what we learned, but all new learning requires someone to do the groundwork and that's what they did. Do you expect them to have the mental powers to see that it's obvious?

Why do you expect scientists to have superhuman powers of understanding and deduction? That's very unrealistic.


Glad you quoted this post of mine, and not the other one that explained why those scientists really didn't do anything that "proved" evolution.

And your point that those questions ended up being "understood" is dead wrong. They still are left with many, many perplexing questions.

The problem is that they are looking at this information and TRYING to fit it in an evolutionary framework. All the science that they do in which they figure out what the Hox genes do, is awesome and amazing. But at the end where they then try and figure out how it fits into an evolutionary framework, they fail miserably.

Real science is used to determine what a hox gene does. They predict, they test and then they verify. You can be sure that what they test is true.

Fake science is when they then hypothesize regarding the evolutionary relationships between different animals. That is untestable, varies among scientists, and changes yearly.

You have to be able to read a study and realize what portions are real science and what are fake.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


This very post is what I meant by "moving the goal post".
First you say he never said it.
I show that he did.....
And you move the goal post to exclude private conversation.
The fact is, he did say it and thought about it. You were wrong and can not admit it.
Childish.
Look at what Mr. XYZ said. By his definition on page 157 or 158.
I proved by his own definition that evolution was wrong.
Did I think that I actually proved the entire theory wrong?
Of course not.
I did, however, prove it wrong by the definition that was given by XYZ.
Did he say good job and we have a good laugh over it?
No he moved the goal post and attacked. Kinda like your doing.
Childish
It would probably surprise you the amount of information the theory of evolution has sucked into itself that I actually do agree with.
I never claimed to be a young earther. I do however see similarities in the Creation story and what science has to say on the matter.
Go back and read the back and forth between colin and I.
It makes since using biology that plants were the first complex life. Then life in the oceans and birds (yes birds, look back to our discussion), then life on land. Lastly humans.
This is also the order of life in the Creation story.
You don't find the fact that this order was written down more than 2500 years ago just alittle curious?
In a earlier post you chided me about assuming something about your "intellectual beliefs" .
I would appreciate it if you would follow your own advice.
Quad



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





reply to post by itsthetooth

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Still touting that brain dead nonsense despite beeing shown with links/examples that you are talking complete nonsense.

I dont eat processed food. I grow my own. Cook my own. So do I come from one of the groups that was not dropped off/picked up 10k years ago.

You like repeating nonsense like a mantra, heres mine. You are totally ignorant of the world around you.
How do you get your calcium?



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





reply to post by itsthetooth

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part one of your monologue re inforces your ignorance of biology as well. You even dismiss even your own edvidence of mexicans that drink 'nasty' water and dont get ill when you witness it yourself.
Every species has a certain amount of allowable differences in a lot of things. That doesn't mean we can fly.




Good god. 165 pages and your understanding of evolution has not moved forwards a jot.
Well I keep finding moe saying its not true so it depends on which way you mean by moving.




Evolving does not mean we automatically fit in. Evolution is change that gives advantage to an organism to survive long enough to pass on its genes. The enviroment weeds out those less suited. Evolution in action.
And you think creating shoes is a form of evolution, come on man open your eyes.




Why are you using Behold at the beggining of every paragraph now? Are you writing from a pulpit or do you have the film mosses on a continuous loop?

Behold no shoes.

Are you so closed off that you dont realise that many people never wear shoes? Dont need shoes? Do you never believe your own eyes. Our life style gives an advantage to wearing shoes. Behold safety boots. Padding underfoot for joggers. Behold trainers. Designer Fashion shoes behold women.
Now your talking utter nonsense, next your going to tell me we don't need water.




Shoes provided ideal conditions for the fungus to thrive. Mother nature did not give us it as a punishment. Mother nature does not give a dam whether we are here or not. Do you need to make up childish stories to explain every natural process?
You failed poorly here, and this is why we are destroying this planet, to many people believe the way you do.




top topics



 
31
<< 162  163  164    166  167  168 >>

log in

join