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: 170
31
<< 167  168  169    171  172  173 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Not adequatly anyhow. I sent you the link showing how many people die from unsafe water.
People die every day from many things, the most common way is old age. Dying from drinking contaminated, and that is CONTAMINATED water like all the other ways we die does not in anyway prove we are not from here.



And what is that.
Your number one method to avoid and deflect answering a question you cannot answer



Really, and what are our physical attributes that prove we evolved?
Go back on all the replies explaining this to you and giving the examples you have chosen to ignore.



Just because you believe in something doesn't mean its correct.
So you refuse to respond to another question you cannot answer without putting your silly fantasy at risk. It has not worked, try again.



Does this mean you do throw trash out of your car?
Not that it has any bearing on the fact this is just to again deflect attention from another question you cannot answer. I dont have a car. I dont pollute my enviroment when public transport gets me where I want to go.



Then give me an example of one animal that has made a bond with man, that was not inflicted by man.
Again go back to the list I gave you. Many more than one.



And what is there life expectancy.
A lot longer than you maintain. You believe they all die before they reach adulthood. Plainly incorrect and again blows your fantasy apart.



The anteater is a prime example of a species that you can say with no doubt, he is home, he bolongs here. Unlike us. Your swapping our ability to adapt with us not fitting in here. If you took away that one trait, we would be dead.
Again a sweeping statement that is wrong on every count. There are many species that survive by taking advantage of opportunities, and a few that use tools to boot.
The fact is you cannot take away our inventiveness so your question is mute. You are the one that lives in La La land not me. I deal with the evidence at hand.



That has got to be the most morronic thing you have said so far. No man, he would not adapt.
I would like to say that that was the most moronic answer you have given but alas that is far from the truth. Who would not adapt, The anteater? Because that is what I wrote.



Well we had abilitys as monkeys to survive in the wild, why did we trade them?
Oops you have let slip again although we were not monkeys we are primates. I again refer you to the bushman who survives in the wild very well. So well in fact you refuse to aknowledge the fact.



Darwin said it best, without proof of transgression, there is no evoltuion. I think he was right, there is no proof stil.
As you have been told many times. Darwins theory has gone on a pace since he first submitted it. Can you tell me how long ago he said this?

You also did not again respond to the original request to put your challenge in a thread topic of your own as this thread believe it or not is about those that believe evolution to be wrong should explain the diversity we see without it.




posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Here you prove me correct again.

You wrote: I know. Speciation and evolution in a virus is scary and real.

If speciation and evolution happens in a virus that is evolution, end of. Observed and proved. Your idiotic standpoint that 'it has never been observed in humans' is not only wrong. Not only been disproved many times but is no different than how it happens in a virus.

You bankrupted your argument and no matter how much you try to wriggle out of it you've been busted.
How so, you obviously never listened to any of my earlier replies. I have never denied that speciation and evolution is completly false, only in humans.

Again I will say, its never been observed in humans, but has been witnessed in molecular organisms and viruses, NOT including humans.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 07:06 PM
link   
170 pages and it's still the same arguments?



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



How so, you obviously never listened to any of my earlier replies. I have never denied that speciation and evolution is completly false, only in humans.
Is that so? That is not what I have read from you before. So now you admit that speciation and evolution happens in the higher animals as well, just not humans?

Evolution has evidence and proof in abundance that says you are wrong. So all that is left is for you to show, with evidence and tangible proof that we are not from here. The burden of proof is on you as this is your fantasy.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quadrivium
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


Split I can't say that I agree with that.
DNA is basically the code/language of life.

"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God"

The Creator would have used the same "language" to bring all creatures about.


Look up "endogenous retroviruses" and "transporons."



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





People die every day from many things, the most common way is old age. Dying from drinking contaminated, and that is CONTAMINATED water like all the other ways we die does not in anyway prove we are not from here.
True but you don't frequently hear of other species dying from unhealthy water conditions and if you do, its because man did it.




Go back on all the replies explaining this to you and giving the examples you have chosen to ignore.
If your referring to our tool making hands, dont you think its a little redundant to have to make tools with tools?




Not that it has any bearing on the fact this is just to again deflect attention from another question you cannot answer. I dont have a car. I dont pollute my enviroment when public transport gets me where I want to go.
Well thats good for you, so then my question would become, would you not throw trash out of your car.




Again go back to the list I gave you. Many more than one.
Well if your referring to the sparrow, that was human inflicted, so it doesn't count. I want something that isn't man made.




A lot longer than you maintain. You believe they all die before they reach adulthood. Plainly incorrect and again blows your fantasy apart.
Ya and Ill bet they live to be 30 and die early. But no, I guess your right, they don't need to live like we cause living till 30 is normal.

Use your head man, we only mate for 20 years, usually between 20 and 40 and your chopping 10 years off that. You know it doesn't matter to me at this point if you honestly believe a virus made us, or that god made us. Use some common sense and realize that we are an intelligent design. Do you really think our design was only suppose to live 30 years? Your cracking me up man.




Again a sweeping statement that is wrong on every count. There are many species that survive by taking advantage of opportunities, and a few that use tools to boot.
The fact is you cannot take away our inventiveness so your question is mute. You are the one that lives in La La land not me. I deal with the evidence at hand.
Well you do look at the evidence, but only what you have in your hand. You need to venture out of the box and start taking a look at other life and compare things to humans minus the intelligent factor and learn for yourself what is going on. We were dumped here knowing that our intelligence would save us, and for the most part, it has, but on the flip side, we are screwed.




Oops you have let slip again although we were not monkeys we are primates. I again refer you to the bushman who survives in the wild very well. So well in fact you refuse to aknowledge the fact.
No I had it right, we were monkeys, we are currently primates, and your evolution buddys proved me wrong on this, because wiki says we are primates.




As you have been told many times. Darwins theory has gone on a pace since he first submitted it. Can you tell me how long ago he said this?

You also did not again respond to the original request to put your challenge in a thread topic of your own as this thread believe it or not is about those that believe evolution to be wrong should explain the diversity we see without it.
Well I have allready explained this a few times, but I will do it again just for you. Diversity can EASILY be explained with one or more creators, in a lab, with a equipment, and a lot of toys, and a lot of desire to make things.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

I ask you for the quote from Darwin and you provide a link to a page that is remarkably short on quotes by Darwin, much less ones that are in context. I'll ask again. You said:


Darwin said it best, without proof of transgression, there is no evoltuion.

Can you provide the actual quote, with source, from Darwin where he said this? Or should I take it from your lack of a straightforward answer that this is another example of something you remember reading but have zero evidence for? Like DNA having a "blue laminate" or humans not being primates?



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


Neither, it came from a quote off a video but I know you don't like videos so I found you one in txt.

If you would rather watch the video here is the link www.youtube.com...
But you might have to watch through 3 or 4 of them as I think it was later on.
edit on 7-1-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Neither, it came from a quote off a video

So you never actually read that quote in any work by Darwin?


but I know you don't like videos so I found you one in txt.

The page that you linked to doesn't have a quote by Darwin to that effect.


If you would rather watch the video here is the link www.youtube.com...
But you might have to watch through 3 or 4 of them as I think it was later on.

No, I want you to provide the quote by Darwin, with source, that says what you claimed he wrote. Namely


Darwin said it best, without proof of transgression, there is no evoltuion.

Otherwise we'll just chalk this up to yet another thing you made up.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 

Bunny! Your back!
Great maybe now you can address my last post to you: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Be back with you in a sec, gotta grab a book (if I can find it) for your above comment.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





So you never actually read that quote in any work by Darwin?
Nope, I don't know Darwin directly, just what has been relayed.




The page that you linked to doesn't have a quote by Darwin to that effect.
Not word for word, and not a quote, do you need me to copy it for you?




No, I want you to provide the quote by Darwin, with source, that says what you claimed he wrote. Namely


Darwin said it best, without proof of transgression, there is no evoltuion.

Otherwise we'll just chalk this up to yet another thing you made up.
Nope, no need to make it up.

You will have to watch the videos if you want the exact quote.
I'm seeing similar parts on the text site but it sounds like you want the quote, so its on the video.

edit on 7-1-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 

Nope, no related books.......But that's why we have the web, eh?


Conclusion

ERV were discovered through the careful analysis of virological and immunological markers that appeared to be inherited by the host as Mendelian traits. Interestingly, the crucial evidence of endogenous ALV, MLV and MMTV came to light in the same period in the late 1960s. The discovery of reverse transcriptase in 1970 made these strange findings plausible. Later molecular genetic studies showed that the genomes of all vertebrate species studied have been colonized by multiple sets of retrovirus. Phylogenetic studies of viral genomes indicate that the introduction of ERV proceeds in waves with relatively rapid amplification of copy numbers and dispersal in the host genome. Their functions, if any, in the host remain an enigma, except for env genes driving differentiation of the syncytiotrophoblast in the placenta.
www.retrovirology.com...


When a transposon moves to different positions within cells of the corn kernel, the coloration gene is "turned on" or "turned off" depending on whether it lands in a position adjacent to the pigmentation gene. Transposons may also have a profound effect on embryonic development and tumor formation in animal cells. Oncogenes (genes that cause tumors) may be activated by the random reshuffling of transposons to a position adjacent to the oncogene. Transposons may also be useful in genetic engineering with eukaryotic cells, by splicing in transposons to activate certain genes. The implications from Barbara McClintock's discovery of transposons may be far-reaching and as significant as Watson and Crick's discovery of the structure of DNA.
waynesword.palomar.edu...

Notice the high lighted areas? Sounds like a lot of could of, should of, would of's. Also known as ASSUMPTIONS.

I know they put a lot of work into these hypothesis, some their entire lives but it's like you said before "we do not know everything."
Quad



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 05:04 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Nope, I don't know Darwin directly, just what has been relayed.

So you're just taking it on someone else's authority that Darwin said something like that without actually checking the works of Darwin to see if he did and to make sure that they're using the quote in the correct context?


Not word for word, and not a quote, do you need me to copy it for you?

You keeps saying that "Darwin said ... ", but you can't seem to provide any evidence that Darwin actually said anything like that.


Nope, no need to make it up.

If you didn't make it up then you should be able to provide the quote from Darwin with which of his writings it came from.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 05:22 AM
link   
I really don't know why I keep checking on this topic as reguardless of what anyone says...EVOLUTION is a reality and these people who doubt it live with examples...and eat examples of it every day.

I guess I just find it incredulous that anyone would try to disprove what cannot be disproved as it is a provable fact and we use this fact every day in medicine and engineering plants and food sourses and eventually it will be used to better man.

I can only say this so many times...just because EVOLUTION is a fact...does not mean that there is no GOD. If there is a GOD then evolution is the process that GOD used to create the Multiverse.

The Bible...and I am familiar with it....is incomplete and was written by man. There are many mistranslations in the Bible....one example...MOSES did not part the RED SEA...the actual translation is that MOSES crossed the REED SEA...a tidal areanear the Med...where there was much vegitation and after Moses and his people crossed...the Egyptian Army crossed and got caught in the fast rising water of this tidal region.

THIS IS THE ACTUAL TRANSLATION....look it up. My point is...the Bible is a teaching tool....the world was not created in 7 Days and it is impossible for just two people to have the sufficient genetic diversity to breed the worlds population. Inbreeding would make Adam and Eves kids steril after a few generations.

So do me a favor...believe what you will but please...do not argue scientific facts. Split Infinity



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 06:18 AM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 

PART 1

Split,
I find a problem in your reasoning.

My point is...the Bible is a teaching tool....the world was not created in 7 Days and it is impossible for just two people to have the sufficient genetic diversity to breed the worlds population. Inbreeding would make Adam and Eves kids steril after a few generations.

We know (though some will not admit) that a lot of the theory of evolution is based on the assumption of a single common ancestor, named by recent evolutionary scientist as LUCA (last universal common ancestor).

Using your reasoning, it is impossible for Adam and Eve to do what MANY evolutionist think LUCA did alone?



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quadrivium
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 

PART 1

Split,
I find a problem in your reasoning.

My point is...the Bible is a teaching tool....the world was not created in 7 Days and it is impossible for just two people to have the sufficient genetic diversity to breed the worlds population. Inbreeding would make Adam and Eves kids steril after a few generations.

We know (though some will not admit) that a lot of the theory of evolution is based on the assumption of a single common ancestor, named by recent evolutionary scientist as LUCA (last universal common ancestor).

Using your reasoning, it is impossible for Adam and Eve to do what MANY evolutionist think LUCA did alone?



LUCA...was never the only one...but one of many. A single celled organizm can split by mytosis....but a complex...multi-cellular being cannot. Split Infinity



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quadrivium
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 

PART 1

Split,
I find a problem in your reasoning.

My point is...the Bible is a teaching tool....the world was not created in 7 Days and it is impossible for just two people to have the sufficient genetic diversity to breed the worlds population. Inbreeding would make Adam and Eves kids steril after a few generations.

We know (though some will not admit) that a lot of the theory of evolution is based on the assumption of a single common ancestor, named by recent evolutionary scientist as LUCA (last universal common ancestor).

Using your reasoning, it is impossible for Adam and Eve to do what MANY evolutionist think LUCA did alone?



Adam and Eve require sexual reproduction to pass on their genes.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quadrivium
reply to post by HappyBunny
 

Bunny! Your back!
Great maybe now you can address my last post to you: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Be back with you in a sec, gotta grab a book (if I can find it) for your above comment.


Will do later. It's Sunday morning and lots to do before the Steelers come on!



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 

PART 2 (yes it is long but please read it through and comment if you wish)

I split this post into two parts so I could get your thoughts on the first part alone.
In this post, are my thoughts on this and as I previously stated to colin, some Christians think I am a loon due to these thoughts.

As I said, when I read Genesis, certain things jump out at me. When I first started studying the Bible, I of course had questions and found most of the answers in the pages I was studying,

Let us address the Creation of human life in the Bible, shall we?

Chapter 1:27-28

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”


Anything interesting pop out to you?
Sounds like He created more than just one couple, huh?
Also notice the use of the word Mankind.

I believe these to be early humans, Neanderthals perhaps.

Now let's jump to chapter two.


7 Then the LORD God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.


This was Adam.
A second creation story?

It is my belief that God created Adam and Eve and set them apart from the rest of Creation for Adam had a living soul (the breath of life).
Most people know the Creation story, They know that Adam and Eve sinned against God and were kicked out of the garden. They were no longer set apart from the rest of Creation. They were sent out into the world.

I believe that Adam and Eve were the first "Modern Humans"
So, it is all just fairy tails, some might say.

Well let's look at it.

I would like to add a couple of foot notes before I go further.
These are taken from the Bible as well:
Genesis 4:13-14

13 Cain said to the LORD, “My punishment is more than I can bear. 14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”


If no more of Mankind was on the earth, who was he afraid would kill him?

Genesis 4:17

17 Cain made love to his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch.


A city? For his family alone? And who could his wife have been?

And I would also like to add Genesis 6:1-2

1 When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.


In Luke it gives the linage of Christ all the way back to Adam, who is noted as being the son of God.

So modern man interbred with neanderthals.

I have been saying this for years and it is exciting (for me anyway) that science now confirms my belief.

The study uncovered the first solid genetic evidence that "modern" humans—or Homo sapiens—interbred with their Neanderthal neighbors, who mysteriously died out about 30,000 years ago.

What's more, the Neanderthal-modern human mating apparently took place in the Middle East, shortly after modern humans had left Africa, not in Europe—as has long been suspected.
news.nationalgeographic.com...

If Adam and Eve came from the "perfect ecosystem" (Eden) it is only natural that they would have lived longer lives than neanderthals, who's average life span was only about 30 years.


Life expectancy was typically 30 years or less, often much less. Recent analysis by Rachel Caspari and Sang-Hee Lee of human teeth from Upper Paleolithic sites has shown that beginning around 30,000 years ago there was a sharp rise in the number of people who were over 30 years old.
anthro.palomar.edu...

In Genesis 6:4


Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not contend with[a] humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”


The inbreeding had a positive effect on early humans as they acquired increased longevity. Yet it would have had the opposite effect on the "modern humans".

Probably gave you an overload if you stuck with me through the entire post, I could go on but I will stop at this point and wait on a reply.
I know it sounds crazy but I can not help but to believe I am on the right track. It all just falls into place, for me at least.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


LUCA...was never the only one...but one of many. A single celled organizm can split by mytosis....but a complex...multi-cellular being cannot. Split Infinity

I do not understand what your saying here Split,
From everything I have read LUCA would of had to been a very complex creature for it to do as claimed.
It would of had to been, just as, if not more complex than the modern cell.

That's kinda like a dog chasing it's tail, yes?

Using evolution how could such a creature be that complex so early in the evolutionary process?

Not mocking, just want clarification.
Thanks,
Quad


edit on 8-1-2012 by Quadrivium because: changed "be" to "been"



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 167  168  169    171  172  173 >>

log in

join