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: 186
31
<< 183  184  185    187  188  189 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 

Thanks Bunny.

As I said...........
Childish.




posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quadrivium
reply to post by HappyBunny
 

Thanks Bunny.

As I said...........
Childish.


Quad, what are you on about? You asked me a question and I answered it. How about answering mine?



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


Bunny,
I should not have to do this, either you did not want to admit you moved the goal post or you are too lazy to go back and look for what I was talking about.
Either way it is Childish.
So, just this once I will help you out.
All of this can be found In pages 161 through 165.

ok Happy,
let's see how far we can move the goal post today
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Your response:

How am I moving the goalposts, by the way? I gave you a simple, factual answer and you accuse me of moving the posts. Nice. If you don't want to accept it, that's up to you. But don't you dare accuse me of being intellectually dishonest.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Then you state:

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

I showed that you were mistaken here:

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."

www.abovetopsecret.com...

To which you respond by moving the goal post:

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.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Then I go on to ask you four times to comment on this but you ignore it.......Childish


But don't you dare accuse me of being intellectually dishonest.


If the shoe fits...............

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also through these four pages (161-165) as I ask questions about DNA and RNA that you can not answer, you get upset and start attacking my beliefs, taking what you think you know about some people of faith and appling it to me...........Some may call this a "superiority complex" as many on this thread show......I just call it for what it is.......Childish.
Quad



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quadrivium
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


Bunny,
I should not have to do this, either you did not want to admit you moved the goal post or you are too lazy to go back and look for what I was talking about.


Yes, that's it, I'm too lazy to troll through 40 pages looking for something that happened 2 weeks ago. I can't even remember what I did yesterday.



Either way it is Childish.


Whatever.


So, just this once I will help you out.

How very thoughtful of you.


All of this can be found In pages 161 through 165.

ok Happy,
let's see how far we can move the goal post today
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Your response:

How am I moving the goalposts, by the way? I gave you a simple, factual answer and you accuse me of moving the posts. Nice. If you don't want to accept it, that's up to you. But don't you dare accuse me of being intellectually dishonest.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Then you state:

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

I showed that you were mistaken here:

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."

www.abovetopsecret.com...

To which you respond by moving the goal post:

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.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Then I go on to ask you four times to comment on this but you ignore it.......Childish


All right, fine, O Wise and Mature Person Who's Probably only 21. You're acting like you've got one up on me or something. I'm mature enough to say Big F****** Deal. You're such a baby you think we're on a playground and you have to show off.

Grow up.

I still say, SO WHAT if Darwin did say anything to Hooker in private? That doesn't refute evolution so I don't know why you think it does.



But don't you dare accuse me of being intellectually dishonest.


If the shoe fits...............

Okay, now you're pissing me off. In what way was I intellectually dishonest? Do you even know what that means?

Here, let me help you out just this once. Intellectual dishonesty is the advocacy or promotion of a position known to be false. According to the Urban Dictionary (since everything else is offline today due to SOPA):


An argument which is misused to advance an agenda or to reinforce one's deeply held beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence contrary.


www.urbandictionary.com...

So who's being intellectually dishonest again?

Oh, wait, that would be YOU!



Also through these four pages (161-165) as I ask questions about DNA and RNA that you can not answer, you get upset and start attacking my beliefs, taking what you think you know about some people of faith and appling it to me...........Some may call this a "superiority complex" as many on this thread show......I just call it for what it is.......Childish.
Quad


I did answer you. It's not my fault if you either don't want to admit it or are too dumb to know what I'm talking about.

MIT is offering free online classes to anyone. I suggest you take a genetics 101 or biochemistry 101 class. Then come back and we'll talk.

edit on 1/18/2012 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)

edit on 1/18/2012 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Sorry got a bit distracted from your earlier post, Quad.


Does it? The main problem with the fossil record is that what they are looking at is just an image in stone. It is a fossil. There is nothing left of the creature but an image. They have to assume that the creature in question was a relative or ancestor to another creature.
The fossil records actually show that many organisms have changed very little over millions of years.


www.agiweb.org...

Yes, the fossil record fully backs up evolution. I'm not sure what you are talking about here. Of course the fossil is an imprint of the creature. That doesn't mean we can't research it and show exactly what the bones looked like, and how they relate to other fossils dated in the same fossil layer or other fossils in other layers to show the periods in which they lived. There are no assumptions made. You can follow an animal's progress throughout the ages and see what small changes have happened and roughly when they took place. The fact that some haven't changed much, only proves natural selection, it doesn't go against evolution in the least. If the environment doesn't significantly change, the organism won't either. That's evolution 101.


I have already stated that speciation is possible using adaptation. What I do not agree with is one group of animal eventually changing into a differnt group. This also is assumption and speculation. It has never been witnessed and we actually see the opposite in nature. If the changes are too great the animal will die or it will be sterile.


Give me an example of one animal group changing into a different group that you disagree with. It seems like we may have a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution if you think a cat is going to suddenly turn into a dog or anything like that. The changes are small.

Speciation has been observed many times: www.talkorigins.org...

What evidence do you have to suggest we see the opposite in nature? The changes are small, not big. The "big" is only what we observe in the long term.


The body detects changes and performs accordingly in the right situations. This is what I meant by "voluntary" where as those mutations that hinder are more forced by outside influences or to be clearer, it was not the decision of the body to put these mutations in place.

The one issue with that is that these changes happen in the DNA. If we have a red lizard trying to adapt to a forest environment that's mostly green, they are not favored to survive. They will probably be killed by a predator, but this won't mean the body reacts to that and understands it needs to be green. They are usually born with the mutations, and the genetic information is passed down from the parent. The question then becomes, how would the lizard's body know to change the skin color to green? It's not like the body reacts and then somehow knows that green is the right color to blend. This is because the mutations are often random, and are passed down with variance. There will always be a certain number of offspring that will still be born red, this is genetic variation, but natural selection is how the green genes become dominant in the species. At one point the ratio between red and green might have been 50/50, but after time it will become more like 1 in 10, or maybe even 1 in a hundred (or thousand). It's not the body reacting, because the mutations happen FIRST. Survival happens SECOND. I hope that clears it up a bit, if not feel free to ask.


edit on 18-1-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


Barcs, I was not trying to "disprove evolution". Go back and read the back and fourth between colin and I.
Mr. XYZ started slinging crap and I caught him in his own words.
Did I really think that I disproved evolution? NO!
If you read the post you will see it was written in a jokingly manner.
I can not prove evolution wrong any more than an athiest can prove there is no God.
I can however show, when I find them, assumptions and speculation in the "theory".
In several of my post to you, have I not admitted when I make mistakes?
That is all I want in return.
If you, Bunny or anyone find that they are wrong then just admit it and less move forward.
I feel what Bunny did was move the goal post in the post above, when I showed that was the case, he/she got angry, attacked and then ignored it hoping it would just go away.
He/she seems to get angry a lot. You can not have a real debate with anyone who thinks your attacking their religion. They get defensive and attack.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Quadrivium
 


Wow excuse the post above barcs, I could have sworn that I read one you posted to Bunny but now I don't see it any more.
Definitly need more sleep!!!!!



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


Bunny, I do not wish to make you upset, I was just trying to show that you have a hard time admitting when you are wrong.
I never said that the private letter between Hooker and Darwin refuted evolution.
I just showed you that Darwin did state something that you said he NEVER did.
In your mind, private conversations might not have counted but you never stated such so how was I supposed to know?
Your mind is not an open book for me to thumb through to find the answers, these are things you should state before you are proven wrong instead of moving the goal post after the fact.
Also....

I'm mature enough to say Big F****** Deal.

Is this supposed to be your mature way of admitting you were wrong?....... Childish.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 
Dont think that is what he is asking. Of course that is up to him to say.

If what is being asked is a new branch of say cats that take on the role through the process of evolution of dogs then I dont believe even given the time we are going to see it, ever.

The reason is not because it cannot happen the reason is we are still here to see it. For something else to become human like humans need to vacate the position. For something else to take on the role of dogs then dogs need to have vacated that position.

Evolution does not happen in isolation, (well it does but bear with me). It is like the job market. A school leaver with little experience is going to have a very hard time getting employed when the market he is trying to get into has full employement and the positions are filled by experts.

The school leaver is going to have to wait for an expert to die to stand any chance and even then he will have to compete with many other school leavers.

Now we have a disaster. All the experts are killed off for some reason. Happy days for the school leaver because he can move into the vacant job with little too no competition and if he has ability he becomes the expert and the cycle goes on.

This is how I see evolution working and why you see no major shifts in speciation in modern times and you should not expect to.

Now look at the fossil record and guess what, that is exactly what it shows. Coincidence? I dont think so.

Edit
This also explains in part the extinction we observe. When all the jobs are vacated and we have no experts. Loads of school leavers go for the same jobs. The successful out compete the less successful and they (The less successful) end up with no where to go, they face extinction.

2nd edit
The unsuccessful have also the disadvantage of having learnt the job only for that job to be taken by a better candidate. They have progressed to far to change direction but not far enough to out compete the current position holder. They face unemployment or as evolution says. Extinction.

Sorry about all the edits


edit on 18-1-2012 by colin42 because: Extinction

edit on 18-1-2012 by colin42 because: a little tinkering

edit on 18-1-2012 by colin42 because: 2nd Edit



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Atzil321
And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.


I know this answer is satirical, I'm assuming, based on your last sentence about the fossils. But um... which god are you referring to here precisely? Cause other religions, or New Agers would say "God" is the invisible Force (referred to as "it" not "he") that brings everything together and apart, but your god is beginning to sound Biblical. Like the Jewish legends of Creation. Hmmmm...

Are there other options or theories? Would be interesting to listen to, since I already understand the whole bible story and other Sacred Mythologies.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 

Barcs,
I think it may be time for us to set some guide lines. It would seem that.....
"what we have here, is a failure to communicate"
The biggest problem I see that we may be having is with the term "species" and no wonder...
see: plato.stanford.edu...
What I mean by "species"- All animals defined as a group. Example: The group clasified as flies. With in this group are many, many species of flies but they are all flies.

I do not see in the fossil record anything that would show me otherwise.
I looked at your link on the fossil record. I see assumption and speculation through out it.
How can they possible say that some fossils were related to others when they only have an image to go by?
To truly prove this they would need DNA samples.
All because a fossil looks like another does not mean they are related.

Animals that seem identical may belong to completely different species. This is the conclusion of researchers at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, who have used DNA analyses to discover that one of our most common segmented worms is actually two types of worm.

www.sciencedaily.com...
Also you may want to give another link for this:

Speciation has been observed many times: www.talkorigins.org...

This site actually gives meanings for the word "species" but it does go on to say something I found interesting in section 3.0

The literature on observed speciations events is not well organized. I found only a few papers that had an observation of a speciation event as the author's main point (e.g. Weinberg, et al. 1992). In addition, I found only one review that was specifically on this topic (Callaghan 1987). This review cited only four examples of speciation events. Why is there such a seeming lack of interest in reporting observations of speciation events?

In my humble opinion, four things account for this lack of interest. First, it appears that the biological community considers this a settled question. Many researchers feel that there are already ample reports in the literature. Few of these folks have actually looked closely. To test this idea, I asked about two dozen graduate students and faculty members in the department where I'm a student whether there were examples where speciation had been observed in the literature. Everyone said that they were sure that there were. Next I asked them for citings or descriptions. Only eight of the people I talked to could give an example, only three could give more than one. But everyone was sure that there were papers in the literature.
www.talkorigins.org...

I will try to get to the rest of your post later. Got to get ready for work.
Quad



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quadrivium
reply to post by Barcs
 


The biggest problem I see that we may be having is with the term "species" and no wonder...
see: plato.stanford.edu...
What I mean by "species"- All animals defined as a group. Example: The group clasified as flies. With in this group are many, many species of flies but they are all flies.



Hmmmmm.. Sometimes when there is some uncertainty about a term or definition, it does help to have a definition that you yourself can understand and make sense of, I do it constantly. However, the term "species" has a very clear definition, and unfortunately your definition is not quite precise enough.

Species - biological definiton "A group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding."

This means that not all flies are the same species as not all can meet the above requirement ie not all flys can breed with all other flies.

When it comes to speciation, people opposed to the idea often state that we can never observe it happening, and yet we often see animals of almost identical species, able to breed but where the offspring are sterile, I usualy cite the sterile mule at this point as it appears to me as a possible example of speciation occuring.

Unfortunately, the link above sends the reader to a very convoluted article wher the author is examining the philosophical arguments of what is species, and throughtout the argument seems to be confusing species definition and taxonimy.

One thing is certain though, throught the history of the biological sciences, there have been more quarels around taxonimy than possibly any other subject.

I think if we can agree, in threads relating to evolution that the definition of species is as described above, the debate will go much more smoothly

edit on 18-1-2012 by idmonster because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 


Species -biological definiton "A group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding." This means that not all flies are the same species as not all can meet the above requirement ie not all flys can breed with all other flies.

The definition I gave is technically the same as the biological definition that you gave. I just put it in my own words.
I did not say that all flys were the same species. There are many different species of flys in the group (family) known as the fly.
House flys, horse flys, fruit flys are all in the group called flys but they are different species within that group.

This is caused by speciation. And I have no problem with this because it can be explained by adaptation.
What I was referring to with barcs was the step many evolutionist go beyond speciation.
As his example: I do not see how a dog could become a cat, no matter the amount of time given.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Quadrivium
 


Yup. my apologies, our definitions were pretty much the same. LOL

I think somewhere along the line I got lost in the multitude of paired conversations that appear to be happening on this thred.

Will try to keep up and only post when absolutly sure who, what and the POV is.




posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Yes I can prove it wrong, God came to me and told me it isn't true. Isn't that proof enough for everyone? I mean I saw God, He told me Himself, that its not true.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





My dog would definately die without me, she doesnt know how to use the tin opener.
And dont you think it was your fault to being with that made your dog dependant on canned dog food? If you set him free in the wild, will he make it on his own? What your referring to is called cupboard love.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by andersensrm
 
Ah but. You may of seen god and if so why didnt he tell you to read the OP. If he had you would know the title was changed by the mods and this thread is about those that reject evolution explain diversity without it.

So next time you chat with god could you ask him, maybe he will agree to post the answer here himself or you can relay his answer.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Yes and each page of childish excuses you make means you will have to go back further. I suggest you start now.


I'm not going to go back and reanswer questions I have allready covered.




You maintain you are a clever person. If I have been reminding you for 20 pages to answer unanswered questions try going back 21 pages. What is it with this profiling nonsense. You mate are profiling yourself. You have shown yourself to be dishonest, decietful, poorly educated and purposely ignorant. Your tantrums when cornered show you are around 13 or at least that is your mental age. You volunteered all that.


No YOU are profilling ME. And there is no nonsense of going back 21 pages for unanswered questios. Your just to dense to realize that I have answered them. I think you don't grasp both sides of the conversation is why.




Great example of poorly educated. You asked a question and I answered it. Good manners alone says you address my answer. You have chosen again to cheery pick a line out of context and ask another question. So in case you still do not understand. YOUR TURN TO ANSWER. Only after that do you get the chance to ask.


Is there a question here?




How pathetically imature. You can make the huge foundationless leap to maintain we dont fit because we have hands but cannot deduce what a townie is. How weak is that?


I asked a question incase you missed it. Are you seriously just being a pin head.




Try reading what is written and not what you want to see so that you can win a point. You have been caught out doing this many times, too many times.


Uh hu.




You was told and shown that the house sparrow evolved from the tree sparrow and is reliant on mans buildings for nesting sites, hence the common name House Sparrow. You chose to ignore this even though it was backed up with links. So why are you playing dumb? Are you playing dumb or is it real? You are certainly lying if you maintain to be uninformed about the house sparrow. PLEASE THINK ABOUT YOUR RESPONSE TO THIS WHILST AT SCHOOL TODAY.


So your trying to convince me that the tree sparrow evolved into the house sparrow.




Oh please dont tell me that you think, there is no evidence for it.


Well why don't you suprise the hell out of me and produce some.




Now if you cannot read and understand the above I suggest two things. 1. Go to spec savers. 2. Get an education.


It doesn't matter, you clearly admitted he wasn't dependant at one time, and that all that changed was humans did something to make him dependant. I wasn't looking for things we made dependant on us, I can produce hundreds os such. I'm looking for unique ones that either have been dependant from the start or ones that became so without any intervention from man.

I know its hard for you to wrap your little brain around this but its pretty simple acatully Action / Reaction.
We made homes, was the action, and he nested in our homes was the reaction. Get it?



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





That is your point of view. Mine is there has been no progress since you joined this thread at all.

Very early on you showed yourself to be dishonest and thankyou for the evidence of that provided by you and quoted above. You have maintained your dishonesty throughout your time in this thread and have yet to answer any question if the result would mean your silly fantasy would be shown false.


Well if only someone were able to show me wrong, within the quidlines. You like to play the game out of the guidlines which is exactly why I said dogs don't count in the last question, so you came up with wolfs.

It's pretty sad when your predictable.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster
 





My dog would definately die without me, she doesnt know how to use the tin opener.
And dont you think it was your fault to being with that made your dog dependant on canned dog food? If you set him free in the wild, will he make it on his own? What your referring to is called cupboard love.


You're still not reading posts correctly..SHE... as clearly stated.

Your grammer hasnt improved..I think I understand your first sentence, but wouldnt put money on it.

But in answer to what I think you asked....Nope, not my fault at all, I blame evolution for not providing her with thumbs.
edit on 18-1-2012 by idmonster because: You're an idiot and I refuse to reply to any of your posts with anything other than sarcasm and replies that I find amusing. If you're not going to take your post seriously, I dont see why I should.




top topics



 
31
<< 183  184  185    187  188  189 >>

log in

join