It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by andersensrm
So why creationists think attacking evolution will prove them somehow correct when they offer no alternatives beats me.
Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by idmonster
By adding that caveat you have shown that both you and me have learnt something at least
I agree with your post. Tooth has had his go and decided not to grow. His call but this thread is not about him.
The shame of it is if he had built a better case there would be something alternative to debate. He didnt and there wasnt. Entering this type of debate you are never going to change others views but you may increase your own when they are tested against others which is why the title change was such a poor one.
This thread will die here is my guess. Those that debate evolution/creation are too set in their ways and can only repeat the old cycle and refuse to come at the subject from a different angle and out of their comfort zone.
The first demand is for evolution to show proof and then creationism to shoot down that evidence and woe betide anyone that tries to shake it up a bit but at least I tried.
Ya you must have ignored my link that proves that.
Then in a following post you again say with total ignorance 'we get them sick' and 'they attack us' and ignorantly dismiss the evidence in front of you. Again pure ignorance. Pure denial and very dishonest.
You know I have been very forthcoming with direction, and redundant proven theory, that tells us we aren't from here.
That reply shows me all I need to know. I show you that the first 3 diseases in your in your list are also found in other primates and you do not bother to check the way I showed you and then come out with 'can only be 1 - 3%' without any knowledge at all. That is pure ignorance and nothing to be proud of.
Originally posted by Quadrivium
reply to post by flyingfish
Lol chickens from dinosaurs? That's rich.
This really is a good read, rather short as well.
There is also new(er) evidence (from a scientist at Berkeley, I believe) that shows the theropod connection is false because of the fixed femur bone birds have. No dinosaurs have a fixed femur, it is exclusive to birds. Without it they would puncture the air sack in their chest cavity.
Quadedit on 24-1-2012 by Quadrivium because: Fixed link
Scientists have known dinosaurs used the pumplike apparatus to breathe, but the new find cements the connection between dinosaur and avian evolution, said Sereno, a paleontologist at the University of Chicago. "This leaves little discussion that air sacs existed and that meat-eaters really do have lung structures that resemble birds," Sereno said.
You have to be kidding me.
This is old junk science.
Birds actually do have mobile femurs, are you suggesting an ostrich is not a bird or are you implying that bone structures cannot change and evolve?
Besides thigh position in birds isn’t critical to their lung function, and some dinosaurs had a respiratory system similar to birds.
You're forgetting a few crucial things. First off, as coliin pointed out, many of the diseases found in humans are also found in other primates. Next, humans have a higher survival rate if they do contract a disease. In the wild if you contract a disease you're most likely going to die. We also have a lower infant mortality rate. Both of these two facts are due to our medical technology. While it does allow for us to live longer lives it does have an added drawback. Those people with weaker immune systems are able to survive and as a result they pass on their weak immune systems. Whereas in the wild the only individuals passing on their genes are the ones with strong immune systems who don't get sick. If we stopped using medicine, in a few generations we would see a decline in the number of diseases humans contract. However, we wouldn't be able to live as long. No matter what a person does as they get older their immune system will weaken. So as people would get older the likelihood of developing a disease would increase and without the benefit with medicine the likelihood of death would be high. Not to mention that our population would be smaller as more individuals would die during childbirth.
If anything your example proves evolution. Humans could live like the animals in the wild and we would see fewer diseases, but we would also see average lifespans comparable to creatures of the wild. Medical technology has allowed those to live that would normally die. And while every individual deserves a chance at life it has given weaker individuals the opportunity to procreate and as a result their genes have been passed on and allowed to manifest in humanity as a whole.
Ok no one has shown me time and time again, as nice as that sounds, I'm waiting to hear about one single case that proves evolution. If evolution had been proven 2.5 million bones ago, then why are you and I having this conversation? Everything I went over made it clear that these finds do not prove any connection to two species. Are you sure your not just dreaming this up because hypothetical and postulated theorys don't count.
As you have been shown time and again there are numerous examples of transitional fossils. In fact all 2.5 million of the fossils you keep mentioning are transitional.
What you mean is allow us to look back and produce theorys on evolution.
And in fact it's quite amazing we have found that many. The process for fossilization requires very specific circumstances. Not every bone is going to fossilize. If you read the literature you'll often come across the phrase that only one in a million animals will fossilize. Of course this is just a figure of speech to show that the odds of fossilization are very low. It's also worth pointing out that the areas with the least amount of life, such as deserts, have the highest chance of an animal fossilizing. At the same time areas with the highest amount of life, such as jungles, tend to have the lowest chance of an animal fossilizing. Throw in the fact that fossils can erode, melt, etc. just like normal rocks. Despite all of this the fossil record is quite extensive and allows us to look back millions of years to see our own ancestors.
Your assuming we would win in the end, through attrition, and I don't buy it. There is nothing that can prove that. Granted viruses are becoming immune to our vaccines, but that doesn't mean we could live thorugh the war.
The problem I think you're running into is that you're assuming that without medical intervention everyone would contract these childhood illnesses. This isn't true. Sure, a large number of our population would die in infancy. But this is no different than any other species. Those that survived would be the ones that possess a natural immunity to the disease. They in turn will pass that immunity on to their children and eventually the disease would be wiped out from humanity. It's similar to the same thing we are seeing with bacteria and antibiotics. The antibiotics are wiping out most of the bacteria but those that survive has a natural defense against the antibiotics. It is then these bacteria that get to reproduce and pass on their defense. This process then continues until the point where we're at today where we are starting to see bacteria strains that are immune to all forms of antibiotics.
Before I post the links again let me ask one question. What exactly would you need to see in a fossil to convince you that it was the ancestor of another fossil?