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: 205
31
<< 202  203  204    206  207  208 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





To help answer your question a bit, there is debate among scientists about when a new species begins and another ends. Sometimes they are too close to one or another, and so they are classified as kind of a half-n-half. That's just semantics with human classification though.


I understand that, but still, the way we are, we would be giving them new names. We have to be able to identify these new species, and we do so with a name. Do you have anything showing names that have been issued?




posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chrisfishenstein
I can prove evolution wrong real quick....

If creationism isn't true, then how did the first thing on this planet ever come here to evolve?? Where did it come from and some evidence to back up your claim, please.

Creationism offers the answer to this question as evolution does not.....Unless you can prove me otherwise.


The "answer" creationism offers is pointless given that there are ZERO facts to back it up. You might just as well say a giant purple unicorn farted life into existence



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





So are you insisting that your 10% nonsense is the truth? Simple yes or no answer...
Thats a good question.
How did they come up with the figure 10%? I have heard other ones like 12% and so on. Either way, the original idea had to be based on something. People don't usually just pull something like this our of there behinds without something to back it up.

I'm going to agree that there is certainly something going on. From egyptian days of advanced technology to what is left, Not that we all came from egypt, but something is amiss. Savants prove, the brain can function in a higher capacity. The scary part is it might not be the limits. It's possible that Savants only exibit a small percentage of normality.

I'm going to stick with Einstien, and Jesus, and say there is proof yet again that we are not functioning to our best ability. Jesus was normal in case I never explained this. He was brought into the picture to try to tease us into servituide. And what a better way to do then to show us what we are missing.


In the case of the 10% myth people pulled it out of their ass. It's DEMONSTRABLY wrong. But hey, let's just continue ignoring FACTS, right?



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Actually there aren't any facts that say the brain cant work faster, and be more productive. In fact, as I mentioned before, and you so kindly kept quiet about, is the savant.

How can we have people that do actually have better working brains?
There is only one answer, because we can.

So I have to ask you if you know its DEMONSTRABLY wrong, what test exactly was done to prove it so?
You know, I read the Wiki on this and have to tell you I'm dumbfounded. It just doesn't shock me how dumb people can be.
All thought the page they are admitting they know very little about the brain, but yet they are so sure, we don't use only 10% of it.
How are they going to make a statement like that and on the same page admit they know very little about the brain?
Well at any rate, I think what I'm looking at is two sections of the brain working together which isn't the case right now. You would never know a wheel is suppose to roll, until you saw one rolling.
edit on 27-1-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 

Varemia,
Prehaps you do not understand fossils all that well either.
Some of the oldest fossils found are around 3.5 billion years old (can't remember the exact date), yes?
The earth is supposedly around 4.5 billion years old, yes?
Now look at the amount of diversity among those very first fossils.
Some of these tiny creatures are still living today, basically unchanged.
So in just a few hundred millions of years you have all this diversity come about then stasis for the next 3.5 billion years? Really?
Many of the fossils found do not support evolution, they show the oppisite. As I said earlier, there are some parts of the "theory" I agree with, yet others are just assumption and speculation.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   
People with Negative blood types don't have the monkey gene (Rhesus).

Those people with negative blood types are more intelligent/ higher iq's.

So some people didn't evolve, here on Earth. While others evolved from monkey-alien breeding.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quadrivium
reply to post by idmonster
 



Yup, its a symtom of a small mind, the inability to concieve of anything greater than yourself.
How can this be idmonster?
God is greater than me, so what you state is false.


Creationist fail to realise the time scales involved, or how tiny a specific change needs to be.

I think many Creationist understand the time scales you are referring to, the problem with your line of thinking is that there is no proof for these small changes. In many cases it's just "BAM!" fossils show up in the fossil record with not predecessors. The "theory" is widely based on assumption and speculatio



The problem is, they believe that their god created everything for them, they have the arrogance to believe that they are the most important thing in the universe. They have the audacity to slate anybody with a differing point of view,

Id, I have tried very hard not to "slate" anyone with a differing point of view as you seem to be doing.



Religion invented god, then religious people made themselves god most important creation. Its pathetic.

Slate much?
Religion did not create God. Man in their greed use religion and the name of God for their own wickedness. Many times in history we see things we do not agree with done in the name of religion when it actually has nothing to do with God or religion but greed.
Do you honestly think that if there were no religion then none of those things in history would have happened?
Many and more times the wars and killing would have just been carried out anyway, mans greed was the
driving force.


They say they see the beauty of gods creation everywhere, but they can only appreciate that beauty by assuming that is is below them. Only with the clear mind of the athiest, can you truly appreciate the natural world.

? ? ? Clear mind?
How did God piss you off idmonster?


My apologies quad, you're quite right, YOU havnt done, I I do not accuse you of having done any of the above.

I need to be more specific in my post.

There is an arm of fundamentalist christian creationists who do fit all of the above, and I realy cant abide that way of thinking.

I like your posts, they are far more considered than most creationist arguments and they do take into consideration a lot of the discoveries of modern (post 19th centuary) science.

Again, my apologies, my intention was not to target you specificaly, but a specific mind set of the bulk of fundamental christian creationist.

Although pschologicaly I do believe that all religion seeks to place man on the highest pedastal. The invention of a god allows man to remain at the absolute pinnacle of all life on earth by making man gods most important creation. I also believe that once man accepts his place on the planet as nothing special, no supernatural creators favourite pet, just another animal that has been fortunate enought toevole more favourably, then the world will be a much better place.

Actualy quad, I think you and I more similar that I would have thought at first, God didnt oiss me off, man did. And i get the impression that he sometimnes pisses you off too.

Anyway, apologies again, t'was a long and tiring day

edit on 27-1-2012 by idmonster because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Pervius
 





People with Negative blood types don't have the monkey gene (Rhesus).

Those people with negative blood types are more intelligent/ higher iq's.

So some people didn't evolve, here on Earth. While others evolved from monkey-alien breeding.
So then why cant we breed with them today?



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quadrivium
reply to post by Varemia
 

Varemia,
Prehaps you do not understand fossils all that well either.
Some of the oldest fossils found are around 3.5 billion years old (can't remember the exact date), yes?
The earth is supposedly around 4.5 billion years old, yes?
Now look at the amount of diversity among those very first fossils.
Some of these tiny creatures are still living today, basically unchanged.
So in just a few hundred millions of years you have all this diversity come about then stasis for the next 3.5 billion years? Really?
Many of the fossils found do not support evolution, they show the oppisite. As I said earlier, there are some parts of the "theory" I agree with, yet others are just assumption and speculation.


Not sure what you mean. In evolution, if something isn't broke, it doesn't get fixed. If the genes are good and it's able to reproduce successfully without having to change a significant number of genes to adapt to environments, then there is no logical reason for it to change. Versions of the original which do change will end up being different. I think the idea was that the Earth used to have different makeup. When life first developed, it exploded because there were so many resources and NO predators to keep population down. High population plus isolated populations in various areas and climates directly causes diversification. The rest is just a matter of time.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


A savant's brain isn't "faster", quite on the contrary. It's a disability with the exception of one or two skills that are overdeveloped. A lot of them are autistic, blind, or mutes. Like Stephen Wiltshire for example...

So no, their brain isn't overall fast.

And you can measure brain activity because it's basically a series of electrical impulses. Those tests clearly show we aren't just using 10%. If you had bothered to click the original link I posted, you would know that. But I guess it's easier to remain ignorant and continue to spread a completely debunked myth

edit on 27-1-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pervius
People with Negative blood types don't have the monkey gene (Rhesus).

Those people with negative blood types are more intelligent/ higher iq's.

So some people didn't evolve, here on Earth. While others evolved from monkey-alien breeding.


Rhesus isn't a "monkey gene", it refers to the D antigen of the Rhesus blood group system. It has nothing to do with "monkey genes".

Furthermore, there's no sign of negative blood types having an impact on intelligence. There's a hilarious Youtube video that makes those claims, but no actual science backs it up.

In short, nothing you posted is based on facts or objective evidence...it's pure pseudo-science.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





A savant's brain isn't "faster", quite on the contrary. It's a disability with the exception of one or two skills that are overdeveloped. A lot of them are autistic, blind, or mutes. Like Stephen Wiltshire for example...
Faster / Better / overdeveloped, same thing.




So no, their brain isn't overall fast.
Who ever said overall.
Wiki clearly states that there are some people that have this with NO ABNORMALITIES, but still get the unique abilities.
Here is a quote.
"Though it is even rarer than the savant condition itself, some savants have no apparent abnormalities other than their unique abilities."
en.wikipedia.org...

In other words the only difference between these people and normal people is they get the unique abilitys.
Hardly what I would call a disability.




And you can measure brain activity because it's basically a series of electrical impulses. Those tests clearly show we aren't just using 10%. If you had bothered to click the original link I posted, you would know that. But I guess it's easier to remain ignorant and continue to spread a completely debunked myth
edit on 27-1-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



signature:
Arguing against evolution and in favor of intelligent design is like trying to change the law of gravity to "intelligent falling".
MrXYZ
IN YOUR HEAD EATING YOUR BRAIN
Member


Registered: 12-11-2007
Location:
Mood:
Member was on ATS
9 minutes ago.


P 6,167 F 211 S 8,269
W 61 K 20member

go to profileadd as friendmake rivalview postsview threadsposts in threadsend messageALERT!

posted on 27-1-2012 @ 04:23 PM this post Originally posted by Pervius
People with Negative blood types don't have the monkey gene (Rhesus).

Those people with negative blood types are more intelligent/ higher iq's.

So some people didn't evolve, here on Earth. While others evolved from monkey-alien breeding.


Rhesus isn't a "monkey gene", it refers to the D antigen of the Rhesus blood group system. It has nothing to do with "monkey genes".

Furthermore, there's no sign of negative blood types having an impact on intelligence. There's a hilarious Youtube video that makes those claims, but no actual science backs it up.

In short, nothing you posted is based on facts or objective evidence...it's pure pseudo-science.


signature:
Arguing against evolution and in favor of intelligent design is like trying to change the law of gravity to "intelligent falling".



Well here is the problem, what are they going to compare it to. If there is a feature in our brain that is disabled, where two different parts work together, but still show some activity now, they would never figure it out.
I'm going to go with what wiki says about the 10% brain myth, That they know very little about the brain.

You see even yourself you admitted they can see neuro activity here and there. What I see is so much neuro activity that our brains are lit up like a light bulb.

Here is the score.
What do we have that proves the brain is opperating at normal capacity? NOTHING.
What do we have that proves the brain can opperate higher? Savants.
So while we might know very little, we do know this about it, it can opperate in a higher way, and I think its possible that a savant doesn't even scratch the surface.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 

Ok let me put it another way so that you will know what I mean.

We have found fossils of microorganisms that date back around 3.5 Billion years.

The earth is supposedly only around 4.5 Billion years old.

Many of these microorganisms have changed little to none in 3.5 Billion years.

Furthermore, we can not find any older fossils that show what these microorganisms supposedly "evolved" from.

edit on 27-1-2012 by Quadrivium because: Added "around".



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 

No problem idmonster,
Water under the bridge.
Have a great night and I look forward to discussing the topic further with you.

Quad



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Just look at how well we have evolved.

Check out the dozens of sleep and sleep related disorders.

en.wikipedia.org...

I think I count 46 of them. Why did we EVER decided this was better than being apes?



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 03:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Quadrivium
 
You Say that many of the fossil microbes have not changed in 3.5 billion years. I am quite sure you recognise evolution says they have both remained the same and also changed so much the result is the diversity we see in the fossil record and in life today..

If something is not pushed to change why would it? I not going into environmental change because you already know it which is why I am quite surprised you gave the example you did.

Again you ask why we do not find what the prokaryotes evolved from. Given the volatile state of the planet at that time I am surprised we have prokaryotes in the fossil record. I see no sense in people with our resources wanting to discuss issues where we have little evidence available. Why not concentrate on where we have plentiful evidence?

Is this because we have a natural tendency to look for where life started which is not evolutions strength. We may just as well discuss where diversity is heading.

I would remind you that we are not meant to be discussing evolution but an alternative to evolution that explains diversity, I know it does not look like that but we could at least give it a go.

So my point that if species at group level do not evolve then you must then conclude all known species were here from day one unless you are going with the idea that we are press ganged gold miners.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by Quadrivium
 
You Say that many of the fossil microbes have not changed in 3.5 billion years. I am quite sure you recognise evolution says they have both remained the same and also changed so much the result is the diversity we see in the fossil record and in life today..

I am not the only one saying this colin,

n recent years , these interdisciplinary studies have resulted in discovery of the oldest evidence of life now known, diverse types of cellular fossil prokaryotes petrified in Early Precambrian sedimentary rocks of Western Australia. This microbial assemblage established that filamentous cyanobacterium-like microoganisms were extant and morphologically diverse at least as early as ~3,465 million years ago and suggests that oxygen producing photoautotrophy may have already evolved by this very early stage in biotic history.

www.uclaaccess.ucla.edu...



If something is not pushed to change why would it? I not going into environmental change because you already know it which is why I am quite surprised you gave the example you did.

That's just it colin, according to evolution, if these microorganisms were not pushed to change, how did we get here?
They show up in the fossil record, already showing much diversity and basically unchanged for 3.5 billion years.


Again you ask why we do not find what the prokaryotes evolved from. Given the volatile state of the planet at that time I am surprised we have prokaryotes in the fossil record. I see no sense in people with our resources wanting to discuss issues where we have little evidence available. Why not concentrate on where we have plentiful evidenc?

Is this because we have a natural tendency to look for where life started which is not evolutions strength. We may just as well discuss where diversity is heading.

I would remind you that we are not meant to be discussing evolution but an alternative to evolution that explains diversity, I know it does not look like that but we could at least give it a go.

So my point that if species at group level do not evolve then you must then conclude all known species were here from day one unless you are going with the idea that we are press ganged gold miners.

Not day one colin, more like day 6

I have already stated that I believe all basic forms of life were created. From there they branched out and adapted as best as they could to their environment. This formed the many species we see today.
I was not so much talking about evolution, but using the fossil record to show my point of view.
Can evolution describe how life may have diversified? Yes.
Can it prove it? Not so much in my opinion.
There just is not enough to go on except assumptions.
When I look at the HARD evidence, I can't help but see that we did not evolve, but were put here and from that point adapted and speciated (sp?).
Quad



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





I'm going to go with what wiki says about the 10% brain myth, That they know very little about the brain.


Oh really? What Wiki says about the 10% myth? Well then...let's see what they say, shall we?




Though factors of intelligence can increase with training, the idea that large parts of the brain remain unused, and could subsequently be "activated" for conscious use, is without foundation. Although many mysteries regarding brain function remain, every part of the brain has a known function.


LINK

So I guess we can finally put this to rest, as both Wiki and the unbiased medical sources clearly state that 10% myth is complete nonsense. And since you agree with Wiki, you clearly admit that you're talking out of your ass when you continue to spread that 10% lie.

More proof that you simply don't know what you're talking about...




Neurologist Barry Gordon describes the myth as laughably false, adding, "we use virtually every part of the brain, and that [most of] the brain is active almost all the time".





Studies of brain damage: If 90% of the brain is normally unused, then damage to these areas should not impair performance. Instead, there is almost no area of the brain that can be damaged without loss of abilities. Even slight damage to small areas of the brain can have profound effects.





Evolution: The brain is enormously costly to the rest of the body, in terms of oxygen and nutrient consumption. It can require up to twenty percent of the body's energy—more than any other organ—despite making up only 2% of the human body by weight.[9][10] If 90% of it were unnecessary, there would be a large survival advantage to humans with smaller, more efficient brains. If this were true, the process of natural selection would have eliminated the inefficient brains. By the same token, it is also highly unlikely that a brain with so much redundant matter would have evolved in the first place.





Brain imaging: Technologies such as Positron Emission Tomography (PET) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) allow the activity of the living brain to be monitored. They reveal that even during sleep, all parts of the brain show some level of activity. Only in the case of serious damage does a brain have "silent" areas.





Localization of function: Rather than acting as a single mass, the brain has distinct regions for different kinds of information processing. Decades of research have gone into mapping functions onto areas of the brain, and no function-less areas have been found.





Microstructural analysis: In the single-unit recording technique, researchers insert a tiny electrode into the brain to monitor the activity of a single cell. If 90% of cells were unused, then this technique would have revealed that.





Neural disease: Brain cells that are not used have a tendency to degenerate. Hence if 90% of the brain were inactive, autopsy of adult brains would reveal large-scale degeneration.


So PLEASE, could you stop spreading lies and dumbing the people down in the process? If you want to remain ignorant and buy into stuff that's DEMONSTRABLY (as shown in my quotes above) wrong, then that's your right...but you don't have the right to dumb down people on this board.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Oh really? What Wiki says about the 10% myth? Well then...let's see what they say, shall we? Oh and by the way, your quotes totally missed the points here, as I'm sure you missed them too. This might be over your head. I also noticed another contradiction. They are saying there are large parts that are unused yet they are also claiming they know what all the parts do. If there are unused parts, how could they know that. I hate to be the one to break this to you, but this copy of Wiki is the shottiest I have ever seen more contradictions than a madman. I stick to my guns, the brain is capable of more, call it the 10% myth. They have never done a test to prove limitation of the brain. We do however have savants which prove the brain can work better.




Though factors of intelligence can increase with training, the idea that large parts of the brain remain unused, and could subsequently be "activated" for conscious use, is without foundation. Although many mysteries regarding brain function remain, every part of the brain has a known function.
OH I see and your just such a professor on the brain that you know for a fact there is no way sections can do more than one thing.




So I guess we can finally put this to rest, as both Wiki and the unbiased medical sources clearly state that 10% myth is complete nonsense. And since you agree with Wiki, you clearly admit that you're talking out of your ass when you continue to spread that 10% lie.

More proof that you simply don't know what you're talking about...
Well quoting it would surly be a lie, but I'm more concearned about the baisc idea. I strongly believe that our brains are capable of more than we can imagine. It's proof also that someone bottlenecked our abilities, just like it says in the bible too.




So PLEASE, could you stop spreading lies and dumbing the people down in the process? If you want to remain ignorant and buy into stuff that's DEMONSTRABLY (as shown in my quotes above) wrong, then that's your right...but you don't have the right to dumb down people on this board.
Well I'll make a deal with you, I will not hold on to the 10% phrase as we don't know where it came from and how they came up with it. At the same time you have to agree to stop lying and using the word demonstrably as they have never proven the brain is NOT capable of more. We do on the other hand have proof that the brain is capable of more through savants. So based on that, it would appear you are the one dumming down.
The facts are the facts, your going to have to accept them sooner or later. Einstien was closer to normal than you realize.
edit on 28-1-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-1-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-1-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Read the Snopes article on the 10% myth.

www.snopes.com...

It's literally a made up figure with no bearing on any thought-out science.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 202  203  204    206  207  208 >>

log in

join