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: 208
31
<< 205  206  207    209  210  211 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


^ Evolution is fact, there is evidence of it. Evolution from dinosaurs all the way to apes all the way to humans is ridiculous. More like intervened or modified evolution. There is just no way from monkeys some group of monkeys suddenly became so smart. Look at a monkey, look at you, do you ever have common sense? To think that from an animal that is thinking like an animal you suddenly get some human that can build things, caves, Hey why don't monkeys today live in caves and pulling rocks and making fire? .. SO much time has passed and not a slight trace of evolution any further.

Further support of that claim is epigenetics which shows that pure evolution - im sorry Mr Darwin, you did great job but you found only half of the truth, not the entire one. And also the intervention theory that I think has a lot of truth and yes even the Bible (im not religious).

You are right we have traces of ape, this is the proof that partially we come from them but this looks like a modified or speeded evolution because of what I said in parahraph 1. The Intervention theory says there is suddenly a drastic change in the skull from the astralopitecus to the caveman. And also add the missing link to that.

The Bible and others talk about how we were created by God's look - eh could it be we have been entirely different species - also possible and more specifically taking the apes mixing a human and ape - you get some caveman, then he evolves because he already has mind even a caveman is times more developed than a monkey..

THE END - CHANGE TEXTBOOKS PLEASE




posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia
 





That's because if you think that's the definition of evolution, you're an idiot.

Species never just "change" into another species. It's too gradual to ever be seen as such. when Reptiles were first beginning to exhibit traits now attributed to Mammals, scientists didn't look at the fossils and say, "aha, this has evolved into a mammal!"

This isn't Pokemon. Evolution is just minor change over time adding up to large change after hundreds and thousands of minor changes.


But if this were true wouldn't we have thousands if not millions of species connecting other species?

While we sit here with 0.


Proof? To my knowledge, there are millions of species that are in-between other species. Honestly, the only reason it's not super apparent is because there have been a number of mass extinctions on this planet. You lose a lot of the in-between diversity when 90% (or more) of all life dies.

The proof is in the fossils, which you choose to actively deny. That's just your personal ignorance, in my opinion.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Imtor
 


Ever actually actively studied apes? They're considerably smarter than you think. They use tools, problem solving, and have complex social structures.

The main differences seem to lie in humans being more water-oriented (fish-eaters) and having an altered vocal ability for language.

That's not a large leap in the approximately 5.5 Million years that many scientists agree is when the genes segregated from the apes to begin the path that led to humans evolving. For a million years of our evolution, it seems that our trademark was making stone hand-axes. That's it. That's all we did for a million years before something changed and we had to develop more intelligence. At some point we began storing food and processing it in new ways. This along with the need to survive on tools made it so we were preserving those with knowledge and ostracizing those that did not preserve knowledge. Boom, evolution dictates that those with intelligence will breed and the mutations which lead to more intelligence pass on to the next generation.

No aliens required, but you are, of course, welcome to believe whatever you want with no evidence.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





Proof? To my knowledge, there are millions of species that are in-between other species. Honestly, the only reason it's not super apparent is because there have been a number of mass extinctions on this planet. You lose a lot of the in-between diversity when 90% (or more) of all life dies.

The proof is in the fossils, which you choose to actively deny. That's just your personal ignorance, in my opinion.


So then why is it we are able to identify species merging from other species in speciation labs, yet we aren't able to connect any we find in fossils and bones.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Imtor
 
I'll ignore the fact your post shows you know nothing about what evolution says. I find it hard that you can make sense of any book when you appear unable to grasp written words anywhere.

You have replied to my post by denouncing evolution when that very post clearly asked you to explain diversity without refering to evolution.

I clearly wrote I dont care that you dont accept evolution. I would be more than happy never to see the word evolution again in this thread.

All I ask of you and those that say evolution is wrong is to explain the diversity we see around us today.

Its a pretty simple concept, one you seem as unable to grasp. Now have another try.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Quadrivium
 
Day 3 is then an age. Algea mats then the first plants but invertabrates at least are also found at this time in the fossil records is my understanding which is a full 2 days early going by your list. So it appears the building blocks of life we discussed earlier were already diversifying into the groups we know today.

I wont hold you to your list rigidly as I see that as being unfair but by day 2 we have a difference of opinion. Still does not mean leaving the rock (that has lichens on BTW). I have just been re reading your points and see your comment agreeing with my point. See how many things we agree on. In a thread on ATS about origins that is unbelievable


I did not think there were many people that could read the dead sea scrolls and wonder how many versions were interpreted from them but you are definitely the expert in this field so I will not press the point unless you want to witness me falling asleep on the rock.


This is why I am a believer colin, the result of the complex and astounding diversity. With out Outside help how could what we see all around us ever come to be? I truly can not believe it "just happened".
Like I said one see's the works of a creator and the other see's the work of nature.

Cause and affect. I sneeze on a train, everyone on it gets a cold. What started the universe in motion again no one is an expert, you pay your money and take your choice. Once started the universe evolved just like everything else.

Like peeling an onion. Each layer is seperate and distinct but its onion all the way in.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Ok,

This is a conspiracy site, so I feel i need to ask the question. Why did the Modss change the title of this thread? Whats the end game?

The theme of the thread may be to explain diversity without evolution, but the tittle says "prove evolution wrong" and unfortunately, some people are just going to read the title and jump right in without reading the subject.

Could this be an attempt at anti-evolution propaganda. :0

Evolution has been around for a long time, (4.5 billion years hehehe). Long before Darwin, the church and science accepted evolution as a fact. It somewhat ridiculous that over 200 years ago evolution was an accepted fact of nature and yet people still deny it, Why?

The arguments always revoled around the mechanism for evolution, not the process. Not that it happens, but how it happens.

Again, way before Darwin various mechanism were posited but non proved to anybodies satisfaction. (Lamarkian evolution was the strongest runner for many years, and even Darwin held strong Lamarkian beliefs)

en.wikipedia.org...

Darwinism was the first to sepearate evolution and church by insisting that, along with all the other animals, humans evolved. The church, while accepting evolution within the "lower" animals, held special dispensation for man as gods "divine" creation made in his image.

Darwinism being "the preservation of favoured races through natural selection" fell even furher out of favour (with everyone) after the phrase social Darwinism, and in particular the phrase above, was use by Germany in the first world war to justify it colonialism, (social darwinism was also used as justification for the British and Dutch during thier empire building years)

Social Darwinism was picked up again, this time under the heading of eugenics by the nazi party and taken to its extreme of selective breeding and extermination of non-eugenic types. The USA also had some pretty extreme eugenic breeding programs of its own up until the 1960's, including forced steralisation of mental patients and the disabled.

Between the war (1920's) there was a huge backlash from the church against all evolution, not just darwin, yet evolution tends to be intwined with darwinism like......like.......the double helix structure of dna.

A little fact for you, the first ever broadcast trial in the US was over the teaching of evolution in schools.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 
Good post with plenty of info but does not explain diversity without refering to evolution


The original title was something like 'Evolution proved 100% wrong. Explain diversity' cant remember myself acurately but something like that.

Look at the first few pages. Very few from either side got it and just argued about the title despite my OP. Like I said ironically no one respects the title or the thread topic in any discussion of this subject. I refer you to my link for an explanation. The argument clinic

My guess for the change is the mods are as sick of the circular argument as I am. They were alerted by an outraged member who also never bothered to read the OP. The mod took a quick glance and just thought 'another prove evolution wrong thread.' Hence the new title.

But you know what, even if it had been a sympathetic title change the content of this thread would be no different than it is now. Most just want a good argument in a format they feel comfortable in.

The old argument seems unable to evolve.

Edit My discussion with Quad and a few others, you included is how I would have hoped this thread to progress. I think quad shows himself to be a thinker and a logical person and I doubt is a one off in the creationist circle and I think there is a lot we can agree with which is positive.

He is also correct when he says most with his views are reluctant to post because it just ends up him/them defending thier faith rather than discussing the subject. That is a shame as all you then get to argue (not discuss) with is the likes of he who will not be named.

Staying seated on that rock allows a true exchange of views and makes a pleasant change.
edit on 30-1-2012 by colin42 because: my rock



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   
I still say a creator with a lot of toys, and a lot of knowledge could have made everything. It's even possible that a creator made more creators to help with the creations. There I said it and it didn't involve evolution.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
I still say a creator with a lot of toys, and a lot of knowledge could have made everything. It's even possible that a creator made more creators to help with the creations. There I said it and it didn't involve evolution.


"Could have" is the operating phrase here. Since you lack any form of evidence other than the interpreted written word of man, you have no evidence. You obviously don't take modern books of fiction or science seriously, so why do you offer such merit to ancient books? They were written by man who was just like us, and had just as much inclination to make stuff up. Just look at the modern myths of the founding of the USA. The giant blue Bison wasn't likely to be a giant blue spaceship, was it?



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





"Could have" is the operating phrase here. Since you lack any form of evidence other than the interpreted written word of man, you have no evidence. You obviously don't take modern books of fiction or science seriously, so why do you offer such merit to ancient books?
Probably because there isn't any rule that indicates that ancient books shouldn't be taken seriously.




They were written by man who was just like us, and had just as much inclination to make stuff up. Just look at the modern myths of the founding of the USA. The giant blue Bison wasn't likely to be a giant blue spaceship, was it?
I don't know, I wasn't there, oh wait, thats what we have books for.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Probably because there isn't any rule that indicates that ancient books shouldn't be taken seriously.


It's called logic. A person (multiple persons, in fact) wrote the book. Since humans have a long history of making stuff up or embellishing the truth by a great deal, logic dictates that things probably weren't different then. The book should be verified with the physical world and archaeological evidence, if possible. Other sources of writing would also be helpful, as that would offer multiple perspectives on the issue. Instead we have a book with a hodgepodge of information and no verification, yet you are taking the position that it is true until proven false. That's just illogical.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Imtor
 


So much time has passed huh. Maybe to you, but to the universe we're talking about pico seconds.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





It's called logic. A person (multiple persons, in fact) wrote the book. Since humans have a long history of making stuff up or embellishing the truth by a great deal, logic dictates that things probably weren't different then. The book should be verified with the physical world and archaeological evidence, if possible. Other sources of writing would also be helpful, as that would offer multiple perspectives on the issue. Instead we have a book with a hodgepodge of information and no verification, yet you are taking the position that it is true until proven false. That's just illogical.
You mean sort of like how your doing, in making stuff up, claiming the bible was built on imagination. Do you have some proof of this, or what is the basis for you believing this aside from someone teaching it to you.

What do you mean no verification. All of the locations in the bible are real places still here today. When god dropped a nuke on Soddom and Gamora, the remains are still there in ashes to this day. The garden of Eden is still there, Rome is still there, We have some of the tablets from Moses.

So your idea of it being a fairytale isn't holding up to well, there just to many things working against you to say its real.

What specifically makes you believe its not real? Was there something specific that you find hard to believe?



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


No evidence? Ha ha ha ha ha. Do you SERIOUSLY believe pure evolution, no epigenetics too? Yes there is evolution, I explicitly said it it is fact but not all and not JUST THAT. No evidence? Where is the evidence for ape-> monkey and where is the missing link please. Where is the proof of all phases, today's science?

Actually you should realize science today is all about uncovering new things never thought before, so aliens or not, it's a deeper research of the mysteries than just a shallow theories without investigating all events and conditions that could exist.

if you think these other theories are just based on belief, you are very wrong, look here: a study on the skulls and the drastic sudden change:




Also do I need to explain epigenetics which has nothing to do with aliens and is even purer science? I might add, we could be a separate species coming from different origin.

Do you seriously believe a centuries old theory, what Darwin discovered is the ONLY thing about our evolution!? Wow! No one is saying there is no evolution but come on, think broader Please!



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
You mean sort of like how your doing, in making stuff up, claiming the bible was built on imagination. Do you have some proof of this, or what is the basis for you believing this aside from someone teaching it to you.


Do you have proof that the Bible is true? I bet you were raised to believe it.


What do you mean no verification. All of the locations in the bible are real places still here today. When god dropped a nuke on Soddom and Gamora, the remains are still there in ashes to this day. The garden of Eden is still there, Rome is still there, We have some of the tablets from Moses.

So your idea of it being a fairytale isn't holding up to well, there just to many things working against you to say its real.

What specifically makes you believe its not real? Was there something specific that you find hard to believe?


Oh, so you mean the writers may have referenced places they'd been? Really now? So it's absolutely 100% impossible for them to have embellished the truth?



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Imtor
 


No, it's clear that epigenetics plays a role in the expression of genes. You can't deny that there is gene mutation though. We have 46 chromosomes while our ape cousins have 48. The explanation is that at some point a few million years ago, two chromosomes fused together. This is readily available for verification based on the "end" of a chromosome being found in the center of an exceptionally long one in humans. Sounds like a fusion to me.

I've studied the fossils of early humans. The transition from early ape to modern ape is very clear. Also, chimps as our closest genetic relative next to bonobos are not monkeys. Chimps are apes, just like us.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Your still not answering my question as to why you think the bible is a fairytale. Sure it Could be, or it Could not be. You obviously have a reason why you feel the way you do, what is it?



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia
 


Your still not answering my question as to why you think the bible is a fairytale. Sure it Could be, or it Could not be. You obviously have a reason why you feel the way you do, what is it?


I never said fairytale. My issue with using the Bible as a factual source is that there is no reason for me to consider it factual.

It's not like I give science anything different. All scientific papers must list their source materials or reference their studies from which they acquired their information. The Bible has nothing of the sort, and contradicts its own rules multiple times throughout. It is by no means a coherent work and has no solid basis for me to draw a conclusion of truthfulness.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   
I always view many of the theories that cannot be prove to 100% correct as a mixture of more than one thing. Of course firstly need to make sure other species have visited Earth which would mean a lot in the bible is automatically correct and represents aliens, which in turn would prove that artifical or speeded evolution is true.

The problem with science is just because there isn't enough evidence about some other possibilities or parts of the puzzle to be true, it only relies on what science has found as the only truth. I do not agree science has revealed entirely all about the evolution and even the extinction of dinosaurs which again if there is other presence would mean something was done, if not - could be the climate, not necessarily asteroid. So no, I do not think science gives the whole picture and this is correct to think

And also the missing link is never explained and the skull if you bothered to watch these 2 parts of the video show a huge change and all happening suddenly.

What could all this represent is evolution, then manipulated or enhanced evolution mixing humans and apes, then again natural evolution. I think there is both manipulated and natural evolution.
edit on 1-2-2012 by Imtor because: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 205  206  207    209  210  211 >>

log in

join