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: 220
31
<< 217  218  219    221  222  223 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs
 


There isn't anything that says our species started just 200,000 years ago.


I know it's bad of me to continue responding to a troll, but for the sake of others entering this thread, it is good knowledge to know that no species ever "starts" or "ends." Those are essentially made up scientific terms used to create barriers between species purely for the purpose of classification. I can find a dozen human-like "species" that scientists debate about where to draw the species line. For the most part, every single creature is just another transitional form, since every creature is always changing and never solidly one thing or another.

That's just one of the things humans like to do, classify things. Heck, even in the Bible if I remember correctly, Adam spent a lot of time naming all the animals around him.




posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





I know it's bad of me to continue responding to a troll, but for the sake of others entering this thread, it is good knowledge to know that no species ever "starts" or "ends." Those are essentially made up scientific terms used to create barriers between species purely for the purpose of classification. I can find a dozen human-like "species" that scientists debate about where to draw the species line. For the most part, every single creature is just another transitional form, since every creature is always changing and never solidly one thing or another.

That's just one of the things humans like to do, classify things. Heck, even in the Bible if I remember correctly, Adam spent a lot of time naming all the animals around him.
There is nothing to support what you are saying, it sounds like you made it up and pulled it out of your @$$. There is nothing wrong with having a good imagination but go with the facts man. Where did you see that our species changed around that time, for you to make that claim?



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Biological Anthropology class at my university, bro. You learn a lot when you go to school.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


And did they allegedly determine this before during or after we found out that we have a common ancestor 200,000 years ago?



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Theories to explain diversity of organisms on this planet.
The only way to explain diversity without referring to evolution, by definition is that everything arrived fully formed.

But that still fails. Without turning to a supernatural creator, regardless of where fully formed organisms are from, it still begs the question of HOW they formed.

Personally, I believe that regardless of where organisms come from, or where we might find them in the future, evolution will turn out to be a universal constant among organic beings.

That said, there is one creationist led explanation that attempts to not only explain the diversity of life currently in existence, but also the fossil record. I’ll have a go at describing it, but apologies to any “believers” if I get some of the details wrong.

For the record, I do not believe in this theory, but here goes.

1. God created everything according to type.
2. Types were allowed to adapt in order to survive
3. God causes cataclysmic event.
4. Some types survive
5. God creates some other types
6. Types were allowed to adapt in order to survive.
7. Repeat step 3 to 6 for millennia
The last time step 3 was invoked was the flood (Noah)

If I were a believer in a supernatural creator, this would be the model I would be happiest to accept while still retaining some level of acceptance of science in general.

The key elements here are that types were allowed to adapt, allowing for variation in species, that new types were created after the cataclysmic event allowing for new fossil species to show in the fossil record, and that some types could have been around from the start.

You could also postulate that phase one was a trial run, consisting of mainly simple organisms, (some of which survived) with newer “experiments” creating types of a more complex nature. This would also allow for biblical explanations of man being created later in genesis, therefore appearing later in the fossil record.

“On the first day, (this being a galactic day measured by the earth completing one complete circumnavigation around the centre of the galaxy) God created the earth, but lost it in the void cos it was dark. So god said let there be light, and found the earth hiding behind mars.

On the second day, god created the slimy things and the creepy crawlies, while some were quite useful, most were pretty disgusting, so god wiped the slate clean, apart from a few of the useful ones and started again.

On the third day god created the birds and the fish, most of the fish were ok and kept themselves to themselves, but around 20 to midnight on the second day, the surface of the earth was 20ft deep in guano and god couldn’t even get close without his eyes watering, so he threw a rock from several million miles away and burnt all the guano away.

On the fourth day, wondering what to do with all the burnt guano lying all over the place, god created plants. The plant loved the guano and thrived, quickly covering the planet with lush greenness”

On the fifth day, god noticed some of his creations were struggling to breath properly and dying en mass. Apparently those plants had started to produce a rather toxic gas called oxygen. God took advantage of this and created the beasts of the field to make use of this useful by-product.

Day five about 8 o’clock pm, and the beasts of the field are acting beastly towards each other. Some are constantly fighting each other over S.E.X, and the ones that aren’t are sneaking up on the ones that are and trying to eat them. God creates man and gives him dominion over all of his other creations, but the dinosaurs are in revolt. They question God as to why, when they’ve been running the planet for hundreds of millions of year’s god drops a newbie on them and tells them they have to obey him.

The dinosaurs go on strike; god strikes the dinosaurs off the face of the planet.

On the sixth day, it’s fair to say God is getting a little bored, and man is becoming a right pain. It is said that hell is being locked together for eternity with yourself. In order to side-track man (who he named Adam) god creates woman. All is bliss, for about a month, when woman becomes naggy and contrary for no apparent reason.

Day six a quarter to nine. Woman knows that all of tgods creation was for a single purpose as a green house to cultivate his favourite food. He has forbidden man – and woman to eat the food. Woman decides that she knows best and convinces man to try gods favourite food, even though its on his, clearly labled “shelf” in the “fridge”.

Day six, twenty past eleven. Gods glances at earth after a hard days omnipotence to notice his stock has been depleted. In his anger he gives up on the earth experiment, removes all previous advantages that man was given, and allows the beasts to do what they want.”



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 
Well done Id.

Makes life look like an episode of rising damp where god plays the part of Rigsby.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by idmonster
 
Well done Id.

Makes life look like an episode of rising damp where god plays the part of Rigsby.



And without mentioning evolution...lol



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia
 


And did they allegedly determine this before during or after we found out that we have a common ancestor 200,000 years ago?


A common ancestor with what? Ourselves? It only makes sense that if you go back far enough, there will be a single ancestor responsible for the genes of your entire species. It speaks nothing about intervention or evolution.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 
I have just noticed your post has two stars?

Wouldnt it be ironic if you not only get the most stars of any post on this thread whilst giving an creationist view but those giving the stars are all pro evolution


We are breaking new ground people.

My thoughts when considering this on a long train journey was pretty much as you layed out above. For all species to have been created complete then to explain the fossil record you would need an eraser (the flood).

But, before we puff out our chests and say poppycock To get from dinosaurs to modern animal/plant/insect life evolution has a comet strike, an eraser. The big difference is there is evidence for a comet and none for a worldwide flood.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


Absolutely!

I think if you're going to attempt to explain diversity without citing evolution, you have to envisage some sort of supernatural creator. The exercise then becomes how do we fit what science teaches us with creationist beliefs.

You're right about evidence relating to comets and floods, and not so long ago the evidence for flood was the appearance of marine fossils in elevated strata, up mountains etc. Of couse geological upheaval offers a scientific explanation for those appearances so we're left looking for another rationale.

If the stars were awarded to the same author, for the same post, by pro-creationist for the first part of the post, and pro-evolutionist for the second.


edit on 8-2-2012 by idmonster because: i found the answer



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs
 


There isn't anything that says our species started just 200,000 years ago.


I know it's bad of me to continue responding to a troll, but for the sake of others entering this thread, it is good knowledge to know that no species ever "starts" or "ends." Those are essentially made up scientific terms used to create barriers between species purely for the purpose of classification. I can find a dozen human-like "species" that scientists debate about where to draw the species line. For the most part, every single creature is just another transitional form, since every creature is always changing and never solidly one thing or another.

Exactamundo! That's a very common misconception about evolution. All that essentially means is that human beings as they exist today could successfully mate with our ancestors up until around 200,000 years ago. If you took humans from 50,000 years ago they could probably breed back 250,000 years. Maybe humans from 50,000 ago measured it like that. We like labels, so we give things names.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





A common ancestor with what? Ourselves? It only makes sense that if you go back far enough, there will be a single ancestor responsible for the genes of your entire species. It speaks nothing about intervention or evolution.
Actually they do mention evolution but I don't think they used it in the evolutionism context.

You need to check out the Wiki on mitochondrial eve, and read it three times, as to make sure that you read between the lines. They are claiming there is a common ancestor 200,000 years ago which squashes the religion theorys, but they also say this find ads more credibility to the belief of evolution, but then turn around and say that we need to look at more pioneering ways about this subject. They specifically claim to have mapped the entire genome, and are intentionally withholding our true age.

The reason is obvious, people aren't ready to accept that we are probably 60 billion years old, and they would look silly publishing that as well, in addition to trying to explain how thats possible when the earth is only 4 billion years old. It would make them look stupid as if they don't know how to map the years in the genome, and ruin any credibility they might have. People would not be able to accept, much less are they ready to understand how we might be older than earth.

While I have no proof that this is a fact, I'm reading between the lines. There are just a few to many hiccups in there report of findings. Mitochondrial eve gave an unintentional idea that she was the FIRST mother in our lineage. She is actually a common ancestor. Further more they are able to tell that our species never dipped below tens of thousands. This is another reason why I'm always asking where the bones are proving evolution. We never dipped below tens of thousands so there must be bones around. So we are not just 200,000 years old, we are older and they aren't saying how old.

To answer your question about what they mean about a common ancestor, yes, it's clear they are referring to humans mating with humans. If it was anything else, they would have had no problem coming out with it, and giving credibility to evolutionism. But humans being abducted from another planet is a much larger pill to swallow.
edit on 8-2-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I think you really have no idea how dating works. You should stop arguing while you think you're still smart.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





I think you really have no idea how dating works. You should stop arguing while you think you're still smart.
No I think your the one thats not understanding the dating. I'm the one with a printed copy of mtDNA, whats not to understand, its in plain english.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


You need to check out the Wiki on mitochondrial eve, and read it three times, as to make sure that you read between the lines.

Your ability to draw accurate information from "reading between the lines" has already been shown to be deficient.


They specifically claim to have mapped the entire genome, and are intentionally withholding our true age.

Given that the genome is freely viewable by anyone, it's not a claim. They have mapped the entire genome. It's a fact.


The reason is obvious, people aren't ready to accept that we are probably 60 billion years old, and they would look silly publishing that as well, in addition to trying to explain how thats possible when the earth is only 4 billion years old.

You look pretty silly writing it, given that the universe is only ~13By old. Their unwillingness to accept that humanity is 60By old is probably due to the fact that it's demonstrably false.


While I have no proof that this is a fact, I'm reading between the lines.

Exactly.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 08:07 AM
link   
I can prove an aspect of evolution wrong. Not the entire thing. Specifically the part about humans becoming sentient on their own. It's like this: A human being is an animal unless taught to speak by age 5. If not taught to speak and interact with people, IE socialized by 5, it is no different from an ape. This has been proven by c ases of human abandoned in the wild at an early age. Once they have been found it has proven impossible to socialize them or teach them to speak.

Therefore, the question arises. Who first taught humans to speak and socialize? How did we go from ape like simpletons to what we are today? In order for us to be us, we must be taught to be us. It could not come from our parents, since they could not figure it out on their own. At any rate, it would have been impossible for us to teach our young because no one had taught us. So how?

I say God did it. He taught us to speak and to be human. There is no way you can teach your children something you yourself cannot learn. This is absolute proof that someone or something intervened in our past. They would have had to kidnap several children at a very young age and teach them to speak. Speech and everything that comes with it descended from that initial group of "tamed" humans. It is impossible for us to have learned it on our own.

What do I win?



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 08:22 AM
link   
To Id:
From your above post on "theories of creation" and from other things I have seen in this thread I get the feeling that you and a few others may think that "Belief in Creation = lack of scientific comprehension"
I would very much like to discuss this further.

To Colin, barcs and id:
Colin has copied a good portion of the discussion he and I were having, to page 219. I would like you to read them if you have not already and lets discuss it, show me the problems you have with the theory I propose.

To colin:
This should not disrupt our discussion, if anything it should add to it.
Thanks in advance,
Quad



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Ookie
 


Nothing, because language developed slowly over time. Humans ARE ANIMALS. Humans ARE primates. They are just more intelligent. It's not like they suddenly had a full written language the first time they ever taught it to their kids. They started out only using a few words, and it slowly grew as society grew and intelligence increased. Human intelligence doesn't change because they aren't taught a language by 5. They still have abilities to learn. Can you please source your claim that a child left in nature cannot be taught language? We know Neanderthal had a language, so it goes back further than just homo sapiens. Many believe Homo erectus had a language as well, but no direct evidence has yet been found.


To Colin, barcs and id:
Colin has copied a good portion of the discussion he and I were having, to page 219. I would like you to read them if you have not already and lets discuss it, show me the problems you have with the theory I propose.

I read it and it looked like Colin did a good job of explaining everything to you. Was there still anything lingering or a question you had?
edit on 9-2-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
reply to post by Ookie
 


Nothing, because language developed slowly over time. Humans ARE ANIMALS. Humans ARE primates. They are just more intelligent. It's not like they suddenly had a full written language the first time they ever taught it to their kids. They started out only using a few words, and it slowly grew as society grew and intelligence increased. Human intelligence doesn't change because they aren't taught a language by 5. They still have abilities to learn. Can you please source your claim that a child left in nature cannot be taught language? We know Neanderthal had a language, so it goes back further than just homo sapiens. Many believe Homo erectus had a language as well, but no direct evidence has yet been found.


Just adding to this...ALL human children have an innate ability for language. If they're not taught one in early childhood, they'll make up their own. Even children who are deaf at birth babble with their hands--language is as natural to us as walking upright or breathing.

Just because other primates don't talk the way we do doesn't mean they don't communicate. They can be taught rudimentary sign language. Just because they don't communicate in a way we can understand doesn't mean they aren't "talking" to each other. Chimps have an homologous Brocha's area in their brains (Taglialatela et al., Current Biology, March 11, 2008). They also have a homologous Wernicke's area (Spocter et. al., Proceedings of the Royal Society, March 17, 2010).

It seems that the primate capacity for speech goes back to at least the common ancestor of both humans and chimps.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


Yes barcs, there is a lingering question.
You and I were having a discussion several pages back, but we got carried off in different directions.
I would very much like to continue in order to move past it, kinda nags at me otherwise
.
I think you will find the last response here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Thanks,
Quad




top topics



 
31
<< 217  218  219    221  222  223 >>

log in

join