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: 224
31
<< 221  222  223    225  226  227 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by andersensrm
 





Yea but that information doesn't get passed throughout civilizations because of the Us vs. Them mentality, as well as the fact that they aren't connected to each other like we are now.
what is the US vs?


Oldest concept in the book, the act of making some other groups of humans different somehow, and there for we are against them. Might have first started with neanderthals, but then progressed as humans became more complex with religions, then it was if you aren't in our religion your a them, and your not us, so therefore we are against you.




posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Colin I allready answered this, I told you we DONT have anything in common with ants, you missed my point alltogether.

No you actually have not answered it at all. I have shown you whether you took the time to look or not that we do have things in common with ants. You saying no we dont is not an answer. Try again.
Ok well we don't eat any of the same food. We don't both live underground. We don't have any matching relationships with any of the other life here on earth. We don't attend the same colleges, we both don't drink milk, we both don't have the same nesting habits, we both don't have a queen that we tend to. Does that kinda sort it out for you.




Proof if any more was needed that you do not read the links provided.
You have not provided any links that show us to cohabitate with ants.




Another failure by you as that also does not say 'we depend on milk'.
I seriously want to know what your on.




I dont care what another site says. You called me a liar when I told you you were wrong in what you stated the original site info was. Your avoidance of that issue means I was right and you were again wrong.
If you knew how to read and weren't so incredulous, I would agree. Milk is an important part of our diet, summs it up for me.




Very small of you. You have again lived down to my expectations. Well done
Your never going to get apoligies when your so incredulous, but even more importantly not until one is due. You have to listen and enguage in a conversation long before any of that is going to happen.

So far its been about colin and evolution.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by andersensrm
 





Oldest concept in the book, the act of making some other groups of humans different somehow, and there for we are against them. Might have first started with neanderthals, but then progressed as humans became more complex with religions, then it was if you aren't in our religion your a them, and your not us, so therefore we are against you.
Well there is nothing new about understanding that there were in fact other races here on earth.

In fact we were mating with them in the bible and were punished for doing so. How to identify them, I don't know, but the bible makes it clear there were other races here.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 

Not trying to push you off of our rock here, but I will repeat my earlier statement.


Think about it, how many times would evolution have had to occur "naturally" in the same exact order each time, to produce just one breeding pair of complex life? Now how many times would this have had to happen for us to see the abundance and diversity of life all around us? And to think, some people find it difficult to believe in God.


This is where evolution gets fuzzy to me.
LUCA had to come from somewhere and there had to be a lot of them if evolution is true. So as I said, think of how many times it would of had to occur in order to get the right combination for breeding. Unless they were all asexual, but I do not see that working either.
If you started out with only one breeding pair "naturally", it would be impossible to get the diversity we see today.
The only other answer is that evolution happened many many times, following the same course and guidelines in order to produce many mating pairs.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Quadrivium
 


All mammels drop eggs, its just that chicken eggs, when cooked, we eat.


Seriously!

You're going to attempt to have a discussion about biological evolution with somebody who believes and posts the above statement?

all mammels (sic) drop eggs!

Idiot, ignoramus, uneducated, moron....I am running out of synonims to describe this.....this.....I've run out!



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Let me correct that last comment, Birds which is what chickens are, Not mammels, drop eggs just like mammels do.

Does that make more sense?
edit on 11-2-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by andersensrm
reply to post by Quadrivium
 


Heres the problem I have with, theres no way evolution could happen because the % chance that it would happen is too small. Now lets say we're an outsider somehow looking in to a universe being created. By some miracle of events, random events lead to a universe much like our own. All the intelligent beings would come to the same conclusion that there is no way their universe came about the way it did, becasue the % chance is to small. But theres still a chance, and the reason we're talking about it, is because we fell into that tiny % that came into existence.

Andersen,
All I can say is:

lex parsimoniae



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

Ok tooth,
I actually raise chickens, dairy goats, and I am an active bee keeper.

Bees make excess honey, the only thing that limits a strong hive is the amount of space they have and nectar flow.

Prehaps you can explain why chickens lay eggs year round even if there are no roosters in the yard. No chance of fertilization yet they still lay.

Or why dairy goats and cows continue to lactate as long as their being milked.
Quad

On a side note and completly off topic:
My three boys actually got to watch three kids being born yesterday.
The miracle of life is AWSOME.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Let me correct that last comment, Birds which is what chickens are, Not mammels, drop eggs just like mammels do.

*palm to face*
Seriously tooth?



Does that make more sense?


Yes, it makes perfect sence, I now understand why I never replied to your post before.
Thank you,
Quad.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 08:16 PM
link   
You want proof! I got a thread on it right here! Tell me apemen done all this!

The Mortal Who Took Olympus!

Blonde hair is key! A little ff ever saw a monkey with white skin? How about blue eyes?



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Quadrivium
 





Ok tooth,
I actually raise chickens, dairy goats, and I am an active bee keeper.

Bees make excess honey, the only thing that limits a strong hive is the amount of space they have and nectar flow.
Youll never convince me they do it specifically for human consumption. To answer your question, I don't have a frikken clue.




Prehaps you can explain why chickens lay eggs year round even if there are no roosters in the yard. No chance of fertilization yet they still lay.
Well that was the whole thing I was trying to say, but screwed it up. In a sense they drop eggs all year round, just like most mammels that have a cycle. Only difference is the egg is large, and edible. But I don't think they were specifically for human consumption.




Or why dairy goats and cows continue to lactate as long as their being milked.
Quad
There is no doubt that usage or manipulation can alter the production, even in humans.




On a side note and completly off topic:
My three boys actually got to watch three kids being born yesterday.
The miracle of life is AWSOME.
I watched my youngest come out, and thought I would get sick and faint but I was ok. It was weird to say the least.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
And it's just coincidence that man benifits from all this excess?
I do not harm my animals, we have a working relationship. I provide them with food, shelter and safety. They provide nourishment for my family and I.
You think we do not belong on earth because we do not have a direct food source. Try looking at the bigger picture. Our food is given to us. We do not "steal" it, we may have to work for it, but then so do all animals in one way or another.
If your mind is already made up and you do not want to learn anything new, then why do you continue coming back to this thread?
When you start a post with:

Youll never convince me

It kinda puts a wall up and closes you off from the discussion.
Try opening that mind of yours, you might be surprised at what will happen.
Quad



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Quadrivium
 





And it's just coincidence that man benifits from all this excess?
Oh Quad, there are a lot of things we can steal and benefit from. The bottom line is that it wasn't meant for us to begin with.




I do not harm my animals, we have a working relationship. I provide them with food, shelter and safety. They provide nourishment for my family and I.
This form of manipulation confuses people, and for some reason makes them believe that the animals are helping us because they want to. I assure you, it's only manipulation. We are forcing the world around us to fit our needs.




You think we do not belong on earth because we do not have a direct food source.
No I think earth is not our home because the bible says so, lack of any target food, Sitchen, Pye, Dietary issues, health issues, redundant adaptation, forced processing of water and food, and a plethora of other things all tell us its so.




Try looking at the bigger picture. Our food is given to us. We do not "steal" it, we may have to work for it, but then so do all animals in one way or another.
It can become confusing as there were things brought to earth to feed us, as in the bible. But it also states that non of them are from our home. So once again, they actually weren't specifically made for our consumption. We are scavengars, its a fact that requires very little thought to realize. We can eat almost anything, and basically do.




If your mind is already made up and you do not want to learn anything new, then why do you continue coming back to this thread?
I do so because I'm a skeptic, and want anyone to produce a single shred of evidence that I'm wrong. There is nothing happy about what I believe happened to us, so I'm not believing for self gradification.




When you start a post with:

Youll never convince me

It kinda puts a wall up and closes you off from the discussion.
Try opening that mind of yours, you might be surprised at what will happen.
Quad
I'm a firm believer in opening the mind, but I also agree that its probably best to not open it so much that your brain could fall out.

There are some things I have tested on this thread, and never got a reasonable answer.
It's safe to assume for example that milk was introduced to us to fill a need. People on here are so incredulous that they argue this point with me and claim that cows milk was made for humans to drink and that we actually don't need to drink it. Yet no one can come up with a reasonable answer to explain why the need was created in the first place.
Milk has nutritional value, thats sort of a no brainer, but evolutionists will claim to me that we only took on milk because it was an easier source of calcium.

Really, so its easier to process, homogenize, pasturize, and fortify, then what? Easier than what? Because if anything is harder to supply calcium for us, then its kind of a no brainer we weren't suppose to be using that source to begin with.

These understandings are confusing to most that believe in evolutionism because you also believe that evolution is responsable for our ability to adapt. And this is false. Traits are not pre meditated by design. You would have to believe that evolution is a genius bug that can predict the future. In other words this trait would not only have the ability to alter our DNA, but also predict the future to know that a trait is needed to overcome a specific obsticle. I'm sorry but I don't buy this.

Evolution would have either altered our needs so that we can get by without the excess need for calcium or it would have grown a calcium tree for us. Thats more realistc than the evoltuion bug, but as you can see, its all still far fetched.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Quadrivium
 


Fair enough, but the simplest answer is USUALLY right, now always.....



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 03:20 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Ok well we don't eat any of the same food. We don't both live underground. We don't have any matching relationships with any of the other life here on earth. We don't attend the same colleges, we both don't drink milk, we both don't have the same nesting habits, we both don't have a queen that we tend to. Does that kinda sort it out for you.
Up until now I would just take this as another attempt at not answering the points I made. But now I see you really believe HUMANS LAY EGGS and it was not a typo. What a total plank, no wonder everything you are shown goes over your head. When did you hatch BTW? Must have come out of an egg with a pretty thick shell and used your head to break out which explains the obvious damage.


You have not provided any links that show us to cohabitate with ants.
Call for your nurse. Urgently


I seriously want to know what your on.
Another drug reference. You are flirting with the mods now as well for a second time


If you knew how to read and weren't so incredulous, I would agree. Milk is an important part of our diet, summs it up for me.
Coming from you, a science major and discoverer of an arcane virus, your opinion means nothing at all


Your never going to get apoligies when your so incredulous, but even more importantly not until one is due. You have to listen and enguage in a conversation long before any of that is going to happen.
did not really expect you to be big enough to admit error as you have proved yourself to be a very small person in every aspect of your character. I suggest you go lay a clutch of eggs and hatch out a few friends to talk too

Edit
Humans laying eggs? Does this mean humpty dumpty was real? Is he one of your aliens? You really are a complete yolk
edit on 12-2-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 04:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Quadrivium
 



This is where evolution gets fuzzy to me.
LUCA had to come from somewhere and there had to be a lot of them if evolution is true. So as I said, think of how many times it would of had to occur in order to get the right combination for breeding.
Isnt LUCA a theoretical organism?

Despite this. there only needed to be one that had the ability to multiply. I am sure you know that so this cannot be what you are asking/fuzzy about.

We already established that the way life started is an open question and every answer a matter of personal choice. My answer is 'I don’t know'. I do know answering that question is not the theory of evolution's purpose, function.


Think about it, how many times would evolution have had to occur "naturally" in the same exact order each time, to produce just one breeding pair of complex life?
I may have misunderstood your original point and went back to far but simple life to complex life is no different than what I described in my last post

I'll go for a wildly exaggerated analogy. A pond full of frogs. They spawn and one year instead of a frog hatching a toad is produced. The first ever toad that the world has seen. If he is unable to breed with his frog pond mates it is likely he is the very last Toad the world will ever see.

Evolution works because (for this example only) the toad can breed within his pond of frogs because they are so closely related. So the gene that made him different, a toad is passed back into the population. He does not need to have another toad.

Each year the chance of the now established toad gene has a chance to resurface as do variations between toad and frog until you have a pond of frogs, froggy toads, toady frogs and toads. The environment selects the best advantage. In this case Frogs and Toads and the in betweens fail to survive and breed.

In time you have a pond of 99% genetic frogs and 99% genetic toads without the complexity of a parallel evolution you described as being needed. Which is why I wrote evolution does not work that way.

I still am not confident I understand the point you are making in your last two posts and if that is the case please try making it from a slightly different angle



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Colin,
I now think I am beginning to understand. But it is hard to wrap my head around.
You have to understand that for years I have been told that evolution proves there is no God. Many atheist even seem to take enjoyment in TRYING to prove Creation wrong using evolution.
Why do you think so many do this if evolution actually has nothing to say about the beginning?
Also,

Despite this. there only needed to be one that had the ability to multiply. I am sure you know that so this cannot be what you are asking/fuzzy about.

Maybe I gave you the wrong impression but I in no way, shape or form accept that all diversity of life came from just one that had the ability to multiply. That leads us back to mammals turning into fish again.
Quad



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Quadrivium
 



Colin,
I now think I am beginning to understand. But it is hard to wrap my head around.
You have to understand that for years I have been told that evolution proves there is no God. Many atheist even seem to take enjoyment in TRYING to prove Creation wrong using evolution.
Why do you think so many do this if evolution actually has nothing to say about the beginning?
Also,
You have made the 200 + pages worth the pain because I have also learned a few things from our chat that I never realised before but probably should have.

The reason why some use evolution to disprove creation is probably the same reason why some people justify killing innocents and justify it by using religion. They have agendas, it’s a very human trait.

I have wrote this before but it is worth saying again. I am not an atheist. I live my life without the need for a god and refuse to be labeled by anyone including atheists. (learnt that from you. I would before have said those with faith only).

As to why some try to give the impression that evolution describes the begining I will be charitable and say that they dont understand evolution either. To be fair those that have taken part in this discussion do not say that and show a great understanding of it. It is just to easy to get caught up in defence on both sides.

Also you end up defending your faith which is wrong and from the other side those that accept evolution ends up defending it also. Net result, no exchange of views just entrenchment.


Maybe I gave you the wrong impression but I in no way, shape or form accept that all diversity of life came from just one that had the ability to multiply. That leads us back to mammals turning into fish again.
Hopefully we have plenty of time to learn from each other but.

Instead of what you describe above. Lets look at this one spark of life that could multiply. We look at it as a hub within a wheel. Each spoke is a different path. One fish, one fowl, one mammal and so on. You dont need a mammal to become a fish or a fish to become fowl. Not what evolution says but this is a big picture example.

A poster early on suggested looking at emanation. To me it is a philosphers idea of evoluiton. It involves light and an enitity I am sure from your perspective you will find things that you can identify with from a faith perspective. What I took from it was this force/entity/god radiates life. If you like it is the omega.

I see it as that one cell that all life we recognise sprang from and everything that has comes since radiates from that source. pre that no comment.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by metalholic
Blonde hair is key! A little ff ever saw a monkey with white skin? How about blue eyes?






Actually most monkeys have pale skin because they have enough fur to protect and cover their skin and don't need the extra melanin in their skin like the homo sapiens that evolved in Africa.


blue eyes?

Couldn't resist. I love when people just say random things that are wrong.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quadrivium
reply to post by Barcs
 


Lol ok barcs. You used "order" in your response, I used "group" in my definition to mean the same as "order".
My way:
There are many differnt species in the "group" know as flys.

Your way:
There are many differnt species in the "order" know as Diptera.

I will admit that most times I post from memory without using links as I use my phone to post here on ATS and it has limited capabilities. Even so, I do not see my definition as being philosophical.
I did not get the definition from the site in your above post. That definition is my own, put in my own words from many things I have read in the past and I have read alot so I can not possibly find a link.
I also apologize if the link I provided was "philosophical".
Many, many times I try to avoid those sites while posting because some people dismiss them out of hand. I find it much better to use strictly scientific sites, that way there is less argument.
If memory serves me right (as I said, limited capabilities on my phone), I posted the link in question to our discussion on fossils. Once again I apologize for not vetting it further than I did .
Quad


It's cool. I was just trying to get to bottom of your argument, because it seems like we might actually agree. I wanted to make sure we were talking about the same thing. So basically you are saying that one order cannot change into another order. That is an accurate statement. Diptera will never turn into Lepidoptera. You are correct because speciation deals strictly with species. Again, it's all about labels, but it's slow change over time. One species of Diptera that lives in a changing environment will change into a different species given enough time to change it enough so it can no longer reproduce. It would probably take millions of changes or speciation events to actually form a new order. A change like that can never be observed because we only live 80 years or so. Maybe we should make a new term such as orderation. But again, it's all just labels and descriptions we use. Slow change over time becomes big change. That's all that really matters in evolution.
edit on 12-2-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 221  222  223    225  226  227 >>

log in

join