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.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
Of course not, wouldn't that be like you asking me to take your word for it? Are you noted for being the Osami of worldly information?
Well we all pretty much live in a "if I can see it or touch it world, then it must not be real." I step out of the box a tad and give a little thought to the possibility that I MIGHT not know everything, and that I MAY not have seen and touched everything.
If so, we'd be in big trouble and would probably still be in the dark ages.
Well then I must be ahead of you in leaps and bounds.
YOU, haven't proven anything Dr, Barcs. You have presented some links which I'm sorry to say all are introduced in plain english as hypotheticle and postulated theorys. I don't know why everyone keeps missing this important fact. Is it that you guys don't read the links you send me to, or do you conveniently skip over this introductory sentance?
Ok, so your claiming that humans have now been observed changing into another species. I want to know, who observed this, when, and what they were observed changing into. As well as what the name of the new species is.
I don't know what your talking about in this section, but can disagree with you based on the fact that every example I have been able to produce that squashes the possibility of evolution has NEVER been met with an acceptable answer. It just proves that I'm correct, and your being incredulous.
It's not my information. It is the information derived from scientific study and observation over the past 150 years. You act like I'm just guessing on this stuff, but your opinion is nothing more than a guess.
Aside from some discrepancies that I have agreed to, no one has proven me wrong on anything.
You certainly don't know everything. I'd even say you barely know anything at all. No offense, just basing it on your inability to defend your points or even have a conversation on the topic without making up assumptions and changing the subject whenever you are proven wrong.
I think its the other way around, I think your missing some things about intervention.
This proves what I said above. You either intentionally ignored what I said or can't comprehend it.
Well correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that what hypotheses means?
It's not my fault you instantly dismiss scientific studies and experiments, written by people that have dedicated their lives to learning as much as they can about evolution. You don't read, you just find a buzz word like "hypotheses" and instantly think it means the entire thing is a guess.
Now which experiments are you talking about? viruses mutating into the same virus or apes mutating into humans?
Sorry bud, experiments are repeatable and testable.
My guess about what exactly?
Your guess is nothing more than a guess.
I have never denied this, viruses has mutated into the same virus and flu into the flu, and bacteria into bacteria, but nothing is ever changing into another species.
Evolution has been observed in a lab, including speciation.
I see, so because there is no better explanation, that means its proven to be evolution, now I see how evolution has made it all this way. Races don't prove evolution, races proves races, and that's it.
Races of homo sapien prove that evolution happens in humans. Homo sapiens changing from just 30,000 years ago to the present proves evolution in humans. You cannot provide a better scientific explanation, and your hypothesis has zero evidence behind it.
Intervention has never claimed to prove who or what made us, only in how we got to earth.
Sorry, you can't provide ANYTHING that suggests otherwise, and its been that way the entire thread. I just don't understand that blatant hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty. Don't tell people their views are wrong when they back it up with evidence, and you fail to provide evidence of your theory. You've also completely ignored the topic of the thread and won't stop repeating the same nonsense over and over again. There's another ancient aliens thread with your name on. Why not post in a thread where its actually relevant instead of trolling this one?
And you do realize that what your telling me here is that the so called missing link has been observed in labs, we just aren't able to find any bones of fossils of them. These slight changes you speak of would fit the bill of what we keep looking for in a missing link, its just odd that out of 5 million species they never die leaving any bones or fossils. I call BS on it.
I've explained this dozens of times but you ignore it. Changes happen slowly, nothing suddenly changes into another species. Why do you constantly ignore this? I know you'll ignore any link I post and everything I say even though it's accurate, so I guess that's pretty much it. You failed to explain race and changes observed in humans in the past 30,000 years. Again, if you can't do this, you have nothing at all to prove your ridiculous statement that evolution has never been seen in humans. It has.
well I don't believe in faith, and this is exactly why I can't believe in evolution, it appears to be without substance and based on pure belief.
Evolution has hundreds of pieces of evidence to back it up. You are the one making assumptions and ignoring anything that contradicts your world view. Why are you afraid to admit that its faith and has no evidence behind it?
Do you feel qualified or compelled to make assumptions like that? This is where evolution is all wrong, your assuming, don't assume, that if a than b must be true. Your not a scientist and you don't posses the credentials to make those types of observations.
The reason that it is observable in bacteria is because they fly through generations of life at lightning speed. Humans and other animals require a bit more time. If you accept evolution in bacteria, then you automatically must accept it for larger organisms. It's simple logic.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
Do you feel qualified or compelled to make assumptions like that? This is where evolution is all wrong, your assuming, don't assume, that if a than b must be true. Your not a scientist and you don't posses the credentials to make those types of observations.
It's entirely possible that these evolution changes that have been witnessed are only possible in these smaller organisms. It's also possible that they are only possible in those types of organisms. Until you find something that proves otherwise, don't assume.
Which is fine and dandy but how much of your own research have you done?
I'm halfway through a scientific degree, so I do possess some credentials, especially since I have acquired credit in Biological Anthropology, or more specifically, "The Evolution of Man."
So Mr scientist your telling me that the belief of anything possible comes before weather or not you have reason to believe it to begin with.
There is no limiting variable that puts evolutionary change only in the hands of micro-organisms.
Which I have never doubted, but its a big difference from them changing into another species.
The only factor here is time, and the fossil record shows that through enough time, species change significantly.
What your really saying here is that there are a lot of species that look as though they could have come from each other, but still there is nothing to prove this aside from that educated guess.
The fossil record shows how reptiles slowly branched off into mammals, for one example. You can pretend that the fossil record is lying, but I've seen it with my own eyes. You can't just make this stuff up. It's physical evidence, right in front of your eyes.
Which I have never doubted, but its a big difference from them changing into another species.
What your really saying here is that there are a lot of species that look as though they could have come from each other, but still there is nothing to prove this aside from that educated guess.
It could be possible that a creator also made all of this life with the idea of them just being a branch off from each other as well. Where and what is the proof?
If a new species does happen, what is it suppose to eat? It can't eat the exact same food and only that food as it would be the same species, it would also be stealing food from the original species.
Well now that is just cool as all hell. Now what did you get to name these new species?
As others have posted dozens of times, we have witnessed speciation tons of times not only in labs, but also nature. And of course the DNA record fully backs it up too: LINK
Of course you're simply going to ignore it like all the other hard evidence people posted
You have to be eluding to that other wise you will have some new names of new species right?
No that's not what he's saying as the link above clearly shows
I don't think its even possible. The whole idea of evolution goes against the very essence of overything that is understood. Life procreates, it doesn't wander. One thing that is obvious is that IMO if life was suppose to wander we wouldn't have gametic isolation.
We don't know how life started in the first place, but if a creator was involved, he definitely used evolution to create the biodiversity we see today.
And I hear you but your still not answering me. Where is the missing links to all of the 5 million species we have on earth? Where are the bones and fossils? Come on now, you have 2.5 million of them and not a single one is tied to an existing species that proves evoltuion. Did you ever wonder why that is.
It's a GRADUAL change. It's not as if some species gives birth to a completely different species that suddenly can't eat the same things anymore. I suggest you FINALLY read up on the theory before digging yourself deeper into that lack of knowledge whole you got yourself into
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
Well now that is just cool as all hell. Now what did you get to name these new species?
As others have posted dozens of times, we have witnessed speciation tons of times not only in labs, but also nature. And of course the DNA record fully backs it up too: LINK
Of course you're simply going to ignore it like all the other hard evidence people posted
You have to be eluding to that other wise you will have some new names of new species right?
No that's not what he's saying as the link above clearly shows
I don't think its even possible. The whole idea of evolution goes against the very essence of overything that is understood. Life procreates, it doesn't wander. One thing that is obvious is that IMO if life was suppose to wander we wouldn't have gametic isolation.
We don't know how life started in the first place, but if a creator was involved, he definitely used evolution to create the biodiversity we see today.
And I hear you but your still not answering me. Where is the missing links to all of the 5 million species we have on earth? Where are the bones and fossils? Come on now, you have 2.5 million of them and not a single one is tied to an existing species that proves evoltuion. Did you ever wonder why that is.
It's a GRADUAL change. It's not as if some species gives birth to a completely different species that suddenly can't eat the same things anymore. I suggest you FINALLY read up on the theory before digging yourself deeper into that lack of knowledge whole you got yourself into
I have repeatedly explained what my understanding is.
Guys Guys...c'mon now.
Has something not occured to you yet?
Tooth has no understanding of what evolution is, or the effects it has. I have repeatedly asked him to explain what his understanding is, he has repeatedly failed to do so, he is unable to do so.
About what exactly?
You are arguing, or rather attempting to explain something from what I believe is the correct point of view, to someone who believes you are trying to explain something else.
Sure
I believe that tooth thinks evolution is evolutionism, I'm not entirely convinced that he is fully aware of what evolutionism is, or how it differs from evolution, even though I have already explained the difference between the two. I can almost guarantee that that post was ignored as it highlighted a huge gap in tooths knowledge.
I suggest that the only response given to tooth to any post made from this point, is a request for him to explain what he believes evolution is
Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by itsthetooth
Clearly you haven't even bothered to educate yourself for a change by reading about the facts posted in the link about speciation. Instead, you simply continue to spread your "can't be, no proof whatsoever" nonsense trying to dumb down people on this forum.
We have THOUSANDS of transitional fossils (aka your non-existent missing link): LINK
Of course as always you will continue to ignore this in your ridiculous quest to dumb down people
Gametic isolation will not allow crocoduck to exist.
I'm pretty sure about how tooth believes evolution to work judging from his "how can a new species eat the same thing as the old species" comment
Originally posted by idmonster
Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by itsthetooth
Clearly you haven't even bothered to educate yourself for a change by reading about the facts posted in the link about speciation. Instead, you simply continue to spread your "can't be, no proof whatsoever" nonsense trying to dumb down people on this forum.
We have THOUSANDS of transitional fossils (aka your non-existent missing link): LINK
Of course as always you will continue to ignore this in your ridiculous quest to dumb down people
Nice link, and it links to tooths alma mater...the un iversity of wikipedia.
What was also nice, was that I did a text word search on all of the text, and the word "hypothetical" and "postulated" dont appear anywhere.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster
Sure
Evolution is an unwitnessd element that causes changes in biology. Scientists are unsure how or what drives these changes, they only know they have seen them in small organisms and viruses. The changes are able to alter DNA and leave no trace that changes were made. The difference between evolution and ism is ism is the belief of. I feel that since no one has presented decent proof of evolution than it must be a belief.
Small changes are made within all species that over time amount to larger changes, IE apes to man. This evolution bug is smart enough to hide and not be seen, or identified, nor is drive determined either. Through this process the evolution bug is also able to hide any of its bones or fossils as to not be detected.