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: 230
31
<< 227  228  229    231  232  233 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   

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?

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.




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.

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.




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.

This proves what I said above. You either intentionally ignored what I said or can't comprehend it.



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?

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. Sorry bud, experiments are repeatable and testable. Your guess is nothing more than a guess. Evolution has been observed in a lab, including speciation. 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. 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?


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'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.



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.

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? Evolution happened, has been observed, repeated, tested, etc etc. It's not even disputed anymore in the scientific community. It's peer reviewed by scientists that dedicate their lives to understanding how things work. You can keep lying and ignoring evidence, but all it does is hurt your credibility, hence why even Quad, someone who is also a creationist, even disagrees with you. You make him seem like a logical evolution expert in comparison. I probably shouldn't have even responded again, but I have to keep you honest. If you keep lying and ignoring evidence, then I will keep calling you out on it.


edit on 14-2-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


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.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


I'm sorry but its difficult to read both sides of a conversation in quotes.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





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.


The only thing that I'm aware of that has taken 150 years is the collection of bones and fossils, which to my understanding has not rendered anything yet. All I can say is keep looking.




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.
Aside from some discrepancies that I have agreed to, no one has proven me wrong on anything.




This proves what I said above. You either intentionally ignored what I said or can't comprehend it.
I think its the other way around, I think your missing some things about intervention.




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.
Well correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that what hypotheses means?




Sorry bud, experiments are repeatable and testable.
Now which experiments are you talking about? viruses mutating into the same virus or apes mutating into humans?




Your guess is nothing more than a guess.
My guess about what exactly?




Evolution has been observed in a lab, including speciation.
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.




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.
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.




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?
Intervention has never claimed to prove who or what made us, only in how we got to earth.




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.
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.




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?
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.


And as soon as someone points me in a direction that doesn't end up being a postulated or hypothetical theory, I'll be all ears.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





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.
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.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


Probably the most important thing you need to realize is your making some bold assumptions on a lot of things.

Has it not occurred to you that these observable changes they have witnessed in a lab, might just be changes that are allowable in that species to begin with? In other words they were always options that had just never surfaced yet. Like humans with purple eyes. As far as I know, its never happened but if it did one day, does that automatically mean that evolution is occurring? No! How do we not know if purple eyes were a normal option with our species from day one, but we just never got any that popped up? We don't, we don't know. But evolutionists will tell you they know, and not only do they know its not normal, but that they also know it could only have happened because of evolution.

In addition to you and everyone else still avoiding the golden question of food source. 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.
edit on 14-2-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-2-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   

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.



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."

There is no limiting variable that puts evolutionary change only in the hands of micro-organisms. The only factor here is time, and the fossil record shows that through enough time, species change significantly. 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.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





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."
Which is fine and dandy but how much of your own research have you done?




There is no limiting variable that puts evolutionary change only in the hands of micro-organisms.
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.




The only factor here is time, and the fossil record shows that through enough time, species change significantly.
Which I have never doubted, but its a big difference from them changing into another species.




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.
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?



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





Which I have never doubted, but its a big difference from them changing into another 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





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.


No that's not what he's saying as the link above clearly shows





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?


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.




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.


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


Your position can be summed up pretty much like this:


edit on 14-2-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   
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.

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.

It's like two people trying to describe what a table is to each other, when one of them has the mental image of a bed in mind. (quite possibly the mental capacity of a bed also)

Wait for tooth to describe what he thinks evolution is, then argue the details.

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.
edit on 14-2-2012 by idmonster because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-2-2012 by idmonster because: spaylink miztaykes



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 


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


A picture summarizes it nicely:






posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





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
Well now that is just cool as all hell. Now what did you get to name these new species?




No that's not what he's saying as the link above clearly shows
You have to be eluding to that other wise you will have some new names of new species right?




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.
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.




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
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.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   
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



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





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
Well now that is just cool as all hell. Now what did you get to name these new species?




No that's not what he's saying as the link above clearly shows
You have to be eluding to that other wise you will have some new names of new species right?




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.
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.




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
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.



Please explain your understanding of evolution.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





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.
I have repeatedly explained what my understanding is.




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.
About what exactly?




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
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.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   

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.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





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
Gametic isolation will not allow crocoduck to exist.

Which is a contradiction because evolution will allow random undirected changes to take place over long periods of time, but it would be utterly pointless for two species to mate.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   

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.


Wiki requires people to source posts...just scroll down

edit on 14-2-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   

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.


Now we, are getting somewhere.

You need to understand that evolution is not a "thing". It is not a "bug". It is not an "element".

Evolution is a process.

Changes in organisms (still not evolution) are understood by scientist, you've even cited some reasons that an organism can change at a genetic level yourself (radiation etc). These genetic changes have been witnessed in preety much every cell type across most complex (multi cellular) organisms as well as simple organisms. (cancer is a genetic mutation that causes cells to grow out of control) This still isnt evolution.

It was not so long ago in this thread that you were citing blue/orange laminate as proof that DNA had changed (although i think you used the phrase "been altered") But DNA does change, constantly, if it didnt, we would all be clones. DNA has a self checking/correcting mechanism built into it to try an prevent changes, this is performed by matching pairs of genes ("g" always pairs with "a". If "a" is damaged,"g" will find another "a" to pair with. "a" could come from any (Ithink that deserves capitals) ANY chromosome of any animal on the planet.

And this Still isnt evolution.

And this is where the ISM comes into it. Small changes do not build over time to present large changes. This would be a correct assumption for evolutionism, and like evolutionism desrves to remain a belief of the 1800's. Evolution is quite simple, it is that any genetic changes get passed on (inherited) by any offspring that the original owner of the genetic change may sire. If...IF a change within an organism aids survival to sexual maturity, there is a good chance that the owner of the change, will produce offspring with that genatic alteration.

Thats it. That is evolution, it really is quite simple. What part do you struggle with.

You have a son. You must look at him and see parts of your self and you ex-wife in him. You know that traits are heritable. In a few years, he will reach sexual maturity and might have children of his own. And you may see traits from you, maybe even from your mother or father. Hair or eye colour perhaps.

Whats to deny, whats not to understand?



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Was not knocking the post, was just pointing out that wiki seems to be the only source that tooth recognises, trusts or respects.

Which means that he has to accept anything in there as truth.

I also wanted to pre-empt his usual "hypothetical and postulated" response by doing a quick check on the text to ensure that when he does say youve linked him to a piece of information that admits that it is hypothetical and postulated, I could tell him it is not so



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 227  228  229    231  232  233 >>

log in

join