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: 231
31
<< 228  229  230    232  233  234 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by idmonster
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



No worries. I mostly use Wiki on here because it does a decent job at summarizing stuff while still showing the original peer reviewed source articles for those who want to look at the "real" studies instead of summaries


The below graphic does a pretty good job at simplifying evolution:


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




posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





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.
Well thats whats been explained but for something to be smart enough to change DNA without us understanding why and how, there must be intelligence behind it.So I call it a bug.




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.
Thats because I was referring to someone that had actually altered our DNA.




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.
What your saying here is a complete contradiction in the self correction order.




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?
I think there is a big difference between my grand kids having my features and apes mutating into humans. I actually do believe that apes could become humans, but it would take trillions of years, and well earth hasn't been around that long so what does that tell you.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 


Read the first sentance in this link www.talkorigins.org... that I keep getting sent to.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





Well thats whats been explained but for something to be smart enough to change DNA without us understanding why and how, there must be intelligence behind it.So I call it a bug.


And now you're stating your belief...which isn't based on facts. Present us proof that intelligence is required, as in, present us proof that this "intelligent creator" exists.

If you can't, you're simply preaching...




Thats because I was referring to someone that had actually altered our DNA.


For which there's ZERO proof.




What your saying here is a complete contradiction in the self correction order.


No it isn't...if if you had bothered to read any of the dozens of links people posted, you'd realize this. Instead, you simply close your eyes and ears while screaming "lalalalalalala, nonononono it doesn't happen, there is no proof". It's really quite silly





I think there is a big difference between my grand kids having my features and apes mutating into humans. I actually do believe that apes could become humans, but it would take trillions of years, and well earth hasn't been around that long so what does that tell you.


Apes never turned into humans, we share a common ancestor. Once again, you show off your lack of knowledge when it comes to the very thing you criticize. And that would be FINE, if it weren't for the dozens of links with scientific information people posted to help you learn how wrong you are. By ignoring that scientific information, all you accomplish is showing off your ignorance



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster
 


Read the first sentance in this link www.talkorigins.org... that I keep getting sent to.


I assume you are aware that this is a creationist website?

You dont really expect them to write anything that isnt, pro-creationist.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





And now you're stating your belief...which isn't based on facts. Present us proof that intelligence is required, as in, present us proof that this "intelligent creator" exists.

If you can't, you're simply preaching...
I'm being sarcastic, its suppose to be the evolution bug.




For which there's ZERO proof.
If the evoltuion bug cant alter DNA, than changes are simply not possible.




No it isn't...if if you had bothered to read any of the dozens of links people posted, you'd realize this. Instead, you simply close your eyes and ears while screaming "lalalalalalala, nonononono it doesn't happen, there is no proof". It's really quite silly
Actually your wrong, the self correction process is one that I did watch a video on.




Apes never turned into humans, we share a common ancestor. Once again, you show off your lack of knowledge when it comes to the very thing you criticize. And that would be FINE, if it weren't for the dozens of links with scientific information people posted to help you learn how wrong you are. By ignoring that scientific information, all you accomplish is showing off your ignorance
Thats just your way to cop out and say we have no proof, but this is how it happened. Apes mutated a bunch of times through many years and eventually became humans. Now we have no bones to prove any of this but just trust me.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by idmonster

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster
 


Read the first sentance in this link www.talkorigins.org... that I keep getting sent to.


I assume you are aware that this is a creationist website?

You dont really expect them to write anything that isnt, pro-creationist.


The site is actually not that bad. And the first sentence isn't wrong either. The theory of evolution does rely on a ton of different theories. Without a basic understanding of germ theory for example, you can't fully understand the theory of evolution. You also need several chemical theories, amongst a ton of other theories.

And given that scientific theories require to be fully backed up by testable theories backed by objective evidence, the first sentence tooth mentioned isn't even "debunking" the theory. What it means is that in order to understand evolution, you need at least basic knowledge of a ton of different theories from other fields...which explains why so many people have trouble understanding it.

In short, the first sentence is in no way going against the theory of evolution...tooth simply misinterpreted it (as he does with pretty much everything else when he's not busy ignoring them in the first place).



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





If the evoltuion bug


There is no such thing


As has been explained, it's a natural process and we have ZERO evidence that some "intelligence" is guiding it. That is, unless you wanna call natural processes "intelligence"...but if you go there, you might just as well call "dogs" sandwiches from now on





Thats just your way to cop out and say we have no proof, but this is how it happened. Apes mutated a bunch of times through many years and eventually became humans. Now we have no bones to prove any of this but just trust me.


We share a COMMON ANCESTOR with apes, we didn't evolve from apes


As for you repeating once again that there's no fossils to prove that...you're wrong (again): LINK

I'm amazed at your ignorance when it comes to all of this. I mean, tons of people have posted links to those human fossils, yet you simply continue to claim they don't exist. You're like a guy standing outside on a sunny day replying "nope, it's red" to someone telling you the sky is blue



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster
 




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.

Well thats whats been explained but for something to be smart enough to change DNA without us understanding why and how, there must be intelligence behind it.So I call it a bug.


Who has told you that evolution changes anything? Evolution has no effect on the genetic structure on an organism whatsoever. It is a process, like a rock rolling down a hill.

Whatever caused the rock to begin rolling is not the rolling itself. Rolling is the process. Any damge done to items in the path of the rock, is caused by the rock, not the rolling.

Evolution is a process. Your failiure to grasp this only contributes to your ignorance.

Mutation of DNA is not evolution. Evolution is process whereby that mutation, may or may not be passed on to any offspring.

Evolution doesnt "do" anything it just is.



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. .

Thats because I was referring to someone that had actually altered our DNA.


No, this has already been covered, you were taking literally an artist impression designed to aid understanding and highlight areas of interest.




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.

What your saying here is a complete contradiction in the self correction order.


I am a big believer in "the meaning of your communication is the response you get".

In what way is there a contradiction? I will try and ellucidate.




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?

I think there is a big difference between my grand kids having my features and apes mutating into humans. I actually do believe that apes could become humans, but it would take trillions of years, and well earth hasn't been around that long so what does that tell you.


It tells me you still dont quite get it. I actually agree with you on one point. By removing selection pressures, and "hoping" for the right mutations to occur, its quite possible that the universe hasnt been around long enought for AN APE LIKE COMMON ANCESTOR to have evolved. But as you learn more about how evolution works you realise that while mutation is random, THE PROCESS OF EVOLUTION isnt.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster
 


I think there is a big difference between my grand kids having my features and apes mutating into humans. I actually do believe that apes could become humans, but it would take trillions of years, and well earth hasn't been around that long so what does that tell you.


I missed this on first reading.

I am to understand that you DO believe in evolution as you stated above and that the difficulty you have with it is that you can not understand how it could occur within the finite timescale of planet earth?
edit on 14-2-2012 by idmonster because: zbellend



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Ohh that makes sooo much more sense, the ostrich grew its wings by accident, because it got hit by a solar flare. The chances and odds, of your thinking are far greater than that of evolution's theory. There are gaps, that we can't yet explain with evolution, so It must not be evolution right??? If we can't figure it out now, we must be wrong, yes it all makes sense now. I think what we all fail to recognize here, is that Zenu the 13 trillion year old god, in human form, planted all of lifes souls inside earths volcanoes, and then blew them up with hydrogen bombs. Thats what really happened, can't you see. Zenu is the creator, all we have to do is find him. It also proves that the universe is older than 15 billion years. Man you must be loving this, I must be opening your mind to the wonders of the universe. So how does it feel knowing how it all came about? Zenu created life, he made the ostrich with wings that won't give him flight, because he wanted to show us that Zenu can do anything!!!



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by andersensrm
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Ohh that makes sooo much more sense, the ostrich grew its wings by accident, because it got hit by a solar flare. The chances and odds, of your thinking are far greater than that of evolution's theory. There are gaps, that we can't yet explain with evolution, so It must not be evolution right??? If we can't figure it out now, we must be wrong, yes it all makes sense now. I think what we all fail to recognize here, is that Zenu the 13 trillion year old god, in human form, planted all of lifes souls inside earths volcanoes, and then blew them up with hydrogen bombs. Thats what really happened, can't you see. Zenu is the creator, all we have to do is find him. It also proves that the universe is older than 15 billion years. Man you must be loving this, I must be opening your mind to the wonders of the universe. So how does it feel knowing how it all came about? Zenu created life, he made the ostrich with wings that won't give him flight, because he wanted to show us that Zenu can do anything!!!


A big whoop whoop for scientology


And you must be wrong, it cant have been xenu that created everything, it must have been Shiva, otherwise he wouldnt be known as Lord Shiva the Supreme God, creator, preserver, destroyer, concealer, and revealer. And I can prove Shiva is real, I've got a picture. (see my avatar) If thats not proof, I dont know what is.

(I chose Shiva as my avatar not for any religious or spiritual reason, but because of what he is standing on. That little fellow is the dwarf of ignorance...nice)



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 







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



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by idmonster
 







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


And that should be proof enough for even the most die hard evidence fans.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
I'm being sarcastic, its suppose to be the evolution bug.


Evolution is a description and understanding of a process of change, not a bug. Evolution is not some energy that exists in creatures. It is not a predetermined process that was planning on making the species that occurred. It is the best current description of something that is observable and happens to change organisms over time through gene transfers and mutations over generations. If you continue to think there is some force "causing" evolution, then you are a moron who only listens to his own thoughts for proof.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 






The site is actually not that bad. And the first sentence isn't wrong either. The theory of evolution does rely on a ton of different theories.

It doesn't say theory, it says ...
plurality of theories and hypotheses.




Without a basic understanding of germ theory for example, you can't fully understand the theory of evolution. You also need several chemical theories, amongst a ton of other theories.
I allready understand those basic parts.




And given that scientific theories require to be fully backed up by testable theories backed by objective evidence,
These are being introduced as scientific theorys, they are just theorys and hypothetical theorys.




the first sentence tooth mentioned isn't even "debunking" the theory. What it means is that in order to understand evolution, you need at least basic knowledge of a ton of different theories from other fields...which explains why so many people have trouble understanding it.
True, but I still wouldn't take anything hypothetical, or just theory as a fact.




In short, the first sentence is in no way going against the theory of evolution...tooth simply misinterpreted it (as he does with pretty much everything else when he's not busy ignoring them in the first place).
So now your trying to teach people that postulated (which is another one used later on) and hypothetical theorys are all perfectly tested and found to be scientific fact.

There is a reason why sci-fi books say that they are sci-fi, its because they are.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





If the evoltuion bug



There is no such thing
With no bug, or no idea of a bug, then you believe that the changes that happen through out evolution are totally random, and non guided at all ?????




As has been explained, it's a natural process and we have ZERO evidence that some "intelligence" is guiding it. That is, unless you wanna call natural processes "intelligence"...but if you go there, you might just as well call "dogs" sandwiches from now on
You do understand that this would mean that there is zillions of bones and fossils from species that never made it, due to ill design. WHERE ARE ALL THE BONES? Seriously how many ancestors do you think are between apes and humans?




We share a COMMON ANCESTOR with apes, we didn't evolve from apes
Well I understand what you mean, but the bottom line is we are decendants and evolution does mean a process so there you go.




As for you repeating once again that there's no fossils to prove that...you're wrong (again): LINK
I have allready looked at this link. There are none that prove a connection to humans at all. This is why they call them ancestors, its a way to say we were related down the road but have no proof. Your trying to convince me that even though they can't DNA these bones, they can't come up with a clear judgment as to if they are related to us or not. It's a cop out. It's real simple to figure out however. They either are, or they aren't. The bible makes it very clear that we were not the only humanoids to have ever walked this planet. In addition there is a plethora of proof of different civilizations all around the world that were also not our race. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.




I'm amazed at your ignorance when it comes to all of this. I mean, tons of people have posted links to those human fossils, yet you simply continue to claim they don't exist. You're like a guy standing outside on a sunny day replying "nope, it's red" to someone telling you the sky is blue
The fossils don't prove any connection to humans, its all imagination. If they do turn up human, then they are human.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Yep your right, nothing can be proved, nothing. Whatever it takes to prove something, it is clearly impossible to achieve.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





Who has told you that evolution changes anything? Evolution has no effect on the genetic structure on an organism whatsoever. It is a process, like a rock rolling down a hill.
So if I slip and fall, and damage my nose on a pile of rocks, I become a new species? So evoltuion is not about changing ?




Mutation of DNA is not evolution. Evolution is process whereby that mutation, may or may not be passed on to any offspring.
Which would only be possible though DNA. Unless your saying the only thing that happens is genes fail to get passed on, which does nothing in explaining how we were apes then grew a much more productive brain.




Evolution doesnt "do" anything it just is.
Well from my weak understanding about what it does do, it would have to do a lot more than nothing to make the great accomplishments that its getting credit for. So much so that it's almost looking like there has to be intelligence behind it somewhere.




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.
What your saying here is a complete contradiction in the self correction order.


I am a big believer in "the meaning of your communication is the response you get".

In what way is there a contradiction? I will try and ellucidate.
Of course the biggest part you totally missed in this is that the trait still has to be picked up before it can be passed on. It's just another classic case of people making stuff up and wording it for convince. No one just picks up a trait ok, they get inherited because someone else had them first.




It tells me you still dont quite get it. I actually agree with you on one point. By removing selection pressures, and "hoping" for the right mutations to occur, its quite possible that the universe hasnt been around long enought for AN APE LIKE COMMON ANCESTOR to have evolved. But as you learn more about how evolution works you realise that while mutation is random, THE PROCESS OF EVOLUTION isnt.
Now your claiming that evoltuion has a direction, yet we are unable to forsee this direction, detect this direction, or understand this direction. This is why I sarcastically say the evolution bug, because its looking more and more like there is intelligence behind it.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





I missed this on first reading.

I am to understand that you DO believe in evolution as you stated above and that the difficulty you have with it is that you can not understand how it could occur within the finite timescale of planet earth?
I do believe that evolution has occured in the lab on small organisms. I do however also believe that it might only be those that its possible on and that the species never changed from one species to another. Now if it had, then we would have had scientists all over the world pushing how they now know the method that would allow us to change into another species if we wanted to. We also would have been notified about new species that were made in a lab, in addition to the names that the scientists got to name them with. We have never made a new life form in a lab. The day that happens, trust me, you will be glued to your television.

There are no credits, there are no new names, there are no new famous evolutionists, there are no bones and fossils, there are no missing links, There are no traces of macroevolution.There are no new species. Macroevolution has never been witnessed or traced. What do we really have here? We have what I would call a hoax, and its eloberate but IMO messy as hell. It's theorys, upon theorys, upon hypothetical theorys, upon postulated theorys, I'm sorry man. I can't even say its all too much as I delv into it to see what exactly was going on and it looks like snake oil to me.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 228  229  230    232  233  234 >>

log in

join