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: 236
31
<< 233  234  235    237  238  239 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 





Go back read the thread.
This topic has been spoon fed to you.
You really expect me to fall for a troll.
If its allready been addressed. then I allready answered it.

I'm not going to be trolled back deep into the thread just because YOU didn't want to accept my answer.




posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia
 





So wait, you're talking about things like the resistance to malaria gene that developed recently? That one causes sickle-cell anemia if both parents have it. That's not genetic defect. All creatures have some form of genetic disease that can spread this way. It is not unique to humans. Why do you always seem to think humans are so darned special?
Because we are in fact special. If you watch Lloyd Pyes video you would also learn that we have over 4000 gross defects in our genes where maybe 40 would be a normal amount.


I'd LOVE to see how you determined what the normal amount is, or what qualifies as a gross defect. I seem to be living and breathing, and so do 7 billion other people on the planet. I guess that was just an "oopsy" on the gods' part, eh?



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish
 


It might be a tad difficult to express what I'm exaclty looking for in a human other species relationship.
So here are some things I look at.
Are the mites dependant on us to the point that they might die or suffer without our existance? No.
Would we suffer? NO.
Do they depend on us for anything? Not that I'm aware of.
Are we the only thing you find them on? No.

It was a good shot but there doesn't seem to be anything special in our relationship with them.


It's not special that we share the same mites as other primates?
Could it be that you think your special.
The sad thing is that you are, you just can't see past your hypothesis and as result your true ancestral lineage is lost.
Thanks to evolution your kind has just about died out and future generations will look back with curiosity and learn about historical fallacy's.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia
 





So wait, you're talking about things like the resistance to malaria gene that developed recently? That one causes sickle-cell anemia if both parents have it. That's not genetic defect. All creatures have some form of genetic disease that can spread this way. It is not unique to humans. Why do you always seem to think humans are so darned special?
Because we are in fact special. If you watch Lloyd Pyes video you would also learn that we have over 4000 gross defects in our genes where maybe 40 would be a normal amount.


What evidence have you that if a creator does indeed exist, "it" is "good"

What if "it" created the Universe for "it's" own sick amusement.

....



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 02:14 AM
link   
can humans hypothetically literally set up the conditions of an earth like planet and initiate biological life to begin evolving and eventually evolve to complex entities like we see on earth?

I understand early life could have arisen on a planet like earth with the right conditions, beginning the endless race of evolution,, at some point giving birth to man..

Everything the universe does is "natural" anything man does is "natural"... anything that can happen in the universe can happen...

you view mans going to a planet to start a chain of life as willful intelligence,,, but when the universe does this it is an unintelligent accident..


everything regarding "creationists" views, and "god" is relevant to the discussion of this topic is it not? I feel when you focus on evolution you are trying to prove those things wrong, or looking at this event under a microscope, in a vacuum, like there is intent behind it,,, for that is the impact it had when evolution first started going about with darwin.... am I wrong in thinking this? you say were life on this rock, all life on this rock evolves over time, by living, eating, reproducing, dieing, becoming wittier, swifter, more vicious, more jump, and thats all there is to see here? I view the existence of everything in an eternal state of evolution,, time is evolution, affecting energy and what it does and can do in circumstance..... human history is social evolution,, the car evolved, all technology evolved,,, the gun is synonymous in my mind to a beast of nature developing sharper claws or a snake poisonous venom..... i dont think we can just look at a narrow aspect, but everything must be considered,.., considered in terms to how it relates or fits into the whole, or all perspectives of significance.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





Did you not watch Lloyd Pye's human genetics?


No wonder if you keep on getting your "information" from that clown


Once again: Pye NEVER backs up his claims with hard data and facts!!!



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 02:51 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



First of all I never said that. You either typed it wrong or missunderstood. What I said was there are over 2 dozen genes in us that wont allow us to live past puberty. Now if your too dense to consider autosomal domminance, thats your problem.
What a complete fracking idiot. You tell me I typed or misunderstood your words and then repeated the exact same garbage.


over 2 dozen genes in us that wont allow us to live past puberty
Means no one without medical intervention would ever live long enough to breed. This means the bushman should not be here and infact because vaccines are recent humanity should not be here. That does not mean he does not belong that means if a species fails to breed it becomes extinct you numpty. And you have the cheek to call me dense.

And as for the rest of your pudding headed comments. we know you are a fool. Please try not to showcase it.


We don't have what I would consider any type of positive relationship with wolves. Do you watch to many movies, what is it man. You just have this thing about being buddy buddy with animals. The next time you spot a wolf, expose yourself to it, and lets see how well that goes for you.
Well you see. It has nothing to do with positive or a negative relationship. A relationship that you asked for originally can be either or even both which shows your lack of understanding on every subject you comment on.

You are the one that watched a film saying every planet has life on it. You are the one that watched U-tube and came up with blue laminate. Please do not lecture me on that subject.

I spotted a wolf first thing this morning. He wagged his tail and we went out for a walk. He is a border collie. Sheep dog in your baby language. So it went very well.


Well you might have won every argument, but if I could only understand it if it were in english.
Yes that old formula. The more you cannot answer you try to claim you cannot read or the gramma is wrong.

What a total loser. What a pathetic dishonest attempt to again answer the questions.




edit on 16-2-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 03:06 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



OMG colin, for the third time, Ants are from earth, I never said they weren't.
So now make a reasoned argument against my post showing all the things we have in common with ants. Do not use ants are natural, we are not. That is a statement not an defence of your stance and so not acceptable as a reply in a discussion.


Colin for the third time again your overlooking autosomal domminance. You need to read up on that man.
Before I waste my time discussing this with you. Explain, in your words not a cut and paste what part autosomal dominance plays in the bushmans survival. This appears to be a field you are schooled in and should be very interesting.


And yes, I agree, at least that it looks like your going to be hearing it a lot more, did you ever wonder why that might be?
Nope. As soon as I read it I thought. 'Oh dear the ignorant trolling lump has found a new diversion tactic. My question to you is do you think no one else knows what it is?



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 03:46 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 



can humans hypothetically literally set up the conditions of an earth like planet and initiate biological life to begin evolving and eventually evolve to complex entities like we see on earth?
Hypothetically yes but ethically could we? If it is earthlike then likelyhood is it could very well already have life. Our intervention would alter the evolution of that planet


I understand early life could have arisen on a planet like earth with the right conditions, beginning the endless race of evolution,, at some point giving birth to man..
I think you believe evolution means upgrades, it does not. It means the ability to breed and pass on genes. If man is not able to do this but a slug is, mankind dies out and the slug continues. So the enviroment drives evolution which may or may not result in humanlike animals.


Everything the universe does is "natural" anything man does is "natural"... anything that can happen in the universe can happen...
Agreed


everything regarding "creationists" views, and "god" is relevant to the discussion of this topic is it not?
Yes. Infact it should have more place than discussion of evolution as it is discuss the diversity we see without refering to evolution.


I feel when you focus on evolution you are trying to prove those things wrong, or looking at this event under a microscope, in a vacuum, like there is intent behind it,,, for that is the impact it had when evolution first started going about with darwin.... am I wrong in thinking this?
In my opinion you are wrong. Science is lead by the evidence. Darwin showed his finding it was others that started the argument around god. Darwin just pointed out the process that describes diversity.


you say were life on this rock, all life on this rock evolves over time, by living, eating, reproducing, dieing, becoming wittier, swifter, more vicious, more jump, and thats all there is to see here?
Again as I wrote above. Evolution does not describe a biological arms race. It has nothing to say about 'is this all there is?' A creator or sprit. It purley describes the process of evolution. Nothing more and nothing less. People that try to read into their own beliefs and predjudices from either side are wrong.

I agree with you that I see the process of evolution in everything around us. It is a simple and natural way to ensure life continues and is mirorred in every aspect of life.


the gun is synonymous in my mind to a beast of nature developing sharper claws or a snake poisonous venom..... i dont think we can just look at a narrow aspect, but everything must be considered,.., considered in terms to how it relates or fits into the whole, or all perspectives of significance.
I agree to a point but at its most basic Evolution is the ability to live long enough to pass on genes. Being able to run faster to avoid predators or catch prey is a result of that imperative.


edit on 16-2-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 





It's not special that we share the same mites as other primates?
Could it be that you think your special.
The sad thing is that you are, you just can't see past your hypothesis and as result your true ancestral lineage is lost.
Thanks to evolution your kind has just about died out and future generations will look back with curiosity and learn about historical fallacy's.
The mite is all to common like water and air, so no I don't think there is any connection there.

My type isn't dying anytime soon.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Confusion42
 





What evidence have you that if a creator does indeed exist, "it" is "good"

What if "it" created the Universe for "it's" own sick amusement.
There is nothing sick about creating life.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Confusion42
 





What evidence have you that if a creator does indeed exist, "it" is "good"

What if "it" created the Universe for "it's" own sick amusement.
There is nothing sick about creating life.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Confusion42
 





What evidence have you that if a creator does indeed exist, "it" is "good"

What if "it" created the Universe for "it's" own sick amusement.
There is nothing sick about creating life.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





Er, nobody but nobody has claimed, that I'm aware of, that our most recent ancestor was a Luca. That wasn't a flaw on their part--it was a flaw in the interpretation of others. It's been clarified, yet you still don't seem to understand it.

And even if Mitochondrial Eve turns out to be wrong, it's still the best thing going at the moment. If they got the rate of mutation wrong, it's going to throw their calculations off.
I don't know who luca is


That does not surprise me. If you don't know what LUCA is, you've got no business discussing Mitochondrial Eve in any context whatsoever.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth

How can you say that while out of 150 years and over 2.5 million bones and fossils we have yet to find one missing link to any of the 5 million species we have on earth?


If I hadn't read your previous posts I would inclined to think you are just horribly mistaken, but I have read your previous posts and have also read the numerous replies showing you that this 'claim' is incorrect. I have to conclude that you're being dishonest, and completely unworthy of debate.

I get the feeling folk here are only flaying you to give a public example of those to wish to retard the human search for knowledge.


Originally posted by itsthetooth

There is no proof. There is speculation and desire to believe in these things is all. I see it just like a religion so I call it evolutionism.


Again there is evidence, enough evidence to prove without reasonable doubt that every organism that exists and has ever existed on this planet has a common ancestor.

I do like that religion has become such a dirty word, so much so that even the religious use it in an attempt to discredit evolution



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Prezbo369
 





Evolutionists, with their belief of evolution? see this is where the confusion stems, evidence. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, whereas the evidence for a supernatural intelligence being behind anything is.......... non-existent.
How can you say that while out of 150 years and over 2.5 million bones and fossils we have yet to find one missing link to any of the 5 million species we have on earth?

There is no proof. There is speculation and desire to believe in these things is all. I see it just like a religion so I call it evolutionism.



One. More. Time. There is no such thing as a "missing link." That's just a term creationists love to toss around because they don't know what they're talking about.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Confusion42
 





What evidence have you that if a creator does indeed exist, "it" is "good"

What if "it" created the Universe for "it's" own sick amusement.
There is nothing sick about creating life.


Hmm. Since when is it okay for mere mortals to make value judgments against their Creator? I do believe the Bible says that attempting to say what God is thinking is "blasphemy."



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





OMG colin, for the third time, Ants are from earth, I never said they weren't.

So now make a reasoned argument against my post showing all the things we have in common with ants. Do not use ants are natural, we are not. That is a statement not an defence of your stance and so not acceptable as a reply in a discussion.
Well we have a lot in common with ants.We have ...
Two eyes.
A mouth.
a head
arms or legs.
a body, or I believe in the ant its the thorax.
We also breath air.
We drink water.
We walk or run.

That's really all I can think of.
The problem is that almost all life here on earth share these quality's, so I don't see any relationship.




Before I waste my time discussing this with you. Explain, in your words not a cut and paste what part autosomal dominance plays in the bushmans survival. This appears to be a field you are schooled in and should be very interesting.
Well autosomal dominance or rather the lack of, could explain how they were able to slip by not having these defects in there genes affect them.




Nope. As soon as I read it I thought. 'Oh dear the ignorant trolling lump has found a new diversion tactic. My question to you is do you think no one else knows what it is?
Oh not at all, in fact I'm in the stone ages, which is why it shocks me that you didn't know.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





That does not surprise me. If you don't know what LUCA is, you've got no business discussing Mitochondrial Eve in any context whatsoever.
Well sorry but Luca was not important enough to be listed on the wiki of mtdna so it was not something that appeared to be involved.


I did check it out to find out that it MAY be the last known common ancestor. If they left it out on mtdna there was probably a reason.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Prezbo369
 





If I hadn't read your previous posts I would inclined to think you are just horribly mistaken, but I have read your previous posts and have also read the numerous replies showing you that this 'claim' is incorrect. I have to conclude that you're being dishonest, and completely unworthy of debate.

I get the feeling folk here are only flaying you to give a public example of those to wish to retard the human search for knowledge.
So your trying to say they have found missing links? Why don't they publish it?




Again there is evidence, enough evidence to prove without reasonable doubt that every organism that exists and has ever existed on this planet has a common ancestor.

I have never argued that. I think we all have them, just in the same species.




I do like that religion has become such a dirty word, so much so that even the religious use it in an attempt to discredit evolution
Well that's because the mtDNA findings laid religion to rest.
There is no way we can be over 200,000 years old, and also have had god create us in his image just 10,000 years ago. I'm just missing over 190,000 years of my lineage.




top topics



 
31
<< 233  234  235    237  238  239 >>

log in

join