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: 237
31
<< 234  235  236    238  239  240 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





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.
And I'm saying there is no such thing as a "common ancestor" That's just a term that evolutionists use to avoid giving answer to why there is no missing link.




posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





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."
Our species are victims of genocide. It's evident from the things that are laid out in the bible.
Perhaps this is why we have over 4000 defects in our genes, perhaps this is why we get medical intervention from birth, this is perhaps why 1/4 of our phone book takes up the medical professions combined, perhaps this is why when you walk down the pharmacy isles in a store, the choices can bury you, this is also perhaps why we only live 80 years where we used to live 1000.

So I don't see a happy book when I read the bible. I see a book of genocide and torture. I'm not fond of belief.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





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.
And I'm saying there is no such thing as a "common ancestor" That's just a term that evolutionists use to avoid giving answer to why there is no missing link.


You are hopeless.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





You are hopeless.
If evolution were real, there really would be such a thing as a missing link. By only believing in common ancestor, your basically saying that all life, is a branch off in species, which is not true. We have millions of bones right now that all account for being human, and not a one of them can be verified as a branch from humans.

There is a very good reason for this as well, its because there is no such thing. We aren't able to find any because there aren't any.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Here's a book about the "missing link."
onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

Here's a book on the evolution of Homo Erectus, an early form of human

Here's another really nice book on human evolution. You really need to just read the abstract. Shouldn't take you more than 15 minutes.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com...



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


You do know that a "missing link" is just a remnant that shows an intermediary phase between on life-form and another, right? Almost anything can be claimed as a missing link, and by that definition, we have dozens of links, some just discovered in the last ten years.

Edit:

Check out google scholar. It's a wonderful tool for finding SCIENTIFIC, PEER REVIEWED PAPERS

scholar.google.com...
edit on 16-2-2012 by Varemia because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





Here's a book about the "missing link."
onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

Here's a book on the evolution of Homo Erectus, an early form of human

Here's another really nice book on human evolution. You really need to just read the abstract. Shouldn't take you more than 15 minutes.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
I read it, it looks like more common ancestors with no proof of relation to humans
It's important to realize that every time the common ancestor is mentioned, there is in fact nothing that states a relative connection between humans and them. It appears to be a way to make a false claim of relation.

Even stranger is how we have common ancestors but no one believes in the missing link. You first of all argue that evolution changes only happen in small amounts, but then you turn around and say that we just can't find any bones that had small changes, only ones with gross changes.

It's as though the direct ancestors either don't know how to leave fossils and bones, or they never existed.
edit on 16-2-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





You do know that a "missing link" is just a remnant that shows an intermediary phase between on life-form and another, right? Almost anything can be claimed as a missing link, and by that definition, we have dozens of links, some just discovered in the last ten years.

Edit:

Check out google scholar. It's a wonderful tool for finding SCIENTIFIC, PEER REVIEWED PAPERS

scholar.google.com...
Not everything can be claimed as a missing link. All we hear about whats happening now is small changes where the species still accounts for being human. Why are they not able to find any that have slight changes to prove the missing link?



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Personally, whether an individual believes in natural evolution or not, evolution its self is a wonderful process.

We have evolution of the car for example, where over time improvements have been made, and we can now travel in comfort over many miles.

Then you have evolution of society, where primitive races once decided issues with violence, we now (most of us) use intelligence and reason.

But my favourite example of non-natural evolution has to be the internet.

There was a time not so long ago, when the internet was a poorly maintained collection of documents posted by only the most diehard techno-geeks. And now anyone can create a blog, sign up to forums like this, or even create their own web pages.

Of course with a fast evolving entity such as the internet, there are many dangers, and like a species that evolves too quickly, some individuals will fall along the way, whereas others will thrive and make the species (the internet) stronger.

Take, for example the paragraph above, today anybody can put personal information about themselves on line for the world to see. And if that individual were not extremely careful other personal information might become apparent. Social networks, dating sites, professional networks. It’s terrifying to think that if you were on here and used a name that was fairly unique, and were stupid enough to provide a location as well, that a tool as evolved as Google might find other examples of the name, location match, and then perhaps provide a REAL name. OMG, how scary is that.

Cos all of a sudden you have a real name and location and that opens even MORE windows in to that individuals on line social footprint !!!! 

So we can see, in Google an evolutionary model that quite closely matches that of species in nature. We have this amazingly evolved tool that stemmed from some sort of…..arcane technologies.

Isn’t evolution wonderful ?



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
I should feel sorry for you as you really are a complete failure but I cant because it is your choice.


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.
So you cannot remember the post about the things we have in common with ants that I recall you complaining I keep asking? Perhaps this is to avoid offering a defence to your argument. I'll go first again. Make sure you reply.

Ants and Humans both :-

1. Build homes to live and would likely perish during harsh weather without them.
2. We live in almost every place on earth
3. We have a structured society
4. We farm and grow plants. Ants farm and grow fungi
5. We farm other animals for our own needs
6. We milk cows. Ants milk Aphids. We dont need too to survive we do so for convienience
7. We both have a wide range of food and both hunt and scavenge
8. Both go to war and have specialised units for that job (army).
9. We both use highways to move foraged and grown food to our cities, homes nests.
10. Process food. (see leafcutter ants vid in link 'farming ants')
11. OMG. New to me. Both ants and humans use antibiotics. See link for info
12. How could I have forgot. We both have a very wide range of foods that we incorperate into our diet.

There are more but above list common to both humans and ants, many unique to humans and ants and are the very things you use to say humans do not belong. You need to explain why, if these show humans are not from here how you can justify ants are from here

More Ant v Human info. Including clips for the weak readers



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.
You seem unable to be able to explain anything. 'Could explain it' does not explain it. Explain autosomal dominance and its role in allowing the bushman to live past puberty without the medical intervention that you maintain is not possible.


Oh not at all, in fact I'm in the stone ages, which is why it shocks me that you didn't know.
Not sure how that is a response to me but hey if your the one saying you have rocks for brains I can only agree.


edit on 16-2-2012 by colin42 because: Link added

edit on 16-2-2012 by colin42 because: Leaf cutter ant

edit on 16-2-2012 by colin42 because: Antibiotics

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

edit on 16-2-2012 by colin42 because: diet

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



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


The third kind if you believe in other religous doctrines other than the Bible.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   
The stupidity and ignorance is absolutely mind blowing. I'm amazed, I really am


Tooth says there's no proof of common descent, so people post proof. What does he do? Simply ignores it.

Tooth says there's no proof of speciation, so people post proof. What does he do? Simply ignores it.

Tooth continues to quote Pye, so people point out that this clown never ever bothered to back up his claims with hard objective evidence. What does he do? Simply ignores it and continues to quote that clown.

Absolutely friggin' amazing


It's like talking to a tape recorder


PS: High five to the people who continue to post evidence to prevent tooth from dumbing down this forum by spreading his ignorance...even if he completely ignores it. Look at it this way, you're helping new people reading this thread...I guess we have to accept that some people are simply too ignorant and uneducated to see reality for what it is.

@tooth: You're not here to discuss, you're simply here to preach your unsubstantiated nonsense. You might wanna re-read the site's "deny ignorance" mantra

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



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 
Whether he chooses to accept the information or not is up to him. What gets me is the ignorant and discourteous way he dismisses any information out of hand and refuses to discuss why.

common replies:

1. You will never convince me that 'A' is true
2. I will not accept theories and postulations (unless from his selected snake oil salesmen)
3. answer with a totally unrelated question or change the criteria of the original question
4. (most common of all) Display complete ignorance.

But to me worse of all is he has not improved his own argument at all. Do I care what he believes in? I can tell you honestly I dont but I do expect to see his stance improve with better constructed arguments and a little evidence to back it up.

Alas he is just as ignorant on page 237 as he was on page 50. He has not even learnt anything by accident which is pretty much impossible.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by memphis007
reply to post by colin42
 


The third kind if you believe in other religous doctrines other than the Bible.


looking at their society and how they have been doing the things we are now doing millions of years before us you could argue they are the first kind.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 03:01 PM
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.


How do we know 40 is the normal amount? What if 4000 is the normal amount? Seems pretty normal if thats what everyones got.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 


I wouldn't trust the accuracy of a lot of things you find on the internet anyhow. I have run into some things that were just way off.



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


Im curious, how did you get to your conclusion of how evolution doesn't exist? Put aside the Earth, how we got there, why we're here, all of that. Im just talking about our bodies. You don't just go from hydrogen based stars to humans, there has to be some kind of inbetween. How do you explain this? Did some creator just drop them into the universe, or did he set up the universe in a way in which we would arise slowly over time?

Also why do we need a relationship with another type of species to be from here? If evolution doesn't exist your essentially saying, that every variety of animal, insect, or plant, started out that way, and will end that way. Are you saying, that when a certain animal changes the way it gets around, changes what it eats, changes it's size, changes it's color, that there is really no change going on???



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





So you cannot remember the post about the things we have in common with ants that I recall you complaining I keep asking? Perhaps this is to avoid offering a defence to your argument. I'll go first again. Make sure you reply.

Ants and Humans both :-

1. Build homes to live and would likely perish during harsh weather without them.
As does most other species.




2. We live in almost every place on earth
As does a high percentage of other species.




3. We have a structured society
As do most species.




4. We farm and grow plants. Ants farm and grow fungi
As do a lot of other species.




5. We farm other animals for our own needs
As does many other species.




6. We milk cows. Ants milk Aphids. We dont need too to survive we do so for convienience
I'm sure a lot of other species milk a lot of things out of convienience, but I think our is out of necessity.




7. We both have a wide range of food and both hunt and scavenge
There are many species that do the same thing.




8. Both go to war and have specialised units for that job (army).
As do most species.




9. We both use highways to move foraged and grown food to our cities, homes nests
As most species do as well.




10. Process food. (see leafcutter ants vid in link 'farming ants')
Nothing processes food in the way or the extreme that humans do.




11. OMG. New to me. Both ants and humans use antibiotics. See link for info
as does some other species.




12. How could I have forgot. We both have a very wide range of foods that we incorperate into our diet
there are other species that are scavangers too.




There are more but above list common to both humans and ants, many unique to humans and ants and are the very things you use to say humans do not belong. You need to explain why, if these show humans are not from here how you can justify ants are from here
Because there isn't anything that shows they don't fit in.




You seem unable to be able to explain anything. 'Could explain it' does not explain it. Explain autosomal dominance and its role in allowing the bushman to live past puberty without the medical intervention that you maintain is not possible.
I'm not going to provide you with a history lesson on DNA. You will have to look it up yourself.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





The stupidity and ignorance is absolutely mind blowing. I'm amazed, I really am

Tooth says there's no proof of common descent, so people post proof. What does he do? Simply ignores it.

Tooth says there's no proof of speciation, so people post proof. What does he do? Simply ignores it.
I didn't ignore anything, but you obviously ignored my replys to them.

Just because you don't accept my answer doesn't mean I'm ignoring them.

There is no proof of speciation in humans, there is no proof that a common decent is actually from humans.




Tooth continues to quote Pye, so people point out that this clown never ever bothered to back up his claims with hard objective evidence. What does he do? Simply ignores it and continues to quote that clown.
And his claims are on the table, for anyone to challenge, put up or shut up. If you have something against his claims than challenge his findings.




PS: High five to the people who continue to post evidence to prevent tooth from dumbing down this forum by spreading his ignorance...even if he completely ignores it. Look at it this way, you're helping new people reading this thread...I guess we have to accept that some people are simply too ignorant and uneducated to see reality for what it is.

@tooth: You're not here to discuss, you're simply here to preach your unsubstantiated nonsense. You might wanna re-read the site's "deny ignorance" mantra
So if this is true, why am I the only one learning anything ?????????



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by andersensrm
 





How do we know 40 is the normal amount? What if 4000 is the normal amount? Seems pretty normal if thats what everyones got.
Studys of other life, show that we have way more than our fair share.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 234  235  236    238  239  240 >>

log in

join