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: 258
31
<< 255  256  257    259  260  261 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 





Newsflash for people who care about facts:

There are THOUSANDS of fossils proving common descent!

I have to ask tooth, are you a troll or simply stupid? Because you keep on repeating this claim even though you've been shown 100% wrong about a gazillion times in this thread. This isn't a matter of you not knowing anymore, it's simply you ignoring facts on purpose...and even worse...you try to dumb down others with your ignorance.

Ya but there is none that are a direct descent. Still no proof.




posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish
 





There is no such thing as a missing link, it is myth. The chain link myth is a misconception that origins are linear and straightforward. Origins are a far more complicated affair. Evolution is more like a tree with roots, branches, twigs into leaves. There are dead ends and pitfalls with hundreds of ancestral cousins becoming extinct.
Learn more
Ok fine, so there is never any bones of direct decent. Call it what you want, they still don't exist. Darwin was right, if he was never able to find any, then he knew that his theory was all wrong.

This is the same reason why the new term common ancestor was to repalce the missing link term, it was also to exclude darwins ideas from that point forward. I'm sorry but I think he was right, no bones, no proof, no theory.



You are wrong, as ALWAYS!

So the link above provides a TON of objective evidence proving common descent without a doubt. However, I know what you answer will be...

"There is no common descent, evolution is wrong."


Like a broken tape recorder. I do pity you, because it's abundantly obvious your irrational beliefs make it impossible for you to process facts.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





You are wrong, as ALWAYS!

So the link above provides a TON of objective evidence proving common descent without a doubt. However, I know what you answer will be...

"There is no common descent, evolution is wrong."

Like a broken tape recorder. I do pity you, because it's abundantly obvious your irrational beliefs make it impossible for you to process facts.
Well anything could be called a common descent, even a snail.

Your contradicting yourself. Your trying to convince me that evolutionary changes happend very slowly over time, and in small doses, then your turning around and sayin that there is never a direct descent to be found becuase to many changes happen in one lineage.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Do yourself a favour and read the link I posted, because from your answers it's clear you're just digging yourself deeper into a that hole you got yourself into



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 
Thanks for the vid on sky funeral.

If tooth botherd to watch it it said this has been going on for over a thousand years. Yet the place they perform the ritual leaves no bones laying around at all just using vultures.

Now transfer that to the plains and jungles where man evolved from. Will he see how rare these fossils would be now?


edit on 25-2-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Honestly, what counts as proof of common descent to you? It seems like you are simply rejecting everything on the basis of not wanting to believe it. I bet that literally NOTHING could count as proof to you. You just keep saying there's no proof because you're choosing to completely ignore it.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I see, so when it comes to direct decent ancestors, those always got buarried so deep that no fossils remain. But out of the other 2.5 fossils we have found, they didn't practice the same burial techniques. They only buaried them deep when they knew they were a direct ancesotr.
Do you never read what is written?
1. I was posing a question for discussion with others as I knew this would go over your head.

2. I did write that digging a hole would be the least likely way of burial. There are many other ways and I gave a few examples.

Many rituals like sky burials leave the corpse open to scavengers. Cremation also completely destroys the body and given fire was probably seen as important would also be a likely ritual that may have even included cannibalism.

my guess and I made it clear it was my opinion is that this could account in part for the rarity of fossils which are rare enough to begin with. So the fact we have so many is due to the commitment of those searching for the evidence.

Tooth dont even bother to answer this as it is way past your ability to think about let alone discuss.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Do yourself a favour and read the link I posted, because from your answers it's clear you're just digging yourself deeper into a that hole you got yourself into
I did look but you seem to be missing that I'm looking for a direct descent not a common descent, there is a big difference.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Thanks for the vid on sky funeral.

If tooth botherd to watch it it said this has been going on for over a thousand years. Yet the place they perform the ritual leaves no bones laying around at all just using vultures.

Now transfer that to the plains and jungles where man evolved from. Will he see how rare these fossils would be now?
Common descents have been going on for longer than that I'm sure. They had to at one time be a direct descent, where are they?



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





Honestly, what counts as proof of common descent to you? It seems like you are simply rejecting everything on the basis of not wanting to believe it. I bet that literally NOTHING could count as proof to you. You just keep saying there's no proof because you're choosing to completely ignore it.
Anything could be a common descent, I'm not questioning that, I'm saying there has to be some direct descents somewhere.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Do you never read what is written?
1. I was posing a question for discussion with others as I knew this would go over your head.
I must have missed it.




2. I did write that digging a hole would be the least likely way of burial. There are many other ways and I gave a few examples.
And I got those but didn't comment because that doesn't seem to be the problem here. The problem seems to be that only direct descents are getting buerried a certain way while common descents are handled differently.




Many rituals like sky burials leave the corpse open to scavengers. Cremation also completely destroys the body and given fire was probably seen as important would also be a likely ritual that may have even included cannibalism.


But again, do you think the canabails ate the bones?




my guess and I made it clear it was my opinion is that this could account in part for the rarity of fossils which are rare enough to begin with. So the fact we have so many is due to the commitment of those searching for the evidence.

Tooth dont even bother to answer this as it is way past your ability to think about let alone discuss.
There just seems to be lacking that evidence that supports the idea of any of these found fossils being a direct ancestor, rather than just a common ancestor.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


Sorry, Evolution is not the theory about the origin of life, nor has anyone ever claimed it to be. Except of course people arguing against it.

If you want to debate how life began, then you have to talk about Abiogenesis.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





There just seems to be lacking that evidence that supports the idea of any of these found fossils being a direct ancestor, rather than just a common ancestor.


Wrong again! and I know this has pointed out to you in this thread.
Regardless of the fossil record DNA proves modern man is genetically (directly) related to hominids.
Link

Link

Edit: Also I will remind you this data is not lacking any evidence and is NOT just an idea, we are talking DNA! enough to put you away for a thousand years.
edit on 25-2-2012 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 





Wrong again! and I know this has pointed out to you in this thread.
Regardless of the fossil record DNA proves modern man is genetically (directly) related to hominids.
Link

Link

Edit: Also I will remind you this data is not lacking any evidence and is NOT just an idea, we are talking DNA! enough to put you away for a thousand years
So we successfully bred with another humanoid species, it says nothing about mutations or evolution. There is no connection confirmed by that means. It's looks more like it was just another species we mated with.

So why is it they are able to indicate we can find a common ancestor 400,000 to 800,000 years ago in our genes which is a conflict with what the mtDNA wiki states on it being 200,000 years ago?
Either way the point is that they can see that section where we mated with a different species. There obviously was no issue of speciation, so that little theory with evolution is out the window. They can see this species in our genes so all those bones that aren't able to be proven as a direct ancestor are out the window.

This proves that we mated with another species, it shows nothing in the realm of evolution.
As I recall croco duck was not an example of evolution so your point in this was way off.
edit on 26-2-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish
 





Wrong again! and I know this has pointed out to you in this thread.
Regardless of the fossil record DNA proves modern man is genetically (directly) related to hominids.
Link

Link

Edit: Also I will remind you this data is not lacking any evidence and is NOT just an idea, we are talking DNA! enough to put you away for a thousand years
So we successfully bred with another humanoid species, it says nothing about mutations or evolution. There is no connection confirmed by that means. It's looks more like it was just another species we mated with.

So why is it they are able to indicate we can find a common ancestor 400,000 to 800,000 years ago in our genes which is a conflict with what the mtDNA wiki states on it being 200,000 years ago?
Either way the point is that they can see that section where we mated with a different species. There obviously was no issue of speciation, so that little theory with evolution is out the window. They can see this species in our genes so all those bones that aren't able to be proven as a direct ancestor are out the window.

This proves that we mated with another species, it shows nothing in the realm of evolution.
As I recall croco duck was not an example of evolution so your point in this was way off.
edit on 26-2-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)

Wrong again. We did not exist... Anatomically Modern Homo did, then Premodern Homo, then Transitional Hominins, then Archaic Hominins, then Megadont Archaic Hominins, then Possible Hominins.
Your trying to simplify a complicated process that you do not understand.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I see your stumbling block, your trying to insert modern humans with premodern humans. This will not work as you know, and as you know modern man did not exist before premodern Homo. Besides this blunder your just plain ignorant if you believe anything you have written.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I noticed you've glossed over this post. A little close to home?
I still contend your smarter than your replies. I'm ready for some meat, the question is are you humble enough to admit anything besides contempt.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 06:14 AM
link   
Officially giving up in educating tooth, he's either too dumb or ignorant to accept facts...so there really is no point. All future posts will only be for other posters, so they don't get dumbed down by his ignorance.

Waste of time to have discussions like that...

tooth: There is no common descent!
ATS: Here are some links that without a doubt prove common descent.
tooth: lalalalaalalala, I can't hear you...there is no common descent...and no direct descent.
ATS: Here are some links that without a doubt prove direct descent.
tooth: lalalalalalala, there is no proof.

The very definition of a troll


Not angry, just really curious to find out if it's sheer stupidity (home schooled?) or pure ignorance...'cause I cannot come up with another reason for his trolling.

The hilarious part is that he continues to quote that clown Pye every once in a while, pretending he's a real scientists....which is about as credible as quoting some random snake oil salesman who never bothers to back up his claims. I guess if the "evidence" is bat# crazy and not backed up by facts, that's ok for tooth

edit on 26-2-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 06:25 AM
link   
reply to post by micmerci
 


Population is limited by food. Mankind didn;t start to fourlish until about 6,000 BC when farming became widespread and there was a food surplus. Before that the population stayed at replacement.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 
Tooth has already told us a page or so ago that he see's himself as a teacher of man. A modern day John the Baptist.

He is on a crusade and facts has nothing to do with his message. Discussion of the issues is not part of the process. He is here to tell us what to believe.

To be fair we link him to information and expect him to at least consider the information. Crusaders just know how to charge. His visor is down and he has tunnel vision. Who cares about truth when you have belief on your side and you are in full charge mode.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 255  256  257    259  260  261 >>

log in

join