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: 259
31
<< 256  257  258    260  261  262 >>

log in

join
share:

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





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.
I doubt very seriously if they are able to prove a new species emerged back then.




posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 





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.
So your tyring to say we just appeared out of no where? Hey isn't that what I have been trying to say happened though intervention?



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Waste of time to have discussions like that...

tooth: There is no common descent!
I never said there is no common descent, what I said was there is no dirrect descent.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish
 





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.
So your tyring to say we just appeared out of no where? Hey isn't that what I have been trying to say happened though intervention?


We slowly acquired more of the characteristics we have now as our species developed from previous species. Your crazy ideas will only pierce the minds of the uneducated ignorant.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Waste of time to have discussions like that...

tooth: There is no common descent!
I never said there is no common descent, what I said was there is no dirrect descent.


We share the same chromosomes and trait characteristics. That IS direct descent, especially since based on the concept of the farther back you go, the more likely that one organism is responsible for all the genes of future organisms of that type. (This of course implies that the fossils we find were successful members of our ancestors. They may have just been the ones stupid enough to get killed and rolled into an area ideal for fossilization.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





We slowly acquired more of the characteristics we have now as our species developed from previous species. Your crazy ideas will only pierce the minds of the uneducated ignorant.
If thats true then they should have no problem proving what species we emerged from.
Where is the proof.
All I have been given is 2.5 million bones, yet no one can say that one specifically is to proof of what we emerged from.
And why is it that there are all these bones of aleged transgression for humans but we have yet to find any others for the other 5 million species. Are we the only ones that evolved?



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





We share the same chromosomes and trait characteristics. That IS direct descent, especially since based on the concept of the farther back you go, the more likely that one organism is responsible for all the genes of future organisms of that type. (This of course implies that the fossils we find were successful members of our ancestors. They may have just been the ones stupid enough to get killed and rolled into an area ideal for fossilization.
Well if any of the are actually direct descents, they would have to more than just share some chromosomes, they would have to share a lot. Especially since your tellng me that this all happens slowly.

Now where is proof of one that is a direct descent, not a common ancestor, that is NOT human?



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Can you please define exactly what you are talking about when you say "direct descent" ?
edit on 26-2-2012 by IluvJuice because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Every single common ancestor isn't human. You're the stupidest person I know at the moment, considering how you seem unable to comprehend basic logic. We share way more than just chromosomes (even though chromosomes hold the freaking GENES). We share almost everything. Yet here you are, acting like you're a special flower, unable to even think about what you're asking for. You are asking for an imaginary thing that will satisfy your need for your belief. You have no concept of what you actually want to see.

You keep saying to show you proof, but you have not defined what proof is for you. You say that proof to you is proof of direct descent, but have not defined what that proof would be. You are an idiot, and I want you to know that.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 
All his silly questions are the same.

He asks for proof. You show proof he ignores it and if that is not possible he alters the question and claims you did not answer him. When you finally corner him and he can no longer hide he runs. Ignores the proof you showed and moves onto another question based in ignorance but be sure the same topic will resurface and will start from the very begining.

He will never define what he means in his question or what consitutes proof because then he would have to accept the proof supplied and he will never allow his childish fantasy to be put at risk.

He intends to remain in ignorance. He is actually proud of it. Leave him to wallow in it alone.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


At this point I think the only rational response to his posts is to respond with this video every time:




posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by IluvJuice
 





Can you please define exactly what you are talking about when you say "direct descent" ?
Ya direct descent would be just one away from being the same species. I keep getting told that these changes happen in small amounts, so I'm looking to find them. Where are they?



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





Every single common ancestor isn't human.
Then how are they proving relation?

Proof is that first stage of descent that provides with enough to say there were changes, but just a few. Not a plethora of changes.

Maybe it seems to you that I don't know what I'm asking for based on the absurdity of the idea of evolution.
I keep getting told that changes occur in small amounts.
If man is a descent of apes there must be proof in several stages.
Do they have any period?
Do they have several showing transgression?
Most importantly how do they determine that its both humna and ape?



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Easy. They look almost exactly like us, but with key differences. For example, one of the most recent changes has been our simian shelf shifted forward so that we have a chin. This chin is not present in the ancestors that are not anatomically modern humans. Is that a small enough change for you, or what would really count as proof of minor changes over time?



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by IluvJuice
 





Can you please define exactly what you are talking about when you say "direct descent" ?
Ya direct descent would be just one away from being the same species. I keep getting told that these changes happen in small amounts, so I'm looking to find them. Where are they?


Okay that makes this simple.
I will make you a picture to help explain.




Any questions?



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


You can show him observed cases of speciation but that will not help him, until he gets a basic understanding of evolution. It will just confuse him more.


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



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by IluvJuice
 





Okay that makes this simple.
I will make you a picture to help explain.
regardless of how you look at it, there has to be some distinction.
There has to be a way to capture the changes either by transgression or broad range of bones.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by IluvJuice
 





Okay that makes this simple.
I will make you a picture to help explain.
regardless of how you look at it, there has to be some distinction.
There has to be a way to capture the changes either by transgression or broad range of bones.


As you pointed out this takes a very long time. There is no sudden change ... That would take magic.
I can show you countless different examples of change over long periods of time. If you promise not to move the target after I take the time.




edit on 26-2-2012 by IluvJuice because: fixed image



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by IluvJuice
 





As you pointed out this takes a very long time. There is no sudden change ... That would take magic.
I can show you countless different examples of change over long periods of time. If you promise not to move the target after I take the time.
No problem, the longer it takes, the more bones we should have that prove transgression.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by IluvJuice
 





As you pointed out this takes a very long time. There is no sudden change ... That would take magic.
I can show you countless different examples of change over long periods of time. If you promise not to move the target after I take the time.
No problem, the longer it takes, the more bones we should have that prove transgression.


Yeah, so why are you ignoring the fossils and such? You keep pretending they aren't there, and it just makes you look like a lunatic.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 256  257  258    260  261  262 >>

log in

join