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: 260
31
<< 257  258  259    261  262  263 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





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.
There is a big difference between there no being a connection and you fantasizing there is one.
There has been nothing presented that states that any of those bones have been proven to be a direct descendent.

Like I said anyone can say anything is a common ancestor based on the frail elements that support evolution. You could say that snails are related to humans. This is why I keep saying I want to see a DIRECT descendent.

Something that proves it came from man, but is not man.
How is it was can prove if something is human, and we can prove if something is not human, why are we not able to prove that something is inbetween?




posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 07:56 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.


This is Ambulocetus.


It only took him about 50 million to evolve into this.




Now pick a change you want me to find a intermediate form of.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia
 





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.
There is a big difference between there no being a connection and you fantasizing there is one.
There has been nothing presented that states that any of those bones have been proven to be a direct descendent.

Like I said anyone can say anything is a common ancestor based on the frail elements that support evolution. You could say that snails are related to humans. This is why I keep saying I want to see a DIRECT descendent.

Something that proves it came from man, but is not man.
How is it was can prove if something is human, and we can prove if something is not human, why are we not able to prove that something is inbetween?


Slow your roll !!!
In your effort to spam the thread you have overlooked the information that has already addressed this ignorant rant.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
These posts are the tip of the iceberg in this thread. You really need to work on your reading comprehension, this is getting stupid.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia
 






Something that proves it came from man, but is not man.
How is it was can prove if something is human, and we can prove if something is not human, why are we not able to prove that something is inbetween?



This just seem like the worst "no transitional fossils" argument ever.

Our direct ancestors fall under the Homo genus. There is your answer, It will not help you because you don't have even the most basic understanding of modern biology.
edit on 26-2-2012 by IluvJuice because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Actually there can be "sudden" change.

For example, one pregnant female gets stuck in a valley with a hot spring surrounded by hundreds of miles of mile high ice. All of her offspring would have a high mutation rate and some major changes could happen before the next interglacial thaw.

Fossils are rare events compared to the total number of deaths. Kind of like winning the lottery.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





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.
I didn't see any specifically on that link that were ruled as proven common ancestors.

I don't know people, I think its a little odd that we can find and test bones proven to be related to us, those not related to us, but none that recently decended from us. It tells me once again they just don't exist.


Descended FROM us? Surely that's a typo?



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 





Slow your roll !!!
In your effort to spam the thread you have overlooked the information that has already addressed this ignorant rant.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
These posts are the tip of the iceberg in this thread. You really need to work on your reading comprehension, this is getting stupid.

I see, so because I have been told things, I'm just suppose to be gullible and accept them as truth.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by IluvJuice
 


simple.wikipedia.org...

Not that Wiki is always the better source, but I fail to see anything even written that claims this is related to humans.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Semicollegiate
 





Actually there can be "sudden" change.

For example, one pregnant female gets stuck in a valley with a hot spring surrounded by hundreds of miles of mile high ice. All of her offspring would have a high mutation rate and some major changes could happen before the next interglacial thaw.

Fossils are rare events compared to the total number of deaths. Kind of like winning the lottery.

I'm sure we would be able to spot such instances in the lab, and we haven't.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





Descended FROM us? Surely that's a typo?
Depends on how you look at this. Did evolution used to happen, and it doesn't any longer? Or is it still happening today. IMO we should not only be able to prove evolution based on bones and fossils, but also from identifying whats happening to us today.
edit on 27-2-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





Descended FROM us? Surely that's a typo?
Depends on how you look at this. Did evolution used to happen, and it doesn't any longer? Or is it still happening today. IMO we should not only be able to prove evolution based on bones and fossils, but also from identifying whats happening to us today.
edit on 27-2-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)


You have to have not been even reading the material we're giving you to ask these questions. Why won't you even seek to understand what scientists understand about evolution? You don't have to believe it. Just understand it. Instead, you are plugging your ears and going "lalalalala! I can't hear you!" I mean come on, man. Stop being a religious nut and learn something.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





Descended FROM us? Surely that's a typo?
Depends on how you look at this. Did evolution used to happen, and it doesn't any longer? Or is it still happening today. IMO we should not only be able to prove evolution based on bones and fossils, but also from identifying whats happening to us today.
edit on 27-2-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)


You have to have not been even reading the material we're giving you to ask these questions. Why won't you even seek to understand what scientists understand about evolution? You don't have to believe it. Just understand it. Instead, you are plugging your ears and going "lalalalala! I can't hear you!" I mean come on, man. Stop being a religious nut and learn something.


Thanks, Varemia. I read his response and was filled with such hopelessness and despair at ever trying to get him to understand that I just didn't respond.

edit on 2/27/2012 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





You have to have not been even reading the material we're giving you to ask these questions. Why won't you even seek to understand what scientists understand about evolution? You don't have to believe it. Just understand it. Instead, you are plugging your ears and going "lalalalala! I can't hear you!" I mean come on, man. Stop being a religious nut and learn something.
I'm not religious, where did you get that.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





Thanks, Varemia. I read his response and was filled with such hopelessness and despair at ever trying to get him to understand that I just didn't respond.
Is there something I missed? I know this wasn't my message but I'm assuming your talking about me. I just don't recall anything that claimed any proof of us having proof of other species we evolved from. The ones I read either said, it is believed or it is thought. Nothing in the realm of proof.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





Descended FROM us? Surely that's a typo?
Depends on how you look at this. Did evolution used to happen, and it doesn't any longer? Or is it still happening today. IMO we should not only be able to prove evolution based on bones and fossils, but also from identifying whats happening to us today.
edit on 27-2-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)


Yes, and we can. Remember the study I quoted you about the various mutation rates in humans? These studies are done over a few generations with several test subjects. It proves that genetic mutation still happens to this day, therefor evolution does.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





Descended FROM us? Surely that's a typo?
Depends on how you look at this. Did evolution used to happen, and it doesn't any longer? Or is it still happening today. IMO we should not only be able to prove evolution based on bones and fossils, but also from identifying whats happening to us today.
edit on 27-2-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)


Yes, and we can. Remember the study I quoted you about the various mutation rates in humans? These studies are done over a few generations with several test subjects. It proves that genetic mutation still happens to this day, therefor evolution does.


This is more or less what I was going to say, but I just didn't see the point.

Small changes over time. Once Toothy has grasped that elemental fact, we can move on to the next lesson.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by IluvJuice
 


simple.wikipedia.org...

Not that Wiki is always the better source, but I fail to see anything even written that claims this is related to humans.


Are humans animals?

Yes.

The we are subject to the same biochemical and physical processes as every other organism on the planet. Period, finite, the end.

Humans are Homo sapiens. Really, why are you making it so difficult for yourself?
edit on 2/27/2012 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)


ETA: A better example might be this one:

simple.wikipedia.org...:Hominins
edit on 2/27/2012 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





This is more or less what I was going to say, but I just didn't see the point.

Small changes over time. Once Toothy has grasped that elemental fact, we can move on to the next lesson
I got that, but that would also mean there should be a hell of a lot of bones, in addition to us still being able to find this in a lab. Slow or not we should be able to detect it.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


There is a very good chance that we ate all of the bone marrow and the destroyed bones rotted away very quickly.

An infinity of time preceded us and so god and alien intervention are possible. But the structures of the bones we have found make evolution a simpler and more likely answer.


edit on 27-2-2012 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





This is more or less what I was going to say, but I just didn't see the point.

Small changes over time. Once Toothy has grasped that elemental fact, we can move on to the next lesson
I got that, but that would also mean there should be a hell of a lot of bones, in addition to us still being able to find this in a lab. Slow or not we should be able to detect it.


How does slow change over time, or the FACT that humans still have genetic mutations today, mean there should be a hell of a lot of bones? I know we've broken down how fossilization happens for you already, so why are you still saying this? There are species of hominid that we've only found 2 pieces of bone from, but we know it exists because we've mapped the genome. We CAN detect it, that's the whole point!!! It's proven!
edit on 27-2-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 257  258  259    261  262  263 >>

log in

join