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: 263
31
<< 260  261  262    264  265  266 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
No, the idea of it could be the same, but it has never been proven. How are they going to prove it to be the same when they can't even witness macro evolution in a lab?



That's like saying, "Hey, if I can't see that my hair is long after 1 day, then I don't think hair grows!" That's similar to the kind of argument you're making. The time required for microevolution to appear as macroevolution is ridiculously large. You're pretending that fossils aren't proof of it, even though we can compare our traits to any other species on Earth and determine through backwards genetics approximately when the traits were first formed. You never did read "The Ancestor's Tale," by Richard Dawkins, did you? I told you that would explain this whole damn thing.




posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





Finding even one 100 million year old rabbit, human (or basically any other contemporary animal) fossil would disprove evolution. Yet no such discovery has ever been made among the 100s of thousands (or millions) of fossils that have been unearthed so far. This proves without a doubt that e.g. rabbits did not exist 100 million years ago, yet now they're here. However, we do see lineages and can speculate which fossils are ancestors of present day rabbits.
Thats because your omitting the bible. it's possible those were brought here. No reason for me to believe that but I'm just saying.


Omitting the bible makes sense given that it also claims people can live inside whales, or that all living beings fit in a wooden boat smaller than the Titanic



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





How are you going to prove 'macro' evolution in a lab? As I said the time required is so massive that even if we started an experiment 100 years ago, we'd still be waiting for results 10,000 years from now. Also, this experiment has already been done in nature. Just look at any isolated island. Think of them as labs. How are the results? Isn't it so, that we tend to find species that are peculiarly different from species living in the mainland?
Well like I said its all good in fantasy, but what proof do we have of evolution actually occurring in humans?



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





Species is an artificial concept, but for example according to the evolutionary species concept, it's a population of organisms that are isolated in reproduction from other populations. Humans and chimps began this process some 8-10 million years ago (not bothering to check the most recent estimate). The chimp lineage divided into many more species out of which two are still around today (chimps and bonobo), likewise the human lineage divided into many more species, and some of those fused at least a little bit (us with neanderthals), but only one remains (us).
Well speciation was assumed because they were no longer able to breed with one another. All it proves to me is that they weren't able to breed with one another.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





Tooth, it HAS been proven, mainly because of genetics. Not only do we see the physical difference in fossil specimens, but we see the exact same change in genetics. Before genetics, Darwin could only go based on fossils and physical appearance, but now that we've discovered so much about DNA, it confirms and shows the same exact thing that the fossils suggest.
Then is should be able to be backtracked and or witnessed, and its not. We have no proof this ever occurred in humans.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





That's like saying, "Hey, if I can't see that my hair is long after 1 day, then I don't think hair grows!" That's similar to the kind of argument you're making. The time required for microevolution to appear as macroevolution is ridiculously large. You're pretending that fossils aren't proof of it, even though we can compare our traits to any other species on Earth and determine through backwards genetics approximately when the traits were first formed. You never did read "The Ancestor's Tale," by Richard Dawkins, did you? I told you that would explain this whole damn thing.
We know after a few weeks that our hair grows. And if you wanted to be picky they could probably measure the growth in about 2 days if they really wanted to.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Omitting the bible makes sense given that it also claims people can live inside whales, or that all living beings fit in a wooden boat smaller than the Titanic
Could have been a metaphor.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs
 





Tooth, it HAS been proven, mainly because of genetics. Not only do we see the physical difference in fossil specimens, but we see the exact same change in genetics. Before genetics, Darwin could only go based on fossils and physical appearance, but now that we've discovered so much about DNA, it confirms and shows the same exact thing that the fossils suggest.
Then is should be able to be backtracked and or witnessed, and its not. We have no proof this ever occurred in humans.


Fossils. [/endthread]

Seriously, why the hell are you ignoring fossils or pretending that they're all just other species that look almost exactly like us that went extinct?



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia
 





That's like saying, "Hey, if I can't see that my hair is long after 1 day, then I don't think hair grows!" That's similar to the kind of argument you're making. The time required for microevolution to appear as macroevolution is ridiculously large. You're pretending that fossils aren't proof of it, even though we can compare our traits to any other species on Earth and determine through backwards genetics approximately when the traits were first formed. You never did read "The Ancestor's Tale," by Richard Dawkins, did you? I told you that would explain this whole damn thing.
We know after a few weeks that our hair grows. And if you wanted to be picky they could probably measure the growth in about 2 days if they really wanted to.


You bonehead. You know that it was a metaphor. You can't see macroevolution in even 100 years. It takes 1000s and hundreds of 1000s. That's why fossils are so great, because they show what the previous forms were. Why can't you stop taking some things super literally while you take everything else as a pretend thing?



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Well like I said its all good in fantasy, but what proof do we have of evolution actually occurring in humans?

What proof do we have of evolution not occurring in some population? None. It's a force of nature, and nobody has ever put forth a mechanism that could prevent it from happening.
edit on 28-2-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by rhinoceros
 



Species is an artificial concept, but for example according to the evolutionary species concept, it's a population of organisms that are isolated in reproduction from other populations. Humans and chimps began this process some 8-10 million years ago (not bothering to check the most recent estimate). The chimp lineage divided into many more species out of which two are still around today (chimps and bonobo), likewise the human lineage divided into many more species, and some of those fused at least a little bit (us with neanderthals), but only one remains (us).
Well speciation was assumed because they were no longer able to breed with one another. All it proves to me is that they weren't able to breed with one another.

1. There's the fossil evidence (e.g. the pic I linked a few pages back and the lack of fossils representing contemporary species).
2. There's the genetic evidence (including common descent of all organisms on Earth)
3. There's the 'relic' evidence (whales with hip bones, humans with tail bones, etc.)
4. There's the functional evidence (e.g. bacteria derived organelle powering our cells)
5. There's the 100% lack of evidence to the contrary (e.g. no model put forth that could prevent evolution from happening)

Then there are for-profit religious institutions that brainwash children into believing stories (with no evidence what so ever) and horrible consequences should they ever question the message.

This is the reality. Make what you want of it.

Nobody can say with 100% certainty that things happened as science has uncovered. I mean, it's impossible to prove that some higher being didn't for example create the world as is 6000 years ago, and just made it seem like everything happened as science puts it. As far as I care people can believe whatever they want. However, this does not change the fact that it sure looks like things happened exactly as science puts it.
edit on 28-2-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs
 





Tooth, it HAS been proven, mainly because of genetics. Not only do we see the physical difference in fossil specimens, but we see the exact same change in genetics. Before genetics, Darwin could only go based on fossils and physical appearance, but now that we've discovered so much about DNA, it confirms and shows the same exact thing that the fossils suggest.
Then is should be able to be backtracked and or witnessed, and its not. We have no proof this ever occurred in humans.


Please explain how one would backtrack through the fossils to witness genetic change?

This is the last time I'm saying this. WE DO HAVE PROOF! Stop ignoring the human mutation rates that can be measured! Are they just making the numbers up out of thin air in a peer reviewed science experiment? Unless you've got objective evidence, please stop saying that evolution does not happen in humans, it absolutely does 100%. Sorry, bud. I do this because I hate to see people's minds being poisoned with nonsense. I take offense to that, which is why I stand up for science when it is unjustifiably attacked. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy thinking about intervention and what possibilities it brings to the table, but it doesn't discount evolution at all. If it happened, evolution also happened, because genetic change is real, so unless you're trying to insist you know more about biology than a biologist, you need to drop this argument.
edit on 28-2-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   
As a member of the mayfly population, I would like to add that in my life time I have never witnessed human hair growth, In fact over the last 10 generations of my species no hair growth has been observed. It must therefore be the truth that human hair does not grow.

Where is the proof that human hair grows, there is none. May fly scientist have been measuring it for generations and while there is some difference in human hair length, no mayfly has ever observed this phenomenom.

Its a fantasy, where is the proof?, Damn, I just wasted a huge period of my life learning type....

edit on 28-2-2012 by idmonster because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Well like I said its all good in fantasy, but what proof do we have of evolution actually occurring in humans?
Don’t you ever get tired of displaying your ignorance?

Are you so dumb that you believe the world will somehow transform into your fantasy if you repeat your infantile nonsense often enough?

To be repeating the same ignorance after 263 pages of being spoon fed information is beyond ignorance. I have proof that we witnessed evolution in humans.

You claim in your signature that you are not evolving. I believe this is the only honest thing you have written. So using you as the base line human beings have evolved away from ignorance, YOU.

You are a living fossil proving humans use to be closed minded with no ability to use logic and used fantasy as a security blanket. Your kind, thank goodness are an evolutionary dead end and your only role in this world is to perform that of the village idiot. You do it well.

You are as fake as the 'balanced ecosystem in a sealed tank' which despite your denial I proved false and you ran again without any admission of your error.

You run from wolves, ants, sparrows, Bushmen. It is hilarious to see how far you will run to avoid spoiling your infantile, half witted and unfounded fantasy and then you say you are not religious. You are religiously stupid.



edit on 28-2-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Can evolution be proven wrong? Probably not to an absolute certainly, just as the existence of a diety (god) can not be disproven.

But, evolutionalist themselve concede many problems. These quotations from evolutionists demonstrate the point: www.anointed-one.net...



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Don’t you ever get tired of displaying your ignorance?

Are you so dumb that you believe the world will somehow transform into your fantasy if you repeat your infantile nonsense often enough?

To be repeating the same ignorance after 263 pages of being spoon fed information is beyond ignorance. I have proof that we witnessed evolution in humans.
I think anyone would tend to repeat themselves especially when your not producing anything solid on the side of evolution.




You claim in your signature that you are not evolving. I believe this is the only honest thing you have written. So using you as the base line human beings have evolved away from ignorance, YOU.

You are a living fossil proving humans use to be closed minded with no ability to use logic and used fantasy as a security blanket. Your kind, thank goodness are an evolutionary dead end and your only role in this world is to perform that of the village idiot. You do it well.
Anyone that would simply accept being spoon fed ignorance, must be a fool.




You are as fake as the 'balanced ecosystem in a sealed tank' which despite your denial I proved false and you ran again without any admission of your error.
So fake that I even pointed out where you could buy one. This is why we end up in circles. I don't want to accept unproven garbage, and you refuse to accept anything proven.




You run from wolves, ants, sparrows, Bushmen. It is hilarious to see how far you will run to avoid spoiling your infantile, half witted and unfounded fantasy and then you say you are not religious. You are religiously stupid.
Your antics havent proven anything.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





Please explain how one would backtrack through the fossils to witness genetic change?

This is the last time I'm saying this. WE DO HAVE PROOF! Stop ignoring the human mutation rates that can be measured! Are they just making the numbers up out of thin air in a peer reviewed science experiment? Unless you've got objective evidence, please stop saying that evolution does not happen in humans, it absolutely does 100%. Sorry, bud. I do this because I hate to see people's minds being poisoned with nonsense. I take offense to that, which is why I stand up for science when it is unjustifiably attacked. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy thinking about intervention and what possibilities it brings to the table, but it doesn't discount evolution at all. If it happened, evolution also happened, because genetic change is real, so unless you're trying to insist you know more about biology than a biologist, you need to drop this argument.
I have only been issued links where the person recomending them, suggests they are proof of evolution. I have nothing that has claimed to prove evolution in fossils.
In fact all of the ones that I have read either suggest they are in debate, or don't even elude to the idea of being proof. Its occuring to me that you people that believe in evolution must have one heck of an imagination.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





That's like saying, "Hey, if I can't see that my hair is long after 1 day, then I don't think hair grows!" That's similar to the kind of argument you're making. The time required for microevolution to appear as macroevolution is ridiculously large. You're pretending that fossils aren't proof of it, even though we can compare our traits to any other species on Earth and determine through backwards genetics approximately when the traits were first formed. You never did read "The Ancestor's Tale," by Richard Dawkins, did you? I told you that would explain this whole damn thing.
And I get what your saying. The problem is that we have bones from hundreds and thousands of years ago that could be tested for this theory and nothing has been proven.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





Fossils. [/endthread]

Seriously, why the hell are you ignoring fossils or pretending that they're all just other species that look almost exactly like us that went extinct?
Why am I getting yet another contradiction again from the evolution side? I'm being told on one hand that fossils and bones that could prove change are so old that they are dust and not anywhere, while I"m also being told we have tons of bones.

I think we have tons of bones, just none that prove evolution.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





1. There's the fossil evidence (e.g. the pic I linked a few pages back and the lack of fossils representing contemporary species).
If its the link I'm thinking of, there was nothing written with it that claims to have proven any link what so ever to humans.




2. There's the genetic evidence (including common descent of all organisms on Earth)
This genetic evidence you referr to is also called overlap, when it matches in sections with other species. There is nothing that has ever proven overlap to be proof of evolution, your assuming.




3. There's the 'relic' evidence (whales with hip bones, humans with tail bones, etc.)
Those don't prove anything, we have people today with tails.




4. There's the functional evidence (e.g. bacteria derived organelle powering our cells)
Finding the same life in two different places does not conclusivly prove evolution.




5. There's the 100% lack of evidence to the contrary (e.g. no model put forth that could prevent evolution from happening)
So in other words because we have nothing better to go on, it must be true. I have been spewing intervention for weeks not on this thread, which makes a hell of a lot more sense than evolution. The best part is we have a plethora of documentation that it is what actually happened.




top topics



 
31
<< 260  261  262    264  265  266 >>

log in

join