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: 267
31
<< 264  265  266    268  269  270 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth

Um, this has already happened. We have mapped the genome of Neanderthals (archaic homo sapiens) and Denisovans and compared it to ours.

Do you have any links proving this?

Are you actually going to read them?

www.newscientist.com...

www.dailymail.co.uk...



I didn't say you, I'm talking about how science looks at these things.

So science refers to things as normal? Could you please show me proof of this.


Which is fine, but your ignoring the possibility that those could be normal.

Pay attention. We aren't talking about what is normal. The genetic mutations HAPPEN. Whether they are normal or not has no bearing on this reality. If they happen, then they happen. Simple fact: They do happen.



They don't have to be lying, they just might not understand.

Ok sure. You surely understand more than these silly scientists.


That's because your assuming that those changes are tied into evolution and I'm trying to say that they might just be a normal part of all life, and have nothing to do with evolution.


What are you talking about? Genetic mutation IS evolution. What part of that do you not understand?
edit on 29-2-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 
You just increased your star rating by one. Thanks



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





And that is you teaching me about intervention. What a sorry specimen you are
Well I know from experience I have to spoon feed you so you don't have a break down.




That is your explanation of diversity using the intervention theory. How impressive ........ that is not.
I don't think its the first time I have mentioned it.




And that had what to do with the intervention theory or diversity?
Neither, it had to do with you saying I was lying.




I have been telling you that your IQ is very low for many pages and again this shows you do not read any information given to you and could not comprehend it if you did.
I see, and because its typed by the hand of colin, its as good as gold.




That is your explanation on the recycled parts theory? Really that is all you got? Tell you what just explain diversity, I dont think you even know what it is.
I know what it is, its been most of the conversation on here. I think it shows a lack of intelligence to ask people to explain it otherwise, as though its the way it is assumed.
Like me asking you how we got here without using intervention.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 


I think its important to note that just because someone skips peer reviews doesn't mean there work is fake, but it could.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Well I know from experience I have to spoon feed you so you don't have a break down.
What an epic fail


I don't think its the first time I have mentioned it.
Its not the first time you have avoided answering it either


Neither, it had to do with you saying I was lying.
Does that mean your dad thought you was a liar as well? Epic confession


I see, and because its typed by the hand of colin, its as good as gold.
It's certainly more credible than anything you type


I know what it is, its been most of the conversation on here. I think it shows a lack of intelligence to ask people to explain it otherwise, as though its the way it is assumed.
Thought so. You cannot even describe diversity let alone explain it


Like me asking you how we got here without using intervention.
Which everyone on here has explained to you its called EVOLUTION, you may have noticed it once or twice in all these pages



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster
 


I think its important to note that just because someone skips peer reviews doesn't mean there work is fake, but it could.


Any scientist who wants to be taken seriously goes through peer review.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





Are you actually going to read them?

www.newscientist.com...

www.dailymail.co.uk...
Ok I read both of them, and want to give you my analysis of them. I think it's important to keep an open mind on things and just be careful to not make assumptions. I'm going to repeat my findings as I know this will come up again as though I never answered.

Firs of all, on the first link, it completely looks like its just a different race that was found. They are clear that they were able to detect interbreeding between the species, and this does nothing to prove evolution, as evolution is not about species mixing, its about new ones being created.

The second link Also doesn't prove anything. They are talking about mapping out the genome of a neanderthal, which again says nothing about proving evolution. I think its nice they did this but what does it prove. There is nothing conclusive about this article that proves anything. In both cases they aren't even making assumptions or conjecture its just about DNA work getting done.




So science refers to things as normal? Could you please show me proof of this.
Our entire structure is accepted by whats considered to be normal, not by anything else.




Pay attention. We aren't talking about what is normal. The genetic mutations HAPPEN. Whether they are normal or not has no bearing on this reality. If they happen, then they happen. Simple fact: They do happen.
Your missing the point.




Ok sure. You surely understand more than these silly scientists.
This understanding is from the perspective of them not knowing everything about science and DNA, not about me knowing more than them.




What are you talking about? Genetic mutation IS evolution. What part of that do you not understand?
I doubt seriously if mutations could be the basis for life branching out and creating us to what we are today. Believing in such things is poor at best. Scientists have proven that any life afflicted with such things dies very quickly.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster
 


I think its important to note that just because someone skips peer reviews doesn't mean there work is fake, but it could.


Absolutley, but by believing a scientific claim that hasnt undergone peer review, one is basings one belief on and in faith of the experimentor.

This is what has been pointed out to you time and again. You say Pye experiments are on the table, but they're not. He has withheld his methodolgy, he has withheld his specimens and only produced his results. And thats his perogative.

But when it comes to opposing views, who should we opt for, the scientist that has published his work in it entirety for peer review, who's work has been replicated by many respected scientist working in the same arena, or the "scientist" who withholds his work and expects us to accept his results because he says it is so.

And despite what you have been claiming, thanks to peer review, evolution isnt just something that a single scientist guesses was right and all the rest agreed. Scientist right now are looking to see where it might be wrong, everything you quote against evolution, you are only able to because the science has been done to point out those gaps.

People on this thread, on ATS are not close minded, we all look for alternates. The hostility towards you is nothing to do with your thoughts as to where we come from. It is the approach you use, the way that you refuse to see that the accusations you make against science are a transference of the truth about beliefs you hold.

This is the first time I have posted to you directly in a while, it will be the last for the forseeable future. There are no question marks, this post requires no reply.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by idmonster

Absolutley, but by believing a scientific claim that hasnt undergone peer review, one is basings one belief on and in faith of the experimentor.

This is what has been pointed out to you time and again. You say Pye experiments are on the table, but they're not. He has withheld his methodolgy, he has withheld his specimens and only produced his results. And thats his perogative.

But when it comes to opposing views, who should we opt for, the scientist that has published his work in it entirety for peer review, who's work has been replicated by many respected scientist working in the same arena, or the "scientist" who withholds his work and expects us to accept his results because he says it is so.

Truth be told, there's often faith even after the peer review process, as few experiments are ever reproduced, e.g. it's going to be a long while before somebody else goes about sequencing the Neanderthal genome. But then, since the supposedly used methods are out there, in the end the experiment can be redone, thou this only tends to happen with controversial results. A good example is the bacteria that can supposedly replace phosphorus with arsenic, it's starting to look like this result of Wolfe-Simon et al. is not reproducible and was perhaps due to sloppy work. To the general public it's all faith based, since they will never (even bother to try to) understand the science..
edit on 29-2-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Truth be told, there's often faith even after the peer review process, as few experiments are ever reproduced, e.g. it's going to be a long while before somebody else goes about sequencing the Neanderthal genome. But then, since the supposedly used methods are out there, in the end the experiment can be redone, thou this only tends to happen with controversial results. A good example is the bacteria that can supposedly replace phosphorus with arsenic, it's starting to look like this result of Wolfe-Simon et al. is not reproducible and was perhaps due to sloppy work. To the general public it's all faith based, since they will never (even bother to try to) understand the science..
edit on 29-2-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)


Which sort of proves the point, the necessity and usefulness of the peer review process. While scientist could re-sequence the Neanderthal genome, they wont. For two reasons. First, the process of sequencing the genes has been replicated many times and is now fairly common place. (I know, not that common place but certainly not as rare and mysterious as it first outing) and second the team doing the reasearch is respected in the field.

As you say, if the results of the sequencing proved we were 50% star child, then every scientist on the block would want a go, and if the team then refused to release the sample or explain the exact method they used in their sample extraction and sequencing, alarm bells would start ringing. (I'm sure you're aware that this is exactly what Pye did)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by idmonster
Which sort of proves the point, the necessity and usefulness of the peer review process. While scientist could re-sequence the Neanderthal genome, they wont. For two reasons. First, the process of sequencing the genes has been replicated many times and is now fairly common place. (I know, not that common place but certainly not as rare and mysterious as it first outing) and second the team doing the reasearch is respected in the field.

I read the Neanderthal genome paper last Summer. Rest assured, it was nothing like your typical 454 (or any NG) sequencing project. E.g. as I recall, the level of contamination in their samples was over 99%, and they needed to device a number of new methods for the genome assembly..
edit on 29-2-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


So your saying that evolution is not provable, because if it was, religions would not exist anymore? What about in the last 500 years lets say. The average height of humans have increased from like 5 feet to 6 feet, this is a notable change of macroevolution for humans. Am I right on that? So theres your proof, nevermind the causality of it, but there are long term changes we are seeing over a whole population at around the same time, at the same rate.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Firs of all, on the first link, it completely looks like its just a different race that was found. They are clear that they were able to detect interbreeding between the species, and this does nothing to prove evolution, as evolution is not about species mixing, its about new ones being created.

The second link Also doesn't prove anything. They are talking about mapping out the genome of a neanderthal, which again says nothing about proving evolution. I think its nice they did this but what does it prove. There is nothing conclusive about this article that proves anything. In both cases they aren't even making assumptions or conjecture its just about DNA work getting done.


Why are you saying it doesn't prove anything? You said that if evolution was true we should be able to sample DNA from bones 200,000 years ago and compare it to today to see the changes. We DID. That's why we are different from Neanderthal and others. That's how we know that humans have genetically changed since that time.



Our entire structure is accepted by whats considered to be normal, not by anything else.
Wrong again. The entire structure of science is based on the scientific method of gathering facts. It has nothing to do with the probability or whatever you're trying to suggest by using a non scientific, relative term such as "normal".




Pay attention. We aren't talking about what is normal. The genetic mutations HAPPEN. Whether they are normal or not has no bearing on this reality. If they happen, then they happen. Simple fact: They do happen.
Your missing the point.

You are clearly not understanding or intentionally pretending genetic mutations don't exist. If they exist, then evolution also MUST EXIST, because evolution IS genetic change sorted by natural selection. There's no other way you can describe it. We are talking science, and scientific definitions. If genetic mutation is "normal", then evolution is "normal".




What are you talking about? Genetic mutation IS evolution. What part of that do you not understand?
I doubt seriously if mutations could be the basis for life branching out and creating us to what we are today. Believing in such things is poor at best. Scientists have proven that any life afflicted with such things dies very quickly.


Why is believing what the evidence suggests, poor? Genetic mutation is proven to exist. That's all evolution is, besides adaptation. You keep on trying to make up your own definition of evolution, but it's not going to work. Not all mutations are harmful and if you actually read the scientific experiments I posted on mutation rates, you'd know that there are several different kinds. A basic google search would work as well.
edit on 29-2-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 







Absolutley, but by believing a scientific claim that hasnt undergone peer review, one is basings one belief on and in faith of the experimentor.
It could, I think in Pye's example, how everything is laid out for anyone to challenge is a little different. I don't see anyone complaining at this point. Anyone can challenge his findings on our DNA and no one is stepping up to do it. I think that tells me a hell of a lot more than faith is whats keeping it alive.




This is what has been pointed out to you time and again. You say Pye experiments are on the table, but they're not. He has withheld his methodolgy, he has withheld his specimens and only produced his results. And thats his perogative.
HIs methodology is out in the open for anyone to challenge and no one is doing so. his specimens is the human race which is hardly withheld, humans are everywhere.




But when it comes to opposing views, who should we opt for, the scientist that has published his work in it entirety for peer review, who's work has been replicated by many respected scientist working in the same arena, or the "scientist" who withholds his work and expects us to accept his results because he says it is so.
I think it depends. In Pye's case it could be that the lab he was working with is funded through religious organizations and therefore it would have been a conflict of interest for him to disclose that.




And despite what you have been claiming, thanks to peer review, evolution isnt just something that a single scientist guesses was right and all the rest agreed. Scientist right now are looking to see where it might be wrong, everything you quote against evolution, you are only able to because the science has been done to point out those gaps.
Not that I catch everything But I still feel even though many can work on it, things can be missed.




People on this thread, on ATS are not close minded, we all look for alternates. The hostility towards you is nothing to do with your thoughts as to where we come from. It is the approach you use, the way that you refuse to see that the accusations you make against science are a transference of the truth about beliefs you hold.
Well that would be because I haven't been presented with anything yet that claims evolution to be valid.




This is the first time I have posted to you directly in a while, it will be the last for the forseeable future. There are no question marks, this post requires no reply.
Ditto.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by andersensrm
 





So your saying that evolution is not provable, because if it was, religions would not exist anymore? What about in the last 500 years lets say. The average height of humans have increased from like 5 feet to 6 feet, this is a notable change of macroevolution for humans. Am I right on that? So theres your proof, nevermind the causality of it, but there are long term changes we are seeing over a whole population at around the same time, at the same rate.
Ok thats a real good example, and what I'm trying to say is that being 6 feet was always an option and we just didn't know it.



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





Why are you saying it doesn't prove anything? You said that if evolution was true we should be able to sample DNA from bones 200,000 years ago and compare it to today to see the changes. We DID. That's why we are different from Neanderthal and others. That's how we know that humans have genetically changed since that time.
I think your reading into something that wasn't there. I didn't get anything out of it about genetics changing. What I did get out of it was proof that neanderthal man bred with humans, and thats it.




Wrong again. The entire structure of science is based on the scientific method of gathering facts. It has nothing to do with the probability or whatever you're trying to suggest by using a non scientific, relative term such as "normal".
Then please show me the scientific fact that tells us that brown, blue, green eyes are normal and why, since its scientific.




You are clearly not understanding or intentionally pretending genetic mutations don't exist. If they exist, then evolution also MUST EXIST, because evolution IS genetic change sorted by natural selection. There's no other way you can describe it. We are talking science, and scientific definitions. If genetic mutation is "normal", then evolution is "normal".
Of course some exist, look at Tunguska Russia. Anyhow, all I'm saying is that some of these changes might not be from evolution or mutation, it could just be natural occurances.




Why is believing what the evidence suggests, poor?
If you are talking about a hypothetical postualted theory, then you would be correct. I don't live by those terms, I go by something a little more solid, like scientific theory, or scientific fact.




Genetic mutation is proven to exist. That's all evolution is, besides adaptation. You keep on trying to make up your own definition of evolution, but it's not going to work.
If you believe that all life as we know it was a branch of genetic mutations, that would take trillions of years for it to happen. How do you explalin that when earth is only 4 billion years old.




Not all mutations are harmful and if you actually read the scientific experiments I posted on mutation rates, you'd know that there are several different kinds. A basic google search would work as well.
Your describing a mechanism that could easier be understood as a bug. A bug that is not only smart enough to change our DNA, but actually know what its doing. A bug that can hide its appearnace and endevours. Now a bug with these credentials must be intelligent, so now its looking like intelligence is behind this in the form of a bug. I'm sorry man, I just don't buy it.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
I see you are still running from your 'balanced eco system in a bottle' despite me posting it 3 times for you now and you have the cheek to say I do not respond to your statements.

I see you intend not to even describe diversity.

So much for you putting forward a good case. With every avoidance, every run and hide you prove me correct and show the dishonest way you take part in this thread. So what is the runaway list now?

Wolves, Ants, Shrimps, House Sparrows, Milk, Honey, diversity, Balanced eco systems, Bushmen. Not bad for a guy that claims to have discussed everthing and won. Keep running boy but you cant hide..



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by andersensrm
 





So your saying that evolution is not provable, because if it was, religions would not exist anymore? What about in the last 500 years lets say. The average height of humans have increased from like 5 feet to 6 feet, this is a notable change of macroevolution for humans. Am I right on that? So theres your proof, nevermind the causality of it, but there are long term changes we are seeing over a whole population at around the same time, at the same rate.
Ok thats a real good example, and what I'm trying to say is that being 6 feet was always an option and we just didn't know it.


But then why do we see the average go up for everyone? If it was a random possibility, the average would stay roughly the same, but since we see it increasing, there is some kind of push to be taller, for whatever reason.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by idmonster
 
You just increased your star rating by one. Thanks


I will second that!
I enjoy idmonster's writings, well done and thought out
in fact most of the posters in this thread have contributed some of the best posts I've seen on this subject.
The other guy is pure comedy, sometimes frustrating, but entertaining to see the responses none the less.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by andersensrm

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by andersensrm
 





So your saying that evolution is not provable, because if it was, religions would not exist anymore? What about in the last 500 years lets say. The average height of humans have increased from like 5 feet to 6 feet, this is a notable change of macroevolution for humans. Am I right on that? So theres your proof, nevermind the causality of it, but there are long term changes we are seeing over a whole population at around the same time, at the same rate.
Ok thats a real good example, and what I'm trying to say is that being 6 feet was always an option and we just didn't know it.


But then why do we see the average go up for everyone? If it was a random possibility, the average would stay roughly the same, but since we see it increasing, there is some kind of push to be taller, for whatever reason.


This is directly related to my profession so I can answer this. I deal with this stuff for a living. Worldwide, the average height for males is currently only 5'8", which is only an inch taller than your average Cro Magnon and Neanderthal. The worldwide average for women is 5'3". We Americans and Brits are shrinking slightly for several reasons. (Cro Magnon wasn't 6 inches taller than Neanderthal, by the way. They were actually roughly the same size. There have been a few Neanderthal male skeletons measuring around 5'10".)

After the Black Death, the average height dropped drastically due to poor nutrition and awful living conditions, which was caused by several external factors:

1) Not enough healthy people to maintain agriculture and livestock
2) Crop failures due to a climate shift into the Little Ice Age
3) Overall cold conditions that lasted 500 years
4) Disease (apart from the Black Death)
5) Very, very poor nutrition and inadequate caloric intake

Prior to the Black Death, men 6 feet tall weren't uncommon. It was the medieval warm period and things were relatively peaceful, and food was plentiful. It's a myth that we've consistently been getting taller for thousands of years, but in fact reaching your genetic potential for height requires good nutrition, especially protein, and being disease-free. Turkana Boy, a 1.5 million year old H. erectus skeleton found in Africa, was 12 years old when he died and he was over 5'6". Had he lived to adulthood, he would have been over 6 feet tall.

A perfect example of how good food and medical care can affect the average height is the Dutch. Prior to the 20th century, they were among the shortest people in Europe. In the span of only a couple of generations, they grew to be the tallest in Europe (but they're not the tallest in the world). Their health care is superb, second only to maybe Iceland.

Japanese Americans are also proof of what effect diet has on height. During WWII in the concentration camps, Japanese American children at the typical American diet--high in protein and fats. In ONE generation, they were as tall as the average American. (Even now, Japanese males average only 5'5".) The trade off, however, is that they now get our chronic diseases like heart disease, which is uncommon in native Japanese and they are especially prone to stomach cancer.

One thing we will not ever be is 9 feet tall, not without a radical restructuring of the circulatory, cardiovascular, and skeletal systems. The further outside of +3 standard deviations you get, the more problems people have. Until the last 20 or so years, very tall people just plain didn't live very long. The skeleton and cardiovascular systems can't handle the extra stress, and they are prone to respiratory illnesses as well. Kevin Peter Hall (AKA the Predator) died before he was 35 from pneumonia.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 264  265  266    268  269  270 >>

log in

join