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: 311
31
<< 308  309  310    312  313  314 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





It's based on empirical evidence, not gross imagination. How do you think parental testing happens? Yep, similarity in DNA. We know for a fact, that the degree of similarity in DNA correlates directly with relatedness.
then how do you not know its a different species?


Care to rephrase your question? What are you referring to with "it" and different species from what? How is your question related to what I wrote?




posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





Care to rephrase your question? What are you referring to with "it" and different species from what? How is your question related to what I wrote?
Parental testing.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

Not following your logic..



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


What I'm saying is how do they know the difference between parental testing genes, and aleged evolution.
There is no ground floor that has ever been established to know whats going on. This is what I keep saying.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia
 





It's how a lot of modern medicine is performed. Look it up if you don't believe me. I know real life can be hard to accept sometimes for someone as delusional as you.
Well sure in terms of bacteria and viruses, but there is no grounding for the basis.

I digress once again to when I was talking about the fact that we honestly have no proof of knowing if a species is changing out of its species. How do we know or not know that 6 feet people are normal? We don't, we assume they are normal because most of us are that way, and that is a fact.

So this is how we determine the ground basis for things changing, its bases on an assumption.


Really now. So you're claiming that we don't experiment on rats and mice due to their nearly identical organ system? It's a medical fact, and you should know it with all the animal rights folks that are up in arms over the issue.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





Really now. So you're claiming that we don't experiment on rats and mice due to their nearly identical organ system? It's a medical fact, and you should know it with all the animal rights folks that are up in arms over the issue
No I'm not denying we have 70% overlap with rats, I'm just saying there is noting that proves we are related even though.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia
 





Really now. So you're claiming that we don't experiment on rats and mice due to their nearly identical organ system? It's a medical fact, and you should know it with all the animal rights folks that are up in arms over the issue
No I'm not denying we have 70% overlap with rats, I'm just saying there is noting that proves we are related even though.


So you think it's just a coincidence that we share so much DNA and physiology? Why would that be random?



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

I don't see your point. Let's start again.

Your genome is the most similar to that of your parents and your siblings. Your parents genomes are the most similar to that of their parents and their siblings. Your grandparents genomes are the most similar to that of their parents and their siblings. This is an unbroken chain. As we move further back in time, the more and more dissimilar the genomes get in comparison to yours.

Suppose your great-grandma had a brother,who had a son, who had a son, who also had a son - called Mark (approximately your age). Suppose your grandma also had a brother, who had a son, who had a son - called Lucas (also approximately your age). Genetically speaking, you're going to be more similar to Lucas than to Mark.

The same principle applies on much longer timescales just as well. Or perhaps you will be the first person ever, who puts forth a mechanism that could possibly stop this force of nature from happening?
edit on 21-3-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-3-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

I don't see your point. Let's start again.

Your genome is the most similar to that of your parents and your siblings. Your parents genomes are the most similar to that of their parents. Your grandparents genomes are the most similar to that of their parents and siblings. This is an unbroken chain. As we move further back in time, the more and more dissimilar the genomes get in comparison to yours.

Suppose your great-grandma had a brother,who had a son, who had a son, who also had a son - called Mark (approximately your age). Suppose your grandma also had a brother, who had a son, who had a son - called Lucas (also approximately your age). Genetically speaking, you're going to be more similar to Lucas than to Mark.

The same principle applies on much longer timescales just as well. Or perhaps you will be the first person ever, who puts forth a mechanism that could possibly stop this force of nature from happening?
edit on 21-3-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)


wow, stars for you. I liked how you set that up with the grandma and great grandma, makes a lot of sense.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





It's statements like this that make it absolute apparent to us that you never even bothered to try to understand evolution. How did you manage to pass your biology class, or maybe you're a high school dropout?
I even went into college for a science background.

Not much about evolution was taught when I was in high school, neither was religion. I think they both have there flaws. No I tried, but when I got handed links telling me that evolution is a postulated hypothetical theory, it kind of summed things up for me.
You do realise you was asked where you got your education and not where you got a job as a cleaner in the local school science labs dont you?

Is this the same school that taught you how to set up home inside a whale?
Is this the same school where you were taught everything humans do is un natural and everything animals do is natural?
Your school not teaching much about evolution was it appears still way over your understanding.
What they did teach you is two words. Postulated and hypothetical, it is just a shame they never taught you what they meant.

Stating you went to school for a science background seems to have been a legendary failure because what you have demonstrated in this thread is a total ignorance of how it works even at the most elemental level.

You have also shown yourself to be A pathological liar

Pathological liars - or "mythomaniacs" - may be suffering from histrionic personality disorder or narcissistic personality disorder. The following comments basically reflect a pathological liar who has the characteristics of histrionic personality disorder.
You fit the description perfectly.
edit on 21-3-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





So you think it's just a coincidence that we share so much DNA and physiology? Why would that be random?
Well its not so much an issue of what I think, as it is that I just don't assume like that.

Those answers rest in the myths of our creation which both evolution and creation do very little for.
edit on 22-3-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





I don't see your point. Let's start again.

Your genome is the most similar to that of your parents and your siblings. Your parents genomes are the most similar to that of their parents and their siblings. Your grandparents genomes are the most similar to that of their parents and their siblings. This is an unbroken chain. As we move further back in time, the more and more dissimilar the genomes get in comparison to yours.
Your saying when there are changes, its evolution. Now you have nothing to back up the theory, or anything the proves it, you just know.

What I'm saying is when parents make children, there are changes, how do you not know that is evolution? Evolution is not based on anything grounded. As a result there is no way to prove it.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





You do realise you was asked where you got your education and not where you got a job as a cleaner in the local school science labs dont you?

Is this the same school that taught you how to set up home inside a whale?
Is this the same school where you were taught everything humans do is un natural and everything animals do is natural?
First off I don't rely on the inaccuracies of others to teach me what to believe in. I look at everything myself and make my own decision. Intervention was never taught to me if that's whats your eluding to, I simply read the evidence and easily came to that decision.

Being able to understand things that aren't natural requires someone to remove themselves from the picture. Not everyone can do this, so I can see where your having a problem with it. You have been brainwashed by evolutionism so its the first thing on your mind, and it makes it difficult to pull yourself out of the picture. This is why you will most likely never understand.

I haven't lied anywhere here. Your delusion of evolution just forces you to see things that way. It's another reason why I don't buy into the idea of evolution. When the links I'm being sent to clearly state they are a hypothetical postulated theory and a group of people are still head strong in believing its real, I automatically know what type of people they are.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


You brought up a very good point.

Maybe you guys don't know what postulated and hypothetical means.
So here is is, right out of google.

Suggest or assume the existence, fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief.
www.google.com... qi=g4g-s1g5&aql=&gs_l=serp.3..0l4j0i10j0l5.2884l4776l0l4982l10l9l0l0l0l0l111l908l3j6l9l0.frgbld.

Suggesting or assuming something into a fact for the purpose of discussion does not make it a scientific fact.
And thats a fact that seems to be eluding a lot of people on here.

t·i·cal/ˌhīpəˈTHetikəl/
Adjective:
Of, based on, or serving as a hypothesis.
Noun:
A hypothetical proposition or statement: "Flynn talked in hypotheticals, tossing what-if scenarios to Kernaghan".
www.google.com... qi=g4g-s1g5&aql=&gs_l=serp.3..0l4j0i10j0l5.2884l4776l0l4982l10l9l0l0l0l0l111l908l3j6l9l0.frgbld.#hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US
fficial &channel=s&sa=X&ei=XlprT9-GOKnliALP5rWJBQ&ved=0CCIQvwUoAQ&q=hypothetical&spell=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=2d9e2ac749f82f7c&biw=1280&bih=8 04

And this is the same thing, a what if scenario does not establish a scientific fact, except in the case of evolution apparently.

Evolution embraces these two definitions as the definition, yet people still believe that evolution is real. They should have thrown some snake oil in there as well.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





Your saying when there are changes, its evolution. Now you have nothing to back up the theory, or anything the proves it, you just know.

What I'm saying is when parents make children, there are changes, how do you not know that is evolution? Evolution is not based on anything grounded. As a result there is no way to prove it.



For crying out loud, we are actively using the theory in modern medicine to accurately FORECAST changes. It's how we come up with medicine! If theory were wrong, we couldn't use it to predict the future


Also, you saying "there is no proof" is laughable after all the proof people posted. All it shows is that your preconceived notions forbid you from thinking rationally and logically

edit on 22-3-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)





First off I don't rely on the inaccuracies of others to teach me what to believe in. I look at everything myself and make my own decision. Intervention was never taught to me if that's whats your eluding to, I simply read the evidence and easily came to that decision.



There is no objective evidence for intervention. You posting Pye's snake oil salesman claims isn't proof





You have been brainwashed


The irony is strong in this one





I haven't lied anywhere here.


Well, you posted stuff that is demonstrably nonsense and not true...and technically that's lying





When the links I'm being sent to clearly state they are a hypothetical postulated theory


There is no such thing


Something is either a theory (aka fully backed up by objective evidence) or a hypothesis (something not backed up by evidence). A hypothesis only becomes a theory once it's been tested and fully error checked. So a theory isn't hypothetical


At least learn about the things you criticize, because clearly you don't know what you're talking about...




a group of people are still head strong in believing its real, I automatically know what type of people they are


Rational people?
Logical people?
People who care about objective evidence?
edit on 22-3-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





I don't see your point. Let's start again.

Your genome is the most similar to that of your parents and your siblings. Your parents genomes are the most similar to that of their parents and their siblings. Your grandparents genomes are the most similar to that of their parents and their siblings. This is an unbroken chain. As we move further back in time, the more and more dissimilar the genomes get in comparison to yours.
Your saying when there are changes, its evolution. Now you have nothing to back up the theory, or anything the proves it, you just know.

What I'm saying is when parents make children, there are changes, how do you not know that is evolution? Evolution is not based on anything grounded. As a result there is no way to prove it.


No. That's not what I am saying. Evolution and change are not synonymous. Evolution is natural selection acting on change. Children being different from their parents is not evolution. It's only evolution in the grander scale, when we look at populations, and we observe that some children manage to reproduce better than other children of other parents, and thus the gene pool of that entire population changes.

You have nothing to back up your claim, that this would not lead to speciation in longer time scales, given that populations became isolated from one another, i.e. there was no cross breeding, and thus the two populations of the same species would start to diverge genetically, end result being two different species from one ancestral species.

So I ask you again, what kind of mechanism could possibly prevent the above from happening? If you fail to do this, you can no longer say that DNA similarity doesn't implicate degree of relatedness.
edit on 22-3-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





For crying out loud, we are actively using the theory in modern medicine to accurately FORECAST changes. It's how we come up with medicine! If theory were wrong, we couldn't use it to predict the future
Well I guess we go back to this again. Like I have said now probably a dozen times now, that just because they are able to find changes, doesn't mean its the hand of evolution. I'm not denying that things can change, but there is no grounded basis that proves its the hand of evolution at work.




Also, you saying "there is no proof" is laughable after all the proof people posted. All it shows is that your preconceived notions forbid you from thinking rationally and logically
Thinking rationally and making bold assumptions are two different things.

Evolution embraces several bold assumptions that have never been proven, and probably for a very good reason.

There is nothing that has ever been able to prove the hand of evolution.




There is no objective evidence for intervention. You posting Pye's snake oil salesman claims isn't proof
Well sure there is, there is clear documentation of it happening, unlike evolutionism.




Well, you posted stuff that is demonstrably nonsense and not true...and technically that's lying
Well just remember that your the one believing in a postulated hypothetical theory's, and I'm believing in documentation, who is really the liar here?




Something is either a theory (aka fully backed up by objective evidence) or a hypothesis (something not backed up by evidence). A hypothesis only becomes a theory once it's been tested and fully error checked. So a theory isn't hypothetical
Sorry if you disagree with the lingo, I got it off a major evolution site.






At least learn about the things you criticize, because clearly you don't know what you're talking about...
I believe the evolution link I have re posted a few times accurately described it.




Rational people?
Logical people?
People who care about objective evidence?
Sure if you believe that postulated hypothetical theory's are real.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





No. That's not what I am saying. Evolution and change are not synonymous. Evolution is natural selection acting on change. Children being different from their parents is not evolution. It's only evolution in the grander scale, when we look at populations, and we observe that some children manage to reproduce better than other children of other parents, and thus the gene pool of that entire population changes.
But still there is no way to identify or isolate the different changes. We simply don't know, and we can't because the ground work for understanding our own biology is based on assumptions.

We assume that being 6' tall is ok. We assume that being 9 feet tall is a defect. What do we base that on? On an assumption. That assumption has set the ground work for identifying changes in evolution.




You have nothing to back up your claim, that this would not lead to speciation in longer time scales, given that populations became isolated from one another.
When a species is no longer able to breed with its original species, does not prove the hand of evolution. What it does prove is that they are no longer breeding.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

You failed to put forth a mechanism that could possibly prevent what I wrote from happening. Until you (or some other guy) do that, there is no reason (none at all) to think that this is not exactly what has been and is happening. It is not just an assumption, but a logical conclusion that has also been empirically verified in dozens of different fields of science. Also, in the end science (mathematics maybe excluded) is not about proving or disproving things (how can you get P=0 or P=1?). It's about having high confidence in something being true or not. I mean sure, the similarity of human and chimp genomes being extremely similar could be only due to chance (instead of common ancestry), however the probability of this being the case is some ridiculously small number that approaches negative infinity. And that's where you're hiding when you say that it hasn't been proven. It will never be proven like that, because such task is impossible.
edit on 22-3-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





Well I guess we go back to this again. Like I have said now probably a dozen times now, that just because they are able to find changes, doesn't mean its the hand of evolution. I'm not denying that things can change, but there is no grounded basis that proves its the hand of evolution at work.


Except it is...because we are using the THEORY OF EVOLUTION for our forecasts. If the theory were wrong, our forecasts would be too...but they aren't





Thinking rationally and making bold assumptions are two different things.

Evolution embraces several bold assumptions that have never been proven, and probably for a very good reason.

There is nothing that has ever been able to prove the hand of evolution.


They aren't "assumptions", they are theories. And in order to be a theory, it needs to be fully backed up by objective evidence. You don't even understand what a scientific theory is


You're essentially saying "we don't know how computers work...we know they exist, but we don't know how they work". That's NONSENSE





Well sure there is, there is clear documentation of it happening, unlike evolutionism.


In order to be a scientific evidence, it requires clear documentation...so once again you don't know what you're talking about. Also, what proof for intervention are you talking about? So far you posted none





Well just remember that your the one believing in a postulated hypothetical theory's, and I'm believing in documentation, who is really the liar here?


Learn the difference between a hypothesis and a theory



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 308  309  310    312  313  314 >>

log in

join