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: 312
31
<< 309  310  311    313  314  315 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





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.
Well they know there is some changes, but they first don't know if those changes are changes outside of the species, like I said its based on assumptions about our biology. Second they have no way to prove that its the evolution bug thats causing it.




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.
Given the few options we understand on creation, it opens up Pandoras box. You can't assume just because its all we know, we don't know everything.




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.
Thats not necessarily true, we will one day have better ground work to identify these changes with.




posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





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
We also use the theory of gravity everyday, even though we know nothing about its true origin.




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
A scientific theory is something completly different and I have yet to see anything in the evolution field listed as such. Your telling me on one hand that macro evolution cant be witnessed because it takes to long to identify, yet your sitting there telling me you know its a fact. Please tell me more about this snake oil





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
Of course we know how computers work, we built them. We did not build the biology that makes all life.




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
The bible is filled with it. Pye also has proven intervention though our DNA, and Von Daniken believes in it, as well as Sitchen.




Learn the difference between a hypothesis and a theory
Sorry the site I keep getting directed to is listed as a "postulated hypothetical theory."



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Well they know there [are] some changes, but they first don't know if those changes are changes outside of the species, like I said its based on assumptions about our biology. Second they have no way to prove that its the evolution bug thats causing it.


Jesus. Fracking. Christ. There is no evolution bug! It's not a force or a genetic virus that causes the change. Change is a result of gene exchanges, mutations, and population redistributions.

What you seem to be saying is that because John looks different from his brother Steve, we can't be certain that he's the same species or if he even came from his mother. By your logic, your child is not from your DNA. He's just a coincidence.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
The bible is filled with it. Pye also has proven intervention though our DNA, and Von Daniken believes in it, as well as Sitchen.


So your standard of proof is for something to say something, be old, and then within its own text say that it's correct. Pye is the same way. No one else is allowed to analyze his DNA, and so his claims are not peer reviewed, the most important part of scientific validation. The DNA he did analyze was filled with human DNA as well as mutations. You cannot prove and neither can he that the mutations were not caused by a genetic disease. You are guessing that it is aliens, and you have faith that it is aliens. That is not proof. It is stupidity.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





We also use the theory of gravity everyday, even though we know nothing about its true origin.


And that's why the theory never says anything about the "origins of gravity"


At least read up on the theories before criticizing them...




A scientific theory is something completly different and I have yet to see anything in the evolution field listed as such.


What are you talking about??? The theory of evolution IS a scientific theory





Your telling me on one hand that macro evolution cant be witnessed because it takes to long to identify, yet your sitting there telling me you know its a fact.


Yes! Just like we can figure out you're your dad's son if in the far future both your remains should be uncovered...




Please tell me more about this snake oil


No snake oil, just plain old FACTS: LINK




Of course we know how computers work, we built them. We did not build the biology that makes all life.


Yes and we know we build those computers because we have EVIDENCE...something that's completely lacking when it comes to creationism or intervention





The bible is filled with it. Pye also has proven intervention though our DNA, and Von Daniken believes in it, as well as Sitchen.


The bible isn't objective evidence...as should be clear to anyone when reading about that silly global flood or people surviving inside whales. Pye never bothered to back up his claims with objective evidence, so until he does, he's presenting FICTION. And Sitchen believed shrooms turned humans intelligent...'nough said.

If that's what you consider "objective evidence" no one can help you. All those clowns are prime examples of pseudo-science!




Sorry the site I keep getting directed to is listed as a "postulated hypothetical theory."


Link pls! Just fyi, if you google it, the only time this word comes up is in this thread



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





Jesus. Fracking. Christ. There is no evolution bug! It's not a force or a genetic virus that causes the change. Change is a result of gene exchanges, mutations, and population redistributions.

What you seem to be saying is that because John looks different from his brother Steve, we can't be certain that he's the same species or if he even came from his mother. By your logic, your child is not from your DNA. He's just a coincidence.
An assumption is made based on how similar the DNA is, based on chromosomes, which proves him to be the same family and same species, but not the same person.

They have managed to figure out how to identify those types of differences, What I'm saying is there is no proof of any of it being from natural causes or evolution.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





So your standard of proof is for something to say something, be old, and then within its own text say that it's correct. Pye is the same way. No one else is allowed to analyze his DNA, and so his claims are not peer reviewed, the most important part of scientific validation. The DNA he did analyze was filled with human DNA as well as mutations. You cannot prove and neither can he that the mutations were not caused by a genetic disease. You are guessing that it is aliens, and you have faith that it is aliens. That is not proof. It is stupidity.
Pye is not claiming that he found such DNA but rather that all of our DNA has the findings.

So again you believe that mutations can not only change our DNA but know how to manipulate and reprogram our DNA for specific reasons of there own.

Again it sounds like there is intelligence behind it, and I find it hard to believe that evolution can make changes in our DNA and leave ill traces of tampering. It least if it was evolution it would appear natural.

We have only recently had the ability to change DNA, so there is no way that we did this to ourselves. There was someone else that did it. And if you believe that the changes in pyes video are natural, why do we not see the same changes in the wild.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Again it sounds like there is intelligence behind it, and I find it hard to believe that evolution can make changes in our DNA and leave ill traces of tampering. It least if it was evolution it would appear natural.


There are no ill traces of tampering. You've been making them up with no actual proof. You're demanding more evidence from others than you have for your own ideas.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





And that's why the theory never says anything about the "origins of gravity"

At least read up on the theories before criticizing them...
I don't have to, the point was that we know very little about it.




What are you talking about??? The theory of evolution IS a scientific theory
You idiot, no its not, you even said at one point yourself that macro evolution has never been witnessed, much less other parts.




Yes! Just like we can figure out you're your dad's son if in the far future both your remains should be uncovered...
These types of tests had there ground work set by using comparisons against others in the family. There is nothing to compare to for evolution.




Yes and we know we build those computers because we have EVIDENCE...something that's completely lacking when it comes to creationism or intervention
Not at all, we have the manual of what happened to us.




The bible isn't objective evidence...as should be clear to anyone when reading about that silly global flood or people surviving inside whales. Pye never bothered to back up his claims with objective evidence, so until he does, he's presenting FICTION. And Sitchen believed shrooms turned humans intelligent...'nough said.

If that's what you consider "objective evidence" no one can help you. All those clowns are prime examples of pseudo-science!
I never said I believe in all of it, your making assumptions that because some things are either foolish or misunderstood that the rest of it couldn't possibly be correct.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





There are no ill traces of tampering. You've been making them up with no actual proof. You're demanding more evidence from others than you have for your own ideas.
There are many different ways that prove our DNA was tampered with. Strands that appear to have been removed, inverted and reinserted. 1000 times more than our share of defects, so if you believe that evolution did this, then we are the only ones evolving because this was based on comparison to other life.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
There are many different ways that prove our DNA was tampered with. Strands that appear to have been removed, inverted and reinserted.

That doesn't prove anything. All it proves is that strands appear removed/inverted/reinserted.
Also, there are a wide variety of natural mechanisms that cause this, and such observations are made in species from all three domains of life.

If these are signs of intervention, perhaps you might explain why we for example observe large duplication/inversion in the mitochondrial genome of Candida alai (NCBI access: NC_014612, you can go see yourself)? What's was the point?
edit on 22-3-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia
 





There are no ill traces of tampering. You've been making them up with no actual proof. You're demanding more evidence from others than you have for your own ideas.
There are many different ways that prove our DNA was tampered with. Strands that appear to have been removed, inverted and reinserted. 1000 times more than our share of defects, so if you believe that evolution did this, then we are the only ones evolving because this was based on comparison to other life.


Do you actually have proof of this? I've heard you claim it, but it all seems to be your personal opinion with no facts to back it up.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





That doesn't prove anything. All it proves is that strands appear removed/inverted/reinserted. Also, there are a wide variety of natural mechanisms that cause this, and such observations are made in species from all three domains of life.
Just remember that if you believe that DNA can change on its own, and for not appreant reason (which you do) then you also have to dismiss any findings used with DNA including forensics used today.

It's simple. DNA CANT just change on its own. It goes against everything we have come to learn about anything.




If these are signs of intervention, perhaps you might explain why we for example observe large duplication/inversion in the mitochondrial genome of Candida alai (NCBI access: NC_014612, you can go see yourself)? What's was the point?
It could just be there unique way of multiplying, who knows. Just because we don't have the answers doesn't mean anything.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





Do you actually have proof of this? I've heard you claim it, but it all seems to be your personal opinion with no facts to back it up.
Of course there is proof, we didn't have DNA labs thousands of years ago.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Just remember that if you believe that DNA can change on its own, and for not appreant reason (which you do) then you also have to dismiss any findings used with DNA including forensics used today.

It's simple. DNA CANT just change on its own. It goes against everything we have come to learn about anything.

It doesn't just magically change. Point mutations are most often caused by DNA polymerase during replication. We can even quantify the error rate of different DNA polymerases under different environments. So again, this is not an assumption, but empirically verified phenomenon. The underlying reasons are in the end related to chemistry. Most other types of mutations also happen during replication (e.g. duplications and inversions) and again, in the end the reasons are of chemical nature. I'm not going to bother to address the DNA forensics part, but needless to say, you're wrong there too.



It could just be there unique way of multiplying, who knows. Just because we don't have the answers doesn't mean anything.

But you just said that DNA CANT just change on its own. So this inversion/duplication must have risen by intervention. But to what end?

P.s. I'm fascinated why you accept Ply blindly and refuse the evidence backed Modern synthesis. What drives people to such irrational behavior?
edit on 22-3-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Of course there is proof, we didn't have DNA labs thousands of years ago.

Prove that we didn't have DNA labs thousands of years ago. While you're at it also prove that these signs you speak of couldn't have happened naturally. After that please list the relevant loci so I check them myself.
edit on 22-3-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





I don't have to, the point was that we know very little about it.


No, the point is you completely misinterpreted the information





You idiot, no its not, you even said at one point yourself that macro evolution has never been witnessed, much less other parts.


The theory of evolution IS a scientific theory, and that's a FACT. Kinda ironic you call me an idiot





These types of tests had there ground work set by using comparisons against others in the family. There is nothing to compare to for evolution.


Except for those thousands of fossils and DNA samples you mean? It's the same procedure we'd use on your dad's remains





Not at all, we have the manual of what happened to us.


What manual? I hope you're not talking about the bible, because manuals have to be objective and factual...the bible clearly isn't





There are many different ways that prove our DNA was tampered with. Strands that appear to have been removed, inverted and reinserted. 1000 times more than our share of defects, so if you believe that evolution did this, then we are the only ones evolving because this was based on comparison to other life.


Nothing in the above post is based on facts


In essence, you're simply preaching your own belief...but sadly fail completely at backing any of it up with hard facts, just like the average creationist.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





It doesn't just magically change. Point mutations are most often caused by DNA polymerase during replication. We can even quantify the error rate of different DNA polymerases under different environments. So again, this is not an assumption, but empirically verified phenomenon. The underlying reasons are in the end related to chemistry. Most other types of mutations also happen during replication (e.g. duplications and inversions) and again, in the end the reasons are of chemical nature. I'm not going to bother to address the DNA forensics part, but needless to say, you're wrong there too.
Well then, if thats correct, humans have 1000% higher polymerase replication than other life. I just don't buy it.




But you just said that DNA CANT just change on its own. So this inversion/duplication must have risen by intervention. But to what end?
Actually I wasn't referring to inversion duplication, but rather inversion / defect rate. We have over 1000 times our share of defects by comparison to other life.

Pye believes this could be due to our species being an engineered species. I guess thats possible.




P.s. I'm fascinated why you accept Ply blindly and refuse the evidence backed Modern synthesis. What drives people to such irrational behavior?
Because there is no ground work to support it. Seriously think about it. What are we observing these changes by, and what are we comparing them to.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





Prove that we didn't have DNA labs thousands of years ago. While you're at it also prove that these signs you speak of couldn't have happened naturally. After that please list the relevant loci so I check them myself
First of all if you honestly believe that we had DNA labs thousands of years ago, then you are also admitting that we in fact did not evolve, but rather DE-EVOLVED!

Second if you claiming that all of these changes are happening naturally, then we are the only ones its happening to.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Well then, if thats correct, humans have 1000% higher polymerase replication than other life. I just don't buy it.

1000% higher? What do you mean by this?



Actually I wasn't referring to inversion duplication, but rather inversion / defect rate. We have over 1000 times our share of defects by comparison to other life.

Are you implying that "other life" has exactly equal number of inversion / defect rate? What do you even mean by inversion / defect rate? What counts as inversion? How many identical nucleotides in a row in opposite strands? What counts as defect? How are inversions and defects connected? Why is this a rational comparison?



What are we observing these changes by, and what are we comparing them to.

You should think about that. The human genome has been analyzed at least 1000 times more carefully than that of the chimpanzee. That's where the money is. That's where the relevant stuff is in regard to diseases. Perhaps we have found 1000 times more of something from the human genome in comparison to the chimpanzee genome because of this? It's called sampling effect.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 309  310  311    313  314  315 >>

log in

join