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: 314
31
<< 311  312  313    315  316  317 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





Ok, seriously? There's no such thing as de-evolution. Evolution is not a continuously improving system. It's just a description of a great number of changes in genetics over time. Sometimes this leads to increased complexity, and sometimes things become simpler. They just usually become more complex because through evolution, most times genes will simply turn off when not needed (ie. still be in the genes) while new genes develop which produce new functions. This is why humans still have the chimp-ish genes for a full body of hair and the genes for a monkey tail, but they are inhibited by a protein that developed a long time ago.

Also, your figure of 1000 times more genetic defects is based on what source, exactly?
Pye, I figured by now you would have watched the human genome video.

If using the word de-evolving is wrong, then I need a word that explains how we went backwards in complexity.




posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
evolution is quoted as being a Postulated Hypothetical theory.

By whom? Do you even understand what this means:

postulated Hypothetical theory

>

postulated theory that maybe exists




posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Pinocchio tooth has claimed a background in science. Previously claimed to be a science master and a discoverer of an 'arcane virus'.
Shows you how much you pay attention, I never claimed to be a science master.




This means he must know full well how to put forward as reasoned argument backed with supporting evidence.
I thought it meant that I knew how to identify arcane viruses.




He must be aware due to his aledged background that it is he that must provide proof that the bible is what he says as he is the one claiming it to be factual.
No one can prove the bible, and you know this. Geeze.




If he continues to fail to do this, which he will then he is the pathological liar that I claimed he is and pretty much a waste of time.
In the mean time I have been waiting for ANYONE to prove evolution to me, but it looks like that site that I keep getting sent to sums it up. A postulated hypothetical theory is one that hasn't been proven.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





We have vets for livestock and our pets because we are in more contact with them than the rest of the animal world. Even dogs can get colds. They get cancer, leukemia, arthritis, organ failure...and my mother has had two diabetic cats.
Agreed, and those are very common place issues when it comes to sickeness with animals. Granted we will probably never know all of the sickness that animals endure. Problem is that ours way out number them in unexplainable amounts.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





I want to know where he got his degree from. www.diploma-mills-r-us.com?
I never said I got a degree. Wow you guys do an awful lot of assuming I'm realizing.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





I want to know where he got his degree from. www.diploma-mills-r-us.com?
I never said I got a degree. Wow you guys do an awful lot of assuming I'm realizing.


Can't blame us for it if you keep on saying stuff like "postulated hypothetical theory" that simply DOESN'T EXIST.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





By whom? Do you even understand what this means:

postulated Hypothetical theory

>

postulated theory that maybe exists
The keyword in that is maybe, in other words they don't know.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





By whom? Do you even understand what this means:

postulated Hypothetical theory

>

postulated theory that maybe exists
The keyword in that is maybe, in other words they don't know.


I'm rather certain the theory of evolution exists. Seriously, who is questioning the existence of the theory of evolution

edit on 23-3-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Well here is a pdf of the link so you can rest assured, I'm not making it up.

www.talkorigins.org...



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





I'm rather certain the theory of evolution exists. Seriously, who is questioning the existence of the theory of evolution
Oh the theory is everywhere. There just seems to be no scientific fact to support it.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





I'm rather certain the theory of evolution exists. Seriously, who is questioning the existence of the theory of evolution
I will quote the sections from this evolution link I keep referring to...

Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a
plurality of theories and hypotheses.

In another section...

The theory specifically postulates that all of
the earth's known biota are genealogically related,

www.talkorigins.org...

Just like I keep arguing. There is no proof that our closely matching DNA proves we are related.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





I'm rather certain the theory of evolution exists. Seriously, who is questioning the existence of the theory of evolution
I will quote the sections from this evolution link I keep referring to...

Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a
plurality of theories and hypotheses.

In another section...

The theory specifically postulates that all of
the earth's known biota are genealogically related,

www.talkorigins.org...

Just like I keep arguing. There is no proof that our closely matching DNA proves we are related.


I hope you realize that in none of the quotes you posted you can find the word "postulated hypothetical theory"


Not sure if you simply made up that word, or if you simply don't understand the difference between a theory and a hypothesis.

You're essentially reading a text, and then randomly combine words within that text. That's like reading a text containing the words "man", "bear", and "pig"...and afterwards claiming "man-bear-pig" exits

edit on 23-3-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





I hope you realize that in none of the quotes you posted you can find the word "postulated hypothetical theory"

Not sure if you simply made up that word, or if you simply don't understand the difference between a theory and a hypothesis.
No it was postulates, and it was quote copy and pasted for you. Postulated is just past tense.

Postulates and hypothetical are taken from two different sections.
edit on 23-3-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





I hope you realize that in none of the quotes you posted you can find the word "postulated hypothetical theory"

Not sure if you simply made up that word, or if you simply don't understand the difference between a theory and a hypothesis.
No it was postulates, and it was quote copy and pasted for you. Postulated is just past tense.

Postulates and hypothetical are taken from two different sections.
edit on 23-3-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)


Yes...DIFFERENT sections...which explains why the word "postulated hypothetical theory" doesn't exit, just like "man-bear-pig" doesn't exist


Open the very document you linked, CTRL+F it (search), and search for your "postulated hypothetical theory". You won't find it!
edit on 23-3-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





I hope you realize that in none of the quotes you posted you can find the word "postulated hypothetical theory"

Not sure if you simply made up that word, or if you simply don't understand the difference between a theory and a hypothesis.

You're essentially reading a text, and then randomly combine words within that text. That's like reading a text containing the words "man", "bear", and "pig"...and afterwards claiming "man-bear-pig" exits
That is because evolution is a bunch of theory's put together. Just like its described in the first sentance...

in fact embraces a
plurality of theories and hypotheses.

www.talkorigins.org...



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





That is because evolution is a bunch of theory's put together. Just like its described in the first sentance...

in fact embraces a
plurality of theories and hypotheses.
Exactly and theories mixed with hypotheses are NOT fact.

A theory is also not a fact.
edit on 23-3-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

Yes, but evolution is both a theory and a natural phenomenon. Are natural phenomena facts? If you disagree with evolution being a natural phenomenon, then what is your explanation for the outcome of the E.coli long-term evolution experiment. If you go the micro vs. macro way, then also explain the mechanisms that prevents a lot of micro from being macro. Good luck!
edit on 23-3-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





We have vets for livestock and our pets because we are in more contact with them than the rest of the animal world. Even dogs can get colds. They get cancer, leukemia, arthritis, organ failure...and my mother has had two diabetic cats.
Agreed, and those are very common place issues when it comes to sickeness with animals. Granted we will probably never know all of the sickness that animals endure. Problem is that ours way out number them in unexplainable amounts.


No, what it shows is that we are alike. We have similar immune systems and organ systems. That is why we use mice and monkeys in lab experiments.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





Yes, but evolution is both a theory and a natural phenomenon. Are natural phenomena facts?
The only thing that as ever been proven is speciation. And that I'm skeptical on as well. Anyhow that alone doesn't prove all of the other theories of evolution. It's very frail. Intervention is actually a lot less frail than evolution, not that means its more correct, but it is easier to see as plausible.


People will always believe in what they want to believe in, usually what they were taught. I myself was not taught intervention, I was directed to it by to many things pointing to it. IMO evolution doesn't hold a candle to intervention. I only chose to test it on this thread because I knew that evolution people that I have run into in the past are very strong headed and stubborn. By posing examples that prove intervention and not being able to get any reasonable answers, I'm more convinced that intervention is what happened to us.

There are over 4 million people that report to have had contact with alien beings. I think most people believe in a belief today because they feel they will get something out of it, like faith. I don't get anything out of intervention, that's not what its about, its just about truth. The fact is that we probably did de-evolve. If intervention and punishments were present, anything is possible.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





No, what it shows is that we are alike. We have similar immune systems and organ systems. That is why we use mice and monkeys in lab experiments.
Well there is that too.

Aside, have similar things with other life IMO does not prove anything. It could have just as easily have been a creator playing with the same ideas and progressing. The fact that only some parts of evolution have been witnessed in a lab pretty much tells us that it will never be a proven fact.

Just like intervention. If people don't want to believe the documentation that tells us that it's exactly what happened to us, and it does, then there is no other way to prove it. I guess proof isn't good enough.

People are going to believe in what they want to believe in regardless of the facts.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 311  312  313    315  316  317 >>

log in

join