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: 316
31
<< 313  314  315    317  318  319 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by rhinoceros
 

Rhino, you're trying to explain coding genes to someone who doesn't understand the difference between a base pair, a gene, and an allele.
Or reality from fantasy and after 315 pages does not undertand 'Common Ancestor'.




posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth


Read the whole thing. Clearly stated: "The E. coli long-term evolution experiment is an ongoing study in experimental evolution led by Richard Lenski that has been tracking genetic changes in 12 initially identical populations."
But again I don't think your listening to me. What is the ground floor used to identify those changes to begin with? How do we not know that its all the same species period and not evolution? We don't.

Species is an artificial concept (there are actually over 30 different ones) created by man and is of no concern to the natural phenomenon of evolution.


Originally posted by itsthetooth


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!
Well its not that I disagree its that its not listed as such because all of the theorys of evolution have not been witnessed.

The mechanism that prevents micro from becoming macro is speciation. If you go back to wiki and read up on it you will lean that anytime great changes happen, they die, plain and simple. And good luck back to you.

Speciation is not a mechanism, but a chain of events that leads to the divergence of one lineage into two separate lineages. So in short, you have not put forth a mechanism that could possible prevent a lot of micro from being macro (again artificial concepts are of no concern to the natural phenomenon of evolution). Your vague reference to wiki is worthless. Put your money where you mouth is.
edit on 24-3-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





I believe, the current estimate for total number of protein-coding genes in the human genome is about 30,000. Not millions. Currently, the record holder for the largest number of protein-coding genes is a unicellular eukaryote with about 70,000 genes. You average bacteria has about 5,000 genes (some have as few as 500).
I was referring to the 3% difference there is between us and apes.

How is "millions of genes" a reference to that? It looks to me like you're inventing figures to support your view..
edit on 24-3-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Looks like AronRa has found a tooth on You-Tube. Check out this video were he outlines the guys argument from ignorance.


Creationists commonly and confidently boast that they know more than every expert in any field of scientific study -even when they have no idea what any of the relevant subjects even are. In this case, for example, a cab driver who admits to "very little" education, -and only five subscribers- lobbed a series of newbie-level questions at me which he apparently believes to be powerful arguments. He refused to review where I had already answered all his challenges in the FFoC series and insisted on making me repeat every explanation for him alone. He also said he had debated many "evolutionists", yet his content implied that he had never even met anyone with an adequate understanding of science before. So I told him if he were to debate me in a series of YouTube videos, then he would likely never debate against evolution again. As these are to be structured as a vary straightforward series of Q & A, then he'll serve as a valuable vehicle to launch an introductory primer on the alleged controversy between religious dogmatism and scientific methodology




Religion demands you commit to the God of the gaps fallacy.
If something is unknown, It's unknown. That doesn't make a God more plausible, let alone correct.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Shows how much you lie. Yes you did, I even pasted your words to you. Your delusion means you have now decided it never happened is par for the course. You now claim you have gone to school with a science base. Another obvious lie
Going to school and being a master are two different things you idiot.




No it means you are just a pathetic liar. You claimed to have discovered the arcane virus when you announced you were a science master.
I never announced to be a master at anything you moron. You might have come to that conclusion based on moronic assumptions, which you do a lot then you turn around and call me ponocioo.




And so you, by your very own words cannot use it as a document of fact.
Children did not know how to read in biblical times you idiot so I doubt very seriously if the book was meant to be a fairy tale.




This is not the place to prove anything to anyone. What you have done is show cased your total ignorance and inability to absorb information.
I absorbed enough to know that evolution is not real, how much more should I absorbe?




Here is something for you to contemplate about DNA. Breeding from within your family unit should be avoided at all costs.
No # shirlock.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Or reality from fantasy and after 315 pages does not undertand 'Common Ancestor'
Common Ancestor was only created because of the inability to produce a missing link.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





Species is an artificial concept (there are actually over 30 different ones) created by man and is of no concern to the natural phenomenon of evolution
First of all evoltuion has never been proven to be a natural phenomenon. Your placing titles where they have never been asigned. There is no way it could be recognized as such when macro evoltuion has never been witnessed or found anywhere.

Your assuming and taking liberties in the process. Now what are you talking about with 30 different ones, 30 of what?




Speciation is not a mechanism, but a chain of events that leads to the divergence of one lineage into two separate lineages. So in short, you have not put forth a mechanism that could possible prevent a lot of micro from being macro (again artificial concepts are of no concern to the natural phenomenon of evolution). Your vague reference to wiki is worthless. Put your money where you mouth is.
Again your making assumptions about macro evolution just being a lot of micro evolution. Since your guessing I would like to open your eyes to the possibility that you could be wrong and an astounding amount of changes could be happening in one shot. You can't assume like you are, its just wrong and adds poor credibility to the whole idea of evolution.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





How is "millions of genes" a reference to that? It looks to me like you're inventing figures to support your view..
Not at all, the figures are what they are.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





Or reality from fantasy and after 315 pages does not undertand 'Common Ancestor'
Common Ancestor was only created because of the inability to produce a missing link.

That is bull#. Common ancestor was postulated long before anyone had heard of "missing link", which doesn't mean anything. Missing link between what?



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





How is "millions of genes" a reference to that? It looks to me like you're inventing figures to support your view..
Not at all, the figures are what they are.

How is ca. 30,000 genes "millions of genes"?



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 





Religion demands you commit to the God of the gaps fallacy.
If something is unknown, It's unknown. That doesn't make a God more plausible, let alone correct
I have never made any claims of who or what created us. I know just as much as you do about that. What I wont do is make assumptions like your doing. All I have ever said is that we don't know.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth


Species is an artificial concept (there are actually over 30 different ones) created by man and is of no concern to the natural phenomenon of evolution
First of all evoltuion has never been proven to be a natural phenomenon. Your placing titles where they have never been asigned. There is no way it could be recognized as such when macro evoltuion has never been witnessed or found anywhere.

Your assuming and taking liberties in the process. Now what are you talking about with 30 different ones, 30 of what?

First of all, only misinformed people deny evolution as a natural phenomenon. Nobody has ever managed to prove that evolution is not a natural phenomenon. Nobody has ever managed to even put forth a way that could prevent evolution from being a natural phenomenon. As for the 30, what you can't even read now? I said, 30 different species concepts. Here is example of one.





Speciation is not a mechanism, but a chain of events that leads to the divergence of one lineage into two separate lineages. So in short, you have not put forth a mechanism that could possible prevent a lot of micro from being macro (again artificial concepts are of no concern to the natural phenomenon of evolution). Your vague reference to wiki is worthless. Put your money where you mouth is.
Again your making assumptions about macro evolution just being a lot of micro evolution. Since your guessing I would like to open your eyes to the possibility that you could be wrong and an astounding amount of changes could be happening in one shot. You can't assume like you are, its just wrong and adds poor credibility to the whole idea of evolution.

And again you are wrong, and also failed to put your money where your mouth is, e.g. you still haven't told us how a lot of micro can possibly be stopped from accumulating into macro (big surprise).
edit on 24-3-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





That is bull#. Common ancestor was postulated long before anyone had heard of "missing link", which doesn't mean anything. Missing link between what?
If thats true, I think its a little odd how I only ever heard of missing links, and never heard of of common ancestor untill I was on this thread.

Then again I never had ventured into any of the evolution stuff before.

MIssing link between us an apes.

We seem to have found over 2.5 million bones and fossils in 150 years and not a single one could you call a missing link. You could however call each and everyone of them a common ancestor based on the fact that all it means is we are getting closer.
2.5 million bones and fossils in 150 years, I call a let down, but evolutionists would say we need to keep looking.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





That is bull#. Common ancestor was postulated long before anyone had heard of "missing link", which doesn't mean anything. Missing link between what?
If thats true, I think its a little odd how I only ever heard of missing links, and never heard of of common ancestor untill I was on this thread.

Then again I never had ventured into any of the evolution stuff before.

MIssing link between us an apes.

We seem to have found over 2.5 million bones and fossils in 150 years and not a single one could you call a missing link. You could however call each and everyone of them a common ancestor based on the fact that all it means is we are getting closer.
2.5 million bones and fossils in 150 years, I call a let down, but evolutionists would say we need to keep looking.


Exactly. Scientists are all lying. Its a grand conspiracy so epic that anyone who ever duplicates the experiments automatically lies about them. There is no such thing as genetics. Biology is a joke. We haven't found anything! Stupid scientists with their stupid education and stupid schools and stupid scientific methods. Damn them and their stupid understanding of the stupid universe. We know more than them!!!



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
If thats true, I think its a little odd how I only ever heard of missing links, and never heard of of common ancestor untill I was on this thread.

Then again I never had ventured into any of the evolution stuff before.

Your ignorance is no excuse for writing out your preconceived notions as "facts".



MIssing link between us an apes.

We are apes. You have to be more specific before I can tell you how wrong you are yet again.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





First of all, only misinformed people deny evolution as a natural phenomenon. Nobody has ever managed to prove that evolution is not a natural phenomenon. Nobody has ever managed to even put forth a way that could prevent evolution from being a natural phenomenon. As for the 30, what you can't even read now? I said, 30 different species concepts. Here is example of one.
Really then why is it you are the first person on here to call it such?

No one has ever been able to prove all of the connecting theories is what you mean. In fact its to my understanding that the only thing that has ever been witnessed is speciation, which I call a joke in itself. Assumptions bases on assumptions.

30 different species concepts of what, humans, flu virus, what are you talking about?




And again you are wrong, and also failed to put your money where your mouth is, e.g. you still haven't told us how a lot of micro can possibly be stopped from accumulating into macro (big surprise).
Yes I have explained for the umteenth time again, speciation does not allow a species to venture to far from the original species, and when it does, the species dies and quickly. I was trying to locate the test that proved this, and you seem to keep missing me telling you this.

Probably the most important think to realize is speciation has only been witnesssed in a few select species. NOT INCLUDING humans. Your assuming it happens to all species which it doesn't and your also assuming that it has happened to humans which it also hasn't. Again your doing a lot of assuming. Your also assuming that it happens to great degrees to form macro evolution which there is also no proof of. Anything else you would care to assume about?
edit on 24-3-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
No one has ever been able to prove all of the connecting theories is what you mean.

No.



In fact its to my understanding that the only thing that has ever been witnessed is speciation, which I call a joke in itself. Assumptions bases on assumptions.

Your understanding is but a result of ignorance.



30 different species concepts of what, humans, flu virus, what are you talking about?

Species concept = Explanation of what is a species




Probably the most important think to realize is speciation has only been witnesssed in a few select species. NOT INCLUDING humans. You assuming it happens to all species which it doesn't and your also assuming that it has happened to humans which it also hasn't. Again your doing a lot of assuming. You also assuming that it happens to great degrees to form macro evolution which there is also no proof of. Anything else you would care to assume about?

Again lots of nonsense spewing out from your ignorance to the topic. Prove that making a distinction between micro and macro evolution is a valid thing to do. Prove that there's a mechanisms that prevents a lot of micro evolution from being in fact what you regard to as macro evolution.
edit on 24-3-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





I have never made any claims of who or what created us. I know just as much as you do about that. What I wont do is make assumptions like your doing. All I have ever said is that we don't know.


You are bald face lying!
You claim alien intervention and cite the bible as objective evidence for denying evolution.
ALL you do is make assumptions! saying "All I have ever said is that we don't know" is a lie too!
WTF! are you trying to confuse some would be sheeple in the church of tooth!
Your the worst of the worst, not just a lier but out right deceiving.
Trying to twist words to prove a false dichotomy. SHAME ON YOU!!



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





Your understanding is but a result of ignorance.
And your understanding is a result based on assumptions. Your assuming that speciation can happen in humans and there is nothing to prove that.




Species concept = Explanation of what is a species
Wel like I keep saying, the ground work for this doesn't substantiate anything. It's all based on averages and assuming we know what should and shouldn't be considered a change with or out of a species. The fact is we don't know.




Again lots of nonsense spewing out from your ignorance to the topic. Prove that making a distinction between micro and macro evolution is a valid thing to do. Prove that there's a mechanisms that prevents a lot of micro evolution from being in fact what you regard to as macro evolution.
Easy, its a theory that has never been witnessed or recreated in a lab, its not real.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 





You are bald face lying!
You claim alien intervention and cite the bible as objective evidence for denying evolution.
And what exactly does that have to do with who or what alegedly created us?




ALL you do is make assumptions! saying "All I have ever said is that we don't know" is a lie too!
WTF! are you trying to confuse some would be sheeple in the church of tooth!
Any assumptions I make are all based on documentation, which is all the more reason to believe it, which is something I have been saying all along.




Your the worst of the worst, not just a lier but out right deceiving.
Trying to twist words to prove a false dichotomy. SHAME ON YOU!!
Not at all, if its written, then there was probably a reason why.







 
31
<< 313  314  315    317  318  319 >>

log in

join