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: 317
31
<< 314  315  316    318  319  320 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 


And I'm not trying to create a false dichotomy. I'm not the creator of the terms micro evolution and macro evoltuion. They were in existance long before I ever came into the picture.




posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 


As far as you assuming the confusion between intervention and creation, I will clear that up. Again you seem to be confused on my take on this. I have no idea what happened at the begining. There is the possibility that we were an engineered species like Sitchen believes. There is the possibility that God created us just like mentioned in the bible, however our mtDNA conflicts with that understanding. Based on that we could have been frankenstiened. There is also the possibility we simply evolved, but in doing so it would have had to have happened on another planet as earth is not old enough to have brought us to where we are now. Either way you look at it, you have four options here, intervention, intervention, intervention, or intervention.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


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 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Seriously, you expect people to take anything say seriously?
Your ass should be bounced out of here ASAP!
All your trying to do is pollute the waters, you bring nothing objective to table.
GO AWAY!!



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 





Seriously, you expect people to take anything say seriously?
Your ass should be bounced out of here ASAP!
All your trying to do is pollute the waters, you bring nothing objective to table.
GO AWAY!!
I think your just mad because for the first time you realizing that evolution is not cracked up to be what you thought it was.

It's not my fault your so incredulous.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish
 





Seriously, you expect people to take anything say seriously?
Your ass should be bounced out of here ASAP!
All your trying to do is pollute the waters, you bring nothing objective to table.
GO AWAY!!
I think your just mad because for the first time you realizing that evolution is not cracked up to be what you thought it was.

It's not my fault your so incredulous.


Your an idiot, I'm not mad at all. If anything you have proven evolution by forcing others to pile the overwhelming evidence upon your ignorant head.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
And your understanding is a result based on assumptions. Your assuming that speciation can happen in humans and there is nothing to prove that.

My understanding is based on logical conclusions. You can make it illogical by finally proving that 'micro' accumulation can't result in 'macro' (this is all you have left).



Easy, its a theory that has never been witnessed or recreated in a lab, its not real.

The obvious reason why 'macro' has not been observed in a laboratory is because it takes time measured in geological time spans (seriously, even children understand this). This does not in any way prove that it doesn't happen. There's a mountain of 'indirect' evidence of macro having happened. So again, prove that 'micro' (undeniable fact) accumulation doesn't result in 'macro'. Understand, that the only way such can happen is, if there's some force that deliberately prevents gradual accumulation of change from an earlier type. Even then, you would still have to explain the fossil record, I mean, if there was some mechanism that prevented gradual accumulation of too much change, then where are the 100 million year old fossils that are nearly identical to present day life?
edit on 24-3-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Further more if I'm incredulous for not falling for BS- then so be it.
How can anyone be so stupid.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 





Further more if I'm incredulous for not falling for BS- then so be it.
How can anyone be so stupid.
If you want to be prejudice rather than informed thats your problem.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 





Your an idiot, I'm not mad at all. If anything you have proven evolution by forcing others to pile the overwhelming evidence upon your ignorant head.
And where exactly is that evidence? Speciation doesn't even prove anything related to humans. If you ask me its a big stretch in imagination.

I still wait for something that tells us that evolution is not a postulate, or hypothetical theory.

If you want to believe in it, thats up to you. I'm not going to condone anyone for what they believe in or don't believe in. I would just say to use some common sense and look at the facts in front of your eyes. There is nothing, NADA, that says evolution has happened to us aside from that in your imagination.

You expect me to believe that just all of a sudden we bounced into life around biblical times from apes, bringing nothing to the table with us. What a sham, at least I can see there is something amiss.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





My understanding is based on logical conclusions. You can make it illogical by finally proving that 'micro' accumulation can't result in 'macro' (this is all you have left).
Thats an easy assumption to make aside from that fact that a species dies when enough changes occur. Aside from that how are you going to get around that pesky little fact that its never been observed in humans and only been observed in a few select species?




The obvious reason why 'macro' has not been observed in a laboratory is because it takes time measured in geological time spans (seriously, even children understand this). This does not in any way prove that it doesn't happen. There's a mountain of 'indirect' evidence of macro having happened. So again, prove that 'micro' (undeniable fact) accumulation doesn't result in 'macro'.
True but we still have fossils and bones to compare to, and they have never announced to have witnessed microevolution in humans. The whole idea of it happening to slowly to see was just a sham to get peopole to buy into it. If they can detect it some species, then trust me, they would also be able to detect it in humans. At least then you have would have a chance but they aren't saying that.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Thats an easy assumption to make aside from that fact that a species dies when enough changes occur.

Prove this claim. I don't agree with it.



Aside from that how are you going to get around that pesky little fact that its never been observed in humans and only been observed in a few select species?

Lactose tolerance is great example of micro in humans. So is the color of skin, and tolerance of malaria or HIV among some sub Saharan people (HIV among prostitutes). Different environments. Different needs. What now?



True but we still have fossils and bones to compare to, and they have never announced to have witnessed microevolution in humans. The whole idea of it happening to slowly to see was just a sham to get peopole to buy into it. If they can detect it some species, then trust me, they would also be able to detect it in humans. At least then you have would have a chance but they aren't saying that.

Many lines of text, but no proof what so ever that a lot of gradual 'micro' accumulation isn't in fact 'macro'. I'll just keep copy&pasting the following until you answer it properly (or admit that you're wrong):

So again, prove that 'micro' (undeniable fact) accumulation doesn't result in 'macro'. Understand, that the only way such can happen is, if there's some force that deliberately prevents gradual accumulation of change from an earlier type. Even then, you would still have to explain the fossil record, I mean, if there was some mechanism that prevented gradual accumulation of too much change, then where are the 100 million year old fossils that are nearly identical to present day life?



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
You expect me to believe that just all of a sudden we bounced into life around biblical times from apes, bringing nothing to the table with us. What a sham, at least I can see there is something amiss.

Biblical times, really? You think evolution claims that our species is but a few thousand years old?



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





Prove this claim. I don't agree with it.
It was allready covered in this thread a long time ago. It said that in a lab, I believe it was fruit flys, would die off quick anytime that severe changes occured. It's the same thing that speciation says in wiki without the dying part. Anyhow, its fact to this day, anytime someone or something is born with some type of big change, we call it a defect, and depending on how severe it is, will cause death quickly.

None of which matters because speciation has never been witnessed in any humans. In fact its only been observed in a few select species, and humans are not one of them. You need to go back to wiki and read up again.

Then you still have that pesky little rule of macroevolution. Your making assumptions that it can happen, and I'm saying that according to speciation the species would die out anyhow. If speciation were happening with all life here on earth we would have one hell of a melting pot with a lot, I mean a hell of a lot of species being close to the same as other species but still different enough. We don't have that. What we have is a close run thing next to apes, chimps, and monkeys. If microevolution were real we would have dozens perhaps hundreds our thousands of variations of species tying us together. Even more so, we would have millions of bones to prove these stages of transgression, not only with humans, but all other 5 million species.

All we have is species that are farsly related, and mostly because we all use the same genetic coding. Like I keep saying its a big stretch with no proof aside from imagination.

I think scientists have worked hard trying to close the gap on this idea and looked for any shred of evidence they can to link us to another species. If we are honestly related to apes, why would it be under such strong debate, why wouldn't people just accept it as fact. Well the answer is simple, even though we have all the physical evidence in our hands, we are unable to put the pieces together to prove that relation. I understand there are those that want to believe and those that don't want to but the bottom line is that if the proof was there, a clear scientific claim would be announced, and nothing is being said at this time.

IMO there is other life out in the cosmos that we are a hell of lot closer to being realted to then apes. Apes were just chosen as our closest relative because they have the closest DNA on this planet. It's just a guess, and there is nothing to back it up. Assuming we are related just because we share the same type of DNA coding is wrong. It's just as easy that a creator made us all from the similar DNA. Not that I believe in that, I'm just saying its a possibility.




Lactose tolerance is great example of micro in humans. So is the color of skin, and tolerance of malaria or HIV among some sub Saharan people (HIV among prostitutes). Different environments. Different needs. What now?
Lactose is nothing more than a reaction to something we aren't suppose to be consuming to begin with.

HIV has stories around it but I look at it like anything else, there are things out there waiting to be discovered.




Many lines of text, but no proof what so ever that a lot of gradual 'micro' accumulation isn't in fact 'macro'. I'll just keep copy&pasting the following until you answer it properly (or admit that you're wrong):

So again, prove that 'micro' (undeniable fact) accumulation doesn't result in 'macro'. Understand, that the only way such can happen is, if there's some force that deliberately prevents gradual accumulation of change from an earlier type. Even then, you would still have to explain the fossil record, I mean, if there was some mechanism that prevented gradual accumulation of too much change, then where are the 100 million year old fossils that are nearly identical to present day life?

Oh sorry...

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

You know, I will let you in on a little secret. The theory of Evolution faced a disturbing problem until the late 1950's. This was the distribution of species, i.e. for example monkeys in the New World. They were clearly related to the monkeys of the Old World, but nobody could explain it, because there was no way these species could have ever made it to the New World (nobody assumed that breeding populations could cross oceans and in fact scientists used to draw hypothetical land bridges to maps where necessary). Then along came Plate Tectonics, which was later verified by actual measurements of the movements of continents. So we now knew when was the last time that the Old and New Worlds were connected. The really cool part is, that this estimate agrees with the estimated time (based on genomic data) when the hypothetical ancestor of Old and New World monkeys lived. That's one hell of a coincidence, if you still argue that genetics don't prove anything.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish
 





Further more if I'm incredulous for not falling for BS- then so be it.
How can anyone be so stupid.
If you want to be prejudice rather than informed thats your problem.


Informed?
I ask for meat, all you have is week sauce.
What a joke.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish
 





Your an idiot, I'm not mad at all. If anything you have proven evolution by forcing others to pile the overwhelming evidence upon your ignorant head.
And where exactly is that evidence? Speciation doesn't even prove anything related to humans. If you ask me its a big stretch in imagination.

I still wait for something that tells us that evolution is not a postulate, or hypothetical theory.

If you want to believe in it, thats up to you. I'm not going to condone anyone for what they believe in or don't believe in. I would just say to use some common sense and look at the facts in front of your eyes. There is nothing, NADA, that says evolution has happened to us aside from that in your imagination.

You expect me to believe that just all of a sudden we bounced into life around biblical times from apes, bringing nothing to the table with us. What a sham, at least I can see there is something amiss.


Again you fall on the argument from ignorance.
WEAK SAUCE.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





Biblical times, really? You think evolution claims that our species is but a few thousand years old?
I didn't say that, but I'm glad you brought it up. There is something golden that I think you should read for yourself to better understand what is going on. If you look up mitochondrial DNA on wiki and read the entire article, you will notice that they claim to have mapped the entire genome. You will also notice that they are making a claim that we have a common ancestor 200,000 years ago. Whats funny is that they are also bolding admitting that this obviously rules out religion and adds more credibility to the idea of evolution. Then they turn around and say that they need to look to more pioneering ideas to come up with final answers.

They have totally omitted our actuall age, even though they claim to have mapped the entire genome. The reason why they are saying we need to look at more pioneering ideas is IMO because our true age is older than earth, and well thats not suppose to be possible. They surly couldn't publish such a finding because all it would do is make people laugh at them and destory there credibility.

What I meant in the previous reply is that its a little odd that we bring nothing to the table from our earlier days. I think we can say there is arrows, camp fires, stone tools, arrow heads, and thats about it. You actually expect me to believe that the millions of years prior to biblical times we lived like cavemen and never advanced.
, then you want me to believe that all of a sudden things just took off, and we have the wheel, vehicles, electronics, weapons of mass destruction,

It's important to also realize that in that wiki page they also mention that our species never dipped below tens of thousands, which rules out evolution. There is no way that our species could have branched off in a matched pair, with the idea of GMO's in the tens of thousands. They are however saying that that was a bottleneck period.

I know exactly what happened. We were moved, from one planet to another. We have anchient hyrogliphics that suggest this, and landing sites that support the idea as well. It's crazy to think that so many of us could have been moved, but it happened. This planet was to be colinized with a purpose in mind, a very big purpose.

I find nothing but contradiction with the whole idea of evolution, looking at many angles. I have managed to find only one contradiction with intervention. Everything else is pretty solid. The one is that its listed in the bible that earth is not our home. So the question comes up about our creation. You see how is it possible that we were created while we were to have a home thats not earth, unless they only meant after our life here on earth. When I read hebrews I totally get from it that our home has always been on another planet. This contradiction could be answered if our species was frankenstiened from an existing species. It's not far fetched, we do it everyday with food. There is a section in ezekiel where god makes an appearnace from his space ship with a four headed creature of lion ox eagle and man. A clear sign that he works with DNA.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
It was allready covered in this thread a long time ago. It said that in a lab, I believe it was fruit flys, would die off quick anytime that severe changes occured. It's the same thing that speciation says in wiki without the dying part. Anyhow, its fact to this day, anytime someone or something is born with some type of big change, we call it a defect, and depending on how severe it is, will cause death quickly.

Yes, but that is not gradual accumulation of micro. Gradual means, that it happens over a long period of time. Inducing mutations on fruit flies by radiation is not gradual change over a long period of time. And again, evolution does not happen on the level of individuals. It's gradual change over long period of time. Repeat after me: gradual change over a long period of time.



If speciation were happening with all life here on earth we would have one hell of a melting pot with a lot, I mean a hell of a lot of species being close to the same as other species but still different enough. We don't have that.

Actually, we do. For example, there are over 100,000 known fly species. As to why know such variation in larger animals, you need to understand not only evolution but also ecology, and I'm not going there.



If we are honestly related to apes, why would it be under such strong debate, why wouldn't people just accept it as fact.

There's literally no scientific debate about evolution being real or not. The people who don't accept it as a fact are 99% fundamentalists, who have been brainwashed in their youth into a religion.

So again, prove that 'micro' (undeniable fact) accumulation doesn't result in 'macro'. Understand, that the only way such can happen is, if there's some force that deliberately prevents gradual accumulation of change from an earlier type. Even then, you would still have to explain the fossil record, I mean, if there was some mechanism that prevented gradual accumulation of too much change, then where are the 100 million year old fossils that are nearly identical to present day life?
edit on 24-3-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 





Again you fall on the argument from ignorance.
WEAK SAUCE.
Well here, read it for yourself.

en.wikipedia.org...

As you can see, its never applied to humans, you have just made bold assumptions.




top topics



 
31
<< 314  315  316    318  319  320 >>

log in

join