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: 319
31
<< 316  317  318    320  321  322 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





You just invent stuff as you go. Speciation has never been observed in humans - what does it even mean?
What I'm telling you is on the wiki page about speciation. They list what species they have observed it in, and humans are NOT one of them. What this means is that this theory of evolution does not apply to humans.




That modern humans haven't diverged into new species?
If they are able to identify it in other species, they should also be able to see it in humans, provided its present, and its not.


Nobody would expect this over such a short period of isolation. As to the "bold leap", not only is there a mountain of "indirect" evidence, but there's also that fact that nobody has managed to put forth a mechanism that could prevent this force of nature from happening. One might wonder, why you make the bold leap and assume in absence of evidence to the contrary (you can forget the Pye rubbish) that what REAL SCIENTISTS are saying, isn't in fact true.
Well at least Pye's work is verifiable based on the fact that the human genome is public information. No one contests any of his work as of yet so I'm not understanding what your saying it's rubbish. As far as making bold assumptions about leaps, intervention doesn't do that, its all documented so I don't know how your going to argue that.

Probably the only thing you could do is claim the bible isn't real because you tested all the theories in the bible.


Has never been witnessed directly, since this is impossible due to the time required.
Thats true, but the problem is that we have over 2.5 million fossils and bones that we could use to test this theory and no one is stepping up claiming they have found an evolved ancestor. Realize whats going on here. They have searched for these fossils for over 150 years and still fail to produce a single one that they can conclude as being a confirmed ancestor through DNA.

It's important to also realize that if you do actually believe in evolution, and it sounds like you do, then you have to also believe that any and all information from DNA is worthless as DNA can just change on its own, through the eyes of evolution. This means those paternaty tests, criminal tests, and any other form of DNA testing would be worthless as DNA can just change on its own.


Crying this again and again makes you look incredibly stupid. Ever wonder why 100 million year old fossils are not identical to contemporary animals?
Probably because animals don't look anything like fossils, I would guess.




Or why 200 million year old fossils are not identical to 100 million year old fossils?
Thats a pretty bold statement, I mean when you put that type of milage on fossils, there better be a difference in how they look, unless your talking about how they appear anatomicly.




If there's no evolution, then where did the flora of Earth come from, again and again? Just think, don't bother answering. I'm done talking with you. Not only are you a liar (identifier of arcane virus my ass), but you also demonstrate completely inability to reason and accumulate new knowledge.
I have accumulated tons of new knowledge about evolution. IN fact if it wasn't for this thread directing in the right places I wouldn't know diddley about it. I had no idea that evolution was claiming the creation of flora, nor do I understand why. I think the most important thing to realize is that just because evolution (at least in your mind anyhow) can explain how flora came into existance, does not automatically prove it to be the culprit. Yes it is true that I am the identifer of an arcane virus, a pretty darn cool one too I might add. In my recent attempt to post it with Wiki, it turns out they want references and I'm going to have to buy a bunch of equipment for references just to get it done. I don't lie on here. There is no need to, Aside from one person on here that seems to be dropping a white lie here and there, everyone else seems to be on the up and up.




posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 


Speciation has never been observed in humans, and its only been observed in some aquatic life and a few others. Why are so many people making that bold leap into humans?.

Macro evolution has never been witnessed and they also aren't able to identify it with all the bones and fossils from millions of years ago. Ever wonder why? Are you sure your not making another bold assumption that macro evolution can even exist? Everything I read up on said the species dies rather quickly at that.

Probably the worst part is what exactly are these changes based on, what are the compared against? They are based on assumptions made about each life, and what might or might not be considered a regular change within each species. An assumption based on what we think we know about each species. The ground floor for this assesment is horrible at best. Anyhow, this is what they base changes on. They obviously can't look at ANY change and assume its evolution in progress. They have to make an educated guess on whats normal, and whats not. It's a total guessing game. They cant make an informed decision on any of this because there is no rule book that tells us whats allowable and whats not. We go off assumptions. Your precious evolution is structured entirely on these assumptions.

You lie like a rug colin, then you have the gall to claim I'm the liar. Sorry man the only one I have seen here lying is YOU.
And what part of that moronical drivel answers


Now address the point that if you cannot, by your own admission 'prove the bible' you cannot use it as a document of fact.
Which is the question I asked.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





Now I never once mentioned fairy tales. Never called it a childrens book so it appears your reading skills or lack of, have let you down again and you are the idiot.

Now address the point that if you cannot, by your own admission 'prove the bible' you cannot use it as a document of fact.
Oh not at all because that seems to be the direction that some other idiots on here are going towards. It obviously wasn't meant to be a childrens book.

Which still does not answer my question



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





Now address the point that if you cannot, by your own admission 'prove the bible' you cannot use it as a document of fact.
Wow your just eager beaver to get that bible set aside at any costs aren't you? Whats wrong Colin does the bible pose a threat to the very idea of evolution? Does it put wrench in your works? Why don't you learn to master your own,,,,,better yet major your own subject before you go putting others down.
And again does not answer my question. Please try to remain focused on the question at hand and not dive into fantasy land.

So you have had about 5 goes to provide the answer to a simple question based on your words and you wonder why people find you to be dishonest and ignorant.
edit on 25-3-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   
In my opinion evolution IS intelligent design. Consciousness is PROVEN to stem from our five senses which receive DIGITAL DATA allowing our brains to translate code. In essence we are nothing more than a processor which processes information as it's fed to us. There is nothing to say evolution is not a pre-programmed path of transition.

For example if I create a flash movie and you watched it from beginning to end, is the movie evolving as it plays or is it intelligently designed? Basically we have been placed inside a digital environment, THIS IS PROVEN, and all evolution as far as I'm concerned, is our ability to watch the transition of information as it was programmed to change. This is why there are specific parameters and limits to nature itself. Nature only works in it's own designed constraints within it's programmed language.
edit on 25-3-2012 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Now address the point that if you cannot, by your own admission 'prove the bible' you cannot use it as a document of fact.

Which is the question I asked.
Just show me where the tests are that prove it to be wrong!



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Now I never once mentioned fairy tales. Never called it a childrens book so it appears your reading skills or lack of, have let you down again and you are the idiot.

Now address the point that if you cannot, by your own admission 'prove the bible' you cannot use it as a document of fact.

Oh not at all because that seems to be the direction that some other idiots on here are going towards. It obviously wasn't meant to be a childrens book.


Which still does not answer my question
I see no question and I also see no question mark, would you like to make some corrections so I can address your question?



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Now address the point that if you cannot, by your own admission 'prove the bible' you cannot use it as a document of fact.

Wow your just eager beaver to get that bible set aside at any costs aren't you? Whats wrong Colin does the bible pose a threat to the very idea of evolution? Does it put wrench in your works? Why don't you learn to master your own,,,,,better yet major your own subject before you go putting others down.
And again does not answer my question. Please try to remain focused on the question at hand and not dive into fantasy land.

So you have had about 5 goes to provide the answer to a simple question based on your words and you wonder why people find you to be dishonest and ignorant
How about because it simply says it is the truth.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by libertytoall
 





In my opinion evolution IS intelligent design. Consciousness is PROVEN to stem from our five senses which receive DIGITAL DATA allowing our brains to translate code. In essence we are nothing more than a processor which processes information as it's fed to us. There is nothing to say evolution is not a pre-programmed path of transition.

For example if I create a flash movie and you watched it from beginning to end, is the movie evolving as it plays or is it intelligently designed? Basically we have been placed inside a digital environment, THIS IS PROVEN, and all evolution as far as I'm concerned, is our ability to watch the transition of information as it was programmed to change. This is why there are specific parameters and limits to nature itself. Nature only works in it's own designed constraints within it's programmed language.
edit on 25-3-2012 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)



signature:


I tried explaining using the same concept but that DNA is digital and it didn't win any fans for some reason. I'm thinking peoples minds just aren't in the right path right now.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster
 





Going to school and being a master are two different things you idiot.

Page 7 of your topic 'Its officila God was a space astronaught 'In Skunk works, 8 posts down You wrote


I'm a science major, if its not obvious, I'm also the identifier of an arcane virus. I'm trying to find someone help me get a wikipedia put up about it because it should be listed.

Which makes your comment to me a great big lie.


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.

So the next time you call ne a liar or an idiot just remember I can prove you are both. Just like you have no proof of anything else you fantasise about Pinocchio.
Just like with the theory of evolution, you sure do assume a lot. Your assuming that just because I majored in a science background, that I in fact mastered the subject.

Do me a favor, the next time you think your so slick in trying to make an ass out of someone, please remove the ME from ASSUME.

Sorry but you were wrong again.


I wasnt wrong at all,

This wasnt my post. go back and find out who you should have been replying to and reply to them.

Tacit apology accepted.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 03:07 AM
link   


reply to post by itsthetooth
 





You just invent stuff as you go. Speciation has never been observed in humans - what does it even mean?
What I'm telling you is on the wiki page about speciation. They list what species they have observed it in, and humans are NOT one of them. What this means is that this theory of evolution does not apply to humans.?


No, what that means is based on the information you have bothered to look up, YOU hypothesise that evolution does not apply to humans. Now be a good little science MAJOR and prove your hypothesis so that it can be accepted as scientific theory. Thats how it works.




That modern humans haven't diverged into new species?

If they are able to identify it in other species, they should also be able to see it in humans, provided its present, and its not. ?


What is the "it" that you are looking for?




Nobody would expect this over such a short period of isolation. As to the "bold leap", not only is there a mountain of "indirect" evidence, but there's also that fact that nobody has managed to put forth a mechanism that could prevent this force of nature from happening. One might wonder, why you make the bold leap and assume in absence of evidence to the contrary (you can forget the Pye rubbish) that what REAL SCIENTISTS are saying, isn't in fact true.

Well at least Pye's work is verifiable based on the fact that the human genome is public information. No one contests any of his work as of yet so I'm not understanding what your saying it's rubbish. As far as making bold assumptions about leaps, intervention doesn't do that, its all documented so I don't know how your going to argue that.

Probably the only thing you could do is claim the bible isn't real because you tested all the theories in the bible.
?

Pyes work isnt verifiable beacause he hasnt told anyone what his work is. By your reckoning, my theory on "amplified ego caused by internet anonymity" must be 100% right because information relating to both the ego and the internet are publicly available for anyone to check against. Even tho' I havnt actualy told you what my theory is, or how I gathered and interpreted my data.

I look forward to collecting my Nobel!


edit on 26-3-2012 by idmonster because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 03:29 AM
link   


reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Has never been witnessed directly, since this is impossible due to the time required.

Thats true, but the problem is that we have over 2.5 million fossils and bones that we could use to test this theory and no one is stepping up claiming they have found an evolved ancestor. Realize whats going on here. They have searched for these fossils for over 150 years and still fail to produce a single one that they can conclude as being a confirmed ancestor through DNA.


You do realise that a fosil is not the creature it used to be? i.e. there are no (or almost no) organic parts of the animal/plant left when a fosill is discovered. Saying that "they can conclude as being a confirmed ancestor through DNA" is a bit like saying that they cant be confirmed ancestors because none of the arm bones found were wearing a sekonda watch. (other watches are available, talk to your dealer)



It's important to also realize that if you do actually believe in evolution, and it sounds like you do, then you have to also believe that any and all information from DNA is worthless as DNA can just change on its own, through the eyes of evolution. This means those paternaty tests, criminal tests, and any other form of DNA testing would be worthless as DNA can just change on its own.



I could argue the point of DNA being able to change on its own, but believe that you are trying to say something that is true, but saying it so badly that it could be mis-iterpreted. Please explaing your understanding of the above. The statement as it standts is patently wrong.



Crying this again and again makes you look incredibly stupid. Ever wonder why 100 million year old fossils are not identical to contemporary animals?

Probably because animals don't look anything like fossils, I would guess.


Desperate not to allow evolution in arent you, what part of youre psyche would collapse if you did allow evolution to be true.? Theres no point arguing this with me, my findings are all in my paper. (I doesnt matter wheteher I've published or not, you have the title, dont be so lazy, go wiki it
)




If there's no evolution, then where did the flora of Earth come from, again and again? Just think, don't bother answering. I'm done talking with you. Not only are you a liar (identifier of arcane virus my ass), but you also demonstrate completely inability to reason and accumulate new knowledge.

I have accumulated tons of new knowledge about evolution. IN fact if it wasn't for this thread directing in the right places I wouldn't know diddley about it.
you still know didley about it

I had no idea that evolution was claiming the creation of flora, nor do I understand why.
Evolution doesnt make any such claim, it explains the diversity, not creation of ALL life

I think the most important thing to realize is that just because evolution (at least in your mind anyhow) can explain how flora came into existance
it doesnt, only ignorant creationist make these claims on behalf of evolution. Its easier to show a claim to be false, when its you yourself making the claim(not you personally, the creationinst).

, does not automatically prove it to be the culprit. Yes it is true that I am the identifer of an arcane virus, a pretty darn cool one too I might add. In my recent attempt to post it with Wiki, it turns out they want references and I'm going to have to buy a bunch of equipment for references just to get it done. I don't lie on here. There is no need to, Aside from one person on here that seems to be dropping a white lie here and there, everyone else seems to be on the up and up.


And the reason no-one believes that statement (regardless of truth or not) is because you have shown total disregard for the scientific method, and very poor understanding of science in general. A lot of the statements you have made have been out of context. It doesnt bode well.
edit on 26-3-2012 by idmonster because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





Good. Glad you admit it, because a few pages back you said that we weren't alike.
That seriously depends on how close your looking. For example the differences between humans and apes. On one hand you could say we are the same, just looking at the chromosomes, but when you break it down to the genes there are actually millions of differences.

This is why I say it must have taken trillions of years for us to have evolved from a common ancestor. The math is simple. Millions of different genes. It's a scientific fact that if a species tries to change to much, to soon, it dies and very quick. So this had to be a very slow progression, so slow that speciation probably didn't happen. Allowing our species to breed and carry on. Trillions of years.


Wrong. You don't have to look at "millions" of genes. First of all, humans only have about 20,000--25,000 protein coding genes. We have less than a factor of 2 more genes than less complex organisms. The difference is that a greater proportion of our genes are geared towards CNS functions.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia
 


that looks pretty close for millions of genes to change, it wouldn't happen in leaps with every lineage otherwise we would be able to see it right now.


Nope. Only about 1.5% would make any difference, especially the Hox genes.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by HappyBunny
Wrong. You don't have to look at "millions" of genes. First of all, humans only have about 20,000--25,000 protein coding genes. We have less than a factor of 2 more genes than less complex organisms. The difference is that a greater proportion of our genes are geared towards CNS functions.

Trichomonas vaginalis is apparently the crown jewel of creation since it has over twice as many protein-coding genes as humans



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by HappyBunny
Wrong. You don't have to look at "millions" of genes. First of all, humans only have about 20,000--25,000 protein coding genes. We have less than a factor of 2 more genes than less complex organisms. The difference is that a greater proportion of our genes are geared towards CNS functions.

Trichomonas vaginalis is apparently the crown jewel of creation since it has over twice as many protein-coding genes as humans


Okay, maybe I should have said "We have less than a factor of 2 more genes than MOST less complex organisms".
It is predicted to have up to 98,000 genes total.

The genome of that organism is enormous and most of it looks to be evolutionarily recent. I guess that means the aliens created it, too. (The most common infection in the world, by the way, and no wonder.)



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by HappyBunny
The genome of that organism is enormous and most of it looks to be evolutionarily recent. I guess that means the aliens created it, too. (The most common infection in the world, by the way, and no wonder.)

Clowns such as Pye conveniently ignore this kind of data (and also all other data of course, except for some very specific things which they twist to mean something they're not, and even then they don't even point to these specific things so other people could have a look..). I wonder why

edit on 26-3-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by HappyBunny
The genome of that organism is enormous and most of it looks to be evolutionarily recent. I guess that means the aliens created it, too. (The most common infection in the world, by the way, and no wonder.)

Clowns such as Pye conveniently ignore this kind of data (and also all other data of course, except for some very specific things which they twist to mean something they're not, and even then they don't even point to these specific things so other people could have a look..). I wonder why

edit on 26-3-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)




They don't know these kinds of things exist. That's what makes me angry. They don't know, but the worst part is they don't WANT to know.

I'd love to read the whole text of that article. I can only get the abstract.

ETA: I'm still reeling from how BIG the genome is compared to ours. It's 45 times larger than ours in terms of megabases.
edit on 3/26/2012 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by HappyBunny
ETA: I'm still reeling from how BIG the genome is compared to ours. It's 45 times larger than ours in terms of megabases.

Nah, in total terms it's smaller, 170 Mb vs our 3,000 Mb. Our genome is tiny in comparison to most plant genomes, and also many protozoa and animals (e.g. lungfish genome is about 50 times larger than ours, so I guess the aliens spent 50x more time designing it
) One of the dumbest parts about Pye's argument for evidence on 'ancient lab work' is that almost all the things used in labs for DNA manipulation are in fact taken from nature (restriction enzymes, transposons, DNA ligase, etc.). How can one argue it can't happen naturally, when the only way we can do it is by using components from nature?
edit on 26-3-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 



Now address the point that if you cannot, by your own admission 'prove the bible' you cannot use it as a document of fact.

Which is the question I asked.
Just show me where the tests are that prove it to be wrong!
The point is you fool you admitted it cannot be proven true and that is what science requires and you need to claim it contains facts.

From your reply after 6 attempts I take it you do not intend to answer the question as usual.

Edit


How about because it simply says it is the truth.
Edit 7th failure to answer the question. Cant prove the bible means it cannot be accepted as the truth. A science major should not need to be told this continualy.
edit on 26-3-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
31
<< 316  317  318    320  321  322 >>

log in

join