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.
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.
You just invent stuff as you go. Speciation has never been observed in humans - what does it even mean?
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.
That modern humans haven't diverged into new species?
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.
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.
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.
Has never been witnessed directly, since this is impossible due to the time required.
Probably because animals don't look anything like fossils, I would guess.
Crying this again and again makes you look incredibly stupid. Ever wonder why 100 million year old fossils are not identical to contemporary animals?
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.
Or why 200 million year old fossils are not identical to 100 million year old fossils?
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.
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.
And what part of that moronical drivel answers
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.
Which is the question I asked.
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 still does not answer my question
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
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.
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.
And again does not answer my question. Please try to remain focused on the question at hand and not dive into fantasy land.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
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.
Now address the point that if you cannot, by your own admission 'prove the bible' you cannot use it as a document of fact.
Just show me where the tests are that prove it to be wrong!
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.
I see no question and I also see no question mark, would you like to make some corrections so I can address your question?
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
How about because it simply says it is the truth.
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
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.
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:
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster
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.
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.
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.
reply to post by itsthetooth
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.?
You just invent stuff as you go. Speciation has never been observed in humans - what does it even mean?
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.
?
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.
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.
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.
you still know didley about it
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.
Evolution doesnt make any such claim, it explains the diversity, not creation of ALL life
I had no idea that evolution was claiming the creation of flora, nor do I understand why.
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).
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.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny
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.
Good. Glad you admit it, because a few pages back you said that we weren't alike.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.)
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 whyedit on 26-3-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)
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.
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.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
Just show me where the tests are that prove it to be wrong!
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.
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.
How about because it simply says it is the truth.