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: 320
31
<< 317  318  319    321  322  323 >>

log in

join
share:

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

Originally posted by rhinoceros

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
)


I meant in terms of megabases, it's huge. Even some amoeba have genomes that are larger than ours in terms of Gb--Polychaos dubium specifically which is 670 Gb. (Love that name. Wonder where it came from!)


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 taking the components from nature?


It's up to them to prove it can't happen naturally, though, and that it must be engineered. I don't see how they can do that when they can't even come up with a null hypothesis and then test it. At least, I've never seen one. They look at it in terms of data storage space, when in fact that's just an analogue made up by us--put into terms most of us can understand.

edit on 3/26/2012 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/26/2012 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)



edit on 3/26/2012 by HappyBunny because: Never mind




posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 10:13 AM
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
I see no question and I also see no question mark, would you like to make some corrections so I can address your question?
Showing your ignorance again as I was making a statement not asking a question. You really have the lowest IQ ever.

PS you still have not answered the original point, that also does not need a question mark.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 


Your coo.
.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





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.
The work has already been done, and posted on wiki. The only thing I'm aware of thats missing is the fact that they are also finding specieation in some small insects. Aside from that, your just making an assumption that it also applies to humans. Evolutionists would have been the first on the scene to prove that theory for sure. Anyhow humans aren't listed. So in your case your assuming without reason to, and I'm assuming not with reason.




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




Pyes work isnt verifiable beacause he hasnt told anyone what his work is.
Actually thats what his entire video is about, did you miss it?




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!
Oh brother.



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





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)
True but DNA can be extracted from fossilized bone.




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.
What I'm saying, and find hard to believe in, is how the mechanism which changes our DNA through evolutionary patterns, is invisible. Scientists haven't identified the motive or the mechanism. This is why earlier I would make joke that its the evolutionary bug.

I say if there was a mechanism, we would see it, and probably know its mechanism. You might wonder then how is it possible that there are thousands of new strains viruses or mosquitoes and no mechanism verified. The answer is simple and another one that I have been pointing out as well. The changes they are finding are not from evolution, they are just natural allowances within the species.




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
I have, and every time that I do, evolutionists are saying that evolution is only a hypothetical theory.




you still know didley about it
My interest was high until an evolution page quoted evolution as being a postulate or hypothetical theory.




Evolution doesnt make any such claim, it explains the diversity, not creation of ALL life
The diversity of life could just as easily be explained by a creator.




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).
True but its up to the claimant to prove there side, not assume it.




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.
So then what you are saying is based on some scenarios, I'm being profiled. It's a tall lesson to be learned that just because someone is not perfect does not mean that everything else about them is also imperfect. Thats just poor judgment, and also goes to show you how people slamming the bible, or Pye, or Sitchen or Von Daniken are just wrong.

One thing to always remember is that NO ONE is perfect, but always remember that about yourself as well.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post 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.
Sorry Happy your way above my head on this and I lost you.

It's important that I let others on here know that just because I'm a science major DOES NOT mean that I automatically know everything there is to know about science in general.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





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.
The bible is quoted as being truth, thats good enough for me, to least give the benefit of the doubt. It's not a book of science that can be back tracked and checked. It was also written some thousands of years ago, so your being dishonest when you say prove it.




From your reply after 6 attempts I take it you do not intend to answer the question as usual.
And again I'm still not seeing a question or a question mark for that matter.




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.
Thats because any science major would also know that you haven't done anything to prove it to be wrong.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Showing your ignorance again as I was making a statement not asking a question. You really have the lowest IQ ever.

PS you still have not answered the original point, that also does not need a question mark.
Quit trying to condition me to answer you, without you directly asking a question or using proper punctuation. Go back to school for christ sake.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



The bible is quoted as being truth, thats good enough for me, to least give the benefit of the doubt. It's not a book of science that can be back tracked and checked. It was also written some thousands of years ago, so your being dishonest when you say prove it.
Come one man, your meant to be a science major. That you accept the bible a truth is ok for you on a pesonal level but has no place in this discussion.


And again I'm still not seeing a question or a question mark for that matter.
What a pethetic cop out. You are just a silly little troll. You answer all other comments without requireing a ? but when you are beaten you bring this really childish argument up.

So to coin a tactic from you. I take it you are admitting you cannot use the bible as a document of fact.


Thats because any science major would also know that you haven't done anything to prove it to be wrong.
I does not take a science major to know you cannot prove a negative. Again showing you dishonesty and ignorance.

Again to refuse to answer the point. You are truely pathetic


Quit trying to condition me to answer you, without you directly asking a question or using proper punctuation. Go back to school for christ sake.
You have already pulled this card and it fails every time you use it. What the hell is 'trying to condition you to answer.'? this is meant to be a discussion. A 2 way conversation. A science major indeed.

Major pilock, major liar, major fool but certainly not even a micro knowledge of science.

A silly wooden headed puppet that lies, tells tall tales and embraces ignorance. Pinocchio found his dad living in the belly of a whale didnthe, which explains why you believe that is possible as well. You are the modern day Pinocchio.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Come one man, your meant to be a science major. That you accept the bible a truth is ok for you on a pesonal level but has no place in this discussion.
Of course it does, especially when you seem to be unable to disprove anything about it.




What a pethetic cop out. You are just a silly little troll. You answer all other comments without requireing a ? but when you are beaten you bring this really childish argument up.

So to coin a tactic from you. I take it you are admitting you cannot use the bible as a document of fact.
First off, you don't know how to ask a question, and when you try, you almost always fail to use correct punctuation. None of which is my fault.

And I'm not admitting to anything.




I does not take a science major to know you cannot prove a negative. Again showing you dishonesty and ignorance.

Again to refuse to answer the point. You are truely pathetic
You mean like proving that evolution has never been identified in humans.




You have already pulled this card and it fails every time you use it. What the hell is 'trying to condition you to answer.'? this is meant to be a discussion. A 2 way conversation. A science major indeed.
At least you finally learned its science major not science master.




Major pilock, major liar, major fool but certainly not even a micro knowledge of science.
Not in biology anyhow.




A silly wooden headed puppet that lies, tells tall tales and embraces ignorance. Pinocchio found his dad living in the belly of a whale didnthe, which explains why you believe that is possible as well. You are the modern day Pinocchio.
You havent stepped up to say that you tried it, so you know it to be false. In case you haven't figured it out, science is a pretty broad term. No one is a master in science of the broad term. Get a clue. And you haven't done anything that has proven me to lie, what have I lied about. Just because you THING certain things in the bible might not be accurate doesnt mean your correct. Your thinking wrong, and I challenge you to prove those things wrong.
edit on 26-3-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





what have I lied about


None of your intervention posts are based on facts or objective evidence...so either you're lying on purpose, or you're simply here to spread fiction





It's important that I let others on here know that just because I'm a science major DOES NOT mean that I automatically know everything there is to know about science in general.


No, but it should mean you know what scientific method is...CLEARLY you don't, which is surprising for someone claiming he's a science major

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



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





None of your intervention posts are based on facts or objective evidence...so either you're lying on purpose, or you're simply here to spread fiction
Intervention is proven simply by our DNA, but there are many other things including the bible that claim intervention as well.




No, but it should mean you know what scientific method is...CLEARLY you don't, which is surprising for someone claiming he's a science major
I don't think your lack of the ability to understand intervention means I don't know what a scientific method is. If your referring to the method of evolution, it's already been cleared up while you were out for a bit that evolution has only been witnessed in a few aquatic species and small insects. Humans ARE NOT on the list for specieation, so it would appear that assumable people just assumed it applies to humans. I would think the exact opposite, in that humans would be one of the first things they would want to look at to see if it is happening, and it's not.

The other thing thats being assumed in all this is the ground floor for genetics. We claim to know what a species is suppose to be like, and claim to be able to see these rare speciation examples, but I'm sure there is another reason. There simply is no proof that the hand of evolution is to blame in these rare cases. It could just be genetic options that never showed its head until this time. There is no way to prove it being evolution as we have nothing to compare it to.

Evolution is clearly listed as a postulate and hypothetical theory, and someone has also taken this out of context. What it means in plain english is that the idea of evolution has never been proven and it is just an idea. I think its very odd for people to back such tripe and come to me with things like,,, well is there any proof it doesn't happen in humans. No, but there is also no proof that it does. I also can't prove that pink unicorns exist.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I would be interested to hear what your theory is then, to explain life in the universe and the incredible diversity. Why does our skeletal structure resemble that of all mammals on earth. In a universe without evolution, I would expect even more diversity, with varying skeletal structure for every animal. Instead we have a similar, albeit not the same, but similar skeletal structures, with similar organs and such. Why isn't it more diversed if evolution is not true. Whats your thoughts on the simulation argument?



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by andersensrm
 





I would be interested to hear what your theory is then, to explain life in the universe and the incredible diversity. Why does our skeletal structure resemble that of all mammals on earth. In a universe without evolution, I would expect even more diversity, with varying skeletal structure for every animal. Instead we have a similar, albeit not the same, but similar skeletal structures, with similar organs and such. Why isn't it more diversed if evolution is not true. Whats your thoughts on the simulation argument?
Stages of creation could just as easily explain the diversity.

Do you think when we invented the wheel that all cars, bicycles, and everything else with wheels were made at the exact same time, no, we took the idea and used it on future creations.

I think that DNA could be the same thing. It's possible that a creator, or creators used the same ideas into future creations. It's not an important thing to try to find out IMO because it's most likely something that none of us are thinking about or have seen. There is probably something totally overlooked or unscene that just leaves us in the dark on this.

Intervention doesn't explain how we were created. It is possible however that we were frankenstined, and from that it does. It is hard however to accept this as it does create the ONLY contradiction I have found with intervention. That is that the bible clearly states that earth is not our home. But how can that be if someone created us, unless we weren't first created elsewhere.

Everyone wants to know where that first point of entry started, and to be honest with you, if it were from evolution like a lot of people are basing dozens of assumptions on, our planet and life on this planet would be a hell of a lot different than it is right now. First we would have the plethora of proof that we simply evolved, but this evolution bug seems to be to smart to be caught. Second, we would fit in a hell of a lot better than we do in a natural way and not have to depend so much on our redundant adaptation.

Evolution is not only listed as just a hypothetical theory but there is no way species could evolve into another species. It would argue the understanding with DNA as DNA just changes on its own and without reason or understanding. So everything we know and have come to know with DNA is now worthless.

The other thing that wont allow evolution to work is food. You can see how some species have what I call a target diet. It's obvious they fit in here and have food that appears to have been made for them. Not us, we have to make our own food because there is none here for us. It's evident that species moved around from planet to planet may not fit in. Worse is they upset the delicate balance of the planet. Humans are a virus on this planet. We don't fit in here, but we do a hell of a lot just to make it work. It's redundant adaptation. If a species were to evolve, it would eventually evolve into another species. That species would require a specific diet to suit its needs. Where are those needs going to be met? If evolution was a creation, then its failing misserbly. You can't just expect things to evolve and not have to feed them. It's a shortcoming in the whole evolutionism myth.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





Intervention is proven simply by our DNA, but there are many other things including the bible that claim intervention as well.


1) Nothing you posted would prove the claim that DNA somehow proves intervention.

2) The bible ISN'T objective evidence. Given that there is a TON of stuff in it that is DEMONSTRABLY wrong, it would be foolish to claim it's hard evidence!

So in short, you have ZERO evidence in support of intervention





I don't think your lack of the ability to understand intervention means I don't know what a scientific method is. If your referring to the method of evolution, it's already been cleared up while you were out for a bit that evolution has only been witnessed in a few aquatic species and small insects. Humans ARE NOT on the list for specieation, so it would appear that assumable people just assumed it applies to humans. I would think the exact opposite, in that humans would be one of the first things they would want to look at to see if it is happening, and it's not.


No, when I talk about "scientific method" I talk about the fact that in science claims need to be backed up by objective evidence...and your intervention theory fails horribly at sticking to scientific method, the cornerstone of science.

Secondly, humans are definitely on the list of speciation...hell, we still evolve. In another million years we will look slightly different and probably couldn't mate with today's humans.




The other thing thats being assumed in all this is the ground floor for genetics. We claim to know what a species is suppose to be like, and claim to be able to see these rare speciation examples, but I'm sure there is another reason. There simply is no proof that the hand of evolution is to blame in these rare cases. It could just be genetic options that never showed its head until this time. There is no way to prove it being evolution as we have nothing to compare it to.


Genetics have an influence on evolution...but they're not the only influence on how a species evolves. Outside influences definitely have an impact on evolution, which is why your argument is simply wrong.




Evolution is clearly listed as a postulate and hypothetical theory, and someone has also taken this out of context. What it means in plain english is that the idea of evolution has never been proven and it is just an idea. I think its very odd for people to back such tripe and come to me with things like,,, well is there any proof it doesn't happen in humans. No, but there is also no proof that it does. I also can't prove that pink unicorns exist.


I'm not sure how often I have to tell you this...but: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A HYPOTHETICAL THEORY. It's either a hypothesis or a theory, but not both. And no, the entire theory isn't a postulate. I'd relink the definitions, but you're simply going to ignore them again.

You said you got this whole "postulated hypothetical theory" from a scientific website, but up until now you completely failed at posting a link to it





Not us, we have to make our own food because there is none here for us.


You really have to stop posting that bull#


There is plenty of food that's perfectly fine for us. I spent 2 weeks on a "survival trek" in the Australian outback, only at what was there, I'm still alive and it was fine. Did something similar in Costa Rica, no problem whatsoever.

Hell, for crying out loud, just visit some small time farm. You can eat the cows, apples, potatoes, whatever...all fine for you...just like eating an antilope is fine for a lion.
edit on 26-3-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   
People still believe we evolved from monkeys??

LOL



Face it, we were created in a laboratory. Evidence of this? Check out that web of skin under your tongue. It prohibits you from choking, and possibly from "feeling around" in places THEY dont want you to. wtf right?
The tongue is the first body part that emerges from the heart, when a child is being created. There are connections between the heart and tongue, that humans have NO idea about. We just think the brain is the most important.
The human body is way too unique and detailed to have been "evolved" from another animal/monkey/ocean/big bang whatever you all believe. Unfortunately religion is the only outlet explaining we were "created". Religion is crap, but cmon.....monkeys????

Wonder when the next Planet of the Apes comes out...those always do good in the box office.


edit on 26-3-2012 by holywar666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by holywar666
 


You do realize monkeys have that skin below their tongue too, right?


In case you were being sarcastic...kudos


PS: We didn't evolve from monkeys...we share a common ancestor with them.
edit on 26-3-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted 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)


I guess we were designed smarter than the average ape.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





1) Nothing you posted would prove the claim that DNA somehow proves intervention.
The only other option in this is that we had DNA labs back in biblical times. I dunno, what do you honestly think? Did we evolve, or did we de-evolve?




2) The bible ISN'T objective evidence. Given that there is a TON of stuff in it that is DEMONSTRABLY wrong, it would be foolish to claim it's hard evidence!
First of all you can't just claim to be able to dismiss all of the bible, your acting like you have personally tried everything thats in there and no for a fact that its all false. Second is that there could be parts that are largly misunderstood. This is why I keep saying I don't think your qualified to read it.




So in short, you have ZERO evidence in support of intervention
There are statements within the bible claiming that its intent is to be honest. Do you have some sort of documentation that says this is wrong?




No, when I talk about "scientific method" I talk about the fact that in science claims need to be backed up by objective evidence...and your intervention theory fails horribly at sticking to scientific method, the cornerstone of science.
Not at all, it proves why we are here, how we got here, and who put us here. It also proves the findings in our DNA.




Secondly, humans are definitely on the list of speciation...hell, we still evolve. In another million years we will look slightly different and probably couldn't mate with today's humans.
Humans are NOT on a list of speciation, and I challenge you to prove that. You pulled that out of the air.




Genetics have an influence on evolution...but they're not the only influence on how a species evolves. Outside influences definitely have an impact on evolution, which is why your argument is simply wrong.
So then by your own admission, you agree that DNA has the ability to change on its own, without warning or reason. Making our understanding in all aspects of DNA completly worthless.




I'm not sure how often I have to tell you this...but: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A HYPOTHETICAL THEORY. It's either a hypothesis or a theory, but not both. And no, the entire theory isn't a postulate. I'd relink the definitions, but you're simply going to ignore them again.
I understand but for some reason everyone on this thread accepts a theory as fact, when it isn't, so its the only way I can remind them just how wrong they are.




You said you got this whole "postulated hypothetical theory" from a scientific website, but up until now you completely failed at posting a link to it
I'm sorry if you missed it but I also copy and pasted the postualte and hypothesis sections as well, if you missed them you will have to go back a couple of pages.




You really have to stop posting that bull#

There is plenty of food that's perfectly fine for us. I spent 2 weeks on a "survival trek" in the Australian outback, only at what was there, I'm still alive and it was fine. Did something similar in Costa Rica, no problem whatsoever.
I didn't say we don't have food to eat, we don't have any target food, or food that was intended for us. There is a big difference and I honestly don't expect you to understand it.




Hell, for crying out loud, just visit some small time farm. You can eat the cows, apples, potatoes, whatever...all fine for you...just like eating an antilope is fine for a lion.
That is correct and you can also eat toilet paper and toothpaste, but that doesn't mean it was meant for you.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





You do realize monkeys have that skin below their tongue too, right?

In case you were being sarcastic...kudos

PS: We didn't evolve from monkeys...we share a common ancestor with them
And (holywar) all this last part means is throw in an additional, or possibly several lineages between us. It cracks me up because I think most people understand that a monkey didn't give birth to a human, there obviously had to be some lineage between us, so that makes it more possible by evolution standards.

Sorry guys I don't buy it either way.




top topics



 
31
<< 317  318  319    321  322  323 >>

log in

join