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: 325
31
<< 322  323  324    326  327  328 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
No hes not me happy and you would be wise to lend an ear and wise up to whats oh so obvious.


I know it wasn't you, Toothy.




posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by eyesontheskies
reply to post by colin42
 


I believe God created everything. That doesnt mean that i dont think things cant evolve but i just believe that they cant evolve into a totally different species. And the reason i dont think that humans evolved is because some human would pretty much have to be born to an ape so i think even if we started to look like humans we would still be talking ape language and acting like apes and i dont really think that we would be as intelligent as we are. And fossil records? There hasnt been a true missing link found. And why arent we still evolving? Isnt it interesting that we still grow wisdom teeth when we dont need them and they cant even really fit in our mouth? And really my only problem with evolution is where did the VERY FIRST thing come from? Did it just poof out of thin air? That sounds pretty ridiculous i think something would have had to at least start everything out.

Neither evolution nor the modern synthesis have anything whatever to do with abiogenesis. You're barking up the wrong tree.
edit on 3/28/2012 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/28/2012 by HappyBunny because: Edited to fix grammar



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Oh no I totally get that we have a scary amount of things in common with them. I don't think that proves relation.

As you should know by now, outside mathematics nothing can be proven to P=0 or P=1. Nonetheless, all this stuff implies common ancestry, and the likelihood of this NOT being the case (when looking at genomic data) approaches negative infinity.



I don't believe so, what I'm trying to say is that if you honestly believe in DNA just changing on its own without direction or reason, then by your own admission, we couldn't possibly agree with anything that the DNA tells us as it could have changed.

I don't believe that 'DNA just changes on its own without direction or reason' (I have already said this before). I am aware of multiple underlying mechanisms that mutate DNA. Direction comes from natural selection acting on the variance. You just don't have a freaking clue about how it all works.

Below is a picture I posted before, in which you see a part of multiple alignment of human, chimp, dog, cow, mouse, rat, chicken and zebrafish insulin mRNA (take notice that of the 80 or so shown loci only around 20 are conserved across all the species).



Due to the degenerative nature of the genetic code aligning DNA sequences doesn't always make much sense, so here's another picture (this time multiple alignment of the translated insulin protein).



Take notice that only 45 of the 111 positions are conserved across all species in the alignment, yet they all result in a functional insulin protein. Also, notice the conserved block at the end.. lots of other proteins have the same domain (as in nature is reusing it for many things).

How cool is it that our precursor insulin is this similar to fish precursor insulin (lowest row, second lowest is chicken, the two at the top are human and chimp). Hmm, I wonder how to explain the alignment, identical with chimps (but one difference in a variable region), very similar with other mammals too, less so with chicken and even less with fish


Also notice that we are together with chimps exactly as far from other mammals (we have Alanine, Chimps have Serine, other mammals have Argine or Glutamine in this particular position (23)). Clearly a position with little significance to the function of the protein..
edit on 28-3-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Can't believe tooth called someone a moron for questioning the bible


Even more ironic that the same person attacks science while blindly believing whatever's in the bible. So sad...



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





Take notice that only 45 of the 111 positions are conserved across all species in the alignment, yet they all result in a functional insulin protein. Also, notice the conserved block at the end.. lots of other proteins have the same domain (as in nature is reusing it for many things).

How cool is it that our precursor insulin is this similar to fish precursor insulin (lowest row, second lowest is chicken, the two at the top are human and chimp). Hmm, I wonder how to explain the alignment, identical with chimps (but one difference in a variable region), very similar with other mammals too, less so with chicken and even less with fish
I understand, but as I have stated before, it could have just as easily of been a creator using recycled parts. Now thats just one example, and not even one that I totally believe in.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Can't believe tooth called someone a moron for questioning the bible

Even more ironic that the same person attacks science while blindly believing whatever's in the bible. So sad...
Since when did I attack science?



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Can't believe tooth called someone a moron for questioning the bible
I wasn't calling you a moron for questioning the bible, I was calling you a moron for overlooking how someone else on the link stated that we shouldn't question it. Epic fail.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
I understand, but as I have stated before, it could have just as easily of been a creator using recycled parts. Now thats just one example, and not even one that I totally believe in.

Could have been Batman. Fact is that NOTHING points it to being either Batman or creator. This is the only thing you have since proving P=1 or P=0 is impossible, it's the ultimate hiding place for God of the Gaps.
edit on 28-3-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by xXxinfidelxXx
 
FYI this thread is meant to be about explaining the diversity we see around us today without refering to evolution. The title was changed.


You do realize that there is far more evidence against evolution than for and that Darwin has already been proven wrong eh? Want your proof, just look at us.
Show that evidence.


If you think that we evolved into what we are today naturally, than how is it that we are the only species on this planet that does not try to live within the ecosystem, but actually try to change the ecosystem to benefit us, at the expense of all other creatures?
Why is it those with a scab about evolution insist it is only about how humans evolved? I think the opposition is more to do with bruised egos because evolution tells us ALL life is special not just us and that we are related to all life on this planet.


One only needs to look out the door and see all the sheer morons walking around to see that "survival of the fittest" clearly went out the window hundreds, if not thousands of years ago.
Evolution is not about survival of the fittest. Out of date concept.


Now, when you also look at all of the evidence of some sort of "evolutionary intervention" taking place in ancient Sumeria, as well as Egypt, Quetzecotl, Sri Lanka and India (accounts of flying ships and "giants" (Nephilim) that are actually able to be corroborated, as most ancient mythologies in the world are pretty much the same). Are you gonna dismiss the knowledge of all of the ancients, on the sheer assumption that "oh hey they lived a long time ago, they must have been real dumb eh." Check and mate, sir

Why is it that you can dismiss years of scientific endeavour yet I must accept ancient mythology?

Most ancient mythologies are not the same. They have simularities because they were imagined by man to explain things beyond their knowledge. Could some be about visitors from the stars? Sure.

It does however not mean your closest relatives in the animal kindom are not the other great apes. As for your check and mate, only in your mind mate.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by xXxinfidelxXx
 
FYI this thread is meant to be about explaining the diversity we see around us today without refering to evolution. The title was changed.


You do realize that there is far more evidence against evolution than for and that Darwin has already been proven wrong eh? Want your proof, just look at us.
Show that evidence.


If you think that we evolved into what we are today naturally, than how is it that we are the only species on this planet that does not try to live within the ecosystem, but actually try to change the ecosystem to benefit us, at the expense of all other creatures?
Why is it those with a scab about evolution insist it is only about how humans evolved? I think the opposition is more to do with bruised egos because evolution tells us ALL life is special not just us and that we are related to all life on this planet.


One only needs to look out the door and see all the sheer morons walking around to see that "survival of the fittest" clearly went out the window hundreds, if not thousands of years ago.
Evolution is not about survival of the fittest. Out of date concept.


Now, when you also look at all of the evidence of some sort of "evolutionary intervention" taking place in ancient Sumeria, as well as Egypt, Quetzecotl, Sri Lanka and India (accounts of flying ships and "giants" (Nephilim) that are actually able to be corroborated, as most ancient mythologies in the world are pretty much the same). Are you gonna dismiss the knowledge of all of the ancients, on the sheer assumption that "oh hey they lived a long time ago, they must have been real dumb eh." Check and mate, sir

Why is it that you can dismiss years of scientific endeavour yet I must accept ancient mythology?

Most ancient mythologies are not the same. They have simularities because they were imagined by man to explain things beyond their knowledge. Could some be about visitors from the stars? Sure.

It does however not mean your closest relatives in the animal kindom are not the other great apes. As for your check and mate, only in your mind mate.



Thanks. That was a much more civil response than I could come up with. I'm getting really tired of repeating myself for people who are too lazy to read the thread.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by xXxinfidelxXx
 



Natural selection does not apply anymore, and I'm not too sure if it ever did with us humans. I don't know what rock you have conveniently placed over your head, but where I come from, the idiots thrive and multiply, while those that are intelligent are kept out of the equation.
I know its unfair but I just could not resist it.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





Take notice that only 45 of the 111 positions are conserved across all species in the alignment, yet they all result in a functional insulin protein. Also, notice the conserved block at the end.. lots of other proteins have the same domain (as in nature is reusing it for many things).

How cool is it that our precursor insulin is this similar to fish precursor insulin (lowest row, second lowest is chicken, the two at the top are human and chimp). Hmm, I wonder how to explain the alignment, identical with chimps (but one difference in a variable region), very similar with other mammals too, less so with chicken and even less with fish
I understand, but as I have stated before, it could have just as easily of been a creator using recycled parts. Now thats just one example, and not even one that I totally believe in.


WHY would a Creator use recycled parts? Couldn't he just, well, create new parts?



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Thank you for providing such a STUNNING example of blind belief

No facts, no rationality, no logic...just pure blind belief.
I was just quoting the site, what do you believe they have blind faith too?




Given that he emphatically stated that humans are not primates for several pages of this thread and then proceeded to link a Wikipedia pages that categorically states that humans are primates as his proof that humans are not primates, I think you're putting way too much faith in High Genus He-who-shall-not-be-name of the First Interventionist Church of the Arcane Virus and his ability to read and process information.
Well I had already commented about this and made it clear that my ears were much larger prior to learning about evolution being a fabricated theory. I did not read the entire article on primates, which is why I missed that part. I already stated this. Are you possibly scanning and only finding the parts you want to read?
Your ears got smaller as you learned about evolution???????????


Strangely Pinocchio your nose has not stopped growing since you entered this thread.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but if you want that information, it's still a free country. Go out and look for it if you really want to know. Also, you negated any validity your argument might have had in stating that survival of the fittest is an out-dated concept. The entire evolutionary theory is based off of natural selection. What do you think that is?



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


I hate to break it to you but "idea" is just another way of saying "hypothesis". Don't mince words. Counter with solid points or don't counter at all. This is not political you know. No need to respond like a politician.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


Wow your ability to take things out of context really baffles me to be quite honest. My *ahem* hypothesis is that we did not evolve naturally, but with outside influence. Use your brain before adding 2 and 2, and coming up with 50. There are hundreds of documentaries and articles on the topic, and for me to attempt to list it all here would be pointless. Save me the effort, and go do some good old fashion research. Regardless of what you may have been told, there are other websites than Google and Facebook you know.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


Why would I read 400+ pages of nonsense, when I can sum you up in 4 or 5 posts. Met one other person like you on ATS who absolutely swore that Israel was privy to zero crimes against humanity, regardless of the mounds of evidence that proved otherwise. Take a page from her book and reevaluate your information. It's actually a very useful tool. Also, never confuse education with intelligence, as from your pompous attitude, I would assume that you are moderately-well educated, yet somewhat lacking in the other area. No offence, of course. Education is merely a system of indoctrination to churn out conformists and "systems managers" who know everything about how to work within the system, but not a clue how the system works and unable to comprehend any information that is supplied by sources other than what is accepted in the main-stream. Those norms are there for a reason, to keep people like you shackled to antiquated and obviously false dogmatic beliefs that masquerade for science. That goes for all sides of the spectrum as well. Some people that look down on evolutionists are idiots and the same applies for the religious side of the argument, as well as my side. All I ask is that you try to sort through it (we were given a bi-hemispherical brain for a reason you know. The problem (and no offence, but obviously one you suffer from) is that education takes information, stuffs it into the left brain, and then asks for it back in exactly the same manner. The right side (responsible for abstract thought, creativity, and the source of a musician's talent) rarely, if ever gets any real use anymore. That's why they always cancel art and music programs before anything else, because right-brained thinking is not easy to control by any standard. View the information with that in mind with BOTH sides of your brain and maybe you might comprehend what I'm talking about, but I doubt that will happen. Just look at the scientific community that you obviously follow. Theories only last as long as it takes for some other schmuck to prove them categorically wrong. Problem is, like the flat-earth theory of antiquity, old theories die hard, even in the face of overwhelming opposition. Think about that before trying to mince words with me again, as both sides of my brain are quite fully functional as you may or may not have noticed.
edit on 28/3/2012 by xXxinfidelxXx because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


You know what, I honestly am sort of leaning to the same direction on that. I don't think it's a constant state of de-evolution, though, but from what I can gather, there are oodles of evidence of vastly sophisticated ancient civilizations existing when we were told that dinosaurs were still roaming the earth (not too sure about that either, I think mother Earth has a few more years on her than we've been told), that disappeared in a catachlysmic event that left some spots in the middle east contaminated with ionizing radiation even to this day, complete with shadows burned into solid rock (know what I'm getting at yet?). I think the "modern" human race evolved back up to a certain point after that and in the last 100 years or so, we have been steadily becoming more advanced, while also, as a whole, becoming dumber and dumber with each passing year. It used to be that people would elevate, with their children doing better than them, but now children are doing worse than their parents almost universally, with some exceptions of course, with a percentage that gets smaller every year. I just don't get how a scientist can find the equivelant of a spark plug, composed of iridium and platinum, embedded in a chunk of solid coal and not put 2 and 2 together. The sad thing is, the western view of advancement only looks at how technologically advanced we are, without taking into account how smart we actually are, as a whole. Technological progress is now being hamstrung to churn out gadgets that are merely crutches to distract us from how dumb we all really are when it comes down to it. Every morning on my bike ride to work, pretty much every pedestrian I see has their eyes buried in their cell phone. One guy almost walked into traffic right in front of me because he couldn't be bothered to look up from the screen of his phone. See, if natural selection really had any credence to it, that guy would have been toast long ago, but no, people like that outnumber people like me and you 50 to one. Doesn't that just make ya feel all warm and nice inside? /sarcasm lol
edit on 28/3/2012 by xXxinfidelxXx because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


You could keep bashing me over the head with semantics and what's wrong with people like me, or you could take my road and actually try to explain why it is you think that we evolved from Homo Sapiens into what we are now all on our lonesome.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by xXxinfidelxXx
My *ahem* hypothesis is that we did not evolve naturally, but with outside influence.

If it's a hypothesis, then there must be a way to disprove the counter 'null hypothesis', i.e. in this case "we evolved naturally". So how are you going to disprove that we evolved naturally (up to P < 0.05 at least)?

Hypotheses and ideas are two very different things..
edit on 28-3-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
31
<< 322  323  324    326  327  328 >>

log in

join