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: 366
31
<< 363  364  365    367  368  369 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Could that be an example of REDUNDANT ADAPTION?
It sure could if you believe in the wiki definition that includes adaptation as part of evolution.

I have explained before and will again, that its a false claim, adaptation is NOT part, nor can it be part of evolution, and I will explain how I know this to be fact.

If we simply relied on adaptation to carry us in most things that allow us to stay alive, did this mechanisim know of this before hand, or was it just a crap shoot. In other words were we allowed so much adaptation smarts and this evolution mechanisim was smart enough to know we would make it on what we have? Heck no, everyone keeps saying that evolution is not a bug but it sure looks like there is some type of intelligence behind it for all the credit your giving it.

It has the ability to change our DNA and its also smart enough to hide its work so that we are unable to trace where evoltuion last happened. For all of the things that evolution are getting credit for, we sure do know very little about it. How it works, what it looks like, what its purpose is, how decisions are made, how our DNA is changed. It's just a crock.

Evolutionists did nothing but dream up hypothesis, and work them together in what I call a spaghetti bowl mess.

Evolution is NOT a hypothesis, its a series of hypothesis, and postulate theorys. None of which work. I do however agree with wiki and what they claiming to be witnesses in labs, none of which includes humans.




posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blargcakes
Why are people still posting in this thread? I thought most informed people had learned evolution was proven to be fake decades ago? This is what evolution teaches.

Fish were swimming in the ocean millions of years ago (don't ask evolutionists were they came from, unless you want to see them cry). one fish decides to flop onto land. it does and dies. other fish see this, and do the same. for thousands of years millions of fish kill themselves by flopping onto land. Until one day, one fish can breathe air (lol wtf?) and that fish flops around and dies because it can't eat or move efficently. now for thousands of years fish are flopping around on land and dying a few days later until one day another fish grows legs (lol wtf?) this legged fish runs around and eats bugs (lol where did they come from?). after thousands of years of dying in the winter, another fish grows fur (lol wtf) and becomes a monkey (lmao).

that is what evolution teaches. as you can see, it makes no sense and for that reason it is considered a funny science fiction plot, but is not considered a true scientific fact


Well for one thing, evolution has definitely not been "proven" to be fake.

People do not believe fish flopped on the coast for millions of years until one decided to breath. Genetic adaptations happen in every population. These traits are passed on to offspring. Eventually these mutations are large enough to possibly turn a fish into amphibian. The same holds true for human beings. Homo-sapiens are not the same as Neanderthal man. They were different branches of a previous mutation (ie: Lucy or Australopithecus sediba or even further back than that). The evolutionary "line" of human beings isn't a line at all. More like a tree branch. The same holds true for all species on earth. Everything evolved and adapted to its environment. After millions and millions of years, things change. It's certainly not as simple as you make it out to be.



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





Well I understand what your saying. I don't think anyone believes that a fish turns into a monkey. However in a long drawn out process, it does end up that way. I for one would never be able to believe in such fantasy.


No it doesn't...today's fish and monkeys have a common ancestor a LOOOOONG time in the past. If you go back long enough you'll see that seals and dogs have a common ancestor too. And since it's backed up by objective evidence, it's not a matter of "believing it"...whether you believe or not is relevant, it doesn't change the fact that it's happening.




Yes and you must have been absent the several times that I indicated that I had forgotten to place a comma between them.


The comma doesn't change anything...a theory isn't hypothetical





The thing you keep dropping the ball on is that evolution is not just a theory, but several theorys claimed to work together. IMO they don't work at all. So I laugh each time you keep saying the theory of evolution.


Of course it contains several theories...what's your point?? And what part doesn't work??




It's more like the page I was quoting, and I believe in, that evolution is nothing more than a bunch of hypothesis trying to work together. At best most of which have never been proven to be true.


Yes, there's hypotheses relating to the theory of evolution...and other theories too...it's a wide field. But how does that disprove evolution.

If a frog scientist puts forward a hypothesis claiming that some frog migrated from india to australia while developing a giant pink spot on its back...then that hypothesis is part of evolution since it's related to it. But if that hypothesis turns out to be false, like so many do, how does that disprove evolution? Only once a hypothesis has been fully backed up by objective evidence and peer reviews is it upgraded to a theory. And that theory can be part of the field of evolution.

You should read up on the difference between scientific theories and hypotheses again...because you still don't seem to get it



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





Evolutionists did nothing but dream up hypothesis, and work them together in what I call a spaghetti bowl mess.


The systematic classification of life is becoming clear and will grow as more and more rRNA sequences are sampled.
Sorry, but your "spaghetti bowl mess" is yours and has nothing to do with the current understanding of evolution.

As you can see in this diagram, direct lineage can be traced and it looks nothing like spaghetti.
You keep on trying to distort data, your only fooling yourself.

edit on 21-4-2012 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish
 





I have seen all of Blargcakes's nettlesome stances, in few posts he fails to have basic principle and substance. let me add that these ignorant assumptions are matched in their untenability only by the arrogant fervor with which they are written.
If you wish to discuss this topic with us you must first bring something to the table, objective evidence is in order. You will soon learn that few of us buy into wild invocations to the irrational, the magic, and the fantastic.
In other words you think its totally logical for a fish to turn into a monkey !


Such an ignorant understanding of Evolution is evidenced by what you just wrote, its the tooth.

Evolution DOES NOT SAY a fish turned into a monkey.

You don't understand that over the time span of hundreds of millions of years there were MANY species and animals that fish evolved to and humans came from.

Think about Corn. It was first, hundreds of years ago, a type of grass that grew in South America (many other areas as well). Corn originally didn't have no knob as it is today, and it was much much smaller.

Look what happened within only HUNDREDS OF YEARS (not thousands or millions) Evolution for corn.
The same with dogs and many other things.

So back to fish and humans. There were MANY other animals and such that Evolved from fish over the millions of years. And over hundreds of millions of years, thousands upon thousands if not much more different animals where inbetween fish and humans.


You never responded to my respond regarding your belief in a murderous God...



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by DerekJR321
 





People do not believe fish flopped on the coast for millions of years until one decided to breath. Genetic adaptations happen in every population.
The problem is that genetic adaptations are not any proof of evolution.




These traits are passed on to offspring. Eventually these mutations are large enough to possibly turn a fish into amphibian
Well thats the unproven theory anyhow, we have yet to see any proof of anything changing into another species, and all the tests I have read about claim nothing more then a variation of the same species. When all is said and done, you still have the same species. Probably the hardest thing to argue against is my theory on target food. Target food is the idea that any species SHOULD have certain things that it depends on to eat. Of course this is all with the understanding that you are actually living in your correct enviroment. I think that humans were brought here, which is why we have no target food. Now it only stands to reason that any living creature would have food. Not necessarily hard to find but not handed to them on a silver platter. Humans go to the extent of making processed food.

Other species that are not so gifted would not have the luxery of knowing how to make food for themselves. So the bottom line is, every sepecies should have some target food. You have to consider extinctons and the domino effect as well. So when we change into another species, what are we suppose to eat? And you can't say the same thing we used to eat as that would mean we are the same species. You can't say we are suppose to eat some other species food as that is there food and not ours.

From this simple understanding, you can realize several key things. Things must be in a balance to accomodate all species and everything should have target food.

Evolution is no possible because there would be nothing for any new species to eat. There is no way around it and it's not a trick question, there is only one answer. Humans are NOT from here, and we have no target food.




The same holds true for human beings. Homo-sapiens are not the same as Neanderthal man. They were different branches of a previous mutation (ie: Lucy or Australopithecus sediba or even further back than that). The evolutionary "line" of human beings isn't a line at all. More like a tree branch. The same holds true for all species on earth. Everything evolved and adapted to its environment. After millions and millions of years, things change. It's certainly not as simple as you make it out to be.
Just remember that all these new branches need something to eat, and unless new food pops up just like the new species does, it aint going to happen.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 01:47 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





No it doesn't...today's fish and monkeys have a common ancestor a LOOOOONG time in the past. If you go back long enough you'll see that seals and dogs have a common ancestor too. And since it's backed up by objective evidence, it's not a matter of "believing it"...whether you believe or not is relevant, it doesn't change the fact that it's happening.
Ok but the problem here is that there has never been any factual findings that connect seals and dogs. Granted we call the babys pups but thats as far as it goes. I would like to see this magical proof you have.




The comma doesn't change anything...a theory isn't hypothetical
Well it doesn't have to be, and the link I provided proves that evolution is a culmination of several things, including pustulates, and hypothesis. Now to be honest with you, it doesn't matter which part is a hypothesis, it speaks for itself, Evolution is NOT a proven fact.




Of course it contains several theories...what's your point?? And what part doesn't work??
The ONLY part that I found that is working, is speciation. And the problem with it is that it doesn't include humans.




Yes, there's hypotheses relating to the theory of evolution...and other theories too...it's a wide field. But how does that disprove evolution.
It's simple, if any part of the theorys are unproven, it means the entire thing is not proven. Your claiming its factual when its not. Most of it isn't fact, only some parts of speciation, and that doens't include humans.




If a frog scientist puts forward a hypothesis claiming that some frog migrated from india to australia while developing a giant pink spot on its back...then that hypothesis is part of evolution since it's related to it.
I'm not understanding your idea here, but can tell you that if its fact, its redoable in life. Nothing in evolution is recreatable except for some very narrow parts of speciation.




But if that hypothesis turns out to be false, like so many do, how does that disprove evolution? Only once a hypothesis has been fully backed up by objective evidence and peer reviews is it upgraded to a theory. And that theory can be part of the field of evolution.
None of the hypothesis in evolution are backed up. What I have found on this thread is people stretching the hell out of what little there is in speciation.




You should read up on the difference between scientific theories and hypotheses again...because you still don't seem to get it
I have never seen the term scientific theory and evolution on the same page together.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 


I don't think I'm the one getting fooled here. My earlier research found tons of guys getting busted claiming proof of evolution. I have never read anything that claimed to have proven evoltuion to be true. I find a lot of discrediting, and thats about it.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 01:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Confusion42
 





Such an ignorant understanding of Evolution is evidenced by what you just wrote, its the tooth.

Evolution DOES NOT SAY a fish turned into a monkey.

You don't understand that over the time span of hundreds of millions of years there were MANY species and animals that fish evolved to and humans came from.
Oh no I understand it, I just feel it would take trillions of years for those changes to happen. Earth isn't that old so guess what that means.




Think about Corn. It was first, hundreds of years ago, a type of grass that grew in South America (many other areas as well). Corn originally didn't have no knob as it is today, and it was much much smaller.

Look what happened within only HUNDREDS OF YEARS (not thousands or millions) Evolution for corn.
The same with dogs and many other things.

So back to fish and humans. There were MANY other animals and such that Evolved from fish over the millions of years. And over hundreds of millions of years, thousands upon thousands if not much more different animals where inbetween fish and humans.


You never responded to my respond regarding your belief in a murderous God...
I think your being blind sided by the possibility of a creator using recycled parts.

I do think god was murderous, and I don't care for him.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 02:17 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
400+ Pages and you still dont grasp the fact that evolition does not explain creation or describe how life began. So what follows is just as ignorant on the subject and I suggest you read all these 400+ pages for the information you require and should have read first time round


If you understand intervention, which I don't believe your capable of, then you would also apprecieate the insight that looks beyond it as well, which is all that I'm doing.
Start your own thread then. This is about explaining the diversity we see today without refering to evolution


IMO it would take trillions of years for a fish to branch out into a monkey.
And there is your problem. It is always 'In Your Opinion' and never backed up with logic or evidence. For the rest of this uninforrmed nonsense, which is amazing considereing you took part in over 400+ pages I suggest again you go back and read the information provided for you


Well I think that is where the problem lies, I don't want it explined to me, I want to proven to me.
But dont expect to give the same evidence supporting your nonsense. Double standards, tooth is thy name


Well if I'm a sapiensaphobe about this, then you must be new to whats going on. I didn't have to research the goof, I had never heard of anything that ants do that is unnatural. Now I understand that you guys might rely on the straight forward approach and find it pretty time consuming and tidius, but I on the other hand just realized some common sense facts. As a result a lot of unnecessary work was avoided.
It seems here you believe all that is needed is common sense, no evidence needed. What changed since page 355 ?


edit on 22-4-2012 by colin42 because: No evidence needed tooths words



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 02:25 AM
link   
Tooth...simple question...do you ADMIT to having a TAIL BONE or not?
Split Infinity



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
Tooth...simple question...do you ADMIT to having a TAIL BONE or not?
Split Infinity


Well everyone. GAME OVER! No response from TOOTH...know why...because OF COURSE HE HAS A TAIL BONE! We all do...because at one time....WE ALL HAD TAILS! And on occasion...and anyone can look this up...a person is born with a full tail. The person happens to be an evolutionary throwback so most have their tails removed at birth if they are born with one but some do not and their are many in the Third World who can't afford or do not have doctors with the knowledge to perform such a delicate procedure.

As I said.....GAME OVER! Tooth has a tail bone and he knows it. There is NO WAY TO TALK YOUR WAY OUT OF THAT FACT! TOPIC....DEAD! Split Infinity



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





we have yet to see any proof of anything changing into another species


Tooth, you keep on repeating this, and after so many pages it's not a pure lack of knowledge anymore...you are either TOO STUPID or TOO IGNORANT to see reality for what it is...take your pick.

You know just well that speciation was observed both in the lab and in nature...and the fossil record and DNA analysis backs it up for thousands of other species that lifespans that are too long for us to witness evolution in action.

We also use it in modern medicine...which you also continue to ignore.

If I were you, I'd read as much as I can about evolution...especially after making a fool out of myself in this thread by making the same wrongful statements over and over again



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish
 


I don't think I'm the one getting fooled here. My earlier research found tons of guys getting busted claiming proof of evolution. I have never read anything that claimed to have proven evoltuion to be true. I find a lot of discrediting, and thats about it.

Maybe that's your problem, don't think just listen and learn. Discard your earlier research of tons of guys busted claiming proof of evolution and look at what is current.
If you cannot do this then at least show us this proof of "tons of guys getting busted". I'll make it simple for you just show me one of the guys your talking about and how he is busted.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Well thats the unproven theory anyhow, we have yet to see any proof of anything changing into another species, and all the tests I have read about claim nothing more then a variation of the same species.


The definition of a species is "A group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal..."

Your not understanding the principal of evolution. You assume a fish will change to a monkey, or something similar. At least that's the way I'm reading your understanding. Evolution doesn't take place in a span of a decade, or a millennium. It is over the course of millions of years. A species will change over the course of time until which time it is no longer able to breed with the principal species. Thus "speciation" occurs. Yes, all species are a "variation" of a principal species. But life has existed on this planet for billions of years. Things change. Just as someone stated, we human beings have a tail bone. Why? Why are human beings so similar to say a chimpanzee? When homo-erectus walked upright, there really wasn't much need for a thumb on our foot.. hence we now have a big toe.


Originally posted by itsthetooth
Probably the hardest thing to argue against is my theory on target food. Target food is the idea that any species SHOULD have certain things that it depends on to eat. Of course this is all with the understanding that you are actually living in your correct enviroment. I think that humans were brought here, which is why we have no target food. Now it only stands to reason that any living creature would have food. Not necessarily hard to find but not handed to them on a silver platter. Humans go to the extent of making processed food.


Your over complicating things. What is the basic necessity of food? Protein, carbohydrates, etc. When early "man" was around millions of years, they were thought to be more of a scavenger. The intake of proteins allowed bigger brain growth over the course of hundreds of years. Thus increased intellect, which allowed the creation of tools, which allowed the creation of hunting, etc. All species have a "target food". It's called survival. There is no specific food for a species. As long as the living body gets the nutrients it needs it will survive. Human beings are omnivores. Why is that? Probably because we adapted over millions of years. I'm not really following your "specific food group for a species" here. Maybe I am just confused.


Originally posted by itsthetooth
Other species that are not so gifted would not have the luxery of knowing how to make food for themselves.


No species makes food for itself except human beings. And this is why we are considered the "dominant species". But we make our own food because we have learned and adapted. The use of fire helped that. We weren't just put here on earth and "poof" we had hells kitchen and McDonalds all around.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





400+ Pages and you still dont grasp the fact that evolition does not explain creation or describe how life began. So what follows is just as ignorant on the subject and I suggest you read all these 400+ pages for the information you require and should have read first time round
Oh Dr Colin, whats a matter, no T&c violation this time? LOL.
Colin I read all the pages as I went through them. How do you think I have known when to respond to you, or even respond twice because you always reply twice to me.




If you understand intervention, which I don't believe your capable of, then you would also apprecieate the insight that looks beyond it as well, which is all that I'm doing.

Start your own thread then. This is about explaining the diversity we see today without refering to evolution
I have done both. I told you that even a creator could have been the reason behind diversity. I don't see how evolution could have done it anyhow.




IMO it would take trillions of years for a fish to branch out into a monkey.

And there is your problem. It is always 'In Your Opinion' and never backed up with logic or evidence. For the rest of this uninforrmed nonsense, which is amazing considereing you took part in over 400+ pages I suggest again you go back and read the information provided for you
I did, and I took it all at face value.




Well I think that is where the problem lies, I don't want it explined to me, I want to proven to me.

But dont expect to give the same evidence supporting your nonsense. Double standards, tooth is thy name
Well there is no way that things that happened back in biblical times can be proven today. It's not like evolution where you have no excuse to not be producing evidence.




Well if I'm a sapiensaphobe about this, then you must be new to whats going on. I didn't have to research the goof, I had never heard of anything that ants do that is unnatural. Now I understand that you guys might rely on the straight forward approach and find it pretty time consuming and tidius, but I on the other hand just realized some common sense facts. As a result a lot of unnecessary work was avoided.

It seems here you believe all that is needed is common sense, no evidence needed. What changed since page 355 ?
The subject.

edit on 22-4-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 





Tooth...simple question...do you ADMIT to having a TAIL BONE or not?
Split Infinity
Of course I have one.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 





Well everyone. GAME OVER! No response from TOOTH...know why...because OF COURSE HE HAS A TAIL BONE! We all do...because at one time....WE ALL HAD TAILS!
You don't know that. There is no proof of that and your making assumptions. A tactic frequently found in the realm of evolution.




And on occasion...and anyone can look this up...a person is born with a full tail. The person happens to be an evolutionary throwback so most have their tails removed at birth if they are born with one but some do not and their are many in the Third World who can't afford or do not have doctors with the knowledge to perform such a delicate procedure.

As I said.....GAME OVER! Tooth has a tail bone and he knows it. There is NO WAY TO TALK YOUR WAY OUT OF THAT FACT! TOPIC....DEAD! Split Infinity
And how does this prove evolution or disprove intervention.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Tooth, you keep on repeating this, and after so many pages it's not a pure lack of knowledge anymore...you are either TOO STUPID or TOO IGNORANT to see reality for what it is...take your pick.
Just because I don't take everyones word as truth, does not make me stupid.




You know just well that speciation was observed both in the lab and in nature...and the fossil record and DNA analysis backs it up for thousands of other species that lifespans that are too long for us to witness evolution in action.
Just because its to long for us to observe does not give the green light to just believe in it, at least not in my book.




We also use it in modern medicine...which you also continue to ignore.
Of course we use it in modern medican, its been observed in bacteria and viruses, NOT HUMANS.

I don't know where you guys get off thinking that includes humans.




If I were you, I'd read as much as I can about evolution...especially after making a fool out of myself in this thread by making the same wrongful statements over and over again
I seriously doubt that agreeing with what I'm learning from wiki sites is wrong.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





Just because I don't take everyones word as truth, does not make me stupid.


You've been provided with PLENTY of irrefutable evidence throughout this thread. People have linked properly sourced scientific links and even tried to explain it to you. In the end, they even dumb it down in. All for nothing...which means you're either stupid or simply too ignorant to see reality if it goes against your fantasy belief.

You have utterly failed at presenting any credible evidence to prove your claims...and have also failed at presenting any evidence that would "debunk" evolution





Just because its to long for us to observe does not give the green light to just believe in it, at least not in my book.


Of course not...that's why they study the fossil record and analyze DNA...which backs up the theory completely





Of course we use it in modern medican, its been observed in bacteria and viruses, NOT HUMANS.

I don't know where you guys get off thinking that includes humans.


We can't SEE it in humans because our lifespan is too long. But we have OBJECTIVE evidence through fossils, DNA analysis, and migratory trends that fully back it up. Humans are STILL evolving by the way, and that's a FACT.




I seriously doubt that agreeing with what I'm learning from wiki sites is wrong.


Pretty much every post you make is factually incorrect, so I doubt Wiki agrees with you




top topics



 
31
<< 363  364  365    367  368  369 >>

log in

join