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: 38
31
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by jeichelberg
 


dateline: Whenever...Scientists discovered fossilized remains of what appears to be duck-billed mammal...not only that, but the mammal appeared to be capable of laying eggs!!! So much for your tiktaalik...

Except the tiktaalik was both a primitive fish and a tetrapod, not a duck-billed egg-laying mammal. Not sure where you're getting that non sequitur from.


First, it is not transitional, simply because it exhibits characteristics of other creatures...

Actually, that's the definition of a transitional fossil:

A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a lifeform that exhibits characteristics of two distinct taxonomic groups.


Second, do not put up some stupid ARTIST rendering of what some scientist thought the creature looked like and expect that will suffice to satisfy scientific method...no matter how much you desperately want for it... it does not...Everyone knows that most of the bones present in recreated skeletons on display are MANUFACTURED by man and placed where someone THINKS it should go...

So it's stupid for no other reason than you say it is? Great, I'm glad you've been appointed as the grand arbiter of artist renderings. The conclusions drawn about the animals in question are based on morphological features of the fossils, not the artist renderings.




posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
Can't believe this thread resurfaced.

Ok , Let's talk evolution. When did modern man first appear ?


Anatomically modern humans about 200,000 years ago and then the sub species being homosapien sapien (us) about 40-50 thousand years ago. The ones who appeard 40-50 thusand years ago are the same ones who landed on the moon.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by jeichelberg
 


dateline: Whenever...Scientists discovered fossilized remains of what appears to be duck-billed mammal...not only that, but the mammal appeared to be capable of laying eggs!!! So much for your tiktaalik...

Except the tiktaalik was both a primitive fish and a tetrapod, not a duck-billed egg-laying mammal. Not sure where you're getting that non sequitur from.


First, it is not transitional, simply because it exhibits characteristics of other creatures...

Actually, that's the definition of a transitional fossil:

A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a lifeform that exhibits characteristics of two distinct taxonomic groups.


Second, do not put up some stupid ARTIST rendering of what some scientist thought the creature looked like and expect that will suffice to satisfy scientific method...no matter how much you desperately want for it... it does not...Everyone knows that most of the bones present in recreated skeletons on display are MANUFACTURED by man and placed where someone THINKS it should go...

So it's stupid for no other reason than you say it is? Great, I'm glad you've been appointed as the grand arbiter of artist renderings. The conclusions drawn about the animals in question are based on morphological features of the fossils, not the artist renderings.


If you're both talking about a duck billed egg laying mammal you're talking about a platypus which is alive and well in Australia.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 12:43 AM
link   
I'm sorry but I am unable to prove evolution wrong. The problem is that both sides are arguing over the correct interpretation of the SAME evidence.

Does that make sence?



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptChaos
OK, I'll bite.

Evolution is complete bunk. It makes no sense. Even Darwin himself recanted his THEORIES in the end. And remember, it is just a THEORY, and a very weak one at that.

Those who are stating there is EVIDENCE to support evolution: where is this evidence? The fossil record in no way supports evolution. Not only is there a "missing link" from apes to man, there is an equally missing link for every species. We have found plenty of bones of wooly mammoths, for example. Explain to me how they "evolved" into a smaller and weaker version, the elephant. Where are some bones of the in between stages? They do not exist.


The asian and african elephants you refer to were around at the same time as the mammoth as was anatomically modern humans.

The mammoth was bigger and had hair with a wool like base because of the climate of which they were in, there was also a woolly rhinos, the smaller hairless elephants you refer to were in a different part of the world in a different climate.

Like a polar bear. A polar bear is the same species as the grissly bear but bigger with more hair because of the climate it is in. And no, one bear didn't evolve from the other but rather they have adapted to their climates like the elephants did. And that adaption become a long term trait to a point where evolution happens.

You could have researched and answerd this yourself if your motivation was understanding rather than ranting.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 04:13 AM
link   
reply to post by steveknows
 

Given that I was talking about a tiktaalik and he replied with comments about a duck-billed platypus without actually saying "duck-billed platypus", I'm as confused as you are.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Noey777
 


You do realize that footprint hoax was exposed and debunked years ago right?
edit on 25-10-2011 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
reply to post by Barcs
 


I think your getting off topic.
I never said evolution dosn't apply at anytime .
What you are discussing is survival , which all living things must learn to do.
One must evolve to be able to learn to survive.
(Adapting comes naturally and can't be taught.) Really ?
So soldiers going into a war zone in a foreign country need no training?



I didn't say you said that evolution doesn't apply, but you can't compare human war scenarios to adaptation to various environments over millions of years. Plants do not LEARN how to survive. They just do. Humans are different because they are intelligent and can make decisions. You can be prepared for certain situations, but adaptation is a long process, not something that only applies is one generation. Human knowledge of war combat is passed down and taught, but isn't a natural skill like the ability to learn. The humans who aren't as smart and aware during a war situation will be less likely to survive, regardless of how they are taught. Some people can learn it, some can't. That's the simple facts and it applies to almost every thing that can be taught in life today. The best mentally equipped soldiers have the best chance of surviving a war, just like the smartest scientists come up with medicines and inventions that propel our species forward. If not for the smart people leading the way, where would we be as a society right now? The ability to learn is more important to our survival than anything else and that ability comes naturally.
edit on 25-10-2011 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by steveknows
 


From whom ,and what facts do you base this on ?



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by jeichelberg
 


dateline: Whenever...Scientists discovered fossilized remains of what appears to be duck-billed mammal...not only that, but the mammal appeared to be capable of laying eggs!!! So much for your tiktaalik...

Except the tiktaalik was both a primitive fish and a tetrapod, not a duck-billed egg-laying mammal. Not sure where you're getting that non sequitur from.


First, it is not transitional, simply because it exhibits characteristics of other creatures...

Actually, that's the definition of a transitional fossil:

A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a lifeform that exhibits characteristics of two distinct taxonomic groups.


Second, do not put up some stupid ARTIST rendering of what some scientist thought the creature looked like and expect that will suffice to satisfy scientific method...no matter how much you desperately want for it... it does not...Everyone knows that most of the bones present in recreated skeletons on display are MANUFACTURED by man and placed where someone THINKS it should go...

So it's stupid for no other reason than you say it is? Great, I'm glad you've been appointed as the grand arbiter of artist renderings. The conclusions drawn about the animals in question are based on morphological features of the fossils, not the artist renderings.


A creature that exhibits characteristics of other animals is not transitional...as is the obvious duck-billed platypus, or any other egg-laying mammal...they are what they are...it does not mean they became something else entirely after a period of time...it is more likely they remained exactly what they were for the entire existence until extinction...



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by steveknows
 

Given that I was talking about a tiktaalik and he replied with comments about a duck-billed platypus without actually saying "duck-billed platypus", I'm as confused as you are.


The point I was making is that you knew exactly what I was talking about given my description...the platypus exhibits characteristics of many types of creatures, yet we know it is what it is and has remained what it is for its existence...Scientists in the future will not point to this creature as a transitional form as proof of transformation, yet scientists now wish to hang their collective hat on a tiktaalik as proof of a transitional form...when in fact, the observable evidence we have in place states beyond all doubt that creatures, although they make adaptations to survive, they survive as what they currently are....lizard, reptile, platypus, mammal, fish, insect...



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by jeichelberg
 

Then, in keeping with the intent of this thread, feel free to offer up your explanation for biodiversity that doesn't involve evolution.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


Are you suggesting a baby comes out of the womb and can survive any scenario life can throw at it.

(Plants do not LEARN how to survive. They just do.) So does God then.
Plants , over time can grow almost anywhere when they adapt to their environment and conditions.
Plant seeds can be in a dorment state till the right conditions appear , dorment is not dead .

Again evovolution is not just phyical it is mental, the term is too broadly used and should not be a one size fits all . Evolution is real and does exist, where it begins and where it ends is the real argument, as is the argument about God. The human mind can not comprehend no begining and no end so how can we set boundrys ?



edit on 25-10-2011 by OLD HIPPY DUDE because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by colin42
I would like to pose a scenario.

Let's put all the evidence of evolution to one side for a spell. That Darwin and all that followed were mistaken as some maintain.

I would like the pro Evolution group (that includes me) to take a back seat and give the anti evolution group a chance to explain how life on this planet is the way it is now.

I am not asking how life started just an explanation of the diversity of life from the deep dark depths of the oceans to the blue skies above and pole to pole.

I would like an explanation of the fossil records but it is not essential.

As I say I would like the pro evolution group to resist comments for a while. My guess is there will be few takers but I may be suprised.
edit on Thu Sep 22 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: *misleading title, formerly was: Evolution proved 100% Wrong





Yes, I can prove evolution wrong. But, if I do it won't be received by those who have "faith" in it. The problem is, is that you limit the debate to life already existing and not taking into account how it began. It's like saying there is a fire yet we can't discuss the spark that started it. So all I can say is, yes, I can prove evolution wrong.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by jeichelberg
 

Then, in keeping with the intent of this thread, feel free to offer up your explanation for biodiversity that doesn't involve evolution.


Actually, the thread title asks, "can you prove evolution wrong?" I have already stated I cannot prove evolution is right or wrong...and the ultimate issue is that no one can prove any origin for biodiversity...we have our views of how it came about, but ultimately that is all they are...our views...My view is the biodiversity arrived via creation by God...Birds, mammals, fish, reptiles, etc., were created as such...now, birds made adaptations, but remained birds, mammals made adaptations, but remained mammals, etc...and humans were created as humans, but have remained human...The only proof I have of this is recorded history and observations...



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   
I may not be able to prove it right or wrong but in my opinion if it is true there would have to be EVIDENCE of TRANSITIONAL life forms.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by hudsonhawk69
 


Who made the aliens? If they had to seed this planet to start it all .. then who seed there planet if they evolved as a result of evolution?

next line.. (ya i know it's not a creation thread it's an evolution thread but it's all i got for now hehe)

To the OP: Genesis describes the process of evolution almost perfectly. Including fish from the sea.. whales first (as per science) then creeping out of ocean is described in the Bible (just as science describes) etc etc.. it's all there. You guys just don't want to see it because the NWO has programmed you to reject the creator and embrace knowledge. That's all the dark side really has Gnosis.
edit on 10/25/2011 by firegoggles because: added to OP



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by jeichelberg
 

So you read the title of the thread, but not the OP? Go back and read the OP -- the mods changed the title (hence the asterisk) to something far less on-topic.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


From the OP.

I would like the pro Evolution group (that includes me) to take a back seat and give the anti evolution group a chance to explain how life on this planet is the way it is now.

I am not asking how life started just an explanation of the diversity of life from the deep dark depths of the oceans to the blue skies above and pole to pole.

Seems no one is following the OPs request.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove

Originally posted by colin42
I would like to pose a scenario.

Let's put all the evidence of evolution to one side for a spell. That Darwin and all that followed were mistaken as some maintain.

I would like the pro Evolution group (that includes me) to take a back seat and give the anti evolution group a chance to explain how life on this planet is the way it is now.

I am not asking how life started just an explanation of the diversity of life from the deep dark depths of the oceans to the blue skies above and pole to pole.

I would like an explanation of the fossil records but it is not essential.

As I say I would like the pro evolution group to resist comments for a while. My guess is there will be few takers but I may be suprised.
edit on Thu Sep 22 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: *misleading title, formerly was: Evolution proved 100% Wrong





Yes, I can prove evolution wrong. But, if I do it won't be received by those who have "faith" in it. The problem is, is that you limit the debate to life already existing and not taking into account how it began. It's like saying there is a fire yet we can't discuss the spark that started it. So all I can say is, yes, I can prove evolution wrong.


I have not said you cannot talk about a creator in your description on the diversity we see without evolution. I'd rather you explained diversity but if you really need to include creation feel free.

Once again and not your fault. The title was changed not by me. The challenge was for someone to explain the diversity we see around us without using evolution. Not to prove evolution wrong.

The only thing I maintain is Evolution has nothing to say on creation either way.

So there you go. The road is clear. Dont bother proving evolution wrong just explain life's diversity without it.
edit on 25-10-2011 by colin42 because: Edit




top topics



 
31
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join