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: 381
31
<< 378  379  380    382  383  384 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2012 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





Your made up terms are not accepted. Correct.

The reason is not my review board. Its your cowardly response to a fair offer to debate your made up terms which you ran from. You hung yourself mate and you only have yourself to blame. I'll quote you.
So is it that you agree with the complete understanding of the terms and what they stand for, or just my choice of terms?

Everything about you is just riddled with dishonesty Colin.
Even you cannot be that stupid. Oh what am I saying, of you course you are. Go back, read where I invited you to debate your made up terms. Go back and read all the times I explained what I required.

Read what is written and not what you want to see and the riddle will be solved.

Second thoughts dont bother as you have had more than a fair chance to provide those definitions. You chose deceit , dishonesty, lies and avoidance. You chose the cowardly path and ran like hell from honest participation.

What was it you wrote.


Anyhow you don't win by coping out, thats a losers hand.
What a pity you are unable to live up to these words. Words I will remind you of often.

You chose a poor way to lose this debate. Now you have to live with it




posted on May, 8 2012 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
Can you prove evolution wrong?*

No.

The scientific theory seems to have a lot going for it.

Where we are concerned the fossil record from Australopithecus onward is both fascinating and compelling, even if it is incomplete as you would expect, IMO.


But that's just it. Tooth and others like him think it should be totally complete and unambiguous for the last 4.5 billion years. They then try to use that as proof that evolution is false. Even Darwin was a little concerned that none of the fossils found in his day pre-dated the Cambrian, but he was confident that they'd be found.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
The problem is that there is no proof of it happening anywhere. Macroevolution has never been identified.

There is proof of it happening everywhere. We can measure mutation rates and observe natural selection. That's all you need for any form of evolution. You are just saying "macro" because you can't comprehend the concept of small changes slowly adding up and becoming big changes. It's not that complicated and doesn't utilize any additional mechanism, other than the process I mentioned above. Genetic mutations + natural selection = evolution. Simple, proven, tested formula.



But we do have that in the form of DNA from prior ancestors, and still haven't witnessed evolution in that way either. So why are humans so special from this witnissing?

The real question is why did you ignore what I said, Mr Troll. I very CLEARLY stated that to observe speciation in humans would take hundreds of thousands of years. You selectively ignore anything you don't like. It's actually sad. You can't witness speciation in your own species. It takes thousands upon thousands of generations. And you are dead wrong about DNA. It shows without a doubt that we are related to Neanderthals and many are related to Denisovans. DNA links us better to our ancestors than anything else.


What I read clearly states that some aquatic life, and bacteria and viruses and some insects are privy to speciation, not humans.
Sorry. You read some bogus nonsense. Evolution is observable in humans. End of story. Nobody cares about witnessing speciation in humans. It's impossible, but we've witnessed it in several other creatures that just like us have genetic mutations and become part of natural selection.

Your problem is you don't understand evolution in the least and aren't willing to learn. Speciation is NOT a separate process in evolution, neither is macro evolution. If micro evolution is proven, then macro and speciation are INEVITABLE. If you respond, please don't ignore everything I said and please provide something of substance if you plan to debunk something that scientists have been trying to learn for decades. Become a scientist, do your own experiments instead of just blindly bashing something you know (or pretend to know)zero about.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo

Originally posted by Barcs
No. That is what you call an opinion. DNA "checksum" is equivocation, first. Second, it does not prove or even come close to proving evolution wrong or intelligent design accurate. DNA can find errors in replication although it does not always find them. It's the same thing as always. A creationist claiming that he can prove his faith, by mentioning random scientific facts and things that may not be fully understood by science and then drawing ridiculous conclusions from them, and again, it has absolutely ZERO to do with evolution. Same crap, difference sewer.


edit on 7-5-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)


nice speech..

Prove it!

ETA: or rather .. try and Disprove it~!

edit on 7-5-2012 by Komodo because: (no reason given)


Prove what? That you are using fallacies? That it has absolutely zero to do with evolution? That your theory is bogus? It's not on me to disprove your theory. It is on YOU to prove it, but unfortunately you cannot do it without making a whole bunch of assumptions and mixing in personal opinion.

Look up the fallacy of equivocation, and then look at that when you refer to that as a "checksum". It is NOT the same thing.

Please refer me to the scientific experiments that conclude that DNA being able to repair itself proves intelligent design. I've already read through that thread and its nothing but speculation. No actual science behind it. You said "solid scientific research". Where is the research? Youtube videos don't count. Post the experiments. The problem is that you take known scientific facts and then make assumptions on them. It goes from fact to opinion really quick. We know that DNA can correct itself. We DON'T KNOW why or how that quality emerged yet. Anything beyond that is speculation at best.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


Speaking of "solid scientific research". The quest is on to discover the mechanisms of DNA repair.

Scientists from the Kavli Institute of Nanoscience at Delft University of Technology have discovered a key element in the mechanism of DNA repair. When the DNA double helix breaks, the broken end goes searching for the similar sequence and uses that as a template for repair. Using a smart new dual-molecule technique, the Delft group has now found out how the DNA molecule is able to perform this search and recognition process in such an efficient way. This week, the researchers report their findings in Molecular Cell.

A Needle in a Haystack



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


Your obviously not understanding my question. No real shocker. Is it that your against me having my own terms for said reasons, or are you in disagreeance with the terms I have chosen, or there meanings?



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





There is proof of it happening everywhere. We can measure mutation rates and observe natural selection. That's all you need for any form of evolution. You are just saying "macro" because you can't comprehend the concept of small changes slowly adding up and becoming big changes. It's not that complicated and doesn't utilize any additional mechanism, other than the process I mentioned above. Genetic mutations + natural selection = evolution. Simple, proven, tested formula.
If macro evolution were real, life and death as we understand it would be a hell of a lot different than it is now. It's just not present anywhere, both in current times and past and future.




The real question is why did you ignore what I said, Mr Troll. I very CLEARLY stated that to observe speciation in humans would take hundreds of thousands of years. You selectively ignore anything you don't like. It's actually sad. You can't witness speciation in your own species. It takes thousands upon thousands of generations. And you are dead wrong about DNA. It shows without a doubt that we are related to Neanderthals and many are related to Denisovans. DNA links us better to our ancestors than anything else.
You don't know that, your making an assumption or rather an excuse. Even so, if you were correct, we would have fossils to compare with, and none of the 250 million fossils out of 150 years prove so.

We either have humans, or cross bred humans or non humans, we never have evolved humans.




Sorry. You read some bogus nonsense. Evolution is observable in humans. End of story. Nobody cares about witnessing speciation in humans. It's impossible, but we've witnessed it in several other creatures that just like us have genetic mutations and become part of natural selection.

Your problem is you don't understand evolution in the least and aren't willing to learn. Speciation is NOT a separate process in evolution, neither is macro evolution. If micro evolution is proven, then macro and speciation are INEVITABLE. If you respond, please don't ignore everything I said and please provide something of substance if you plan to debunk something that scientists have been trying to learn for decades. Become a scientist, do your own experiments instead of just blindly bashing something you know (or pretend to know)zero about.
All of the information I have read up about came from links that people on this thread directed me to. I'm sorry if you disagree with evolution material, but thats where I got my understanding of it all.

BTW humans have been around for more than thousands of years and we are still unable to see speciation in humans, ever wonder why?



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 


Your obviously not understanding my question. No real shocker. Is it that your against me having my own terms for said reasons, or are you in disagreeance with the terms I have chosen, or there meanings?
You can make up you own language for all I care but any words or terms you make up need to be clearly defined when you use them in a public forum and even more so in a thread such as this.

I have explained and put a case forward as to why I reject 'redundant adaption' and 'excessive adaption' very clearly, twice (at least). I asked you to make a case in defence of their use in an open debate. You refused.

Due to your refusal, the only conclusion is that you know you cannot defend them and your insistance on using them is purely the tactics of a troll.

This also by default brings all your other obviously made up terms into doubt and as you have shown you will not offer a definition for them either so the conclusion is the same as above.

To help you out even though I know you do not read any links, even your own. DEBATE
Snip

a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.

Writing definitions
Snip

In academic work students are often expected to give definitions of key words and phrases in order to demonstrate to their tutors that they understand these terms clearly. Academic writers generally, however, define terms so that their readers understand exactly what is meant when certain key terms are used. When important words are not clearly understood misinterpretation may result. In fact, many disagreements (academic, legal, diplomatic, personal) arise as a result of different interpretations of the same term. In academic writing, teachers and their students often have to explore these differing interpretations before moving on to study a topic.

edit on 9-5-2012 by colin42 because: format



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





You can make up you own language for all I care but any words or terms you make up need to be clearly defined when you use them in a public forum and even more so in a thread such as this.

I have explained and put a case forward as to why I reject 'redundant adaption' and 'excessive adaption' very clearly, twice (at least). I asked you to make a case in defence of their use in an open debate. You refused.
Ignoring the definitions and repeatedly asking for them is not an attempt to open a debate, its an attempt to dissregard the definitions.

Well since you admitt to accepting the easier colin term of excessive adaptation, its really a no brainer.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





You can make up you own language for all I care but any words or terms you make up need to be clearly defined when you use them in a public forum and even more so in a thread such as this.

I have explained and put a case forward as to why I reject 'redundant adaption' and 'excessive adaption' very clearly, twice (at least). I asked you to make a case in defence of their use in an open debate. You refused.
Ignoring the definitions and repeatedly asking for them is not an attempt to open a debate, its an attempt to dissregard the definitions.

Well since you admitt to accepting the easier colin term of excessive adaptation, its really a no brainer.
You didnt even read my posts let alone the links did you.

You ran from supplying definitions like a craven coward. You ran like a cowardly banshee from the offer of a debate. In answering my post you have run like a trolling coward from the link to 'writing definitions'.

Please quote me where I wrote I accept the term excessive adaption. You really should be ashamed of your low level reading abilities and more so your dishonesty.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   
I think I have posted several replies to this humoungus thread... but, if i may, i'd like to close my thoughts here...

My personal faith is not in any way affected by any outside influences. This is not to say that i am closeminded and unavailable for possibility... but I don't walk out into a cow pasture expecting not to step into some gushy substance.

Existence in this life is a mystery. How and why we got here and the whole reason for it, has never been satisfactorily answered. faith and science both take deep stabs but the outcome is not ever enough.

Then on a fall day, you watch a leaf as it falls and the last leftover butterfly chase it to the ground...

Meaning? Who knows... but it seems clear that, life here and for our species, is far more involved than a monkey that fell from a tree and learned to walk upright... or a garden where two people made a lot of mistakes.

From there, that leaf and that butterfly carry a beauty that can't be set aside.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


Of course I read them. I never found any tutors on this thread so I moved past it.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 


Of course I read them. I never found any tutors on this thread so I moved past it.
As uual another pathetic reply from you. It and you are treated as such.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by micmerci
 


I'm not Evolutionist nor Creationist. I think both are accurate. Conscious Universe. ^.^ Funny how few people wonder if maybe both theories are correct.
But anyways, your question can be easily answered.
I'm not exceptionally well studied in evolution theory, but I get the basis. (I actually don't like Darwin, even though he's intelligent, because I feel his 'survival of the fittest' stuff killed compassion).

It took a while for other life-forms to evolve into man. I'm not sure exactly how long, but a HUGELY significant portion of the time in which the earth has been in existence. Man is like a tiny speck in that timeframe.

Now. A population of 7 billion? You can thank penicillin for that. People now live longer, when back int he day average life-span was like, 30-40 years. We have a lot more medicine now, way more ways of prolonging life....
And you mention basic mathematics??

Multiplication. Obviously 100 x 100 is going to be more then 10 x 10.

Once upon a time, believe it or not, mankind did not rule the world. People used to have to fight for survival against predators, elements, diseases, ect... SO that kept the population level very low.

Personally, I hate penicillin. And every other human life prolonging thing there is, hospitals etc... Too many people...


Yeah, I'm not super smart or anything, but that question seems pretty easy to answer.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
If macro evolution were real, life and death as we understand it would be a hell of a lot different than it is now. It's just not present anywhere, both in current times and past and future.

Huh? I'd ask for evidence of this, but I know you won't post it and once again you ignored all of my points and changed the subject to some meaningless speculation that has no basis in reality.



You don't know that, your making an assumption or rather an excuse. Even so, if you were correct, we would have fossils to compare with, and none of the 250 million fossils out of 150 years prove so.

Huh? Once again you ignored everything I said and changed the subject. We have millions of fossils, what are you even talking about?


We either have humans, or cross bred humans or non humans, we never have evolved humans.

Huh? 2.5 million years the homo genus has evolved and changed. It's obvious in the fossil records and the genomes that we have studied.



BTW humans have been around for more than thousands of years and we are still unable to see speciation in humans, ever wonder why?

Huh? Do you even understand English? Can a human live one hundred thousand years? If not, he cannot observe speciation in humans. That's by far, the worst argument I've ever heard.

Tooth, if you are just going to ignore what I say and post nonsense I have no reason to be here.
edit on 10-5-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


One thing is for sure Colin, you sure are not wanting to accept the truth.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





Originally posted by itsthetooth
If macro evolution were real, life and death as we understand it would be a hell of a lot different than it is now. It's just not present anywhere, both in current times and past and future.

Huh? I'd ask for evidence of this, but I know you won't post it and once again you ignored all of my points and changed the subject to some meaningless speculation that has no basis in reality.
No I'm seriously talking about the life that is here on this planet, and how we would have a lot of species that were very much the same.

For example, we have apes and huamns that share a scary amount of DNA. IMO we would have a hell of a lot more than just apes that would be sharring DNA if evolution were real.

I do however believe in specieation, at least according to the way it is on wiki anyhow. It says nothing about humans being involved nor does it elude to the idea.
So it appears that people on this thread are jumping to conclusions in this.




You don't know that, your making an assumption or rather an excuse. Even so, if you were correct, we would have fossils to compare with, and none of the 250 million fossils out of 150 years prove so.

Huh? Once again you ignored everything I said and changed the subject. We have millions of fossils, what are you even talking about?
Thats right, we have millions of fossils and not a single one that proves a connection to evolution.




We either have humans, or cross bred humans or non humans, we never have evolved humans.

Huh? 2.5 million years the homo genus has evolved and changed. It's obvious in the fossil records and the genomes that we have studied.
That was a cross breed, not an evolve.




BTW humans have been around for more than thousands of years and we are still unable to see speciation in humans, ever wonder why?


Huh? Do you even understand English? Can a human live one hundred thousand years? If not, he cannot observe speciation in humans. That's by far, the worst argument I've ever heard.

Tooth, if you are just going to ignore what I say and post nonsense I have no reason to be here.
Well of course we don't live a thousand years, but we have fossils. DNA can prove or disprove evolution.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
No I'm seriously talking about the life that is here on this planet, and how we would have a lot of species that were very much the same.

We do have many species that are very similar.


For example, we have apes and huamns that share a scary amount of DNA. IMO we would have a hell of a lot more than just apes that would be sharring DNA if evolution were real.

IMO you should do some research. We share 50-60% of our DNA with a CARROT.



Thats right, we have millions of fossils and not a single one that proves a connection to evolution.
back to the blatant lies I see.



That was a cross breed, not an evolve.


HUH? What's an evolve?


Well of course we don't live a thousand years, but we have fossils. DNA can prove or disprove evolution.


DNA is evidence of evolution. Fossils are evidence of evolution. Speciation IS OBSERVED in the fossil record. Slow change over time is THE CENTRAL THEME of the fossil record. Otherwise there wouldn't be over a dozen varieties of hominids over the past 2.5 million years that were all separate species. But no, you know more than most scientists the spend 10+ years analyzing a single fossil.

edit on 10-5-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





We do have many species that are very similar.
I don't think for example that a bass in the ocean has much in common with humans.




IMO you should do some research. We share 50-60% of our DNA with a CARROT.
So now your going to tell me that carrots are great ancestors
.




Thats right, we have millions of fossils and not a single one that proves a connection to evolution.

back to the blatant lies I see.
It's a fact, there is an assumed relationship, not a proven one, or at least how it came to be.




HUH? What's an evolve?
You were referring to a common ancestor.




DNA is evidence of evolution.
Big lie. If this were true scientists would have thrown there hands up in the air long ago and agreed with everything about evolution. There is a relationship no doubt but that doesn't mean it got there the way you believe it did.




Fossils are evidence of evolution. Speciation IS OBSERVED in the fossil record. Slow change over time is THE CENTRAL THEME of the fossil record. Otherwise there wouldn't be over a dozen varieties of hominids over the past 2.5 million years that were all separate species. But no, you know more than most scientists the spend 10+ years analyzing a single fossil.
See another lie, there is nothing that proves evolution is to blame for all this, it could have been a creator as well. I don't believe in either, I think there is something we have yet to learn about.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 


One thing is for sure Colin, you sure are not wanting to accept the truth.
What is more apparent is that you have no concept of what 'The Truth' means.


edit on 10-5-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
31
<< 378  379  380    382  383  384 >>

log in

join