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.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
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.
DNA is evidence of evolution.
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.
Depends on what your referring to. If its just speciation according to the details presented on wiki, then ya, I agree. Anything else is speculation.
Huh? So because they prove one thing, it means that every other detail and hypothesis is automatically 100% correct? Fallacy. Science is about learning. They never just throw their hands up in the air and go, "Oh! Guess we're done. We officially know everything". They try to learn more. They already threw their hands up in the air a long time ago regarding the process of evolution. Now they are working out the details.
Only problem is we don't have any documentation telling us that the puff marsh mellow man did it. On the other hand there is a book with documentation telling us a creator did it.
It also could have been the stay puff marsh mellow man, but we know that creatures evolve, and it fits the profile and observed slow change over time. We can measure and test it all, from the genetic mutations to the natural selection. We can observe it today in any creature you want.
Depends, do you have anything that claims that any mutation is proof of evolution?
If you can find a single creature in the world that doesn't pass genetic information and mutations to its offspring, you MIGHT have a case.
Nice, so how you going to seperate the two and find out how much if any of it is evolution? You just admitted to me that they have no way to identify evolution in humans but your sure it exists.
One might be able to get away with saying that evolution isn't the ONLY thing that causes slow change over time, but it is definitely one of them and the process is proven. I'll say it again. The process of evolution is proven and can be observed in every single organism on earth.
Is it fallacious? You yourself admitted it can't be witnessed in humans.
Let me guess, next you'll repeat the original fallacious argument that you can't observe speciation in humans.
I don't have to, you did it for me. You already admitted that different changes can't be identified as to there origon, so there you go.
Like I said 200 pages ago, if you are going claim that I'm lying or "evolution" is lying, you need to bring forth the research and scientific data that shows otherwise. Prove any of it wrong, even just a small piece.
Strangely you are correct but not in the way you meant it. You have been writing your low inteligence nonsense and lying to me and others for far longer than I would like as I usually avoid dishonest liars like the plague.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
I must have been talking to you for to long.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
Depends on what your referring to. If its just speciation according to the details presented on wiki, then ya, I agree. Anything else is speculation.
Only problem is we don't have any documentation telling us that the puff marsh mellow man did it. On the other hand there is a book with documentation telling us a creator did it.
Depends, do you have anything that claims that any mutation is proof of evolution?
Nice, so how you going to seperate the two and find out how much if any of it is evolution? You just admitted to me that they have no way to identify evolution in humans but your sure it exists.
I don't have to, you did it for me. You already admitted that different changes can't be identified as to there origon, so there you go.
Like I said 200 pages ago, if you are going claim that I'm lying or "evolution" is lying, you need to bring forth the research and scientific data that shows otherwise. Prove any of it wrong, even just a small piece.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs
You know Barcs, here are some things to think about when your trying to debunk intervention....
Look, Barcs, I'm really excited for you. Imma let you finish. But von Däniken, Sitchin, and Pye are the greatest scientists of all time.
And I agree, its just not listed to be found anywhere in humans. Do you have some links that specifically state its found in humans.
I already said what I'm referring to. The process of evolution. It's proven. End of story.
True but without motive, its pretty hard to simply dismiss.
There is also documentation saying the flying spaghetti monster created the universe. That doesn't make it true.
So now your sayin that each and every single mutation is proof of evolution. Any links that state so.
Is that supposed to be a joke? Look up evolution on wikipedia. Genetic mutation + natural selection = evolution. That's the definition of the word, but alas for some reason I have to repeat it constantly because you refuse to believe science.
Wait a minute, I though you stated that macroevolution can't be identified in humans. So are you saying that macroevolution is not part of evolution? How can you assume that it happens when its never been identified.
First you have to find evidence that suggest this other thing exists. I admitted no such thing. Evolution is PROVEN in humans. It can be measured and tested. Stop being dishonest, I've said that a hundred times and once again you've provide no evidence whatsoever to suggest I'm wrong or that your theory is right.
Macro evolution has never been witnessed anywhere so there you go assuming. I would love to see any links that say speciation has been observed in humans.
Lie much? I didn't say anything close to that.
Well here is the problem Barc, if we aren't from here, than we obviously didn't evolve from the other life around here. Thats not to say that evolution couldn't happen, but just that it didn't in this case. Or rather couldn't have in this case.
I'm not trying to debunk intervention. I'm defending the science behind evolution, which is strong. Intervention is an interesting theory but there's no reason it has to go against evolution. This is your fatal error. You make ancient alien theorists look bad as most of them don't go against modern science to force their conclusions. The meat and potatoes of intervention is about genetic manipulation.
Ya its easy to get caught up in that angle of things, and its a tuff one to see around for sure. The fact is that we were probably even more successful than you could imagine on our planet. This planet has done nothing but hold us back for sure. There is no argument here that our redundant adaptation has saved our asses for sure. Evolutionists like to claim adaptation as part of evolution. It's such a joke and so wrong. Adaptation is an ability, like seeing or hearing, and there is no way that evolution could have pre seen us needing this ability and have given it to us as part of evolution.
The rest of your post is speculative nonsense and essentially just going back to the same argument from the beginning. Saying we don't fit in to our environment when we're the most successful species on the planet right now is a joke.
Well I'm being sarcastic right. What I'm trying to say is that things are so bad, we are going backwards. Try to understand this for a minute. Evolving means things changing. If we are evolving why are we doing all the adapting. Adapting is changing too but not on a molecular level like evolution. So anytime we have to adapt, its because evolution is failing us, in essence we are going backwards because things aren't working in the evolution order.
You have no evidence whatsoever to suggest humans went backwards in evolution.
but are you overlooking the fact that anytime one needs to change is because they actually don't fit in to there enviroment. In other words the enviroment no longer fits them. Now its true that we are the most successful here but look at how much adapting we have to do to get there. In other words its not our enviroment. Your probably seeing for the first time now just how some things were meant to be here and some things weren't.
The only time creatures need to change is when the environment changes.
Evolution might determine who fits in and who doesn't but in that process it pushes those out that don't fit in. I'm assuming that the idea here is to fit in, and make things work together. Maybe you have a different view on this.
It doesn't go against natural selection, or indicate there's a problem fitting in. These are your assumptions, which are based on a complete fundamental failure to understand evolution. Human brains are our primary survival tool and sexual selection has shown that the less hairy / less animal like people were more likely to mate. We evolved around our intelligence, not physical toughness. We use nature to our benefit and to help us thrive. Humans can survive just fine without vaccines, but they have helped us. Apes get sick just like us. You keep ignoring everything that renders your theory as nonsensical.
It looks like you have your work cut out for you. Is this a situation where your correct and all of these well known authors are wrong. I seriously doubt it.
Look, Barcs, I'm really excited for you. Imma let you finish. But von Däniken, Sitchin, and Pye are the greatest scientists of all time.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
And I agree, its just not listed to be found anywhere in humans. Do you have some links that specifically state its found in humans.
So now your sayin that each and every single mutation is proof of evolution. Any links that state so.
Wait a minute, I though you stated that macroevolution can't be identified in humans. So are you saying that macroevolution is not part of evolution? How can you assume that it happens when its never been identified.
Ok done, just like last time, but how does this prove evolution.
Google human mutation rates. I'm not posting any sources for you as I already posted that a hundred pages back and was ignored, and you refuse to show me the same courtesy.
Thats not true at all, there is no way to verify that it is evolution causing it.
Um, use google. Check the wiki for evolution. Of course mutations are proof of evolution. What you're saying would be like if I said, "So now you're saying that each and every drop of water that falls from the sky is proof of rain? Any links that state so?" 1+1 = 2, man.
Then we should be able to verify them through fossils and we can't so now what.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
And I agree, its just not listed to be found anywhere in humans. Do you have some links that specifically state its found in humans.
Google human mutation rates. I'm not posting any sources for you as I already posted that a hundred pages back and was ignored, and you refuse to show me the same courtesy.
So now your sayin that each and every single mutation is proof of evolution. Any links that state so.
Um, use google. Check the wiki for evolution. Of course mutations are proof of evolution. What you're saying would be like if I said, "So now you're saying that each and every drop of water that falls from the sky is proof of rain? Any links that state so?" 1+1 = 2, man.
Wait a minute, I though you stated that macroevolution can't be identified in humans. So are you saying that macroevolution is not part of evolution? How can you assume that it happens when its never been identified.
I already explained macro vs micro evolution. They are not different, and both rely on genetic mutations sorted by natural selection. Why do you purposely ignore everything I say? I didn't say ANYTHING about ANYTHING being identified. I said a human cannot observe speciation in his own species. Funny how quick you twist my words around to something as ridiculous as that.
Google human mutation rates. I'm not posting any sources for you as I already posted that a hundred pages back and was ignored, and you refuse to show me the same courtesy.
Otto: Don't call me stupid.
Wanda: Oh, right, to call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people. I've worn dresses with higher IQs. I've known sheep that could outwit you, but you think you're an intellectual don't you, ape?
Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes, they do Otto, they just don't understand it.
It's amazing how much someone can stretch an opinion.
Google human mutation rates. I'm not posting any sources for you as I already posted that a hundred pages back and was ignored, and you refuse to show me the same courtesy.
Are you really asking a person who has shown complete lack of reading comprehension and critical thinking skills to look up scientific information on the internet, discern a credible source from one that's not, read past the first paragraph even though he admits that he gets bored when he has to read for too long so he likes teh yootoob videuhs instead, and then process that information via something approaching rational thought? May you be guided by the genius (not genus) of A Fish Called Wanda:
Otto: Don't call me stupid.
Wanda: Oh, right, to call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people. I've worn dresses with higher IQs. I've known sheep that could outwit you, but you think you're an intellectual don't you, ape?
Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes, they do Otto, they just don't understand it.
It is more amazing how you have stretched a delusion supported by lies. Even more amazing is that you think no one has noticed even though we keep telling and showing you we have.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by iterationzero
It's amazing how much someone can stretch an opinion.
Google human mutation rates. I'm not posting any sources for you as I already posted that a hundred pages back and was ignored, and you refuse to show me the same courtesy.
Are you really asking a person who has shown complete lack of reading comprehension and critical thinking skills to look up scientific information on the internet, discern a credible source from one that's not, read past the first paragraph even though he admits that he gets bored when he has to read for too long so he likes teh yootoob videuhs instead, and then process that information via something approaching rational thought? May you be guided by the genius (not genus) of A Fish Called Wanda:
Otto: Don't call me stupid.
Wanda: Oh, right, to call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people. I've worn dresses with higher IQs. I've known sheep that could outwit you, but you think you're an intellectual don't you, ape?
Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes, they do Otto, they just don't understand it.
Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by PurpleChiten
150 years have past since then. The motor car has been invented, flight, computers. Huge advancements in all aspects of medicine and science.
So why is anything that Darwin wrote a problem. A stretch I know but we dont go on about how H G Wells was wrong about how we would fly to the moon.
Stop digging up Darwin and read what modern day evolution describes. Just as doctors no longer use leeches things have changed a little since then.
edit on 12-5-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)