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: 390
31
<< 387  388  389    391  392  393 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Put it this way..

Evolution is not a physical thing... its a mental thing...

Since us humans have been here... have we seen monkeys evolve into us, have we evolved in to something different or have we bacome more technologically advanced?




posted on May, 21 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by BloodSister
Put it this way..

Evolution is not a physical thing... its a mental thing...

Since us humans have been here... have we seen monkeys evolve into us, have we evolved in to something different or have we bacome more technologically advanced?


Genetic mutations are very much physical. We have evolved over the past 2.5 million years. You can tell by the differences in the fossils going from then until now. Obviously you're not going to see a 2.5 million year change in a single lifetime, and since science as we know it has only been around the past few hundred years, it would be impossible for us to observe that kind of change unless we had time travel or science and technology existed for a lot longer. But neither is true, so it is our best understanding of what actually happened and is backed by tons of physical evidence. Creation is not.
edit on 21-5-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by BloodSister
Put it this way..

Evolution is not a physical thing... its a mental thing...

Since us humans have been here... have we seen monkeys evolve into us, have we evolved in to something different or have we bacome more technologically advanced?


Just sayin... monkeys didn't evolve into us at all. The theory says that something else evolved and we're one of the results and monkeys are another result, not that they became us
Playing the ever present role of "balance" between creation and evolution, could that not have been the primordial clay that God used to form each species? ...theoretically anyway.... baby steps to bring the two sides together then search for the actual answer between the two without negating either, although that probably won't happen, I can always hope for the best.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


Yes it is, but from the molecular level hard to believe.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


Yes it is, but from the molecular level hard to believe.


of course, since the molecular level is where the DNA is found



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by BloodSister
Put it this way..

Evolution is not a physical thing... its a mental thing...

Since us humans have been here... have we seen monkeys evolve into us, have we evolved in to something different or have we bacome more technologically advanced?


Just sayin... monkeys didn't evolve into us at all. The theory says that something else evolved and we're one of the results and monkeys are another result, not that they became us
Playing the ever present role of "balance" between creation and evolution, could that not have been the primordial clay that God used to form each species? ...theoretically anyway.... baby steps to bring the two sides together then search for the actual answer between the two without negating either, although that probably won't happen, I can always hope for the best.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyingfish

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by BloodSister
Put it this way..

Evolution is not a physical thing... its a mental thing...

Since us humans have been here... have we seen monkeys evolve into us, have we evolved in to something different or have we bacome more technologically advanced?


Just sayin... monkeys didn't evolve into us at all. The theory says that something else evolved and we're one of the results and monkeys are another result, not that they became us
Playing the ever present role of "balance" between creation and evolution, could that not have been the primordial clay that God used to form each species? ...theoretically anyway.... baby steps to bring the two sides together then search for the actual answer between the two without negating either, although that probably won't happen, I can always hope for the best.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by flyingfish

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by BloodSister
Put it this way..

Evolution is not a physical thing... its a mental thing...

Since us humans have been here... have we seen monkeys evolve into us, have we evolved in to something different or have we bacome more technologically advanced?


Just sayin... monkeys didn't evolve into us at all. The theory says that something else evolved and we're one of the results and monkeys are another result, not that they became us
Playing the ever present role of "balance" between creation and evolution, could that not have been the primordial clay that God used to form each species? ...theoretically anyway.... baby steps to bring the two sides together then search for the actual answer between the two without negating either, although that probably won't happen, I can always hope for the best.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by flyingfish

Really? Old world monkeys or new world monkeys? No apes from monkeys? You must have some new information please share


Apes did not evolve from present monkeys, they each evolved from a common ancestor


*That's the way it was explained to me and I don't really care enough about it to research it any further, so that's what I'm going with.
If you have other information, there's a good chance the explanation given to me has changed.
edit on 22-5-2012 by PurpleChiten because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by flyingfish

Really? Old world monkeys or new world monkeys? No apes from monkeys? You must have some new information please share


Apes did not evolve from present monkeys, they each evolved from a common ancestor


*That's the way it was explained to me and I don't really care enough about it to research it any further, so that's what I'm going with.
If you have other information, there's a good chance the explanation given to me has changed.
edit on 22-5-2012 by PurpleChiten because: (no reason given)


Paraphyletic vs monophyletic taxonomy is continuing and keenly disputed, however accumulation of paraphyletic classifications requests a consirderation of evolutionary processes for classification. In short monkey wins in grouping and ranking of taxa according to linnaean hierarchies i.e. common decent.


edit on 22-5-2012 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Tooth, you do this OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

I asked you a question. Did you answer it?

NO

INSTEAD, you made up your own question, and answered it.

I will try this one more time (even though you do not deserve it).

If you attempt to answer this question by substituding the question with one of your own questions and than answer your own question; Than I will simply wash my hands of you.

Here is the question:

Yet, what proof does this highly edited collection of ancient books written by unknown authors carry towards Evolution?



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Jim Scott
 




Only a creationist can say human's are extinct while everybody is alive lmao!


Here is a clue; If we were extinct, you wouldn't be reading this and I wouldn't be writing this.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 02:17 AM
link   
I know for a fact we didnt come direct from monkeys, something must had fiddled with us.

I dont expect anyone to the know the exact truth... realistically no one really knows.

But if evolution was what became of us then..... why is it 15% of the population have a RH Negative blood group...

That blood group doesnt come from no where and even scientist put it down to a random mutation.

If we evolved then where did a blood group come from that regects her RH positive offspring?



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by BloodSister
 



I know for a fact we didnt come direct from monkeys, something must had fiddled with us.
You dont know for a fact. You believe based on what you see as evidence but it is not a FACT.


I dont expect anyone to the know the exact truth... realistically no one really knows.
Here you agree that you dont know for a fact we have been 'fiddled with'.


But if evolution was what became of us then..... why is it 15% of the population have a RH Negative blood group...
Been answered here and in other threads, usually with links.


That blood group doesnt come from no where and even scientist put it down to a random mutation.
So you answered your statement again. It did not come from nowhere.


If we evolved then where did a blood group come from that regects her RH positive offspring?
You have the biggest library in the history of mankind at your fingertips.

If you use it to find your answer without an agenda you will discover the truth. If you choose to use it to back your own agenda you will also find your truth. Your journey, your choice.

This thread is to discuss the diversity we see today without refering to evolution.


edit on 22-5-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by BloodSister
 





I know for a fact we didnt come direct from monkeys, something must had fiddled with us.

I dont expect anyone to the know the exact truth... realistically no one really knows.

But if evolution was what became of us then..... why is it 15% of the population have a RH Negative blood group...

That blood group doesnt come from no where and even scientist put it down to a random mutation.

If we evolved then where did a blood group come from that regects her RH positive offspring?
Which totally adds more proof to intervention.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Confusion42
 





Yet, what proof does this highly edited collection of ancient books written by unknown authors carry towards Evolution?
Not a damn thing, thats why I didn't answer it.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 





Just sayin... monkeys didn't evolve into us at all. The theory says that something else evolved and we're one of the results and monkeys are another result, not that they became us
Playing the ever present role of "balance" between creation and evolution, could that not have been the primordial clay that God used to form each species? ...theoretically anyway.... baby steps to bring the two sides together then search for the actual answer between the two without negating either, although that probably won't happen, I can always hope for the best.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 





of course, since the molecular level is where the DNA is found
Agreed but what I'm saying is that I find it hard to believe that evolution is to blame when we don't know what it looks like, we are unsure what it's motivation is, unsure how it makes and decides to make changes, unsure why it makes changes.

There seems to be a lot more in question than there is answers for. The only thing they seem to know for sure is that if changes are found, it must be evolution. I'm sorry but I don't buy it.

I have commented before about what guidlines are used to determine change. It would appear that our analysis of this change is solely based on what we currently believe to be the norm of things. Not to good of a start if you ask me. In other words we have no baseline to judge. As an example, the average height of people is usually between five and six feet tall, so we automatically assume this to be normal, and within acceptable limits. The fact is, we don't know, we are assuming.

So without a baseline, there is no scientific way to judge what can be called a change. Someone could turn up to be 9 feet tall, and we automatically call that a change, but whoes to say thats a real change, it could be normal and just not common within our genes. We have accepted a pretty crappy idea for a baseline.

My point in all this is that when changes are found, and counted as a change, we honestly have no proof to be calling it such, in other words, its possible that that change was always in the genetic make up to begin with.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Agreed but what I'm saying is that I find it hard to believe that evolution is to blame when we don't know what it looks like, we are unsure what it's motivation is, unsure how it makes and decides to make changes, unsure why it makes changes.

We DO know what evolution looks like. We can measure the genetic mutations passed down from generation to generation. What you are saying is like saying, "I find it hard to believe that rain is to blame for all the water falling from the sky." It's the same thing.



There seems to be a lot more in question than there is answers for. The only thing they seem to know for sure is that if changes are found, it must be evolution. I'm sorry but I don't buy it.

Your half baked interpretation of Intervention poses many more questions than evolution does. The only reason evolution poses so many questions to you is because you don't understand it at all and haven't tried. Changes in species can be traced on the genetic level and in the fossil record. Again, you are claiming that change is not evolution, when genetic change is what DEFINES evolution. "Yeah, we see the genetic mutations and natural selection, but who's to say that's evolution?". The dictionary, for one.




I have commented before about what guidlines are used to determine change. It would appear that our analysis of this change is solely based on what we currently believe to be the norm of things. Not to good of a start if you ask me. In other words we have no baseline to judge. As an example, the average height of people is usually between five and six feet tall, so we automatically assume this to be normal, and within acceptable limits. The fact is, we don't know, we are assuming.

That isn't an assumption. It is based on our measurements of human height all across the world. Genetic mutations are measurable as well. That alone debunks your entire premise of evolution . You might be able to get away with saying that mutations are guided by something else, but again it would be an assumption, and wouldn't negate the evolutionary process.
edit on 22-5-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 





Just sayin... monkeys didn't evolve into us at all. The theory says that something else evolved and we're one of the results and monkeys are another result, not that they became us
Playing the ever present role of "balance" between creation and evolution, could that not have been the primordial clay that God used to form each species? ...theoretically anyway.... baby steps to bring the two sides together then search for the actual answer between the two without negating either, although that probably won't happen, I can always hope for the best.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 387  388  389    391  392  393 >>

log in

join