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: 40
31
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
Your post offers no facts or evidence to support evolution or any intelligence and class.
Try again.


It's not my job to be your teacher, that's why I said that the poster belonged in school if they weren't willing to do the research themselves before making false and baseless claims on public internet forums.
edit on 25-10-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Nosred
 


And you are not my mother or my God and your word is not law.
Do you have something other than insults to add to the discussion ?



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nosred

Originally posted by jeichelberg
reply to post by Nosred
 


Nosred, just a thought...Would/could you please refrain from personal attacks...thank you.


It's not my fault if you're too lazy to do any research on the subject, then have the pretentiousness to come on here saying things like "there's no proof for evolution".


Originally posted by Noey777
You must have missed math class because the odds of life forming from some bubbling ooze of chemicals is impossible by any standard, yet it exists and not by evolution.


First of all: Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. Proving the former wrong would have no effect on the validity of the latter. The theory of evolution does not attempt to explain how life formed on Earth, it only explains the diversity of species after life was already here.

Second of all: There are roughly 100000000000000000000000 stars in the universe. We'll say that on average each star has one planet (some don't have any, some have several; this is a pretty conservative estimate). That would mean you would only need a .0000000000000000000001% chance of life on any given planet at any given time for life to be existing somewhere right now. The real chance of life appearing on any give planet is actually much higher, at .01%.

ATS' motto is "Deny Ignorance", I suggest you keep that in mind before insulting someone's skills without having done the actual math yourself. You only make yourself look a fool.


Nosred, again, I appreciate the fact that everyone who does not believe the way you do make themselves look like fools...And for the record, I have never stated evolution has no proof...I have stated the observable evidence has been misinterpreted as a basis of proof...And I have read up on the subject...and calling me lazy does nothing...you want the thread, you got it...have at it...talk to yourself...Far too often I have attempted discuss these things, yet nearly always, I get the contemptible, self-important, persons who commence with the name calling and put-downs...I am done...you have the thread...and guess what else...DING DING DING...you WON!!! What do we have for the winners, Johnny...



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by jeichelberg
 


You not having your having tonsils and an appendix is not the point. You could also live on with one lung, kidney.

I dont see how you can dismiss these pelvic bones as nothing as they surely ask questions of your belief that all animals were created as they are and can only adapt.

Who is to say that the whale will eventually lose the pelvic bone as it further evolves and if not having one gives it an advantage. Those with your views ask where are the intermediate animals could the whale in its present state be one?

Nose777. Keep it nice. There is no need for personal comments. Chill
edit on 25-10-2011 by colin42 because: Nose777


I wanted to make sure I did reply to you, because you have been civil and a lot more willing to discuss the issue and listen...I honestly believe that this willingness on the part of most persons has been lost...I do not know why a lot of people get so worked up about this topic...

First, we have no evidence the bone in question in the cetacean is of no use...we have only speculation (based on modeling researching connections primarily to locomotion) but this does not mean it is useless or vestigial...And I am not to say the bone will not gradually disappear...I only question the supposition it will based on the evolutionists' own view that things are gained/disposed on the basis of advantage/disadvantage...We have had how long according to the age of the fossil record for this "meaningless appendage," (and others much older by the way) to disappear, yet they remain?
edit on 10/25/2011 by jeichelberg because: (no reason given)

edit on 10/25/2011 by jeichelberg because: brevity and clarity



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by jeichelberg
 


To be honest that one bone being part of the skeleton of a totally equatic animal does need to be explained if you believe there is no way whales evolved from a land based animal.

It also appears that legless lizards also have pelvic bones and this an animal that lives a slithering type of lifestyle.



Although I am not a marine biologist by trade I do find it fascinating many of these creatures, notably the humpback, have a habit of "standing on their heads," while in the water...I would also ask if any of these biologists have actually removed the questioned bone and then place the whale back in the water to view the results...prior to labeling it useless or vestigial...



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 09:53 PM
link   
I have a problem with eukaryotes and prokaryotes not having any ancesters.
I have a problem with the Cambrian explosion.
I have a problem with horse shoe crabs never changing.
I have a problem with whales "evolving" from a tiny deer.
I have a problem with humans "evolving" from physically robust creatures only 250,000 years ago and the first thing we do is make clothes.
I have a problem with humans developing and passing on defective genes that kill the child before the age of puberty like cystic fibrosis.
I have a problem with junk dna that has no function that we know of.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by jeichelberg
reply to post by steveknows
 


And yet another term..."parallel evolution," which does absolutely nothing in terms of science...just somebody else's two cents that is not backed up by anything empirical...Which actually describes the whole evolution theory...as more things get discovered, science rewrites itself and adds more crapola interpretations...and definitions...one more time with clarity....A platypus is a platypus....a tiktaalik was a tiktaalik...nothing more...nothing less...biodiversity is explained by adaptation...and adaptation, whether you want to lay claim to it or not, is NOT equal to transformation (i.e., a reptile becoming a bird or a bird becoming a reptile)...also, in response to whether a whale came first or not...*Evolutionists and paleontologists would have us believe life started in water, migrated to land, and then returned to water...

edit on 10/25/2011 by jeichelberg because: Misspelling of *Evolutionists


Ok. Magnetic black board and letters time. They fill the place in the chain which is similar.



www.britannica.com...



en.wikipedia.org...











hal..._macgregor.tripod.com/kennel/wolves.html









Two unrelated animals which filled the same role.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
reply to post by steveknows
 


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


The very researched science books. From whom and what facts do you have to dismiss it if you do dismiss it?

I have a gut feeling isn't a science by the way.
edit on 26-10-2011 by steveknows because: Typo



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by OLD HIPPY DUDE
 


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

LOL. Did you not read my post? The baby’s ability to learn is what will determine whether or not he or she survives any given scenario in life. Human babies cannot survive without their mothers, right after birth, just like most mammals.


(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

???????? Plants are physically proven to exist and can be studied. God is a guess to fill in gaps that we aren’t sure about in science. Still not sure what this has to do with anything I said. Plants don’t learn how to survive.


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?


What do you mean, by “evolution is mental”? Of course humans make decisions and there are consequences. Dumb decisions usually lead to bad outcomes. Your brain is physical, and changes in the brain are physical. Mental and physical aren’t really different unless you’re talking about thoughts. Of course the brain has evolved over the years, but it’s because of mutations in DNA, there is nothing “mental” about it, other than the brain physically changing and your ability to learn, which again is based on the physical brain functioning better than someone elses. It's not about thoughts or will.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Noey777
 


Dude, go right now and order those FREE DVDs I posted. You obviously have no clue and haven't read a single thing about the science behind evolution.

I find it hilarious that out of every creationist that posted broad generalizations about evolution, not a single one has a shred of evidence to support any other theory or idea, as was stated in the original post. Please give your theories and evidence. Saying evolution is a guess and has no evidence behind it, is laughable. Can you prove evolution wrong? No you can't. Thank you drive through.
edit on 26-10-2011 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
I have a problem with eukaryotes and prokaryotes not having any ancesters.
I have a problem with the Cambrian explosion.
I have a problem with horse shoe crabs never changing.
I have a problem with whales "evolving" from a tiny deer.
I have a problem with humans "evolving" from physically robust creatures only 250,000 years ago and the first thing we do is make clothes.
I have a problem with humans developing and passing on defective genes that kill the child before the age of puberty like cystic fibrosis.
I have a problem with junk dna that has no function that we know of.


I have a problem with people who don't research anything, and aren't even willing to pick up a book or free DVD and learn, yet criticize people who spend their lives learning and studying. Offer your own alternative backed by evidence, if you don't agree with the science. Or at least point out in detail which parts you think are wrong. You are making nothing but generalizations based on no knowledge whatsoever of the subject.

I have a problem with gravity
I have a problem with the earth being round
I have a problem with the sun providing energy to sustain life on earth

LOL, the knowledge is out there. Educate yourself or forever be a slave to your own ignorance. It's up to you.
edit on 26-10-2011 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by jeichelberg

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by jeichelberg
 


To be honest that one bone being part of the skeleton of a totally equatic animal does need to be explained if you believe there is no way whales evolved from a land based animal.

It also appears that legless lizards also have pelvic bones and this an animal that lives a slithering type of lifestyle.



Although I am not a marine biologist by trade I do find it fascinating many of these creatures, notably the humpback, have a habit of "standing on their heads," while in the water...I would also ask if any of these biologists have actually removed the questioned bone and then place the whale back in the water to view the results...prior to labeling it useless or vestigial...


Just in case you return and I fully understand if you dont the reasons. I also do not understand the need for aggression rather than discussion.

Of course you are correct about vestigual organs. I believe the sperm whale now uses the pelvic bone when mating so unless it does not bother with sex it is unlikely to disapear completley but a pelvic bone it is.

I cannot accept it just is. To me there is always a reason. Evolution explains that reason and more without it the only explanation is to shrug your shoulders and say no idea.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 



Didn't you say,"evolution still applies today. It's not about adapting"
Adapting is the evolution of thought.

And then you said,
"The ability to learn is more important to our survival than anything else and "(that ability comes naturally)".

There is more to just learning "how" to do something, there is the how under different conditions "the when" and "why" . And to say that it is natural is absurd. If one understands how,when and why they do something and repeats the process enough times the process will become natural. And the process must be taught.

"God is a guess to fill in gaps that we aren’t sure about in science."

Science ommits facts that that do not fit the puzzle or contradict a theory.
This is how science works and always will. I suggest you do more reading and not on line or in a library but college and science societys and academys research papers. A lot of research is rejected not because of facts but by popular belief and because it would shatter other accepted theorys.

What do you mean, by “evolution is mental”? Of course humans make decisions and there are consequences. Dumb decisions usually lead to bad outcomes. Your brain is physical, and changes in the brain are physical. Mental and physical aren’t really different unless you’re talking about thoughts. Of course the brain has evolved over the years, but it’s because of mutations in DNA, there is nothing “mental” about it, other than the brain physically changing and your ability to learn, which again is based on the physical brain functioning better than someone elses. It's not about thoughts or will.

Yes, thought is evolution too and a thought is mental not physical .



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


Thank you for the reply colin42...So, science has determined the sperm whale alone utilizes what is referred to as a pelvic bone in order to facilitate mating...if this bone is not present in the sperm whale, mating cannot take place, and the sperm whale disappears...so to me, this means the bone is necessary and not vestigial...and if not vestigial, then what is the question again? I also asked about further scientific inquiry, such as actual removal of the bone in order to see the implications of absence...it would seem to me this could be performed, prior to making any statement this bone constitutes sure-fire evidence of a transformation from tiny deer to ocean-going behemoth...

I do not view adaptation as transformation...evolutionists point to adaptation and state "given enough time, this creature becomes this creature." Sorry, there is nothing that has occurred in the record that indicates this is so...There are many creatures that share characteristics of others, but the point is this...those are still those specific creatures...not transforming to something entirely different...



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jeichelberg
I do not view adaptation as transformation...evolutionists point to adaptation and state "given enough time, this creature becomes this creature." Sorry, there is nothing that has occurred in the record that indicates this is so...There are many creatures that share characteristics of others, but the point is this...those are still those specific creatures...not transforming to something entirely different...


*Ahem* Skinks *ahem* evolving from egg-laying species to live birth giving species *ahem*

Yeah. 55% of Skink species lay eggs, the other 45% have started giving live birth. You are wrong.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
reply to post by Barcs
 
Science ommits facts that that do not fit the puzzle or contradict a theory.
This is how science works and always will. I suggest you do more reading and not on line or in a library but college and science societys and academys research papers. A lot of research is rejected not because of facts but by popular belief and because it would shatter other accepted theorys.


No, that's not how science works. Could your provide a source to back up your claim here?

Scientists observe the evidence, analyze the facts, then draw conclusions from what they saw. Here's a more detailed chart of how it works in case you don't remember from 1st grade:





Also this is relevant:





posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Nosred
 


It is still a skink...right? I mean, it is not something else entirely...The fact remains it is still a skink...a different type of skink, but it is still a skink...and a platypus is an egg-laying monotreme, still a mammal...a different type of mammal and monotreme, but still is what it is...it will not cease to be a platypus, it will always remain a platypus, and the observable evidence does not say otherwise...the same as the skink...
edit on 10/26/2011 by jeichelberg because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by jeichelberg
 






the same as the skink


I don't think that is relevant. You did not state a change within the platypus. He was showing a change that is occurring within the species. A change that has lead from a species that, at one time, was primarily an egg-laying creature. This is irrefutable evidence that evolution is not only true, but completely observable despite the Ray Comfort dogma that is in circulation.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by jeichelberg
 


Not quite. It is still a pelvic bone. because its use is now for something else it does not mean any less. Infact it shows if something is an advantage it remains.

The point is a pelvic bone is an element of a skeleton of land based animals that have limbs/legs. So again this cannot be dismissed out of hand.

This to me supports evolution and asks more questions of the idea that all species were created as is and then adapted

The fossil records also show prehistoric whales had very poor hearing and the stages from there to using echo location also supports the whales ancestor was land based.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by jeichelberg
reply to post by Nosred
 


It is still a skink...right? I mean, it is not something else entirely...The fact remains it is still a skink...a different type of skink, but it is still a skink...


No, they are still members of the Skink genus but they are entirely different species now. They are not the same species anymore. They have diverged on the evolutionary tree into entirely separate species. Homo Sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis are both members of the Homo genus, but they are not the same species. It would be incredibly ignorant to say a Neanderthal is the same thing as a human, or vice versa. It is no less ignorant in this situation with the skinks.

They are as much the same animal as Chimpanzees and Bonobos are. Both Chimpanzees and Bonobos are members of the genus Pan, but they are not the same species.

Are you sure you even understand evolutionary theory? It's rather silly to try to argue against something you don't entirely understand isn't it?


Edit: In case you're not getting this, species in the Skink genus have diverged into separate egg laying and non-egg laying species. This is irrefutable evidence of evolution happening right before our very eyes. You have failed to offer an alternative explanation for this phenomena.

Another example of evolution occurring right in front of us:


Striking differences in head size and shape, increased bite strength and the development of new structures in the lizard’s digestive tracts were noted after only 36 years, which is an extremely short time scale,” says Duncan Irschick, a professor of biology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. “These physical changes have occurred side-by-side with dramatic changes in population density and social structure.

...

Observed changes in head morphology were caused by adaptation to a different food source. According to Irschick, lizards on the barren island of Pod Kopiste were well-suited to catching mobile prey, feasting mainly on insects. Life on Pod Mrcaru, where they had never lived before, offered them an abundant supply of plant foods, including the leaves and stems from native shrubs. Analysis of the stomach contents of lizards on Pod Mrcaru showed that their diet included up to two-thirds plants, depending on the season, a large increase over the population of Pod Kopiste.


www.sciencedaily.com...


edit on 26-10-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
31
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join