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: 402
31
<< 399  400  401    403  404  405 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





My only response to that is. that's a lot of crap.
With over five million species on this planet, and growing in our findings, there should be land mines everywhere, but we can't seem to find one. There is speculation on some of the skulls that have been found, but honestly have any of them been proven to bring us closer to a common ancestor? No they haven't, they are simply other species. Now keep in mind that wiki is even telling us that they are guessing the last time we speciated was 4.1 million years ago. Well if thats true, when did we ever find the time to branch off from a common ancestor, and where are the bones.




And what did you understand by the words
The theory that nature is permanently in balance has been largely discredited, as it has been found that chaotic changes in population levels are common, but nevertheless the idea continues to be popular.[1] During the later half of the twentieth century the theory was superseded by Catastrophe theory and Chaos theory

It's not the catastrophe theory that actually caused it, but I can see why its the best guess they could come up with. Transpermia caused it and they are blind to this. It even says in the bible that things where brougth here. Again that all important documentation would save a lot of trouble of people understood it correctly.




That does not explain why you can use discredited theories when you refuse to accept tested, peer reviewed theories.
Thats hard to say, just because something doesn't hold up to peer reviews doesn't mean it was false to begin with. Most likely it does, but its not proof.




No their food source goes extinct.

The old change of story ploy. Do you see why no one has any respect for you?
Well its true and you should read up about it sometime. On occasion a species food becomes scarce or extinct, so then that species goes down with it. Not everything has the ability to adapt you know.

The Haast's Eagle is an example of a predator that became extinct because its food source became extinct.
en.wikipedia.org...

wiki.answers.com...
You should read this one but be forewarned that they use the term in the wild.

www.wildlife.state.nh.us...

Keep in mind that we don't see all food extinctions. We have to be paying attention, close attention to realize it.




It's pretty funn that we started with this word that you had originally refused to believe in, now YOUR trying to teach me your own meaning of it.

Wow you really do believe in telepathy. I am not trying to teach you the meaning of a meaningless term such as a balanced eco system. So what was the point you were trying to make?
NVM. You always fail to stay inline and answer questions when they should be addressed so fall back in the thread and get forgotten.




posted on May, 29 2012 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


First of all, the article about the evolution of anteaters isn't speculation, it's a properly backed up scientific theory.

Secondly, no, it's not as if dogs are a subspecies of wolves "maybe"...it's a FACT they are. And of course dogs are therefore a great example of evolution.


Once again you simply ignore FACTS because they highlight how wrong and quite frankly bat# crazy that personal religion you created is. The hilarious part is that you criticize legit objective evidence while pretending clown sources like Sitchin, Pye, or the bible are legit. None of them back up their claims with objective evidence!

Also, nature is clearly never in a perfect balance as nothing would ever change if it was. Given that 99% of the species which ever lived are now extinct, that's of course complete and utter nonsense.

edit on 29-5-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Human forced actions don't constitute evolution, and if you honestly think that it does, then you are admitting that intelligence shapes evolution, therefore evolution is intelligence driven by humans.

Are you ever going to reply to the points and questions asked? The point made was


What I'm saying is they could have adapted into becoming predators.

Are you. Then then all you are doing is avoiding using the term evolved
Well that would be the quick assumption made by evolutionists but a quick check on the definition of both words and you will see there is a clear difference. Also make sure your not reading a biased definition. Adaption has nothing to do with evolution, it was only included as such for evolution because they came up short handed with answers.




Do a test, grab ask any five people that you know, if they are equipped and know how to hunt, all the way down to prepareing the food. I'm not going to define it, its your term, you define it, I don't believe in it.

And again you offer some random answer to a question never asked. Is this how you intend to go forward? The post you are meant to be responding to is: You wrote


True but it totally blows your idea of people being hunter gathers because I have never done any of the above.

I replied

I told you already. You're lazy and willing to let others do the dirty work while not taking responsibility for it. But that aside. Explain the Bushman. FYI it is not my idea it is accepted fact. What evidence have you got to dispute it?

Answer the question. This is not a gameshow where you guess the question from the answer.
As far as the bushmen, not everyone hunts, nor do the feel the need to hunt, therefore your idea of people being in tune with the whole hunting thing is false. Can we all be hunters, sure, if trained right we can do just about anything, that doesn't mean we were all suppose to be hunters. We have no built in designs or desires to want to go out and hunt and kill. Not to be confused with eating, which we all want to do. We are not equiped with any special abilitys that can help us hunt either. The only thing we can do is watch the pros, learn how they do it, and follow in their footsteps.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





You will find in the last section that humans are thought to have speciated 4.1 million years ago, but nothing has been proven. The rest of the definition gives the species that they have in fact witnessed speciation in, and humans are not one such species. So again, your ASSUMING.

I think it's you that is assuming. You have maintained that speciation is not possible and has not been observed. Yet your link shows Larus gull, The Ensatina salamanders, The Greenish Warbler, the grass Anthoxanthum, Domestic sheep. The hawthorn fly is being watched which appears to be undergoing sympatric speciation. I doubt this list is extensive.

Add to this what we see in the fossil records and the gene maps and without a doubt it shows evolution and what it describes is spot on. You are a borderline genius, take a guess why you dont see speciation in humans today even though the fossil records show it is a continual process.
I don't see it because its never been there to begin with. The changes that scientists are finding in observed speciation are probably just normal changes within the species and have nothing to do with evolution. I say probably just like they see a change and say its probably evolution that caused it.




Because your using baised material. Which is funny because I don't.

Really. The bible, sitchin, pye, daniken are not biased? Really. You posted a link by an environmentalist. Was that not biased? The scientific method was put in place to negate bias among other things. The very process pye refuses to submit too. But you would know this as you claim to be a science major.
I was referring to checking definitions, if you want the best answer its best to not go with the biased ones. Of course evolution is going to claim adaptation in the evolutionism section, try finding your answers in an unbiased section.




Where are you getting this from it doesn't say anything about man.

Wolves and dogs are both wolves. We bred dogs from wolves. We must have had a relationship with the wolf and we still do via dogs. Jeeze you are slow on the uptake.
Ok but we allready went over this, did it not sink in. Just because we mated a few of the species does not open up friendly channel rights with the entire species. If I smack my dog in the face here in WA state for doing something wrong, your dog where you live isn't going to hate you for it. Just because we bred a few wolfdogs doesn't mean a damn thing in terms of what our relationship is with them. What do you think they will be greatful because we helped in there existence, they are only dogs you know.




Showing your ignorance again. You have had the forces that drive evolution explained many times. You dont and wont see them because you refuse to look. So dont tell me you strive to find the truth. You cant handle the truth.
Of course I can handle the truth, thats why I'm the tooth.




Either that or that evolution has failed from not causing speciation. But wait, its a contradiction. Your trying to say that if a species can mate, thats evolution, and if a species can't mate, that is also evolution. Whats next? Your just taking anything you can assuming and calling it evolution, while none of this has been witnessed.

Here you go again telling me what I am saying instead of reading what I write.
Nope thats exactly what you wrote. According to you evoltuion is not ony responsable for our genes betting passed on, but also for speciation to not pass our genes on. Thats a pretty smart controlling little thing you got going there, and it's still invisible and we don't know what it looks like. It also has the ability to change our DNA without us knowing, which also means that everything we have learned up until this point about DNA is completly useless as it could have changed in the observation without us knowing.




Ok lets give you the benefit of the doubt, the wolf dog is the smoking gun that you were wrong about assuming not being able to mate is evolution.

What a dishonest little thing you are. you mean the product of an extinct wolf and extinct dog that came back to life as scavengers. There is no point to this as you are deep in denial. You have be crushed again and now throwing a hissy making up fantasy and lies to cover your shame. How pathetic you are showing yourself to be.
That info came from you, are you going to try to back out of it now.?



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





First of all, the article about the evolution of anteaters isn't speculation, it's a properly backed up scientific theory.
Depends on which parts your speaking of. The parts that say probably or the part that says its assumed, NO.




Secondly, no, it's not as if dogs are a subspecies of wolves "maybe"...it's a FACT they are. And of course dogs are therefore a great example of evolution
You just admitted that you assume evolution. I told you I was right, now you admitted it. Even if a dog was a subspecies, its pure speculation they evolved. You don't have any poof.




Once again you simply ignore FACTS because they highlight how wrong and quite frankly bat# crazy that personal religion you created is. The hilarious part is that you criticize legit objective evidence while pretending clown sources like Sitchin, Pye, or the bible are legit. None of them back up their claims with objective evidence!
There is nothing legit about assuming.




Also, nature is clearly never in a perfect balance as nothing would ever change if it was. Given that 99% of the species which ever lived are now extinct, that's of course complete and utter nonsense.
I'm not sure about the accuracy of your numbers but its safe to say that transpermia caused it. Hey we even have a book that tells us it happened that way, wow.
How bat crazy is that?



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Speaking of bat crazy, you might want to brush up on your definition skills a tad.

Theorys are not fact.

thebigbangtonow.wordpress.com...

Is a page that explains why scientific theories can't be proven.

So I'm setting this again, that a theory is NOT fact, its just a theory.

Now it COULD be fact and we sometimes accept it as such when we have nothing else to go by. Which is pretty lame if you think about it.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Speaking of bat crazy, you might want to brush up on your definition skills a tad.

Theorys are not fact.

thebigbangtonow.wordpress.com...

Is a page that explains why scientific theories can't be proven.

So I'm setting this again, that a theory is NOT fact, its just a theory.

Now it COULD be fact and we sometimes accept it as such when we have nothing else to go by. Which is pretty lame if you think about it.


From tooth's own link:


For myself, Darwin’s theory of evolution currently explains the world better than intelligent design or creationism or the biblical version.


Classic tooth link fail.......



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





First of all, the article about the evolution of anteaters isn't speculation, it's a properly backed up scientific theory.
Depends on which parts your speaking of. The parts that say probably or the part that says its assumed, NO.




Secondly, no, it's not as if dogs are a subspecies of wolves "maybe"...it's a FACT they are. And of course dogs are therefore a great example of evolution
You just admitted that you assume evolution. I told you I was right, now you admitted it. Even if a dog was a subspecies, its pure speculation they evolved. You don't have any poof.




Once again you simply ignore FACTS because they highlight how wrong and quite frankly bat# crazy that personal religion you created is. The hilarious part is that you criticize legit objective evidence while pretending clown sources like Sitchin, Pye, or the bible are legit. None of them back up their claims with objective evidence!
There is nothing legit about assuming.




Also, nature is clearly never in a perfect balance as nothing would ever change if it was. Given that 99% of the species which ever lived are now extinct, that's of course complete and utter nonsense.
I'm not sure about the accuracy of your numbers but its safe to say that transpermia caused it. Hey we even have a book that tells us it happened that way, wow.
How bat crazy is that?


1) They make no assumptions regarding the evolution of anteaters. They make claims that are fully backed up by objective scientific FACTS. You simply pretend otherwise because it proves you live in a fantasy world


2) We KNOW how dogs evolved, so I'm not assuming anything. They are clearly a subspecies of wolves (as opposed to foxes) which in itself is proof of evolution. Sorry to burst your Narnia-style fantasy world.


3) How does your bat# crazy nonsense explain that 99% of species which ever lived are now extinct? If everything in nature was a perfect balance and nothing would evolve, those species alive today would have always existed if evolution didn't kick in...something only a totally uneducated or ignorant of facts person would claim.

I'm still not sure if you're trolling or not, no one can be this dumb



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Connector
 





From tooth's own link:


For myself, Darwin’s theory of evolution currently explains the world better than intelligent design or creationism or the biblical version.


Classic tooth link fail.......
In case you missed it, it was an opinion, thats why it says "for myself." Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but you know what they say about opinions?

Epic fail fail.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Speaking of bat crazy, you might want to brush up on your definition skills a tad.

Theorys are not fact.

thebigbangtonow.wordpress.com...

Is a page that explains why scientific theories can't be proven.

So I'm setting this again, that a theory is NOT fact, its just a theory.

Now it COULD be fact and we sometimes accept it as such when we have nothing else to go by. Which is pretty lame if you think about it.


And as always you are wrong, evolution is fact: en.wikipedia.org...

Of course all this was explained to you dozens of times by now, so by simply ignoring it you're merely showing the world how ignorant you are of facts.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Wow here is a big shocker...


A fact is not a statement of certainty, but through repeated confirmation the things or processes they refer to are generally accepted as true


Thats a real pisser, generally accepted as true, but not that they are true.
Oh well you tried. You just keep looking dumber the more you keep trying.

I said it before and I'll say it again, just because its been accepted as truth doesn't mean it is. Besides a part of many parts of evolution has been proven. Thats it, its a total loss.
edit on 30-5-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I'm baffled that in the 21st century when information is so freely available someone can be as uneducated as you. Clearly, according to the official definition evolution is a FACT, something you denied. So in the end, you were clearly wrong


You know what's a fact too? The sky being blue during mid day on a sunny day, a stone falling down if you throw it up in the air, and you dieing if you run out of water...just like evolution is a fact. You clearly said it isn't, go back and read your comedy post


The hilarious part is, if you applied your own bat# crazy standards to that crazy religion of yours, you'd realize what it really is...comedy gold (and a way for Pye to sell $9.99 ebooks to gullible people like you)



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 02:53 AM
link   
It's not evolution on a grand scale, it's extinction. news.discovery.com... as you can see in the news today. From 70 phyla to 30 phyla. The only evolution around is micro evolution, meaning small changes like color, or ability to digest something, etc. There are significant numbers of differences in genes and chromosomes between species.

Evolution is impossible because it is mathematically impossible. The human genome has over 3 billion DNA pairs. As I previously stated, you would have to successfully have a new pair added every year since life began on Earth 3 billion years ago in order to make a human. Considering the likelihood of even having one added every 1,000 years successfully, it is obvious that evolution is a flawed theory. More likely man was made whole, and extinction got rid of some of the types of men on Earth, leaving what you see today.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 04:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Jim Scott
 

Given that viable whole genome duplications have been observed occurring in the wild, maybe you need to revise your timeline.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by HappyBunny
 

Insanity on this level requires alcohol. If everyone comes to Philadelphia, I'll buy the first round.


I'm only a few hours away. I'll be there shortly!



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Colin I have provided more than enough to prove my side, I have even gone to the extent of making a new baby language just for you as you refuse to accept many terms.
Can you ever make a statement without lying. You have not provided proof of any kind that supports your argument around the ant eater. You have not made up a baby language as that would be too technical for you to understand.


They could or they could not be,
No dogs ARE a subspecies of the Gray Wolf.


it makes no difference and proves nothing for evolution again.
It wasn't meant too. It was to illustrate the relationshipe between wolves and man that you deny.


The link you had me look at clearly states that is is speculation.
Never sent you a link. Told you to get off your lazy backside and go look yourself.


I'm not going to back up your arguments.
Your not prepared to look for the truth? Oh well that's another lie you are guilty of then.
My question to you for around the 8th time:


I do however find it hard to find justification for your statement above when you offer a link talking about a discredited theory of the balance in nature when you maintain that balance is fact. The old tooth double standards look to be in play again.
Your pathetic reply


Well write back something with a quesiton mark and maybe it will be harder for me to miss it, cause I'm not seeing any questions here.
Oh that old cherry. I stopped pulling you on your lack of education and poor use of english. Games back on then.



Hunters ??? What kind of meat do they eat?
What ever they hunt you fool.


I'm sure I know more about their biology than you do.
Yeah right. You believe extinct animals come back as scavengers.


True but neither one completly disproves the other.
Its not meant to. Creation, until there is evidence needs faith. Evolution has been proved. No faith required.
edit on 30-5-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



With over five million species on this planet, and growing in our findings, there should be land mines everywhere, but we can't seem to find one.
Use English please.


There is speculation on some of the skulls that have been found, but honestly have any of them been proven to bring us closer to a common ancestor?
Nope your total mis use of english in this question needs to be reworked. Its garbled insane nonsense.


It's not the catastrophe theory that actually caused it, but I can see why its the best guess they could come up with.
Again you avoid answering the point raised. What the hell was the catastophe theory meant to have caused. How the hell can a theory cause anything? Do you know what a theory is not? The rest of your ignorance that followed is not worth my time.
I wrote again:


That does not explain why you can use discredited theories when you refuse to accept tested, peer reviewed theories.
Your reply:


Thats hard to say, just because something doesn't hold up to peer reviews doesn't mean it was false to begin with. Most likely it does, but its not proof.
Again you have not answered the point made. Why can you use theories to back your nonsense when you reject any used to support evolution. As for your reply. Dishonest, uneducated ignorance that only someone as low down the IQ scale as you could post.


Well its true and you should read up about it sometime. On occasion a species food becomes scarce or extinct, so then that species goes down with it. Not everything has the ability to adapt you know.
You know full well this is a tactic to change the fact that you believe and wrote that the dog and wolf were victims of coextinction, came back to life and then became scavengers. You made it clear that you knew what coextinction was and it does not describe one thing going extinct. what a dishonest little man you are.


NVM. You always fail to stay inline and answer questions when they should be addressed so fall back in the thread and get forgotten.
You never made a clear question. You have again failed to clarify it. How am I meant to answer it? Your such a failure.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Adaption has nothing to do with evolution, it was only included as such for evolution because they came up short handed with answers.
How deep does your denial go?


As far as the bushmen, not everyone hunts, nor do the feel the need to hunt, therefore your idea of people being in tune with the whole hunting thing is false
Again you are being dishonest. I never wrote everyone hunts or needs to hunt or be in tune. I wrote you take no responsility for the meat you eat.


Can we all be hunters, sure, if trained right we can do just about anything, that doesn't mean we were all suppose to be hunters.
Blar blar blar. Get to the point. Your boring me.


We have no built in designs or desires to want to go out and hunt and kill.
Really then why are sports, shoot em ups and hunting so well supported?


We are not equiped with any special abilitys that can help us hunt either.
So you ignore the forward facing eyes shared by nearly all predators. Our stamina. Our ability to design traps and weapons. Wage war, read tracks. and the fact we are the most efficient and deadly hunters in the world

edit on 30-5-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-5-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I don't see it because its never been there to begin with. The changes that scientists are finding in observed speciation are probably just normal changes within the species and have nothing to do with evolution. I say probably just like they see a change and say its probably evolution that caused it.
Its based on the information from the link YOU supplied you numpty.


I was referring to checking definitions, if you want the best answer its best to not go with the biased ones.
Like the the bible, sitchin, pye, daniken or just ones that prove you wrong?


Of course evolution is going to claim adaptation in the evolutionism section, try finding your answers in an unbiased section.
Like the the bible, sitchin, pye, daniken. Tell you what. I think I will pass on taking advice from you on how to source reliable information.


Ok but we allready went over this, did it not sink in.
Of course it did not sink in. How could it when you hide behind a barrier of lies?


Just because we mated a few of the species does not open up friendly channel rights with the entire species.
Please start using the baby language you promised as this one you use based on your ignorance is really stating to grate.


If I smack my dog in the face here in WA state for doing something wrong, your dog where you live isn't going to hate you for it.
What has your abuse of a dog got to do with this subject?


Just because we bred a few wolfdogs doesn't mean a damn thing in terms of what our relationship is with them.
It shows that the wolf and the domesticated dog are closely related. The dog is in fact a sub species of the Gray Wolf. That means our relationship with the wolf dates back thousands of years and is still going strong today. That also means you are wrong.


What do you think they will be greatful because we helped in there existence, they are only dogs you know.
No I think that the people that rely on dogs would be grateful (that is how it is spelt BTW). The deaf, blind, disabled, lost trapped. The police, army, shepards, ranchers, bomb disposal, anti drugs squad to name a few from a very long list.


Of course I can handle the truth, thats why I'm the tooth.
Is that right Pinnochio. I thought it was tooth because that's all you had. Oneater.


Nope thats exactly what you wrote.
Nope that's what you say I wrote and you're a liar so I will go with my first call.


That info came from you, are you going to try to back out of it now.?
What that you are a pathetic, dishonset wee man. Never I stand by that statement.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





I'm baffled that in the 21st century when information is so freely available someone can be as uneducated as you. Clearly, according to the official definition evolution is a FACT, something you denied. So in the end, you were clearly wrong
And if you woud have read the definition of FACT, you would see it means they aren't certain.




You know what's a fact too? The sky being blue during mid day on a sunny day, a stone falling down if you throw it up in the air, and you dieing if you run out of water...just like evolution is a fact. You clearly said it isn't, go back and read your comedy post
Dont shoot the messenger, I'm just going by what the definition tells.




The hilarious part is, if you applied your own bat# crazy standards to that crazy religion of yours, you'd realize what it really is...comedy gold (and a way for Pye to sell $9.99 ebooks to gullible people like you)
But I never bought any of Pyes books.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 399  400  401    403  404  405 >>

log in

join