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: 416
31
<< 413  414  415    417  418  419 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Well first of all I wasn't responding to you.
Well first, this is an open forum. I am replying to you.



Second of all, you have also been told many times that the human genome is public information, therefore anyone can test or contest these findings.
Second of all you have been told just as many times that if pye is too scared to put his story up for peer review it will always just be a story.


There are several things that have happened that tell us that tampering has happened. First is that there are sections that are inverted, second there are sections that are dormant, third, there are way more than our share of defects in our genes, fourth we do have vestigal organs.
How many times do you need to be told Mr. science major what constitutes evidence? What sections are you referring to or is this another guessing game? How do vestigial organs prove evolution wrong and intervention true?

Even if I wasn't able to supply evidence, wouldn't be proof that it didn't happen, regardless, the above is pretty good proof.
Your incoherent ramblings are proof you have not got a clue but noting else. You were asked to provide proof. Again you have not, you have supplied your opinion.



Well I think the question lays more in your hands on this one. Do you have reason to believe that we possesed the ability to work with DNA back in biblical times?
What the hell is 'back in biblical times'? You really have the most infantile version of history I have ever witnessed.



Do you have an answer that explains why we lost it in all of these years? I'm betting you don't.
Lost what? Your babbling is meaningless. If your referring to your constructed fantasy about an ability to work with DNA the simple answer is simple. The theory of evolution. There is no need to make up stories as you have.


Well here is how it is... There is no way we could have shared a common ancestor with apes, and have way more genes and fewer chromosomes. This was not from mutations.
414 pages and your ignorance still shines as bright as your first post. Tragic


That was allready pointed out to you and it was proven that the wiki link states the bible is a historical document. OH well here it is again...
Addressed separately


Nope once again Colin, your lying and caught red handed. The wiki on speciation clearly only includes some aquatic life, some bacteria, and some viruses.
Addressed separately


Based on the fact that we have never even seen speciation in humans, it stands to reason that it must take longer than once precieved.
I expect you will not break your policy of dishonesty but just once. Back up that claimed fact with evidence.


Youll have to reread what I quoted above as your looking pretty silly right about now.
Anyone that can write the tripe:


Yes I do have evidence we aren't from earth. Probably the strongest one is it actually tells us out right in the bible that earth is not our home
Shows you do not have enough grasp on reality to call others silly.


Of course I have looked. I want to find a single shred of evidence that proves evolution. And so far there hasn't been much to find.
If you refuse to look you will not see. You refused to look.


In addition to the fact that evolution is also a creator of new life.
Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No comment.




posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



That was allready pointed out to you and it was proven that the wiki link states the bible is a historical document. OH well here it is again...
You want to use the bible as a clear historic document. Make your argument in opposition to mine as you should have the first time. Failure means a permanent ban on acceptance of your dishonest statement.


Well like I have repeatedly stated, clear documentation from a historical reference is good enough for me. And wiki also states the bible is a historical document.

This is a clear example of you cherry picking the information you read Bible as an historic document

There are a wide range of interpretations in the field of biblical archaeology. One broad division includes biblical maximalism which generally takes the view that most of the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible is based on history although it is presented through the religious viewpoint of its time. It is considered the opposite of biblical minimalism which considers the Bible a purely post-exilic (5th century BC and later) composition
So there are opposing views on this even within the religious scholars.

The biblical account of events of the Exodus from Egypt in the Torah, and the migration to the Promised Land and the period of Judges are not considered historical in scholarship.[45][
So again at odds with your statement.

So it appears to be far from a clear historical document that you claim it to be. Seems to be full of hypothesis and assumptions to me.


Here is a poor start for you caught out in more dishonesty:


As I had even pointed out last time, the quote is in the Archaeological and historical research section and states " the Bible is a historical document containing first-hand information" so you can easily see Colin, that you are once again lying to create a false image on this thread
Cherry picking again. You post that out of context as usual it is far from what was written.

Biblical archaeology is the archaeology that relates to and sheds light upon the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament. It is used to help determine the lifestyle and practices of people living in biblical times. There are a wide range of interpretations in the field of biblical archaeology. One broad division includes biblical maximalism which generally takes the view that most of the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible is based on history although it is presented through the religious viewpoint of its time. It is considered the opposite of biblical minimalism which considers the Bible a purely post-exilic (5th century BC and later) composition. Even among those scholars who adhere to biblical minimalism, the Bible is a historical document containing first-hand information on the Hellenistic and Roman eras, and there is universal scholarly consensus that the events of the Babylonian captivity of the 6th century BC have a basis in history.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Well first of all I wasn't responding to you.

Well first, this is an open forum. I am replying to you.
True but my reply was to someone else, which is why their name was highlighted in the quote.




Second of all, you have also been told many times that the human genome is public information, therefore anyone can test or contest these findings.

Second of all you have been told just as many times that if pye is too scared to put his story up for peer review it will always just be a story.
How do you know it never went before peer review? How do you not know that what he is sharing is actually from peer reviews? Have you even looked for peer reviews? Maybe they weren't published on the internet. Did you buy one of his books to find out more about this?




There are several things that have happened that tell us that tampering has happened. First is that there are sections that are inverted, second there are sections that are dormant, third, there are way more than our share of defects in our genes, fourth we do have vestigal organs.

How many times do you need to be told Mr. science major what constitutes evidence? What sections are you referring to or is this another guessing game? How do vestigial organs prove evolution wrong and intervention true?
There is no guessing, how many times do you have to be told, that this is black and white. Someone obviously tampered with our DNA and they did a crummy job at that, and left trace elements through major defects. The only other possible option here is that Pye is correct and we are an engineered species which could account for the amount of defects. Either way you slice it, someone tampered with our DNA.

Now I have seem some people on here claim that the hands of evolution can cause these types of things to happen. But if you believe that, then the new question comes up, is there anything the hands of evolution CANT do? Because at this point evolution can decided which species goes on which doesn't, which group branches off and which doesn't. It decideds what changes are made, and how and to whom. It decideds what method to use to make changes, and when, and it does it all stealth so that we can't detect the changes.

This evolution is bigger than any god anyone has ever been able to imagine, and some people do put a lot of faith into that. But there is no proof of any of this, its all a guessing game. Speciation has only been witnessed in a few organisms.

The bible is damn good evidence of what has happened and on top of that its also considered to be a historical document. en.wikipedia.org...
Archaeological and historical research yes the same idea that helps invision evolution.
the Bible is a historical document containing first-hand information
So once again your wrong. Your ignorance is not accepted, sorry.




Even if I wasn't able to supply evidence, wouldn't be proof that it didn't happen, regardless, the above is pretty good proof.

Your incoherent ramblings are proof you have not got a clue but noting else. You were asked to provide proof. Again you have not, you have supplied your opinion.
Depends on what proof your asking for. As an example here is hebrews clearly stateing that earth is not our home...

gspcsermons.blogspot.com...
Through lack of understanding, religious views force people to believe that this means when you die, your soul goes elsewhere. It doesn't say that however, what it says is that earth is simply not our home. You don't have to be a genius to figure out what it means. I think it means earth is not our home.




Well I think the question lays more in your hands on this one. Do you have reason to believe that we possesed the ability to work with DNA back in biblical times?

What the hell is 'back in biblical times'? You really have the most infantile version of history I have ever witnessed.
Yes in case you had no clue, the bible is referenced in a specific period. Here is a website that better explains biblical time periods...www.christiancourier.com...




Text



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Do you have an answer that explains why we lost it in all of these years? I'm betting you don't.

Lost what? Your babbling is meaningless. If your referring to your constructed fantasy about an ability to work with DNA the simple answer is simple. The theory of evolution. There is no need to make up stories as you have
It's clear that evolution is YOUR god. Everything, and every answer can be tied to the hands of evolution. I'm sorry to say, that you have no proof that evolution can change DNA. Sure there have been isolated cases as mentioned in wiki about speciation, but thats it. Your making assumptions and taking liberties that just arne't there.

If evolution had the ability to change DNA, this would mean that everything we have come to know and realize about using DNA would be false, after all, if we can't identify changes, and we are looking at DNA for any purpose, how would we not know that it just recently changed, to throw off our observation. So you see, DNA can't change on its own, and if it could, it would be totally useless for any reason, especially forensincs, criminology, and anything else we could try to use it for. Besides if evolution did have the ability to change DNA, then it wouldn't need all the other abilitys it has as being able to chang DNA can do anything to life. Of course there are small changes that do change DNA like when changes happen to us, or we get sick or take on a new disease. There is permissalbe differences, but simply to evolve, no, its never been witnessed, and what wiki claims has occured in specieation I challenge this because there is no way they can identify what changes are normal.




Well here is how it is... There is no way we could have shared a common ancestor with apes, and have way more genes and fewer chromosomes. This was not from mutations.

414 pages and your ignorance still shines as bright as your first post. Tragic
And I figured after 414 pages you would have realized that less chromosomes and less genes is not an addition, its a subtraction.




Based on the fact that we have never even seen speciation in humans, it stands to reason that it must take longer than once precieved.

I expect you will not break your policy of dishonesty but just once. Back up that claimed fact with evidence
Well I wouldn't doubt that in the eyes of Colin that speciation has been observed. The fact is no scientist has come out with this finding, only Colin. And trust me it would be very big news for evolution at this point, so its not like they are hiding it.




In addition to the fact that evolution is also a creator of new life.

Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No comment.
As long as evolution is able to produce new species, it can be viewed as a creator. While it might normally be viewed as just a process, the fact is, its still creating, therefore it is a creator. So your term is not accepted out of ignorance.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Nope once again Colin, your lying and caught red handed. The wiki on speciation clearly only includes some aquatic life, some bacteria, and some viruses.
Here is a link YOU supplied: Speciation Here it states

Observed instances

Island genetics, the tendency of small, isolated genetic pools to produce unusual traits, has been observed in many circumstances, including insular dwarfism and the radical changes among certain famous island chains, for example on Komodo. The Galápagos islands are particularly famous for their influence on Charles Darwin. During his five weeks there he heard that Galápagos tortoises could be identified by island, and noticed that Finches differed from one island to another, but it was only nine months later that he reflected that such facts could show that species were changeable. When he returned to England, his speculation on evolution deepened after experts informed him that these were separate species, not just varieties, and famously that other differing Galápagos birds were all species of finches. Though the finches were less important for Darwin, more recent research has shown the birds now known as Darwin's finches to be a classic case of adaptive evolutionary radiation.[6]
And further on:

Observed instances Ring species The Larus gulls form a ring species around the North Pole.
This from a link you supplied. Please explain your statement that


Nope once again Colin, your lying and caught red handed. The wiki on speciation clearly only includes some aquatic life, some bacteria, and some viruses.
I think it is you that has been caught red handed, again.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 






Nope once again Colin, your lying and caught red handed. The wiki on speciation clearly only includes some aquatic life, some bacteria, and some viruses.

Here is a link YOU supplied: Speciation Here it states
Observed instances

Island genetics, the tendency of small, isolated genetic pools to produce unusual traits, has been observed in many circumstances, including insular dwarfism and the radical changes among certain famous island chains, for example on Komodo. The Galápagos islands are particularly famous for their influence on Charles Darwin. During his five weeks there he heard that Galápagos tortoises could be identified by island, and noticed that Finches differed from one island to another, but it was only nine months later that he reflected that such facts could show that species were changeable. When he returned to England, his speculation on evolution deepened after experts informed him that these were separate species, not just varieties, and famously that other differing Galápagos birds were all species of finches. Though the finches were less important for Darwin, more recent research has shown the birds now known as Darwin's finches to be a classic case of adaptive evolutionary radiation.[6]
And you should read it again, he even admitts to speculating. Again I said it before Ill say it again, there is no way to identify where the changes are coming from much less if they are normal changes.




And further on:
Observed instances Ring species The Larus gulls form a ring species around the North Pole
All of which is being tied to evolution thorugh speculation.




This from a link you supplied. Please explain your statement that


Nope once again Colin, your lying and caught red handed. The wiki on speciation clearly only includes some aquatic life, some bacteria, and some viruses.

I think it is you that has been caught red handed, again
That wasn't the section I was referring to but you can see they are guessing, and they admitted to it.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   
There is something missing completely from the Darwin theory. And Darwin said this himself.

What drives mutations to benefit life forms in the ways that they need to mutate?
Isn't it funny that in order to evade being eaten, some creatures look and act like other animals? For instance, why do some non-poisonous snakes have the same markings as poisonous snakes? Is this just dumb luck? Or, did some snake think to himself, I need to look like a poisonous snake, and wallah, he mutated, and the mutation stuck.

That is a really poor example. But it's the best I can do at this late an hour.

We should see mutations all the time if the Darwinian theory is true. But we don't. Which is why the theory is heretoforwith proved wrong.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



How do you know it never went before peer review?
It has not been published as having passed peer review.



There is no guessing, how many times do you have to be told, that this is black and white. Someone obviously tampered with our DNA and they did a crummy job at that, and left trace elements through major defects.
Then you will have no trouble providing where it is in black and white.



The only other possible option here is that Pye is correct and we are an engineered species which could account for the amount of defects. Either way you slice it, someone tampered with our DNA.
Ah so now you infer it is all speculation and assumption by pye and yourself.



Now I have seem some people on here claim that the hands of evolution can cause these types of things to happen
Only you claim a word used to describe a process has eyes, hands and intelligence and looks like a bug. Only you could believe it to be so.


But if you believe that, then the new question comes up, is there anything the hands of evolution CANT do?
I don’t believe it. Read above and I refer back to all the other times you have had this explained.


Because at this point evolution can decided which species goes on which doesn't, which group branches off and which doesn't.
Evolution is a word. It cannot decide anything. It describes small changes over time selected for by the environment.


It decideds what changes are made, and how and to whom. It decideds what method to use to make changes, and when, and it does it all stealth so that we can't detect the changes.
Evolution is a word. Again it does not decide anything.


This evolution is bigger than any god anyone has ever been able to imagine, and some people do put a lot of faith into that.
Evolution does not explain god. It has nothing to do with explaining positively or negatively any god.


But there is no proof of any of this, its all a guessing game.
Agreed all religions are a guessing game including yours. In fact your home spun religion more than any other.


Speciation has only been witnessed in a few organisms.
Then speciation is real.


The bible is damn good evidence of what has happened and on top of that its also considered to be a historical document.
As you have not addressed my argument showing it is not: Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No comment


Depends on what proof your asking for. As an example here is hebrews clearly stateing that earth is not our home...
Going by your own restrictions and following your lead. Have you got a site that is not biased. This one is from a religious site.
Try quoting the pertinent part.


Through lack of understanding, religious views force people to believe that this means when you die, your soul goes elsewhere. It doesn't say that however, what it says is that earth is simply not our home. You don't have to be a genius to figure out what it means.
Yep. Anyone can see it is a story to comfort people scared of dying to sell them snake oil to part them from their money and independence.


I think it means earth is not our home.
Clear documentation would mean you would not have to think, you would have documented evidence. You would know.



Yes in case you had no clue, the bible is referenced in a specific period. Here is a website that better explains biblical time periods...
Nope. Again going by your rules this is from a biased source. Please provide a more unbiased source. Also state from and to if this is a specific period. Your whole argument depends on this if you do not realise it.


I dont see however how any of the above addressed the argument I offered showing the bible is far from the clear documentation you claim. Are you going to address this or not?



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fing3rm4n
There is something missing completely from the Darwin theory. And Darwin said this himself.

What drives mutations to benefit life forms in the ways that they need to mutate?
Isn't it funny that in order to evade being eaten, some creatures look and act like other animals? For instance, why do some non-poisonous snakes have the same markings as poisonous snakes? Is this just dumb luck? Or, did some snake think to himself, I need to look like a poisonous snake, and wallah, he mutated, and the mutation stuck.

That is a really poor example. But it's the best I can do at this late an hour.

We should see mutations all the time if the Darwinian theory is true. But we don't. Which is why the theory is heretoforwith proved wrong.
Hi

Darwin wrote his theory around 150 years ago. People travelled by horse and cart and steam locomotion was hi tech. Just like everything else the theory of evolution has developed. Just like everything else and the evidence to back it has grown to overwhelming proportions.

As for the snake. Like any other camouflage colouring the markings of the snake are selected for by the environment. Those that are easily seen are predated before they can breed. Those that blend in are missed and breed passing on the colouration.

In the case of the snake that mimics the poisonous snake. Don’t forget they both evolved the markings so my guess is they both evolved the coloration in tandem and the poisonous snakes similarities gave the snake with similar markings an advantage. Predators thought it was poisonous. Those that did not mimic the colour variations closely enough did not live long enough to breed. These snakes that mimic the marking of the poisonous counterpart live in the same areas as the other. That is not a coincidence. That is as short an answer as I can give.

edit on 15-6-2012 by colin42 because: added in tandem



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



And you should read it again, he even admitts to speculating. Again I said it before Ill say it again, there is no way to identify where the changes are coming from much less if they are normal changes.
And your answer is the reason why you lost the use of the comment in any honest debate.


The wiki on speciation clearly only includes some aquatic life, some bacteria, and some viruses.
When even your link says different and you deny the information it contains you still write that nonsense and show yourself to be the deluded and dishonest person you are. You have more than earned the reply: Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No comment.


That wasn't the section I was referring to but you can see they are guessing, and they admitted to it.
And here you show how shallow and dishonest you are.
You have an insane hatred of a word and are prepared to ignore and blow off with ignorance and no basis for argument against anything that challenges it.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



It's clear that evolution is YOUR god. Everything, and every answer can be tied to the hands of evolution.
Again: Evolution is a word. It does not have hands.



I'm sorry to say, that you have no proof that evolution can change DNA.
Again: Evolution is a word. It cannot change DNA. Have you been reading any of the posts you reply too?


Sure there have been isolated cases as mentioned in wiki about speciation, but thats it. Your making assumptions and taking liberties that just arne't there.
Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No comment.


If evolution had the ability to change DNA,
It doesn’t, it’s a word.


So you see, DNA can't change on its own,
So you have not read anything posted to you on this very subject.


Besides if evolution did have the ability to change DNA
It doesn’t, its a word.


Of course there are small changes that do change DNA
Yep explained in the theory of evolution. Small changes over time, selected for by the environment.


like when changes happen to us, or we get sick or take on a new disease.
414 pages and you can still demonstrate your total ignorance of the subject. Astounding.


There is permissalbe differences, but simply to evolve, no, its never been witnessed
Something you have never been able to build an argument in support of.


and what wiki claims has occured in specieation I challenge this because there is no way they can identify what changes are normal.
You did not challenge. The word is you denied with no foundation for that denial given.


And I figured after 414 pages you would have realized that less chromosomes and less genes is not an addition, its a subtraction.
Explain.


Well I wouldn't doubt that in the eyes of Colin that speciation has been observed. The fact is no scientist has come out with this finding, only Colin. And trust me it would be very big news for evolution at this point, so its not like they are hiding it.
Except for the scientists that have come out with this finding. Examples of which you have been supplied and denied.


As long as evolution is able to produce new species, it can be viewed as a creator.
Evolution is a word. It cannot produce or create. Does not have hands; eyes; intelligence or look like a bug. You show how poor your understanding is every time you write this garbage.


While it might normally be viewed as just a process, the fact is, its still creating, therefore it is a creator.
The word evolution describes a process. That process is small changes over time, selected for by the environment. Nothing is created whether you want it to be or not.


So your term is not accepted out of ignorance.
Bravo!!!
you are correct. Finally you admit the only reason you do not accept it is out of ignorance.
Another tooth classic.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





And you should read it again, he even admitts to speculating. Again I said it before Ill say it again, there is no way to identify where the changes are coming from much less if they are normal changes.

And your answer is the reason why you lost the use of the comment in any honest debate.
My answer is why you can't offer an honest reply.




The wiki on speciation clearly only includes some aquatic life, some bacteria, and some viruses.

When even your link says different and you deny the information it contains you still write that nonsense and show yourself to be the deluded and dishonest person you are. You have more than earned the reply: Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No comment.
I guess I also missed the part where it says its ok to assume it also happens in humans.
Your ingnorance is not accepted.




That wasn't the section I was referring to but you can see they are guessing, and they admitted to it.

And here you show how shallow and dishonest you are. You have an insane hatred of a word and are prepared to ignore and blow off with ignorance and no basis for argument against anything that challenges it.
Your the only one avoiding answering.




It's clear that evolution is YOUR god. Everything, and every answer can be tied to the hands of evolution.

Again: Evolution is a word. It does not have hands.
It's a metaphor, I'm assuimg you know what that is.




I'm sorry to say, that you have no proof that evolution can change DNA.

Again: Evolution is a word. It cannot change DNA. Have you been reading any of the posts you reply too?
Then you just agreed that intervention did occur to us, and they did in fact alter our DNA, thanks for finally agreeing.




Sure there have been isolated cases as mentioned in wiki about speciation, but thats it. Your making assumptions and taking liberties that just arne't there.

Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No comment.
Your ignorance is not accepted.




If evolution had the ability to change DNA,

It doesn’t, it’s a word.
Therefore intervention is the only way it could have, yay, you got it finally.




So you see, DNA can't change on its own,

So you have not read anything posted to you on this very subject
I know a lot more about it than you do, thats for sure. Of course I have read a lot about it.




Of course there are small changes that do change DNA

Yep explained in the theory of evolution. Small changes over time, selected for by the environment.
Yet its never been proven that evolution is the reason for these changes. They just find changes, and assume its evolution. Like I explained earlier that my friend who has ADHD because his mother smoked witle pregnant with him, would appear to be a change, therefore evolutionists would chalk ADHD up to evoltuion, which is false.




like when changes happen to us, or we get sick or take on a new disease.

414 pages and you can still demonstrate your total ignorance of the subject. Astounding
These things do cause DNA to change, a lot more so than any mistaken idea of evolution.




There is permissalbe differences, but simply to evolve, no, its never been witnessed

Something you have never been able to build an argument in support of.
I don't have to, evolutioists confirmed that they don't know by coming up with multiple scenerios that could be the cause of change, mutation, sexuall selection, natural selection, etc...It's all just a guessing game and they have no way to know, much less identify what causes the changes.




and what wiki claims has occured in specieation I challenge this because there is no way they can identify what changes are normal.

You did not challenge. The word is you denied with no foundation for that denial given.


And I figured after 414 pages you would have realized that less chromosomes and less genes is not an addition, its a subtraction.

Explain.
Humans have fewer chromosomes and less genes so there is no way in hell that we evolved from apes or share a common ancestor.




Well I wouldn't doubt that in the eyes of Colin that speciation has been observed. The fact is no scientist has come out with this finding, only Colin. And trust me it would be very big news for evolution at this point, so its not like they are hiding it.

Except for the scientists that have come out with this finding. Examples of which you have been supplied and denied.
There is no DVD on it, and I would be money it would be the most important one if it were true.




As long as evolution is able to produce new species, it can be v



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





As long as evolution is able to produce new species, it can be viewed as a creator.

Evolution is a word. It cannot produce or create. Does not have hands; eyes; intelligence or look like a bug. You show how poor your understanding is every time you write this garbage.
Your just unable to see the big picture in order to understand that if evolution is capable of doing all the things your claiming, then it must have some type of intelligence behind it.




While it might normally be viewed as just a process, the fact is, its still creating, therefore it is a creator.

The word evolution describes a process. That process is small changes over time, selected for by the environment. Nothing is created whether you want it to be or not.
You could say the same thing about an automotive assembly line. Looking at it from the individual perspective, you could say they are not creating anything because each one of them does a small part like put on a door, or add glass, or install the shocks. But the finished product is a creation, with intelligence behind it.




So your term is not accepted out of ignorance.

Bravo!!! you are correct. Finally you admit the only reason you do not accept it is out of ignorance. Another tooth classic.
I meant from YOUR ignorance.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   
There's nothing "normal" about evolution. As a matter of fact, this natural selection that occurs is a matter of mutation. So if it were normal then evolution by natural selection would never have occurred, but alas it has.

Evolution can be witnessed. Natural selection occurs through gene mutation on a daily basis in laboratories and hospitals all over the planet. Every time we sterilize we are, in a small way, creating a new playing field for more mutations within the micro-organism world to occur. This is how drug-resistant diseases have come to be. Natural selection and mutation by killing off the bacteria and viruses that can't stand up to it, and the newer strains are simply a genetic mutation on what already existed.

Think of the genome of all creatures. How did humans get to be different colors? By adapting to their surroundings over thousands of years. Making some humans' skin more adaptable to radiation emitted by the sun in their land of "origin".

Why are some races more susceptible to particular illnesses? Because those illnesses didn't occur in their land of "origin".

Why are there still apes? Because certain parts of the world encouraged the interbreeding of species, the external factors that helped along and preferred more humanlike transformations, while others did not encourage these changes.

Some species adapted to the changing environment, the natural predators, the changing foodstuffs around, and the weather, while others migrated, adapted some changes themselves, or learned to survive in their current environments.

Evolution is not some word used to fill a gap in human history. Evolution by natural selection is testable, even if it's not so easily seen by the naked eye.

Natural selection is a wonderful thing.

We now have proof that flagellum's pump was evolved. We now understand how the eye came to be. Science, it's freaking beautiful.

And, I will speak for ALL scientists. If any god-like being were proved with empirical evidence or a showing of itself to the entire world at once, then scientists would be more likely to not think that religion is hocus-pocus. But this thread isn't about religion. It's about people attempting to "prove evolution wrong."

If someone were able to "prove evolution wrong" then it would also become a scientific theory, and taught in schools all across the country as such.
edit on 6/15/2012 by Anonymous404 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous404
 





There's nothing "normal" about evolution. As a matter of fact, this natural selection that occurs is a matter of mutation. So if it were normal then evolution by natural selection would never have occurred, but alas it has.
I'll never be convinced that all evolution changes are by a mutation. If that were true, we would see a hell of a lot of species that have 4 heads and 10 limbs, but we don't, in fact most if not all are in order.




Evolution can be witnessed. Natural selection occurs through gene mutation on a daily basis in laboratories and hospitals all over the planet. Every time we sterilize we are, in a small way, creating a new playing field for more mutations within the micro-organism world to occur. This is how drug-resistant diseases have come to be. Natural selection and mutation by killing off the bacteria and viruses that can't stand up to it, and the newer strains are simply a genetic mutation on what already existed.
Well seeing how they can't identify or lable the changes, makes it impossible to even know if they are from evolution.




Think of the genome of all creatures. How did humans get to be different colors? By adapting to their surroundings over thousands of years. Making some humans' skin more adaptable to radiation emitted by the sun in their land of "origin".
If this were true, you wouldn't see humans going through the daily grind of adapting, or excuse me, redundant adapting.




Why are some races more susceptible to particular illnesses? Because those illnesses didn't occur in their land of "origin".
Depends on exactly what your talking about. I believe in transpermia so with us, its because we aren't from here.

There were a lot of other species as well that were brought here that knocked the balance of the planet off.




Why are there still apes? Because certain parts of the world encouraged the interbreeding of species, the external factors that helped along and preferred more humanlike transformations, while others did not encourage these changes.
And we supposedly evolved from them. If this is true, we should go back, we were much better off, and fit into the society that way.




Some species adapted to the changing environment, the natural predators, the changing foodstuffs around, and the weather, while others migrated, adapted some changes themselves, or learned to survive in their current environments.
There are small natural ways that things adapt, but not for humans, anything a human does or makes is considered to be unnatural.

The reason for this is because we are not natural to this planet. And you can't tell me I'm wrong as I didn't write the definition.




Evolution is not some word used to fill a gap in human history. Evolution by natural selection is testable, even if it's not so easily seen by the naked eye.
Well one of about 2 dozen components are testable and observable anyhow.




Natural selection is a wonderful thing.
but still doesn't explain how my friend that got ADHD from his mother smoking while pregnant with him, would have changes in his DNA that would be observed as evolution.




We now have proof that flagellum's pump was evolved. We now understand how the eye came to be. Science, it's freaking beautiful.
I wasn't aware that gears and sprockets could evolve, I would love to see more on that.




And, I will speak for ALL scientists. If any god-like being were proved with empirical evidence or a showing of itself to the entire world at once, then scientists would be more likely to not think that religion is hocus-pocus. But this thread isn't about religion. It's about people attempting to "prove evolution wrong."

If someone were able to "prove evolution wrong" then it would also become a scientific theory, and taught in schools all across the country as such.
Well intervention proves evolution wrong, as there is no way we could have evolved here if we aren't from here to being with, and we have proof of this as well.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 02:59 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



My answer is why you can't offer an honest reply.

I guess I also missed the part where it says its ok to assume it also happens in humans. Your ingnorance is not accepted.
(that’s spelt ignorance not ingnorance) I see you are still rejecting everything based on your ignorance. Well at least you have admitted it now.



It's a metaphor, I'm assuimg you know what that is.
Nope evolution is a word. I know you don’t have a clue what that word is.


Then you just agreed that intervention did occur to us, and they did in fact alter our DNA, thanks for finally agreeing.
You really are desperate, how do you get the above from: 'Again: Evolution is a word. It cannot change DNA. Have you been reading any of the posts you reply too?'
Ah I remember you reject everything from ignorance. A statement by you. You had better add to that your dishonesty.


Therefore intervention is the only way it could have, yay, you got it finally.
Illustrates how you come to all of your conclusions. Don’t worry about what is written make your fantasy fit. You failed again. You do highlight your insanity and desperation around a word and how dishonest you are prepared to be to hide from it. How tragic.


I know a lot more about it than you do, thats for sure. Of course I have read a lot about it.
I see no evidence of that understanding. I do see evidence even in this reply that you have a very limited ability to understand the written word. Couple that with your admission: Reply to this post by tooth


So your term is not accepted out of ignorance

That leaves me with very little confidence you know how to tie shoe laces let alone understand DNA.


Yet its never been proven that evolution is the reason for these changes. They just find changes, and assume its evolution. Like I explained earlier that my friend who has ADHD because his mother smoked witle pregnant with him, would appear to be a change, therefore evolutionists would chalk ADHD up to evoltuion, which is false.
Another answer by you from ignorance despite having this fully explained. Makes your claim of knowledge of DNA a little hollow don’t you think. I refer you back to that answer.


These things do cause DNA to change, a lot more so than any mistaken idea of evolution.



I don't have to, evolutioists confirmed that they don't know by coming up with multiple scenerios that could be the cause of change, mutation, sexuall selection, natural selection, etc...It's all just a guessing game and they have no way to know, much less identify what causes the changes.
That is because there are multiple reasons for that change. But tell me how many times have you posted what you think is true or how you think things work and expect people to believe you? You of all people.

You have had many examples of confirmed and observed speciation but you choose as you say to reject based on your ignorance.



Humans have fewer chromosomes and less genes so there is no way in hell that we evolved from apes or share a common ancestor.
Fewer than what? You must try to be more coherent. Again we did not evolve from apes. You showcase your ignorance again



There is no DVD on it, and I would be money it would be the most important one if it were true.
A DVD is how you think information is confirmed. Where did you study to be a science major?



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Your just unable to see the big picture in order to understand that if evolution is capable of doing all the things your claiming, then it must have some type of intelligence behind it.
Your denial is so deeply ingrained you don’t see any picture than that of an alien. Evolution is a word. It cannot do anything, it does not have intelligence. IT IS A WORD.

The process evolution clearly describes is lead by natural forces within the environment not some godly intelligence you so desperately desire to comfort your deep set fear of life.


You could say the same thing about an automotive assembly line. Looking at it from the individual perspective, you could say they are not creating anything because each one of them does a small part like put on a door, or add glass, or install the shocks.
Nope. You could say that and as usual with your analogies you would be wrong. Here is why:


But the finished product is a creation, with intelligence behind it.
There is never a finished product. The organism either goes on to breed and pass its advantages on to the next generation or it dies, selected for by the environment.


I meant from YOUR ignorance.
Really? What you wrote was:


So your term is not accepted out of ignorance.
I find that much more of an accurate statement of how you reject all conflicting arguments.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous404
 
Star for you. Just one point. This threads title was changed by the mods. The topic SHOULD be about those that reject evolution explaining the diversity we see around us today withou refering to evolution.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I'll never be convinced that all evolution changes are by a mutation. If that were true, we would see a hell of a lot of species that have 4 heads and 10 limbs, but we don't, in fact most if not all are in order.
Spiders have eight legs. Centipedes and millipedes have many more. An Octopus has one main brain and an auxiliary "brain" in each of their 8 tentacles, in effect, 9 heads. We also have many examples of organisms with no heads or limbs at all.

There are thousands of other examples which show your statement above to be again baseless. Grounded in ignorance.

Now you tell me what advantage 4 heads would give?



edit on 16-6-2012 by colin42 because: no heads



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 12:20 PM
link   


Think of the genome of all creatures. How did humans get to be different colors? By adapting to their surroundings over thousands of years. Making some humans' skin more adaptable to radiation emitted by the sun in their land of "origin".

tooth's response




If this were true, you wouldn't see humans going through the daily grind of adapting, or excuse me, redundant adapting.


Had to repost this blatant ignorance. There is more comedy gold in the above post but this one made me lol.
The whole mutations 4 heads post was a good one too.


This video should clear up any questions a child could have, provided you don't misinterpret or bastardized the information.
I'm not holding my breath for a tooth awakening, it will probably take a family hijack deprogramming intervention.
Just imagine if he showed up one day and actually new what evolution was.





new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 413  414  415    417  418  419 >>

log in

join