It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by iterationzero
And the evidence for our DNA having been tampered with is what, exactly?
Originally posted by bottleslingguy
How did cystic fibrosis or any of the other diseases that kill children not disappear from our species? How would it survive if it kills the child before puberty? Did we inherit that from our pre-human ancestors? How is that a successfully adaptive trait?
Originally posted by bottleslingguy
Originally posted by iterationzero
And the evidence for our DNA having been tampered with is what, exactly?
How did cystic fibrosis or any of the other diseases that kill children not disappear from our species? How would it survive if it kills the child before puberty? Did we inherit that from our pre-human ancestors? How is that a successfully adaptive trait?
If it takes you a century and a half to piece together an easy puzzle, your doing it wrong!
Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by itsthetooth
I'm still not understanding how someone can believe we evolved with 2 fewer chromosomes.
I'm still not understanding how someone can believe that number of chromosomes is the main measure of "how evolved" a species is. Especially given that we have a similar amount of genetic material to chimpanzees -- there's no loss of genetic material in a true chromosomal fusion, we just have one larger chromosome where chimps have two smaller ones.
How did you come to this conclusion?
All of these guys are basically pointing in the same direction.
Of course they are -- Sitchin based his work on von Däniken, Pye based his on Sitchin. They're not three independent sources.
What do you mean based his work, they don't even talk about the same things. I have never found Sitchen or daniken talking about DNA.
When I talk to evolutionists, they seem to be quick to discredit most of them, but never seem to be able to discredit all of them at the same time.
Why would they need to if, as you claim, they are three independent sources?
I have never found one shred of all of there work that matches except that god was a space travler. Thats it.
Darwin was wrong.
No, he just didn't have a full picture. That's why the modern theory of evolution aka modern evolution synthesis isn't called Darwinism.
The reason why his theory never stuck is because it's full of holes.
Never stuck? You mean the theory that's never been falsified in over a century and a half and forms the basis of all modern biology? That theory?
It reminds me of mainstream religion overlooking the preface of the bible that states it deals with things that are supernatural.
To which preface of the Bible are you referring?
OMG
There is no excuse for the lack of tons of proof.
I couldn't have said it better myself, since in your last thread you admitted that you have zero objective evidence to support your claim. This is in contrast to over a century and a half of evidence collected in support of evolution. Where is your "tons of proof"?
Originally posted by bottleslingguy
Originally posted by flyingfish
reply to post by bottleslingguy
"facts are clear" gimme a break what a cop out. why didn't you say this two posts ago? you jumped right into it before you got smacked with some reality.
No cop out, I have explained my position on the pyramids over and over again on the other threads, if you do a little research you will find all the info you need on these boards.
By the way I reject "your" reality- I still agree with me.
Back to the topic-
then please gimme a link to your pyramid thread
Originally posted by colin42
I would like to pose a scenario.
Let's put all the evidence of evolution to one side for a spell. That Darwin and all that followed were mistaken as some maintain.
I would like the pro Evolution group (that includes me) to take a back seat and give the anti evolution group a chance to explain how life on this planet is the way it is now.
I am not asking how life started just an explanation of the diversity of life from the deep dark depths of the oceans to the blue skies above and pole to pole.
I would like an explanation of the fossil records but it is not essential.
As I say I would like the pro evolution group to resist comments for a while. My guess is there will be few takers but I may be suprised.edit on Thu Sep 22 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: *misleading title, formerly was: Evolution proved 100% Wrong
Originally posted by flyingfish
Originally posted by bottleslingguy
Originally posted by flyingfish
reply to post by bottleslingguy
"facts are clear" gimme a break what a cop out. why didn't you say this two posts ago? you jumped right into it before you got smacked with some reality.
No cop out, I have explained my position on the pyramids over and over again on the other threads, if you do a little research you will find all the info you need on these boards.
By the way I reject "your" reality- I still agree with me.
Back to the topic-
then please gimme a link to your pyramid thread
I will not.
If your truly interested in the facts you will do research on your own, I'm not doing the leg work for you.
Educate your self and be careful if it's not verifiable it's no good for you.
Lets see you turn a new leaf.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by IAMIAM
There you go
As both an atheist and a scientist, I can't express enough how wrong-headed this interpretation is.
First, atheism and evolution aren't the same thing.
It's an unnecessary conflation of two separate concepts.
The existence of a god or gods is, by its very nature, an unfalsifiable proposition.
Evolution, observable as a fact and supported by all of the evidence gathered to date as a theory, only contradicts a literal interpretation of the passages of Genesis that relate to the origins of mankind and other species.
Not the existence of God.
All you're doing by making these claims is propagating a stereotype, not showing what claim are made by evolution or atheists as they actually are.
Which just goes to show how uninformed most people are about evolution.
If you think that's "really what it is all about", then you haven't read the thread.
This is nothing more than a strawman argument for the reasons outlined above. The theory of evolution is absolutely falsifiable -- all scientific theories are, ultimately, falsifiable. It's why evolution is a scientific theory and creationism/intelligent design are inherently unscientific.
So you can't or won't try and refute evolution based on its scientific merits, but only in terms of you own fallacious conflation of evolution and atheism? That's the definition of a strawman argument.
Originally posted by Nosred
Originally posted by bottleslingguy
How did cystic fibrosis or any of the other diseases that kill children not disappear from our species? How would it survive if it kills the child before puberty? Did we inherit that from our pre-human ancestors? How is that a successfully adaptive trait?
Confirmed for not knowing what a recessive gene is.
What seems clear is that when Homo sapiens began displacing Neanderthals throughout Europe 40,000 years ago, they brought the cystic fibrosis mutation with them, and it was distributed more or less homogeneously across the subcontinent, said Dr. Luigi L. Cavalli-Sforza, a geneticist at Stanford University who has used molecular techniques to study the migrations of prehistoric peoples.
Originally posted by bottleslingguy
Originally posted by Nosred
Originally posted by bottleslingguy
How did cystic fibrosis or any of the other diseases that kill children not disappear from our species? How would it survive if it kills the child before puberty? Did we inherit that from our pre-human ancestors? How is that a successfully adaptive trait?
Confirmed for not knowing what a recessive gene is.
www.nytimes.com...
What seems clear is that when Homo sapiens began displacing Neanderthals throughout Europe 40,000 years ago, they brought the cystic fibrosis mutation with them, and it was distributed more or less homogeneously across the subcontinent, said Dr. Luigi L. Cavalli-Sforza, a geneticist at Stanford University who has used molecular techniques to study the migrations of prehistoric peoples.
The timing fits just fine with Intervention Theory.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by IAMIAM
You're mixing philosophy with science
sci·ence
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general. 5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
phi·los·o·phy
1. the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.
2. any of the three branches, namely natural philosophy, moral philosophy, and metaphysical philosophy, that are accepted as composing this study.
3. a system of philosophical doctrine: the philosophy of Spinoza.
4. the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, especially with a view to improving or reconstituting them: the philosophy of science.
5. a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
I mean, literally, according to your "logic", you could make up anything you wanted.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
Let me ask you this: If I hold a magnet close a metal, it'll attract the metal...and we can prove it through science.
If one believes in evolution, prove you are more evolved by ceasing senseless debates without knowing the facts of one's own existence. No man knows all the facts. We do not know enough to even begin the debate of the beginnings of OUR existence.