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: 445
31
<< 442  443  444    446  447  448 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





No...she poisoned her kid...which isn't the same as evolution

If smoking is really responsible, which hasn't been proven...it can have an influence, but doesn't every single time.
psychcentral.com...

Thats right, but only recently did they discover the gene, which means that prior to that discovery evolutionists would have claimed it as A CHANGE.


Funny how you draw the completely wrong conclusions


First of all, the words "dna" or "gene" aren't even featured in that article. And secondly, of course smoking has negative effects for newborns!! That's not exactly rocket science. All the article states is that we can now add ADHD to the long (!!) list of bad effects of smoking.

Do you even read the articles you link?




posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





For crying out loud tooth, switch on your brain for once. Of course it's repeatable and predictable...that's exactly why they're using the theory. They are using it in modern medicine to PREDICT FUTURE OUTCOMES ACCURATELY. You might not like that, but it's a FACT.
I see so they can just see evolution in modern medicine, just not in humans.

Sorry man I don't buy it, if they were able to show a predictive value, they would also be able to tell us what exactly it is that we are going to evolve into.




Just fyi, speciation IS macroevolution. But whatever, doesn't matter, didn't expect you to actually know the theory you're attacking
Hey I know the feeling, you guys are in the same boat and sometimes its actually funny, with as many times that I have spewed out the same things, and you still don't get it.


If they couldn't use the theory to predict future outcomes they couldn't produce those meds...so the very thing you claim is impossible is the exact opposite, a PROVEN FACT. And of course it has been witnessed in humans, we are after all still evolving.

And yes, to a limited extent they can predict how we evolve. For example, women will grow shorter on average if the current trend continues.

Your second comment I don't even get. Clearly you didn't even know that macroevolution is speciation...something we have witnessed in nature and the lab. Your ad hominem is funny given you were proven wrong (again)



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





That is a lie which is why you never provided that link. I don’t even recall the subject of smoking ever being mentioned in your link and I am still waiting for the quote from it showing me where it states ADHD changes genes. You should be ashamed


psychcentral.com...
Smoking while pregnant.

psychcentral.com...
The genetics of adhd

When a person is aflicted with ADHD, it will appear in their genes.
So if me saying adhd changes our genes, sounded weird, I wasn't saying it correctly.


From your very link:




However, it is difficult to implicate any specific gene in ADHD “beyond reasonable doubt,” due to the diversity and complexity of the condition.





To date, the findings from genetic studies in ADHD have been somewhat inconsistent and disappointing. Specific gene-based studies have similarly only explained a small percentage of the genetic component of ADHD.


At least read past the article title before drawing your wrong conclusions


The problem is, you WANT your belief to be true so much, you simply don't bother doing proper research. You're essentially deluding yourself...really quite sad.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster
 





Oh well, it would appear that this is "just a theory".

Are we picking an choosing which theories we accept as fact and which we dismiss as postulated and hypothesised....I think we are.

(to avoid confusion...when I say we...I mean You)
If just under 4 million people are reporting to have made contact with other life, it might actually be something worth thinking about, even if the numbers are skewed bases on TV access.

How many times do you need this explained? The Roper >>>POLL



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





You are even ignorant about how polls and surveys are carried out. I have nothing to explain, Your link was all about the author explaining why the claim of 4 million was false. You on the other hand need to explain how you claim 4 million to be true using the same source that say's it is not
You still missed the point.

Ok your right, 4 million people aren't getting abducted, some of the numbers were skewed by tv exposure. Now what about the rest that are getting abducted?




See what happens when you read. He showed the people that claimed 4 million were the ones speculating using seriously flawed data. Another of your links that leaves you red faced and denying. Incredible
I read it as though tv involvement was speculative. What it looks like is they interviewed x amount of people and found an unusually high amount of them claiming to have made contact with other species. Then they asked all of them how many of them watch tv about such subjects. Which again doesn't prove the claims to be false.




Yep you are, very. More evidence you choose to ignore. You must be really snug in 'happy ever after land' so why keep leaving it to come here to get a beating with your own ignorance every time you do?
speculation is the only reason evolution is alive. They have never found a missing link to any species.




And that has what to do with your crazy made up term based on your very poor education and inability to read or write coherently? Talking to you is like talking to a parrot. It knows some words but has no idea of their meaning and repeats them over and over again. You know the other thing you have in common with parrots? ................. NUTS
Again if target food was such a farse, you would have been able to produce some, but I don't see you jumping at the opportunity to prove me wrong, instead all you do is sit and waddle in your pitty because you can't come up with anything.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


It's really sad to read your posts


Like listening to a religious fanatic who throws all logic and rationality over board to protect his fantasy world.

Everything in your post above has been disproven a gazillion times...yet like a broken tape deck you keep on repeating your nonsense

edit on 5-7-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Funny how you draw the completely wrong conclusions

First of all, the words "dna" or "gene" aren't even featured in that article. And secondly, of course smoking has negative effects for newborns!! That's not exactly rocket science. All the article states is that we can now add ADHD to the long (!!) list of bad effects of smoking.

Do you even read the articles you link?
Thats becasue you have to read the other article that states adhd is in our genes. There is a link between lead found in ciggeretts and the genes found in the other article. So what it looks like is happening is when someone is exposed to lead, it can make changes in the DNA which can later on be transfered to offspring.

Either way, lead makes the DNA change, and the person ends up with adhd as a result. This is a new thing found which means that before this find, evolutionists were looking at this dna change as a form of evolution.

Now I'm just bringing up ADHD but what about asthma, aids, broncaitis, what about the plethora of things that these changes could be coming from that probably weren't ruled out before evolution was precieved?

Evolution probably never happened.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Funny how you draw the completely wrong conclusions

First of all, the words "dna" or "gene" aren't even featured in that article. And secondly, of course smoking has negative effects for newborns!! That's not exactly rocket science. All the article states is that we can now add ADHD to the long (!!) list of bad effects of smoking.

Do you even read the articles you link?
Thats becasue you have to read the other article that states adhd is in our genes. There is a link between lead found in ciggeretts and the genes found in the other article. So what it looks like is happening is when someone is exposed to lead, it can make changes in the DNA which can later on be transfered to offspring.

Either way, lead makes the DNA change, and the person ends up with adhd as a result. This is a new thing found which means that before this find, evolutionists were looking at this dna change as a form of evolution.

Now I'm just bringing up ADHD but what about asthma, aids, broncaitis, what about the plethora of things that these changes could be coming from that probably weren't ruled out before evolution was precieved?

Evolution probably never happened.


Wait...did you just compare a genetic defect with a viral infection?


The education system is failing



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





If they couldn't use the theory to predict future outcomes they couldn't produce those meds...so the very thing you claim is impossible is the exact opposite, a PROVEN FACT. And of course it has been witnessed in humans, we are after all still evolving.

And yes, to a limited extent they can predict how we evolve. For example, women will grow shorter on average if the current trend continues.

Your second comment I don't even get. Clearly you didn't even know that macroevolution is speciation...something we have witnessed in nature and the lab. Your ad hominem is funny given you were proven wrong (again)
The only thing they could be using that for in medicine is to create new combat medicine for new strains of bacteria and viruses. Saying this proves evolution is bat crazy. It's a small, very small part of evolution.

The only argument you have on your side is that the meds do seem to be successful. Which means that they are predictable at least in bacteria and viruses. But you have to keep in mind that this step has very little to nothing to do with evolution. Any species is designed to survive, and that is not because of evolution. Your basing a 12 step hypothesis on one part that is partially proven.

Bacteria and viruses mutating are not the entire understanding of evolution, and I'm not a bacteria or a virus myself so does that mean I don't get to evolve? Your making a lot of bat crazy assumptions.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



You still missed the point.

Ok your right, 4 million people aren't getting abducted, some of the numbers were skewed by tv exposure. Now what about the rest that are getting abducted? .
Nope you’re missing the point as usual.

I have no concrete view on abduction. The Travis Walton case alone leaves that door open but the link you referred to refutes the claim of 4 million abductees. You claim from that very link that it confirms the figure of 4 million. You totally ignore sleep paralysis which tells me that explanation scares you enough to cause your denial reflex to come into play. You also totally ignore what the link is about

What gets me is your very bias way of reading ONLY what you want to see, ignoring everything that challenges your views. If the only way you can defend your home made religion is to deny everything that challenges it then even you know deep down it is hogwash. Do I care that you want to remain in 'happy ever after land'? The answer is no, not one hoot but do me a favour. STAY THERE.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





At least read past the article title before drawing your wrong conclusions

The problem is, you WANT your belief to be true so much, you simply don't bother doing proper research. You're essentially deluding yourself...really quite sad.
Either way its still making changes in the dna, so I'm still right. And I'm still right on the fact that scientists would have looked at those changes as evolution.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





How many times do you need this explained? The Roper >>>POLL



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


That's why we have TONS of other proof for beings other than bacteria/viri


You know...the evidence you keep on ignoring...

You on the other hand argument by MAKING UP WORDS and PREACHING NONSENSE EVEN AFTER BEING PROVEN WRONG. That pretty much sums up every single post of yours.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





How many times do you need this explained? The Roper >>>POLL



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I read it as though tv involvement was speculative. What it looks like is they interviewed x amount of people and found an unusually high amount of them claiming to have made contact with other species. Then they asked all of them how many of them watch tv about such subjects. Which again doesn't prove the claims to be false.
The way you read things is why you have all the problems understanding the information it contains.

Go back and read it again. This time read as the author laying out a reasoned argument. Considering the pros and cons of the argument and then drawing a conclusion based on that argument. He concluded the figures were false and that the poll was seriously flawed. You may come to a very different conclusion but at least show you understood the article. Hey you could even do some research to make an opposing logical argument.


speculation is the only reason evolution is alive. They have never found a missing link to any species
You opinion, based on ignorance. You have been shown this and yet you deny without evidence what has been explained. No need to comment further.


Again if target food was such a farse, you would have been able to produce some, but I don't see you jumping at the opportunity to prove me wrong, instead all you do is sit and waddle in your pitty because you can't come up with anything.
How can I produce what is a nonsense? I and others have however shown you many examples showing that your nonsense term fails any and every test. That is why your term is not accepted in this thread. No further comment needed



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





How many times do you need this explained? The Roper >>>POLL



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





At least read past the article title before drawing your wrong conclusions

The problem is, you WANT your belief to be true so much, you simply don't bother doing proper research. You're essentially deluding yourself...really quite sad.
Either way its still making changes in the dna, so I'm still right. And I'm still right on the fact that scientists would have looked at those changes as evolution.


They don't even know what's causing the defect


It might be the result of external factors...as the article clearly states, they haven't figured it out yet.

You on the other hand simply pretend they have because in your mind it "fits" your belief. That's incredibly ignorant



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   


There are other qualifying factors, that don't allow it to be that simple, which is why I made the definition. You have to make sure something passed by all of the definition.


Okay...


Target food

First a food will be natural, natural is anything organic that is not made or caused by humankind, per its definition.

Second a target food will be a main supplement to a species, and could be observed as the only food, but might just be a larger part of a larger menu.

Third a target food might not have an easy substitute for a species. While this could prove more about extinction, adaptation and intervention, substitutes have to be considered. If a substitution has been made it will probably not be as great of a benefit to the species as the original food. A clue that might help identify a substitute is redundant adaptation to utilize that food source.

Fourth, extinction must be considered when considering target food. It is possible that extinction could cause a species to be out of food, as well as co-extinction. Which is not an automatic excuse for claiming intervention.. If a species looks elsewhere for food because of a collapse, that could knock off the food balance of several other species as well. This is why extinctions are not normal or natural.

In other words:
1) I don't know what the practical difference is between a human processing food and a bee, but as per your definition, I'll go with it

2) A target food could be the only thing they eat, but they could also eat many things

3) A target food might not have an easy substitute for a species. But it might also have an easy substitute. If a substitution is made it will probably not be of as great a benefit to a species as the original food. But it might also be of equal or greater benefit. I pointed out an example of a wolf (a real wolf, not even a dog) fed pigs its whole life that had lived longer than wild wolves on their target food do, so clearly this is possible.

4) This doesn't have anything to do with the food itself, but rather seems to be a vague explanation of why a species might not be eating its target food.

So, strictly according to your definition of target food there is absolutely no reason to believe that the tribes of primitive humans living in the amazon basin today are not eating their target foods. Their foods are natural and unprocessed, and they rely on them. Those are the only two certainties in the definition.




Whats wrong with them ? They appear to have to intended food, thats a big problem.

Why can a specie's target food not be dead things? Are dead things unnatural? Nothing in the definition of target food makes mention of it. What could the target food for maggots possibly be if not rotting meat? It is the only thing they eat, its natural, they rely on it, and it has no easy substitute. How can an ecosystem function without recycling dead matter? Can you name an ecosystem on earth that functions without scavengers?



Whoever or what ever thats responsible for making us, was obviously intelligent enough that you might say they knew what they are doing. They would also be just as smart to make sure that we had food to eat otherwise the effort behind the design is void.

Ok. So if there's an intelligence that makes species, including us, and makes sure they can eat food, but doesn't make a target food for them, where does the concept of target food fit into all this? If you freely accept that species can be made without target foods and survive just fine, why did you come up with the concept of target food in the first place? Is it just because ant eaters very specialized towards eating ants? (even though ant eaters also eat other things, and many other things eat ants?



What I'm trying to say is that there could be one or a few foods that require those two types of teeth for sure. Evern the size of our mouths, and how far we can open our mouths tells a little bit about the intended food, as does the design of our teeth. It's not hard to realize once you really get thinking about it, there is something very wrong. We don't fit with what we have on earth.

There are a few foods that require those two types of teeth for sure, meat and nuts. The very things primitive humans ate before they developed the ability process food, and frequently still do eat today. Most mammals that eat meat have sharp teeth like canines, most mammals that eat nuts and seeds have molars, and mammals that eat both generally have both. I really don't see anything wrong. Everything here works.

The only reason there seems to be a problem here is you took an extreme example, the ant eater, and decided that all other animals must be just as specialized as it is. They don't and they aren't.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   


Wll it has the signs of proving we might be from earth, provided they are from here as well, but my point was that they are not picky about who they use as a host and by no means do they prefer humans. They could almost qualify as being a relationship, but the problem is this is all they do and all they know and they are not picky.

You are wrong. While many species of parasites are not picky, many are. Example: en.wikipedia.org...


They feed exclusively on blood. Humans are the only known hosts of this parasite

So, they do prefer humans and they are picky. A natural relationship between man and animal.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





They don't even know what's causing the defect

It might be the result of external factors...as the article clearly states, they haven't figured it out yet.

You on the other hand simply pretend they have because in your mind it "fits" your belief. That's incredibly ignorant
You have clearly not been paying attention. Fitting my belief had nothing to do with the articles. You see the mere fact that there was an event making a change in our DNA, which is not in question here, was the only thing I was standing on.

It still sticks. It doesn't matter if they have figured it out to be exact or not, they are clear that it is making changes in our DNA. Scientists would have been precieving this as evolution. Sorry but your still wrong. And a little bat crazy too.




top topics



 
31
<< 442  443  444    446  447  448 >>

log in

join