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: 454
31
<< 451  452  453    455  456  457 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Right, I'll have a go!

Everybodys dna is different. Just a little bit!

Some peoples dna make up makes them slightly more or less likley to have problems with some conditions.

e.g. smoking doesnt cause cancer, however some peoples physical attributes makes them more likley to be suceptible to cancer than others. Smoking exacerbates the problem. (OK I admit it, this is my opinion....I SMOKE...GOTTA HOLD ON TO SOMTHING)

Heres the sciency bit,,,,Children who exhibit ADHD have a genetic sequence that makes them more susceptible to exhibiting the signs og ADHD. A mother who smokes during prgnacy increases the chances that the already suceptible child will develop the sytoms of ADHD,



DO YOU GET IT...THE GENIETIC SEQUENCE IS ALREADY THERE.............


(why is it that when I use my ubuntu netbook in here it shows me my spelling mistakes and auto corrects them, but windows doesnt,,,using firefox on both????)




posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


OK, Here we go again.

On the physiological effects of nicotien addiction (a paper by idmonster)

Lets talk about drugs.

Nicotien is the drug that is supplied when one smokes a cigarette. Now nicotein(one of those spelling is probably correct) is a particularly nasty drug, because it affects the user bith psychologicaly, and physiologicaly. That is, it it affects both body and mind.

Comparible drugs.

Cocaine.

Cocaine is an unusual drug in that the effect of addition is primaraly psychological. The high that coc aine offers is mainly mental. The user feel so good when taking the drug that they want more...and more...and more.

Heroin

This is a physical addictive. The user actualy experiences a whole tactile difference. The world just "feels" different.

Back to nicotein. Nicotein gives the user both of these worlds, and is more addictive that either. But that isnt even the worst thing about nicotein...the worst thing is that you only ever get "high" from the first hit.

Lets pretend we can put a figure on "normal", the way most people feel when there not under any presure, just relaxed and enjoying life. Lets call the 0.

When you smoke a ciggy for the first time, or after a long abstinence, boy do you get high. Its quick, litteraly within seconds of that first pull, your head is spinning like you've drun k a whole bottle of your favourite booze, and you feel good, ready to take on the world. The immediate effects only lasts for a minute or so.

Now heres the thing. That high took you from a normal 0 to a high 8 within about seconds, and over the next hour you're coming down, down to 0, then past it to a -8. This is when you statrt to want another cigarette, so you have one. But the smoke only gets you back to 0, back to "normal.

As a smoker, from this point on, all you're doing is smoking to get back to a normal state!

I smoke..I am fully aware of why I smoke. Anybody who tells me smoking helps them to relax, or concentrate i Tell them the same thing...You're wrong....Smoking doesnt help you to relax, or concemntrate better, ir merley gets you back to the state of relaxation and concentration you would have if you didnt already smoke.










I realy need to give up...


ETA I'm beggining to think that alcohol has the same effect
) Or it could be the mint imperials....DAMN YOU MINT IMPERIALS
edit on 9-7-2012 by idmonster because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
You just cannot read. Have you been checked out for dyslexia? The quote you supplied does not say ADHD changes DNA. It says some of the individuals, children with ADHD have a much higher rate of chunks of DNA that are either duplicated or missing. That in no way say's ADHD changed the DNA.


I'm sorry but that doesn't disprove the fact that some people are actually relying on them for such.
Yep. It’s called addiction. Have you seen the tobacco companies advertising that?


I guess your confused, I know smoking is bad for you, some people still do it, and you don't wonder why?
I would be confused if I were not so used to your conflicting posts.

What I am not though is fooled by your very poor attempt at avoiding the question about your statements:


I have seen a lot of tobacco advertisements and have yet to see one that points out that smoking is bad for you.



OMG I never said that smoking isn't bad for you, all I'm saying is that it has benefits.



I guess your confused, I know smoking is bad for you, some people still do it, and you don't wonder why?

So to put it back in context. You maintain the sealed globe is a balanced eco system because that is what the manufacturers tell you. You confirm this by saying the tobacco adverts never say smoking is bad for you but then claim you never said it is not bad for you but claim it has benefits. Just like you claim the globe to be a balanced eco system that kills the shrimp 18 years prematurely.

So ALL your claims seem to contradict each other and you still try to run away from explaining why. Are you going too or are you running too hard?


And that is someones opinion which I could care less about .
Especially when you are proven wrong. You offer no comment on the first link why? Is it because it confirms all I have wrote and proves you wrong? Are you allergic to the truth?


Well that supposed lie is how I found the sites to begin with. I googled eco balanced tank.

Explain that one.
Google is a search engine. It returns hits based on the words you use. It does a good job but it is up to the user to use his intelligence to discern true from fake. You seem to be lacking in this ability.

I can explain it seeing as though you asked. You see only what you want to see.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by itsthetooth
[more
Google is a search engine. It returns hits based on the words you use. It does a good job but it is up to the user to use his intelligence to discern true from fake. You seem to be lacking in this ability.

I can explain it seeing as though you asked. You see only what you want to see.

Many years ago, when my children first starte dusin g the web for research for home work. I made a point of showing them a web site.

This web site ( i hope it was tongue in cheek) looked all above board an scientific, and demonstrated how planes fly. It showed that planes only stay in the air because everybody believed they could fly.

I showed my kids this because i wanted them to realise that anybody can build a website, and they had to look at more than one reference to form an opinion.

I also showed them the difference between information from an informed source and an uniformed source. i.e. if you want to know bout the universe, brian cox's opinion holds far mor weight than than brian hunters ( Brian Hunter---nice lad, works in our local chippy)

Shame I wasnt tooths dad.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 



Shame I wasnt tooths dad.
You need to step away from that booze and those fags
and stay away from any sharp objects until you have fully recovered



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by idmonster
 



Shame I wasnt tooths dad.
You need to step away from that booze and those fags
and stay away from any sharp objects until you have fully recovered


HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHH

second line also HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   
apprently, so good i did it twice

I'm still blaming the mint imperials!

edit on 9-7-2012 by idmonster because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 
I noticed. I expect you realised what you had said and your hands started to shake.

I did ask you not to drink the pubs dry around Euston. What will I drink tomorrow night now, cocktails?



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


Too late ...Eustons dry...had to move to Didcot



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





You would not recognise the truth even if it came with a label attached.
At least I'm smart enough to look for one.




(accomplish not acomlish) Just saying evolution creates new life shows you know nothing and are determined to stay that way. Why do you continue to post here?
Colin it doesn't matter if you belive that new life is created through a random process called evolution. The end result is the same, new life is made, and I for one believe that if this is how it actually happens, it appears that there is intelligence behind that process, thats all.

Evolution makes new life, and there is no way to avoid that fact if you believe in evolution.




The people on this thread are trying to convince me that evolution can perform the following...
Create new species.
Cause adaptations.
Cause speciation.
Cause natural selection.
Cause sexuall selection.
Alter our DNA without us knowing.
Cause mutations.

If you cannot truly reply to why you have misrepresented this group with the lies above then why do you continue to post here?
Oh I'm sorry forgive me...
Evolve new species, evolve through adaptations, speciate, evolve though natural selection, evovle though sexual selection, mutate and be able to do this all through our DNA without us being able to detect, or trace it.

No matter how you slice it, its the hoakiest crap I have every heard of. The more I realize whats going on the more I'm amazed at how blind people can be. Evolution is clearly just a process to replace religion. I didn't see it at first because I'm not religious. A group of theories to replace the idea of us relying on the thought of a creator that isn't there, thats all.

Not that the creation theory is correct but I have an eye opening dilema for you. How else can you explain all of the intelligence that must be behind how all of this works. Things don't just work because they work, there was serious thought put into making them work. Granted all we might see is a few tid bits here and there, but it's looking more and more like there is something much bigger behind it all. I'm not saying god, I'm just saying.




Not only is that sentence very poorly constructed all you are doing is denying your denial.
What proof do you have there isn't a god behind the creation of the steps of evolution?



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by uva3021
 





ADHD does not change your DNA. The change is already there.
In case I didn't reply, ADHD is causing duplicate, and missing DNA in humans.


Scientists aren't saying ADHD is causing the changes in DNA...they simply say some (as in: NOT ALL!!!) people with ADHD show genetic abnormalities in that they are either missing a chromosome or having one too many.

Again, read the article you linked instead of just reading the title



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


OK, All joking and ribbing aside.

Why cant things just work because they work?

Gravity does. The weak and strong electromagnetic forces do!

Lots of things just work because of physices, why is biology different in your eyes?

Serious question and really would like and answer.


edit on 9-7-2012 by idmonster because: coupla extra letters and is Milla Jovovich the hottest woman on the planet or what!



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





You just cannot read. Have you been checked out for dyslexia? The quote you supplied does not say ADHD changes DNA. It says some of the individuals, children with ADHD have a much higher rate of chunks of DNA that are either duplicated or missing. That in no way say's ADHD changed the DNA.
It has to they aren't saying anything about a pre-existing condition that would explain it allready being in the genes.




Yep. It’s called addiction. Have you seen the tobacco companies advertising that?
Of course, but the benefits of smoking could be addictive traits.




So to put it back in context. You maintain the sealed globe is a balanced eco system because that is what the manufacturers tell you.
Your saying its a crappy balance globe, I'm saying its a balanced globe, its still a balanced globe.




You confirm this by saying the tobacco adverts never say smoking is bad for you but then claim you never said it is not bad for you but claim it has benefits. Just like you claim the globe to be a balanced eco system that kills the shrimp 18 years prematurely.
You don't know that.! How do you not know that the shrimp is exposed to other factors in the wild that actually extends its life, but normally is only suppose to live 18 months.




Especially when you are proven wrong. You offer no comment on the first link why? Is it because it confirms all I have wrote and proves you wrong? Are you allergic to the truth?
No becaue someones opinion doesn't prove me wrong.




Google is a search engine. It returns hits based on the words you use. It does a good job but it is up to the user to use his intelligence to discern true from fake. You seem to be lacking in this ability.

I can explain it seeing as though you asked. You see only what you want to see.
Whats wrong with only seeing what you want to see? After all that is how a search works isn't it?



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





Many years ago, when my children first starte dusin g the web for research for home work. I made a point of showing them a web site.

This web site ( i hope it was tongue in cheek) looked all above board an scientific, and demonstrated how planes fly. It showed that planes only stay in the air because everybody believed they could fly.

I showed my kids this because i wanted them to realise that anybody can build a website, and they had to look at more than one reference to form an opinion.

I also showed them the difference between information from an informed source and an uniformed source. i.e. if you want to know bout the universe, brian cox's opinion holds far mor weight than than brian hunters ( Brian Hunter---nice lad, works in our local chippy)

Shame I wasnt tooths dad
Only problem is if I'm so gulible, how is it I'm not buying the evolutionism theory?



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



You mean your answers fail to surface, I never got to see them. That would be nice.

My example was in the first post, but you missed it somehow. So I copied it into next reply. And you missed it somehow. It included a link to the book I had gotten the example from so that you could read it and perhaps learn something, but you missed it somehow. You could actually read the things I post. That would be nice.



But I tend to stick to one that is more accurate...

Hmm, primary of definition of natural according to google:


1. Existing in or caused by nature

Primary definition of natural according to dictionary.com:


1. Existing in or caused by nature

You're right, google is more accurate. We'll use that definition.



Which is fine, but the only problem is that man is not considered to be a part of nature. Now you can check this online and see its highly debated, but honestly you have to at least ask yourself why it would even be considered if we had evolved. It's because one definition goes along the belief of evolution while others don't.

I was making a point about ancient extinctions. Man has nothing to do with them. This doesn't address the subject on hand at all.



Well no its just that I don't just take anyones word for things without proof.

Accumulated knowledge of human science and understanding? Insufficient! Your own completely unsupported imaginings? Good enough!



I never said that volcanos weren't natural, but thats evolutionisim for you putting words in others mouthes.

So if volcanoes are natural, and they were causing massive extinctions millions of years before the dinasaurs were here, much less people, how can you say extinction is unnatural?



I'm going to retract that because its very complicated.

No, you are retracting it because its flat out wrong and you can't defend it. That's why your next sentence is the exact opposite of it:


LIfe can exist provided there is other food to eat and that food can sustain that life. As is in our case. The problem is that it gets technical based on how much a species is going to be able to deal with it, and how many other similuar things there are to take its place.

So species will survive as long as they can find any food that will sustain them, and if they can't they go extinct? Isn't that exactly how the world works, and has always worked? And no need for target food at all. Fascinating.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster
 





Many years ago, when my children first starte dusin g the web for research for home work. I made a point of showing them a web site.

This web site ( i hope it was tongue in cheek) looked all above board an scientific, and demonstrated how planes fly. It showed that planes only stay in the air because everybody believed they could fly.

I showed my kids this because i wanted them to realise that anybody can build a website, and they had to look at more than one reference to form an opinion.

I also showed them the difference between information from an informed source and an uniformed source. i.e. if you want to know bout the universe, brian cox's opinion holds far mor weight than than brian hunters ( Brian Hunter---nice lad, works in our local chippy)

Shame I wasnt tooths dad
Only problem is if I'm so gulible, how is it I'm not buying the evolutionism theory?


This is why:

LINK



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I didnt say you were gullable (you are, but i didnt say that....hmmmmmmmmm)

What I was alluding to was that you appear to treat opinions that support your belifs with greater weight than those that oppose it regardless of the veracity of the source.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Colin it doesn't matter if you belive that new life is created through a random process called evolution.
Tooth how many times do you need telling? Evolution does not describe the creation of new life and news for you. It is YOU that believes it does, not me.


The end result is the same, new life is made, and I for one believe that if this is how it actually happens, it appears that there is intelligence behind that process, thats all.
Look I know you have no idea about what evolution describes, there is no need to add further proof of your ignorance. Enough already.


Evolution makes new life, and there is no way to avoid that fact if you believe in evolution.
Evolution describes how life evolves not how new life is created. Jeezus mate, 450 pages and you show that massive degree of ignorance. If it was an Olympic event you would get gold. Here you get



Oh I'm sorry forgive me...
Evolve new species, evolve through adaptations, speciate, evolve though natural selection, evovle though sexual selection, mutate and be able to do this all through our DNA without us being able to detect, or trace it.
About time. There is a huge difference you know.

Of course as usual you are wrong. If we were unable to detect it there would not be a process we call evolution.


No matter how you slice it, its the hoakiest crap I have every heard of. The more I realize whats going on the more I'm amazed at how blind people can be.
I am surprised you noticed given how blind you are to the world around you.



Evolution is clearly just a process to replace religion.
Nope. Evolution explains the diversity we see today and in the fossil record.


I didn't see it at first because I'm not religious.
Yeah, right. You are the most religious fundamentalist I have ever witnessed.


Not that the creation theory is correct but I have an eye opening dilema for you. How else can you explain all of the intelligence that must be behind how all of this works.
Err, how about evolution
Not much of a dilemma there.


Things don't just work because they work, there was serious thought put into making them work.
Any proof? Evidence? Supporting argument? Links? Nope just your opinion. That is worthless.


Granted all we might see is a few tid bits here and there, but it's looking more and more like there is something much bigger behind it all. I'm not saying god, I'm just saying.
Yeah, you’re not saying your religious either, you're just saying right



What proof do you have there isn't a god behind the creation of the steps of evolution?
For a guy that is not religious you talk about god a hell of a lot. If you are talking about how life started on this planet who knows. Make up any story you like.

If you are talking about how life evolved it is explained fully by the theory of evolution.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



It has to they aren't saying anything about a pre-existing condition that would explain it allready being in the genes.
You need to read your own links.



Of course, but the benefits of smoking could be addictive traits.
Is that of course its addiction or of course you have seen tobacco companies advertising it as a selling point? As for the benefits? Get a life man.


Your saying its a crappy balance globe, I'm saying its a balanced globe, its still a balanced globe.
Right that is your opinion. Now address the argument I put forward and the evidence, links and quotes from those links.


You don't know that.! How do you not know that the shrimp is exposed to other factors in the wild that actually extends its life, but normally is only suppose to live 18 months.
Read the links I supplied you. That’s how I know. You ignoring them is why you don’t know.


No becaue someones opinion doesn't prove me wrong.
When I supply supporting evidence, links and quotes from those links it ceases to be my opinion. You are meant to consider what I supplied and form a reasoned response based on my argument and or produce evidence that supports yours.

Your lack of a reasoned argument is proof enough that you are wrong.


Whats wrong with only seeing what you want to see? After all that is how a search works isn't it?
The fact you ask that question shows you in a very poor light.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by mastermindkar
 





My example was in the first post, but you missed it somehow. So I copied it into next reply. And you missed it somehow. It included a link to the book I had gotten the example from so that you could read it and perhaps learn something, but you missed it somehow. You could actually read the things I post. That would be nice.
Well if I sound like I skipped over, I probably didn't but found it to be not worthy of producing relationships between species and human.

And I mean just that, no relationships between species and plants, or crops, species and man, thats not cupboard love also.




I was making a point about ancient extinctions. Man has nothing to do with them. This doesn't address the subject on hand at all.
I don't know about that, our presence on this planet is nothing but trouble.




Accumulated knowledge of human science and understanding? Insufficient! Your own completely unsupported imaginings? Good enough!
I prefer to call it a crap filter, there is a lot of that on forums.




So if volcanoes are natural, and they were causing massive extinctions millions of years before the dinasaurs were here, much less people, how can you say extinction is unnatural?
Because its very possible that the time line, and what was causing the volcanos was wrong.

It's just a thought but if this planet had water added to it, and this isn't my thought BTW, it would cause a lot of the things we see today with unsetteling effects.

The idea is that water was removed from mars and added to earth. What a coincidence, god supposedly flooded the earth.




No, you are retracting it because its flat out wrong and you can't defend it. That's why your next sentence is the exact opposite of it:
It's only wrong if there is other food for species to scavange off of, and that is NOT predictable.




So species will survive as long as they can find any food that will sustain them, and if they can't they go extinct? Isn't that exactly how the world works, and has always worked? And no need for target food at all. Fascinating
Some will, some are not smart enough to look on, some aren't able to find anything they are willing to eat so they die.

It's not normal in the cycle of things either way you look at it. Adapting is NOT natural. It's a clear sign that something is wrong, and have been blind to this.







 
31
<< 451  452  453    455  456  457 >>

log in

join