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: 460
31
<< 457  458  459    461  462  463 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Yet somehow you can't seem to be able to present us with a single example
Well just recently I sent you a link so you could see for yourself that a prodigious savant proves our brains can work better. You ran an hid, didn't see you reply to it or acknowledge it at all. Typical.


I didn't run...I just got tired of correcting you over and over again. A few dozen pages back we already proved to you that even prodigious savants have deficiencies


You know...objective evidence...the stuff you love to ignore so much




posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Your claiming there is more randomness then there is patterns.

Oh I see you are telling me what I am claiming again. Quote where I made that claim or shut it.
Ok so lets just say you aren't claiming anything. You are claiming however that evolution is responsible for the diversity that we see, which is the same thing as claiming evoltuion is responsible for the random creations in life.

So the question is, which is it? Is evolution responsible for the random effects or for the patterns? It cant be both, thats a contradiction.




First did not say good advantage, Just advantage the good you added because you have a child’s view of life. Second, that does not mean survival of the fittest. I refer you back to 450 pages
Your making a childs observation and applying it to all of life. Anything even down to blood cells only allows the advantages to live, thats no evolution its just how things are.
There is no proof that this is the work of evolution.




Why do you then go on to factor in creation when it has nothing to do with creation?
Because creation and evolution are the two main ideas at this point.




You'll have to remind me of what point you were making
Well you are under the false belief that life is on as its suppose to be here on earth, and I'm proving you wrong by giving the example of the fact that we are in the sixth largest extinction. Life on this planet is disappearing and not evolving fast enough to replace it.




Oh here you go again telling me what I am admitting. I have told you too many times. EVOLUTION DOES NOT CREATE LIFE. IT CAN'T CREATE ANY LIFE FORM. Evolution is a word that describes a process of how life evolves resulting in the diversity we see around us today and in the fossil records
Creation, process, call it what you want, but the bottom line is new species have emerged as a result. It doesn't matter if the new life was pooped out, the fact remains that new life is being made. So your wrong, it does appear that evolution is an avenue for creating new species.




it's greatly limited, yet we have such a diverse list, how could it have happened, because it sure wasn't by evolution.

Ah the thread topic. So if it was not evolution explain the diversity we se around us today without referring to it
Creation easily explains diversity by adding and growing on to existing creations.




The link was provided. The instruction to follow the other links after reading it was made clear. This was so someone with your low level of education could be lead gently towards the information you needed. Obviously I overestimated your level of comprehension and education. Can you even have an IQ that is a fraction?
Sounds more like an excuse to explain your inability to post the needed link.




Please tell me you are just playing thick You stated animals breathe air or in water. If you don’t see why that is sloppy and incorrect then you are not just playing thick.
I doubt that I stated that, but it could have easily of been a typo.




It was just a vague point but it managed to work because you admitted that patterns are present a lot more than your willing to admitt.

Oh yet again you say I am admitting something only you would be stupid enough to say. Your asinine comment:
In the title of the thread you make an assumption that evolution is responsible for the diversity we see. There is no proof first of all, but you are admitting that evolution is responsible for the different life we see here now. It's the same thing, I don't know how someone can be so thick. Diversity, randomness, call it what you want its the path that created the diversity.




Why is it we never hear about a human baby not making it into this world because he is suppose to breath amonia rather than air?

my reply: 'Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Can your asinine questions get any worse?'
Your reply indicates that the random changes made by evolution are actually not random.




Oh the random and the pattern thing continues. I stand by my original comment. I dont give a dam about your unsupported low brow nonsense.
Thats because your unable to dispute the fact that evolution can't have both randomness and patterns in evolution. You claim changes are random but then you claim that only the advantage wins, yet you can't explain random and patterns at the same time. Your theory has some serious flaws, it doesn't work.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish
 


This is what I mean by jumping to conclusions.

It clearly states that ....


believed to be the remains of ‘Karabo’


www.wits.ac.za...

In other words, they aren't sure.

More tooth irony...
Your the last person on earth to criticize anyone for jumping to conclusions.


I imagine if we shave the back of your head we will find this stamped along with your alien UPC code...



On a side note: Good to see you posting again
Xcalibur254!
I know tooth can get boring sometimes but your insight is well appreciated.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





Ok so lets just say you aren't claiming anything. You are claiming however that evolution is responsible for the diversity that we see, which is the same thing as claiming evoltuion is responsible for the random creations in life.


No...mostly because as we told you a gazillion times, evolution makes NO CLAIMS regarding how life started. It's completely irrelevant for the theory


Once again, you show off how little you understand about science and the theory of evolution because you pretend evolution and abiogenesis is the same thing.

You can't be that stupid after being told so many times



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Your the one spitting out lies on here, trying to convince others that species don't need to eat a proper diet, they can jus eat what ever is available.

Here you go again. Telling me what I am saying when the actual words and nonsense are yours
If you have 5 different species fighitng over the same food because of extinctions then what it all boils down to is survival of the fittest. Do you honestly believe this was the future that the intricate process of evolution or creation for that matter, has set forth?




How about wings to fly as we seem to be relying on trucking and transportation to bring us the large selection of food we require

But now you seem to be claiming that we lost our wings? I mean Hello! You do realise we never had wings? All you just wrote is, well just total nonsense
I haven't memorized the pretend itinerary of evolution like you have, so if you want to pretend I was claiming what it would have been like had we of had wings.




I refer you back to the 450 pages
I'll accept your hand off as a defeat. There was never anything that explained why we needed adaptation as a result of evolution failing, or for any reason that makes sense. There is no reason why we would have both, none.




No supporting evidence from you. No further comment from me.
I'll accept your answer as acceptance for defeat. You had never given any evidence either.




Your problem is and it’s a biggy. Your two options and your tripe below are meaningless. Based on ignorance and defended by dishonesty.
That fact that you chose not to address the issue tells me your accepting defeat in the topic. It doesn't have to be an SA just something short that explains why it is we have both evolution and adaptation, and which came first.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by uva3021
 





Evolution is the differential reproduction of nucleotides. We don't have webbed feet because the webbed feet mutation never happened. And if it did its chances of becoming fixed are 1/14billion, unless there is some selective advantage (the webbed feet mutation either directly affects sperm viability as well, or women find it attractive), and in that case its chances of becoming fixed would be increased proportional to its selective advantage. To reach a point of fixation it would take thousands or millions of years, depending on the degree of selection and environmental contingency (a parasite wiped out half the human population, nuclear war, asteroid, etc...)
Its almost like your saying that evolution is not as random as I'm understanding. On the same hand, we do live on a planet that is 3/4 water, and we do drink water, is it not possible that evolution isn't by random or by pattern?




How do we know this happened? Well again, its conjecture, just like the theory of gravity is based on conjecture. Fortunately, there is more evidence for evolution than gravity. There has never been another mechanism found to explain bio-diversity other than the mutation of nucleotides and differential reproduction. This is the thread title, can you come up with another mechanism to explain bio-diversity?
I think its just as possible that a creator started small and worked his way up to larger creations, using some methods from the previous creation. This hasn't been ruled out which is one of the reaons why I'm not so quick to accept evoltuion.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Exactly... after all that has been discused over and over again why would anyone act like they are ignorant of the basics that have been proven time and time again.
Thats why I don't think anyones being stupid, it's impossible, so there you have it...
Willful Ignorance.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Evolution isn't random. Mutations are random. Just because a mutation occurs doesn't mean it will be passed on. If a mutation inhibits ones ability to reproduce either because the organism does not survive long enough to find a mate or the mutation is not desirable to a mate then the mutation will not be passed on. Everyone places a lot of emphasis on natural selection but sexual selection is just as important when it comes to determining what genes get passed on to the next generation.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


You can't forget that in humans many people are attracted to others personalities and their way of thinking. I don't think evolution theories can address that issue and natural selection fails all together with that.

Is this thread still alive? I can't believe that it lasted that long. People have so different opinions on evolution that it keeps thriving. Maybe the thread will gain immortality status someday.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 





Maybe the thread will gain immortality status someday.


Well, I doubt there's many threads that show off a greater display of ignorance than this one. I have to admit, we couldn't have done it without tooth


(edmc in the other thread is giving tooth a run for his money though)



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Ok so lets just say you aren't claiming anything. You are claiming however that evolution is responsible for the diversity that we see, which is the same thing as claiming evoltuion is responsible for the random creations in life.
So you again start a reply to me telling me what I am claiming. You must know what I am going to write next then.


So the question is, which is it? Is evolution responsible for the random effects or for the patterns? It cant be both, thats a contradiction.
Nope the question is why do you keep contradicting yourself?


Because creation and evolution are the two main ideas at this point.
Nope. Evolution is the only explanation for the diversity we see and is why no one can explain it without referring to it.

My question to you however was asking why you keep trying to claim evolution plays a role in creation when it plainly does not and you have had way too many people telling you that very thing. I don’t care that you, based on nothing thinks it does. Anyone that knows what evolution explains knows it does NOT explain creation of any kind.


Well you are under the false belief that life is on as its suppose to be here on earth, and I'm proving you wrong by giving the example of the fact that we are in the sixth largest extinction. Life on this planet is disappearing and not evolving fast enough to replace it.
So you have a great source to be able to find the proof you need. Go find the creature that was not from here that caused the other 5. Go do that.


Creation, process, call it what you want, but the bottom line is new species have emerged as a result. It doesn't matter if the new life was pooped out, the fact remains that new life is being made. So your wrong, it does appear that evolution is an avenue for creating new species.
Tooth this is obviously way beyond you capability to understand but I will try anyway. I have 3 glasses of water at room temperature.

1. I heat one up until it boils (I change its environment) at first glance it is very different, bubbling, steaming, hot. We call it a glass of boiling water but it is still in essence water in a glass. It was not created just changed by its environment
2. The second glass I freeze. (I change its environment) it becomes a solid. We call it ice but it is still in essence a glass of water changed by the environment. Nothing was created.

So now I have 3 glasses. 1 boiling, 1 frozen and 1 at room temperature. Not one molecule of water was created. We have 3 glasses of water that have been changed by the environment.

The above is an analogy to illustrate why evolution does not describe creation. Not an example of evolution. I expect you to dismiss it or apply your ignorance and wilfully miss the point but at least you cannot after this honestly claim evolution creates or explains creation. I do however expect you will continue to dishonestly carry on claiming that very thing.


Creation easily explains diversity by adding and growing on to existing creations.
Explain how that works.


I doubt that I stated that, but it could have easily of been a typo.
Really another dishonest use of typo as an excuse so explain why you made the same typo three times in three different ways?


I'll give you another example, all species either breath air or breath in water. Just another random coincidence right?



almost all of the life on this planet breaths air, or in water. With a few rare bacteria and viruses that live in other enviroments.



Nevermind that millions of species breath air, and millions more live in water.
And you still do not understand why your sloppy use of English means you are wrong.


In the title of the thread you make an assumption that evolution is responsible for the diversity we see
Tut tut. The heading now reads 'can you prove evolution wrong' The original asks can you give an explanation of diversity without referring to evolution. So your claim above not only shows you cannot read it begs the question do you know why you are here? (Too deep for you but I think its good)
The rest of your drivel. Refer back


Your reply indicates that the random changes made by evolution are actually not random.
Nope your question below was


Why is it we never hear about a human baby not making it into this world because he is suppose to breath amonia rather than air?
It shows you to be the most ignorant person on this site on many levels.


Thats because your unable to dispute the fact that evolution .....blar .....blar .... blar
I stand by my original comment. I don’t give a dam about your unsupported low brow nonsense.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



If you have 5 different species fighitng over the same food because of extinctions then what it all boils down to is survival of the fittest.
Competition (biology) Now unfortunately for you competition for food is a basic fact in life. Before you make your ignorance based claim of 'because its food became extinct'. Animals including man compete over water. Water is the universally vital ingredient that allows life to continue so water shows there would be competition no matter the reason for the scarcity of food. Please explain.


I haven't memorized the pretend itinerary of evolution like you have, so if you want to pretend I was claiming what it would have been like had we of had wings.
What
In your confused, muddled post above are you trying to claim I made up the nonsense you wrote and you never said:


How about wings to fly as we seem to be relying on trucking and transportation to bring us the large selection of food we require
And


I don't see us as losing our wings as an advantage, and you clearly stated that the advantages win.
You seriously need some quiet time.


The rest of what followed was just more of your delude ramblings. Not worth my time



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


You can't forget that in humans many people are attracted to others personalities and their way of thinking. I don't think evolution theories can address that issue and natural selection fails all together with that.

Is this thread still alive? I can't believe that it lasted that long. People have so different opinions on evolution that it keeps thriving. Maybe the thread will gain immortality status someday.
That is an evolutionary process though and not limited to the human race.

Two dominant bulls fight over the right to have ownership of the females and the right to breed. We have documented however that it is not uncommon while the dominant bulls are distracted fighting of competitors another will sneak in and his advances be welcomed by the female ensuring a little brain is included along with the brawn within the heard.

It happens with humans as well


The dominant wolf male who is the only one of the pack that breeds with the dominant female is not necessarily the strongest; it is just as likely to be the best hunter, defender, or tactician.

Trouble is with the likes of tooth you cannot get past the most basic explanations to allow any meaningful discussion. In fact this is the first time for many pages which is a crying shame
.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


Another great example is the peacock. Its colorful tail has absolutely no benefit to it in any way but it persists because it is what peahens find attractive. So here you have a mutation that could even be potentially harmful but it has become a dominant feature of the species because of sexual selection.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 





I know I long ago said I wouldn't post in this thread but I figured I'd correct you on your claims regarding prodigious savants. A prodigious savant still has cognitive deficits. The reason they are called prodigious savants is because their abilities would be astonishing even in someone with a fully functioning brain. At any given time there are less than 100 prodigious savants on the planet. Every person on the savant spectrum has some kind of mental defect. In fact researchers are finding that a common link between all these people is a dysfunction in the left hemisphere of the brain. Some researchers have specifically traced it to dysfunction in the left temporal lobe that is then made up for by enhanced function in the posterior neocortex.
No they dont.


A prodigious savant is someone whose skill level would qualify him or her as a prodigy, or exceptional talent, even in the absence of a cognitive disability. Prodigious savants are those individuals whose abilities would be considered phenomenal or genius even in a person without any limitations or special diagnosis of impairment.
Its only mentioned that cognitive defecits can be missing when they address the prodigious savant, but its in context of savants period.

Either way, savants may not have cognitive disabilities. This still proves that the brain can work better. My point still stands.

Your example only applys to those that are found to have a deficit.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
I think its just as possible that a creator started small and worked his way up to larger creations, using some methods from the previous creation. This hasn't been ruled out which is one of the reaons why I'm not so quick to accept evoltuion.
Hard to work your way up after dinosaurs. Seems to have worked his way down, then up, then around, then left, then right, then back to the water, then back on land, etc...

A creator has been ruled out. Supernatural explanations are always ruled out because they are supernatural, they don't follow the laws of physics/chemistry, its make believe. We know how life works. We have an explanation for the diversity of life, and its the only explanation that abides by the known laws of the universe. The differential reproduction of nucleotides. Evolution only works with what was already there before.

I'm sorry you don't understand it, which is obvious by your inclusion of the phrase "survival of the fittest" to show off your understanding or lack thereof of evolution.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Provide evidence that there are no savants with dysfunction. I have provided just one of many papers that say even prodigious savants suffer from dysfunction. So go find even a published case study of a savant without deficits.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





I didn't run...I just got tired of correcting you over and over again. A few dozen pages back we already proved to you that even prodigious savants have deficiencies

You know...objective evidence...the stuff you love to ignore so much
Not necessarily, wiki clearly points out that savants in general may not have a deficit, while this is only mentioned in the prodigious section.

So again, your wrong, and it was obvious you were running from it. You can't correct someone thats correct.

Your just being incredulous and closing your eyes after you see cognitive disability.
en.wikipedia.org...

A prodigious savant is someone whose skill level would qualify him or her as a prodigy, or exceptional talent, even in the absence of a cognitive disability. Prodigious savants are those individuals whose abilities would be considered phenomenal or genius even in a person without any limitations or special diagnosis of impairment.
"Even in the absence of a cognitive disability", I wonder what that means? hmmm. Then again but prodigious savants without any limitation or special diagnsosis of impairment. I wonder what that means?

There it is again, but this time in quadruple for you in case you missed it the first two times.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


This post will probably be deleted but it's going to be worth it to ask this question. Do you have brain damage? It seems like your reading comprehension is nonexistent. What that sections says is that even if a normal functioning person had the abilities of a prodigious savant it would be exceptional. Since a prodigious savant has these abilities while have some dysfunction it's, well, prodigious. It really can't said any clearer but I know you'll still argue. However it's not my job to teach you reading comprehension. Since I know you still believe you're right my challenge stands. Find me even a case study of a savant with no deficits.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

There is no evidence that a savant exists without any mental defect. All you did was post how a prodigious savant would be defined, even though no such example of a savant without a cognitive disability exists.

I would assume being a savant has a genetic basis, autism obviously does, as does every trait in the 3.8 billion year history of living organisms. The study below leaves little doubt:

www.wisconsinmedicalsociety.org...

This is evolution, its the differential reproduction of nucleotides. Savants aren't common because they are socially awkward, and perhaps have little to no sex-drive. They use one part of the brain (visual) in expense of other functions of the brain and of the body. A bio-mechanical trade-off. Many savants are found to be celibate. Tesla perhaps being the most famous. This is why there are fewer than 100 alive today. They aren't having children.
edit on 13-7-2012 by uva3021 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 457  458  459    461  462  463 >>

log in

join