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: 461
31
<< 458  459  460    462  463  464 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





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
I understand, it has no emotion, no decisions, no discrimination, no determination, no thought, it just processes without anything that we are aware of aside from choosing the adavantage.

It does all this and much more all the way to evolving new species with no goal in mind.
Also doing this while keeping a pattern of life that this planet can sustain, and what I mean by that is it's not evolving species to breath in an athmosphere that isn't here, yet there is no thought or pattern behind it.

We have so many species that have so much in common, so much so to the point that it has captivated the attention of evolutionists to believe we are all related, yet again, it's totally random and has no pattern.




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.
I'm not holding anyone to abiogenisis, its an invalid point. We don't know anymore about how life started from the creation point of view any more than we do from the evolution view.




You can't be that stupid after being told so many times
Here is stupidity for you. We supposedly evolved into an advantaged life. By comparison of the others here, its a tuff argument. The problem is that if you want to pretend we evolved so much, why do we still to this day have the need to reduntantly adapt. Often more times than not we adapt to adapt to adapt to get to where we need to be. Other species on this planet don't even touch us in our efforts to adapt. Adapting is an obvious sign that we failed to evolve. It means that evolution did not pick up the slack somewhere so we had to with our ability to adapt. So the question is did we evolve, or do we adapt, and if you think both, then explain at what point and why were both needed, and when and which we picked up first.




posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


Yes. My ex mother in law never evolved past ape status.

CJ



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   
And.... 9199 posts later are we any closer to a resolution or some type of understanding between the opposing parties on this?

What's that you say? No? Yeah I didn't think so.

So the real question is, why continue? From the outside this thread seems like a monumental waste of time. From the looks of it, it is argument for the sake of argument.

I can go to a playground and watch two groups of children call the other group stupid, and it would probably be more entertaining than watching adults battle over something that will never be sufficiently proven to the opposition.

Seems silly to me..... and before any of you start, no the fate of my eternal soul is not funny, and I'm not poking at science either... just saying that it is time to stop the insanity.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
and what I mean by that is it's not evolving species to breath in an athmosphere that isn't here, yet there is no thought or pattern behind it.


I'm going to let you work out why that is.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by uva3021
 


What I mean is that we never hear from doctors that a species had an attempted birth but failed because it appears to need another athmosphere. It's probably not the best example but my point is that evolution CANT be random like its said to be which opens up a plehtora of other problems.

Species are not evolving with one eye, or more than two eyes, in groups anyhow as though to start a new species. I can't argue that there is obviously random things that must happen but at the same time there are certain things that are not allowed to happen. There is to much control here for there NOT to be some intelligence behind it.

Not to say there is a god watching over every evolution change, but possibly that someone is responsible for the genetic programming that allows evolution to work in the first place.

We also have species dying faster than new ones are evolving, do you consider this to be normal?



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 




tooth:
What I mean is that we never hear from doctors that a species had an attempted birth but failed because it appears to need another athmosphere.


You sir, just blew my mind!!!! Why you ask? Because I thought you had reached the bottom level of ridiculous / ignorant claims and you just somehow went lower. I didn't see that one coming.....props to you for continuously surprising us



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Connector
 





You sir, just blew my mind!!!! Why you ask? Because I thought you had reached the bottom level of ridiculous / ignorant claims and you just somehow went lower. I didn't see that one coming.....props to you for continuously surprising us
It's obvious by your remark that you don't believe that evolution is random either. If my random idea blew your mind, and you have never heard of these odd things happening, then I suggest it's time you open your eyes because evolution can't be random.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Connector
 





You sir, just blew my mind!!!! Why you ask? Because I thought you had reached the bottom level of ridiculous / ignorant claims and you just somehow went lower. I didn't see that one coming.....props to you for continuously surprising us
It's obvious by your remark that you don't believe that evolution is random either. If my random idea blew your mind, and you have never heard of these odd things happening, then I suggest it's time you open your eyes because evolution can't be random.

Ignoring you completely misread the answer you were given your view on 'random' is again wrong.

The variation of DNA could be looked at as providing a bag of different coloured sweets. That is the random part. You selecting all the red sweets from that bag should be how you view the environment selecting which is not random at all.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
So your whole argument against evolution is because embryos don't breathe in arsenic?



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Connector
 





You sir, just blew my mind!!!! Why you ask? Because I thought you had reached the bottom level of ridiculous / ignorant claims and you just somehow went lower. I didn't see that one coming.....props to you for continuously surprising us
It's obvious by your remark that you don't believe that evolution is random either. If my random idea blew your mind, and you have never heard of these odd things happening, then I suggest it's time you open your eyes because evolution can't be random.



This was just addressed HERE ...and it really can't be explained any simpler.
Yet again you dredge on like you still have no idea of the basics.
Intellectual dishonesty at it's worst.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Ignoring you completely misread the answer you were given your view on 'random' is again wrong.

The variation of DNA could be looked at as providing a bag of different coloured sweets. That is the random part. You selecting all the red sweets from that bag should be how you view the environment selecting which is not random at all.
So limitation of selection, who determines the limitation in choices?



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by uva3021
 





reply to post by itsthetooth

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So your whole argument against evolution is because embryos don't breathe in arsenic?
It's more like something is making a decistion to no allow this random possibility from happening. So its not random at all. There appears to be some decision making in this process somewhere.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 





This was just addressed HERE ...and it really can't be explained any simpler.
Yet again you dredge on like you still have no idea of the basics.
Intellectual dishonesty at it's worst
Thanks for pointing that out, I got it this time for some reason.

So now what your saying is that mutations just never happen to things like how many eyes we have, how many noses we have, how many mouths we have, and what atmosphere we breath, and so on.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish
 





This was just addressed HERE ...and it really can't be explained any simpler.
Yet again you dredge on like you still have no idea of the basics.
Intellectual dishonesty at it's worst
Thanks for pointing that out, I got it this time for some reason.

So now what your saying is that mutations just never happen to things like how many eyes we have, how many noses we have, how many mouths we have, and what atmosphere we breath, and so on.


Really





posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

Atmospheric conditions aren't the products of mutations to nucleotides. I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion

Body plans are the result of natural selection. Organisms change in spite of natural selection, and obviously selection for a consistent body plan was selected for. This was worked out billions of years ago. We descended from organisms with 2 arms, 2 legs, head on top of neck, etc..., therefore we carry the same features. These are your HOX genes. Read about it and you will understand the genetics behind body plans.
edit on 13-7-2012 by uva3021 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


There are a number of reasons why we don't see such drastic changes. First, what you are asking about ae parts of complex systems. They are governed by just more than one or two genes. In humans there are on average 175 mutations per generation. So not only would a decent amount of these 175 mutations need to be mutating genes that govern these systems over a large span of time but they would also have to do it in such a way that didn't outright kill the organism.

Let's take your question about the atmosphere as an example. There are a ridiculous amount of genes that govern the development of the respiratory system. In order for a human (as an example) to go from breathing oxygen to something like arsenic would require a major overhaul of this system. To have this change occur you there would need to be thousands, if not millions, of very specific mutations that occur over many generations. However, you must remember that you're dealing with a very complex system and even the slightest change could cause disaster. So the reason we're not seeing children with the ability to breathe arsenic is because it just never gets to that point. For all we know there could be children born that were at the start of a path to an eventual humanoid organism that could breathe in a different atmosphere but because of the ridiculous number of mutations required they simply manifest these beginning steps as underdeveloped lungs and are stillborn.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

I suppose a situation could arrive where there was selection pressure for ears to be placed lower on the head, and inevitably lower until it terminates by way of feet. If this selection pressure lasted for the next billion years, yes then an organism who evolved from an ancient human could interpret sound by laying with their feet up.

A good analogue of a "drastic" change of ear position is the homologue between the ear bones of mammals and the jaw bones of other tetrapods.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by uva3021
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

I suppose a situation could arrive where there was selection pressure for ears to be placed lower on the head, and inevitably lower until it terminates by way of feet. If this selection pressure lasted for the next billion years, yes then an organism who evolved from an ancient human could interpret sound by laying with their feet up.

A good analogue of a "drastic" change of ear position is the homologue between the ear bones of mammals and the jaw bones of other tetrapods.


Zoom........right over some peoples heads. Don't expect a coherent or proper reply....after all, there should be arsenic breather's on earth if tooth's evolutionary understanding is correct, even though our atmosphere contains mostly nitrogen and oxygen.

This thread is alot of this.......







and it makes me LOL.



edit on 13-7-2012 by Connector because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 





Really
Your deduction made no sense either, thats why I was saying that.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by uva3021
 





Atmospheric conditions aren't the products of mutations to nucleotides. I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion
Maybe that wasn't the best example, however it still makes me wonder.

Lets try this one, what is preventing us from seeing a species with more than two eyes? More than one nose, more than one mouth etc... Why do we have these patterns that seem to go untouched by mutations?




top topics



 
31
<< 458  459  460    462  463  464 >>

log in

join