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: 462
31
<< 459  460  461    463  464  465 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by uva3021
 





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.
So what your saying is that HOX genes are not privy to evolution. Yet that is a contradiction because we have species without two arms and legs. Birds have wings. I think the answers are a little bit more comlex than that.




posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


The truth is that mutations like those can occur. However, they are extremely rare. Also considering the number of mutations that go into these traits they are almost always fatal due to the mutations also affecting other vital processes. To demonstrate how rare these mutations are the most recent reference I can find to a three eyed child being born is in the May 5, 1897 issue of the New York Times.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 





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.
And you don't think that could happen in billions of years yet we somehow managed to evolve from slime to humans. It either happened, or it didn't and I'm betting it didn't.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by uva3021
 





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.
There is no way to prove evolution. DNA can't even prove it as it supposedly changes, and that is the problem. The only basis you have for proving relation is simular DNA, but that in itself isn't proof.

How do you accept it knowing full well that it may not be the avenue that got everything to where it is?



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Connector
 





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.
So your saying that the process of evolution is actually NOT random, and it does have a pattern?



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 





The truth is that mutations like those can occur. However, they are extremely rare. Also considering the number of mutations that go into these traits they are almost always fatal due to the mutations also affecting other vital processes. To demonstrate how rare these mutations are the most recent reference I can find to a three eyed child being born is in the May 5, 1897 issue of the New York Times.
Now see the problem here is that evolution can't exist on one child out of 29 million. You need a hell of a lot more than one to start a new species.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
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?


So, in other words, you were blowing smoke out your a$$ and got called on it, so now you change the goal posts.

This isn't a philosophical discussion, this a scientific debate. ANY idea or point you may make, MUST be backed up by reliable, creditable sources.

Why the fruckhk, can't you even understand that, let alone the basics of evolution? Are you that obtuse?

Nope this is......fun to tooth or tooth's.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Connector
 





So, in other words, you were blowing smoke out your a$$ and got called on it, so now you change the goal posts.
I think your blowing the smoke, after all evolution can make changes right? See what I mean about assuming man, you assumed yourself right into a new religion. It's not based on anything scientific. Evolution has NEVER been witnessed, its all assumed, just right up your ally. They should have named it Evosumption, as that is what all of you guys on here do, I have seen it myself. If there was a pill to fix that assumption problem, evolution would be history.




This isn't a philosophical discussion, this a scientific debate. ANY idea or point you may make, MUST be backed up by reliable, creditable sources.
And that works both ways but since you brought it up I'll point out again for the umteenth time that evolution is being quoted as a plurality of theories and hypotheses. And there isn't anything scientific about evolution, nothing has ever been witnessed. I have yet to see any documentation that even explains how it is that new species emerge, and they can't, because there is no proof.


Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses
www.talkorigins.org...


In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution".
But why would there ever be debates about evolution if it's been scientifically proven? It wouldn't, at least not enough to make a thread about it. You guys are always comparing evolution to the theory of gravity yet I don't see anyone on ATS posting threads about not believing in gravity. Or is it because gravity has been around longer than evolution LOL

You guys aren't serious.

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



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Connector
 





So, in other words, you were blowing smoke out your a$$ and got called on it, so now you change the goal posts.
I think your blowing the smoke, after all evolution can make changes right?




This isn't a philosophical discussion, this a scientific debate. ANY idea or point you may make, MUST be backed up by reliable, creditable sources.
And that works both ways but since you brought it up I'll point out again for the umteenth time that evolution is being quoted as a plurality of theories and hypotheses.


Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses
www.talkorigins.org...


In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution".
But why would there ever be debates about evolution if it's been scientifically proven? It wouldn't, at least not enough to make a thread about it. You guys are always comparing evolution to the theory of gravity yet I don't see anyone on ATS posting threads about not buying gravity. Or is it because gravity has been around longer than evolution LOL

You guys aren't serious.


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


complete moron /thread



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Connector
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




Yeah, it's pretty obvious Tooth is trolling the heck out of everyone here. Admittedly I fell victim as well. I have give him some credit for perseverance, though, because he's been at it a long time.

It started back in October of 2011, on page 35 and he's still going.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Connector
 





So, in other words, you were blowing smoke out your a$$ and got called on it, so now you change the goal posts.
I think your blowing the smoke, after all evolution can make changes right?




This isn't a philosophical discussion, this a scientific debate. ANY idea or point you may make, MUST be backed up by reliable, creditable sources.
And that works both ways but since you brought it up I'll point out again for the umteenth time that evolution is being quoted as a plurality of theories and hypotheses.


Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses
www.talkorigins.org...


In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution".
But why would there ever be debates about evolution if it's been scientifically proven? It wouldn't, at least not enough to make a thread about it. You guys are always comparing evolution to the theory of gravity yet I don't see anyone on ATS posting threads about not buying gravity. Or is it because gravity has been around longer than evolution LOL

You guys aren't serious.


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



complete moron /thread
One of the people from this thread offered that site, congrats, it tells the truth.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





Yeah, it's pretty obvious Tooth is trolling the heck out of everyone here. Admittedly I fell victim as well. I have give him some credit for perseverance, though, because he's been at it a long time.

It started back in October of 2011, on page 35 and he's still going.
The tooth will be heard.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

Evolution is a fact, that contains theories and hypothesis to explain the fact of evolution. It says verbatim in the definition you gave and keep referencing to.

The theory of orbiting body geodesics isn't an affront to anybody's anthropomorphized world view, so its not really a public concern. And its harder for the general public to comment on gravity because it involves too many concepts that are beyond high-school level education.

A three-eyed human is a perfect example of evolution. A freak mutation to a HOX region that somehow survived the gestation period, though obviously didn't survive much longer. Mutations and fixation rates were formulated and resolved by Fisher about 100 years ago.

HOX genes are a product of evolution. Why? Well if you've learned anything, its because HOX genes are a chain of nucleotides. Mutations to these regions can become fixed if there is a selective advantage (shorter limbs, longer ears, etc...), but for a freaky 3 headed monster, the likelihood that hundreds of mutations are concentrated to these regions is extremely rare, which is why such cases as two-headed or 3-eyed babies are 1 in 50 million, and they don't survive long enough to pass on the freak mutation. The rarity itself is proof of evolution, for such monsters have literally been born.

We carry the exact same "eyeless" gene as a fruit fly, or as any organism that has an "eyeless" gene. But this isn't proof of evolution?



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by uva3021
 
I said about 400 pages back that he's a troll, but recently I was exposed to Poe's Law so I returned a few weeks ago and he remained persistent. Fooled me lol, FML



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 03:08 AM
link   


Yeah, it's pretty obvious Tooth is trolling the heck out of everyone here. Admittedly I fell victim as well. I have give him some credit for perseverance, though, because he's been at it a long time.

It started back in October of 2011, on page 35 and he's still going.
The tooth will be heard. Yeah. But until Pinocchio starts being heard to:

1. Explain with evidence his claims.
2. Shows and demonstrates he has read the posts/links he dismisses without reason.
3. Responds to the answers to his endless trolling questions with more than fantasy
4. Stops being wilfully ignorant
5. Stops acting like a 10 - 12 year old child, (low end of the education scale of that group).

I suggest we stop allowing him to do so. Dismiss any posts that are contrary to the points above unless you think it would be amusing to respond to things like 'humans loosing wings or breathing ammonia.


The only reason to reply to this troll is for our entertainment. He is the forum Jester. We should treat him as such.

A jester, joker, jokester, FOOL, wit-cracker, or prankster was a person employed to tell jokes and provide general entertainment


I have been using him for my entertainment for many pages now and unless he changes that is all he is worth. I have been leading him by the nose for as long and he does not have the wit to understand that and still won’t after being told it.

Info to keep in mind. Pinocchio

Pinocchio is often a term used to describe an individual who is prone to telling lies, fabricating stories and exaggerating or creating tall tales for various reasons.
Absurdism

In absurdist philosophy, the Absurd arises out of the fundamental disharmony between the individual's search for meaning and the meaninglessness of the universe

Absurdist Fiction

Absurdist fiction is a genre of literature, most often employed in novels, plays or poems, that focuses on the experiences of characters in a situation where they cannot find any inherent purpose in life, most often represented by ultimately meaningless actions and events.


So If all the world is a stage and we are merely players, tooths role is definitely the court jester

HAVE FUN



edit on 14-7-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 





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.
And you don't think that could happen in billions of years yet we somehow managed to evolve from slime to humans. It either happened, or it didn't and I'm betting it didn't.



Of course it couldn't happen because everyone being born with a respiratory system geared towards breathing arsenic would DIE...because earth's atmosphere is different. So even if by some off chance one offspring had those traits through a mutation, it wouldn't be able to pass it on because it would simply die off.

And yeah, it's pretty clear tooth is trolling, no one can be that retarded and brainwashed

edit on 14-7-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 





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.
And you don't think that could happen in billions of years yet we somehow managed to evolve from slime to humans. It either happened, or it didn't and I'm betting it didn't.



Of course it couldn't happen because everyone being born with a respiratory system geared towards breathing arsenic would DIE...because earth's atmosphere is different. So even if by some off chance one offspring had those traits through a mutation, it wouldn't be able to pass it on because it would simply die off.

And yeah, it's pretty clear tooth is trolling, no one can be that retarded and brainwashed

edit on 14-7-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)
There would never be an embryo in the first place as the mother provides oxygen from conception.

All tooth has done here is exchange a cat giving birth to a rat.
edit on 14-7-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


Not the first time





posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by uva3021
 





Evolution is a fact, that contains theories and hypothesis to explain the fact of evolution. It says verbatim in the definition you gave and keep referencing to.
Thats not what I'm getting from that, it sounds more like its a fact that they are embracing a pluarity of theories and hypothesis.


the·o·ry/ˈTHēərē/Noun: 1.A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be...: "Darwin's theory of evolution"
2.A set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based: "a theory of education"; "music theory".



hy·poth·e·sis/hīˈpäTHəsis/Noun: 1.A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
2.A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.






The theory of orbiting body geodesics isn't an affront to anybody's anthropomorphized world view, so its not really a public concern. And its harder for the general public to comment on gravity because it involves too many concepts that are beyond high-school level education.
The problem in all of this that you keep overlooking is that none of these are witnessed, they are just theories and hypothesis. Gravity is a good example of what people on here like to use to compare to evolution. The problem is that evolution can be witnessed, well in part anyhow, and evolution can't except for that small part of speciation.

Speciation has been observed in a few species, at least it's noted that way in wiki. The decision makeing process to determine when speciation occurs is not clear. People on this thread have indicated to me many times over that when a species is no longer able with an original species, that its said to have speciated. My neighbor can't produce children, does that mean hes no longer human? I don't think so.




A three-eyed human is a perfect example of evolution. A freak mutation to a HOX region that somehow survived the gestation period, though obviously didn't survive much longer. Mutations and fixation rates were formulated and resolved by Fisher about 100 years ago.
I understand but there is still no excuse that would explain why those genes would be altered less than other genes unless again, there is some type of intelligence behind evoltuion.




HOX genes are a product of evolution. Why? Well if you've learned anything, its because HOX genes are a chain of nucleotides. Mutations to these regions can become fixed if there is a selective advantage (shorter limbs, longer ears, etc...), but for a freaky 3 headed monster, the likelihood that hundreds of mutations are concentrated to these regions is extremely rare, which is why such cases as two-headed or 3-eyed babies are 1 in 50 million, and they don't survive long enough to pass on the freak mutation. The rarity itself is proof of evolution, for such monsters have literally been born.
Assuming your correct, can you explain how a new race is started from just one freak creation?




We carry the exact same "eyeless" gene as a fruit fly, or as any organism that has an "eyeless" gene. But this isn't proof of evolution?
It's funny you explain that because from what I can tell, it was the ONLY example of what I'm seeing in evolution that explains why anyone would belive there is relation.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Of course it couldn't happen because everyone being born with a respiratory system geared towards breathing arsenic would DIE...because earth's atmosphere is different.
And I get that of course, but what I'm saying is why aren't we seeing these odd attempts happening with evolution if it were truly random?




So even if by some off chance one offspring had those traits through a mutation, it wouldn't be able to pass it on because it would simply die off.
These odd circumstances would be normal in a random evolution, why aren't they.




top topics



 
31
<< 459  460  461    463  464  465 >>

log in

join