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: 474
31
<< 471  472  473    475  476  477 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Or he simply found a more convenient way because cars weren't around for most of the time crows existed

And PLEASE stop with that target food nonsense, it's a bit silly of you to expect us to deal with a MADE UP WORD that has no bearing in reality
Why would I stop with it. I believe everything is supposed to have something to eat. I have no idea how you think you got your menu, but everything I have tells me how.

You will never convince me that species aren't supposed to have something to eat. It's common sense that everything needs to eat, and not steal others food either, as that would cause conflict. Target food is real, and if you believe in the possibility that things are suppose to be in a balance, then there is all the more reason it makes sense.

Believing that we are just supposed to eat what ever, or even eat the food that is intended for another species is just bat crazy.
edit on 23-7-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


But all species HAVE something to eat...it just doesn't fit your uneducated and uninformed opinion


Again: Your entire argument is based on a MADE UP word that has no basis in reality!!



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





But all species HAVE something to eat...it just doesn't fit your uneducated and uninformed opinion

Again: Your entire argument is based on a MADE UP word that has no basis in reality!!
No all species DONT have something to eat which is why we are in the 6th largest extinction right now. Of course all we see is what does have food to eat, simply because they are still alive, again all that means is they are eating something, and doesn't prove they are eating what they are supposed to.

Extinctions on mass levels like the one we are in now, prove that things are out of balance and that species are venturing off their menu. To assume dying because of not having something to eat, or that venturing over to someone elses menu is normal, is just bat crazy.
edit on 23-7-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





But all species HAVE something to eat...it just doesn't fit your uneducated and uninformed opinion

Again: Your entire argument is based on a MADE UP word that has no basis in reality!!
No all species DONT have something to eat which is why we are in the 6th largest extinction right now. Of course all we see is what does have food to eat, simply because they are still alive, again all that means is they are eating something, and doesn't prove they are eating what they are supposed to.

Extinctions on mass levels like the one we are in now, prove that things are out of balance and that species are venturing off their menu. To assume dying because of not having something to eat, or that venturing over to someone elses menu is normal, is just bat crazy.
edit on 23-7-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)


Species die out because of...wait for it...waaaaaaait for it....EVOLUTION!!! The environment changes, and while some species can adapt, sometimes the environment changes too quickly for them to adapt....because evolution often takes a very long time.

The Southern Pacific once had a beautiful bird that had almost no natural predators...the Dodo. Along comes us humans, and suddenly that Dodo was faced with a change in the environment...a new predator, us. And since we appeared so suddenly he didn't have time to evolve any sort of defence, so it died.

On other islands, rats suddenly showed up and completely decimated the bird population.

There's THOUSANDS of such example.

Either you adapt to the changing environment, or you die out. It's as simple as that. But fact is, anything alive today HAS food. Maybe that food source is dying out slowly because of a changing environment, but it obviously didn't happen just yet...because if there was no food, no more generations would survive. So again, everything alive today has food.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Species die out because of...wait for it...waaaaaaait for it....EVOLUTION!!! The environment changes, and while some species can adapt, sometimes the environment changes too quickly for them to adapt....because evolution often takes a very long time
So the mysteries of evolution deepen. Now, your trying to tell me that not only is evolution a creator of new species, but that evoltuion has also claim the role of death for certain species. The same thing that creates new life, also predicts when that species, and how that species is supposed to die. However when it comes to eating, evoltuion plays not role in that aside from the idea that when a species has nothing to eat, it dies all at the idea of evolution.

Thats got to be the biggest crock I have ever heard. Your fantasy of evolution has way more loopholes in it than any religion I have ever heard of, and requires a hell of a lot more faith as well.

Next youll be telling me that evolution determines who finds work and who doesn't, all in an elaborate plan to thin the herd.






The Southern Pacific once had a beautiful bird that had almost no natural predators...the Dodo. Along comes us humans, and suddenly that Dodo was faced with a change in the environment...a new predator, us. And since we appeared so suddenly he didn't have time to evolve any sort of defence, so it died.
So you can learn one of two things from a Dodo, either man was not supposed to be on the same planet with him, or we were supposed to kill him.

Lets use a little common sense here, the role of creation no matter what your belief is, evolution or creation, is that life is started, life lives and grows and produces new ongoing life. While natural death is normal, there is nothing that proves an early death of a species to be natural, its just assumed that it can be.

It's a contradiction in the role of creation be that evolution or creation. You can claim that those that die at the need of another species could explain that, but there is no proof of that. There is however proof on the contrary. To create means to create, not kill.




On other islands, rats suddenly showed up and completely decimated the bird population.
Just because rats grew in population to decimate something only proves that they found an easier food source, which has nothing to do with proving or disproving target food. It could be that the rats original food source went extinct, and birds we the next abundant source for them. Your confusing the fact of a species changing its menu with what it was intended to eat in the first place. Some species are smart enough to look for new food, and if they want to survive they will. On the other hand some other species are just not as smart. It's all the domino effect of other things going extinct.




There's THOUSANDS of such example.

Either you adapt to the changing environment, or you die out. It's as simple as that. But fact is, anything alive today HAS food. Maybe that food source is dying out slowly because of a changing environment, but it obviously didn't happen just yet...because if there was no food, no more generations would survive. So again, everything alive today has food.
Of course thats how it is, otherwise you die. This is not proof that things are supposed to be that way. Of course everything alive today has food, how else would they survive if they didn't? I'm talking about all the species that died out in the 1st, 2nd,3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th extinctions.

And BTW there are species dying out right now as we speak. So that precious time that evolution spent in making all these new species through the 1st to 6th extinctions are gone. The kicker is that no new species are being made. We have never observed a species that is new to this planet that I'm aware of. There might be some bacteria and viruses but thats it.
So do the math.


Scientists have estimated that over the course of Earth's history, anywhere between 1 and 4 billion species have existed on this planet. Be it through disease, genetic obsolescence, over-predation or any number of other factors, the overwhelming majority of these species are now extinct. Of these billions of species, roughly 50 million still survive into the modern era. While these numbers are certainly extreme at first glance, it serves as proof that extinction, while a sad occurrence, is a part of life for all living things
Extinctions

Most scientists accept this as a natural turn of events, but its not normal. You could argue from the point of creation that who ever or what ever, loves life without a question. You can even agree the same point from evolution. You might not say that evolution h



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


evoltuion has a love for life, but looking at how much life it supposedly makes, how could you deny that statement.

So when you do the math, you see that while man is growing and progressing, mass extinctions of mass species goes on.

In short, life is dying, and that means something is wrong. We should be able to see just as many new species emerge as they go extinct, and that is not the case, so life is shrinking.

Either way you slice it, your wrong, life is not making new species, only the hard core survivors are staying, and the rest is dying out.
edit on 23-7-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





life is not making new species, only the hard core survivors are staying, and the rest is dying out.


So.. You're saying that new species are not evolving? That we have what we have, and losing some day by day? haha

If that were the case, we would have an inventory of every species that inhabits the earth.... Which we don't, considering the fact that we discover new species quite often. There is no way of telling if life is decaying or growing, because it is always in a constant state of species dying out and new ones evolving.
edit on 23-7-2012 by Tony4211 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish
 





Oh man.... I forgot about that one, thanks! ☆
That raven is clearly just having fun sledding.

These New Caledonian crows are being observed using a twig like skewer to spear beetle larvae for a yummy target food treat.
If the larva were a target food, he would have had a naturaly equipped way of getting to them, other then by devising the stick method.

This is obviously a case of extinction. He's not automatically equipped to eat them from their homes, therfore its not natual.

Other species that use tools that are NOT automatically connected to their bodys, is a good sign of redundant adaptation, probably from extinctions.

LOL! your fracken hilarious do you actually believe this crap.
Why don't you try making stuff up in the Grey Area forums, you may get some bites with your ignorance there.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   
“I have a question for the pro evolutionist. I think that mathematically speaking, the population of the earth would be far greater than 7 billion if man has been here reproducing as long as the theory of evolution claims we have. Can someone validate/refute this mathematically?”
micmerci

Malthus influenced Darwin. The pressures of population growth, rather then being an argument against evolution actually contribute to it.

geography.about.com...



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 11:50 PM
link   

I'm sure evolutionists will concot a theory about where these new genes came from. What they will say is that the species that used to share them, have all gone extinct


That's like asking where more atoms come from.. It's a stupid argument you're making. And there is these things called gene duplication, and horizontal gene transfer.. In fact bacteria and other things inside us contribute to this. DNA errors alone through reproduction guarantees evolution as a fact. It just takes intentional ignorance to pretend it's not a fact. It's like talking to flat Earther's who will label anything and everything as a conspiracy. And well, that's is essentially the game. And you know you are playing that game. But the funny part is, you actually think people don't realize that :/ And my posts btw, actually prove evolutionary theory on an academic level. You however are stuck with non academic and dogmatic arguments that have no intellectual value what-so-ever.

And no, there is no such group called the "evolutionists", it's only a dogmatic term btw.. And lastly, no, science does not state that all that had shared genes have gone extinct. Seriously, the green sea slug is again another good little example here.

edit on 23-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by wittgenstein
“I have a question for the pro evolutionist. I think that mathematically speaking, the population of the earth would be far greater than 7 billion if man has been here reproducing as long as the theory of evolution claims we have. Can someone validate/refute this mathematically?”
micmerci

Malthus influenced Darwin. The pressures of population growth, rather then being an argument against evolution actually contribute to it.

geography.about.com...
I know this is going to fall on deaf ears but I will try anyway.

This is not a thread where the 'Pro evolutionist' is meant to prove anything. It is about people that say evolution is false explaining the diversity we see around us today without refering to evolution.

So far no one has attempted is partly because of an infection of this thread by a backward racist trying to prove whites are superior.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 06:09 AM
link   
I understand the value of keeping the thread on topic. However, I was answering a direct question.
Are we ( pro-evolutionists) not allowed to counter an anti-evolutionist's argument?
The idea that a racist creationist derailed the purpose of this thread is interesting. Does he believe that whites were created separately from all other races? Does he not believe in Adam and Eve? Of course racist-creationism has a long history, but it would be interesting to see how he can reconcile racism with creationism. Similarly, it would be interesting to see how an anti-Semitic Christian ( that also has a long history) can reconcile his antisemitism with worshiping a Rabbi.
To clear up any misunderstandings*, the above was my first post in this thread and I used Malthus because his point was that population increases faster then food availability. Darwin used that idea to show that competition increases and therefore facilitates evolution. I am not advocating en.wikipedia.org... and neither did Darwin.

* I am not saying that you misunderstand my position. I am only saying that your post was unclear and can appear to be saying that my argument is racist.
edit on 24-7-2012 by wittgenstein because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Tony4211
 





So.. You're saying that new species are not evolving? That we have what we have, and losing some day by day? haha

If that were the case, we would have an inventory of every species that inhabits the earth.... Which we don't, considering the fact that we discover new species quite often. There is no way of telling if life is decaying or growing, because it is always in a constant state of species dying out and new ones evolving.
They might find species that are new to OUR inventory but not new to existing.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 


I'll tell you where the ignorance is, humans have a blood type that isn't even indigenous to this planet. Can someone please explain to me how we emerged with such a blood type. If you want to believe we evolved slowly, which I'm willing to pretend for the moment, how did this odd blood type come into play. No other species that we know of has this rare blood type either.

In addition to this we have DNA sections that also don't match anything else on earth, now how did this happen?

I can tell you how they both happened, we aren't from here.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   
I am no christian, but I grew in a christian environment. My grandfather was a diehard Baptist preacher who didn't believe in evolution at all. I on the other hand believed in evolution. We had some very big debates on the subject and both of our views shifted.Here was our final theory to combine our views
God created everything, when he created he used evolution as his tools, A nudge here he made fish, Another nudge he created animals, mess with the climate some, nudge some animals into more directions and you get the start of the early men. Give men hundreds of thousands of years to develop then God gives them the knowledge that they were created and explained it in a way that man could understand. Wrong or right it at least kept it from being a huge issue between my grandfather and I.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by TheJackelantern
 





That's like asking where more atoms come from.. It's a stupid argument you're making. And there is these things called gene duplication, and horizontal gene transfer.. In fact bacteria and other things inside us contribute to this. DNA errors alone through reproduction guarantees evolution as a fact. It just takes intentional ignorance to pretend it's not a fact. It's like talking to flat Earther's who will label anything and everything as a conspiracy. And well, that's is essentially the game. And you know you are playing that game. But the funny part is, you actually think people don't realize that :/ And my posts btw, actually prove evolutionary theory on an academic level. You however are stuck with non academic and dogmatic arguments that have no intellectual value what-so-ever.
I think there is a reason why its called gene duplication, while your stumbling for something more along the lines of gene creation.




And no, there is no such group called the "evolutionists", it's only a dogmatic term btw.. And lastly, no, science does not state that all that had shared genes have gone extinct. Seriously, the green sea slug is again another good little example here.
Well I did use evolutionism for a while but apparently that one had been used allready. Ok, so does that mean we are all an extension of the slug?



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   


I'll tell you where the ignorance is, humans have a blood type that isn't even indigenous to this planet. Can someone please explain to me how we emerged with such a blood type. If you want to believe we evolved slowly, which I'm willing to pretend for the moment, how did this odd blood type come into play. No other species that we know of has this rare blood type either.

In addition to this we have DNA sections that also don't match anything else on earth, now how did this happen?

I can tell you how they both happened, we aren't from here.


This is wrong on so many levels that it's literally laughable.. How about you provide a scientific peer reviewed journal backing up your claims.. What? No? You have no education on the subject to know your argument is utterly nonsense? Oh wait, you already knew that
Nothing like internet trolling the fora with intentional ignorance.

And regarding the supposed black and white argument.. Well kids, facts and actual truth are biased..Did you expect them to swing both ways as if they would be bi-sexual in nature? Umm no, sorry... This little game is nothing more than an appeal to emotion. And such arguments are only made by someone whom has no argument on any sort of academic or intellectual level on this subject here.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





I know this is going to fall on deaf ears but I will try anyway.

This is not a thread where the 'Pro evolutionist' is meant to prove anything. It is about people that say evolution is false explaining the diversity we see around us today without refering to evolution.

So far no one has attempted is partly because of an infection of this thread by a backward racist trying to prove whites are superior.
Look at how much you lie Colin. If any of this nonesense were true I would have been removed off this thread long ago. I never claimed to be racist, thats just an assumption you made, which you do a lot of BTW. I also never claimed that whites were superior either, its just yet another assumption made by you. But I can totally understand your direction, as you are not able to prove diversity while I'm proving that we aren't even from here.
So you have to resort to desperate measures and attacking me as an aleged racist is just one. You started out by first profiling me, then when that wouldn't work, you tried not accepting my explanations, when that didn't work you tried calling me racist. Whats next, will you lable me the unibomber?



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by TheJackelantern
 





This is wrong on so many levels that it's literally laughable.. How about you provide a scientific peer reviewed journal backing up your claims.. What? No? You have no education on the subject to know your argument is utterly nonsense? Oh wait, you already knew that Nothing like internet trolling the fora with intentional ignorance.
Thank you for your educated answers.

Unfortuntaly I must have missed the answers.

I'm still at a loss on how in the world we could have evolved with a new blood type. I'm open to hogwash you can dish out about this and sit with both ears poised. The bottom line is there is no way in hell that somone evolved into a new blood type. And if it were true, why is it that we are the only ones that have this one blood type while the others are shared?

Back on the odd DNA, you must have side steped the question, but I'm also at a loss on how we emerged with this new DNA that also doesn't seem to fit anything else here on earth. As I recall it was also a lot of DNA as well. So what is it?

This all goes back into realizing that it is possible we have disabled powers, just like it says in the bible. In addition to this we have vestigal organs that could back up the claims.
Also backing up that claim is DR Michael Persinger. Claiming to have recently found that humans are proven to have telepathy.
Also backing up this claim is the debunked 10% myth. It's apparen't from looking this over closely that we know little to nothing about the brain, yet they also claim they are sure its a myth.

Also backing up this claim is Savants. Savants that don't carry the disability but show to have a gift is proof that the brain can work much better.

There is just a tad to much evidence that points in the same direction, it looks like there is much more to the picture then we realize.
edit on 24-7-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   

I think there is a reason why its called gene duplication, while your stumbling for something more along the lines of gene creation.





Gene duplication makes new genes..Helloooo!? .. Also for gene creation, look up electromagnetism and what atoms are. Learn the differences between atoms, and then learn what chemical reactions are. It's a no duh how genes would have to be made irregardless if you think something made them through intelligence, or through natural processes. So your argument is a pretty hallow one at best. But for giggles, Genes are made by DNA and of DNA: 1920s, experiments showed that a harmless strain of bacteria can become infectious when mixed with a virulent strain of bacteria that had been killed. The dead bacteria apparently provide some chemical that "transforms" the harmless bacteria to infectious ones. This so-called "transforming principle" appeared to be a gene. A team of scientists led by Oswald Avery at the Rockefeller Institute, rigorously followed up on these experiments in the 1940's. They found that a pure extract of the "transforming principle" was unaffected by treatment with protein-digesting enzymes but was destroyed by a DNA-digesting enzyme. This showed that the transforming principle is DNA — and, by extension, a gene is made of DNA





Avery, MacLeod, and McCarty published their discovery that the transforming principle was DNA in 1944 in the Journal of Experimental Medicine. Their conclusions in this paper were cautious, and they presented several interpretations of their results. The phenomenon of transformation, Avery wrote, "has been interpreted from a genetic point of view. The inducing substance has been likened to a gene, and the capsular antigen which is produced in response to it has been regarded as a gene product."


And if you don't know what a gene product is, here ya go:



Gene product: The RNA or protein that results from the expression of a gene. The amount of gene product is a measure of the degree of gene activity.




Well I did use evolutionism for a while but apparently that one had been used allready. Ok, so does that mean we are all an extension of the slug?


That doesn't exist either.. You may as well attach ism to literally everything to the point where it becomes meaningless. Evolution is a scientific theory based on an empirical system. They same system that facts and actual truth are based on. So if you want to start calling factism as some sort of religion, then feel free to proceed and do so.. And let's face it here, when people often put an ism onto to something like this, it's usually used as a form of intended dogma.

edit on 24-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)







 
31
<< 471  472  473    475  476  477 >>

log in

join