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: 481
31
<< 478  479  480    482  483  484 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   


And your once again overlooking the redundant sections that are fully backed up.


Give it up buddy your the only one ignoring facts that are fully backed up.

Your so far off topic it's not even funny... go back to wonderland Alice.




posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Whats so odd about it, your saying the exact same thing.

Here you believe in a religion that is unseen, as evolution has never been witnessed by the human eye, at least macroevolution hasn't. No one has been able to trace the force that employs speciation. No one has been able to identify the force that employs chance or choice.

In fact the only part of evolution that has been identified is some parts of specieation, which is a far cry from proving man was ever related to apes.



So just think about this for a minute. How is it possible that according to findings in our mtDNA, our species never dipped below a population of tens of thousands, yet we can't find one single bone that proves we had a common ancestor with apes or that we ever had a direct line of descent either. Depending on if you believe in unilatteral or bilatteral descent. Either way we have no proof. New fossils produced always seem to perk the interest of evolutionsists, and assumptions are always made that they fit in with our line of descent, however there is nothing that disproves the fact that they could just simply be another species.

This assumption is based on once again........wait for it...........Assumed relation. The mere fact they are simular, must mean we are related, and they are wrong. 70% of my DNA matches that of a rat, but I don't think we are related.

Evolution believes that DNA can just magically change on its own to make new species. While science believes the opposite, they believe that DNA is stable enough that it can be used for paternity, and forensics. Now it can't possibly be both. What if a paternity test had been done just after your DNA magically changed on its own, it would say your not related. What if a crime lab tested DNA just after it changed, the bad guy would get away.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Also in case you missed it the first time, supernatural elements are not explainable by current scientific measures...


su·per·nat·u·raladjective /ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/ 


1.(of a manifestation or event) Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature
- a supernatural being


2.Unnaturally or extraordinarily great
- a woman of supernatural beauty


noun /ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/ 
supernaturals, plural

1.Manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin, such as ghosts


Supernatural

I guess if you want to just keep making an ass out of yourself thats fine.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





Here you believe in a religion that is unseen, as evolution has never been witnessed by the human eye, at least macroevolution hasn't.


A scientific theory isn't "religion" because it's backed up by OBJECTIVE evidence. Your "never been witnessed" comment is beyond dumb, but I didn't expect any different: LINK

As always you're wrong, but I know you're simply going to ignore this to preserve that silly litte mini-religion of yours.




No one has been able to trace the force that employs speciation. No one has been able to identify the force that employs chance or choice.


If that were true we couldn't actively apply the theory in modern medicine...yet we are doing just that. Again...as seemingly always...you are wrong





In fact the only part of evolution that has been identified is some parts of specieation, which is a far cry from proving man was ever related to apes.


That's why we have a TON more objective evidence to back it up. You know, the evidence you love to ignore so much: LINK

So until now you're wrong 3 out of 3 times...well done tooth





So just think about this for a minute. How is it possible that according to findings in our mtDNA, our species never dipped below a population of tens of thousands, yet we can't find one single bone that proves we had a common ancestor with apes or that we ever had a direct line of descent either.


Not a single bone, huh?


4 out of 4 wrong tooth...but keep going





Depending on if you believe in unilatteral or bilatteral descent. Either way we have no proof. New fossils produced always seem to perk the interest of evolutionsists, and assumptions are always made that they fit in with our line of descent, however there is nothing that disproves the fact that they could just simply be another species.


Of course they are a different species...just like the being evolving from us over the next 2m years will be a different species than humans today.




This assumption is based on once again........wait for it...........Assumed relation. The mere fact they are simular, must mean we are related, and they are wrong. 70% of my DNA matches that of a rat, but I don't think we are related.


I hate to break this to you, but you are in fact related to a rat. We can't only trace DNA, but also fossils to confirm that





Evolution believes that DNA can just magically change on its own to make new species. While science believes the opposite, they believe that DNA is stable enough that it can be used for paternity, and forensics. Now it can't possibly be both. What if a paternity test had been done just after your DNA magically changed on its own, it would say your not related. What if a crime lab tested DNA just after it changed, the bad guy would get away.


I suggest you read up on genetics, because you don't seem to know what you're talking about


LINK 1
DNA agrees with evolution

I know posting all these informative links proving you wrong is a pointless exercise if the goal was to convince you to accept reality...but that's not my goal anymore. I'm only posting this for other readers so they can see that every single statement you made in your post was factually incorrect.

If they want to believe in magic and made up stuff...fine. But at least this way they have a choice and can chose to be rational and logical.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Also in case you missed it the first time, supernatural elements are not explainable by current scientific measures...


su·per·nat·u·raladjective /ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/ 


1.(of a manifestation or event) Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature
- a supernatural being


2.Unnaturally or extraordinarily great
- a woman of supernatural beauty


noun /ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/ 
supernaturals, plural

1.Manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin, such as ghosts


Supernatural

I guess if you want to just keep making an ass out of yourself thats fine.


And neither is "magic". The only difference is that you pretend the "supernatural" is real while you laugh at "magic". They both aren't proven or backed up by objective evidence


Oh, and just so you know, "magic" is a SYNONYM for "supernatural": LINK

So yeah, continue believing in fairy tales, but please don't try to dumb the rest of us down with your drivel...



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 





Give it up buddy your the only one ignoring facts that are fully backed up.

Your so far off topic it's not even funny... go back to wonderland Alice.
The only thing that claims to ever be proven by evolution is that change does occur.

Since its never been identified, its never been proven that evolution was to blame for any changes, its just assumed. Of course changes occur, why do you think ADHD can be created from someone being exposed to lead, its going to create a change, but its not evolution, however it would be viewed as evolution simply because it is a change.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish
 





Give it up buddy your the only one ignoring facts that are fully backed up.

Your so far off topic it's not even funny... go back to wonderland Alice.
The only thing that claims to ever be proven by evolution is that change does occur.

Since its never been identified, its never been proven that evolution was to blame for any changes, its just assumed. Of course changes occur, why do you think ADHD can be created from someone being exposed to lead, its going to create a change, but its not evolution, however it would be viewed as evolution simply because it is a change.



Wrong...
Try sticking to the truth.
Like I said, if you think debunking evolution is your job...YOUR FIRED!
Now go do some real research so you can quit pretending you know anything about evolution.
I have seen much better arguments on creationist blogs, although they are still fallacies, at least they have better spin, are more creative and entertaining then the rubbish you come up with.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   


Since its never been identified, its never been proven that evolution was to blame for any changes, its just assumed. Of course changes occur, why do you think ADHD can be created from someone being exposed to lead, its going to create a change, but its not evolution, however it would be viewed as evolution simply because it is a change.
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


We don't "assume" that evolution is to "blame" for changes. Changes were observed occuring, the term evolution was coined to describe those observations. Non-hereditary changes do no apply to evolution. If you irradiate yourself and get skin cancer, that will not make your children more likely to have cancer.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by mastermindkar



Since its never been identified, its never been proven that evolution was to blame for any changes, its just assumed. Of course changes occur, why do you think ADHD can be created from someone being exposed to lead, its going to create a change, but its not evolution, however it would be viewed as evolution simply because it is a change.
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


We don't "assume" that evolution is to "blame" for changes. Changes were observed occuring, the term evolution was coined to describe those observations. Non-hereditary changes do no apply to evolution. If you irradiate yourself and get skin cancer, that will not make your children more likely to have cancer.


Actually things like bacteria, radiation, ect cause errors and do effect evolution.. There is never a never a case where there aren't errors during reproduction. So his problem fails just on the process of organism replicating and reproducing alone.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 





Wrong...
Try sticking to the truth.
Like I said, if you think debunking evolution is your job...YOUR FIRED!
Now go do some real research so you can quit pretending you know anything about evolution.
I have seen much better arguments on creationist blogs, although they are still fallacies, at least they have better spin, are more creative and entertaining then the rubbish you come up with.
All the while I still never saw you come up with any target food for humans, and never found you coming up with a species that man has a natural relationship with.

But I'm not creative, come on.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by mastermindkar
 





We don't "assume" that evolution is to "blame" for changes. Changes were observed occuring, the term evolution was coined to describe those observations. Non-hereditary changes do no apply to evolution. If you irradiate yourself and get skin cancer, that will not make your children more likely to have cancer.
True, but if it did, you would call it evolution.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Can you prove evolution wrong


Evolution cannot be falsified. Scientifically that makes it questionable science...



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by mastermindkar
 





We don't "assume" that evolution is to "blame" for changes. Changes were observed occuring, the term evolution was coined to describe those observations. Non-hereditary changes do no apply to evolution. If you irradiate yourself and get skin cancer, that will not make your children more likely to have cancer.
True, but if it did, you would call it evolution.


No...as he explained, he wouldn't call that evolution because your children would be more likely to get skin cancer. Irradiating yourself isn't evolution


Amazing how after all those pages you STILL don't even understand what the theory is...



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by TheJackelantern
 





Actually things like bacteria, radiation, ect cause errors and do effect evolution.. There is never a never a case where there aren't errors during reproduction. So his problem fails just on the process of organism replicating and reproducing alone.
But only if you would say that any untraced changes must be because of evolution.

I argued this a while back regarding ADHD.

Scientists have just learned that ADHD does in fact make changes to our DNA. They have also learned that what causes this is the introduction of lead into ones system.

Now lead can also come from smoking cigarettes, and they are also claiming that this change to our DNA can also be hereditary.

Before they knew that ADHD was making changes to our DNA, they would have had to of viewed this as just a change, in other words, evolution. When in fact it was ADHD the whole time.

I believe all changes happen for a reason, just like ADHD, and only the ones that we haven't identified are called evolution.
www.webmd.com...

www.naturalnews.com...

www.upi.com...

www.enhancingthefuture.co.uk...

So now on the last link you can see that adhd can change genes, how do you not know all this time that the changes we have been observing aren't from adhd?



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by TheJackelantern
 





Actually things like bacteria, radiation, ect cause errors and do effect evolution.. There is never a never a case where there aren't errors during reproduction. So his problem fails just on the process of organism replicating and reproducing alone.
But only if you would say that any untraced changes must be because of evolution.

I argued this a while back regarding ADHD.

Scientists have just learned that ADHD does in fact make changes to our DNA. They have also learned that what causes this is the introduction of lead into ones system.

Now lead can also come from smoking cigarettes, and they are also claiming that this change to our DNA can also be hereditary.

Before they knew that ADHD was making changes to our DNA, they would have had to of viewed this as just a change, in other words, evolution. When in fact it was ADHD the whole time.

I believe all changes happen for a reason, just like ADHD, and only the ones that we haven't identified are called evolution.
www.webmd.com...

www.naturalnews.com...

www.upi.com...

www.enhancingthefuture.co.uk...

So now on the last link you can see that adhd can change genes, how do you not know all this time that the changes we have been observing aren't from adhd?


And yet errors are not all associated with genetic disorders. And everyone has some level of ADHD.. Regardless, there are lots of beneficial mutations, and most of which have no harmful effect on us. You are trying to cherry pick and then trying to paint how errors magically translate to "bad"..You don't seem to understand anything being discussed here. I could point to you a child born with six fully functional digits on his hands and then tell you how that can translate to a beneficial mutation to which is genetic.. Hence, he probably could kick your butt in gaming, or type a lot faster than anyone else, or be a new rock star guitar player that could do a rift impossible by others whom don't have six digits. But hey, I will even give you the opportunity to look up that up.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish
 





Wrong...
Try sticking to the truth.
Like I said, if you think debunking evolution is your job...YOUR FIRED!
Now go do some real research so you can quit pretending you know anything about evolution.
I have seen much better arguments on creationist blogs, although they are still fallacies, at least they have better spin, are more creative and entertaining then the rubbish you come up with.
All the while I still never saw you come up with any target food for humans, and never found you coming up with a species that man has a natural relationship with.

But I'm not creative, come on.

Your intentionally being ignorant and obtuse... any amount of information that proves you wrong will be ignored in favor of your wonderland.


Any one can go back into this thread and read all the information that clearly proves without a doubt that your above post is a lie.

No need for you to reply cause everyone knows the answer, even if I go back quote those post you will simply deny, deny, deny, deny.



Get over it your busted, bankrupt... and any amount of credibility you may have had was destroyed by you hundreds of pages ago.

And no... your not as creative or as clever as you think.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



All the while I still never saw you come up with any target food for humans, and never found you coming up with a species that man has a natural relationship with.

Why do you keep asking other people for examples of target foods? We don't don't believe in target foods! Colin is not going to provide you examples of a concept you made up that he doesn't believe! You are supposed to be providing the evidence for your own notions.

You have examples of animals with natural relationships with man. I can't help it that you ignored the fact that many of those animals are equally dependent on other animals as well. What exactly would constitute evidence that we are "from here?" If we're not, what would you find on our home planet that proves we are actually from there? Target food? How would you prove that aliens didn't just transplant our target food there with us?



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 12:08 AM
link   
What is hilarious about the "target food" argument is that any food you find at target is from Earth..LMAO



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheJackelantern
What is hilarious about the "target food" argument is that any food you find at target is from Earth..LMAO

LMAO! Yeah... Target has a limited selection in my neck of the woods.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by flyingfish

Originally posted by TheJackelantern
What is hilarious about the "target food" argument is that any food you find at target is from Earth..LMAO

LMAO! Yeah... Target has a limited selection in my neck of the woods.


You should come to my Target. It's target food's section has Doritos! And you can't beat Doritos!!!




top topics



 
31
<< 478  479  480    482  483  484 >>

log in

join