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: 485
31
<< 482  483  484    486  487  488 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Thats awsome, to see that your learning, now just learn the difference between sci fi and supernatural and you will have it.


Both aren't real
And how did you come to this conclusion?

If you know something that science doesn't, maybe you need to let them know.


Because it's called scifi stands for science FICTION


And the "supernatural" obviously nonsense and just a gap filler for stuff we can't explain (yet). In ancient times they attributed diseases to the supernatural...or floods. But guess what, they were simply wrong and filling a gap in knowledge with MAGIC.

Basically the same thing you do to explain your bat# crazy ideas. Essentially, your entire reasoning is comparable to that of someone living in the middle ages




posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia
 


Here is my point, how can you know for sure, or better yet there is no way you can know for sure that any and all changes come from evolution. It is possible that these changes have a reason behind them, just like in the ADHD example.


AAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNDDDDDDDDD..............still no idea what so ever of what evolution means.

Changes do not come from evolution, any change can cause evolution.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia
 


OH silly me, and I guess ant eaters were named ant eaters for no specific reason. Ant eaters to also eat termites, but they too are part of the ant family,


No they're not...try doing at least SOME research before making idiotic statments like that.



To think that species are suppose to be born onto this planet with nothing to eat is just bat crazy.

So you don't agree that a species has to have something to eat in order to survive?


But to believe that an animal should only have a single item to eat is perfectly reasonable!!! The fact is that the lack of "target food" as you have almost described it (I say almost as any definition is likley to change) is actualy a strong argument for evolution. i.e. any animal that is able to take advantage of a variety of food sources is going to be more likley to survive long enough to pass on its genetic make up to its offspring.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


If your referring to evolution having facts, your demonstrably wrong. As I have proven over and over, evolution is listed as a hypothesis, and theory. There are very few facts known about evolution. What we do know is that anytime change is seen, if that be by a hurricane, or ADHD, its looked at as possible evolution.

After all change means evolution. I changed my underwear this morning, that must be evolution.



AAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNDDDDDDDDD..............still no idea what so ever of what evolution means.

Changes do not come from evolution, any change can cause evolution.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 


Just because people are incredulous and placed me in skunk works as a result doesn't automatically mean I'm wrong.


Nope, not automaticaly....just happens that you are.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by TheJackelantern
 


That isn't true at all. If they had the ability to identify what is causing the changes, then they would be able to quote what parts are responsible for evolution. Instead, they just see changes so claim that it must be due to evolution.



AAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNDDDDDDDDD..............still no idea what so ever of what evolution means.

Changes do not come from evolution, any change can cause evolution.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 


Just because more people are inclinded to believe in evolution over intervention doesn't prove it right. Look at how many people believe in religion, are they correct?


If all of the religious types believed exactly the same thing, maybe we'd have to look again, but they dont, even within specific religions (christianity as a non-specific but representative example) there are many sects that fail to agree to the point of murdering each other.
edit on 31-7-2012 by idmonster because: theres no such word as mudering



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by TheJackelantern
 



That isn't true at all. If they had the ability to identify what is causing the changes, then they would be able to quote what parts are responsible for evolution. Instead, they just see changes so claim that it must be due to evolution.

Ya but no one is coming out and claiming that electromagnetism is responsible for evolutionairy changes.

I know you didn't state that, I guoted it from a website.All I'm saying is that you agree any changes must be called evolution, and I'm saying that the changes that occur from ADHD your also saying must be evolution when they clearly aren't. So your wrong.

No there is something else going on like with ADHD changing DNA, and they just haven't identified that yet, so they go with what they feel is the best answer at this time which is, there are changes and we haven't identified them so they must be evolution.


Still not getting it eh?

The cause of the change is irrelevant, the effects of the change are. If the change is passed onto the offspring, that is just inheritance. If the change spreads throughout the species due to the benficial nature aiding reproduction........................................(ever get half way through a paragraph and realise what a waste of time its going to be).............................................that is evolution.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 




OH silly me, and I guess ant eaters were named ant eaters for no specific reason. Ant eaters to also eat termites, but they too are part of the ant family, so its the same thing.


Oh silly me, and I guess the fact that Guinea Pigs are named Guinea Pigs has some baring on the fact that they are not pigs and are not from Guinea? Names have no bearing on the facts regarding an animal.

Termites are not a part of the ant family, they are not even in the same order. I don't know where you got this idea. Ants belong to the Order Hymenoptera, Family Formicidae. Termites belong to the Order Blattodea, and compose 7 different Families. Termites are most closely related to cockroaches. They are about as similar to ants as dogs are to cats.



I'm sorry but telling me that your sure that species just eat whatever they can, is not proof that target food doesn't exist. Why don't you try to debunk it and prove it wrong rather than waddle in pity because your clueless. You have no proof that target food doesn't exist, and I have repeatedly given you the definitio


We can't prove a negative. Until you provide actual evidence for target food we can't present evidence to debunk it. If I told you that the world was created yesterday as is and we all have false memories, you could provide no evidence to debunk it. If I told you watermelons were blue until you cut them open, you could not disprove it. But there is no reason to believe either of those, so they are discounted.
All we have to go on for your concept of target food is your definition, and that definition was worthless. It was so vague it could encompass almost anything, and did not provide any concrete means of determining or discounting potential foods. We told you this. Your prime example, the Anteater does as much to disprove the idea of target food as anything else. It apparently has two target foods, ants and termites (very different animals, as I have pointed out), which is silly because if all animals were made with a special food just for them why would you give them two? Anteaters raised in captivity on meat paste also live longer than wild anteaters, which is equally silly, because if you were created with a special food just for you, why would there be other foods out there that are better for you?

Finally, where did you get the idea that the earth is supposed to be "in balance?" We have no evidence there was ever a balance on earth at any time. As you point out, we are currently on our 5th (6th?) largest extinction, so clearly we are out of balance now. But that means that there were 4 or 5 larger extinctions before, before man was here. So there were at least 4 larger natural extinctions. We have evidence of there being extinctions as far back as we have evidence for life on earth. If there ever was balance here, it would have to have been long before vertebrates. Why do you believe in balance?




Just because more people are inclinded to believe in evolution over intervention doesn't prove it right. Look at how many people believe in religion, are they correct?


I assume you mean to say that just because a lot of people believe in religion does not mean they are correct. but back here:


Is the Iliad the largest selling book on the planet? Is it quoted to be in the supernatural section? I think not. Your comparing apples to rocks.

You argue that your version of the bible is factual because a lot of people believe it even though it has no evidence and is unprovable. You confuse me.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 



...in the last five centuries, at least 80 out of 5,570 mammal species have bitten the dust, providing a clear warning of the peril to biodiversity.

"It looks like modern extinction rates resemble mass extinction rates, even after setting a high bar for defining 'mass extinction," said researcher Anthony Barnosky


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Given all the other stuff the mods allow, like reptilians invading earth or similar nonsense, your thread needs to be really crap and bat# crazy to land in skunk works
Depends on the moderator, some people just think that little green men are very far from reality.




You seem to be pretty good at promoting bat# crazy nonsense ideas given how often your threads got moved...so kudos, well done
Actually I was only aware of one that got moved, the rest I chose just because I assumed that was normal for the topic.




You might wanna look up what "proof" means...because I don't think you do
Evolution is still an unproven theory so I don't know what your talking about. If you think evolution is a proven theory, thats bat crazy and it would have replaced all religion by now.
After all that is the goal right?



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Because it's called scifi stands for science FICTION
I'm not that far behind the program.




And the "supernatural" obviously nonsense and just a gap filler for stuff we can't explain (yet). In ancient times they attributed diseases to the supernatural...or floods. But guess what, they were simply wrong and filling a gap in knowledge with MAGIC.
Except there is just a few problems with your story. First off this gap as you call it was made in a period when books were a new thing, in fact some of it was in stone. The other is that there is still no other book today that falls under the supernatural catagory, which I'm beginning to realize that your just simply not qualified to read or understand.

I think to understand what has happened to us does take a little bit of prior knowledge of the supernatural. Since you refer to it as magic, its clear that your trying to asses it to the closest thing we might have today, the problem is that its still not even close. Supernatural things are real, they do exist and in fact I spend about 1/3 of my day studying things in this realm.

Of course to someone like yourself who has nothing in the background, magic is the first thing you think of but your way off. If your just saying magic becasue you don't get it, then your correct, you don't get it.




Basically the same thing you do to explain your bat# crazy ideas. Essentially, your entire reasoning is comparable to that of someone living in the middle ages
Thats because you have to place yourself in that mindset to better understand what happend way back then.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





AAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNDDDDDDDDD..............still no idea what so ever of what evolution means.

Changes do not come from evolution, any change can cause evolution.
You can't make that assertation, no one knows what causes the changes to begin with.

Just because changes occur, there is no proof that its because of evolution.

Now your making an assumption that all changes period are from evolution but I allready proved that wrong with the example of ADHD making changes to our DNA, thats not evolution, but it is changes.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





OH silly me, and I guess ant eaters were named ant eaters for no specific reason. Ant eaters to also eat termites, but they too are part of the ant family,


No they're not...try doing at least SOME research before making idiotic statments like that.
It doesn't matter he has clearly been identifed with a target food, otherwise they would have named him the termiteeater.




To think that species are suppose to be born onto this planet with nothing to eat is just bat crazy.

So you don't agree that a species has to have something to eat in order to survive?


But to believe that an animal should only have a single item to eat is perfectly reasonable!!! The fact is that the lack of "target food" as you have almost described it (I say almost as any definition is likley to change) is actualy a strong argument for evolution. i.e. any animal that is able to take advantage of a variety of food sources is going to be more likley to survive long enough to pass on its genetic make up to its offspring.
I never said a species is supposed to only have one thing to eat, however when the menu is large, like our own, its a clear picture of whats going on.

And you think that species will adapt to our new food.
Lets look at milk as an example.
We process it 3 ways.
Homogenize, pasturize, fortify. We have custom molded this food item to FIT OUR needs. That is not evolving. Evolving would have been our own molecular make up, changing to accept milk for the way that it is, instead we had to work around to make it work for us. In addition to this, there is three necessary steps to bring this item to market, its redundant adaptation. We didn't evovle, and neither did the milk, we are patching the problem with costly, lengthy, laborus steps, thats not evolution. If we are manually making those changes so that we can consume milk, please tell me where the molecular changes occured?

Evolution is changes on a molecular level, thats what the definition on wiki says about it. So when you create ADHD in your genes from smoking while pregnant with your unborn son, that is not evolution.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Books listed under "supernatural"
www.goodreads.com...

Where did you come up with this "bible is the only book on the supernatural idea?"



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





Nope, not automaticaly....just happens that you are
Then why isn't anyone able to prove me wrong be it from or not from the scope of evolution?
How is it that no one is able to tell me what target foods humans eat?
While I'm able to give some examples with other species.
Why is it that no one was able to find a species that has a natural relationship with man?
Why is it that no one can explain to me why our smile is inverted?
Why is it that no one can explain why its proven that our brains can opperate on a higher level?
Vestigal organs are part of that picture.
Why is it that no one can explain our necessity for strong medical and vaccinations?
Why is it that no one is able to explain why we are in our 6th largest extinction?
Why is it that no one is able to explain why we have no relationship with our common ancestor the ape?
Why is it that no one is able to explain why we have such a large food menu, while also having a need for suppliments, and diet control.
And why is there so much sickness related to how we eat?

This is just a drop in the bucket, but one thing explains all of these crystal clear, the bible tells us earth is not our home.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





If all of the religious types believed exactly the same thing, maybe we'd have to look again, but they dont, even within specific religions (christianity as a non-specific but representative example) there are many sects that fail to agree to the point of murdering each other
Here is where the problem is, people made a pre assumption that its suppose to be a book of good and a happy book about how we got here. I see it for what it is, with no pre happy feelings to start. It's actually not a happy book. Its honesly the opposite.

People are set in their minds that it will be a happy book for them, even if that means changing the meaning to fit that happiness. I don't do that, again I see it for what it is.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





Still not getting it eh?

The cause of the change is irrelevant, the effects of the change are. If the change is passed onto the offspring, that is just inheritance. If the change spreads throughout the species due to the benficial nature aiding reproduction........................................(ever get half way through a paragraph and realise what a waste of time its going to be).............................................that is evolution.


So I'm right.

I said this like 6 times, and even though I know its going to be a total waste of time, I'll say it again.

If a pregnant mother smokes a cigarette while pregnant, the baby will be born with ADHD. This actually makes changes in the DNA.

In essence, smoking can manipulate evolution.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by mastermindkar
 





OH silly me, and I guess ant eaters were named ant eaters for no specific reason. Ant eaters to also eat termites, but they too are part of the ant family, so its the same thing.



Oh silly me, and I guess the fact that Guinea Pigs are named Guinea Pigs has some baring on the fact that they are not pigs and are not from Guinea? Names have no bearing on the facts regarding an animal.

Termites are not a part of the ant family, they are not even in the same order. I don't know where you got this idea. Ants belong to the Order Hymenoptera, Family Formicidae. Termites belong to the Order Blattodea, and compose 7 different Families. Termites are most closely related to cockroaches. They are about as similar to ants as dogs are to cats.
Which is actually close enough because we are talking about the food scale, and I'm sure they are very simular in terms of what they provide as being food.




I'm sorry but telling me that your sure that species just eat whatever they can, is not proof that target food doesn't exist. Why don't you try to debunk it and prove it wrong rather than waddle in pity because your clueless. You have no proof that target food doesn't exist, and I have repeatedly given you the definitio



We can't prove a negative. Until you provide actual evidence for target food we can't present evidence to debunk it.
Well why not, macroevolution has never been proven but you believe in that.




If I told you that the world was created yesterday as is and we all have false memories, you could provide no evidence to debunk it. If I told you watermelons were blue until you cut them open, you could not disprove it. But there is no reason to believe either of those, so they are discounted.
All we have to go on for your concept of target food is your definition, and that definition was worthless. It was so vague it could encompass almost anything, and did not provide any concrete means of determining or discounting potential foods.
All the more reason that you should have been able to produce some examples.




We told you this. Your prime example, the Anteater does as much to disprove the idea of target food as anything else. It apparently has two target foods, ants and termites (very different animals, as I have pointed out), which is silly because if all animals were made with a special food just for them why would you give them two? Anteaters raised in captivity on meat paste also live longer than wild anteaters, which is equally silly, because if you were created with a special food just for you, why would there be other foods out there that are better for you?
I never claimed nor do I have reason to believe that any species would or should jus have one target food, but when the menu is large, thats when you know there is a problem.




Finally, where did you get the idea that the earth is supposed to be "in balance?" We have no evidence there was ever a balance on earth at any time. As you point out, we are currently on our 5th (6th?) largest extinction, so clearly we are out of balance now. But that means that there were 4 or 5 larger extinctions before, before man was here. So there were at least 4 larger natural extinctions. We have evidence of there being extinctions as far back as we have evidence for life on earth. If there ever was balance here, it would have to have been long before vertebrates. Why do you believe in balance?
Because its common sense that life cant exist without it. The only reason why we do have what life we do have left here is only because of what little balance is actually left.

en.wikipedia.org...

Wiki talks a tad about ecological balance.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by mastermindkar
 





Just because more people are inclinded to believe in evolution over intervention doesn't prove it right. Look at how many people believe in religion, are they correct?



I assume you mean to say that just because a lot of people believe in religion does not mean they are correct. but back here:


Is the Iliad the largest selling book on the planet? Is it quoted to be in the supernatural section? I think not. Your comparing apples to rocks.


You argue that your version of the bible is factual because a lot of people believe it even though it has no evidence and is unprovable. You confuse me.
It's clear that the parts I'm referencing are in proper context. You should read them for yourself and make your own judgement. Remeber if I'm not that bright of a person that you should have no problem understanding, right?




top topics



 
31
<< 482  483  484    486  487  488 >>

log in

join