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: 61
31
<< 58  59  60    62  63  64 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by MentorsRiddle
 


Is the new Eragon book out? Man! Right when Tamora Pierce just released Mastiff too.

But yeah. What kinds of specific questions do you have that you feel evolution does not answer? I've taken a biological anthropology course at my university already, so I might be able to answer you better than others. The class especially focused on human evolution, if that is where your questions lie.




posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Is the new Eragon book out? Man! Right when Tamora Pierce just released Mastiff too.

But yeah. What kinds of specific questions do you have that you feel evolution does not answer? I've taken a biological anthropology course at my university already, so I might be able to answer you better than others. The class especially focused on human evolution, if that is where your questions lie.




Yep – the new one came out yesterday, and I’m biting at the chomps to read it.

I’ve never heard of Mastiff – what’s the story line about?



Here is my main question with evolution and thoughts.


Evolution is a process that is supposed to take place over millions, thousands, or hundreds of thousands of years.

To my understanding, gradual progression of physical changes occur, which will improve the organisms chance of survival in a particular environment.

We have found proof of Cro-Magnon man, Neanderthal, even modern humans. But the stages in between have not been found. Other species have been found, which scientists believe may be the missing link – but it turns out to be a mute discovery, concerning the pursuit of evolution.

Honestly, I would love for evolution to be proven – I believe it would be a remarkable breakthrough in our understanding of the universe, and our world.

It would not sway my faith or belief in God, as it would many others – for as I’ve said before I have seen proof of a spiritual world.

We have even found fossilized remains of modern humans that is dated older than a fossilized T-Rex skeleton, which in turn is dated older than other man-like species.

I believe cro-mag, Neanderthal, and other similar species are actually just a different species that died out; and also lived alongside modern man.




















edit on 9-11-2011 by MentorsRiddle because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   

We have even found fossilized remains of modern humans that is dated older than a fossilized T-Rex skeleton, which in turn is dated older than other man-like species.


I would love to read about something supporting this. Preferably outside of a creationist website. If you could link source I would be grateful. I do not seem to be able to locate anything that would lead me to believe this is true.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   
I was afraid someone would ask me for a link.

I read that, I beleive, in a National Geographic a few years ago.

I'll do my best to find a link, and get it to you - please be patient with me on looking.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 08:36 AM
link   
This is why I say you are going about your arguments the wrong way.


the evidence is all around you. I'm not the one with rational myopathy. Wasted because it hasn't helped bring the human condition to any better state than we were in during the dark ages. We might be a little cleaner hygienically but even that is most likely causing us more harm than good. Why hasn't science led to more peace and prosperity for people globally?

Terrible argument that has absolutely nothing to do with science or evolution. We aren't any better than we were in the dark ages? REALLY? The dark ages where life was so peaceful without science and people were tortured and murdered simply for not believing in one version of god. You see, i t's statements like that show you either don't have any idea about science or are being dishonest. The world is more peaceful today than it was back then. This is a fact. Nuclear power was discovered to provide us all with power. You can't blame science itself for the discovery, but you can blame man for misusing it.


You'll blame it on the people wielding the political power who use the most cutting edge science and if you do you'll be making my point for me. Science is only as good as the people who control it. Science as a pursuit of knowledge is fine but surely you're not proud of the feeble accomplishments from the last hundred years or so are you?

So the fact that science has led to thousands of medical breakthroughs and expanded the average lifespan say 30-40 years, means nothing right? Science is A METHOD OF STUDY. It's NOT a religion. Get that notion out of your head, because its 100% wrong. Science is good, as long as it is proven to be true. End of story. It has nothing to do with intentions or money making. Curing hundreds of diseases is feeble? You really have no clue. Hey guess what? You are typing on a COMPUTER, a marvel of modern science. Without science you'd be nowhere. You wouldn't have a home with electricity, you wouldn't have a car, you wouldn't have a TV, you wouldn't have an internet. If you don't understand it, study it. Don't discredit it using pathetic straw man arguments and red herrings.


Not me, all the authors I refer to are listed as NON FICTION writers. So I'm not sure what your trying to get at when all I'm able to find on evolution is either in debate or inconclusive. I would seriously love to see anything about evolution that does not have the words in debate, inconclusive, unsure, etc....
Why are you still here? You aren't bringing anything new to the conversation. You are dishonestly discrediting evolution. Did you even read the links I posted? go over my counter points? Provide a single fragment of evidence to suggest your theory is accurate? provide any scientific data to show evolution is wrong? Nope. You just keep repeating yourself, but repetition does not equal truth unfortunately. You can ignore facts upon facts all day. Hopefully there's an ignore list on this site, because you've earned it. You are definitely a pure troll, looking for no knowledge or to better your understanding of science or evolution. Everything was posted.
edit on 9-11-2011 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by MentorsRiddle
Yep – the new one came out yesterday, and I’m biting at the chomps to read it.

I’ve never heard of Mastiff – what’s the story line about?


Oh, it's from the Tortall series. It's fantasy with magic, a whole realm, and I think there are around 17 or 18 books in it now. Mastiff is the third in a sub-series, about a police-woman in the past. It's really neat the way that there is different slang and such. Honestly, Pierce's novels are all quite good. Another series she did was Circle of Magic.




Here is my main question with evolution and thoughts.


Evolution is a process that is supposed to take place over millions, thousands, or hundreds of thousands of years.

To my understanding, gradual progression of physical changes occur, which will improve the organisms chance of survival in a particular environment.


Well, not necessarily. Evolution is often on a much larger scale than a single environment. Usually smaller adaptions occur in order to fit into an environment, and evolution is the change in creatures after environmental changes and a great deal of time or geologic separation (which is one of the biggest evolutionary forces, because lack of inter-breeding means gene separation. New mutations in one group will not appear in the other, unless they cross breed at some point.)


We have found proof of Cro-Magnon man, Neanderthal, even modern humans. But the stages in between have not been found. Other species have been found, which scientists believe may be the missing link – but it turns out to be a mute discovery, concerning the pursuit of evolution.


Well, in actuality, Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal were almost exactly like modern humans. They were already developing culture, if the artwork is anything to look at. Also, because their time is so much closer to us than some of the older species, there is less time for fossils to form. Some Anthropologists believe that Neanderthals were actually re-bred into the human population and that their genes have simply been spread out in favor of Homo Sapien. I actually had a teacher who was of the assertion that we are the same species as Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon, etc. The only thing was that the differences were due to variation, not so much speciation or anything.

Still, through gene exchanges and mutations, humans have changed over the years, and there really isn't a missing link, per-say. We have all these intermediate points between where we are now and where we were. The only thing that people question is exactly when the new mutations were added into the gene pool, and if they offered an advantage, or if they simply did not hinder survival or gene spreading.

See, most changes that occur through evolution are actually by mutations which do not benefit or harm a creature. Every baby is born with mutations. Eventually, the genes spread, and genes which are used more often over a series of generations become dominant. One example of evolution in recent days is the resistance to Malaria that appeared in Africa. The resistance, if in both parents, will cause Sickle-Cell Anemia, so selection made it so that only people without the gene could breed with people with the gene, and they would survive. It's quite interesting, really, and I hope I've explained it well. I'm unfortunately in a time crunch at the moment.


Honestly, I would love for evolution to be proven – I believe it would be a remarkable breakthrough in our understanding of the universe, and our world.

It would not sway my faith or belief in God, as it would many others – for as I’ve said before I have seen proof of a spiritual world.


I have also seen/felt proof of a spiritual world, and I hope you can understand that evolution is a natural process, and it doesn't technically need to be proven, because it is observable. All people argue about are the little details.


We have even found fossilized remains of modern humans that is dated older than a fossilized T-Rex skeleton, which in turn is dated older than other man-like species.

I believe cro-mag, Neanderthal, and other similar species are actually just a different species that died out; and also lived alongside modern man.


I've never heard about fossils of humans older than T-Rex. Any source?

They did live alongside man, but they were also simple variations of man. I believe that Cro-Magnon actually was still around until around 10,000 years ago, which means that in parts of Asia, there may still be some living in remote areas.



















edit on 9-11-2011 by MentorsRiddle because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 08:45 AM
link   
I like to use the evidence i have at hand(literally) that helps back up and prove the primate theory.

Simply move your hand down your back until you reach a bone just just above and between your buttocks. You should be able to feel the Coccyx.

Evolution debunkers care to explain this to me ?
edit on 9-11-2011 by TheBar because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by steveknows
It will just keep going in circles. You can explain in detail what evolution is and the creationists will just repond with, "but it's just a theory" They don't care that it carries more weight that the bible ever will.

They don't want it explained they just want to vampire energy out of people and they think that if they say the same old crap long enough that they will convert some people.

Let them live in their ignorant dark age.

Feel secure knowing that your children have greater knowledge than theirs.

It's up to them to show one tiny little tad of evidence to back up what the bible says. It's not up to us to explain and explain and explain.


Exactly. This thread is ridiculous.

1st person posts claim A with no evidence to back it up
2nd person posts several scientific links to evidence and facts
1st person ignores all of it then repeats his original claim regardless of how many times its been debunked.
Ad infinitum

I don't know if these people are home schooled and specifically ignore science or the tremendous benefits it has on society. These guys are just as bad as creationists when it comes to following a doctrine (Stitchin or whoever) and putting full faith in it while ignoring all science.

All I can hope is that these people do not benefit from science since they are so religiously against it. I'm sure they don't use any modern technology in their lives, because its evil, right? Either that or they are hypocrites. I don't know if they are home schooled or what, but the knowledge is out there. Their unwillingness to learn is not on us.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   
I'll have to check out that book series then.

I wish I had a link or source - I read that, I think, in a national geographic a few years back.

I'll try to find a link to it. But I have been for the past half hour and can't find it.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   


Intervention is the simplest answer.

Now THAT'S hilarious. I have to give you some credit, your trolling is actually a little humorous. An alien species babysitting this planet for 4 billion years and intervening each time a species is changing, is absolutely absurd. Forget the fact that you ignore science, and your are professing nothing but personal belief based on someone else's work. LOL.


I do agree some people that believe in faith have lost some IQ points. Thats not me.


Haha, certainly not you! That's all those other guys that ignore science and project their personal views as fact.




No I'm not impressed. Not only did I read the links but I copy and pasted the parts showing they are inconclusive.

You are being dishonestly again. You didn't respond to A SINGLE science article, you dismissed them without reading because they contain the word "theory" or "debate". Read the context. You have NOT providing any evidence of intervention OR any evidence that evolution is wrong. The purpose of this thread is prove evolution wrong with other facts or contradictions to the science behind the theory. You haven't come close.
edit on 9-11-2011 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 



Then by all means if you feel that way stay out of the thread. I for one, although I disagree with creationists and those who stand against what I think is good evidence for the evolutionary theory, enjoy the back and forth and hearing their views and reasons for them. Your arrogance is disturbing and not beneficial in the least. But of course, that is only my opinion and I could be wrong.

reply to post by MentorsRiddle
 


Take your time I will check back to see if you have found it later. I have only seen a couple references to that and none of them were actually worth the read.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 09:11 AM
link   


I was afraid someone would ask me for a link. I read that, I beleive, in a National Geographic a few years ago. I'll do my best to find a link, and get it to you - please be patient with me on looking.

Baahahahahaha! National geographic?? That kind of news would be pretty major. Another dishonest creationist posting in here as if there wasn't enough. "I was afraid someone might ask me to back up my absurd claims with facts". haha. There is NO national geographic article about a human found dating back to the dinosaur days. That's impossible, and would NEVER have been in national geographic. What a joke.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by drivers1492
reply to post by Barcs
 


Then by all means if you feel that way stay out of the thread. I for one, although I disagree with creationists and those who stand against what I think is good evidence for the evolutionary theory, enjoy the back and forth and hearing their views and reasons for them. Your arrogance is disturbing and not beneficial in the least. But of course, that is only my opinion and I could be wrong.


Arrogance? I'm simply reiterating information that has been gathered and studied for over a hundred years. When I say something is a scientific fact, I provide a source. Scientific facts are not arrogant. They are accurate. If you have been reading the thread at all, you'd have noticed the blatant dishonestly and ignoring of science and evidence that's been going on. It would be different if they were civil and actually provided counterpoints or evidence, but not a single one has done anything besides repeat old arguments that have been debunked. If the pursuit and spreading of knowledge is arrogant, then I'm the most arrogant person in the world.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


Spoken by a true tool for the main stream science cadre. I think the answers get ignored because we all know science has made mistakes in the past and when they conflict and argue so much amongst themselves the rest of us go off to find our own answers.

As opposed to being a tool for the pseudoscience cadre? I have no problem if you, personally, want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. That's on you. Science is, ultimately, self-correcting -- the predictions made by hypotheses are tested and those hypotheses are rejected if found incorrect. Then it's back to the drawing board to reformulate the hypothesis. Can you explain how the pseudoscientists whose beliefs you subscribe to correct their hypotheses when they're shown to be incorrect? Because I have yet to see one of them do so when they're shown to be demonstrably wrong.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 

Like I said I could be wrong. I was stating my opinion. I made no argument about you supplying facts or that those facts had anything to do with my point. Its the way the points were conveyed in your recent posts that caught my eye. But my apologies for bringing it up and disrupting the thread.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Barcs.... Wow you respond like a child.

Please read my words. I said I beleive, which implies that I am not certain. When I read something of interest I do not jot down where I read it.

Like I said it was years ago, not hours. Please be more intelligent when you post, and do not post like a little boy.

Get over yourself - people like you make this community a bad place to talk. I was not talking to you, but replying to another person.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by MentorsRiddle
 


No, sir – I’m following this thread very well, thank you.

If you had, you'd see where multiple people have replied to the exact same question you asked.


The question has not been answered, and your attempt to flip the tables on me is weak at best.

It was answered in at least two other posts. If you had been following the thread, you would have seen that.


I will not be swayed, nor will I relent in my questions – because they are questions you , nor anyone else can answer.

I'm not asking you to sway or relent, I'm asking you to read what's already been answered. If you've read those answers and have further questions about them, feel free to post them. But simply asking the same question that's already been responded to twice is a waste of time.


I am not spouting off at the mouth, I have made very valid points – if anything, the bible bashers out there are the ones spouting off at the mouth. Its funny how we can talk about science, and debate it, and magically the concept of God pops up. Then the games begin.

The fact that you asked a question which had already been posted and responded two at least twice in this thread already suggests otherwise.


You did not even attempt to comment about my post, but decided the better tactic would be to bash my character and integrity; even my competence in following a simple thread.

If you had been reading this thread, you would have seen my reply to the exact same question you asked. And the reply from another poster to the exact same question before that.


No sir – you are the guilty one. I believe you may have read my post, but with a closed mind and an unwillingness to address the issues at hand.

Guilty of what, exactly? Pointing out that you were asking a question that had already been asked twice and answered twice in the last few pages? Oh no! What a horrible thing to be guilty of!


I have considered the theory of evolution, and found it wanting.

Do you apply the same burden of proof to the theory of evolution that you do to whatever your pet theory of biodiversity happens to be?


What makes me mad, as a creationist, is that schools and academia teaches the theory of evolution as if it is fact, when it is not.

Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is the framework through which the facts of evolution are tied together. There is overwhelming objective evidence supporting evolution. There is no objective evidence supporting creationism. Why should something other than evolution be taught in biology classes?


There is no proof for it, nor will there ever be.

As seems to be the norm for creationists and interventionists, you seem to be confused about the nature of scientific theories. There is no such thing as a provable scientific theory. Scientific theories are based on a premise of falsification -- you rigorously and continuously test the predictions made by that theory. There is no proof, only evidence that supports or refutes it. The theory of evolution is probably the most well-supported scientific theory known to mankind in terms of the sheer amount of evidence we have for it. I'll be waiting for your series of posts where you also attack germ theory, circuit theory, heliocentric theory, atomic theory, etc. for not being proven.


Your kind believes my kind is trapped in a brain washed bubble – but I say it is you who lives in a tiny miniscule world, which has no wonder or mystery.

No, I think you're willingly ignoring objective evidence because it doesn't mesh with your particular worldview. My world contains plenty of mystery and wonder.


For when there is mystery you make up your little ideas that hold no water

No, I formulate ideas based on the evidence at hand instead of relying on pure speculation.


– and get red eyed angry at those who don’t conform to your tiny world that you have limited yourself in.

No, not angry. Though I do get annoyed at the countless people who talk about how flawed and/or evil science is while reaping the benefits of it.


You are a prisoner to your own way of thinking, with no chance for escape through any method of your own.

You are entitled to think that, though I'll gladly take the wager that says that, at the end of the day, I'll have a better understanding of how this universe of ours functions using my method than yours.


Now, I’m sorry if I have offended you – but don’t challenge me unless you want me to respond.

No offense taken, but I'll stand by my assertion that you asked a question that had been asked and answered twice with indication that you read the replies to the earlier posts asking that question. If you feel that's a challenge of some sort, so be it.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Evolution is not a fact....

The questions have been answered with replies that dance around the question.

It can't be proven as fact until it is observed with 100% accuracy, and stands up to testing - which it can't.

It amazes me how science uses one rule to explane something, but that same rule can't be applied to another situation. That is not science but guess work at best.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by MentorsRiddle
 


Evolution is a process that is supposed to take place over millions, thousands, or hundreds of thousands of years.

Evolution has been observed to occur in much shorter times than that. It can actually happen in a single generation in plant species. Bacteria can do it very rapidly as well due the obscene number of generations that can be born in a single day.


We have found proof of Cro-Magnon man, Neanderthal, even modern humans. But the stages in between have not been found. Other species have been found, which scientists believe may be the missing link – but it turns out to be a mute discovery, concerning the pursuit of evolution.

Cro-magnon are the exact same species as us, Homo sapiens sapiens, aka modern humans. Neanderthal isn't an ancestor of our, it's a different species within the same genus, Homo neandertalensis, i.e. we share a common ancestor with Neanderthal.

In terms of the "missing link", the phrase is one that has, unfortunately, been embraced by popular science journalists because it's easy to understand even though it's misleading. It's a term that dates back to a view of evolution that results in a linear progression (or "chain", to keep it in the context of calling it a "link") of organisms, which we know isn't the case. The relationship between species is more like a tree or a bush.

Asking for the "missing link" ends up casting you into a Zeno's paradox of infinitesimally fine divisions between organisms and it's about as valid as asking for the missing link between you and your father. Fossilization is a pretty rare process and biologists know that we have an incomplete fossil record. That's why the bulk of the evidence supporting the theory of evolution isn't from fossils, it's from genetics. That being said, we actually have a good picture of human evolution based on the fossil evidence. The most exciting recent find was that of Australopithecus sediba which, due to the mosaic characteristics present, may be the MRCA (most recent common ancestor) between genus Australopithecus and genus Homo.


Honestly, I would love for evolution to be proven – I believe it would be a remarkable breakthrough in our understanding of the universe, and our world.

Evolution, the theory, will never be proven. No scientific theory ever will be, as they don't rest on proof in the manner you're thinking of. Evolution, the phenomenon, is a verifiable and observable fact.


It would not sway my faith or belief in God, as it would many others – for as I’ve said before I have seen proof of a spiritual world.

As an atheist, I don't see any reason why you should change or reject your religious beliefs just because evolution is true.


We have even found fossilized remains of modern humans that is dated older than a fossilized T-Rex skeleton, which in turn is dated older than other man-like species.

I think I know the paper to which you're referring. If it is the same one, or by the same research group, my main problem with their dating methods is that they only used one method on the T. rex skeleton -- radiocarbon dating -- without crosschecking it against other dating methods. Radiocarbon dating, unlike other radiometric methods, relies on calibration curves taken from samples of known age. The farthest back the calibration curves go is somewhere on the order of 50,000 years, so regardless of how old a sample actually is, you'll get a value somewhere between now and 50,000 years ago if you use radiocarbon dating. So rather than using a second method to support the number they got for the T. rex skeleton, which if I remember correctly was in the area of 25,000 years, they just reported those numbers.


I believe cro-mag, Neanderthal, and other similar species are actually just a different species that died out; and also lived alongside modern man.

As as I said above, Cro-magnon is us, so we definitely lived with them. And still do today! And you're absolutely correct, we did live along side Neanderthal. The genetic evidence says that we mated with them to the point that the genome of people from Eurasia is about 1-4% Neanderthal.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   
It looks like I might be corrected here, they just found proof of a cat evolving.
Check this out.
www.youtube.com...



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 58  59  60    62  63  64 >>

log in

join