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: 64
31
<< 61  62  63    65  66  67 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions




posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Humans have evolved just like all life forms...but of course there's always a struggle against nature. Overall, nature's stronger and it's a constant battle for survival. Just look at all the viruses and bacteria that are deadly to us.

Also, since the environment is constantly changing, so do life forms. The problem is, that evolution lags behind environmental change. It's not as if temperatures rises 15 degree Celcius, the very next generation of animals suddenly features less fur


That's why there's always a struggle. It doesn't invalidate evolution, it just means there's a lag between environmental changes and the evolution of life forms. And given the complexity of evolution, that shouldn't really come as a surprise.


So I have never been able to get a clear answer on some things in this realm. Why did I choose to lose my body hair and wear a coat? Why did I choose to wear sunglasses. Why did I choose to live in a man made building that also have heat and AC? Why did I choose to work a job, to earn money to by food that gets planted, watered, harvested, shipped, packaged and processed to finally get eaten?



The human has more hair than a Gorilla. It's just that we have very fine hair, this is fact. We control our body temperature through our skin as where other land mammals do it through breathing so if we had thick hair we'd overheat. It's one of the things that make us the ultimate hunter. This happened before humans moved into Europe and because of our inventivness we could just hunt and skin an animal and turn it into a coat to keep warm.

If you look at Africans who are full blooded they have thicker eyebrows and a larger eyebrow ridge, This handles both the sun and sweat dropplets. Europeans don't have that so much because of where they come from and if Europeans had of walked to say Australia tens of thousands of years ago instead of arriving by boat a few hundred years ago then they would now have the same trait but that won't happen now because we have sun glasses and we can control environment.

Humans have been working since we started farming. It's harder work than hunter gathering but it has greater returns and allowes the population to grow. It meant we could avoid being nomadic and being established is the true mother of invention. And invention answers your other questions in regards to housing and technology.

Working a job is really just a replacment for farming. Jobs came about as a result of inovation. The barter system really only works in small communities so it's better to have a currency of exchange which only requires that you need only one type of job yet are able to gain access to products that you otherwise wouldn't be able to exchange for. ( why would a farmer give you wheat if all you could offer in return was bread he doesn't need?) A common currency of exchange is best as then you can get what you want from whoever you want.

As a population grows hunting and gathering doesn't work so you need to have areas dedicated to feeding a large population. Domstication of cattle and wild gasses and fruits solved this problem or was the trigger that enabled the population of humans to grow.

That all the result of our evolution. We're bright, well most of us, We're successful, there's 7 billion of us. and we all need to eat,

All this is easliy researched and you could have found it out for yourself.
edit on 10-11-2011 by steveknows because: Typo



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
It might even work if it took just one gene to make and control one part. But parts of living creatures are constructed of intricate components with connections that all need to be in place for the thing to work, controlled by many genes that have to act in the proper sequence. Natural selection would not choose parts that did not have all their components existing, in place, connected, and regulated because the parts would not work.


So... I guess you've never seen a badly deformed human then? It's #ty, but it happens. And funnily enough, they still 'work'.



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero

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.


cadre? not so much as independent thinkers.

baby w/bathwater? no we're trying to get science to realize there is also a tub there that they don't think is important.

self-correcting?
more like biased by a paycheck.

if you want to get back to the tablet with the solar system you need to show consistency in your ideas and explain why the other characters in the symbol don't have points like the main star symbol? It's obviously not a constellation as you think.



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


How many more pages are you intending to copy and paste?

To make things worse you have copied and pasted nonsense all of which tries and fails to attack evolution when the purpose of this thread is for you and others that say evolution is wrong to explain the diversity we see today without using evolution. Something no one has even attempted.

We have shown here and in countless other threads the evidence which seemingly is all utter tosh in your and others opinion. So now it is time for you to show us the error of our ways.

Please explain the diversity we see today.



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   
I couldn't resist posting.

I see this the way I see ET's, non proof is not proof of the other. Now in Biology class, in the book I read (I think her last name was Star or Starr or something similar) she talks about macro and micro evolution. Macro being the Darwinian version (which I don't believe, I have yet to see an ape give birth to a human). Micro evolution being the survival of the fittest stuff (again I'm laymaning(word?) it out). You know, elks grazing and having lean muscle mass due to the fact that they run from predators and moving a lot.

So i totally agree with adaptation for survival, but I am not convinced about the Darwinian version. With the 7 billion people comment and the lack of the missing link, I am willing to guess that there was some kind of intervention.

Now these fossil fuels are called such as a reason. A lot of pressure with carbon based material will cause it (at least that is what I was told in school). This can be where all them thar missing bones are.



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by calnorak
 


Ouch! The Ape giving birth to a human nonsnese

Pow! the missing link rubbish explained in full a page or two back.

Whats next, Evolution is just a theory?

You must have either not read the book or it was not a very good one.



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by calnorak
I couldn't resist posting.

I see this the way I see ET's, non proof is not proof of the other. Now in Biology class, in the book I read (I think her last name was Star or Starr or something similar) she talks about macro and micro evolution. Macro being the Darwinian version (which I don't believe, I have yet to see an ape give birth to a human). Micro evolution being the survival of the fittest stuff (again I'm laymaning(word?) it out). You know, elks grazing and having lean muscle mass due to the fact that they run from predators and moving a lot.

So i totally agree with adaptation for survival, but I am not convinced about the Darwinian version. With the 7 billion people comment and the lack of the missing link, I am willing to guess that there was some kind of intervention.

Now these fossil fuels are called such as a reason. A lot of pressure with carbon based material will cause it (at least that is what I was told in school). This can be where all them thar missing bones are.


Um, what? That's not how macro-evolution works at all. One species does not suddenly give birth to another species. It is simply massive amounts of generations (100s of thousands to millions) causing minute changes to slowly appear larger. Mammals came from Reptiles, and you can see the similarities. There is a version found in fossils which has basically some mammalian traits, and the rest are reptile. With humans, in our deep ancestry, where we were once with the same ancestor as the chimp, one gene group walked upright, and the rest did not. Over the generations, a fully versatile foot bred out, and it became primarily for walking. The brain slowly increased in size over the generations, as apes with better intellectual capacity survived more often in the gene pools. After enough time (remember, MILLIONS of years), these changes became what we are today. One of the most recent changes is that our simian shelf is forward, creating a chin.

No animal will ever give birth to a brand new species. That's not how evolution and speciation works.



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   
I'll just leave a few videos here, and that'll be it.. There's no sense arguing with people who think they already know the truth.. Discussion is not their goal, but convincing. Pretty much like religious people trying to convert others..









Have fun.



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by calnorak
I couldn't resist posting.

I see this the way I see ET's, non proof is not proof of the other. Now in Biology class, in the book I read (I think her last name was Star or Starr or something similar) she talks about macro and micro evolution. Macro being the Darwinian version (which I don't believe, I have yet to see an ape give birth to a human). Micro evolution being the survival of the fittest stuff (again I'm laymaning(word?) it out). You know, elks grazing and having lean muscle mass due to the fact that they run from predators and moving a lot.

So i totally agree with adaptation for survival, but I am not convinced about the Darwinian version. With the 7 billion people comment and the lack of the missing link, I am willing to guess that there was some kind of intervention.

Now these fossil fuels are called such as a reason. A lot of pressure with carbon based material will cause it (at least that is what I was told in school). This can be where all them thar missing bones are.


Um, what? That's not how macro-evolution works at all. One species does not suddenly give birth to another species. It is simply massive amounts of generations (100s of thousands to millions) causing minute changes to slowly appear larger. Mammals came from Reptiles, and you can see the similarities. There is a version found in fossils which has basically some mammalian traits, and the rest are reptile. With humans, in our deep ancestry, where we were once with the same ancestor as the chimp, one gene group walked upright, and the rest did not. Over the generations, a fully versatile foot bred out, and it became primarily for walking. The brain slowly increased in size over the generations, as apes with better intellectual capacity survived more often in the gene pools. After enough time (remember, MILLIONS of years), these changes became what we are today. One of the most recent changes is that our simian shelf is forward, creating a chin.

No animal will ever give birth to a brand new species. That's not how evolution and speciation works.


Only problem is this slow change isn't able to be witnessed anywhere, in nature, and this change would have to happen evenly to many at the same time, in the same way, and even if that worked the change would cause them to die out. You would have to have thousands going through the exact same changes otherwise you end up with incest. So if your whole concept bottlenecks to one or two people for changes, there is no way it's possible, in addition to the fact that if they did change, they would die out.

There is no way that evolution can work if changed species have been PROVEN to die out



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Only problem is this slow change isn't able to be witnessed anywhere, in nature, and this change would have to happen evenly to many at the same time, in the same way, and even if that worked the change would cause them to die out. You would have to have thousands going through the exact same changes otherwise you end up with incest. So if your whole concept bottlenecks to one or two people for changes, there is no way it's possible, in addition to the fact that if they did change, they would die out.

There is no way that evolution can work if changed species have been PROVEN to die out


That's why fossils are so useful. They prove that creatures were different over great periods of time. We have so many intermediate fossils that it's amazing, and we have very few gaps in the record, all showing minute changes over time which lead to where we are today.

Did you ignore the links I showed with the skull from the genus Homo slowly growing larger the more recent the fossil was?

This is documented proof.

No, they would not die out. You have good mutations and bad mutations. A lot of the time, mutations stay under the radar. All it takes is for a group with one changed gene to stop breeding with another group (usually this happens through geologic or climate change by separating two populations). When the gene pools are separated, the genes in each group will express themselves stronger as they continue to breed over generations.



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


cadre? not so much as independent thinkers.

Independent thinkers? Hardly. Three pseudoscientists have featured heavily in this thread: von Daniken, Sitchin, and Pye. Von Daniken plagiarized his ideas from The Morning of the Magicians (which, in turn, “borrowed” heavily from Lovecraft’s Cthulhu mythos). Sitchin rode the wave of von Daniken’s Chariots of the Gods? and sprinkled a little Velikovsky for good measure. Pye is a self-professed “colleague” of Sitchin’s. So which one of these guys was the “independent thinker” exactly?


baby w/bathwater? no we're trying to get science to realize there is also a tub there that they don't think is important.

If your tub held water, maybe science would pay more attention to it. Bring objective evidence to the table and you’ll be judged on the same merits as all of the other hypotheses out there. But when you bring demonstrably wrong claims to the table you can’t expect to be taken seriously.


self-correcting? more like biased by a paycheck.

The real money is in redefining the paradigm. There’s very little economic benefit to maintaining the status quo.

You also seem to be missing the point that the greatest value of a scientific theory is as a predictive tool. If a theory is built on a foundation that is factually incorrect, it will make faulty predictions and be overturned.


if you want to get back to the tablet with the solar system you need to show consistency in your ideas and explain why the other characters in the symbol don't have points like the main star symbol? It's obviously not a constellation as you think.

As you just pointed out by calling it the “main star symbol”, the Sumerians applied particular importance to one star in each constellation. It’s the “main star” by which the constellation was identified. Ever seen a map of the world where capitol cities are given stars and all of the other major cities are just dots?

These aren’t my ideas, I’ve never claimed they were. You could just as easily take the time to read other translations of the tablets and compare them to Sitchin’s. For whatever reason, you don’t seem interested in doing so.



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





Thus all the right mutations (and none of the destructive ones) must happen at the same time by pure chance. That is physically impossible. To illustrate just how hopeless it is, imagine this: on the ground are all the materials needed to build a house (nails, boards, shingles, windows, etc.). We tie a hammer to the wagging tail of a dog and let him wander about the work site for as long as you please, even millions of years. The swinging hammer on the dog is as likely to build a house as mutation-natural selection is to make a single new working part in an animal, let alone a new creature.


Have you ever studied quants? Because the above argument is nonsense...

The chances of winning the lottery are crazy small too, yet every single week people win all over the planet. If you want to be almost guaranteed to win the lottery, you'd have to play for a bit over 256 million years, every single week of the year. But like I said, people still win.

Evolution is incredibly complex, and there are a lot of factors at play. But it took over 4.5 billion years...so it's not as if it time was an issue.

And again, we are using the theory in modern medicine to predict future outcomes...so please, tell me, how can the theory be wrong if it works when we apply it? And works consistently too, not just once in a while



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

Since you're so fond of plagiarizing other websites by copying and pasting their content with zero indication of where it came from and therefore tacitly claiming authorship for someone else's work, I'll reply with exactly the same thing I did the last time some dishonest poster copy and pasted from the exact same website you just did:


Can you explain the environmental pressures that would require bacteria or fruit flies to evolve into something "new"?



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

Since you're so fond of plagiarizing other websites by copying and pasting their content with zero indication of where it came from and therefore tacitly claiming authorship for someone else's work, I'll reply with exactly the same thing I did the last time some dishonest poster copy and pasted from the exact same website you just did:


Can you explain the environmental pressures that would require bacteria or fruit flies to evolve into something "new"?


Oh good call and I though I put the link on too. Yes I should clairify that the copy and past was not my work, even though the actuall authors are listed at the bottom of the page !
www.newgeology.us...
edit on 10-11-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-11-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

Since you're so fond of plagiarizing other websites by copying and pasting their content with zero indication of where it came from and therefore tacitly claiming authorship for someone else's work, I'll reply with exactly the same thing I did the last time some dishonest poster copy and pasted from the exact same website you just did:


Can you explain the environmental pressures that would require bacteria or fruit flies to evolve into something "new"?


I only read about natural selection, copy and pasted too. www.newgeology.us...



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I'm talking about websites like those when I mention "pseudo-science". They also claim all mountain ranges formed at the exact same time...which we know for a FACT isn't true



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   
It sure does seem like going around a lot of things just to call it evolving.



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


That whole article is mindbogglingly wrong. I don't even know where to begin, but if you want to fall for its rhetoric and ignore evolution's evidence, then feel free to stay ignorant. You simply have no concept of time.



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I'm talking about websites like those when I mention "pseudo-science". They also claim all mountain ranges formed at the exact same time...which we know for a FACT isn't true




I couldn't read it all yet cause its a big page but what little I did read seems like common sense and the way I always understood evolution to begin with.
Macroevolution never yeilds a new species and can never be seen in production.
I keep telling you guys its full of holes.

I may not have posted everything I believe in intervention but will say one thing, there are no holes.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 61  62  63    65  66  67 >>

log in

join