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: 73
31
<< 70  71  72    74  75  76 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 






That is the question you need to answer. You are the one saying 'We know life did not evolve from one another'. I am asking you to explain how if not evolution do we see the diversity around us.
Intervention. Someone, or something out there is able to create.




That makes no sense at all and I have read it a few times so what point you are trying to make is lost on me
Call the discovery channel.




Your asking for a bit of a leap of faith here and that with a belief that has no holes is a poor start

If we, Humans were brought here explain the connection/relationship we have with all life on THIS planet
The only relationship we have is overlap.




That is the question you need to answer. You are the one saying 'We know life did not evolve from one another'. I am asking you to explain how if not evolution do we see the diversity around us.
Intervention.



That makes no sense at all and I have read it a few times so what point you are trying to make is lost on me
Of course it makes sense. A planet should be made with all of it's intended life. Again its another clue we arent from here, we don't fit in here.We are NOT part of a circle of life on this planet but if we were on our intended planet we would be.



I disagree. If an anteater evolved the ability to reason he would definitely ask 'why am I here and what is my purpose' what your saying in effect is would he know his diet and that is completely different.

Hands dont have a specific purpose in design????

Our hands are probably the keystone of our success. Why hands are proof that we came from off world in your opinion leaves me agog.

Well proving he grows a brain but someone else on here told me that evolving isn't always for the better. Anyhow yes on the diet. I never said we werent sucessful in adapting but what specifically were our hands designd for? And I did answer all these question and quoted them but since you were kind enough to repost it, I felt I should answer them.




posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





All I'm trying to say is maybe they didn't want that proof left behind.


Yet you present zero proof. You might just as well claim a giant purple unicorn farted and brought life to earth that way





Your asking trivial things that were taught in first grade. Everyone knows most of the earth has signs that it was under water at one point. Are you seriously in doubt of this?


Asking for OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE isn't trivial, it's what made sure we now have medicine, can fly planes, and it also allows you to post all that stuff you never bother backing up with evidence.

As for water on earth, it was never fully covered in water.

If it were, we'd have geological evidence...and there's none





I'm sure that old technology was looking that way simply because of overlap. I agree with Pye they did it to just get rid of him. And I understand why, he was asking them to check if its alien, and the technology would not allow it. But they didn't want to lose a customer right? Why would you say Pye is a crook, do you know something we don't? No lab 424 proved it to be alien, you need to watch the more current video.


If an alien compound forms part of DNA, they would have known. Just like they can show if a tiny horse-like creature had a zebra as parent or not


It might have been classified as "we don't know what the hell this is, but it's not human", but if something that clearly doesn't belong there forms part of the DNA, they would have found it. Yet they didn't...and Pye refuses to present his study, he simply claims stuff without backing it up.




Aside from the first low end technology test, I'm not aware of anyone saying it was alien. Are you sure your not talking about the second skull that is part of the story. One is human, and the other is not. As far as hydrocephalus, that was ruled out, and it was clear. no 424 is in the spotlight and I didn't pull that out of my @$$


Again, the only thing speaking against the Yale and Trace studies is Pye, and he never let anyone peer review his study...and he hasn't for over 2 years now


My guess is, it would hurt the sales figures of his book





You might want to let anthropologists and our legal centers know that DNA is absolutly useless for anything, because if DNA can do all the things that evolution claims it can, its 100% useless.


Who said it's useless? It clearly confirms common descent


By the way, you keep on using that word "overlap" when it comes to DNA, and yes, some species overlap, but we are also clearly related on a DNA basis to species that are now extinct...which ISN'T overlap.

edit on 14-11-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


Why should I explain diversity for your idea of evolution, when you refuse to answer simple questions based on the foundation of the evolution of man ? You can't answer simple questions and insist your way of thinking is the only correct way. Defend your idea of evolution and answer the questions.There is no arguement if you can't even provide the basic foundation of your belief.
How old is the earth ?
Where and when did modern man appear ?



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
reply to post by colin42
 


Why should I explain diversity for your idea of evolution, when you refuse to answer simple questions based on the foundation of the evolution of man ? You can't answer simple questions and insist your way of thinking is the only correct way. Defend your idea of evolution and answer the questions.There is no arguement if you can't even provide the basic foundation of your belief.
How old is the earth ?
Where and when did modern man appear ?


We can answer both those questions


4.54b years, and the margin of error is only around 1%

Homo sapiens evolved around 200,000 years ago



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Yet you present zero proof. You might just as well claim a giant purple unicorn farted and brought life to earth that way
Yes sorry to say I have about as much proof as evolutionists do but I have one thing they don't. A reason.




Asking for OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE isn't trivial, it's what made sure we now have medicine, can fly planes, and it also allows you to post all that stuff you never bother backing up with evidence.

As for water on earth, it was never fully covered in water.

If it were, we'd have geological evidence...and there's none
It's hard to say but depends on how much water was added.




If an alien compound forms part of DNA, they would have known. Just like they can show if a tiny horse-like creature had a zebra as parent or not
Not anymore than we could know evolution did some change.




It might have been classified as "we don't know what the hell this is, but it's not human", but if something that clearly doesn't belong there forms part of the DNA, they would have found it. Yet they didn't...and Pye refuses to present his study, he simply claims stuff without backing it up.
I'm not understanding what your saying here. It's as though your claiming intervention with the alien. There was in terms of the zygote but it looks like your saying something else. They did in fact find something wrong with the DNA. The found alien father, alien mother, and Human mtDNA. Three different beings were used to make this alien.




Again, the only thing speaking against the Yale and Trace studies is Pye, and he never let anyone peer review his study...and he hasn't for over 2 years now

My guess is, it would hurt the sales figures of his book
I think your attituide explains why he hasn't opened this up to review. I think its something pretty big and he needs to be carful how he lets it into the public.




Who said it's useless? It clearly confirms common descent

By the way, you keep on using that word "overlap" when it comes to DNA, and yes, some species overlap, but we are also clearly related on a DNA basis to species that are now extinct...which ISN'T overlap.


According to evolutionists, DNA is useless. For example your claiming that DNA can warp and change, how do you know the lineage is accurate? How do you not know that part didn't change. This is why evolution is the biggest crock.



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


4.54b years, and the margin of error is only around 1%

Homo sapiens evolved around 200,000 years ago

And ALL evolutionist accept and believe that as true facts ?

Again, where did modern man begin ?
edit on 14-11-2011 by OLD HIPPY DUDE because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





Yes sorry to say I have about as much proof as evolutionists do but I have one thing they don't. A reason.



Evolution is fully backed up by OBJECTIVE evidence...your hypothesis isn't. So no, it's not the same. But yeah, you might have an agenda, but it's definitely not based on logic, rationality, or objective evidence...all cornerstones of the theory of evolution.




It's hard to say but depends on how much water was added.


And again you provide zero evidence that water was added. So let me make a similarly ridiculous statement: It's hard to say, but depends on the weight of 1 hair of a purple unicorn.

Objective evidence matters...which is why the theory of evolution is so far superior to your nonsense





Not anymore than we could know evolution did some change.


Not sure what you mean here...




I'm not understanding what your saying here. It's as though your claiming intervention with the alien. There was in terms of the zygote but it looks like your saying something else. They did in fact find something wrong with the DNA. The found alien father, alien mother, and Human mtDNA. Three different beings were used to make this alien.


Once and for all: THE OFFICIAL STUDIES claim the skull is 100% human, no alien, no unicorns, no nothing. You are citing Pye, a man who never published his study, a man who doesn't allow peer reviews, a man who simply claims stuff without presenting objective evidence...and all that in light of official studies from one of the top universities on the planet, and a research centre that specializes in the analysis of fossiles


So no, they haven't anything wrong with the DNA...only that snake-oil salesman is claiming that





I think your attituide explains why he hasn't opened this up to review. I think its something pretty big and he needs to be carful how he lets it into the public.


So is he afraid of criticism and an objective review??





According to evolutionists, DNA is useless. For example your claiming that DNA can warp and change, how do you know the lineage is accurate? How do you not know that part didn't change. This is why evolution is the biggest crock.


Because we know how and why DNA changes over time. We can trace a direct lineage from today's modern human all the way back to species that are now extinct. So no, DNA isn't useless because it doesn't just reset to "0" and changes completely...it follows very specific parameters. And that traceable lineage fully supports the theory of evolution, which is why it's the "biggest crock".



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


4.54b years, and the margin of error is only around 1%

Homo sapiens evolved around 200,000 years ago

And ALL evolutionist accept and believe that as true facts ?

Again, where did modern man begin ?
edit on 14-11-2011 by OLD HIPPY DUDE because: (no reason given)


I just told you


And yeah, science agrees there because OBJECTIVE evidence backs it up. Not science's fault if you can't deal with facts



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
reply to post by colin42
 


Why should I explain diversity for your idea of evolution, when you refuse to answer simple questions based on the foundation of the evolution of man ? You can't answer simple questions and insist your way of thinking is the only correct way. Defend your idea of evolution and answer the questions.There is no arguement if you can't even provide the basic foundation of your belief.
How old is the earth ?
Where and when did modern man appear ?


If you deny Evolution has any revalence then the diversity we see is here by another means. I am asking the opposite of what you wrote. That is for you to explain it with your beliefs.

You do not accept evolutions description so why would I try to tell you something you have made clear you will not accept.

So you tell me how old the earth is. You tell me how modern man came to be.

To me you are doing exactly what you say evolutionists do and avoiding the question by asking others.

To quote you in the defence of Evolution and the question I asked. 'There is no arguement if you can't even provide the basic foundation of your belief'.



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Evolution is fully backed up by OBJECTIVE evidence...your hypothesis isn't. So no, it's not the same. But yeah, you might have an agenda, but it's definitely not based on logic, rationality, or objective evidence...all cornerstones of the theory of evolution.
Evolution has never been proven to work. If it had, you and I wouldn't be having this conversation.




And again you provide zero evidence that water was added. So let me make a similarly ridiculous statement: It's hard to say, but depends on the weight of 1 hair of a purple unicorn.

Objective evidence matters...which is why the theory of evolution is so far superior to your nonsense
Evidence of high water levels in the past plague this planet, you just need to look.




Once and for all: THE OFFICIAL STUDIES claim the skull is 100% human, no alien, no unicorns, no nothing. You are citing Pye, a man who never published his study, a man who doesn't allow peer reviews, a man who simply claims stuff without presenting objective evidence...and all that in light of official studies from one of the top universities on the planet, and a research centre that specializes in the analysis of fossiles
Oh I'm sorry, and you got to see the official results and no one else has, now I gotcha. 424 clearly states that it's alien.



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


WHERE ? WHERE ? WHERE ? W...H...E...R...E ?

like what continent ????
edit on 14-11-2011 by OLD HIPPY DUDE because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


Sorry but that's naive



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





Evolution has never been proven to work. If it had, you and I wouldn't be having this conversation.



We are actively using the theory in modern medicine, if it were wrong, we couldn't actively apply it like that


What this conversation shows is that you haven't really studied the theory.




Evidence of high water levels in the past plague this planet, you just need to look.


Of course floods are common, they happen all the time somewhere on the planet. However, scientists did "look", and there's ZERO evidence of a global flood...




Oh I'm sorry, and you got to see the official results and no one else has, now I gotcha. 424 clearly states that it's alien.


The other 2 studies are available upon request (write to Yale and Trace) or if you're at a university you could probably grab it from Proquest or Emerald. I challenge you to ask Pye for his study



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


WHERE ? WHERE ? WHERE ? W...H...E...R...E ?

like what continent ????
edit on 14-11-2011 by OLD HIPPY DUDE because: (no reason given)


Africa...but there might be a group from Asia too, ongoing research. Not that it matters, they are all related to us and now extinct species like the ancestor we share with chimps. So not exactly sure how geography matters in the context of proving the theory wrong



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


WHERE ? WHERE ? WHERE ? W...H...E...R...E ?

like what continent ????
edit on 14-11-2011 by OLD HIPPY DUDE because: (no reason given)


Mostly Africa, though after spreading through the world again (there was an extinction event that killed most of our ancestors and narrowed the genetic tree), smaller changes over time have led to the differences you see between people like Asians and Native Americans.

It's really quite complex. The ancient pre-modern versions of the human race spread from Africa a couple times, and Africa is likely where we developed the need for more intelligence due to the climate changes and harsher climates over time. Being able to produce more complex shelters and hunting methods are paramount to survival.



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Not that it matters, they are all related to us and now extinct species like the ancestor we share with chimps. So not exactly sure how geography matters in the context of proving the theory wrong


do you have any demonstrable evidence linking us to that ancestor? I know you think you know what you are talking about because you'll just say "it's in our dna!" but so is Spongebob Squartpants' dna. Modern Man's dna starts circa 250,000 years ago. Where is the species that we came from? Don't say Neanderthal or Denisova either. They are not the same species as modern humans and actually we coexisted for a while and supposedly interbred (like a horse and donkey). So where are the ones who we each came from? Are you saying our link is the same that gave rise to Neanderthal or Denisova? Do you have demonstrable evidence of that?



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Not that it matters, they are all related to us and now extinct species like the ancestor we share with chimps. So not exactly sure how geography matters in the context of proving the theory wrong


do you have any demonstrable evidence linking us to that ancestor? I know you think you know what you are talking about because you'll just say "it's in our dna!" but so is Spongebob Squartpants' dna. Modern Man's dna starts circa 250,000 years ago. Where is the species that we came from? Don't say Neanderthal or Denisova either. They are not the same species as modern humans and actually we coexisted for a while and supposedly interbred (like a horse and donkey). So where are the ones who we each came from? Are you saying our link is the same that gave rise to Neanderthal or Denisova? Do you have demonstrable evidence of that?


Well, Homo Heidelbergenesis is one...lived around 600,000 years ago. Before that we have Homo Antecessor, up to 1.2m years ago (because of the FOXP2 gene linked to speech). Of course we share common DNA with Neanderthals too. Interestingly enough, some races more than others. And you can go back even further if you bother clicking the same link that's been posted for over 60 pages now


And before you go on another nonsense rant about stuff like "DNA doesn't prove, blahblahblah"...DNA DOES PROVE COMMON ANCESTRY.
edit on 14-11-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
Mostly Africa, though after spreading through the world again (there was an extinction event that killed most of our ancestors and narrowed the genetic tree), smaller changes over time have led to the differences you see between people like Asians and Native Americans.

It's really quite complex. The ancient pre-modern versions of the human race spread from Africa a couple times, and Africa is likely where we developed the need for more intelligence due to the climate changes and harsher climates over time. Being able to produce more complex shelters and hunting methods are paramount to survival.


It's just another solid connection with the Sumerians who said the Adamu (first man) were mining for gold in SE Africa a couple hundred thousand years ago. The races come from the artificial manipulation not the environment. You said "small changes over time" gave us the races. Can you explain how that works? Ohh, that's right you said, "it's really quite complex", does that mean we wouldn't understand and only a small privileged few are able?

I read this at an other site, it's from '03:

"why did these different homo species die out right after they evolved into a different branch? Seems strange to me that the only homo species is us, and the closest link still alive is the chimpanzee."

The Neanders and Denis may have been the rejects for one reason or another. They were physically fit but maybe not smart enough to stay on task and run equipment for the mining as the story goes. Sitchin thinks they used H Erectus to blend with their genes, Pye thinks Neanderthal and the Sumerians just say they (the Annunaki) used the "wild man" or something not specific to blend with their genes. There were definitely trials and errors and that's also why we have genetic entropy- it was installed in our code so we would not last forever. Sorry to break the bad news.



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


not much on the bones and no dna. "probably" is not good enough



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
It's just another solid connection with the Sumerians who said the Adamu (first man) were mining for gold in SE Africa a couple hundred thousand years ago. The races come from the artificial manipulation not the environment. You said "small changes over time" gave us the races. Can you explain how that works? Ohh, that's right you said, "it's really quite complex", does that mean we wouldn't understand and only a small privileged few are able?


No, not at all. It's only complex because it's on such a scale, that it's like trying to imagine the genesis of the universe. There are simply so many steps over time that lead to these gradual changes that to visualize them requires a lot of brain power. Even I have difficulty, but the fossils work as excellent points of reference, because they show what was and wasn't changed already at different points. There is also normal variation among the larger variations. For example, you'll notice that asian people tend to have thinner eye proportions, but there are variations in height, build, eye color, etc.

Being blonde is actual a mutation that simply spread through European populations.


I read this at an other site, it's from '03:

"why did these different homo species die out right after they evolved into a different branch? Seems strange to me that the only homo species is us, and the closest link still alive is the chimpanzee."


That is an excellent question, and it is one that many seek to answer. Some ideas are that they rejoined the human population, since we loved breeding and spreading all over the planet. Other ideas are that we simply out-competed them. We had superior intelligence and weapons, so we fought them for territory and resources, killing them off almost entirely. There are some that say that in certain parts of Asia, there may be survivors from Homo Erectus, but it has been 10,000 years since they had a presence there. Ironically, most of these other species completely dropped off the bone map 10-100,000 years ago. Maybe civilization had something to with it, but that's up for debate in the scientific community. Mostly, it is accepted that climate change is the main factor.


The Neanders and Denis may have been the rejects for one reason or another. They were physically fit but maybe not smart enough to stay on task and run equipment for the mining as the story goes. Sitchin thinks they used H Erectus to blend with their genes, Pye thinks Neanderthal and the Sumerians just say they (the Annunaki) used the "wild man" or something not specific to blend with their genes. There were definitely trials and errors and that's also why we have genetic entropy- it was installed in our code so we would not last forever. Sorry to break the bad news.


Neanderthals were actually quite sophisticated. First to bury their dead ritually, made beads, came up a complex efficient method for creating stone tools. Really, they were smart, simply having societies that involved a great deal of physical work over time and brutality, since every Neanderthal found to date has dozens of broken and healed bones.

It is believed and supported by data that Neanderthals at least in part were bred into the Homo Sapien race. That is why every now and then you'll find someone with a recessive gene of a prominent brow line. (keep in mind that geneticists do not fully understand what causes genes to become dominant or recessive over time. It is hypothesized that environment over multiple generations is a factor).



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 70  71  72    74  75  76 >>

log in

join