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: 83
31
<< 80  81  82    84  85  86 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





I find it impossible to discuss anything with you. Your books have no evidence otherwise you could show it here in the way the pro evolution group does. You answer any and all question without considering any point made and roll out unrelated rubbish that is never backed up with anything other than belief.

Worse you make totally baseless statements like hands show we are not from earth. We do not fit. We have stolen powers to list but a few and never address how you came to believe them when asked.

Belief does not = fact and your belief = zero evidence

Your lack of any evidence is why you cannot address the OP and that is to describe the diversity we see without evolution and why you attack evolution instead but show a total lack of understanding of it.
I dissagree. I think the books are pretty straight forward and they all point in the same direction. You might have missed the hand thing, it is pretty deep. I think evolution is allready been dismissed, and some people are just in deniel. There is zero evidence that links us to primates. Sure there is overlap, but thats it. There are no mass bones, there are no DNA tests that conclude magically changing DNA, there are no bones of transgression. The whole theory is full of holes.




posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


Well sorry but no one taught me, I had to teach myself and was getting very jelious at how pretty everyone elses replies were compared to mine.



posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





Story books are not objective evidence. Fossils, DNA analysis, lab observations and experiments are exactly that.


Really, then what if DNA analysis and lab observations make it into a story book?

And you are correct, my estimate was just that, but I must say its a very conservitive one. I'm sure it would take trillions of years for us to have evolved from primates. The earth is not that old so theres a problem.
edit on 21-11-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





I'm sure it would take trillions of years for us to have evolved from primates.


It "only" took 15m years as we now know



posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
I dissagree. I think the books are pretty straight forward and they all point in the same direction. You might have missed the hand thing, it is pretty deep. I think evolution is allready been dismissed, and some people are just in deniel. There is zero evidence that links us to primates. Sure there is overlap, but thats it. There are no mass bones, there are no DNA tests that conclude magically changing DNA, there are no bones of transgression. The whole theory is full of holes.


Well, you're wrong, and I would propose that you are the one in denial. You would rather cling to a story book than observe the DNA tests which show how close we are to the other apes on the planet. You ignore all the similarities in physicality such as bone structure, dentistry specifically, tail bone, behavioral traits, etc. You ignore the presence of intelligence in other species on Earth. You ignore the fossils and all the transitional bones which prove that our species changed over time. There is chromosomal proof that our chromosomes are only slightly different from a chimp, and that includes having two chromosomes fused together.

You ignore absolutely all the evidence, and then have the audacity to claim that there is zero evidence. Then, you have the gall to say that your story book has all the evidence you need! This is ludicrous!



posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth

Really, then what if DNA analysis and lab observations make it into a story book?

And you are correct, my estimate was just that, but I must say its a very conservitive one. I'm sure it would take trillions of years for us to have evolved from primates. The earth is not that old so theres a problem.


Then it would be science book, and not a story book.

Where are you getting that number from? Trillions of years? That's older than the universe. So it takes 13 billion years for the universe to form into what it is today, yet trillions for one type of life to evolve into something very similar. Right. How very conservative of you.



posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





Well, you're wrong, and I would propose that you are the one in denial. You would rather cling to a story book than observe the DNA tests which show how close we are to the other apes on the planet. You ignore all the similarities in physicality such as bone structure, dentistry specifically, tail bone, behavioral traits, etc. You ignore the presence of intelligence in other species on Earth. You ignore the fossils and all the transitional bones which prove that our species changed over time. There is chromosomal proof that our chromosomes are only slightly different from a chimp, and that includes having two chromosomes fused together.

You ignore absolutely all the evidence, and then have the audacity to claim that there is zero evidence. Then, you have the gall to say that your story book has all the evidence you need! This is ludicrous!
Not at all. I think there is a lot of truth in the bible, I think von daniken has a lot of truth, I think Pye has a lot of truth, and I think Sitchen has some truth too. I think your the one in denile. And it's 4 against your one so its not looking to good.

As far as how close we are to apes, we are 97% matched in our DNA which is only several million difference in Genes. We are also 70% matched with rats but I don't think we look anything like them. Your confusing overlap with something that is fictious. We aren't any relation to primates and if we were, you and I and others wouldn't be questioning this because that little thing called evidence would be here.

If you have to ask, your not from here. If you have to think about it, your not from here, if you have to question it, your not from here. It should be oh so obvious that it would be unanomously accepted. The bible doesn provide something your theory does not, and that is history, in writting. So maybe you ought to fess up on the fact that your simply being blind to the truth.

Notice how I don't shun anything out in my belief. Evolution is possible. I think it's possible we evolved somewhere else over trillions of years. If we evolved from primates anyhow. Now if we were made in a lab, that could have been 200,000 years ago.

Our mtDNA shows us to be 200,000 years old and your trying to convince me that we went from swinging from trees and throwing poo at each other to processing food, jet airplanes, indoor plumbing and three piece suits.

Come on man. Get a grip and see this for what it is. Evolution makes NO sense at all. Something else is going on.



posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





Then it would be science book, and not a story book.

Where are you getting that number from? Trillions of years? That's older than the universe. So it takes 13 billion years for the universe to form into what it is today, yet trillions for one type of life to evolve into something very similar. Right. How very conservative of you.


I'm assuming your referring to the bible. Not sure which book. Anyhow, how do you know its a storybook. I have never read anything in it or the preface that indicates that it is or isn't anything specific. Of course without supernatural understanding, I can see why you might look at it like that. Current belief and religion are just all wrong, so if thats what your basing your attituide on your feelings are understandable.

Trillions of years is what it would take for us to have evolved from slime, the way that evolutionists think we have. The problem here is there has never been a confirmed case of anything evolving from anything. Now we have over 5 million species on our planet alone but we can't find anything that has left any trace evidence of evolving from anything else.

I'm going to go with the numbers. IMO 5 million is a lot and says your wrong.



posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 






It "only" took 15m years as we now know
So let me get this straight. You think we evolved from apes or something else in 15 million years. Now we can find bones to diansours that were here way back before that, but we can't find any bones to prove transgression.

Let me break this down for you so its easier to see how impossible evolution is.

1st. you have to have mutations typically from radiation, to cause the types of changes we are talking about. But lets agree for the argument this actually happened. Now typically you will end up with mass defects along these stages, making it more than obvious, radiation played a part in this. Of course this species also dies out very quickly. But lets ignore that step even though its a vital one.

2nd you have to have the same mutation happen to mass amounts of people at the same time, and in the same way. The reason is because if you don't, then you would be left with only one or two people to produce offspring which would be incest, and the race would die out quick and in a cruel way. But lest assume we made it past this part too.

3rd Stages 1 and 2 would have to happen to mass amounts of people in the same way, over the course of millions of years. There of course would be mass amounts of bones left behind to prove this step, its vital to identify, and there is simply no excuse for us not having this proof.

4th stage. Lets assume we still made it over all these hurdles, we should have mass variable stages of evolution with all 5 million species. Keep in mind we have NONE. It's a cold dose of reality that makes me wonder how you guys can belive in such nonsense. Any claim to be found are quickly debunked, and I for one would have no problem accepting one, as long as it can be proven its good proof. I would have no problem believing in this crap if there was some substance to it.

5th stage. Our DNA would have to play hide and seek with us hiding the real truth which is telling us that we are 200,000 years old. It makes no sense to have 200,000 year old DNA if we evolved millions of years ago, unless the DNA changes the way evolutionists think. If it does, then DNA is completly useless in pathlogy.

6th stage. All and any proof of evolution would have to dissapear off the face of the earth, only leaving behind what we have today. In addition all evolution would also have to stop at this point otherwise we would be able to trace it.

I'm sorry man, I just can't buy into this. I would believe more in snake oil myself.
edit on 21-11-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





Well, you're wrong, and I would propose that you are the one in denial. You would rather cling to a story book than observe the DNA tests which show how close we are to the other apes on the planet. You ignore all the similarities in physicality such as bone structure, dentistry specifically, tail bone, behavioral traits, etc. You ignore the presence of intelligence in other species on Earth. You ignore the fossils and all the transitional bones which prove that our species changed over time. There is chromosomal proof that our chromosomes are only slightly different from a chimp, and that includes having two chromosomes fused together.

You ignore absolutely all the evidence, and then have the audacity to claim that there is zero evidence. Then, you have the gall to say that your story book has all the evidence you need! This is ludicrous!
I didn't ignore it, I added it up. It comes out to millions of different genes which is actually a lot.



posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


1st. you have to have mutations typically from radiation, to cause the types of changes we are talking about. But lets agree for the argument this actually happened. Now typically you will end up with mass defects along these stages, making it more than obvious, radiation played a part in this. Of course this species also dies out very quickly. But lets ignore that step even though its a vital one.

Typically from radiation? Once again, you’re making assertions with zero evidence to support them. From your own favorite source, Wikipedia:

Mutations are caused by radiation, viruses, transposons and mutagenic chemicals, as well as errors that occur during meiosis or DNA replication. They can also be induced by the organism itself, by cellular processes such as hypermutation.



2nd you have to have the same mutation happen to mass amounts of people at the same time, and in the same way. The reason is because if you don't, then you would be left with only one or two people to produce offspring which would be incest, and the race would die out quick and in a cruel way. But lest assume we made it past this part too.

All it takes is one parent to have a dominant mutation that confers some kind of selective benefit and for that parent to mate with multiple partners and/or have multiple offspring for beneficial mutations to spread through a population. Here’s a primer on population genetics for you that will explain why your argument has no basis in reality.


3rd Stages 1 and 2 would have to happen to mass amounts of people in the same way, over the course of millions of years. There of course would be mass amounts of bones left behind to prove this step, its vital to identify, and there is simply no excuse for us not having this proof.

You’ve made the same ridiculous statement about bones several times in this thread. Each time, someone has posted information in reply showing you why there aren’t “massive amounts of bones”. For you to keep parroting the same garbage at this stage of the thread is just you willfully embracing your own ignorance.


4th stage. Lets assume we still made it over all these hurdles, we should have mass variable stages of evolution with all 5 million species. Keep in mind we have NONE. It's a cold dose of reality that makes me wonder how you guys can belive in such nonsense. Any claim to be found are quickly debunked, and I for one would have no problem accepting one, as long as it can be proven its good proof. I would have no problem believing in this crap if there was some substance to it.

You seem to be making up concepts on the fly here. Can you more clearly explain what “mass variable stages of evolution” are? If it’s a concept that you made up, like the “blue laminate” of DNA, then it’s no wonder you can’t find any evidence for it. You go on to claim that every instance of it has been debunked, so you must have some sources for those instances, right?


5th stage. Our DNA would have to play hide and seek with us hiding the real truth which is telling us that we are 200,000 years old. It makes no sense to have 200,000 year old DNA if we evolved millions of years ago, unless the DNA changes the way evolutionists think. If it does, then DNA is completly useless in pathlogy.

Our mtDNA shows that we have a common ancestor that lived 200,000 years ago. It’s already been explained to you how this is different from our species being 200,000 years old. We can trace our lineage back to our previous ancestor and the one before that and the one before that and so on. This has been presented to you in this thread multiple times already. You never actually provide any kind of refutation for any of the evidence presented as counterpoints to your posts. You either just ignore it or say you don’t believe it.


6th stage. All and any proof of evolution would have to dissapear off the face of the earth, only leaving behind what we have today. In addition all evolution would also have to stop at this point otherwise we would be able to trace it.

Ring species put the lie to what you’re claiming here. And evolution hasn’t stopped. Evolution is an observable phenomenon that we witness today. And we can trace evolution. I’m not sure why you feel we can’t.



posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Wow, just wow!!! You clearly ignored every single link in my previous post if you still keep on spreading that nonsense.


To be clear:

- DNA fully backs up the theory
- The fossil record fully supports it
- Migratory trends confirm it
- We are actively developing medicine based on the theory
- We can predict future outcomes with the help of the theory

The above are facts. You simply continue to ignore them, as is evident by you making claims that have been debunked over and over again.



posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





Typically from radiation? Once again, you’re making assertions with zero evidence to support them. From your own favorite source, Wikipedia:
Actually I pulled it out of my @$$, but ok. It just seems like common sense to me.




All it takes is one parent to have a dominant mutation that confers some kind of selective benefit and for that parent to mate with multiple partners and/or have multiple offspring for beneficial mutations to spread through a population. Here’s a primer on population genetics for you that will explain why your argument has no basis in reality.
Ok, so here is yet another off chance to consider. I would call it another step.




You’ve made the same ridiculous statement about bones several times in this thread. Each time, someone has posted information in reply showing you why there aren’t “massive amounts of bones”. For you to keep parroting the same garbage at this stage of the thread is just you willfully embracing your own ignorance.
I'm not the one with the odd belief here. The chances are 0.




You seem to be making up concepts on the fly here. Can you more clearly explain what “mass variable stages of evolution” are? If it’s a concept that you made up, like the “blue laminate” of DNA, then it’s no wonder you can’t find any evidence for it. You go on to claim that every instance of it has been debunked, so you must have some sources for those instances, right?
Oh not at all and I allready admitted that being a mistake on my part, anyhow, I'm saying there is zero chance of us switching species from one genetic person, in multiple ways at the same time. We aren't able to force a species to change at all so its sort of a sore subject.

All test show that we end up with the same species either way, and those that do try to veer off, die quickly.




Our mtDNA shows that we have a common ancestor that lived 200,000 years ago. It’s already been explained to you how this is different from our species being 200,000 years old. We can trace our lineage back to our previous ancestor and the one before that and the one before that and so on. This has been presented to you in this thread multiple times already. You never actually provide any kind of refutation for any of the evidence presented as counterpoints to your posts. You either just ignore it or say you don’t believe it.
Oh I see, so just because you presented it to me it has to be truth then huh. So then how old are we?




Ring species put the lie to what you’re claiming here. And evolution hasn’t stopped. Evolution is an observable phenomenon that we witness today. And we can trace evolution. I’m not sure why you feel we can’t.
It's too bad they have never been able to identify this happening in humans. Sorry I don't buy it unless its seen in humans.



posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





- DNA fully backs up the theory
But it also backs up many other beliefs as well. For example if God did actually create us about 10,000 years ago using a microscope as the image, its possible he started with existing DNA from other species and gene spliced them like frankenstien. It also adds more possibility to the idea that we might not be from earth.




- The fossil record fully supports it
Well if you talking about one bone that was found I can tell you we all didn't migrate from that one bone, and would tend to lend more acceptance of it just being a 1/2 breed of a human which is more understandable.




- Migratory trends confirm it
None of which we ever see in humans.




- We are actively developing medicine based on the theory
Well we have been known to be wrong and make mistakes but I can tell you there is a reason why its called a theory.




- We can predict future outcomes with the help of the theory
All of which has nothing to do with proving how we evolved.



posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Actually I pulled it out of my @$$, but ok. It just seems like common sense to me.

Maybe you need to take stock of how many things you assert seem like common sense to you but are completely wrong based on the facts.


Ok, so here is yet another off chance to consider. I would call it another step.

So you've now admitted that the first two steps in your chain are wrong.


I'm not the one with the odd belief here. The chances are 0.

Actually, you are. If you had the common courtesy to read the information people took the time you provided to you, you'd see why your claim that there should be "massive amounts of bones" is, like your first two assumptions, wrong.


Oh not at all and I allready admitted that being a mistake on my part, anyhow, I'm saying there is zero chance of us switching species from one genetic person, in multiple ways at the same time. We aren't able to force a species to change at all so its sort of a sore subject.

So now your claiming that there's no such thing as artificial selection? You're demonstrably wrong on that one.


All test show that we end up with the same species either way, and those that do try to veer off, die quickly.

Whose tests? The only source you've provided for this assertion is the website that you plagiarized earlier. Do you have a citation for your assertion that we've never caused speciation via artificial selection?


Oh I see, so just because you presented it to me it has to be truth then huh. So then how old are we?

No, it's the truth because it has objective evidence to support it and zero objective evidence that refutes it. Our age as a species is irrelevant. Your claim that we were deposited here as a species, with no terrestrial predecessor, is demonstrably wrong. We know that we diverged from Homo rhodesiensis. You've been provided with this information and references to the evidence from which we draw that conclusion multiple times in this thread. You continually ignore the information provided or claim to have read it and just not believe it.


It's too bad they have never been able to identify this happening in humans. Sorry I don't buy it unless its seen in humans.

And that's why your argument boils down to one from personal incredulity. You have provided zero objective evidence for your assertions, in spite of being provided with inordinate amounts of evidence supporting evolution, and believe what you believe because your gut tells you it must be right.



posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





But it also backs up many other beliefs as well. For example if God did actually create us about 10,000 years ago using a microscope as the image, its possible he started with existing DNA from other species and gene spliced them like frankenstien. It also adds more possibility to the idea that we might not be from earth.


DNA doesn't prove any of the above





Well if you talking about one bone that was found I can tell you we all didn't migrate from that one bone, and would tend to lend more acceptance of it just being a 1/2 breed of a human which is more understandable.



We have more than "one bone"….we have thousands of them. Here's a selection.




None of which we ever see in humans.


Except...we know it historically happened, and it's happening to this day: LINK




Well we have been known to be wrong and make mistakes but I can tell you there is a reason why its called a theory.


It's called a scientific theory because it's fully backed up by objective evidence, and because it's testable and nothing "debunks it". If any of those prerequisites were to be broken, it wouldn't be classified a "theory" anymore. In science, it's the highest grade of certitude short of a law.

Oh, and what does your above quote have to do with the FACT that we're actively applying the theory in modern medicine?





All of which has nothing to do with proving how we evolved.


Of course the fact that we can predict future outcomes thanks to the theory is relevant. If the theory were wrong, we couldn't use it to predict the future accurately!!
edit on 21-11-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





Maybe you need to take stock of how many things you assert seem like common sense to you but are completely wrong based on the facts.
Ya I guess since it matched wikipedia dosent account for anything.




So you've now admitted that the first two steps in your chain are wrong.
No they are still right, you just now have to add another step.




Actually, you are. If you had the common courtesy to read the information people took the time you provided to you, you'd see why your claim that there should be "massive amounts of bones" is, like your first two assumptions, wrong.
I'm sorry but believing we bottlenecked though one life is just idiotic, especially since the assam tribune clearly points out we never dropped below tens of thousands. So where are the bones ????????




So now your claiming that there's no such thing as artificial selection? You're demonstrably wrong on that one.
I never did believe in it, I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt to see if the steps would work.




Whose tests? The only source you've provided for this assertion is the website that you plagiarized earlier. Do you have a citation for your assertion that we've never caused speciation via artificial selection?
Not sure if you wanted authors or website, how about both. Remember the one I plagerized.... www.newgeology.us... It's the non scientific read which makes it a tad easier to hold.




No, it's the truth because it has objective evidence to support it and zero objective evidence that refutes it. Our age as a species is irrelevant. Your claim that we were deposited here as a species, with no terrestrial predecessor, is demonstrably wrong. We know that we diverged from Homo rhodesiensis. You've been provided with this information and references to the evidence from which we draw that conclusion multiple times in this thread. You continually ignore the information provided or claim to have read it and just not believe it.
Actually we didn't diverge, we actaully crossbreeded, which is also in the bible. Now its another subject that goes against my belief and understanding but it might just be possible that specific humanoid species are cross breedable. Not including primates however, LOL.




And that's why your argument boils down to one from personal incredulity. You have provided zero objective evidence for your assertions, in spite of being provided with inordinate amounts of evidence supporting evolution, and believe what you believe because your gut tells you it must be right.
Well maybe in your opinion, but IMO I have yet to see a strand of evolution work that sounds plausable.



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





DNA doesn't prove any of the above
True, not anymore than it proves evolution.




We have more than "one bone"….we have thousands of them. Here's a selection.
When I look at these I see the possibility of other life from the cosmos that were visitors at one point. If they were human, then they are human. If they were another species, then they were another species. It once again proves that we are not alone in the universe.




Except...we know it historically happened, and it's happening to this day: LINK
So people move around. I guess I don't see the connection. I'm in the united states, we are a melting pot of life from all over the globe.




It's called a scientific theory because it's fully backed up by objective evidence, and because it's testable and nothing "debunks it". If any of those prerequisites were to be broken, it wouldn't be classified a "theory" anymore. In science, it's the highest grade of certitude short of a law.

Oh, and what does your above quote have to do with the FACT that we're actively applying the theory in modern medicine?
Just because its down to sections of our life does not account for all of our life. It's like you found one bone of a transgressed primate so you call that proof.




Of course the fact that we can predict future outcomes thanks to the theory is relevant. If the theory were wrong, we couldn't use it to predict the future accurately!!
Of course we can predict. And its easy to accept knowing we will never be around to see the affects of it.



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 01:24 AM
link   
here

I taped this last night while i was flipping through channels and randomly started watching msnbc, so i uploaded it to youtube for you. tell me, why is the bible is bull $hIt again? good commercial right after too..

Revelation 13:16-18
And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a MARK in their right hand, or in their foreheads:And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the MARK, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six. Rev. 13:16-18

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Rev. 22:18-19
edit on 22-11-2011 by RebelRouser because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 02:24 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Not much to add, don't feel like arguing, just thought this might interest both of you.
Play nice



The really interesting thing about a population bottleneck is the effect it has on evolution. With a small population, mutations get passed through a very large percentage of the species' members. Detrimental mutations could be devastating and lead to outright extinction. Beneficial mutations, however, could cause fairly fast shifts in the population. And if you imagine some kind of tribal arrangement in which a few dominant males were responsible for a lot of the procreation going on, this situation becomes even more pronounced. An entirely new species might be created within a few generations. Anthropologists have proposed that such bottlenecks were responsible for the rapid development of hominids.

Extinction Events That Almost Wiped Out Humans

Also, two links fom within that article:
When Humans Faced Extinction

Humans Might Have Faced Extinction



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 80  81  82    84  85  86 >>

log in

join