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: 89
31
<< 86  87  88    90  91  92 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Well I did actually explain what I watched on tv that came out to Trevor the giant celestial squid that poops out planets and life.




posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


If your asking for my input on that, I think it might not be creation or evolution. This episode I watched on tv said that planets were bing formed from gasses and there is life on the planets just like that. It's also possible a creator of sorts is causing all this. It's also possible the whole package is evolution. So I'm stuck believing in Trevor.



posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia
 


If your asking for my input on that, I think it might not be creation or evolution. This episode I watched on tv said that planets were bing formed from gasses and there is life on the planets just like that. It's also possible a creator of sorts is causing all this. It's also possible the whole package is evolution. So I'm stuck believing in Trevor.


TV is not always the best source of information. At the moment we speculate about the origins of life, but right now we're not sure which came first: the RNA or the DNA.

Personally, I think it makes sense that the RNA came first as a combination of amino acids, eventually mutating to combine with two RNA strands and create a molecule of DNA.

Either way, that's still evolution, since evolution is basically "many small changes over time." There's really nothing more to it. It's all just time and change.



posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


I would agree with you, it seems more likely that RNA was first. The only claims that I have been making from the get go are that we aren't from here. We are not part of an eco system here, nothing would miss us if we up and dissapeared. In fact mother nature is rejecting us as we damage the planet. Aside, trying to figure out if we evolved, or were created, the skys the limit. It might be that both are wrong and there is some other form. I do know one thing, if we were on the planet we originated from, we would have no question about how we came into existance.

From the progarm I watched it looks like all life that is intended for a planet is embedded in a small package that fits in nice and neat like an eco package. If you want to believe someone created you, thats fine, Chances are high there was some type of intellegent design behind that starting point either way. If you want to believe we evolved, I think humans are way older than 200,000 years old, and seem to have a problem finding anything that directly tells us just how old. Of course we are older than 10,000 years which is when god suposedly put us here.

It's hard to accept creation based on there being so much different life out there, I mean come on, how much can someone make. On the flip side if you had this amazing talent and could make just about any type of life you could imagine, would you just stop at one or two species, no you would make many. It gets even more complicated, who made protiens, who made DNA and RNA.

Evolution could answer a lot of this with claims that we are all related to everything. The problem is that it must take trillions upon trillions of years to connect us all. After all if we all came from one another, there would aslo be proof of those transgressions. We might find new species and might find matching sections but no evolution. Of course there are always match sections, most of us have two eyes, two ears, a mouth a nose. Does that mean we are related? We share the same protiens that make up all DNA, does that mean we are realted? I think its just as likely that a creator is using recycled ideas.

Take a look at how cars have evolved. We started with 4 tires and still to this day have 4 tires. Yet they have evolved over the course of years, from basic to luxery. Two doors, four doors, tinted windows, heated seats, sunroof. They have evolved, but they were actually a creation by us. Now would you say that a Malibu is related to an Impala? Yes, and no and yes. They are both cars, but they are different models, but they are both also made by chevy.

I'm thinking I'm dead on about our mtDNA showing that we are actually older than earth. It makes sense they are keeping this from the public if its showing us to be older than earth. I know I have no proof but the assam tribune did include one statement that makes me believe in this. "So to answer our fundamental question "Where do we come from?" We have to look into many more pioneering studies in coming future." Keep in mind they did make comments about religion as well as evolution, so they are saying those are ruled out. Whats left? Intervention.



posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Remember that 97% of all species that have existed are extinct. The planet is not friendly to the things living on it. We are no exception. The fact that we share traits with every single organism on the planet and have a small number of differences compared with many (I mean, we can even use mice to test medicine, because their organs are almost exactly the same as ours), it just doesn't suggest alien at all. It's completely natural to be rejected by your environment. Environments change over time. So far, humans have been by far the most successful species on the planet, because we have propagated all over the planet with numbers over 7 billion.

Nothing about this says alien to me. Sure, we may have experienced alien contact at some point, but I don't feel that we are alien. Even being mixed with alien doesn't make sense. We have far too many similarities with this planet's organisms. If we were alien, everyone would have somewhere in the realm of 50% unidentifiable traits or DNA.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





Remember that 97% of all species that have existed are extinct. The planet is not friendly to the things living on it. We are no exception. The fact that we share traits with every single organism on the planet and have a small number of differences compared with many (I mean, we can even use mice to test medicine, because their organs are almost exactly the same as ours), it just doesn't suggest alien at all. It's completely natural to be rejected by your environment. Environments change over time. So far, humans have been by far the most successful species on the planet, because we have propagated all over the planet with numbers over 7 billion.
Well I think the planet is friendlier to most other life by comparison to humans. Next time you have a chance take a quick inventory of the medicine isle. Realize just how much we have had to adapt. By comparison primates and other life, have very limited selection of these in natural form. Why would we venture away from a more healthier lifestyle, healthier diet and living conditions.

Our adaptation is so redundant that we have nothing in common with primates. The only thing we have in common being on this planet is that we breath air and drink water. We can't even drink the water without processing it first to avoid getting sick or dying. The commonality we share with rats is only 70% by comparison. It is shocking that we even have that. I would say we would have the same commonality with anything else in the cosmos and thats probably whats being overlooked here.I also think its easy to confuse this overlap with relation. I know I don't have the answers but whoever or whatever made us, could make life in many simmilar ways. It's not hard to imagine, we do the same thing when we create.




Nothing about this says alien to me. Sure, we may have experienced alien contact at some point, but I don't feel that we are alien. Even being mixed with alien doesn't make sense. We have far too many similarities with this planet's organisms. If we were alien, everyone would have somewhere in the realm of 50% unidentifiable traits or DNA.
Well if aliens do exist at all, then we are also alien. If we were placed here, then we are alien to this planet as well. Every living creature has ties to this planet. We don't have any eco ties thats for sure.
edit on 29-11-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Take a look at how cars have evolved. We started with 4 tires and still to this day have 4 tires. Yet they have evolved over the course of years, from basic to luxery. Two doors, four doors, tinted windows, heated seats, sunroof. They have evolved, but they were actually a creation by us. Now would you say that a Malibu is related to an Impala? Yes, and no and yes. They are both cars, but they are different models, but they are both also made by chevy.


Cars did not evolve. WE did. We are the ones that have been changing the design over the years and it's backed by facts. Cars didn't upgrade themselves, WE specifically manufactured every single one on the planet. Absolutely terrible comparison, not even close to reality. No wonder you disagree with evolution so hastily.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


Well I know cars don't evolve on there own, it was just an example.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Have you not seen that our bone structure is almost the exact same as a primate's? The only difference is that we stand upright. Bipedality and brain size are what separate us from the modern chimp. This is way more similar than merely drinking the same water and breathing the same air.

Also, the reason we can't drink water is because we polluted it. It kills animals too (except the ones that evolved to process the pollutants, of course).

The reason we are so unhealthy is because our intelligence is also our stupidity. We do things that aren't natural to do, and it makes us sick. Make sense? Naturally, we are attracted to eating high fats and chasing after sugars and salts, though sugar is far rarer in the wild and would never be a major part of the diet. Cultivation of wheat is also a very recent invention, and has shown in its adverse health effects.

Also, the presence of aliens does not make us aliens. That is a fallacy. That's like saying, "I found fish, therefor we must be part fish (although, evolutionarily we do actually share traits with fish)"

Still, you are avoiding the point of the thread again, which is proposing a theory other than evolution that explains the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything substantial come out of your posts.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Remember that 97% of all species that have existed are extinct. The planet is not friendly to the things living on it. We are no exception. The fact that we share traits with every single organism on the planet and have a small number of differences compared with many (I mean, we can even use mice to test medicine, because their organs are almost exactly the same as ours), it just doesn't suggest alien at all. It's completely natural to be rejected by your environment. Environments change over time. So far, humans have been by far the most successful species on the planet, because we have propagated all over the planet with numbers over 7 billion.

Nothing about this says alien to me. Sure, we may have experienced alien contact at some point, but I don't feel that we are alien. Even being mixed with alien doesn't make sense. We have far too many similarities with this planet's organisms. If we were alien, everyone would have somewhere in the realm of 50% unidentifiable traits or DNA.


Well said! We evolved to adapt to Earth's resources, just as other organisms did. If an alien came down to visit, we couldn't even buy him a drink--it would probably kill him, because he didn't evolve to tolerate Earth's minerals and compounds.

I'm not sure we're the most "successful" species, though. We've only been around in our current form for about 200,000 years. Bacteria, on the other hand, have been here since the beginning, and they'll be here when the sun dies. We probably won't be. I guess it depends on how you define "successful."



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Well I know cars don't evolve on there own, it was just an example.


Then why use the argument? It was a terrible example and not relevant to the argument in the least. Evolution is driven by genetic mutations, not a machine changing because of humans upgrading technology.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Yes I can prove evolution wrong, and quite simply too,

are you ready ?

I have rhesus negative blood aka not of rhesus monkey, quite simply you can not make a monkey out of me.

but that leaves God, right ?

wrong, I don't believe in God either although I do believe that any advanced civilisation would be treated as Gods by a lesser advanced culture.

I also believe that we are all of God , eg, a dream you dream alone is only a dream, a dream we dream together is reality, we are in essence all co-creators of this reality, one consciousness, aka God and that includes our little alien friends up above who may of been confused as Gods in the past.

All religion does is separate us from this oneness of god, and is only useful for the ruling elite to divide and separate us in order to control us.

So if your waiting for God to come save us then I'm afraid you've been made a monkey out of, only we can save ourselves.

Together as one



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by DorkLard
 



Yes I can prove evolution wrong, and quite simply too,


Not a single thing you said proves evolution wrong or even comes close to it.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
reply to post by DorkLard
 



Yes I can prove evolution wrong, and quite simply too,


Not a single thing you said proves evolution wrong or even comes close to it.


There is no monkey in my DNA, not one drop thats a fact, the theory of evolution is as it is a theory.

If it is a fact I clearly stated that, if it was what I believe then I think you will find I stated that too

History has taught us what I believe, both Hernando Cortez and Christopher Columbus were treated as Gods by a lesser advanced civilisation, as for a universal consciousness aka a Noosphere, then that is just simple Quantum Physics

edit on 29-11-2011 by DorkLard because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





Well said! We evolved to adapt to Earth's resources, just as other organisms did. If an alien came down to visit, we couldn't even buy him a drink--it would probably kill him, because he didn't evolve to tolerate Earth's minerals and compounds.

I'm not sure we're the most "successful" species, though. We've only been around in our current form for about 200,000 years. Bacteria, on the other hand, have been here since the beginning, and they'll be here when the sun dies. We probably won't be. I guess it depends on how you define "successful."
Well I think they are omitting the true age because they are scared at what they have found. You see the 200,000 claim is just a common ancestor and a missconfusion that they named her Eve. It gave people the false impression she was the first mother. When in fact she was just a common ancestor. Our lineage goes back further but they aren't letting us know how much.

I think its because they have discovered that we are older than earth and well that just doesn't make any sense to them and they don't want to scare people.
It would be obvious we aren't from here.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





Then why use the argument? It was a terrible example and not relevant to the argument in the least. Evolution is driven by genetic mutations, not a machine changing because of humans upgrading technology.
I used the argument because I thought it would make clear the difference in how we are both looking at this. I'm sorry but I will never be able to see eye to eye with the idea of us being one giant mistake. I think it goes back to a tornado piecing back together an airplane in a junkyard. It's just not possible.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by DorkLard
 



Put very well A+ for you I like your explanation.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by DorkLard
There is no monkey in my DNA, not one drop thats a fact, the theory of evolution is as it is a theory.

If it is a fact I clearly stated that, if it was what I believe then I think you will find I stated that too

History has taught us what I believe, both Hernando Cortez and Christopher Columbus were treated as Gods by a lesser advanced civilisation, as for a universal consciousness aka a Noosphere, then that is just simple Quantum Physics

edit on 29-11-2011 by DorkLard because: (no reason given)


False. I thank you for the interesting research topic, as I didn't know that the positive and negative bloodtypes was referring to whether or not a person had a Rhesus Monkey antigen.

en.wikipedia.org...

Thing is, 15% of people are RH negative. If you look at the figures, it almost entirely comes from Europeans, which implies that the lack of the antigen is simply an evolutionary mutation. The fact that it causes fetal death in many cases makes it one of them that wasn't a great mutation.

You are made up approximately 93% Rhesus Monkey genes. That is impossible to argue. Just look at your teeth structure. If you have an ape's arrangement, then you are an ape. You have ape genes. Sorry dude, but you're just human.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


That's the fault of the article for sensationalizing a simple analyzation that the mitochondria last changed about 200,000 years ago. There is nothing more significant about it than that, and I don't see why you seem to think there's some kind of conspiracy about hiding the human genesis. We evolved over time. We have proof.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


That's the fault of the article for sensationalizing a simple analyzation that the mitochondria last changed about 200,000 years ago. There is nothing more significant about it than that, and I don't see why you seem to think there's some kind of conspiracy about hiding the human genesis. We evolved over time. We have proof.


And in 20 yrs half of what science thought was right today will change to fit the new agenda,IMO...



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 86  87  88    90  91  92 >>

log in

join