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: 94
31
<< 91  92  93    95  96  97 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by FLaKK
 


A program I watched with scientists (I think might have been titled "what we now know") explaining through quantum physics, they are admitting there is no way in hell intelegence was involved in making all of life and the planets. Now they aren't making any claims that god is to blame, just that there was a divine intervention of some sort.




posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


I think its easy to be fooled in to believing this could be an ancestor of ours, while I'm thinking its easier to believe they might not be from earth. What exactly do we have that links them to us, I'll take what ever you got, I'm not picky, a poke in the eye would work at this point.


Are you serious? How is it being "fooled" into believing it is an ancestor? These bones were found in ravines for the most part as FOSSILS. They are not lies being made up by magical atheists just to mess with your brain.

We have bones right now that share almost every trait with modern humans, but have a slightly smaller brain, a slightly different chin, things like that. The farther back we go in our discoveries of these fossils, the more you see these minute changes adding up until, wouldn't you know it, it looks just like the ancestor of the apes?

It's based on similarity, and if you think it's all just a lie to detract you from your magic fairy-tale, then go ahead and live in ignorance.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





Are you serious? How is it being "fooled" into believing it is an ancestor? These bones were found in ravines for the most part as FOSSILS. They are not lies being made up by magical atheists just to mess with your brain.
Well I'm just missing the connection here. What connects us? A poke in the eye would work at this point but I'm not seeing where our paths crossed.




We have bones right now that share almost every trait with modern humans, but have a slightly smaller brain, a slightly different chin, things like that. The farther back we go in our discoveries of these fossils, the more you see these minute changes adding up until, wouldn't you know it, it looks just like the ancestor of the apes?
I see. So an asumption is being made that we evolved because we share almost every trait? IMO they could just as easily be aliens. Are you making assumptions simply because they are humanoid? Remember that doesn't mean human, much less are we able to verify a connection. It's like your calling a bicycle a car simply becuase it has tires. It's still only a bicycle. Now you might confuse this because they are both vehicles.




It's based on similarity, and if you think it's all just a lie to detract you from your magic fairy-tale, then go ahead and live in ignorance.
I think what this comes down to is numbers, it's probability. I could say, and believe the chances of those being aliens outweigh evolutions chances, I'm sure you would disagree. Maybe we could go with another idea here. Lets look at how we have over 4 million people claiming to have made contact with an alien species. If we also have 4 million bones from ancestors, well I would be tied here. But we don't, we have 19 species, and in fact have reports of more than 19 different aliens. FYI over 1/2 are grey aliens. Aliens are also mentioned in the bible many times.
edit on 4-12-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-12-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


A new species emerges when a generation of offspring accrues enough mutations that they are incapable of breeding with the previous generation, but are capable of breeding within their own generation.


If each individual is essentially on its own path and capable of divergence when mutations have passed the point of no return. How can a whole generation of like individuals come into being at the same time, with the same mutations, making breeding possible.?

If the inherited information says 80% duck that leaves 20% of possibilities for every individual to start diverging in its own unique way, forever creating a species of one.

Is this the root of the hopeful monsters argument.?



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ironbutterflyrusted
 





If each individual is essentially on its own path and capable of divergence when mutations have passed the point of no return. How can a whole generation of like individuals come into being at the same time, with the same mutations, making breeding possible.?

If the inherited information says 80% duck that leaves 20% of possibilities for every individual to start diverging in its own unique way, forever creating a species of one.

Is this the root of the hopeful monsters argument.?
Execellent explanation btw. Nicely put.
If this is the avenue of how things happened then my question would have to shift on the other side and say why do we only have 19 sub species when our DNA is telling us that we never dipped below tens of thousands.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ironbutterflyrusted
 


That's why the separation of the organisms is where speciation comes into play. In a limited genetic environment, the altered genes from one will mix thoroughly with the other organisms, while in the other group that is separate, this altered gene is not present at all.

Then, the altered gene that has spread throughout the one organism may alter again, and because they all share the previously altered one, they are still able to breed, and there is still a chance that they might be compatible with their original divergence, but do this a hundred or a thousand more times, and those with the extremely different genetic makeup from their originals will not be able to mate. Plus, the other group will have accrued plenty of their own mutations as well.

Itsthetooth argues from personal ignorance, it seems, since he refuses to read the books on evolution I suggested. He shows a fundamental lack in understanding of the most basic principles and then attacks the more complex ones he fails to understand, acting as if his analogies about technology's advancements are relevant to how evolution works. Evolution is not random, it is accumulated.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


For the sake of argument, would this depend on what gene/genes where changed.? and the breeding success of the individual.? ...size, color etc things important to courtship. How far could a limited gene pool take a species.? could there be a scenario whereby a species returns to a type that existed in the past.?


edit on 4/12/11 by ironbutterflyrusted because: adding



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ironbutterflyrusted
reply to post by Varemia
 


For the sake of argument, would this depend on what gene/genes where changed.? and the breeding success of the individual.? ...size, color etc things important to courtship.


Yes. All these are important, though results may vary depending on the population you are observing. Sometimes, mutations will just die out, but other times, they will spread and become dominant. The separation of genes to become nonexchangeable in breeding takes a very long time of no inter-mingling of DNA between the organisms. This is why many biological anthropologists believe (and have some genetic evidence) that neanderthalensus was bred into the human population, rather than just being competed away. The genetics had not quite changed enough to speciate them, but the human genetics, by having greater numbers, were able to almost completely silence the neanderthal genes. It's a case where the species did not manage to fully diverge and re-combined. Now, if humans had stayed geographically separated, we might still see neanderthal today.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


How far could a limited gene pool take a species.? could there be a scenario whereby a species returns to a type that existed in the past.? a set of changes that returns, and is still viable because the favored environment has changed very little over time...dry arid, wet marsh, etc.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


At present the probability of your scenario is 0. It has yet to be proven that extraterrestrial life even exists, let alone is capable of traveling to Earth. On the other hand speciation has been empirically observed. So, in this case I will go with the premise that has actually been shown to exist. As for evidence this site should give you a pretty good start.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ironbutterflyrusted
reply to post by Varemia
 


How far could a limited gene pool take a species.? could there be a scenario whereby a species returns to a type that existed in the past.? a set of changes that returns, and is still viable because the favored environment has changed very little over time...dry arid, wet marsh, etc.


I suppose it's possible, but highly unlikely, as only small things change at a time, while preserving previous changes. While certain adaptations may "return" from the past, often these are simply dormant genes becoming active, and it will not make an organism appear the same as a previous organism, due to the myriad of other changes it went through before getting a certain adaption back.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





Itsthetooth argues from personal ignorance, it seems, since he refuses to read the books on evolution I suggested. He shows a fundamental lack in understanding of the most basic principles and then attacks the more complex ones he fails to understand, acting as if his analogies about technology's advancements are relevant to how evolution works. Evolution is not random, it is accumulated.
Well I was only going by what someone on this form produced. Natural selection IMO is a big joke. Speciation has been observed at the molecular level, and I know this and accept it. The problem is macroevolution is not possible within the time limitations of our planet. Which once again makes me look at another reason we aren't from earth. It would take trillions of years for a macroevolution to produce a common ancestor. Anyway you slice it, its a different species and if a species was able to evolove in any giant steps, it would die out. When I say evolve in small ways I'm referring to options in that species, like brown eyes, or blue eyes, not night vision eyes

I can understand how ever that macroevolution cant possibly be witnessed because of the time needed. So what I'm looking at is just how odd it is that we dont seem to have any well known recorded history past the bible. Well er we do but its in egypt on walls with aliens in the drawings. Anyhow, it would appear that at or just before the bible we instantly grew a brain, felt the need to document things, and totally revamped our lifestyle in addition to leaveing no trace of the aformentioned. I call BS on this you guys, we werent here. This is yet another reason that points us in the direction that we didn't start out on earth in addition to the bible saying so. Earth is not our home quote. Now if you can't figure out what that means, maybe you should hang on to evolution, I dunno.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ironbutterflyrusted
 





How far could a limited gene pool take a species.? could there be a scenario whereby a species returns to a type that existed in the past.? a set of changes that returns, and is still viable because the favored environment has changed very little over time...dry arid, wet marsh, etc.


I had to share my finds on this. Of course I learned this off a site sharing thoughts on evolution. There are two parts to evolution. Microevolution which is real and has been observed and Macroevolution which has been explained like a tornado ripping through a junk yard and magically assembling a jet airplane. Evolutionists want to believe this over aliens doing it, even though we have it in writting.

The other part that is causing so much confusion is how all life as we know it is all made up of the same protiens and amino acids. Its the arrangment of those that create a sort of programming per se. So it does give the appearnace that we are all related to all life. Of course evolutionists miss the fact that it could just as easily be a creator that did all this, or several creators.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


So if we entertain the remote possibility of traits returning, could the returning adaptations be those that were once aggressively dominant in the species.? and could they once again influence/dictate which gene mutations occur next, eventually producing a modern day generation of past successes...a loop effect. Could this be why we have `living fossils` today.? who stubbornly refuse to change, even though they are as likely as any other species to do so and produce other lineages...are they exempt from the rule.?



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


It's obvious that your knowledge of anthropology is lacking. Even the best estimates place the Torah at being 3,313 years old when it was given to the Israelites by God at Mount Sinai. In contrast China has had a continuously recorded history for the past 4,000 years. Sumer had writing about 6,000 years ago and India was not far behind. Furthermore, there have been examples of proto-writing from about 50,000 years ago and what could conceivably be actual writing from 12,000 years ago. On top of this there is evidence that humans created art and music starting with the very first of us 200,000 years ago. So, we didn't "instantly grow a brain" shortly before the writing of the Bible. In fact science says that it took humanity 150,000 years to develop our current brain, which was still about 45,000 years before the earliest estimates for the Bible.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ironbutterflyrusted
 


The reason we have the so-called living fossils is because their environments have not changed considerably over the years. However, the term living-fossil is a misnomer as these species are significantly different from their ancestors despite what outside appearances might indicate.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I have to agree, there seems to be a fine line between a chance production of a predominantly(for the time being) stable form with the propensity for change and a predetermined core program that calls for the changes. The dominant stable part of DNA sequencing that stubbornly stays the same while allowing a small percentage to change is I think the crux of the problem. I wonder how far these defining traits can be changed and if it could be completely removed over time to produce radical macro changes and a new species.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


Where did you get art and music 200,000 years ago?



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 





At present the probability of your scenario is 0. It has yet to be proven that extraterrestrial life even exists, let alone is capable of traveling to Earth. On the other hand speciation has been empirically observed. So, in this case I will go with the premise that has actually been shown to exist. As for evidence this site should give you a pretty good start.
Actually out of all of the aleged proof we have that has been shot down, Lloyd Pye I believe has produced one that has convinced me is real. The star child.

It's not MY scenerio as you tout, I also find this in the bible, sitchen, von daniken and pye. Speciation is only on the molecular level though.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
The problem is macroevolution is not possible within the time limitations of our planet. Which once again makes me look at another reason we aren't from earth. It would take trillions of years for a macroevolution to produce a common ancestor.


How did you come up with trillions of years? Do you have a concept of time at all, and how different you are from your ancestors just a thousand years ago? Why must it take trillions, when it could easily take a mere millions, as the fossil evidence suggests?



new topics




 
31
<< 91  92  93    95  96  97 >>

log in

join