Evolution Now Dead. 30 Papers Suggest DNA is Encoded Intelligently

page: 31
41
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Not only has it been witnessed both in the lab and in nature, we are ACTIVELY applying it in modern medicine. If the theory was wrong, we wouldn't have all those meds
I'm only going to explain this one more time since your biology book obviosly didn't. Just because bacteria and viruses are adapting in scientific lab experiments is not proof that I share a common ancestor with apes. OMG you crack me up
.




Just because you close your eyes and ears to facts doesn't change anything...evolution is a FACT. And you can scream like a little girl until you turn blue, that won't change anything
Well if I did, you would probably claim I was evolving.
.

You can't honestly expect people to take you seriously, species morphing into something else through offspring is impossible. Scientists have allready tested this theory and anytime there were large changes, the species died quickly. Where are all of the inbetween species that got us to where we are now? Where are the bones and fossils? Whats that you say? Cant find them huh? Did you ever wonder why that might be?

Scientists have been looking for bones for over 150 years, and have never found a single one that they can conclusivly claim is proof that we evolved. Which makes no sense because we are suppose to evolve slowly over millions of years, so unless we were a one pair race for millions of years, something is seriously wrong.

This is why evolution falls into the catagory of being a religion. You have no proof, nothing, not a darn thing but lots of speculation. Honestly there is more validity in the ancient aliens theory, there is at least hyrogliphics, scriptures, which may as well be documented history, you can't possibly believe that everything written back then was for kids




posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 11:52 PM
link   
tooth

Are you really this disillusioned or merely unable to bring your game up to the level of debate that would actually require you to support your claims.

In order for you to dispute the theory of evolution you must be prepared to demonstrate that you actually understand the concepts you are trying to refute. Your previous characterization of "species morphing into something else" is the latest blunder of a number that have been pointed out so far that inhibits your ability to provide real criticisms. No one and no theory suggests the things you are proclaiming so what you are doing is actually attacking an idea that no one believes in. It's just more distortions and ignorance based on your personal incredulity and totaly ignores the evidence to the contrary.

150 years is to evolution what 1 second is to your lifetime. The fossil record is incomplete as a record of evolution is a misnomer. The fossil record is one piece of evidence for evolution and even if we had no fossils at all the theory would still stand. Evolution does not require that we find every single species along a chain of evolutionary history to show that evolution has occurred.




posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 12:34 AM
link   
Ok, this may sound strange. But, I am a science believing, evolution believing, Christian. I don't believe my ideas conflict with my belief in God and the Lord Jesus Christ. Now that that is out. My belief is that Homosapian man was created here by extraterrestrials. I've read papers from The Human Genome Project and others stating that our "junk DNA" is mostly extraterrestrial in origin. I wish I had the links to show. But, it's always been my belief and now theorized by quite a few scientist that before about fifty to one hundred thousand years ago, mankind went through a massive change in our genome that allowed us to develop higher brain functions, speech, and language. The first true civilizations, the first languages, and the first writings come from between 30 and 50 thousand years ago. Even some mainstream scientist are starting to embrace the belief that homo erectus, Neanderthal, co-magnum, and other hominids were genetically altered to produce what we eventually evolved into today. One day I'll compile all the research I've done and post it here on ATS. Think I'm crazy if you will, but this is my belief. And, more and more I'm reading that others believe it too.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 04:28 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


We don't just witness evolution in bacteria. For crying out loud tooth, buy a biology book. I'm amazed at how your mini religion that has zero facts behind it clouds your mind from reality. You're no better than any other religious fundamentalist.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by SpacebumZaphod
 


Can you link any of those mainstream scientists? Can't find anything on google. The only clown I find is that ebook seller Pye.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 





150 years is to evolution what 1 second is to your lifetime. The fossil record is incomplete as a record of evolution is a misnomer. The fossil record is one piece of evidence for evolution and even if we had no fossils at all the theory would still stand. Evolution does not require that we find every single species along a chain of evolutionary history to show that evolution has occurred.
Thats just your excuse to try to explain why you have no proof. The fact is that if evolution worked the way evolution it's explained to, there should be mountains of fossils and proof, but there isn't one iota of it anywhere.




Are you really this disillusioned or merely unable to bring your game up to the level of debate that would actually require you to support your claims.
I have allready provided links showing that evolution is a hypothesis, and those were links that your fellow evolutionists gave to me.




In order for you to dispute the theory of evolution you must be prepared to demonstrate that you actually understand the concepts you are trying to refute. Your previous characterization of "species morphing into something else" is the latest blunder of a number that have been pointed out so far that inhibits your ability to provide real criticisms. No one and no theory suggests the things you are proclaiming so what you are doing is actually attacking an idea that no one believes in. It's just more distortions and ignorance based on your personal incredulity and totaly ignores the evidence to the contrary


Oh I get it crystal clear.
Evolutionary changes happen in small amounts to a species over a long stretch of time. These changes are large enough to end up with a human that branched off from an ape, but small enough to where we can't track it. It takes so long for these changes to occur that we can't trace them. It's a total crock, but next your going to tell me that evolution has been witnessed.




150 years is to evolution what 1 second is to your lifetime. The fossil record is incomplete as a record of evolution is a misnomer. The fossil record is one piece of evidence for evolution and even if we had no fossils at all the theory would still stand. Evolution does not require that we find every single species along a chain of evolutionary history to show that evolution has occurred.
No the fossil record is incomplete because pink unicorns don't exist.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





We don't just witness evolution in bacteria. For crying out loud tooth, buy a biology book. I'm amazed at how your mini religion that has zero facts behind it clouds your mind from reality. You're no better than any other religious fundamentalist.
This is the last time, just like I said last time, that I will explain this to you. Evolution conveniently attacked the process of adaptation to evolution with no proof or reason. It's only because of this that scientists are claiming that evolutionary changes are taking place in bacteria and viruses. They are adaptation they are not evolving, there is a clear difference.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Can you link any of those mainstream scientists? Can't find anything on google. The only clown I find is that ebook seller Pye.
If he didn't get this notion from Pye, but from somone else, but Pye happens to concur, would you accept it or simply throw it out if Pye believes in it?



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





We don't just witness evolution in bacteria. For crying out loud tooth, buy a biology book. I'm amazed at how your mini religion that has zero facts behind it clouds your mind from reality. You're no better than any other religious fundamentalist.
This is the last time, just like I said last time, that I will explain this to you. Evolution conveniently attacked the process of adaptation to evolution with no proof or reason. It's only because of this that scientists are claiming that evolutionary changes are taking place in bacteria and viruses. They are adaptation they are not evolving, there is a clear difference.



If they adapt they change...their DNA changes...which is EXACTLY how evolution is defined, as a change in allele frequency


Hilarious that your "counter point" actually confirms exactly what evolution is, the exact opposite of your conclusion



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Can you link any of those mainstream scientists? Can't find anything on google. The only clown I find is that ebook seller Pye.
If he didn't get this notion from Pye, but from somone else, but Pye happens to concur, would you accept it or simply throw it out if Pye believes in it?


I don't care who agrees...all I care about is OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE, something Pye never bothered to provide. Even worse, the only time he allowed peer reviews they proved him wrong.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





If they adapt they change...their DNA changes...which is EXACTLY how evolution is defined, as a change in allele frequency

Hilarious that your "counter point" actually confirms exactly what evolution is, the exact opposite of your conclusion
So then I was right, my friend that smoked while pregnant, causing ADHD in the child, would be considered evolution. You keep saying ANY changes, and you don't have proof of where those changes came from, so there you go.




I don't care who agrees...all I care about is OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE, something Pye never bothered to provide. Even worse, the only time he allowed peer reviews they proved him wrong.
OMG, the human genome is public information, OMG your such a clown, why don't you contest his findings and prove him wrong?



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Smoking doesn't change your DNA


Oh, and as been pointed out dozens of times, the ADHD study you love to quote so much doesn't claim that either.

I'm amazed that you still don't get the very theory you attack...not even after all the info and links that have been posted. I guess your laughable mini-religion will forever prevent you from seeing reality...kinda sad


And yes, the human genome is public information...and there's ZERO evidence for intervention in there


Even worse, his crazy ass skull was examined by one of the highest authorities in neural science...and guess what, he clearly stated that it isn't an alien modification but rather a well known disease. Of course Pye (and you it seems) simply ignore that FACT and continue to try to dumb down the population. I'm glad only a few crazy people and ignoramus believe in this nonsense...
edit on 14-11-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Smoking doesn't change your DNA

Oh, and as been pointed out dozens of times, the ADHD study you love to quote so much doesn't claim that either.

You would be wrong again...

(click here) Lead in ADHD

So now you can argue that either Lead changes the genes, or that smoking changes the genes, or that ADHD changes the genes, either way, the introduction of lead into someones system has proven to find people with altered genes.

This is the scientific way of determining the cause of something, action causes reaction.
Now try to do that with evolution.




I'm amazed that you still don't get the very theory you attack...not even after all the info and links that have been posted. I guess your laughable mini-religion will forever prevent you from seeing reality...kinda sad
There is nothing to see, silly goose. You can't watch evolution, you can't trace it, you can't predict it, you can't project it, you can't identify it, its invisible this evolution, I'm shocked you are blind but I see why, you have chosen to believe in something that is non existant.
Evolution CANT be proven, its not falsifiable, its not even a scientific theory, it fails the litmus for testing if its a scientific theory.

Pick a new religion man, at least one that is documented.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I'm amazed at how dishonest you are. To claim evolution hasn't been observed is ridiculous.


Statements like that make it clear why I don't post my posts for your benefit (you're clearly too brainwashed by your laughable mini religion), but rather so that people don't get dumbed down by your nonsense.

And read that study you linked again, because your conclusions are wrong.





According to the press statement, Dr. Nigg has an explanation for how lead could cause ADHD. Bottom line: he thinks lead attaches to sites in the brain's striatum and frontal cortex where the metal causes specific genes to turn on or remain inactive. This disrupts brain activity and alters psychological processes supported by these neurons, he theorizes, and contributes to hyperactivity and lack of vigilance.

Learn more: www.naturalnews.com...


In short: Some (but not all) people with ADHD show common traits...as in, some of their EXISTING genes switch on or off. That's because it's a DISEASE that MAY (again, he clearly says those genes COULD have an influence on that disease manifesting...not that it must be the case) cause the disease.

Also, nowhere does he say it's an inheritable condition!!

So please, stop trying to dump people down by misinterpreting scientific studies just because in your mind (and only your mind) it "fits" your bat# crazy mini-religion
edit on 14-11-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





I'm amazed at how dishonest you are. To claim evolution hasn't been observed is ridiculous.
I think your confusing adaptation being witnessed in viruses and bacteria as actuall evolution.




Statements like that make it clear why I don't post my posts for your benefit (you're clearly too brainwashed by your laughable mini religion), but rather so that people don't get dumbed down by your nonsense.
The only one dumming down is YOU. Never once have you presented objective evidence that man shares a common ancesotor with apes, except to say that we use evolution in medical science, come on man, thats a far stretch.

They don't even have anything to do with each other, your just connecting a few to many dots.




And read that study you linked again, because your conclusions are wrong.
Your obviously wrong because my conclusions came from the understanding to two different articles.




In short: Some (but not all) people with ADHD show common traits...as in, some of their EXISTING genes switch on or off. That's because it's a DISEASE that MAY (again, he clearly says those genes COULD have an influence on that disease manifesting...not that it must be the case) cause the disease.
They never said existing genes, but thats what you get for assuming, something that evolutionists love to do.




Also, nowhere does he say it's an inheritable condition!!
Not in that one but there are others that do.




So please, stop trying to dump people down by misinterpreting scientific studies just because in your mind (and only your mind) it "fits" your bat# crazy mini-religion
Your the only one adding your own words to it, not me.

As long as it doesn't fit your bat crazy religion, just insert words ....... here.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 02:41 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Funny how after HUNDREDS of pages you STILL don't understand the very theory you're attacking...never thought I'd meet someone so ignorant of facts. I guess I was proven wrong



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Connector
Good God!!!

This madness continues




All I can say is......why are people still entertaining this nonsense and delusions known as tooth?
edit on 12-11-2012 by Connector because: (no reason given)


Hey there, Connector...and no, you haven't missed a thing.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





No, gravity is a fully backed up theory that was given a name. A theory that is backed up by OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE and DETAILED MEASURED CALCULATIONS. Your "target food" on the other hand is a random word you made up, then assigned a random definition to it, never bothered to post any evidence to support your definition and claims, and then pretended it's somehow real and a prerequisite for evolution.

And no, you can't observe a MADE UP WORD

Other than as a post on ATS that is
Gravity started out as a random word, do you actually think they invented the name before the discovery? Target food is full of objective evidence, perhaps the best is how the squirrel is in phase 2 of hunger and its even explained in the wiki that they go into hunger durring this point. There is so much objective evidence that it's an observed fact.

Of course the term is made up, you have to give the process a name, there is no other way to identify it. Now evolution got its name prior to any facts. There are still large holes in the theory of evolution. There are no holes in the theory of target food, its solid as a rock.


It's not made up! It dates from 1509 and comes from the Latin "gravitatem", which means "weight, heaviness, or pressure". The first scientific use dates from 1641 (before Newton was even born) and "gravitate" dates from 1692.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





Why is it so hard for them to understand that evolution is a process, not a cause?
If evolution makes DNA changes in an organism, and you are speaking about it after the fact, you can say caused. Something had to make those changes and even if it were magic, or unidentified evolution, there is always cause and effect. The process of evolution is not different to this scientific term, with the exception that its process has never been identified, in other words we aren't sure that its evolution in process or things like ADHD that appear to be changing our genes.


Evolution isn't the cause, it's the PROCESS. The cause can be a whole array of things like changes in the environment, changes in food sources, competition from another species...toooons of reasons. Those are causing the process to take place.

I won't even get into your misinterpretation of ADHD studies because you made it clear your too brainwashed by your mini-religion to objectively look at a scientific study


Exactly what I was going to say, but you said much more nicely than I would have.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





It's not made up! It dates from 1509 and comes from the Latin "gravitatem", which means "weight, heaviness, or pressure". The first scientific use dates from 1641 (before Newton was even born) and "gravitate" dates from 1692.
But someone at some point had to make up that term, see its all made up.





new topics
top topics
 
41
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join