Science against evolution

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by radix
 





For clarity, the definition of species should include that only individuals of the same species can have fertile offspring. Horses and donkeys can breed but their offspring is sterile so they're by this definition not of the same species.

This definition obviously only works for organisms that reproduce sexually, for other organisms the species definition gets more intricate. Usually, it's based on DNA similarity, morphology and metabolism.


Now see, I call BS on all of this.

The problem is that Evolutionists have made an understanding, based on something that they don't first of all understand.
The assumption is made that Gametic isolation is the key tool to determine speciation.
But like I said, my neighbor stopped sleeping with her husband, does that prove she evolved as a species? I don't think so
The problem here is that gametic isolation can NOT be used as a key determining factor in this arena.
A MALE donkey can be bred with a FEMALE horse, rendering a sterile mule.
Here is where things get interesting. You might assume on one hand that since you can breed them at all, they MUST be the same species. You have to remember that humans making claims about whats the same species and whats not, is purley OUR science and can have little to do with reality at times.
It's the same sort of problem when we talk about food groups and target food. What humans consider a food group and what an animal considers to be a food group can be two totally different things.
Now you can't say that Horses and Donkeys are different species if they are able to breed, But we do.
On the flip side, you can't mate a male horse with a female donkey, so now it got even more complex. What it looks like to me, is some early on tampered with the genetics and did something odd, and thats the best I can offer in that arena.

It's an odd situation with to many odd variables that don't add up.

Now you see some of the same thing in Dogs and wolves. They can breed but we claim them to be different species.
Is it possible that we made a mistake and they really are the same species, or is it possible that thier DNA was also tampered with? It might sound like I'm leaning on that a tad to much but the fact of the matter is GMO's are everywhere, and in fact humans are GMO's as well, as best explained in Lloyd Pye's human genetics video.




posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by jheated5
 





Yes you should go somewhere else and explain how your whole "target food" hypothesis is scientifically sound in every thread that has to do with evolution... The fact that you've been debunked left and right in every other thread thus far, shows that you are way behind and in fact the turd that is swimming around in the assumption pool!


LOL

Target food has NEVER been debunked. I have claimed over and over that if anyone can present proof as to why all species choose the same food without holding meetings or cell phone calls to share the information, I would love to see it. And the score on that as of today is 0!

The other thing I challenged people on was to find proof of this aleged experimental stage. People are claiming that animals test thier food before making a decision but they are just unable to explain why they ALL come to the same decision as a species. No one has present any diets the prove an experimental stage, and while I would accept just one, you have to understand that we would all have to have an experimental stage for it to be correct. The score again on this is 0!

I used examples of phases of hunger from various diets, showing that there is an obvious pattern to the choices in food. Starting with the ideal food that usually isn't available, moving on to phase one, then phase two , to starvation which is phase three. No one has ever offered any other reason or excuse as to why the choices are chosen. Again another 0!

Target food is allready observed. The abalone eats one food and one food only. It's proof that a species can. It's ALL thats needed to prove the theory is possible. It's because of intervention that all of the food is messed up the way that it is for everyone. No one has ever offered any alternate reason as to why the abalone only eats one food, again, another 0!

I don't know how you expect to debunk a theory with a bunch of zeros.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 03:12 PM
link   


So in other words we are just to stupid to track it, and we are just to stupid to be able to identify it around us.


No, we're not too stupid to track it - we just don't live long enough. The only organisms where we can study this in anything close to real-time are organisms with very short generation times like bacteria and insects.


No one has ever proven that changes found are those of a much larger picture to evolution, there is only speculation.


Any changes in the genetic make-up of a population are, as I've already explained, part of evolution - that's what the word means. Is this really so hard to grasp?


If this were true, it would mean that there should be hundreds upon thousands of species inbetween apes and humans.


Really? How did you calculate that?


It's to my understanding we haven't found a one.


Then your understanding is faulty (now there's a shocker). Since the time of our last common ancestor with the other apes there have been several now extinct species, like Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis a.s.o.


Now we have found many variations of our species but none that conclusivly connect us to apes. It's got to be the biggest crock I have ever heard of. The snake oil is drying up.


Drivel. The various lines of DNA evidence (DNA homology, DNA synteny, pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses) all line up perfectly and conclusively demonstrate common ancestry. Sorry, but you can't use your ignorance as proof of anything (except, of course, that you're ignorant).


Sure, but some of those changes were found out to be because of ADHD.

ADHD linked to missing genes
New ADHD Gene Study Points to Defects in Brain Signaling Pathways
Is ADHD really a Genetic Disorder?

These changes to the genes were only RECENTLY recognized as being part of ADHD which means that prior to them finding this out, those changes would have been looked at as Evolution. But you can now realize that would be an incorrct assesment. All changes over time should be Evolution, but we now know that all changes that occur over time aren't necessarly from evolution. This animal of evolution must have a bio clock so that it knows when time has passed.


It doesn't matter whether the changes are brought about by ADHD, smoking or wearing really tight pants - all inheritable changes to a population are, by definition, evolution. THAT'S WHAT THE WORD MEANS. Sorry to be shouting but you do seem a bit slow on the uptake.


My neighbor stopped mating with her husband. Is it becuase she is no longer in love with him, or perhaps because she changed species?


Take a wild guess.


I never said science was perfect. Just because something is mostly accepted, does not mean its a proven theory.


Scientific theories aren't proven, they're just our current best explanations for observed evidence. Evolution (i.e., species changing over time) is an observable fact. The theory of evolution is our best current explanation for that fact.


No one has ever witnessed evolution, but we have witnessed changes. It's assumed through the mistake of science that those changes are in fact evolution.


They are, it's the definition of the word.


This is what it comes down to, no one has taken the time to identify the individual changes to alocate them to the cause. Scientsts were merley seeing changes and claiming that they must be from evolution.


They are, it's the def... oh, f*ck it.


It's perhaps the shottiest scientific work in the histoy of science, which is why I keep saying, your not going to be able to claim evolution until you first prove whats causing the changes.


Well, I've seen a few people trying to make a case against evolution on various forums and yours may be the shoddiest yet. A piece of friendly advice: take the time to understand what the word evolution actually means and what the theory of evolution actually says. It will make you look less of an ignoramus in these discussions.


You will eventuallly find that all changes can be accounted for, like that of ADHD, and that actually none are from this ghost called Evolution.


If the changes are genetic and can be passed on to the next generation, they will - by definition - be part of evolution. Is any of this sinking in?


Busted again.


Indeed.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Now see, I call BS on all of this.

The problem is that Evolutionists have made an understanding, based on something that they don't first of all understand.


Oh, the irony.



The assumption is made that Gametic isolation is the key tool to determine speciation.
But like I said, my neighbor stopped sleeping with her husband, does that prove she evolved as a species? I don't think so


You know, you might be onto something here.



The problem here is that gametic isolation can NOT be used as a key determining factor in this arena.
A MALE donkey can be bred with a FEMALE horse, rendering a sterile mule.
Here is where things get interesting. You might assume on one hand that since you can breed them at all, they MUST be the same species. You have to remember that humans making claims about whats the same species and whats not, is purley OUR science and can have little to do with reality at times.


The reality is that they are reproductively isolated from each other. We call it being of different species. Seems like a pretty useful concept.



It's the same sort of problem when we talk about food groups and target food. What humans consider a food group and what an animal considers to be a food group can be two totally different things.


Obviously. So?



Now you can't say that Horses and Donkeys are different species if they are able to breed, But we do.


We say they are different species because they can't produce fertile offspring. What exactly do you have against this definition?



On the flip side, you can't mate a male horse with a female donkey, so now it got even more complex. What it looks like to me, is some early on tampered with the genetics and did something odd, and thats the best I can offer in that arena.


Gibberish and word salad is the best you can offer? Let's just be merciful and say we're not impressed.


It's an odd situation with to many odd variables that don't add up.

Now you see some of the same thing in Dogs and wolves. They can breed but we claim them to be different species.


Er, no we don't. At most we could call dogs a domesticated subspecies but definitely not a different species.


Is it possible that we made a mistake and they really are the same species, or is it possible that thier DNA was also tampered with?


Well, you certainly made a mistake when you called dogs and wolves different species.


It might sound like I'm leaning on that a tad to much but the fact of the matter is GMO's are everywhere, and in fact humans are GMO's as well, as best explained in Lloyd Pye's human genetics video.


You have to be a poe.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daemonicon
If you are going to attempt to debunk something, at least KNOW what it is you are attempting to debunk.


couldnt agree more



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by radix
 





No, we're not too stupid to track it - we just don't live long enough. The only organisms where we can study this in anything close to real-time are organisms with very short generation times like bacteria and insects.
So your admitting that its not a proven theory.




Any changes in the genetic make-up of a population are, as I've already explained, part of evolution - that's what the word means. Is this really so hard to grasp?
You mean like when scientists found out that ADHD is linked to changes in our DNA? I'm beginning to realize your not understanding the importance of this find. How are you going to claim that ANY genetic changes of a population are from Evolution when that has allready been proven to be false?




Really? How did you calculate that?
I calculated it based on information you have been feeding me. Your claims are that changes happen in small amounts over long periods of time. So because of this, it would take oodles of offsprng to amount for the differences we have between apes. In other words it wasn't just one step, it was perhaps hundreds or hundreds of thousands. Only problem is we have no proof of these aleged stages. There are no fossils that clearly show a connection between us and apes. Billions of fossils have been harvested, and not a single one ties us any closer to apes, or any other species for that matter.




Then your understanding is faulty (now there's a shocker). Since the time of our last common ancestor with the other apes there have been several now extinct species, like Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis a.s.o.
Exactly, and these species add no ADDITIONAL ties to apes, or any other species for that matter. All you have is new found species, so you automatically assume they add some sort of tie to an aleged common ancestor, but they don't.




Drivel. The various lines of DNA evidence (DNA homology, DNA synteny, pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses) all line up perfectly and conclusively demonstrate common ancestry. Sorry, but you can't use your ignorance as proof of anything (except, of course, that you're ignorant).
No they COULD demonstrate common ancestry, its not proof in itself. A common creator could have used recycled parts with other species, and I haven't seen anyone able to rule that out.

Hell we share 70% of our DNA with rats but I don't think I'm related to them any more or less than apes.




It doesn't matter whether the changes are brought about by ADHD, smoking or wearing really tight pants - all inheritable changes to a population are, by definition, evolution. THAT'S WHAT THE WORD MEANS. Sorry to be shouting but you do seem a bit slow on the uptake.
Epigenetic chages cannot account for evolution, they are unnatural.

Basically what your saying is that because a woman smokes with a pregnant fetus, and possibly changes the genes in the fetus because of smoking that she is in effect altering Evolution.




Take a wild guess.
It's hard to know at this point. Your making the assumption that because a species stopps mating with an original group that it must be speciation, but we haven't asked or ruled out things like feelings or personal choice that the animals might have. So if a woman stops mating with her husband, from the evolution point of view it could very well be that she has evolved as a species. I dunno, did you have some scientific work that was able to rule that possibility out?




Scientific theories aren't proven, they're just our current best explanations for observed evidence. Evolution (i.e., species changing over time) is an observable fact. The theory of evolution is our best current explanation for that fact.
Well its a very poor one. No one has ever proven that these changes are for the purpose of changing into another species. How do they not know as an example that the species is simply changing hair color, does that make them a different species? What if humans all of a sudden popped up with green hair? I think they are still human, yet changes have occured.




They are, it's the definition of the word.
So when a mother smokes with a fetus, she is causing Evolution?




They are, it's the def... oh, f*ck it.
In other words if a technician in a lab coat changes the DNA of an organism, that is also Evolution.




Well, I've seen a few people trying to make a case against evolution on various forums and yours may be the shoddiest yet.
Mine? Your the one claiming a smoking mother is causing evolution.




A piece of friendly advice: take the time to understand what the word evolution actually means and what the theory of evolution actua



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by radix
 





A piece of friendly advice: take the time to understand what the word evolution actually means and what the theory of evolution actually says. It will make you look less of an ignoramus in these discussions.
I would like to see your understanding of the word "Natural" and explain in your words why man made or man altered events are not considered natural, and what this means to the definition.




If the changes are genetic and can be passed on to the next generation, they will - by definition - be part of evolution. Is any of this sinking in?
And your wrong, how is it that they are even aware of the genetic changes brought on by ADHD? Well perhaps because some people have it while others dont, and a comparison of the DNA would prove that. The problem and where you dropped the ball, is how did we get it to begin with. There is speculation that either genetics, o the introduction of lead can cause this to happen, or perhaps either or both. Either way, it wasn't brought on as an evolutionairy change, thats just absurd.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by radix
 





The reality is that they are reproductively isolated from each other. We call it being of different species. Seems like a pretty useful concept
So in that, you are admitting that our scientists don't know how to properly identify a species. You have to choose one or the other by your remark. Either they are the same species which is why you can mate them, or they are not the same species, meaning they shouldn't be able to mate but for some unknown reason they can.




We say they are different species because they can't produce fertile offspring. What exactly do you have against this definition?
Gametic isolation has NOTHING to do with whether or not the offspring is fertile, its simply if offspring can be produced.




Gibberish and word salad is the best you can offer? Let's just be merciful and say we're not impressed.
Of course your not impressed, you like to close your eyes to amazing facts. The fact is that even humans have been identified to have tampered genetics, but you couldn't explain how that happened either could you?




Er, no we don't. At most we could call dogs a domesticated subspecies but definitely not a different species.
If that was true, they wouldn't have different names. Dogs are dogs, and wolves are wolves.
It would perhaps benefit you to read up on the REMARKABLE differences between them. There is clear reasons why we call them a different species, its because they are.

remarkable differences
Where the kicker is here, in case you missed it, is that there are obviously so many differences between dogs and wolves that we HAVE to identify them as a seperate species, notice I'm not saying sub species, they are way different. But they can still breed. What this proves is that your little theory about gametic isolation being used to determine is something is the same species or not, is FALSE, and has rendered false conclusions in the aspect of Evolution.




Well, you certainly made a mistake when you called dogs and wolves different species.
Only if you believe that gametic isolation is what proves if a species is the same. But as you can see with what I just went over, you can't rely on it for this purpose, its a false belief.




You have to be a poe.
You should watch the video, you might learn something, besides I would be interested in your reason behind the genetic alterations.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by radix
 


As you can see, it says nothing about fertile offspring...


Web definitions
The gametes of the two species are chemically incompatible, thus preventing fertilization. Gamete recognition may be based on specific molecules on the surface of the egg that attach only to complementary molecules on the sperm. Such mechanisms are common in fish species. ^[2]

Gametic Isolation



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





So your admitting that its not a proven theory.


Now, what did I just tell you? Theories aren't proven, they're just our current best explanations. I put time and thought into my posts, you might want to have the courtesy to at least read them before you reply to them.

You seem to be using the old creationist canard that you can't demonstrate something without witnessing it. You do realize that this would make forensic science a hoax and we should immediately release all prisoners who have been convicted on forensic evidence? Evolution, like many other processes, leaves traces that can be examined - most notably DNA evidence. As I just posted, the DNA evidence for common descent is quite conclusive.



You mean like when scientists found out that ADHD is linked to changes in our DNA? I'm beginning to realize your not understanding the importance of this find. How are you going to claim that ANY genetic changes of a population are from Evolution when that has allready been proven to be false?


It's a mystery to me that you find it so hard to understand that any inheritable change (including ADHD, if it's indeed inheritable) is part of evolution. It's what the word means.


I calculated it based on information you have been feeding me. Your claims are that changes happen in small amounts over long periods of time. So because of this, it would take oodles of offsprng to amount for the differences we have between apes. In other words it wasn't just one step, it was perhaps hundreds or hundreds of thousands.


It would take oodles of generations, as I've already said. Where do you go from that to thousands of species? You do realize that evolution doesn't proceed by constantly splitting off new species?


Only problem is we have no proof of these aleged stages. There are no fossils that clearly show a connection between us and apes. Billions of fossils have been harvested, and not a single one ties us any closer to apes, or any other species for that matter.


I don't mean to offend but that's just a blatant lie. All of the fossil evidence (and there are literally billions of discovered fossils) point to gradual change through descent with modification.


Exactly, and these species add no ADDITIONAL ties to apes, or any other species for that matter. All you have is new found species, so you automatically assume they add some sort of tie to an aleged common ancestor, but they don't.


Of course they do. This kind of comment always cracks me up. Wouldn't paleontology and anthropology be easy if it just entailed sitting around making assumptions? Heck, even I could do that. What do you think would happen to an anthropologist who discovers a fossil and writes a paper about it that says: "I'm just going to assume this is a new species - so there". He would be rightly roasted by his peers, that's what. These people have spent their lives studying fossils, have you considered the possibility that they've actually learned something about it?



No they COULD demonstrate common ancestry, its not proof in itself. A common creator could have used recycled parts with other species, and I haven't seen anyone able to rule that out.


Ah, the prankster creator theory. This creator would have to have made a lot of effort to make the evidence look exactly as it would if there was common descent. For example, he would have for some reason put the same, non-functional gene for producing vitamin C in humans and in other apes. Why would he re-use a broken gene? He would also have chosen to give humans and the other apes a non-functional version of the same gene for making egg yolk that is present in egg-laying birds and reptiles. Why would he do that? Was he anally rententive and didn't like to throw genes away or was he planning for a future breed of egg-laying humans?

There comes a time when the desperate attempts to explain away the obvious just become ridiculous. I can't rule out the possibility that we were all created by invisible space pixies but is it really likely? If the evidence all fit with common descent then Occam's razor would kind of favour common descent, no?


Hell we share 70% of our DNA with rats but I don't think I'm related to them any more or less than apes.


The funny thing about evidence is that it doesn't give a rat's (or monkey's) ass what you think.


Epigenetic chages cannot account for evolution, they are unnatural.


Gibberish. Epigenetics is a natural process and in no way conflicts with the theory of evolution.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Basically what your saying is that because a woman smokes with a pregnant fetus, and possibly changes the genes in the fetus because of smoking that she is in effect altering Evolution.


If the changes can be passed down to coming generations, yes.


It's hard to know at this point. Your making the assumption that because a species stopps mating with an original group that it must be speciation, but we haven't asked or ruled out things like feelings or personal choice that the animals might have. So if a woman stops mating with her husband, from the evolution point of view it could very well be that she has evolved as a species. I dunno, did you have some scientific work that was able to rule that possibility out?


Sexual selection is definitely part of evolution but that's not what I was talking about. When I say that speciation is achieved when two populations can no longer interbreed, it means just that. They can no longer produce fertile offspring, no matter how much they want to hump each other.



Well its a very poor one. No one has ever proven that these changes are for the purpose of changing into another species.


Indeed they haven't. That would have disproved the theory of evolution which proposes a naturalistic, purpose-free process.


How do they not know as an example that the species is simply changing hair color, does that make them a different species? What if humans all of a sudden popped up with green hair? I think they are still human, yet changes have occured.


How many times do I have to spell it out? They are different species if they can no longer produce fertile offspring. Got that?


So when a mother smokes with a fetus, she is causing Evolution?


If it causes inheritable mutations, yes.


In other words if a technician in a lab coat changes the DNA of an organism, that is also Evolution.


Could he finally be catching on? One can only live in hope.



Mine? Your the one claiming a smoking mother is causing evolution.


...guess not.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I would like to see your understanding of the word "Natural" and explain in your words why man made or man altered events are not considered natural, and what this means to the definition.


That would depend on the context. Often I use the word as equivalent with "unguided", which would exclude man-made.



And your wrong, how is it that they are even aware of the genetic changes brought on by ADHD? Well perhaps because some people have it while others dont, and a comparison of the DNA would prove that.The problem and where you dropped the ball, is how did we get it to begin with. There is speculation that either genetics, o the introduction of lead can cause this to happen, or perhaps either or both. Either way, it wasn't brought on as an evolutionairy change, thats just absurd.


Evolution=species changing over time. Does ADHD change the frequency of certain genes in the human population? If yes, then it's part of evolution. If no, it's not. You would have to be pretty boneheaded to still be struggling with this.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 




So in that, you are admitting that our scientists don't know how to properly identify a species. You have to choose one or the other by your remark. Either they are the same species which is why you can mate them, or they are not the same species, meaning they shouldn't be able to mate but for some unknown reason they can.


Huh? I've given you the definition - several times. If you don't get it by now, I really can't help you.


Gametic isolation has NOTHING to do with whether or not the offspring is fertile, its simply if offspring can be produced.


I'm talking about the definition of species, I have no idea what you're talking about (and I seriously suspect you don't either).


Of course your not impressed, you like to close your eyes to amazing facts. The fact is that even humans have been identified to have tampered genetics, but you couldn't explain how that happened either could you?


Yes, I must admit I have very little time for muddled thinking and you do keep piling it on.


It would perhaps benefit you to read up on the REMARKABLE differences between them. There is clear reasons why we call them a different species, its because they are.


en.wikipedia.org...


the domestic dog was taxonomically recategorized in 1993 as a subspecies itself of the gray wolf.


This bears an uncanny resemblance with what I previously posted. But hey, you're obviously the expert.


Where the kicker is here, in case you missed it, is that there are obviously so many differences between dogs and wolves that we HAVE to identify them as a seperate species, notice I'm not saying sub species, they are way different. But they can still breed. What this proves is that your little theory about gametic isolation being used to determine is something is the same species or not, is FALSE, and has rendered false conclusions in the aspect of Evolution.


No, it proves that you're making this up as you go along. You're also putting words in my mouth. I have never even mentioned gametic isolation.



Only if you believe that gametic isolation is what proves if a species is the same. But as you can see with what I just went over, you can't rely on it for this purpose, its a false belief.


I have already posted several times what the definition of species is and I didn't once use the words gametic isolation. Please stop lying.



You should watch the video, you might learn something, besides I would be interested in your reason behind the genetic alterations.


What video?



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by radix
 


As you can see, it says nothing about fertile offspring...


Web definitions
The gametes of the two species are chemically incompatible, thus preventing fertilization. Gamete recognition may be based on specific molecules on the surface of the egg that attach only to complementary molecules on the sperm. Such mechanisms are common in fish species. ^[2]

Gametic Isolation


Kindly point to where I claimed that species=gametic isolation. Until you do, this will remain a rather pathetic red herring.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by radix
 





Now, what did I just tell you? Theories aren't proven, they're just our current best explanations. I put time and thought into my posts, you might want to have the courtesy to at least read them before you reply to them.
Well its not that, its just that most people here on ATS try to hold the theory of evolution as if its, fact, and its proven, which it's not.




You seem to be using the old creationist canard that you can't demonstrate something without witnessing it.
Yes I believe in something called objective evidence except when it involves the supernatural, as the definition explains, it doesn't apply.




You do realize that this would make forensic science a hoax and we should immediately release all prisoners who have been convicted on forensic evidence? Evolution, like many other processes, leaves traces that can be examined - most notably DNA evidence. As I just posted, the DNA evidence for common descent is quite conclusive.
The examples your using have nothing to do with one another. Proving somone's DNA is on a crime scene is far different from claiming an ancestral relationship. We allready argued that scientists are obviously unclear if a donkey is related to a horse, and if a dog is related to a wolf. You can make all of the assumptions that you want but their findings contradict the ole so precious gametic isolation that Evolution just swears upon.




It's a mystery to me that you find it so hard to understand that any inheritable change (including ADHD, if it's indeed inheritable) is part of evolution. It's what the word means.
If evolution were based on inheritence, we wouldn't be having such a problem with it. Evolution is NOT based on inheridence.




It would take oodles of generations, as I've already said. Where do you go from that to thousands of species? You do realize that evolution doesn't proceed by constantly splitting off new species?
Fossils whould be able to identify both types of change. The fact is there is no fossils that tie us to apes. I'll give you a clue since your obviously not grasping this. According to evolution, there should be oodles of generations inbetween us and apes that carry both human and ape DNA mixed. Now it doesn't matter if we broke off in a latteral fashion or if we are direct descendents. There should be fossils out there that conclusivly tie us to apes, and there isn't.

150 years worth of searching and millions of fossils and not one that connects us. Dont be blown away by the absence of proof, theres more. We also share nothing with apes. We speak none of their language and we brought nothing to the table durring our transgression. It's almost like one day, we just grew a brain. That brain BTW is four times that of an apes brain. We never kept a single thing from our lineage. Aside from breating air, and drinking water we share NOTHING with them.




I don't mean to offend but that's just a blatant lie. All of the fossil evidence (and there are literally billions of discovered fossils) point to gradual change through descent with modification.
I want proof MR. I have been debating this for months and have yet to be sent to any information that qualifies as real proof. And I don't want some lame ass link claiming that they might be a link between man and apes or that they quite possibly could be. I want one that says DNA tests confirm that it is a human / ape hybrid, thats real proof.




Of course they do. This kind of comment always cracks me up. Wouldn't paleontology and anthropology be easy if it just entailed sitting around making assumptions? Heck, even I could do that. What do you think would happen to an anthropologist who discovers a fossil and writes a paper about it that says: "I'm just going to assume this is a new species - so there". He would be rightly roasted by his peers, that's what. These people have spent their lives studying fossils, have you considered the possibility that they've actually learned something about it?
Well we did actually have a branch in our genetics a long time ago, but that branch doesn't prove apes were in our genes. Oh I'm sure they know some things. But are they honeslty comparing the DNA against humans and apes to realize its a hybrid, that would be the ONLY type of proof you could hang onto when using DNA. This is why I told you earlier that DNA doesn't typically prove relation, it can but only under that very strict observation, that it would have to be a hybrid between the two.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by radix
 





Of course they do. This kind of comment always cracks me up. Wouldn't paleontology and anthropology be easy if it just entailed sitting around making assumptions? Heck, even I could do that. What do you think would happen to an anthropologist who discovers a fossil and writes a paper about it that says: "I'm just going to assume this is a new species - so there". He would be rightly roasted by his peers, that's what. These people have spent their lives studying fossils, have you considered the possibility that they've actually learned something about it?
I'm sure that scientsts know a thing or two when it comes to fossils. What I'm concearned about is what evolutionitsts know or don't know what it comes to identifying that two species are present in one. From everything I have read it appears to be more along the lines of them claiming we probably found another fossil that could prove relation with apes. There is just no fact in it and evolutionists just eat this type of stuff up.




Ah, the prankster creator theory. This creator would have to have made a lot of effort to make the evidence look exactly as it would if there was common descent.
He's only a prankster because you have limited insight and you lack focus. For example... lets say man invented the wheel the first time for the bicycle. We took that same idea and placed it on cars, trucks, airplanes, scooters, and so fourth. I don't see anything prankster about being resourceful. Let me give you another example as it just so happens that I'm an inventor as well. At the age of 15 I gutted an FM pocket radio and glued the circuit board into a cookie box. I liked the idea of it being portable because my father would pop a gasket any time I would plug anything into the wall. Anyhow, I soon added a rechargable police walki talki battery. I added a seperate satelite speaker mounted in a box that give a richer sound. Being that we were poor, I coudln't afford an alarm clock to wake me up for school so I hard wired two wires from the radio to an open face beer clock that I got from grandmas bar, and taped the wires about 7oclock to turn on the radio and wake me up for school.

Each step that I added to this creation, could be viewed as a seperate creation in itself. It is possible that a creator or something that creates moves forward using prior ideas, as you can see, we even do the same thing as I explained in the tires. So if you think its far fetched your wrong.




For example, he would have for some reason put the same, non-functional gene for producing vitamin C in humans and in other apes. Why would he re-use a broken gene? He would also have chosen to give humans and the other apes a non-functional version of the same gene for making egg yolk that is present in egg-laying birds and reptiles. Why would he do that? Was he anally rententive and didn't like to throw genes away or was he planning for a future breed of egg-laying humans?
Because those genes may not be effective her on earth. According to the bible, everything was brought here from elsewhere. According to the bible "Earth is not our home" in quote. We were given every seed, ever plant and every herb and every animal. The problem is that you can't do that. You can't just take life as such from other places and put them all together on one planet. The balance of life has been compramised, and as a result we are now headed into the 6th largest extinction looking at a loss of 99% of all life. Each planet is created with a balance in mind and if you remove, or add life from that picture, you knock off the balance. This has scientists baffled right now because you are first making the assumption that all life is from here and belongs here when it doesn't.




There comes a time when the desperate attempts to explain away the obvious just become ridiculous. I can't rule out the possibility that we were all created by invisible space pixies but is it really likely? If the evidence all fit with common descent then Occam's razor would kind of favour common descent, no?
No it doesn't in fact it raises more questions than anything. A good place to start is the bible. It can be hard to follow, and not that I have read it all, but what few parts I have stumbled onto paint an obvious picture that is redundantly backed up.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by radix
 





There comes a time when the desperate attempts to explain away the obvious just become ridiculous. I can't rule out the possibility that we were all created by invisible space pixies but is it really likely? If the evidence all fit with common descent then Occam's razor would kind of favour common descent, no?
We have historical documentation that clearly tells us that space pixies were not involved, unless thats your name for space aliens.




The funny thing about evidence is that it doesn't give a rat's (or monkey's) ass what you think.
Exatcly, and your thinking that because DNA suggests simularity that it must be proving we are related.




Gibberish. Epigenetics is a natural process and in no way conflicts with the theory of evolution.
So now you change your mind. If a mother is smoking and alters the genetics in her fetus, now your claiming otherwise.




If the changes can be passed down to coming generations, yes.
I'm not interested in that part, I'm interested in the part where someone smokes and alters the DNA.




Sexual selection is definitely part of evolution but that's not what I was talking about. When I say that speciation is achieved when two populations can no longer interbreed, it means just that. They can no longer produce fertile offspring, no matter how much they want to hump each other.
I know what you mean, my ex wife had polycystic ovaries and couldn't produce children, so she must have no longer been human.




Indeed they haven't. That would have disproved the theory of evolution which proposes a naturalistic, purpose-free process.
And someone smoking a ciggerette while pregnant altering the DNA is natural?




How many times do I have to spell it out? They are different species if they can no longer produce fertile offspring. Got that?
My ex was sterile so she must have evolved.




If it causes inheritable mutations, yes.
Lets pretend for the moment that ALL changes could be accounted for just like the ADHD genes. Where does that leave the theory of evolution now?




Could he finally be catching on? One can only live in hope.
I didn't know a lab technician and his work was considered natural.




That would depend on the context. Often I use the word as equivalent with "unguided", which would exclude man-made.
And you missed the point again. I wasn't interested on YOUR spin of the word, it was more about how obvious that the definition is pointing out that MAN is not natural to this planet.




Evolution=species changing over time. Does ADHD change the frequency of certain genes in the human population? If yes, then it's part of evolution. If no, it's not. You would have to be pretty boneheaded to still be struggling with this.
And I would bet that even if you pretended for a moment that every change could be accounted for just like that with ADHD, you would still believe there is this process called evolution.




Huh? I've given you the definition - several times. If you don't get it by now, I really can't help you.
The only thing you have done is dodge answering the question as any answer would be wrong.




I'm talking about the definition of species, I have no idea what you're talking about (and I seriously suspect you don't either).
Oh well move the goal posts, now you might have a chance. Gametic isolation makes no mention of offspring being fertile.




Yes, I must admit I have very little time for muddled thinking and you do keep piling it on.
Well then don't let me waste your time, you can watch LLoyd Pye's human genetics and see for yourself.




en.wikipedia.org...

A hybrid would prove that your wrong, and that they aren't related, thus hybrid.




This bears an uncanny resemblance with what I previously posted. But hey, you're obviously the expert.
There is only two reasons this could happen, either they mix bred or were related all along, but how could you identify a mix breed then? They can't be related, its just that the fact they can mate keeps throwing people off.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by radix
 





No, it proves that you're making this up as you go along. You're also putting words in my mouth. I have never even mentioned gametic isolation.
HELLO !!! The whole theory of speciation is based on gametic isolation.




I have already posted several times what the definition of species is and I didn't once use the words gametic isolation. Please stop lying.
You believe in speciation which isn't possible without gametic isolation.




What video?


Human genetics




Kindly point to where I claimed that species=gametic isolation. Until you do, this will remain a rather pathetic red herring.
The theory of speciation is based on gametic isolation.
speciation
Speciation only has anything to do with gametic isolation, if you believe that species are actually changing into another species. Now I don't believe that, but I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. If you read this link you will know more.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 05:08 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





Well its not that, its just that most people here on ATS try to hold the theory of evolution as if its, fact, and its proven, which it's not.


No, it's just our best current explanation for the observed facts as it has been for over 150 years.


Yes I believe in something called objective evidence except when it involves the supernatural, as the definition explains, it doesn't apply.


Objective evidence is evidence that is observable, empirical and measurable. It can be obtained by observation or experimentation. Claiming that something cannot be demonstrated unless it's been witnessed in real-time is simply asinine.


The examples your using have nothing to do with one another.


My example clearly demonstrates that your premise (that you have to witness something in order to demonstrate it) is false.


We allready argued that scientists are obviously unclear if a donkey is related to a horse, and if a dog is related to a wolf.


The confusion is all in your head, scientists are perfectly clear that they are related.


You can make all of the assumptions that you want but their findings contradict the ole so precious gametic isolation that Evolution just swears upon.


You keep repeating this gibberish with such conviction. Alas, it's still gibberish.


If evolution were based on inheritence, we wouldn't be having such a problem with it. Evolution is NOT based on inheridence.


Yikes. Just when I think you can't get any nuttier, you bring out a gem like this. Evolution proceeds through a process of descent with modification. To say it's not based on inheritance is like saying gravity has nothing to do with matter. You seem to be vaguely aware that DNA is involved but it's not about inheritance??? I see this exchange coming to an end, there really isn't much here to discuss with.


Fossils whould be able to identify both types of change. The fact is there is no fossils that tie us to apes. I'll give you a clue since your obviously not grasping this. According to evolution, there should be oodles of generations inbetween us and apes that carry both human and ape DNA mixed. Now it doesn't matter if we broke off in a latteral fashion or if we are direct descendents. There should be fossils out there that conclusivly tie us to apes, and there isn't.


Yes there are - denying reality is not really helping your argument (unless you're going for an insanity plea). Even before we knew about DNA, we were able to put the pieces together just by studying the fossils. With the event of DNA technology, the old conclusions have been confirmed. We don't even need fossils to tie us to the other apes - the DNA confirms how closely related we are.


150 years worth of searching and millions of fossils and not one that connects us. Dont be blown away by the absence of proof, theres more. We also share nothing with apes.


Except of course our morphology and 98% of our DNA (including pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses).


We speak none of their language and we brought nothing to the table durring our transgression. It's almost like one day, we just grew a brain. That brain BTW is four times that of an apes brain. We never kept a single thing from our lineage. Aside from breating air, and drinking water we share NOTHING with them.


Except, of course, the evidence says the opposite. This is full-on delusion and it ain't pretty.


I want proof MR. I have been debating this for months and have yet to be sent to any information that qualifies as real proof. And I don't want some lame ass link claiming that they might be a link between man and apes or that they quite possibly could be. I want one that says DNA tests confirm that it is a human / ape hybrid, thats real proof.


This is a good run-down of the evidence, presented by Dr Dennis Venema:

biologos.org...


Incidentally, Dr Venema is an Evangelical Christian, so he obviously believes in a creator - just not a deceptive one.


Well we did actually have a branch in our genetics a long time ago, but that branch doesn't prove apes were in our genes. Oh I'm sure they know some things. But are they honeslty comparing the DNA against humans and apes to realize its a hybrid, that would be the ONLY type of proof you could hang onto when using DNA. This is why I told you earlier that DNA doesn't typically prove relation, it can but only under that very strict observation, that it would have to be a hybrid between the two.


The DNA evidence clearly shows common ancestry, which means we're all hybrids. I'm sorry if this is too much for you to take in.

edit on 6-1-2013 by radix because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 05:31 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





I'm sure that scientsts know a thing or two when it comes to fossils. What I'm concearned about is what evolutionitsts know or don't know what it comes to identifying that two species are present in one. From everything I have read it appears to be more along the lines of them claiming we probably found another fossil that could prove relation with apes. There is just no fact in it and evolutionists just eat this type of stuff up.


Yeah, like all those gravitationists just gobble up everything that seems to confirm gravity. I blame confirmational bias.


He's only a prankster because you have limited insight and you lack focus. For example... lets say man invented the wheel the first time for the bicycle. We took that same idea and placed it on cars, trucks, airplanes, scooters, and so fourth. I don't see anything prankster about being resourceful. Let me give you another example...

[cute but irrelevant DIY anecdote snipped]

So if you think its far fetched your wrong.


What insight do you have about this creator? What evidence do you have that he even exists? I want real evidence, not some bs crackpot video.


Because those genes may not be effective her on earth. According to the bible, everything was brought here from elsewhere. According to the bible "Earth is not our home" in quote. We were given every seed, ever plant and every herb and every animal. The problem is that you can't do that. You can't just take life as such from other places and put them all together on one planet. The balance of life has been compramised, and as a result we are now headed into the 6th largest extinction looking at a loss of 99% of all life. Each planet is created with a balance in mind and if you remove, or add life from that picture, you knock off the balance. This has scientists baffled right now because you are first making the assumption that all life is from here and belongs here when it doesn't.


Sorry, but the bible doesn't really qualify as objective evidence. Got anything in the way of real evidence for any of this? Just asking because it looks more like a rant than a coherent theory.


No it doesn't in fact it raises more questions than anything. A good place to start is the bible. It can be hard to follow, and not that I have read it all, but what few parts I have stumbled onto paint an obvious picture that is redundantly backed up.


...guess not.





new topics
top topics
 
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join