Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Science against evolution

page: 5
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 06:16 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





We have historical documentation that clearly tells us that space pixies were not involved, unless thats your name for space aliens.


Would this historical documentation be the bible? You know, the book with the talking snake and donkey and men living to be 900 years old? Sorry, still doesn't qualify.


Exatcly, and your thinking that because DNA suggests simularity that it must be proving we are related.


If you mean similarity, then yes.


So now you change your mind. If a mother is smoking and alters the genetics in her fetus, now your claiming otherwise.


I have no idea what this means. I read it and it seems to have some meaning but I'm darned if i can figure it out.


I'm not interested in that part, I'm interested in the part where someone smokes and alters the DNA.


I'm really interested in what you're smoking.


I know what you mean, my ex wife had polycystic ovaries and couldn't produce children, so she must have no longer been human.


I'll take your word for it, you know her better than I do.


And someone smoking a ciggerette while pregnant altering the DNA is natural?


Well, I wouldn't recommend it. Sorry, I have no idea what your point is (I'm assuming you have one?)


My ex was sterile so she must have evolved.


If you say so.


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?


Right where it was - our best current explanation for the observed evidence.


I didn't know a lab technician and his work was considered natural.


A point, please. Make one.


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.


I certainly have my doubts about you.


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.


My belief has nothing to do with it, the process is an observable fact.


The only thing you have done is dodge answering the question as any answer would be wrong.


Well, I guess that put me in my place.


Oh well move the goal posts, now you might have a chance. Gametic isolation makes no mention of offspring being fertile.


Since you were the one who introduced gametic isolation into the discussion, you're obviously the one moving goal posts. Nice try, though.


Well then don't let me waste your time, you can watch LLoyd Pye's human genetics and see for yourself.


I did. It broke my crank-o-meter. Went straight into the red and just died on me. Great, now I have to get a new one and I loved that old thing.

Lloyd Pye is crackpot who believes man did not evolve but is the result of genetic engineering by some alien who placed us here. His evidence is:

Humans have two fewer chromosomes than the other apes (due to a fusion of a chromosome pair).

Humans have bigger brains than the other apes.

It's so obvious!

Mr Pye is puzzled that mainstream science isn't aflame with his theory. I think it could have something to do with the fact that the evidence doesn't support it.


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


Actually, it's the other way round. The fact that fertile hybrids can be bred proves that they are related. Your grasp of genetics is obviously as firm as that of evolution.


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.


Thank you for proving above point. You really are clueless.



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




posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





HELLO !!! The whole theory of speciation is based on gametic isolation.


HELLO, no it's not!!! It's based on reproductive isolation. There are many mechanisms that can lead to this, gametic isolation is one of them.

en.wikipedia.org...



You believe in speciation which isn't possible without gametic isolation.


See above. Horses and donkeys are different species yet they're not gametically isolated, thus proving you wrong - again.


The theory of speciation is based on gametic isolation.


Already debunked.


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.


I read the link and it describes one type of reproductive isolation. The fact that you don't understand this is not the only kind of reproductive isolation isn't really my problem. It's also mind-boggling that you still think speciation means "species are changing into other species".



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by radix
 





No, it's just our best current explanation for the observed facts as it has been for over 150 years.
Ya that is a shame that its taking so long to prove a theory. What I like is how the goal posts keep moving to try to keep Evolution alive, like how darwin was wrong about us evolving from apes. This was totally because no one could produce a missing link. So to side step that problem they just came up with the idea that we share a common ancestor with apes, therby admitting we wont be able to find a missing link but still sticking by the claim that there is a relationship.




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.
Which is why I keep saying that between DNA work today and fossils and tests there is no excuse in the world why they aren't able to prove evolution. The fact is, it doesn't exist, there is nothing that proves a species can change into another species, its guesswork.




The confusion is all in your head, scientists are perfectly clear that they are related.
Well then you should write a book about it, because I found oodles of links that says your wrong...
yahoo answers
wiki answers
Defining species
en.wiki
ehow
heykrizzly
ehow

As you can find in all of these links, they are DIFFERENT species.




You keep repeating this gibberish with such conviction. Alas, it's still gibberish.
I have a feeling you don't have a clue what I'm talking about.




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.
Well inheritance is not change and change is not inheritance, so I don't see where the confusion is.




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.
That wasnt the question and your once again assuming that Relative DNA proves relation, and it doesn't. Again its like saying that an airplane is a car simply because it has tires on it. Your grasping at straws and connecting dots where there are no dots. The difference between us an apes is millions of genes. What your referring to is a line up of a banding array. The banding array shows that our genetics are very simular, but again its still millions of genes.




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




Except, of course, the evidence says the opposite. This is full-on delusion and it ain't pretty.
Please clue me in on what we share with them, I'm easy, throw me a bone. Just don't send me to a video where they show one roasting a marshmallow over a fire because they were able to learn from us.


A second, unrelated line of evidence is that of synteny. Synteny is a technical term for conservation
of gene order along chromosomes between relatives. Put more simply, the hypothesis of common ancestry
predicts that not only will related species have similar genes, but that they will also have these genes in a
very similar spatial pattern.

biologos This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about how assumptions are made. a similar spatial pattern proves relation, because there is NO WAY it could have been copied and reused.

A third line of evidence is that of pseudogenes. Pseudogenes (literally, “false genes”) are the
mutated remains of gene sequences that persist in the genome after their inactivation. Commo



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by radix
 



A third line of evidence is that of pseudogenes. Pseudogenes (literally, “false genes”) are the
mutated remains of gene sequences that persist in the genome after their inactivation. Common ancestry
predicts that related species should share pseudogenes that were present in the genome of their common
ancestor. Moreover, these pseudogenes should be in the same genomic location in both descendant
species (i.e., they should exhibit shared synteny) and retain gene sequence similarity (i.e., continue to
exhibit homology) in spite of their inactivation.

biologos Here an assumption is made that if genes are inactive, they should just disappear from the genome, and if they don't its proof of evolution.

LOL, I know this is wrong, as most of the genes in the human genome are inactive and they haven't disappeared.




Incidentally, Dr Venema is an Evangelical Christian, so he obviously believes in a creator - just not a deceptive one.
Anyone that has to hide thier face from us, IMO is being deceptive.




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.
Ya but you could say the same thing with just about any other species on this planet. All the more reason it proves there could have been a creator or multiple creators that used the same genome properties.




Yeah, like all those gravitationists just gobble up everything that seems to confirm gravity. I blame confirmational bias.
Well the comparison used against gravity is a poor one. Gravity can be confirmed and depended on to happen. When you look at evolution, changes could happen, but we never know how much and when and how. Gravity is predictable and evolution isn't. Things that are scientifically predictable are always the easiest to prove. We might be able to say that we know changes will happen in a species, but we never know exactly what the changes are and whats causing them, so we assume they are all part of large process called evolution.




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.
We have better, we have a historical document that lays it out for us in detail. There might be some question about the understanding of it all, but its here.




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.
Well the bible can't be objective evidence as its supernatural evidence. The difference is that things that are supernatural aren't bound to the testing or understanding of todays objective science.


su·per·nat·u·ral
/ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/Adjective
(of a manifestation or event) Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.


Noun
Manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin.


Synonyms
preternatural - unearthly - weird - miraculous


supernatural




Would this historical documentation be the bible? You know, the book with the talking snake and donkey and men living to be 900 years old? Sorry, still doesn't qualify.
I see, so you have traveled to every planet there is out there and you know for a fact that there is no talking snake and people can't live to be 900 years old. Rather than assuming, did you have something you base you understanding on?




If you mean similarity, then yes.
DNA doesn't prove diversity.




I'm really interested in what you're smoking.

I don't smoke but seem to be getting a contact high when I read your material.




I'll take your word for it, you know her better than I do.
Well you sound sure about believing that when a species can no longer produce that they obviously changed species.




Well, I wouldn't recommend it. Sorry, I have no idea what your point is (I'm assuming you have one?)
Smoking causes Lead consumption, which causes ADHD, which changes the genes, what are you not getting about this.




If you say so.
Please share with me the one time that a doctor has ever told a patient that the reason they cant produce children is because they have evolved?



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by radix
 





Right where it was - our best current explanation for the observed evidence.
So what your saying is that months down the road when scientists are able to identify the actuall cause of all changes, and also realize that they are NOT all part of any process, that evolution will still stand strong on its current belief system?




A point, please. Make one.
"We offer natural changes right here in our lab!" LOL.




I certainly have my doubts about you.
And again you side step the question.




My belief has nothing to do with it, the process is an observable fact.
The only thing that has been observed is that there are changes. If those changes are coming from man made manipulation, they surly aren't natural.




Well, I guess that put me in my place.
Keen questions require keen answers, and your not stepping up to the plate.




Since you were the one who introduced gametic isolation into the discussion, you're obviously the one moving goal posts. Nice try, though.
Gametic isolation has ALWAYS been a part of specieation, its the determining factor that tells you the species has changed. Gametic isolation is the natural element that is always in every species that dissalows it to breed with a different species. This was the factor used for deciding that a species has actually evolved. But it's an incorrect observation.




I did. It broke my crank-o-meter. Went straight into the red and just died on me. Great, now I have to get a new one and I loved that old thing.

Lloyd Pye is crackpot who believes man did not evolve but is the result of genetic engineering by some alien who placed us here. His evidence is:

Humans have two fewer chromosomes than the other apes (due to a fusion of a chromosome pair).

Humans have bigger brains than the other apes.

It's so obvious!

Mr Pye is puzzled that mainstream science isn't aflame with his theory. I think it could have something to do with the fact that the evidence doesn't support it
Then you must suffer from selective amnesia because there was a hell of al lot more than that. First of all something that Pye fails to let you know is that the bible actually tells us a story of intervention and how we were brought here and specifically that earth is not our home. There are changes to our DNA that can only occur in a lab. The fused gene is lab technique. The six segments that were removed, inverted, and reinserted, a lab technique, and the over 4000 defects can only be described as cruelty, could only have happned in a lab. There is no proof in DNA or anywhere else that we evolved from apes, or that we share a common ancestor with them. Now there is a lot of speculation that similar findings in DNA must prove relation, but you haven't first ruled out the possibility that something else did this.




Actually, it's the other way round. The fact that fertile hybrids can be bred proves that they are related. Your grasp of genetics is obviously as firm as that of evolution.
I just sent you a plethora of links that proves that wrong. Clearly horses and Donkeys are NOT the same species. Again, your making an assumption based on gametic isolation that if you can breed them, they must be the same. and your wrong.




Thank you for proving above point. You really are clueless.
Gametic isolation or even the lack of does NOT prove or disprove relation.

So your once again now admitting that our scientists don't know how to properly identify a species, by claiming they are the same species, when I have given you links showing that they are not. What you need to do is get ahold of the important people and let them know how you have this all figured out.




HELLO, no it's not!!! It's based on reproductive isolation. There are many mechanisms that can lead to this, gametic isolation is one of them.
It doesn't matter, the premis was because they are now a different species, which is gametic isolation. Reproductive isolation is just a cheaper way of saying you don't exactly know why its occuring, but then why are you also making the assumption that its because the species evolved? Because your claiming gametic isolation. This was suppose to the whole producing proof that the species changed, gametic isolation proved it. Reproductive isolation WOULD NOT prove the species changed.




See above. Horses and donkeys are different species yet they're not gametically isolated, thus proving you wrong - again.
No its proving you wrong. Your claiming that when a species is no longer able to mate with the origianl group, that it has evolved and changed into another species. Here is where you have a different species and they are still



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by radix
 





See above. Horses and donkeys are different species yet they're not gametically isolated, thus proving you wrong - again.
Able to reproduce, proving you wrong. Let me explain this better, once again, you can't use gametic isolation or even reproductive isolation to determine if a species has evolved. Because we have all four scenerios that prove this idea to be wrong. We have same species able to mate, same species not able to mate, and we have different species able to mate, and different species not able to mate.

So again, using gametic isolation or reproductive isolation as a determining factor can produce flawed results.




Already debunked.
Sure then just say its based on reproductive isolation, the only difference is that there is no reason behind it, where with gametic isolation the reason would have to be because of soemthing being a different species.




I read the link and it describes one type of reproductive isolation. The fact that you don't understand this is not the only kind of reproductive isolation isn't really my problem. It's also mind-boggling that you still think speciation means "species are changing into other species".
Well it doesn't matter to me if the change is only occuring in the offspring or if the genetics in a current species is changing, its all the same meaning at this point.

I'm actually going by wiki...

Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise

speciation wiki



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Ya that is a shame that its taking so long to prove a theory.


Again, you get things back assward (what else is new). What's happened is that no one has been able to disprove it for 150 years. With challenges like yours, I think the theory is safe for a while longer.


What I like is how the goal posts keep moving to try to keep Evolution alive, like how darwin was wrong about us evolving from apes. This was totally because no one could produce a missing link. So to side step that problem they just came up with the idea that we share a common ancestor with apes, therby admitting we wont be able to find a missing link but still sticking by the claim that there is a relationship.


Wow, you're really scraping the barrel know, aren't you? Do you really think anyone is buying this? The sad thing is that even a nincompoop like you knows that Darwin was aware we shared a common ancestry with the other apes - you're just so completely out of arguments you have to make stuff up. Truly pathetic.


Which is why I keep saying that between DNA work today and fossils and tests there is no excuse in the world why they aren't able to prove evolution. The fact is, it doesn't exist, there is nothing that proves a species can change into another species, its guesswork.


Argumentum ad moronicum. Sorry, but the fact that you lack the mental capacity to understand how speciation works and that we can observe the process (even after it has been explained to you several times) does not constitute a valid argument.



Well then you should write a book about it, because I found oodles of links that says your wrong...
yahoo answers
wiki answers
Defining species
en.wiki
ehow
heykrizzly
ehow

As you can find in all of these links, they are DIFFERENT species.


Did I say they're the same species? I'm pretty sure I didn't. In fact, I know I didn't. I said they're related - because they are (which, of course, is why they can interbreed to produce offspring even though it's sterile). Someone needs to work on his reading comprehension, methinks.



I have a feeling you don't have a clue what I'm talking about.


I guess that's one thing we have in common.



Well inheritance is not change and change is not inheritance, so I don't see where the confusion is.


If change isn't inherited, there's no evolution. Seriously, 5-year olds understand this.



That wasnt the question and your once again assuming that Relative DNA proves relation, and it doesn't. Again its like saying that an airplane is a car simply because it has tires on it. Your grasping at straws and connecting dots where there are no dots. The difference between us an apes is millions of genes. What your referring to is a line up of a banding array. The banding array shows that our genetics are very simular, but again its still millions of genes.


We ARE apes, genius.

en.wikipedia.org...



What morphology?


Why, ape morphology of course!



Please clue me in on what we share with them, I'm easy, throw me a bone. Just don't send me to a video where they show one roasting a marshmallow over a fire because they were able to learn from us.


listverse.com...

www.janegoodall.ca...

We're family. It's called Hominidae.



This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about how assumptions are made. a similar spatial pattern proves relation, because there is NO WAY it could have been copied and reused.


Science deals with observable, verifiable evidence. Since no evidence of any supernatural re-cycler of genetic material has been presented, it's not part of the investigative process.



Here an assumption is made that if genes are inactive, they should just disappear from the genome, and if they don't its proof of evolution.


No such assumption is made. A prediction is made, which turns out to be correct. This obviously supports the theory.


LOL, I know this is wrong, as most of the genes in the human genome are inactive and they haven't disappeared.


As the theory isn't contingent on genes disappearing you're not making any sense.



Anyone that has to hide thier face from us, IMO is being deceptive.


???


Ya but you could say the same thing with just about any other species on this planet.


Indeed.


All the more reason it proves there could have been a creator or multiple creators that used the same genome properties.


If you want to put this forward as a hypothesis, please provide supporting evidence. Until you do, we can safely ignore it.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Well the comparison used against gravity is a poor one. Gravity can be confirmed and depended on to happen.


As can evolution (which is why we need a new flu vaccine every year).


When you look at evolution, changes could happen, but we never know how much and when and how. Gravity is predictable and evolution isn't. Things that are scientifically predictable are always the easiest to prove. We might be able to say that we know changes will happen in a species, but we never know exactly what the changes are and whats causing them, so we assume they are all part of large process called evolution.


Evolution is an unguided process, so of course we don't know what changes are going to happen. The causes are well known, though - mutation and natural selection (plus genetic drift).


We have better, we have a historical document that lays it out for us in detail. There might be some question about the understanding of it all, but its here.


So no actual evidence, then?


Well the bible can't be objective evidence as its supernatural evidence. The difference is that things that are supernatural aren't bound to the testing or understanding of todays objective science.


So you're pretty free to make stuff up? That's handy.


I see, so you have traveled to every planet there is out there and you know for a fact that there is no talking snake and people can't live to be 900 years old. Rather than assuming, did you have something you base you understanding on?


So the bible is like Star Trek? Cool. Still not convinced, though.



DNA doesn't prove diversity.


There you go again, writing something that looks like it means something and I have no idea what it is.


I don't smoke but seem to be getting a contact high when I read your material.


We aim to please.


Well you sound sure about believing that when a species can no longer produce that they obviously changed species.


You know, I think even you aren't stupid enough to actually believe I said that.


Smoking causes Lead consumption, which causes ADHD, which changes the genes, what are you not getting about this.


The relevance to the subject at hand.


Please share with me the one time that a doctor has ever told a patient that the reason they cant produce children is because they have evolved?


I don't know you well enough to share my doctor stories with you.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





So what your saying is that months down the road when scientists are able to identify the actuall cause of all changes, and also realize that they are NOT all part of any process, that evolution will still stand strong on its current belief system?


The cause of the change is irrelevant. If the effect is an inheritable mutation, it's by definition part of evolution. I find it bizarre that you don't get this.


"We offer natural changes right here in our lab!" LOL.


That was a point?


And again you side step the question.


Sorry, I can't answer questions that make no sense. No habla gibberish.


The only thing that has been observed is that there are changes.


Yes. It's called evolution.


If those changes are coming from man made manipulation, they surly aren't natural.


Evolution means species changing over time. It doesn't specifically require natural causes.


Keen questions require keen answers, and your not stepping up to the plate.


I'm sorry to be such a disappointment. I have to admit I don't think your answers are much cop either.


Gametic isolation has ALWAYS been a part of specieation, its the determining factor that tells you the species has changed. Gametic isolation is the natural element that is always in every species that dissalows it to breed with a different species. This was the factor used for deciding that a species has actually evolved. But it's an incorrect observation.


I already demonstrated that you're wrong using the horse and donkey example which doesn't require gametic isolation to achieve speciation.



Then you must suffer from selective amnesia because there was a hell of al lot more than that. First of all something that Pye fails to let you know is that the bible actually tells us a story of intervention and how we were brought here and specifically that earth is not our home. There are changes to our DNA that can only occur in a lab.


Evidence?


The fused gene is lab technique. The six segments that were removed, inverted, and reinserted, a lab technique, and the over 4000 defects can only be described as cruelty, could only have happned in a lab. There is no proof in DNA or anywhere else that we evolved from apes, or that we share a common ancestor with them. Now there is a lot of speculation that similar findings in DNA must prove relation, but you haven't first ruled out the possibility that something else did this.


Evidence?



I just sent you a plethora of links that proves that wrong. Clearly horses and Donkeys are NOT the same species. Again, your making an assumption based on gametic isolation that if you can breed them, they must be the same. and your wrong.


I was talking about dogs and wolves. Do try to keep up.


Gametic isolation or even the lack of does NOT prove or disprove relation.


Great, more gibberish.


So your once again now admitting that our scientists don't know how to properly identify a species, by claiming they are the same species, when I have given you links showing that they are not. What you need to do is get ahold of the important people and let them know how you have this all figured out.


This is pretty desperate even for you.


It doesn't matter, the premis was because they are now a different species, which is gametic isolation.


No, it's not - which I already explained.


Reproductive isolation is just a cheaper way of saying you don't exactly know why its occuring, but then why are you also making the assumption that its because the species evolved?


Now you're not just writing gibberish but putting it in my mouth? Shame on you.


Because your claiming gametic isolation. This was suppose to the whole producing proof that the species changed, gametic isolation proved it. Reproductive isolation WOULD NOT prove the species changed.


Do you have some sort of software that comes up with this stuff? It's fascinating - looks just like English but has no discernable meaning.


No its proving you wrong. Your claiming that when a species is no longer able to mate with the origianl group, that it has evolved and changed into another species.


No, I'm pretty sure that's not what I claimed.

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



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



Here is where you have a different species and they are still able to reproduce, proving you wrong. Let me explain this better, once again, you can't use gametic isolation or even reproductive isolation to determine if a species has evolved. Because we have all four scenerios that prove this idea to be wrong. We have same species able to mate, same species not able to mate, and we have different species able to mate, and different species not able to mate.


Give me an example of different species being able to produce fertile offspring and you have proven me wrong (and probably changed the definition of species).


Sure then just say its based on reproductive isolation, the only difference is that there is no reason behind it, where with gametic isolation the reason would have to be because of soemthing being a different species.


I need to get that software, does it come with a de-scrambler?


Well it doesn't matter to me if the change is only occuring in the offspring or if the genetics in a current species is changing, its all the same meaning at this point.


The meaning being? Look, it's been fun and all but we've now reached the point where I don't understand half of what you're posting and the other half seems to consist of made up stuff or denial of the evidence. I don't know about you but I have better things to do with my time.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by radix
 





Again, you get things back assward (what else is new). What's happened is that no one has been able to disprove it for 150 years. With challenges like yours, I think the theory is safe for a while longer.
If the theory was so solid, they wouldn't have to keep moving the goal posts everytime somone busts it.




Wow, you're really scraping the barrel know, aren't you? Do you really think anyone is buying this? The sad thing is that even a nincompoop like you knows that Darwin was aware we shared a common ancestry with the other apes - you're just so completely out of arguments you have to make stuff up. Truly pathetic.
Oh Darwin was correct about one thing. He claimed that if he was unable to find fossils that prove genetic relation, that his entire thoery would be gone, and no one still has found any. Do you have some links that prove otherwise? And I don't mean ones that claim that our DNA is similar so based on that we must be related.




Argumentum ad moronicum. Sorry, but the fact that you lack the mental capacity to understand how speciation works and that we can observe the process (even after it has been explained to you several times) does not constitute a valid argument.
There is still a difference between a species changing, and a species changing into another species, thats problem number one. Number two is assuming a species has changed because of reproductive isolation.




Did I say they're the same species? I'm pretty sure I didn't. In fact, I know I didn't. I said they're related - because they are (which, of course, is why they can interbreed to produce offspring even though it's sterile). Someone needs to work on his reading comprehension, methinks.
Yes, you said they obviously are as they can breed together.




If change isn't inherited, there's no evolution. Seriously, 5-year olds understand this.
So then your admitting that the change happens before procriation.




We ARE apes, genius.
Then we would be called apes, but we are not, we are called humans, and apes are called apes, obviously because we are not one in the same.

The link you provided is not indicating that humans are apes, or that apes are humans, its indicating that there is a relationship, a close relationship between us. Just keep in mind we can't mate with them, so how you going to explain that one? How are we the same if we can't mate?




Why, ape morphology of course!
If there was any proof of apes morphing, I would have serious doubts, and many questions.

So number 10 from your link is clearly stating that they are guessing we are from the sahelanthropus tchadensis. I say guessing, because they used the word probably, they don't know. Now how in the hell are they going to be able to trace our lineage back to apes or chimps, when they don't even know which branch we came from? What a lost cause. I guess if they actually started finding sub species like I said that acutally contained 50/50 DNA, then that would be good proof. But after 150 years and still no 50/50 proof, is not looking to good at this point.

Number 9 uses the same argument of DNA being similar to make claims of relation, but does explain that two unrelated humans are more similar in DNA then two sibling chimps. Also that we two less chromosomes, that could be the fused pair we have. Again no proof, just speculation.




We're family. It's called Hominidae.
Thats the challenging opinion. Aside from similar DNA what proof is there?




Science deals with observable, verifiable evidence. Since no evidence of any supernatural re-cycler of genetic material has been presented, it's not part of the investigative process.
Actually thats not true. There is a passage in the bible where god comes to pay us visit and has with him a four headed creature of lion ox eagle and man. Now he is coming down in a space craft to boot. Anyhow, four headed creature has DNA work all over it to me. In fact I'm not aware of anything here on earth that has four heads of other creatures.




No such assumption is made. A prediction is made, which turns out to be correct. This obviously supports the theory.
Then why hasn't our dormant DNA disappeared?

The rest of the 10 points on 10 comparisons, I wasn't able to find anything that better proves relation between us and chimps or apes. Probably the best is how they make tools, so they have the ability to learn, this doesn't prove relation.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by radix
 





As the theory isn't contingent on genes disappearing you're not making any sense.
Then you missed the article where it was saying the genes would disappear, proving

A third line of evidence is that of pseudogenes. Pseudogenes (literally, “false genes”) are the
mutated remains of gene sequences that persist in the genome after their inactivation. Common ancestry
predicts that related species should share pseudogenes that were present in the genome of their common
ancestor. Moreover, these pseudogenes should be in the same genomic location in both descendant
species (i.e., they should exhibit shared synteny) and retain gene sequence similarity (i.e., continue to
exhibit homology) in spite of their inactivation.

biologos
Maybe I missunderstood it but where its saying the mutated remains of gene sequences that persist in the genome after their inactivation. They sure aren't talking about working genes, they are inactivated.




???
God never showed his fach through out the bible.




If you want to put this forward as a hypothesis, please provide supporting evidence. Until you do, we can safely ignore it.
Wel the bible is a historical document. Your going to have a hard time proving any theory with the option out there, especially since its in documented history.




As can evolution (which is why we need a new flu vaccine every year).
There is no proof that morphing viruses are from evolution, its only assumed that it is. This is why people are so confused. It's like there is this huge conspiracy called evolution where everything is done through changes to our DNA. Meh.

Where is the proof?




Evolution is an unguided process, so of course we don't know what changes are going to happen. The causes are well known, though - mutation and natural selection (plus genetic drift).
And what about the creation of new species, is that also no intentional or is it just happenstance to other things that are happening? Because seriously, to create over a billion species is a creator by any terms.




So no actual evidence, then?
No the bible is evidence, its real, you can hold it in you hand and read it.




So you're pretty free to make stuff up? That's handy.
The bible is prefaced as a book that contains supernatural occurances. Those occurences can't be tested by standard science. What it sounds more like is you have your own version of reality and it doesn't fit in with the definitions I have shown you.




So the bible is like Star Trek? Cool. Still not convinced, though.
In a way I guess, however I have had a personal interest in both the supernatural and the paranormal for over 30 years. So you could say I know some things. Your example is off a tad. The things I have learned about the supernatural would make star wars look like a western.




There you go again, writing something that looks like it means something and I have no idea what it is.
Like I assumed, and you presented to me, as I assumed you would, is that DNA is similar therefore we have to be related. You haven't presented me with anything that hasn't used that approach.




You know, I think even you aren't stupid enough to actually believe I said that.
You did, indirectly, thats the definition of speciation.




The relevance to the subject at hand.
The fact that your basically stating that people smoking are causing evolution.




I don't know you well enough to share my doctor stories with you.
NO DOCTOR HAS EVER TOLD A PATIENT THEY CANT PROCRIATE BECAUSE THEY HAVE EVOLVED!




The cause of the change is irrelevant. If the effect is an inheritable mutation, it's by definition part of evolution. I find it bizarre that you don't get this.
Other people I have talked with on here have made it clear that a change that was influenced by us was obviously not evolution.




That was a point?
And they are so natural that you cant tell the difference between evolution and our lab work.







Yes. It's called evolution.
And this process is also responsible for the diversity of life of over a billion species, but has no intent?




Evolution means species changing over time. It doesn't specifically require natural causes.
So if my friend racked me in the nuts, causing such damage that my offspring was sterile, I would say became damaged, and you would say I evolved?




I already demonstrated that you're wrong using the horse and donkey example which doesn't require gametic isolation to achieve speciation.[/quot



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by radix
 





I already demonstrated that you're wrong using the horse and donkey example which doesn't require gametic isolation to achieve speciation.
So I guess what it comes down to is what exactly does specieation mean to you? What did it accomplish?




Evidence?
I'll give you a few nibbles. Hebrews quote "Earth is not our home" how many different ways can that be taken. I'm all for thinking things through however you first need to read genesis. It's TOTALLY an abduction scene complete with erased memory and control techniques.

Ezekiel chapter explains god visiting us in a space craft with a four headed creature of lion, ox, eagle and man.




Evidence?
Pye explains it best, did you not watch the video, the human genome is public information, so the proof is free information.




I was talking about dogs and wolves. Do try to keep up.
You can keep claiming that but then you have the explanation of why they are seperated in our eyes to begin with?




No, it's not - which I already explained.
Then what are you basing it on.




Do you have some sort of software that comes up with this stuff? It's fascinating - looks just like English but has no discernable meaning.
Then what is your proof for evolution?




No, I'm pretty sure that's not what I claimed.
Then what exactly are you claiming?



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by radix
 





Give me an example of different species being able to produce fertile offspring and you have proven me wrong (and probably changed the definition of species).
Well dogs and wolves are the best example. Here you have a subgenere of wolves and with a dog can produce a fertile offspring.




The meaning being? Look, it's been fun and all but we've now reached the point where I don't understand half of what you're posting and the other half seems to consist of made up stuff or denial of the evidence. I don't know about you but I have better things to do with my time.
Well I was hoping for some evidence, but didn't get any. But I understand, if thats the best you can do then I agree, you should have better things to do with your time.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 01:39 PM
link   

What I like is how the goal posts keep moving to try to keep Evolution alive, like how darwin was wrong about us evolving from apes. This was totally because no one could produce a missing link.


They have found at least 12 missing links in the ape / hominid lineage. No goalposts were ever moved. The fundamentals of the theory have not changed, we just know a lot more know. And funny, the more we learn, the more obvious evolution is. The fact that you have resorted to making things up because you want them to be true says way more than I'll ever need to about the error of your ways.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





They have found at least 12 missing links in the ape / hominid lineage. No goalposts were ever moved. The fundamentals of the theory have not changed, we just know a lot more know. And funny, the more we learn, the more obvious evolution is. The fact that you have resorted to making things up because you want them to be true says way more than I'll ever need to about the error of your ways.

Shows you what you don't understand. There isn't suppose to be any missing links, which is why the lame excuse of us sharring a common ancestor was developed.




posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Busted? I was stating that Evolution was a FACT. I am not disputing that there are other factors that are involved that may be a driving force as far as how certain species have developed. But the fact remains that Evolution is an easily proven FACT.

Anyone here can visually see the process of Evolution using a Microscope, some Bleach and some prepared slides that have on them Bacteria.

As the Bacteria is exposed to Bleach a good amount of the Bacteria are killed. After each exposure to Bleach the still living Bacteria that has not died that a person harvested and placed on a slide will show that each Bacteria slide will have a greater number of that micro-organism living as the Bacteria becomes more and more tollerant to Bleach.

Split Infinity



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 08:42 AM
link   
tooth when an explanation shows you to be absolutely wrong, ignore the explanation and reassert the original claim?
Confidence like that can only come from ignorance and complete dedication to semantic fallacies.

You haven't providing a single piece of meaningful text not even once. All you do is lie, obfuscate and just try to discredit knowledge.

Its too bad you more interested in discrediting knowledge than you are in actually discussing anything.

edit on 9-1-2013 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs
 





They have found at least 12 missing links in the ape / hominid lineage. No goalposts were ever moved. The fundamentals of the theory have not changed, we just know a lot more know. And funny, the more we learn, the more obvious evolution is. The fact that you have resorted to making things up because you want them to be true says way more than I'll ever need to about the error of your ways.

Shows you what you don't understand. There isn't suppose to be any missing links, which is why the lame excuse of us sharring a common ancestor was developed.


Your post that I responded to criticized evolution for not having missing links and now that I proved you wrong you claim they aren't supposed to exist?
Keep making things up. It won't change anything. Your idea of evolution is a straw man and you refuse to accept any evidence. The only reason I even respond to you is so the average reader isn't fooled by your blatant lies and failure to provide any evidence to back it up.
edit on 9-1-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 





Busted? I was stating that Evolution was a FACT. I am not disputing that there are other factors that are involved that may be a driving force as far as how certain species have developed. But the fact remains that Evolution is an easily proven FACT.

Anyone here can visually see the process of Evolution using a Microscope, some Bleach and some prepared slides that have on them Bacteria.

As the Bacteria is exposed to Bleach a good amount of the Bacteria are killed. After each exposure to Bleach the still living Bacteria that has not died that a person harvested and placed on a slide will show that each Bacteria slide will have a greater number of that micro-organism living as the Bacteria becomes more and more tollerant to Bleach.
But there is no proof this is all part of the same process known as evolution, its just assumed.






top topics



 
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join