Can you prove evolution wrong

Unfortuntaly I must have missed the answers.

It usually helps to get an education on genetics before making arguments on such subjects. So clearly you have missed the answers when making up your nonsense for the sake of making it up to troll the fora with intentional ignorance. So do yourself a favor, you want to deposit such an idea, try providing empirical evidence and scientific peer reviewed journals to which can be considered on the academic level worthy of consideration. Did you seriously think we would just stop thinking and just shake our heads : uhh huh yeah..uhh huh yeah!?? See the difference between me and you, I actually provided academic level information on this subject vs espousing pseudoscience.

And btw, this thread is about evolution being fact or fiction.. And my posts a few pages back are more than sufficient regarding evolution as a fact on an academic level. You should try reading them. And you might even learn what a carbon based life form is and how silly your argument actually was.. That is if you are actually interested in intellectual integrity.. Though I doubt you are in the position to discuss any of those subjects on an academic level.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

I know this is going to fall on deaf ears but I will try anyway.

This is not a thread where the 'Pro evolutionist' is meant to prove anything. It is about people that say evolution is false explaining the diversity we see around us today without refering to evolution.

So far no one has attempted is partly because of an infection of this thread by a backward racist trying to prove whites are superior.

Look at how much you lie Colin. If any of this nonesense were true I would have been removed off this thread long ago. I never claimed to be racist, thats just an assumption you made, which you do a lot of BTW. I also never claimed that whites were superior either, its just yet another assumption made by you. But I can totally understand your direction, as you are not able to prove diversity while I'm proving that we aren't even from here.
So you have to resort to desperate measures and attacking me as an aleged racist is just one. You started out by first profiling me, then when that wouldn't work, you tried not accepting my explanations, when that didn't work you tried calling me racist. Whats next, will you lable me the unibomber?

I never mentioned you. Guilty conscience I think.

You on the other hand have called me a liar. How rude

If you fit this definition of Racist Then it is up to you to reflect on your comments here, not me.

Racism, also called racialism, is generally defined as actions, practices, or beliefs that reflect the racial worldview: the ideology that humans are divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called "races". This ideology entails the belief that members of a race share a set of characteristic traits, abilities, or qualities, that traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural behavioral characteristics are inherited, and that this inheritance means that races can be ranked as innately superior or inferior to others.

So, if you see yourself in this definition then the cap fits. If not, all you have done is display abject ignorance.

reply to post by TheJackelantern

Gene duplication makes new genes..Helloooo!? .. Also for gene creation, look up electromagnetism and what atoms are. Learn the differences between atoms, and then learn what chemical reactions are. It's a no duh how genes would have to be made irregardless if you think something made them through intelligence, or through natural processes. So your argument is a pretty hallow one at best. But for giggles, Genes are made by DNA and of DNA: 1920s, experiments showed that a harmless strain of bacteria can become infectious when mixed with a virulent strain of bacteria that had been killed. The dead bacteria apparently provide some chemical that "transforms" the harmless bacteria to infectious ones. This so-called "transforming principle" appeared to be a gene. A team of scientists led by Oswald Avery at the Rockefeller Institute, rigorously followed up on these experiments in the 1940's. They found that a pure extract of the "transforming principle" was unaffected by treatment with protein-digesting enzymes but was destroyed by a DNA-digesting enzyme. This showed that the transforming principle is DNA — and, by extension, a gene is made of DNA

All of which has nothing to do, or no way to prove that we share a common ancestor with apes. It might help if you read your own share, here to realize that little to none of this has anything to do with humans. Making new genes and duplicating existing genes are two totally different things. New genes aren't just made from nothing, which has nothing to do with duplicating them.

Avery, MacLeod, and McCarty published their discovery that the transforming principle was DNA in 1944 in the Journal of Experimental Medicine. Their conclusions in this paper were cautious, and they presented several interpretations of their results. The phenomenon of transformation, Avery wrote, "has been interpreted from a genetic point of view. The inducing substance has been likened to a gene, and the capsular antigen which is produced in response to it has been regarded as a gene product."

It appears to be anything but a gene, but I'm getting the feeling that you view thiese things in a lot the same way that Colin would. Colin loves to move the goal posts to fit his direction as well.

That doesn't exist either.. You may as well attach ism to literally everything to the point where it becomes meaningless. Evolution is a scientific theory based on an empirical system. They same system that facts and actual truth are based on. So if you want to start calling factism as some sort of religion, then feel free to proceed and do so.. And let's face it here, when people often put an ism onto to something like this, it's usually used as a form of intended dogma.

No evolutionism is a real animal...

Definition for evolutionism:Web definitions: theory of evolution: (biology) a scientific theory of the origin of species of plants and animals.

Evolutionism refers to the biological concept of evolution,[1] specifically to a widely held 19th century belief that organisms are intrinsically bound to increase in complexity.

Evolutionism wiki

The fact is that evolutionism is very much alive today. I see it every minute in this forum.

volution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses.

Evolution 29+ Evidences

This is where the truth is. Evolution is nothing more than a series of hypothesis and theories. The ony thing I'm able to find that has any substance to it, is the theory of speciation. Even at that, its still a partial confirmation with no proof that evolution exists.
Evolution will remain an unproven theory.

reply to post by TheJackelantern

It usually helps to get an education on genetics before making arguments on such subjects. So clearly you have missed the answers when making up your nonsense for the sake of making it up to troll the fora with intentional ignorance. So do yourself a favor, you want to deposit such an idea, try providing empirical evidence and scientific peer reviewed journals to which can be considered on the academic level worthy of consideration. Did you seriously think we would just stop thinking and just shake our heads : uhh huh yeah..uhh huh yeah!?? See the difference between me and you, I actually provided academic level information on this subject vs espousing pseudoscience.

So I'm going to assume that you actually believe that DNA can just sprout on its own, as the only proof you have is by trying to tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about.

Most of what your using as a basis for argument is speculation and there is no proof. I myself don't like to accept such things, such is the example of whats being preached on this thread about evolution. There is a big difference between what I have read and what is being preached on this thread.

reply to post by TheJackelantern

And btw, this thread is about evolution being fact or fiction.. And my posts a few pages back are more than sufficient regarding evolution as a fact on an academic level. You should try reading them. And you might even learn what a carbon based life form is and how silly your argument actually was.. That is if you are actually interested in intellectual integrity.. Though I doubt you are in the position to discuss any of those subjects on an academic level.

I read them, they offered no proof that says wihtout a doubt that is how it happened.

So I don't by the excuse that if there is no better plausible excuse, that it must be true.

reply to post by colin42

I never mentioned you. Guilty conscience I think.

You on the other hand have called me a liar. How rude

If you fit this definition of Racist Then it is up to you to reflect on your comments here, not me.
Racism, also called racialism, is generally defined as actions, practices, or beliefs that reflect the racial worldview: the ideology that humans are divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called "races". This ideology entails the belief that members of a race share a set of characteristic traits, abilities, or qualities, that traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural behavioral characteristics are inherited, and that this inheritance means that races can be ranked as innately superior or inferior to others.


So, if you see yourself in this definition then the cap fits. If not, all you have done is display abject ignorance.

No I don't see myself in this definition. The only thing I ever stated was that it is possible that genetic variances could be from other planets. I never made a comment reflecting characteristics, traits, abilities, qualiteis, personality, intellect, morality, or cultural behavioral characteristcs.

It's just another classic example of you profiling or in this case stereotyping me. It's apparen't from our discussions that you like to stereotype, profile, and assume most of the time.

reply to post by itsthetooth

All of which has nothing to do, or no way to prove that we share a common ancestor with apes. It might help if you read your own share, here to realize that little to none of this has anything to do with humans. Making new genes and duplicating existing genes are two totally different things. New genes aren't just made from nothing, which has nothing to do with duplicating them.

Actually, this is crucial evidence for how genes change over time...which is...wait for it...waaaaaait for it...EVOLUTION!

This is where the truth is. Evolution is nothing more than a series of hypothesis and theories. The ony thing I'm able to find that has any substance to it, is the theory of speciation. Even at that, its still a partial confirmation with no proof that evolution exists.
Evolution will remain an unproven theory.

Do yourself a favor and look up what a scientific theory is...because you look just plain dumb making statements like the one above.

So I'm going to assume that you actually believe that DNA can just sprout on its own, as the only proof you have is by trying to tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about.

Nope...he's just pointing out that you clearly haven't read up on the very thing you use as an argument.

Here, let me help you see how incredibly wrong you are:

LINK 1

LINK 2

Most of what your using as a basis for argument is speculation and there is no proof. I myself don't like to accept such things...

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, best joke on ATS today

Coming from the guy who believes in an ancient alien theory that completely lacks objective evidence that statement is incredibly ironic

reply to post by MrXYZ

Actually, this is crucial evidence for how genes change over time...which is...wait for it...waaaaaait for it...EVOLUTION

But I guess we haven't had enough time to test the theory right?

Is that what you mean by wait for it?

Do yourself a favor and look up what a scientific theory is...because you look just plain dumb making statements like the one above.

First off that is a dumb statement, I have never read anything from a reliable source that claimed that evolution was a scientific theory.

I have seen hypothesis, and theory, but not scientific theory.

Your first link was useless and had nothing to do with evolution. It was about a scientist that modified a gene and got it to pass, which has nothing to do with evoltuion. The second link was just about mutations. There is no conclusive evidence that ever states that all mutations are from evolution, or are part of evolution. I think assumptions are being made here, and just because we don't understand what is in fact causing a mutation, doesn't mean it's automatically evolution, but in the eyes of evolution it sure does.

Evolution has never been identified, and what I mean by that, is scientists have never been able to look at changes and say, oh, right there, wait for it..........................................That is caused from evolution because. There has never been a because established, its just assumed changes are from evoltuion, when in fact they aren't. As I argued recently about ADHD and changing genes, and how they recently identified this, before, they would have been accepted as evolution.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, best joke on ATS today

Coming from the guy who believes in an ancient alien theory that completely lacks objective evidence that statement is incredibly ironic

Sure with the exception of there being very good reason why we don't have evidence, while evolution occuring right under our noses, has no excuse for not producing, or leaving trace evidence behind, that would prove evolution. You simply have no excuse .

reply to post by MrXYZ

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, best joke on ATS today

Coming from the guy who believes in an ancient alien theory that completely lacks objective evidence that statement is incredibly ironic

Actually I take that back, we do have evidence. We have tips from all around the world that there was intervention, and we also have direct proof from the bible.

Keeping in mind that the bible is a historical document, it shouldn't be dismissed so easily.

reply to post by itsthetooth

No I don't see myself in this definition.

Are you sure you read it?

The only thing I ever stated was that it is possible that genetic variances could be from other planets.

Nope. You wrote the Bushman was a different species and black people from from a seperate planet from white people.

I never made a comment reflecting characteristics, traits, abilities, qualiteis, personality, intellect, morality, or cultural behavioral characteristcs.

Racism, also called racialism, is generally defined as actions, practices, or beliefs that reflect the racial worldview: the ideology that humans are divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called "races". This ideology entails the belief that members of a race share a set of characteristic traits, abilities, or qualities, that traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural behavioral characteristics are inherited, and that this inheritance means that races can be ranked as innately superior or inferior to others.

or of course as I said you display abject ignorance

reply to post by colin42

No I don't see myself in this definition.

Are you sure you read it?

Yes and I quoted back to you why it doesn't apply to me, and proved once again that you like to move goal posts to fit your needs.

Nope. You wrote the Bushman was a different species and black people from from a seperate planet from white people.

It's a theory anyhow.

or of course as I said you display abject ignorance

Has nothing to do with me, unless your reading up to the word idealology and stopping there without reading the rest, which you cant do because the definition is further explained in detail.

I will tell you however how you came to your prognosis.

pro·filenoun /ˈprōˌfīl/ 
profiles, plural

1.An outline of something, esp. a person's face, as seen from one side
- the man turned and she caught his profile


2.A vertical cross section of a structure
- skillfully made vessels with an S-shaped profile


3.An outline of part of the earth's surface, e.g., the course of a river, as seen in a vertical section


4.A flat piece of scenery or stage property that has been cut so as to form an outline or silhouette of an object


5.A short article giving a description of a person or organization
- a profile of a Texas tycoon


6.A graphical or other representation of information relating to particular characteristics of something, recorded in quantified form
- the blood profiles of cancer patients


7.A record of a person's psychological or behavioral characteristics, preferences, etc., so as to assess their capabilities in a certain sphere or identify categories of people
- they had been using personal details to build customer profiles


8.The extent to which a person or organization attracts public notice
- raising the profile of women in industry


verb /ˈprōˌfīl/ 
profiled, past participle; profiled, past tense; profiles, 3rd person singular present; profiling, present participle

1.Describe (a person or organization, esp. a public figure) in a short article
- he was to profile each candidate


2.Represent in outline from one side
- he was standing motionless, profiled on the far side of the swimming pool


3.Have a specified shape or appearance in outline
- a proud bird profiled like a phoenix


4.Shape (something), esp. by means of a tool guided by a template
- profiled and plain tiles

Profile


and

ster·e·o·typenoun /ˈsterēəˌtīp/  /ˈsti(ə)r-/ 
stereotypes, plural

1.A widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing
- the stereotype of the woman as the carer
- sexual and racial stereotypes


2.A person or thing that conforms to such an image
- don't treat anyone as a stereotype


3.A relief printing plate cast in a mold made from composed type or an original plate


verb /ˈsterēəˌtīp/  /ˈsti(ə)r-/ 
stereotyped, past participle; stereotyped, past tense; stereotypes, 3rd person singular present; stereotyping, present participle

1.View or represent as a stereotype
- the city is too easily stereotyped as an industrial wasteland

stereotype

and

as·sum·ingconjunction /əˈso͞omiNG/ 


1.Used for the purpose of argument to indicate a premise on which a statement can be based
- assuming that the treaty is ratified, what is its relevance?


adjective /əˈso͞omiNG/ 


1.Arrogant or presumptuous

assuming

Above are some that reflect why you would come to such conclusions.

Hello Tooth,


A homeless man chased me down the street a few hours ago! He gave me a paper, which I am transcribing now:

_______
"The Theory of Tooth"

Postulate 1 - I was abducted by aliens
Postulate 2 - They told me secrets
________

Are you homeless or dress homeless

Originally posted by Confusion42
Hello Tooth,


A homeless man chased me down the street a few hours ago! He gave me a paper, which I am transcribing now:

_______
"The Theory of Tooth"

Postulate 1 - I was abducted by aliens
Postulate 2 - They told me secrets
________

Are you homeless or dress homeless

(jk)

reply to post by MrXYZ


Debating tooth...


End of story...

So I'm going to assume that you actually believe that DNA can just sprout on its own,

Yep...

as the only proof you have is by trying to tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about.

nope, because I understand that life is electromagnetic phenomenon. And I understand everything life is made from is found on the periodic table.. I am also not ignorant of chemistry either. Life can sprout on it's own simple because energy can interfere with itself. And we were talking about evolution and not abiogenesis here.. Changing the topic when getting owned in the current one isn't clever, it's admitting you have no argument worth anything. Hence, you're backpedaling because you just got literally owned regarding the subject of evolution..

Most of what your using as a basis for argument is speculation and there is no proof.

Sorry, everything I posted is proof of evolution.. Your ability to be intentionally ignorant isn't going to make that go away.. Yep, those academic facts I posted a few pages back aren't going to magically vanish because you can convince yourself they aren't when they are. You've provided nothing in term of intellectual, or academic value here. So it's not a wonder that you goal post move to a subject we aren't even discussing in this thread.

Originally posted by flyingfish
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Debating tooth...

End of story...

That couldn't be more true :/ And it's sad that it is..

reply to post by flyingfish
That is how it is exactly. Well done.

reply to post by TheJackelantern

So I'm going to assume that you actually believe that DNA can just sprout on its own,


Yep...

You do understand that if that were true, everything that we rely on DNA for, including forensics and paternity, are completly useless?

as the only proof you have is by trying to tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about.


nope, because I understand that life is electromagnetic phenomenon. And I understand everything life is made from is found on the periodic table.. I am also not ignorant of chemistry either. Life can sprout on it's own simple because energy can interfere with itself. And we were talking about evolution and not abiogenesis here.. Changing the topic when getting owned in the current one isn't clever, it's admitting you have no argument worth anything. Hence, you're backpedaling because you just got literally owned regarding the subject of evolution..

You must not have read teh back pages of this thread, had you of, you would have seen that you were owned before you started any of your own claims. Transpermia is real, scientists have known about it, and accept it. It's just such a rare and odd thing that it's known by few. I didn't see you stepping up to offer any target food so I can only assume you too realize you were allready lost. You also never stepped up to offer any species that have a direct relationship with man, that can help prove we are from here.

The fact is, there is NOTHING that ties us to this planet.

Sorry, everything I posted is proof of evolution.. Your ability to be intentionally ignorant isn't going to make that go away.. Yep, those academic facts I posted a few pages back aren't going to magically vanish because you can convince yourself they aren't when they are. You've provided nothing in term of intellectual, or academic value here. So it's not a wonder that you goal post move to a subject we aren't even discussing in this thread.

I don't change the subject, they are involved. It just tells me you have ignorance in understanding what has happened to us. It's ok, it is complicated and judging from your previous posts I woudn't expect you to posses the mentality to comprehend it.

reply to post by colin42

That is how it is exactly. Well done.

I must not be the donkey then.

Even I know kevin bacon was the star.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

That is how it is exactly. Well done.

I must not be the donkey then.

Even I know kevin bacon was the star.

Trust me...you clearly ARE the donkey in that clip

Mostly because just like that donkey, you simply ignore all evidence that doesn't "fit" your bat# crazy mini-religion...