Two pics from Oilantaytambo that 100% defy evolution

a reply to: Quadrivium

No, tell me. From a scientific point of view I can tell you exactly what it would be but evidently you believe otherwise.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
I agree, evolution has nothing to do with the origins of species.
As for the rest, they are not past the point of asking questions.
Evolution, especially "macroevolution" does fill in the blanks of our past and for some it does so very well.
Others like me, it doesn't fit so well with our reasoning.
Like the fossils you mentioned that show macro-evolution. They are basing the majority of the claims on a stone image.
We can not be sure these fossils are even related in a majority of cases.
So questions should be asked.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Quadrivium
You have already stated that "Theories are the highest echelon of understanding," so I am not sure what you are after.

a reply to: Quadrivium

Except I can go on, because genetics is fast proving Macroevolution as well. Humans share 50% of their DNA with the banana (tree). Which largely shows that humans and banana trees have the same ancestor. If a human and a plant share similar ancestors, it isn't a stretch to imagine that humans and all animals also share the same ancestor. But we can go on with any life form on the planet compared to any other life form on the planet. The debate about Macroevolution is pretty much settled.

originally posted by: Akragon
C'mon guys... you seriously didn't realise this?

Look around the religion section of the forums... You'll find the some of the most upside down, backwards, baseless, illogical arguments in some threads relating to the bible that still have lots of flags...

IF it says "the bible is true"... Christians jump on board by the boat load... regardless of the argument

The bible is real!

Can I have my stars now please?

Evolution occurs with every single new birth on the planet. Each new living creature is unique, taking DNA from both parents. Not one human ever had that DNA sequence before. Each human is slightly different. Not only is evolution real it is really obvious and one must be blind or willfully ignorant to dismiss it.

Now if you want to say Aliens came along and modified our ancestors DNA to help us along the evolutionary path and taught us to cut those rocks then I am with you brother!

a reply to: tadaman

Oh gawd that's quite the gish gallop you've developed there! A lengthy ramble filled with fallacies, baseless assertions and unfounded claims.

I actually said something completely different. I argue that intelligent design is not negated by evolution including natural selection and /or genetic mutations producing more favorable traits OR abiogenesis. I include intelligent design into the whole process. I see it as not being random. How is that even at odds with evolution? I never said evolution wasnt valid. Unlike you who try to force us into your limited view that somehow evolution is an argument against organized religion...lol You dont even understand evolution if you think that.

No i'm rejecting your claim that your god is included in the process of evolution.

I dont think making assumptions either way does a service in either case. Evolution assumes much as well. YET we have to choose something in order to continue down a path of reason.

There are assumptions made in the theory of evolution, not many but yes they're there. But what you're doing is adding even more assumptions into the mix for no reason other than to satisfy your theocratic urges.

I think arguing unexplained random happenings is an over complication considering the obvious design and pattern to life. A pattern is a sign of intelligence in most cases. Especially if it repeats itself and is dynamic to a situation.

There's nothing random about natural selection, at all.

I just did.

Lol you did? which unnecessarily complicated assumptions did you remove? do you even know what occam's razor is??

I dont know what you were responding to or if you were just responding to every point I made with a counter point, leaving you to make something up for this section of my reply. Saying that there is not intelligence to the design of life in favor of arguing a yet unknown /undiscovered "random" process is an over complication. There is NO evidence to infer it is random. None.

Do you know why?........it's because it's not random.....nobody is saying it's a random process.......except you ofc...

Should we just take your word on it in GOOD FAITH? We know intelligence produces patterns and designs things according to a specific function, EX: long stick to get ants out of a hole in a tree or long tube to get ants out of a tree or what have you. The pattern is a tool similar in design being fashioned for the specific purpose of getting ants out of a hole in a tree. Assuming that some random process is causing sticks to fall into holes and for ants to crawl out and into an animal´ss belly is silly. Thats what you are doing here without any evidence to even send you down that train of thought in the first place.

I have no clue what it is you're attempting to say here. Slow down, think about what you want to get across and then begin typing...and btw 'faith' is your bag, not mine.

Again I see that as an over complication of the process so as to justify a view already held in which variables are plugged into an equation in order to form an already reached outcome, in essence making the equation on the fly to to justify a convenient answer.

Best paragraph of your reply! the irony is staggering.....have you received this reply to your unfounded claims many times in the past? has it left it's mark on you?

The over complication of the process is your god, the view already held in which variables are plugged into an equation in order to form an already reached outcome, is your god, in essence making the equation on the fly to to justify a convenient answer (your god).......the theory of evolution explains everything without having to add an (apparently) timeless, spaceless, infinitely powerful and all knowing creature. You couldn't possibly pick a more over complicated or contrived answer but here we are....

Natural selection may allow the better suited traits to surface in a species and for those genes to be more expressed in a population out of survivability but to assume that random happenings are responsible for the mutations that happen to come about and suit the environment they are required for is silly.

No, thinking everything was made by a man in the sky is silly. What you're commenting on here has been observed is well documented.

Also natural selection doesnt always work. Sometimes certain traits develop and are preserved even though they dont suit the environment the species is in until much later when the variables change, hence the design anticipated the change before natural selection bred it into the species. It could just be a robust design or a redundancy to the design, but again, pretty good design no? Random happenings cant account for that level of precision. Think to the peppered moth for example.

Once you get past your error in thinking that natural selection is random, perhaps you'll be able to answer such questions without invoking a god....

How about you use science to enhance our understanding and mastery of the natural world instead of "moby dicking" this into a war on organized religion...

Lol a war? who's mentioned organised religion? and I don't know how to break this to you, but I don't weld science, that's not how it works....

Also abiogenesis is only embraced by fringe or out of touch members of the scientific community. It has long been abandoned by competent people due to its sheer improbability and its reliance on faith based assumptions with no rational evidence to infer such a claim. You obviously read something a while back and havent kept up to date or are being guided by a mentor who did such and cant let go after investing countless arguments and his reputation and hinging it all onto the theory of abiogenesis. Its a mathematical impossibility. A natural process may exist but its certainly not WITHOUT design and purpose.

So in this paragraph we have the claims that abiogenesis is only being looked into by a few out-of-touch 'fringe' scientists.....it (abiogenesis) has 'long been abandoned by competent people due to its sheer improbability and its reliance on faith based assumptions'.....that 'there no rational evidence to infer such a claim'....that I 'obviously read something a while back and havent kept up to date or are being guided by a mentor who did such and cant let go after investing countless arguments and his reputation and hinging it all onto the theory of abiogenesis', that it's (abiogenesis) 'a mathematical impossibility' and that 'its certainly not WITHOUT design and purpose'.

Six completely made up and baseless claims in a single paragraph, William Lane Craig would be proud! (methinks you've watched 'God is not Dead' one too many times)......

No Plan. No Back Up. NO CHOICE !

originally posted by: Rosinitiate

originally posted by: Akragon
C'mon guys... you seriously didn't realise this?

Look around the religion section of the forums... You'll find the some of the most upside down, backwards, baseless, illogical arguments in some threads relating to the bible that still have lots of flags...

IF it says "the bible is true"... Christians jump on board by the boat load... regardless of the argument

The bible is real!

Can I have my stars now please?

This I made to lighten the conversation and not to offend

a reply to: Krazysh0t
Yet we could also say that humans share 50% of their DNA with bananas because of a common Designer.
The same language was used to Create all living things.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Quadrivium
You have already stated that "Theories are the highest echelon of understanding," so I am not sure what you are after.

You said this:

I guess we will find out once we get to that point.

The correct answer is: theory.

a reply to: Prezbo369

Oh gawd that's quite the gish gallop you've developed there! A lengthy ramble filled with fallacies, baseless assertions and unfounded claims.

same.

Rational thought has no room for closed minded, agenda driven fools foaming at the mouth. Science and human progress in general doesnt benefit from your hunting of this white whale of religion either. Tune it down a notch, you seem obsessed and rabid at this point. Kind of weird....might want to work on that..lol

Please go about your business. I dont really care what you think. Youre not really having a conversation. You are arguing. Enjoy writing that lengthy response? Good. LOL

I said my peace. You are either bored or dumb, I havent decided but you ARE ALONE in this back and forth.

Enjoy.

God bless you....lol

a reply to: Krazysh0t

A majority of our dna can be traced back to many animals not just Apes.

I already explained the reasoning behind it and even the methods themselves used to study *pre-human fossils*

Sasquatch is the only other humanoid creature on this planet.

The closer you get to full brain development the closer you get to being more % of something else.

We only deem such percent based on tissue percent. We may only be 60-80% bird because birds have hollowed out bones and their cartalidge and callogen is different.

The their tissue is spungy is much different from ours. We are closer to mammals.

You can sit here and pretend that neanderthal bones are non ancient sasquatch bones.
But that's what they are.

And an ape will still have 48 chromosome pairs where as we have 46. If anthing we are de-evolved from that state.

My point is they are a completely different species. And interbreeding between humans and Neanderthals is totally possible because of the mitechondrial DNA.

But there is unaccounte 97-98% of human DNA that is unkown to its origin. And 97-98% in dna is a huge chunk of dna.
www.nytimes.com...

The case for gene duplications became so strong that many scientists grew convinced that it was the source of all new genes. They speculated that when life originally emerged billions of years ago, the first primordial microbes had a tiny set of genes. Those genes then duplicated over and over again to give rise to all the genes on Earth today. But when scientists gained the ability to sequence entire genomes,

there was a surprise waiting for them. They started to find genes that existed in the genome of just one species. According to the duplication theory, these solitary genes shouldn’t exist; they would have to have been copied from earlier genes in other organisms. Continue reading the main story “They looked like perfectly normal genes, except they were only found in one species,” said Anne-Ruxandra Carvunis, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, San Diego. “There was no explanation for how a gene could be in one species and not in other ones.” These genes came to be known as “orphan genes.” As scientists sequenced more genomes, they tried to return these orphans to their gene families. Sometimes they succeeded. But very often the orphans remained orphans.

Because of organisms developing from disease and gaining new attributes to pass on, Parasitic take overs with symbiosis.
We could have the viruses in us from interations with other species.

If humans and apes were to make contact, What ever viruses we gain from direct infection or breeding could be spread among the populations.

I believe this is how the blue eye trait came into existance under a blight.
When the pathogens were seduced and conquered by a suitable host it carried with them the blue eye trait.

Since pathogens are in same set families but vary slighty from geological region to region it's safe to say that species of animals and insects would also vary region to region, Tho all may hold prehistoric genes from passed blights and either being a sole survivor or a among many species among animal and insect liniages survived.

When the enviroment changes, it changes the bacteria and virai in the location of the change as well.
This effects mutation and mutation is the cause of evolution brought on by these changes, and by selective breeding when suitable genes mix with others in order to conquer new virai and bacteria


Its extremely difficult to destinguish between different species that are both Effected by the same pathogens....
Therefore to trace genes back from animal linages and say they were biological ancestors is false.

As the origins of Genes from proteins can be developed by mass pandemics....
Such as small pox coming to the new world.

Many natives don't get the Pox shot.... yet they are immune to it now. It is because the remaining who survived the plague recieved the mutations from taming the pox virus. Thing like this has happened repeadily throughout history from animal linage to animal linage.

We recieved the bubonic plague from rats and in turn that effected us by giving humans the black plague. Since then, precautions against such taint have been made but at the same time. People still conquered the bacteria and it is still within us today.

We carry all sorts of pathogens either by procration or by direct contact with other species... At the same time we depend on other species and in turn depend on others in a full blown ECO SYSTEM.

Darwinism completely states its survival of the fittest, that each species is to clamber to the top of the food chain. Which is not true.

All life depends on each other, We depend upon parasites and they depend upon us, We depend upon plants and they depend upon mouth breathers for carbon... Fungus depends upon plantes to survive in most cases they will be binded together... even to the microscale our cells depend upon the tamed pathogens and Phages to keep us healthy. and to ward of from bad pathogens.


So how can a scientist distinguish between direct transfer diseases. Such as the avian flu becomeing the regular flu....
If viruses and bacteria can effect more than one species, and each species conquers it... that would make them an cousin.

Evolution BOO!!! Here's a rock........

Ehm, although I tend to question the "theory" of evolution myself, starring at rocks just doesn't seem to bring the type of enlightenment one would expect on such a tremendous topic. That said, I leave tomorrow for a week long trip to look at rocks!

oceana.org...

Cat Pathogens Found in Arctic Belugas

--------The occurrence of human diseases in marine mammals is rapidly on the rise and an alarming development for our oceans. The latest species to succumb is the canary of the sea: the beluga whale.

Researchers from the University of British Columbia recently discovered Toxoplasma gondii, a devastating parasite, in a western Arctic population of beluga whales.

Usually found in cats, this parasite can cause blindness and other effects in humans, although its effect on whales is unknown. Scientists attribute the wide-ranging movement of pathogens to warming Arctic conditions, but the exact cause of the pathogen remains a mystery. One of the only ways to kill this parasite is to freeze it, so it’s likely that above-freezing temperatures in a warming Arctic are aiding the spread of this parasite.

This discovery is also worrying for people, too, as local the Inuit could be infected by eating whale meat.

The spread of pathogens and diseases to new corners of the world is just one of the many troubling effects climate change can have our marine environment, and Oceana will continue its efforts to promote renewable energies and preserve our climate.------


And eventually when toxxi because an *ancient* pathogen.
It may make its way into this animals gegnome.
Would that baluga be part cat then? lol

originally posted by: AnuTyr
a reply to: Krazysh0t

A majority of our dna can be traced back to many animals not just Apes.

Exactly, because every life form on this planet shares a common ancestor.

I already explained the reasoning behind it and even the methods themselves used to study *pre-human fossils*

Sasquatch is the only other humanoid creature on this planet.

Sasquatch has little to no evidence that it exists. To speak about Sasquatch as a real entity and at the same time try to say that there isn't enough evidence for the mainstream view of Evolution is ridiculous.

The closer you get to full brain development the closer you get to being more % of something else.

You just made that up.

We only deem such percent based on tissue percent. We may only be 60-80% bird because birds have hollowed out bones and their cartalidge and callogen is different.

The their tissue is spungy is much different from ours. We are closer to mammals.

You can sit here and pretend that neanderthal bones are non ancient sasquatch bones.
But that's what they are.

I can pretend? I, nor anyone else, can't even find definitive proof that Sasquatch even exists, let alone is related to Neanderthals.

And an ape will still have 48 chromosome pairs where as we have 46. If anthing we are de-evolved from that state.

There is no such thing as de-evolution. A species just continues to evolve. Changes are neither positive nor negative.

My point is they are a completely different species. And interbreeding between humans and Neanderthals is totally possible because of the mitechondrial DNA.

But there is unaccounte 97-98% of human DNA that is unkown to its origin. And 97-98% in dna is a huge chunk of dna.
www.nytimes.com...

The case for gene duplications became so strong that many scientists grew convinced that it was the source of all new genes. They speculated that when life originally emerged billions of years ago, the first primordial microbes had a tiny set of genes. Those genes then duplicated over and over again to give rise to all the genes on Earth today. But when scientists gained the ability to sequence entire genomes,

there was a surprise waiting for them. They started to find genes that existed in the genome of just one species. According to the duplication theory, these solitary genes shouldn’t exist; they would have to have been copied from earlier genes in other organisms. Continue reading the main story “They looked like perfectly normal genes, except they were only found in one species,” said Anne-Ruxandra Carvunis, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, San Diego. “There was no explanation for how a gene could be in one species and not in other ones.” These genes came to be known as “orphan genes.” As scientists sequenced more genomes, they tried to return these orphans to their gene families. Sometimes they succeeded. But very often the orphans remained orphans.

Because of organisms developing from disease and gaining new attributes to pass on, Parasitic take overs with symbiosis.
We could have the viruses in us from interations with other species.

If humans and apes were to make contact, What ever viruses we gain from direct infection or breeding could be spread among the populations.

I believe this is how the blue eye trait came into existance under a blight.
When the pathogens were seduced and conquered by a suitable host it carried with them the blue eye trait.

Since pathogens are in same set families but vary slighty from geological region to region it's safe to say that species of animals and insects would also vary region to region, Tho all may hold prehistoric genes from passed blights and either being a sole survivor or a among many species among animal and insect liniages survived.

When the enviroment changes, it changes the bacteria and virai in the location of the change as well.
This effects mutation and mutation is the cause of evolution brought on by these changes, and by selective breeding when suitable genes mix with others in order to conquer new virai and bacteria

I still can't believe how you can say that bacteria and viruses are able to be subject to evolution, but say that other lifeforms aren't. This is straight up baffling to me.

Its extremely difficult to destinguish between different species that are both Effected by the same pathogens....
Therefore to trace genes back from animal linages and say they were biological ancestors is false.

As the origins of Genes from proteins can be developed by mass pandemics....
Such as small pox coming to the new world.

Many natives don't get the Pox shot.... yet they are immune to it now. It is because the remaining who survived the plague recieved the mutations from taming the pox virus. Thing like this has happened repeadily throughout history from animal linage to animal linage.

We recieved the bubonic plague from rats and in turn that effected us by giving humans the black plague. Since then, precautions against such taint have been made but at the same time. People still conquered the bacteria and it is still within us today.

We carry all sorts of pathogens either by procration or by direct contact with other species... At the same time we depend on other species and in turn depend on others in a full blown ECO SYSTEM.

Darwinism completely states its survival of the fittest, that each species is to clamber to the top of the food chain. Which is not true.

All life depends on each other, We depend upon parasites and they depend upon us, We depend upon plants and they depend upon mouth breathers for carbon... Fungus depends upon plantes to survive in most cases they will be binded together... even to the microscale our cells depend upon the tamed pathogens and Phages to keep us healthy. and to ward of from bad pathogens.


So how can a scientist distinguish between direct transfer diseases. Such as the avian flu becomeing the regular flu....
If viruses and bacteria can effect more than one species, and each species conquers it... that would make them an cousin.

You've completely lost me. Your misunderstanding of evolution has brought in topics that are only loosely related to it. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE go read up on what evolution actually is. You obviously don't know.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Yet we could also say that humans share 50% of their DNA with bananas because of a common Designer.
The same language was used to Create all living things.

I never said that a creator couldn't exist. I'm agnostic. But if a creator exists, it probably used evolution to develop life.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: Prezbo369

Rational thought has no room for closed minded, agenda driven fools foaming at the mouth.

Ah the dying shrieks of a failed position........or as its more formally known, an ad hominem attack......

Shame

a reply to: AfterInfinity

And that's why I'm outta here.

Good bye self appointed ATS hall moniter.

Prezbo

Ah the dying shrieks of a failed position........or as its more formally known, an ad hominem attack......

Something AI and your crowd are constantly allowed.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Yet we could also say that humans share 50% of their DNA with bananas because of a common Designer.
The same language was used to Create all living things.

I never said that a creator couldn't exist. I'm agnostic. But if a creator exists, it probably used evolution to develop life.

I never said that you said a Creator couldn't exist
I was giving you an alternative to why humans and bananas share 50 percent of their DNA.
You were trying to make a case for macro evolution.

Apparently there's been something going on and on for thousands of years, some sort of evolution>cathastrophe>re-evolution. I think thats why we find so many things like this.
For all we know our entire society might collapse some day and billions of years ahead what was left of the humanity will have evolved again into an urbanized society that will find remnants of our now-late society.