It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
But what you don't understand is that the only reason the bible is open to personal interpretation is because most people miss the fact that it's titled in the supernatural section. It's because of this confusion, there are many different perspectives. Now you can trust somone that has studdied the supernatural for over 30 years or you can keep playing the guessing game.
The entire Bible is open to personal interpretation. So, which Bible is the real Bible? You know not all Christian sects use the same Bible. Why do some Canon contain only the first 5 books of the Bible and other Canon contain over 80 books? The problem is what you think, what you personally believe, and what you feel, all have no bearing on what is true.
Please review your elementary biology before posting your opinions.
I have a better idea, how about we leave the responsibility on you to prove evolution, siince you have been so poor at comprehending definitions.
Tooth, present us proof of magic or forever carry your "clown" title proudly
And no, the bible ISN'T proof of magic!! Why not? Because if it were your reasoning would be circular:
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
I have a better idea, how about we leave the responsibility on you to prove evolution, siince you have been so poor at comprehending definitions.
Tooth, present us proof of magic or forever carry your "clown" title proudly
And no, the bible ISN'T proof of magic!! Why not? Because if it were your reasoning would be circular:
Every link I have been provided is clear that these ideas are in the hypothesis stages of a theory, not a single one of them claims evolution to be a fact.
Evolution is a proven scientific theory that is actively applied...and it's a FACT. It has been proven and you've been provided with dozens (probably hundreds) of links to scientific resources proving us right.
In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge,[
Now YOUR lying again. The only thing being used in science is the adaptation of bacteria and viruses, which has never been proven to have anything to do with evolution.
And now you're blatantly lying
FYI, we are using it in science daily
Some could argue, that evolution is well explained, I'm not going to go there, I don't believe that flooding someone with to much information is proof of the point. However it is still lacking proof, there is no evidence of evolution.
Scientific theory, like the the theory of evolution, is not the same as a theory in everyday life.
Some could argue, that evolution is well explained, I'm not going to go there, I don't believe that flooding someone with to much information is proof of the point. However it is still lacking proof, there is no evidence of evolution.
Scientific theory, like the the theory of evolution, is not the same as a theory in everyday life.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
Now YOUR lying again. The only thing being used in science is the adaptation of bacteria and viruses, which has never been proven to have anything to do with evolution.
And now you're blatantly lying
FYI, we are using it in science daily
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish
But what you don't understand is that the only reason the bible is open to personal interpretation is because most people miss the fact that it's titled in the supernatural section. It's because of this confusion, there are many different perspectives. Now you can trust somone that has studdied the supernatural for over 30 years or you can keep playing the guessing game.
The entire Bible is open to personal interpretation. So, which Bible is the real Bible? You know not all Christian sects use the same Bible. Why do some Canon contain only the first 5 books of the Bible and other Canon contain over 80 books? The problem is what you think, what you personally believe, and what you feel, all have no bearing on what is true.
Please review your elementary biology before posting your opinions.
Ok but like I keep saying, adaptation has nothing to do with evolution and I would like to see what proof there is that they are related. It's highlighted in the wiki from a seperate author, known as an evolutionist. Simply making the claim that adaptation is part of evolution dosn't cut it, I want to know what test and what basis there is to come to this conclusion.
Here, I can give you a simple form of evolution right now, that is visible right now, that you can't accusse of overwhelming you with information or proof:
the flu
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by nixie_nox
Ok but like I keep saying, adaptation has nothing to do with evolution and I would like to see what proof there is that they are related. It's highlighted in the wiki from a seperate author, known as an evolutionist. Simply making the claim that adaptation is part of evolution dosn't cut it, I want to know what test and what basis there is to come to this conclusion.
Here, I can give you a simple form of evolution right now, that is visible right now, that you can't accusse of overwhelming you with information or proof:
the flu
"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
No its because its adaptation and not your silly evolution.
What are you talking about? That IS evolution. The only reason change happens quicker in microscopic life is that generations move on so much quicker...so viruses for example can adapt a lot faster than larger lifeforms.
That all depends on the breed, the bloodline and the breeding. They will always be dogs however, at least you admitted that. So by you own admission evolution does NOT explain diversity.
We see the same thing in larger life forms, just at a MUCH slower rate. Just look at dog breeders for example. A windhound for example looks drastically different from a Chihuahua. Breeding those difference didn't take that long on a cosmic scale. Of course they're still dogs. But guess what, if you continue to breed for drastic changes like that, in 50,000 years, or 500k years, or 50m years you will have 2 species that look nothing alike.
Your making an uneducated guess, as there is no proof that all of these species are related. We might even share some simular DNA but that in itself is not proof. Again a creator could have just as easily of used the same DNA.
The changes might make them look as different as a cow and a horse...or a rat and an elephant...both of those have a distant common ancestor as the fossil record and DNA proves...but they are now completely different species.
What your failing to understand in all of this is that your example is flawed because those could all be permissable allowances within that species to begin with. Your making an observation based on differences but claiming that these differences are out of the norm. Breeding longer legs with longer legs might yeild longer only legs, but there is no proof you made a new species.
If you had a dog who has slightly longer legs than is "normal" (just like some people have longer noses), you could breed him with another dog that has the same traits. These traits are inheritable and it's likely their offspring will also have slightly longer legs. If you go on for generations and generations and generation that trait will become more and more prominent. In nature this happens through natural selection, but we can recreate it if we breed dogs.
Scientists have tested your theory with fruit flys, and everytime the species starts to have serious changes, it dies quickly. There is no proof that if that same change was to happen over millions of years, that it would all of a sudden be accepted, that is guess work of evolution and there is no proof or basis for it.
Anyway, if you continued that for thousands of years, the end result will be something that looks very different than a dog, and you probably wouldn't call it a dog.
Again that depends on if its all within in the confines of whats acceptable in the programming of the DNA. You can try to force a two headed human through DNA work but chances are its not going to live. There is no proof of this in real time, in the past, or in the future, so don't automatically assume that it might be permissable if it were passed on slowly.
Now let's say you do the same exact thing but in reverse...so only let dogs breed that have shorter than average legs. After thousands of years, you will get something with really tiny legs that doesn't look like a dog at all...maybe more like a seal with stumps.
Again it all depends whether or not its acceptable within the confines of the DNA. DNA has safety features, I don't know if you know this or not. There was an experiment done with flowers as an example to try to force color change.
We KNOW (!!) this would happen because the changes we have produced in dogs for example are already so drastic...and nothing suggests we couldn't simply continue this breeding process forever. The fossil record proves it too as every species, dated to its period fits the "tree of life". We can follow back common descent all the way back in time...and DNA confirms it as well as we can see how allele frequencies in DNA changes, which is the very definition of evolution.
We KNOW (!!) this would happen because the changes we have produced in dogs for example are already so drastic...and nothing suggests we couldn't simply continue this breeding process forever. The fossil record proves it too as every species, dated to its period fits the "tree of life". We can follow back common descent all the way back in time...and DNA confirms it as well as we can see how allele frequencies in DNA changes, which is the very definition of evolution.
As you can see, I have.
In short...do some research before talking nonsense
Wait a minute, I'm confused here. Lactose intolerance has grown as far as I knew, and what are you claiming about protein in milk? I wasn't aware it packed a good amount of protein, everything I'm finding says its fair in protein.
There has also been recent evolution in humans.
Lactose tolerance (not intolerance) is a fairly recent move in human evolution. As all mammals, except for humans now, develop intolerance after infancy. Since humans have domesticated cattle, and now have a milk protein diet after infancy, four different allelles for tolerance have been developed.
Another current one is among Tibetian (Tibeten?) women. Due to the high elevations there. Women who have higher oxygen concentratioin in their blood, have higher survival rates for their babies. So that is REALLY, natural selection at work, in humans, right now.