Can you prove evolution wrong? -- Part 2

a reply to: LSU0408
Why do all creationists say that, if evolution were true, all apes and monkeys should have evolved into humans?

That's not how evolution works.

Amphibians evolved out of fish, but there are still fish around. Reptiles evolved out of amphibians, but there are still amphibians around. Mammals evolved out of reptiles, but there are still reptiles around.

Evolution doesnt just take the original organism and evolves it towards some end-result.

a reply to: wildespace

Wow what is that in your Avatar?.

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: wildespace

Wow what is that in your Avatar?.

It's Kinesin, a protein that transports molecules around your cells, by "walking" along the microtubules. en.wikipedia.org...


www.youtube.com...

a reply to: wildespace

Mucho thanko fella that honestly was the best thing I have seen all year fascinating.


Silly question though it moves a lot quicker than that though? lol.
(I know the answer but my stupid brain has doubts lol.)

originally posted by: wildespace
a reply to: LSU0408
Why do all creationists say that, if evolution were true, all apes and monkeys should have evolved into humans?

That's not how evolution works.

Amphibians evolved out of fish, but there are still fish around. Reptiles evolved out of amphibians, but there are still amphibians around. Mammals evolved out of reptiles, but there are still reptiles around.

Evolution doesnt just take the original organism and evolves it towards some end-result.

That is a true observation. Its like "Evolution" was highly selective in what evolved to what extent, and when. Almost displaying choice or a "Intelligence".
And that, is why I say, both processes are in play.

Today we gene splice, clone, and even have the ability to create new species. It just never crosses our minds that this may be old technology, old knowledge. It doesn't mean god did it all, but someone (or thing) with the knowledge, or, both, could have. The proof is the diversity of life today. Us.

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Do you think you came from a monkey? Do you think your monkey ancestor was special and able to evolve into a human while the other moneys were too dumb and stayed behind to stay monkeys? Maybe somewhere down the line a human donked a monkey and a child was able to be born, but they didn't evolve into monkeys.

It looks like that might be a bit of logic "they" wish not to debate.

I point out that most certainly "Bestiality" did occur. Its just that some folks are rather "Ashamed" of what they did, and refuse to show their faces, in the light of day. Did I just say that? (Monkey Humpers. LOL LOL)

Not just any monkey as Neanderthal was more human than any other primate. The story of Zana, if true, and I have no reason to consider the story to be a fabrication, displays the process of natural creation, not evolution. But again, the first 3 billion years of this planets history is wide open to natural Evolution.

So, could it be true that Zana was actually a Neanderthal who wondered away from her tribe of highly illusive, intelligent leftovers? A awful lot of sightings of "Bigfoot" globally. Nothing is settled!

You have to give the Bigfoot credit in that they are intelligent enough, to stay away from us . lol lol lol

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Do you think you came from a monkey? Do you think your monkey ancestor was special and able to evolve into a human while the other moneys were too dumb and stayed behind to stay monkeys?

It's nothing to do with being smart or special, but everything to do with mutations and being in an environment that favours those mutations. Just as with all other animals.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Wow you really don't understand evolution if you think that it was selective. We get a lot of similar life, thanks to genetic bottle necks like the "Great Dying". Google it.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Wow you really don't understand evolution if you think that it was selective. We get a lot of similar life, thanks to genetic bottle necks like the "Great Dying". Google it.

Its not that I don't understand it, I don't accept it, as taught. Big difference. I'm not going to be drawn into intellectual discourse over something I reject.

Zana was selected for slavery and rape. Why? Because she wasn't intelligent enough to escape capture. But because her story does not fit into the "Evolutionary" view, it never happened.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

You don't accept it as it is being taught? Ok and what is wrong with how it is being taught? Speaking as someone who has been involved in some modern research pertaining to evolution (Bioinformatics of the human genome) .the way is being taught appears to be correct.

You can reject it, but the evidence (that is there no matter what you or I want) still points in the same direction.

Who the hell is Zana?

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

You don't accept it as it is being taught? Ok and what is wrong with how it is being taught? Speaking as someone who has been involved in some modern research pertaining to evolution (Bioinformatics of the human genome) .the way is being taught appears to be correct.

You can reject it, but the evidence (that is there no matter what you or I want) still points in the same direction.

Who the hell is Zana?

Who the hell is Zana?

That is exactly my point. Your not allowed to view all the evidence, and if your not allowed to consider it, how can it be taught. Again, Zana!

The Story of Zana the Russian Neanderthal Found in 1850

Sure, sure, sure. Its settle, she was nothing more than a escaped slave. Yea, all big foot sightings are actually escaped slaves, right?

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

I saw a documentary (here is the audio) proved Zana was not a neanderthal.



She was sub Saharan African.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

You don't accept it as it is being taught? Ok and what is wrong with how it is being taught? Speaking as someone who has been involved in some modern research pertaining to evolution (Bioinformatics of the human genome) .the way is being taught appears to be correct.

You can reject it, but the evidence (that is there no matter what you or I want) still points in the same direction.

Who the hell is Zana?

I think it's Mona Zana:

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

You don't accept it as it is being taught? Ok and what is wrong with how it is being taught? Speaking as someone who has been involved in some modern research pertaining to evolution (Bioinformatics of the human genome) .the way is being taught appears to be correct.

You can reject it, but the evidence (that is there no matter what you or I want) still points in the same direction.

Who the hell is Zana?

Who the hell is Zana?

That is exactly my point. Your not allowed to view all the evidence, and if your not allowed to consider it, how can it be taught. Again, Zana!

The Story of Zana the Russian Neanderthal Found in 1850

Sure, sure, sure. Its settle, she was nothing more than a escaped slave. Yea, all big foot sightings are actually escaped slaves, right?

What exactly do you want to see? What's being hidden from you? Makes no sense. Everything is in the literature. You can join ResearchGate for free: www.researchgate.net...

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Neighbour, I refute that you re not allowed to view all the evidence. I work in the sciences. At one point in academia, and now in industry. Every member of the public can access all the data. You may not be able to understand or use much of that data, but it is there.

I don't know what you are rabbiting on about an apocryphal story. Her remains are unlocatable. 1850 predates Darwin's publication. You are either introducing a non sequitur or building a strawman.

a reply to: Phantom423

I am not clear on this either. Sykes comments are themselves interesting "In 2015, Sykes reported that he had undertaken DNA tests on saliva samples of six of Zana's living relatives and a tooth of her deceased son Khwit and concluded that Zana was 100% African but not of any known group, refuting the theory that she was a runaway Ottoman slave. Rather, he believes her ancestors left Africa approximately 100,000 years ago and lived in the remote Caucasus for many generations." (1)

Surprising yes. Nenderthal? No. Indeed Sub Saharan means there was no Denisovian or Neanderthal involved.

(1) Was 19th Century apewoman a yeti? 6ft 6in Russian serf who could outrun a horse was 'not human', according to DNA tests, retrieved 06 April 2015.

a reply to: Phantom423

Yeah got it, I can't keep up with people and their cryptids (that are human when investigated).

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Phantom423

Yeah got it, I can't keep up with people and their cryptids (that are human when investigated).

Yes, a human, but not. Not capable of speech, washing her newborns in ice cold river water in the debt of winter. Completely covered in Auburn colored hair. And as stated very very muscular. And not a contemporary African. And, it took 3 years to "Domesticate" her.

Another article about Zana. Please share your thoughts after reading.

Aboriginal Abkhazians of Russia – African Roots of Abkhazia

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

You have not described a non human you have described atypical behavior. Nothing genetic. Similarly, humans vary in hairiness. You also have not supplied credible sources, no you have supplied folk tales, urban myths, etc. When her descendants were tested for odd DNA, there was none. You could access that information and analyse it yourself if you can program in R, and don't mind loosing computer processing power for weeks.

If you read Sykes comments. He pointed out that these sub Saharan migrants left many thousands of years previously.

_javascript:icon('')

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

You have not described a non human you have described atypical behavior. Nothing genetic. Similarly, humans vary in hairiness. You also have not supplied credible sources, no you have supplied folk tales, urban myths, etc. When her descendants were tested for odd DNA, there was none. You could access that information and analyse it yourself if you can program in R, and don't mind loosing computer processing power for weeks.

If you read Sykes comments. He pointed out that these sub Saharan migrants left many thousands of years previously.

_javascript:icon('

')

If you read Sykes comments. He pointed out that these sub Saharan migrants left many thousands of years previously.

Yes he did, many, 100,000 years.

“But that theory [‘100% Sub-Saharan African’ theory] would not explain her extraordinary features, described by reliable eyewitnesses… And [thus] Sykes has raised the bold theoretical possibility that Zana could be a remnant of an earlier human migration out of Africa, perhaps tens of thousands, of years ago.”

The point is, she must have come from a viable, yet unidentified by science, group of Aborigines. And that by definition, is not the, but one of, the missing links.

But we hear of them all the time, on every continent, except Antarctica. But that is subject to change, given the time. The American Indians have a great deal to say about this, missing link.

So how can the "Theory" of Evolution be "Settled" with so many pieces of the puzzle being conveniently denied, mis categorized, and in some case out and out thrown out?

"“The problem with half-truths, I'm discovering, is that they are also half-lies.” " Kimberly Belle.