Can you prove evolution wrong

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

I'm not sharing my data for the very same reason Pye doesn't share his, which makes my claims just as valid as his

Why not ??? Pye shared his Data, just not any sources. Again just because he didn't list any doesn't mean there are any.

No, Pye didn't share any real data...all he did was make random claims and then asked you to believe him even without proper data...the same I'm doing here. Glad you believe him though, and glad you also believe in my giant unicorns

Originally posted by Varemia

Yeah we do, we just kind of "exited" our biosphere voluntarily. Our adaptations made us have to use our adaptations to survive. You do know that crows, dolphins, and other species use tools too, right?

Are any of those species able to destroy the entire biosphere? Are crows conscious of the fact they can knowingly exterminate their whole species yet intentionally test the boundaries? Oh that's right crows don't know how to make atomic bombs.

ps that statement about adaptations is classic

Originally posted by MrXYZ
(1)We don't need technology, the majority on this planet survives without it just fine. (2)Believe it or not, there's animal psychiatrists...and successful ones too. (3) And of course animal infants are often just as helpless. (4) In short, no, we're not special from a biological standpoint

1: the majority of what survives just fine without technology? If technology has increased our longevity how can you say we were surviving just fine without it? My opinion regarding technology is that it has been a natural progression of returning to our natural space faring tendencies. It has to do with genetic memory.

2: are there animals who become psychiatrists? do animals psychoanalyze themselves or other species?

3: human babies 200,000 years ago were no different than they are today. They were not better equipped back then to handle the stresses they had to endure so how is that an adaptation? Using technology to overcome natural adversity is not part of evolution theory. Even if you say it is part of evolution theory it still sets as apart as special.

4: thinking we're no different than any other creature on this planet is silly. Don't think, just because you offered three incoherent statements, you've proven anything.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Which puts a funny spin the whole "created in his image" thing, considering we looked different 500k years ago, and 1m years ago, and of course different again in another 5m years. So unless god is a shape shifter, he didn't create us in his image

Sorry to burst your "I'm speciul" bubble

edit on 12-12-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

If you knew what you were talking about you'd understand that quote from Genesis actually comes from much older writing and is actually literal. The Sumerians (where the seeds of Genesis comes from) said the Anunnaki spliced THEIR genes with one of the hominid species finally creating us 200,000 years ago just as we look and think today. We didn't have to worry about survival back then (Garden of Eden time) because THEY took care of us like domesticated pets (that's where the races come from not the amount of sunlight) and then once they realized how badly we needed psychiatric help they abandoned us and we became strays and then had to learn how to survive on our own. If we simply piggybacked from earlier forms then why did we become more helpless? Did the earlier hominids teach us how to make clothes? Why didn't they need clothes? Psychiatrists?

reply to post by bottleslingguy
There is a big difference in being reliant on our technology as opposed to to being unable to survive without it. I agree our progression is natural. Why would you live in a cave without a fire? Why would you live in a cave with a fire when you know how to build a home with a fire? Why would you crap in the corner of your home when someone invented a toilet and sewers?

1. Perhaps you have never tried roughing it or going hungry. It looses its shine after a couple of days. It has nothing to do with getting back to the stars it has to do with wanting a safer, healthier more comfortable life, everything else is a by product.
2. How ridiculous.
3. How does it set us apart? Our inventiveness allows us choice. That inventiveness allows us to better care for our young. How can you deny that our intellect and our evolutionary path are not linked?
4. Of course each species and each member of those groups are different That’s how evolution works but if you are saying we a somehow special your not wrong either but I believe you think that it is only us that is special and evolution tells us we are ALL special, ALL entangled and ALL reliant and related on and to each other.

Denial of that is what has lead us down our current path.

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by bottleslingguy

 

There is a big difference in being reliant on our technology as opposed to to being unable to survive without it. I agree our progression is natural.* Why would you live in a cave without a fire? Why would you live in a cave with a fire when you know how to build a home with a fire? Why would you crap in the corner of your home when someone invented a toilet and sewers?

1. Perhaps you have never tried roughing it or going hungry. It looses its shine after a couple of days. It has nothing to do with getting back to the stars it has to do with wanting a safer, healthier more comfortable life, everything else is a by product.
2. How ridiculous.
3. How does it set us apart? Our inventiveness allows us choice. That inventiveness allows us to better care for our young. How can you deny that our intellect and our evolutionary path are not linked?
4. Of course each species and each member of those groups are different That’s how evolution works but if you are saying we a somehow special your not wrong either but I believe you think that it is only us that is special and evolution tells us we are ALL special, ALL entangled and ALL reliant and related on and to each other.

Denial of that is what has lead us down our current path.

first of all thank you for that interesting post. It is a refreshing change from Mrxyz's style and I'm curious to hear another point of view.

* it's one thing to go into a cave to get out of the rain for protection, but it is quite another to come up with ways to start a fire when it's raining. Do we know how widespread fire use was 200,000 years ago? Are there commonly accepted theories on how fire technology became widespread? The ancient answer to that is the gods gave it to us. My comment was meant (imho) to say our desire to leave the planet is a natural progression of our genetic memory. It is steering us as a dominant genetic trait we carry from the space faring cultures we are related to. Does any other creature on this planet try to leave it?

1: it's funny though how we supposedly sat on our asses for like 2 million years and then out of the blue our bodies completely transformed basically overnight then we decided we needed clothes because the fire wasn't cutting it. And to top it off, in archaeological terms we went from a cave and fire to building palaces with incredibly heavy, precisely cut and formed stones weighing hundreds to thousands of tons as if small blocks were too easy. Ambition alone does not account for this explosion of knowledge.

2: that was a tongue in cheek comment to the ridiculous comment by Mrxyz.

3: I'm not denying our intellect is linked to our evolutionary path or genetic memory. I'm basing my convictions on it.

4: I really don't think modern man has ever been an integral part of the biosphere. This natural tendency to find ways of getting off this planet is unsettling, especially when we know the harm we are doing by polluting it. Aren't we special in that we pollute our biosphere knowing full well the harm it can do not only to us but to the rest of terrestrial life? Does any other species have a Plan B?

I completely agree you are right about our denial leading us down this current path of potential destruction. We deny that we hold special powers and that denial is a pathology creating self destructive behaviors.

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by Barcs

 

take the tangible evidence of worldwide megalithic structures- people are arguing that that is just an indication of a more advanced culture that has since disappeared. And that's my point, you can't do the things to very hard and very heavy stone that had to be done in order to get the same effects. They're basically saying that for two million hears hominids didn't advance much past having different angles to sharp rock edges and then all of a sudden, 200K years ago we're quarrying, carving, transporting and constructing with tolerances that rival today's ability, stone blocks weighing tens up to over a thousand tons. In reality in order to do those things you need concentrated forces that must be comparable to today's cranes and power tools. No matter how much you bang on rocks with another rock or tie better knots to rope, you still need the forces involved and unless somebody can make a better theory than "we just don't know how they did it", then that's the end of the story in my opinion. And the best they can argue is that it must have been some mysterious group of people who had some magical ways of manipulating stone into jig saw puzzle pieces and fitting them together so well they haven't moved over thousands of years. That developing a base 60 mathematics, medicine, law/justice, schools, arts and much more is no big deal and perfectly rational to assume it happened by chance and by the way similarly around the globe. The "common" perception of our past is more flawed than the idea that aliens have brought it about and we've been chasing their coattails all along. People need to wake up to it and end this pervasive ignorance.

That stuff is all true, except we weren't building megalith structures 200,000 years ago. Most structures we see today come from the past 20,000 years or so. Obviously that's an estimate because you can't accurately date the structures, and they could be older, but nothing even close to that old. I agree about most of that, but it has nothing to do with evolution. The fact that ancient cultures built amazing structures, doesn't explain or change our understanding of the diversity of life on earth.

bottom line is unless you have a better idea of where these ancient cultures went and how to cut and move heavy stones with something other than metal tools it is apparent the lost ancient cultures and technology had to come from outer space. Are you suggesting that a superior culture existed more than 10K years ago and then completely vanished? What would you be basing that on?

I'm only saying it's possible, and I'm basing it on the same exact evidence as you. The structures didn't build themselves. You can claim its aliens, but if you look at how technologically advanced humans have become in just the past 500 years, how do you know that a similar technology boom didn't happen some 30,000-40,000 years ago? It's not that unrealistic. The problem is trying to find the evidence, however, and I believe the end of the last ice age some 10,000 years ago is partially responsible. The only structures that survived most of that were the solid stone structures, and geologically speaking it doesn't take that long for nature to erase evidence that is not stone.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
It is released, which is why you know about it.

If it's released, then please present me a copy of the scientific research papers on the skull verified by a lab.

What I mean is I agree with you, it's subjective if you read it wrong, and I know your reading it wrong which is why it's subjective.

Lol. You really just like to make stuff up. Interpretation has nothing to do with whether something is subjective or objective. Objective evidence is based on facts and can be verified and examined for yourself. Subjective is based on lack of understanding, story books, or anything else that can't be duplicated and verified (ex the complexity of nature, humans don't belong because of disease, etc). That's the great thing about science. If you don't believe an experiment you can do it yourself and see what happens. Scientific results are not subjective. Pye or Bible stories are not objective until Pye provides the scientific data, which he hasn't.

I doubt seriously if something has to be peer reviewed to determin its authenticty.

Um, in science it does.

Originally posted by LogiosHermes27
reply to post by LilDudeissocool

 

lol,never little dude.
i was told it will be quick,but this is in the far future.

Okay, well just keep me updated if you can?


Hey, have you been doing any astral projecting as of late?

I ask this cuz...

Last night our cable box for the TV turned off on its own, but we were still able to watch TV. The remote didn't work. This went on for about an hour. Then the box came back on and everything returned to normal.

This morning we all woke up to banging at our front door. Then it stopped. When we opened up the door. No one was around. Minutes later the smoke detectors all went off for no reason.

Then I noticed a piece of paper that had been on the floor the night before that I had been too lazy to pick up was sitting on my desk where a lotto ticket was, and the lotto ticket was on the floor where piece of paper was laying.


Nothing strange like those events have happened for awhile. Last time things like that happened you and Arnie were able to tell me what kind of walls I had, "Remember "yellow?" and then you posted an emoticon eating ice cream when I had just gone into the kitchen to do just that. You also told me I was going to sleep when I was planning to go somewhere. The plans fell through and I did just that. A few other things like that happened too as I remember. So when strange unexplainable things happen around me you and your astral pals are the first who come to mind.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

Losing the ability to use advanced technology isn't devolution in the biological sense. We'd still be just as intelligent and capable as we were before--but we wouldn't have the resources we needed to exploit. That's the difference. Environmental stresses drive evolution--they don't cause it to go backwards.

I know Happy, I was being sarcastic, but I'm glad you called me on it because they might not have gotten it either.

Well, based on some of our reality TV programs I don't blame you for thinking we devolved.

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by Varemia

Yeah we do, we just kind of "exited" our biosphere voluntarily. Our adaptations made us have to use our adaptations to survive. You do know that crows, dolphins, and other species use tools too, right?

Are any of those species able to destroy the entire biosphere? Are crows conscious of the fact they can knowingly exterminate their whole species yet intentionally test the boundaries? Oh that's right crows don't know how to make atomic bombs.

ps that statement about adaptations is classic

Life is so well established on Earth--not just us, but the biosphere as a whole--that the only thing likely to destroy it is the sun going red giant. I mean, even the cockroaches and bacteria and viruses would survive a nuclear war. We might not make it, but most forms of life probably would. Look at all the mass extinctions there have been. The Permian extinction is probably the closest life has come to biting it, but enough individuals and breeding pairs made it though. Our line was one of them, or we wouldn't be here now.

reply to post by Barcs


I definitely misspoke with the 200K thing you're right. It almost seems as though someone was holding our hands taking care of us at the beginning and then decided we were on our own..... hey that's just what the ancient people tell us happened!
So you're saying we could've advanced the same way we are now with metals, science, space travel, philosophy, etc. but it was all erased by some catastrophe? I would go along with that especially because it is what we are told happened by the Sumerians and other cultures from different time periods. Did they all make up the same basic story? Why the ubiquitous obsession with space people?

reply to post by HappyBunny

We have the potential to kill life with a wide range of toxic chemicals and there is no precedent. I agree natural things like impacts and abrupt climate changes can have limited effects that leave some species around to start the next phase but the things we have today can actually kill the whole life process if the biosphere becomes toxic enough and too quick for anything to adapt. I agree the planet will be here but this is the first time any one creature has had the ability to actually cause the extinction event. Did people have nuclear bombs twenty thousand years ago? Actually there is evidence for that if you want to go there.

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

We have the potential to kill life with a wide range of toxic chemicals and there is no precedent. I agree natural things like impacts and abrupt climate changes can have limited effects that leave some species around to start the next phase but the things we have today can actually kill the whole life process if the biosphere becomes toxic enough and too quick for anything to adapt. I agree the planet will be here but this is the first time any one creature has had the ability to actually cause the extinction event. Did people have nuclear bombs twenty thousand years ago? Actually there is evidence for that if you want to go there.

We will not be able to kill every form of life. You're giving us way too much credit. There are bacteria that survive radiation and eat uranium, and they evolve and adapt around everything we can throw at them.

reply to post by HappyBunny


the point is that it isn't a very advantageous adaptation to acquire that ability and only serves to separate us even more from any niche. It is one of the things that makes us special. I'm not using special in a good sense.

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Which puts a funny spin the whole "created in his image" thing, considering we looked different 500k years ago, and 1m years ago, and of course different again in another 5m years. So unless god is a shape shifter, he didn't create us in his image

Sorry to burst your "I'm speciul" bubble

edit on 12-12-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

If you knew what you were talking about you'd understand that quote from Genesis actually comes from much older writing and is actually literal. The Sumerians (where the seeds of Genesis comes from) said the Anunnaki spliced THEIR genes with one of the hominid species finally creating us 200,000 years ago just as we look and think today. We didn't have to worry about survival back then (Garden of Eden time) because THEY took care of us like domesticated pets (that's where the races come from not the amount of sunlight) and then once they realized how badly we needed psychiatric help they abandoned us and we became strays and then had to learn how to survive on our own. If we simply piggybacked from earlier forms then why did we become more helpless? Did the earlier hominids teach us how to make clothes? Why didn't they need clothes? Psychiatrists?

And your proof for any of those claims are?

reply to post by MrXYZ


which claims are you talking about please quote or rather yet just show me why you think they were saying something else. What do you think they mean by "those who from heaven came to earth"?

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

the point is that it isn't a very advantageous adaptation to acquire that ability and only serves to separate us even more from any niche. It is one of the things that makes us special. I'm not using special in a good sense.

Evolution isn't goal-driven. We adapted a big brain for a reason; what we do with it is up to us, not evolution. We're not the only ones. Chimps have been known to exterminate each other. Spider monkeys. Ants (which have the largest brain in proportion to size).

Again, we're not special in this.

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by Barcs

 

I definitely misspoke with the 200K thing you're right. It almost seems as though someone was holding our hands taking care of us at the beginning and then decided we were on our own..... hey that's just what the ancient people tell us happened!
So you're saying we could've advanced the same way we are now with metals, science, space travel, philosophy, etc. but it was all erased by some catastrophe? I would go along with that especially because it is what we are told happened by the Sumerians and other cultures from different time periods. Did they all make up the same basic story? Why the ubiquitous obsession with space people?

It's very interesting to ponder about. If Atlantis is more than just a myth and actually was a technologically advanced society, imagine what people would think if one of them pulled up in aircraft of some kind, wearing a suit with a helmet, breathing mask and everything else. If cultures who weren't as a advanced saw this, they may indeed think they are gods or aliens. Maybe the word god itself really used to mean pilot or something like that. Personally, I'm hoping the Egyptian government loosens up and lets archeologist explore the chamber under the Sphinx paw. Our answers might be there.

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by Barcs

 

I definitely misspoke with the 200K thing you're right. It almost seems as though someone was holding our hands taking care of us at the beginning and then decided we were on our own..... hey that's just what the ancient people tell us happened!
So you're saying we could've advanced the same way we are now with metals, science, space travel, philosophy, etc. but it was all erased by some catastrophe? I would go along with that especially because it is what we are told happened by the Sumerians and other cultures from different time periods. Did they all make up the same basic story? Why the ubiquitous obsession with space people?

It's very interesting to ponder about. If Atlantis is more than just a myth and actually was a technologically advanced society, imagine what people would think if one of them pulled up in aircraft of some kind, wearing a suit with a helmet, breathing mask and everything else. If cultures who weren't as a advanced saw this, they may indeed think they are gods or aliens. Maybe the word god itself really used to mean pilot or something like that. Personally, I'm hoping the Egyptian government loosens up and lets archeologist explore the chamber under the Sphinx paw. Our answers might be there.

I agree. I can see that a lot better than I can see aliens.