Can you prove evolution wrong

Originally posted by Quadrivium
reply to post by Barcs

 

Sorry Barcs but your post makes little since to me.
Usefull genetic mutations help one adapt to their environment. I don't understand why you said ......

So do you deny that genetic mutations happen, even though they've been observed in a lab and nature? If you don't take it past the point of adaptation, that seems like the only option, unless you are trying to come up with an alternate version of evolution, but again, if that's the case, its on you to show evidence of this.

Please explain why denying genetic mutations should be the only option if I don't take the "theory" past adaptation.
I do not deny mutations. That's how " we" adapt.

Ah, so you're just playing with word meanings, using 'adaptation' to mean genetic mutations, where the favorable survive. That terminology confused me. Well if you don't deny mutations and natural selection, then what is your beef with the rest of the theory? What assumptions associated with the theory are you dropping? What I mentioned above is essentially the meat and potatoes of evolution, so I'm interested.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
So you feel that genetic mutations have been observed in both a lab and in nature. Do you have any links that support that?

That's rich. After everything that's been posted in this thread proving exactly that, you have the nerve to ask for evidence, even though you ignore every single piece of evidence provided.

and the even funnier thing is that the other guy posted the evidence and you dismissed it because you wanted to see evidence of humans evolving from apes, even though the above was your exact statement. Sorry mr. robot, you've been exposed. I've never seen anyone change the subject like this guy does. Definitely a spam bot.

reply to post by colin42

Seriously. What I have done is show how wrong you are and how you avoid answering anything that shows how wrong you are. You are correct that YOU have to provide that the complete rubbish you write has evidence to back it up.

Well please provide me with something that doesn't say that evolution is a postualted, or hypothetical theory.

Ha ha ha a blog from an idiot. Yeah thats the evidence I need. You have no clue what evidence is.

Well that idiot was quoting scruptures with full definition for the understanding impared, which I thought would be excellent for you.

I think it is an apt description as the pudding I was visaulising is full of nuts.

On the evolution side its more like '___'.

The point is they 'LIVE' in the wild. They do not have any of the things you say are essential to live past puberty. Now answer the question. HOW.

Thats because your feeble mind made you think that those genetics affect everyone, and thats not how it works. It just goes to show you how much ignorance and assumptions will take you. Go have a pudding pop.

Are you 100% dense. You told me I had supplied All the links and I replied I had not. How many times do you want to be shown wrong??????

I'm not going back an re quoteing your links.

Yes because I have the evidence to show it. You have been made privy to it but refused to look. My anology does fail though, as a drunk eventialy sobers up wheresas you remain just as ignorant in the morning, every morning.

Wait a minute, I think I have overlooked something and now I realize why I never understood all of this. These changes happen slowly, not all at once, and thats how it is that we have a common ancestor with apes. Is that correct?

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

Wait a minute, I think I have overlooked something and now I realize why I never understood all of this. These changes happen slowly, not all at once, and thats how it is that we have a common ancestor with apes. Is that correct?

YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING !!!!!!

reply to post by itsthetooth


Your just trolling this thread.
All your questions have been adressed over and over again in this very thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You should be banned

Edit: This is just the tip of iceberg on all the leg work everyone has done for you.

reply to post by idmonster

We are related to apes, and every other organism currently on this planet, just not descended from any of them. You keep ascerting that evolution states that we are descended from apes, it doesnt, Evolution maintains that we (humans) and apes have a common ancestor. That common ancestor may have been ape like, but almost certainly wasnt an ape.

Whoa, hold your horses here, what do you mean by we are related to apes, and every other organism. Do you have something that backs that up that is not evoltuionism orientated?

Ok I'm going to explain this again in a lot more detail. The term common ancestor was a cheap and dirty way to announce that found a close relative without the proof. It was nothing more than a way to say we have not found that missing link. In fact, of the 5 million species on this planet, we have yet to find ANY MISSING links to any lineage. It has to be the biggest joke of all.

Making a fictious common ancestor was the ONLY way to try to explain how evolutionism could connect us to apes, without proof. I want to see something that provides proof of this common ancestor.

Because it was nutritional, easy to obtain. And we didnt "turn to cows milk" goats milk and goats cheese was being used long before references to cows due to the comparative ease of domestication of goats over cows. Imagine the goat herd, isolated in the hills, thirsty. Amongst the flock are some nursing mothers. Now try not to burden the simple goat herder with your sophisticated modern mind and what do you think he did. It doesnt hurt the goat if he helps himself to a littl milk. And further to your previous posts, this milk would have been unpasturisd. The only reason we do treat milk is to enable a longer "shelf life" allowing for transportaion across great distances, from places that are "good for the cow" to areas of dense human habitation (cities)

Your admitting to some things without realizing it. Try to follow me for a tad ok. In the bible its said that we were provided with many things to help us get by. It's honestly looking like the cow was one of those things. I say this because there is NO REASON why we should have to turn to cows for milk when our mother is fully capabale of giving us what we need. Assuming she is getting her required nutritients however. Keeping in mind if we aren't on our home planet and don't have the propper things we need to survive, we are in a pickle. While the bible does indicate we were provided with things, it also states that those things are not from our home, so in other words, they are not the INTENDED things for us.

These are just things to help us get by, and thats what the cow does. You will never convince me that cows milk tasts better then breast milk, I know it doesn't. You will never convince me that its easier to harvest cows milk when you have to pasterize, fortify, homogenize and sometimes lactosse free it. Process it, package it, ship it and refridgerate it. Sorry, you lost bad on this one. We are running around in circles to provide ourselves with cows milk. Now there is an alternative here, we can each own our own cow and drink from the cows teat, but I don't think that should have to be necessary. Even if it was, we are all limited to having to own and maintain our cows, something is amiss here.

Back to the question, why are we just not drinking it from moms teat? It would appear that while she can try to keep up with the demand, its just not enough for what we all need. The reason why that is, is simply because something is lacking in her diet, something that isn't here on earth. You see if we were home, this would not be a problem. We would tap the teat just like all the other life here does and get enough of what we need.

We are in fact scavangers. We consider ourselves to be at the top of the food chain, yet we eat just about anything. Some of which I'm sure we shouldn't. We even go to extremes to make sure that our cattle is stocked and fed for slaughter for meat. It's another clue that on our home planet, there is a source of calcium and iron that is much more readily available. It's interesting because in a small way I can tell you a little about our home planet based on whats missing from our picture here, its being very insightful.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Well please provide me with something that doesn't say that evolution is a postualted, or hypothetical theory.

What you want someone to link you again? No. Get someone else to dance to your tune. Didnt do after the first page and wont start now.

Well that idiot was quoting scruptures with full definition for the understanding impared, which I thought would be excellent for you.

Ha ha ha. An idiot links to an idiot as some sort of idiotic proof when it has already be explained to infinitey why that is not evidence in science.

On the evolution side its more like '___'.

Babble. More background noise and the mention of a banned drug a violation.

Thats because your feeble mind made you think that those genetics affect everyone, and thats not how it works. It just goes to show you how much ignorance and assumptions will take you. Go have a pudding pop.

An insult about being feeble minded from a feeble mind causes no pain. So whats your answer to the Bushman

I'm not going back an re quoteing your links.

No I know because if you did you may have to respond to them.

Wait a minute, I think I have overlooked something and now I realize why I never understood all of this. These changes happen slowly, not all at once, and thats how it is that we have a common ancestor with apes. Is that correct?

Go on. I'll bite.
No. These changes are a response to the changes in the enviroment. They may be slow if the change is minimal or fast (comparitively) if the enviromental change is fast. Our ancestors adapted to those changes. The succesful had better chances to breed, raise their young and passed on their genes. The less suited had less chance and likely failed to pass on their genes.

Over the course of time and many changes. Note! not one at a time but changes within the group/herd the result was our common ancestor that we share with all the other apes.

Go on then. Shock me.

reply to post by idmonster



Now I'm not saying that everything would be handed to us on a silver platter, but we shouldn't have to have all of this redundant processing just to get what we need.

There are other ways to get calcium, like the biggest natural one was oysters I believe. Problem with that, is it would mean you would have to live close to that source to get your RDA of calcium, not to mention fish for them. So its redundent work again to get what we need. Under that source you have your fruits and veggies that simply don't offer enough. You would have to gorge yourself on them just to get the RDA.

Location plays to much of a key role in problems like this and if it werent for transportation, we would be screwed. Your never going to convince me that the evolution bug was smart enough to know that we would be smart enough to make transportation for this problem. Sorry I don't buy it. Location is such an issue with food, water, and climate that when you look at the basics by elimanating our adaptive trait, you are left with very few areas that we can safely live in. Processing water is another one, just like milk. Every location binds us. It's another clue that on our home planet, these things would not be limited to location, and much more plentiful and accesable.

I know it sounds overwhelming but it is possible that there is just one main plant that gives us a balance of water, calcium, and iron, that runs rampat on the planet. So its not as far fetched as it sounds.

I fail to understand how the evolution bug can be smart enough to change our DNA, and make iconic decisions on our future well being. It's just not possible.

Ok I'm going to explain this again in a lot more detail.

reply to post by itsthetooth
Oh Oh I am excited. Finally.

have yet to find ANY MISSING

What a total let down this mess of words was.

Your admitting to some things without realizing it.

If I was a crying man it is here I would sob. We have gone back to where you came in spouting the exact same nonsense.

At the beggining of your reply you promised so much but actually gave so little. Are you a politician?

reply to post by idmonster

The bushmen of the khalahri,(and other regions) live a simple, almost stoneage existence. Some are partialy nomadic, following the semi domesticated herds of cattle around south africa from grazing ground to grazing ground. This life style seperates them from "civilisation" and gives us a good example of how man might have lived many thousands of years ago. They do not wear shoes, they drink (untreated) milk from the cattle, sometimes mixed with a little blood, bled form the live cow. Average life expectancy is 45 to 50 years. (do not confuse life span, with life expectancy)

See there is another example. They are able to be barfoot, but if they came over here where I live where the ground is 24 degrees F. Their feet would actually fall off. It's another example of location being key to the style of living.

Language needs to be read in context, theory has dual meanings depending on the context used. A mathematical theory is a gueaa that when proved becomes a fact. The equvelant to a mathematical theory in science is a hypotheses, when that hypotheses is verified, i.e. shown to be true its mathematical equivilent of fact...theory. You are aware that gravity is a scientific theory, and yet here you are, firmly "stuck" to the ground.

Well evolutionism has never been witnessed aside from some small molecular changes with viruses and disease.
When things are witnessed them become fact, which obviously hasn't happened with evolutionism. And it never will. I hypothesis would not be introduced as a fact, unless it were a fact, which is the links I have been provided.

And one of my close friends is a bus driver, but i can not claim the knowledge of the city routes that he has.

Probably not, but as long as he is driving, you know your not lost right?

reply to post by Barcs

That's rich. After everything that's been posted in this thread proving exactly that, you have the nerve to ask for evidence, even though you ignore every single piece of evidence provided.

Well I haven't been provided with anything convincing me of evolutionism. At best they all indicated that they are just postualted or hypothetical theorys.

and the even funnier thing is that the other guy posted the evidence and you dismissed it because you wanted to see evidence of humans evolving from apes, even though the above was your exact statement. Sorry mr. robot, you've been exposed. I've never seen anyone change the subject like this guy does. Definitely a spam bot.

Well I think what has happened, is I have listened and looked at the links and followed along, while others have not. When I reply I'm assuming you know what the conversation is about. If you think I'm jumping around its just because your weren't paying attention and lost track of whats going on. I probably am on the fast track end of things

There are other ways to get calcium, like the biggest natural one was oysters I believe.

reply to post by itsthetooth
You have the biggest library of information in history and you rely on belief that oysters are high in calcium. Why did you not confirm this before you stated what you believed?

Location plays to much of a key role in problems like this and if it werent for transportation, we would be screwed.

You have the biggest library of information in history and you cannot look at history to show you are putting forward a really ignorant argument.

I know it sounds overwhelming but it is possible that there is just one main plant that gives us a balance of water, calcium, and iron, that runs rampat on the planet. So its not as far fetched as it sounds.

It really does not sound overwhelming, it sounds like fantasy. If it runs rampant we would know what it is. So it still sounds like fantasy. Would its name be mana? If it is it is still fantasy.

I fail to understand how the evolution bug can be smart enough to change our DNA, and make iconic decisions on our future well being. It's just not possible.

Calling evolution a bug is really, really childish. You fail to understand because you set out to fail to understand. End of.

can somebody loan me a hand, i need to do the worlds first triple face palm.

second

reply to post by flyingfish


And I answered each one of those with an excellent answer that just got ignored.
Evoluton has NEVER existed. The OP thinks his brother is an ape, he is sure of it and I'm trying to tell him he is wrong. He told me on one page that apes are humans too.

That close DNA that is being assumed to prove ancestors, could have just as easily have been a creator using some of the SAME DNA to make other life. Just like how we do when we make a car engine. They are different in so many ways, but in many ways they are also alike.

After all this leg work and no one has presented me with anything to support microevolution or macroevolution.

reply to post by itsthetooth

See there is another example. They are able to be barfoot, but if they came over here where I live where the ground is 24 degrees F. Their feet would actually fall off. It's another example of location being key to the style of living.

No its an example of mans ability to control his enviroment by invention and move into places he could not have survived in otherwise. No aliens here.

Well evolutionism has never been witnessed ................................ Blurr of bordom

Sigh been shown to be silly, false, wrong. Well done. Where are we now ..... About page 62 or 63 of this thread I think.

Probably not, but as long as he is driving, you know your not lost right?

It did not take long for the old quick step dance to come into play. YOU did say your debating skills had improved didnt you? I am sure you did.

reply to post by colin42

No its an example of mans ability to control his enviroment by invention and move into places he could not have survived in otherwise. No aliens here.

Well then it sounds like we have had some time to master it. Could you explain to me how you would come to my area and control the weather?

Sigh been shown to be silly, false, wrong. Well done. Where are we now ..... About page 62 or 63 of this thread I think.

Its true, if seeing is believing, then evolutionism is not for you.

It did not take long for the old quick step dance to come into play. YOU did say your debating skills had improved didnt you? I am sure you did.

Yes and your profilling skills didn't.

reply to post by itsthetooth

And I answered each one of those with an excellent answer that just got ignored.

Perhaps they were not as excellent as you thought.

Evoluton has NEVER existed. The OP thinks his brother is an ape, he is sure of it and I'm trying to tell him he is wrong. He told me on one page that apes are humans too.

I am that OP. My brother is not an ape he is a road worker so almost an ape. I am related to the other apes and all other life on this planet both past and present.

As for saying apes are human too. Did you know Itsthespoof maintains he comes from another planet and from his idiotic replies and outright lies he is determined to prove it ......... I think in his case he may be correct.

Cant be bothered to address the rest of the nonsense that was answered well before page 70 of this thread

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Connector

 

Ahhh...OK, it's just hard to pick out your sarcasm when it's mingled with other craziness. Carry on Larry.....

Whos larry?

Come on now...don't be coy.....

idmonster
can somebody loan me a hand, i need to do the worlds first triple face palm. second

gladly and have to evolve to one up it




See what I did there

Ya know...I'm starting to think that itsthetooth maybe unto something here because I really do feel like I'm observing an alien life force whenever I read one of his replies....oh well keep the hilarity rolling.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

No its an example of mans ability to control his enviroment by invention and move into places he could not have survived in otherwise. No aliens here

Well then it sounds like we have had some time to master it. Could you explain to me how you would come to my area and control the weather?

Really, your only understanding of "environment" is weather?

Sigh been shown to be silly, false, wrong. Well done. Where are we now ..... About page 62 or 63 of this thread I think.

Its true, if seeing is believing, then evolutionism is not for you.

What is evolutionism?

Seriously, i'd like a reply. I think the only way that we are going to get a thorough understanding is for you to explain what you think evolution is. Using the term "evolutionism" when doing your "reasearch" is possibly taking you to some very unreliable web sites. (you are aware, i assume that anyone can edit wiki references, I for example might pop over to the entry for "the bible" and edit the page to start" This is a work of fiction, any resembalnce to person livking or dead.....etc" you get the drift.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Well then it sounds like we have had some time to master it. Could you explain to me how you would come to my area and control the weather?

So you say not wearing shoes in your area would make your feet drop off and I explain that the invention of shoes enabled us to live in your area you come to the conclussion that means I am saying we can control the weather????

You really are unable to read without making up a fantasy are you.

Its true, if seeing is believing, then evolutionism is not for you.

And that was an answer too???????

Yes and your profilling skills didn't.

Still far superior to your debating skills no matter how bad I failed.