Can you prove evolution wrong

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster

 

No, what you said has been reposted as a quote. What I have posted is what you said. There is no gene that prevents us growing past puberty, let alone 2 dozen.

How do you just know this? Are you assuming? Are you a doctor.

Watch Pye's vidoe on human genetics I think he explains it best.

How do I know this? Look around the world, I think every adult in every 3rd world country is vidence to the contrary.

No, I'm not assuming, Ive been to 3rd world countries and visited villages where ther are plenty of adults who have never had medical intervention. Ive also read artical on rain forest dwellers that had first contact with "civillisation less than 20 years ago, still plenty of adults.

Yes I am, And thats as much personal information that i am willing to share with you.

"ROUND AND ROUND SHE GOES, WHERE SHE STOPS, NOBODY KNOWS"

Anyway colin,
I know you said you would let the "experts battle it out and read about it afterwards" but I thought this was interesting and could actually go a long way to confirm my opinion of diversity.

The weight of the evidence is now suggesting that not only did birds not descend from dinosaurs, Ruben said, but that some species now believed to be dinosaurs may have descended from birds. "We're finally breaking out of the conventional wisdom of the last 20 years, which insisted that birds evolved from dinosaurs and that the debate is all over and done with," Ruben said.
"This issue isn't resolved at all. There are just too many inconsistencies with the idea that birds had dinosaur ancestors, and this newest study adds to that." Almost 20 years of research at OSU on the morphology of birds and dinosaurs, along with other studies and the newest PNAS research, Ruben said, are actually much more consistent with a different premise –that birds may have had an ancient common ancestor with dinosaurs, but they evolved separately on their own path, and after millions of years of separate evolution birds also gave rise to the raptors.

esciencenews.com...
Quad

reply to post by idmonster

By eating a varied diet. Cows eat grass, only grass, as do all ungulates, yet they still need to find salt licks to get the minerals the require

And how do they do that in the wild?

We didnt wake up one morning and discover we were a new species, with a whole new menu of dietary requirements. We evolved, slowly, tiny changes. And quite possibly the other way around to what you think.

Ok so, we fell out of our diet slowly.
I don't understand the difference here, weather we have nothing to eat tomorrow or slowly over time, we still have nothing to eat.
As it stands right now, we are a menuless species, and choose to eat anything and everything we can. All of which seems to not be meant for us. So my question goes back to evoltuion. Did we just evolve into no food, or did the evolution bug know we would be able to make processed food to make up for the problem we were headed for.

Chances are that an evolutionary change in us made us more able to exploit a new food source, so we did

Your defining a scavanger. Not to be confused with bottom feeders. You can still be a scavanger and eat top notch foods.

reply to post by itsthetooth


Even using your date that humans didn't appear until 10,000 years ago that's still about 5,000 years without any kind of medicine. Let alone medicine that would help with genetic defects. So, how did humanity not only survive but thrive during these 5,000 years?

reply to post by itsthetooth

Thats not true, see your making another assumption, like you always do, that the bushman has the same genes we do. We don't know that. Quit assuming.
When you assume you make an @$$ out of you and me.

Are you saying now that the bushmen are not human? The ones we made contact with were. Are you adding racism to your list of ignorance? I'm afraid you are making an@$$ out of yourself, I am only highlighting it.

I see you answered this twice so I refer your second answer to my one answer above.

And your wrong again because you fail to realize even though I have explained this to you, that just because something is in our genes doesn't mean it gets expressed through every person.

Now read again what you really wrote.

I said there are over 2 dozen defects in our genes that wouldn't allow us to live past puberty without intervention.

That is a very different statement and both by you.

Your the one that knows nothing about genetics, and I'm the ignorant one.

I only need to know one thing, and that is I dont know everything and that would still make you more ignorant than me. Look up the definition of ignorance.

reply to post by Quadrivium


Hmm, not Particulary happy with the phrasing on first read.

The artical seems to at first state that birds to dinos was the route, then contradicts itself by refering to a common ancestor.

I'd be more open to a common ancestor route than a birds to dinos based on fosil evidence. i.e no recognisable bird fossils before dinos.

Interesting tho, and not a theory I'd come across before.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
I never said we would all be dead, now your putting words in my mouth.

Don't put words in his mouth! What he actually originally said was:

We can't even live past puberty without medical intervention

This was back on page 59. It has devolved slowly as piece by piece gets conclusively debunked... over and over.

There is no food for us as humans, at least no balanced food. So would evolution allow us to continue to evolve or would it prevent us from evolving? Notice we still have no food.

What does that even mean? We have tons of "balanced" food. By balanced I assume you mean rich in nutrients to promote healthy bodily function. Or something else? Do you not have access to fruits and vegetables where you live? No food = extinction, which is technically evolution.

It's been entertaining as usual.

A thought experiment.

I give you a camera and a time machine then show you a picture of a rabbit. I ask you to go back in time 1000 years, find the same species as that shown in the picture, photograph it, then bring the picture.

You tootle off in the time machine, find the animal, snap it, bring back the pic and give it to me.

I then take the photograph that you took, find another volunteer, and give him the same instruction, except this time I show him the picture you took, and he goes back a further 1000 years.

Now, the picture he brings back, would in all probability be no different to the original, 2000 years isnt a great deal of time in geological terms..

But, we're going to repeat this exercise, with thousands of voluteers, each being shown the last picture taken, and each going back a further 1000 years, untill we have pictures covering millions of years.

When you lay the pictures out in chronological order you would not be able to tell the difference between any particular picture, and those either side of it, and although seperated by thousands of years, each animal would be able to reproduce with either animal to its immediate left or right, they would be the same species.

Now got to the first picture, the middle picture and the last picture. These animals would look drastically different, and would not be able to reproduce, they would be different species, and every single creature along that time line would be a transitional species.

This is how evolution works, tiny differences over vast periods of time

reply to post by Quadrivium
Thanks for the info. I remember as a child being taken to the Crystal Palace Park in South London, Built by Victorians, a world fair from memory.. It had, probably still does have many life size models of dinosaurs dotted around the park. Pretty much all of them are wrong.

I say that because our knowledge in a comparitively short time has changed but that does not mean there were no dinosaurs. I know you are not saying that either and hope you get my meaning.

I expect our knowledge of what was a vast period of time will continue to advance and each time it is updated we should throw a party not a temper tantrum.

Actually birds branching off a lot earlier actually fits my picture of evolution bettter. As I have wrote before I reason that large scale speciation mostly occurs after major earth changes which results in vacant niches and reduced competition.

Thanks again for the info

reply to post by idmonster


Alrighty then...Ive skimmed through and seen enough to reply ....I didnt so much want to touch the subject but since I am one of those what you call em GOD FOLK...... I am going to start by stating that..... I myslelf believe evolution has only taken any part After the creation of man by God ....Evolution is what we have done to the world....we poke n prod wherever to find whatever to find a reason for everything....and there are subjects in the bible that explain EVERYTHING....such as why we can't find bones of the billions that have passed throughout the life of this earth....well if you were to pick up the "book of life" aka THE BIBLE.....you would then find the part about the FLOOD and just think about how much the worlds plates have shifted.... Do the scientist go into the middle of the highest moutain or to the bottom of the deepest trench ???? have we really reached every single part of the earth???? ummmm NO so simple answer there are places God put on this planet that are merely unreachable.... as well as our Galaxy so if we just let it rest and Believe then therefore the answers are truly right infront of our noses....

Originally posted by 23andseetheLIGhT
reply to post by idmonster

 

Alrighty then...Ive skimmed through and seen enough to reply ....I didnt so much want to touch the subject but since I am one of those what you call em GOD FOLK...... I am going to start by stating that..... I myslelf believe evolution has only taken any part After the creation of man by God ....Evolution is what we have done to the world....we poke n prod wherever to find whatever to find a reason for everything....and there are subjects in the bible that explain EVERYTHING....such as why we can't find bones of the billions that have passed throughout the life of this earth....well if you were to pick up the "book of life" aka THE BIBLE.....you would then find the part about the FLOOD and just think about how much the worlds plates have shifted.... Do the scientist go into the middle of the highest moutain or to the bottom of the deepest trench ???? have we really reached every single part of the earth???? ummmm NO so simple answer there are places God put on this planet that are merely unreachable.... as well as our Galaxy so if we just let it rest and Believe then therefore the answers are truly right infront of our noses....

Been along time since i went near a bible, (not stricly true as I'm in a hotel and I know theres one lurking in the bedside cabinet (funnily enough nect to a copy of the teachings of the buddah))I am one of those that you call AN ATHEIST

I will assume you're a creationist, young earth or old earth?

Unfortunately the bible explains NOTHING purely because the explanation it offers is "gods will".

However, you make some specific claims and I am interested, (not enought to trawl through the book) so please, enlighten me, where does the bible explain fossils (or lack of)

How is FLOOD mythology relevant? (again not a challenge, I just dont see the connection)

You mention plate techtonics, I assume this makes you an old earth creationist as most young earthers deny geology as well as history.

One last question, you state that "evolution is what we have done to the world". Does this mean that you accept evolution as fact?

Its getting late for me here so humor me, my understanding is low at the moment

Colin,
Do you remember the conversation we started way back when I joined this thread? Must have been back in the early 150's. Those were the good ol' days, lol.

Anyway,
I know that many people just take the Bible as a book of fairytales.
I wish they could see it through my eyes.
Science is actually proving the Creation story in Genesis.
Complex life on earth in the order that they more than likly appeared.
1. Plants
2. Fish and birds (the evidence is starting to show this)
3. Complex life on land.
4. Humans.
This is of course an abbreviated chain of events but compare it to what biology teaches.
See any resemblences?
Yet this book was written at least 2500 years ago.
Quad

reply to post by idmonster


Alright again i will begin .....when I mentioned the FLOOD i was hoping readers would then realize that water is a way to transport things.... Our water system is constantly changing and when water Floods an area then things are moved....Now if you think about how much ocean is still here..;then think of all the places in the ocean and how many years and layers upon layers have grown over the ANCIENT bones and artifacts that would show us so many different historical things.... ok and to me the Bible tells us plenty ....its just that people don't like to have authority of a higher power over their heads....so as to you being an athiest n all i would have to say its your free will that the Lord has granted you ...im not one to judge because it's not my duty as an individual on this earth...I believe in MAN MADE EVOLUTION yes only because we have evolved this world to what it is today ....not saying that is particularly a good thing..... and to answer your question about the relevance about the flood and the fact if the Bible was picked up OLD AND NEW Testamin....... then things would be more understandable .....it's not only GOD"S WILL it is evidence to prove WHY WE ARE HERE

reply to post by idmonster

This is how evolution works, tiny differences over vast periods of time

I don't think I would call the differences between us and aps, little.

reply to post by colin42

I only need to know one thing, and that is I dont know everything and that would still make you more ignorant than me. Look up the definition of ignorance.

I did, and there is a picture of Colin.

That is a very different statement and both by you.

They both apply, I assumed you knew that just because you have something in your genes doesn't mean it will surface.
We probably all have the gene that makes cancer, but we don't all get cancer.
As an example.

reply to post by idmonster

The artical seems to at first state that birds to dinos was the route, then contradicts itself by refering to a common ancestor.

You do know the only reason they coined the phrase common ancestor, was becasue they had no other way to explain the missing link. This is what evolution is all about, common ancestors.

Originally posted by Quadrivium
Colin,
Do you remember the conversation we started way back when I joined this thread? Must have been back in the early 150's. Those were the good ol' days, lol.

Anyway,
I know that many people just take the Bible as a book of fairytales.
I wish they could see it through my eyes.
Science is actually proving the Creation story in Genesis.
Complex life on earth in the order that they more than likly appeared.
1. Plants
2. Fish and birds (the evidence is starting to show this)
3. Complex life on land.
4. Humans.
This is of course an abbreviated chain of events but compare it to what biology teaches.
See any resemblences?
Yet this book was written at least 2500 years ago.
Quad

QUAD...let me ask you something? Since it has been all over the news now and even though this same project was done in the 70's with sucess in the U.S....Political thinking thought it was too much for the masses but now over 5 labs have repeated the procedure and achieved GENESIS...that being life from lifelessness...and Hundreds more labs over the world are repeating the procedure.

Now that this is out in the open...what is your current position on EVOLUTION? Split Infinity

Well, if you were to set aside all evidence of evolution then you would be starting at the same point Darwin did.

I believe in evolution. Right now I still maintain the position that it is a theory though. As evolution, as I understand it, means the creation of a completely different species. Right now there is evidence of adaptation, to the best of my knowledge. Such as the beetles and the genetically modified corn. I'm not a biologist, so I wouldn't be up to date on the latest research and advancements.

Whether evolution is a fact or some other natural process that we haven't discovered yet, is best left up to the people that are professionals in that field of work or people that have an extreme interest in evolutionary biology.

Originally posted by Timing
Well, if you were to set aside all evidence of evolution then you would be starting at the same point Darwin did.

I believe in evolution. Right now I still maintain the position that it is a theory though. As evolution, as I understand it, means the creation of a completely different species. Right now there is evidence of adaptation, to the best of my knowledge. Such as the beetles and the genetically modified corn. I'm not a biologist, so I wouldn't be up to date on the latest research and advancements.

Whether evolution is a fact or some other natural process that we haven't discovered yet, is best left up to the people that are professionals in that field of work or people that have an extreme interest in evolutionary biology.

Adaptation is just one part of EVOLUTION. There is also Genetic Mutation brought about by enviromental conditions as well as Survival of the Fittest.

A perfect example of these three parts of Evolution is the color of a Persons Skin due to where a group of people have lived over a long period of time. Since the cradle of Man was in Africa...where equitorial sunlight is very high and powerful in UV Radiation....people were all originally Black skinned in color with broad noses and large nostrils to be able to breath large amounts of thin air which by higher temperature has less volume of Oxygen even though the percentage of Oxygen is the same. This is similar to what SCUBA divers experience...I am one...in reverse as at 99 ft underwater...the ratio of Nitrogen to Oxygen is approx...80% Nitrogen to 20% Oxygen...yet every 33 ft down you have to add one additional atmosphere of presure thus one ATM. at sea level plus one more ATM. every 33ft down so at 99ft down you are breathing 4 ATM's of Air thus each breath is still 80% Nitrogen and 20% Oxygen but at 4 ATM. you are breathing 4 times as much Nitrogen per breath you take...thus if you come up too quick...it bubbles in your blood and Nitrogen creates the BENDS!

On Land a ancient Humanoid would be breathing Hot Air thus thin air and this helped develop a broad nse and Nostrils like you see in African People. As you go further North further away from the direct equitorial Radiation...a persons skin pigments do not get bombarded with as much UV Radiation thus over time...White People...People in between these two areas are more Brown or Yellowed skined. This is EVOLUTION at work.
Split Infinity

Originally posted by Timing
Well, if you were to set aside all evidence of evolution then you would be starting at the same point Darwin did.

I believe in evolution. Right now I still maintain the position that it is a theory though. As evolution, as I understand it, means the creation of a completely different species. Right now there is evidence of adaptation, to the best of my knowledge. Such as the beetles and the genetically modified corn. I'm not a biologist, so I wouldn't be up to date on the latest research and advancements.

Whether evolution is a fact or some other natural process that we haven't discovered yet, is best left up to the people that are professionals in that field of work or people that have an extreme interest in evolutionary biology.

To be proper, you are using theory in the non-scientific fashion. The Theory of Evolution is not just an idea. It has actually been actively tested and is used to predict the mutation of bacteria into drug-resistant forms, improving our knowledge and usage of medicine. There is an example buried far back in this thread where scientists sought to explain our chromosome number compared with the other apes. The theory was that in order for us to have had a common ancestor, two of our chromosomes would have had to have fused, because otherwise there wouldn't be enough genetic data to form a living child.

They examined the chromosomes and found exactly that, proving the hypothesis and reinforcing the Theory of Evolution, which still holds the status of Theory due to not being proven wrong yet. Should someone come along with a new idea that explains everything and proves evolution wrong, then science will move with it.