Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by iterationzero

Your ability to draw accurate information from "reading between the lines" has already been shown to be deficient.

If your referring to the insufficiant answers I have been getting, no, sorry they don't cut it. But I am still looking.

Given that the genome is freely viewable by anyone, it's not a claim. They have mapped the entire genome. It's a fact.

Which appears to be your answer, of a way to sidestep the question of why they are witholding our true age.

You look pretty silly writing it, given that the universe is only ~13By old. Their unwillingness to accept that humanity is 60By old is probably due to the fact that it's demonstrably false.

There is no proof that we are even in fact from this galaxy, in addition to there never being anyone that has demonstrably proven this wrong either. Aside from some ill answers and weak explanations, I have nothing solid that tells me we are from earth. Every person I know face to face that I present this with agrees with me. It's just the people on this thread that don't.

Exactly.

It's obvious to me that whoever did our mtDNA findings is hiding information on purpose.

Quad,

I'm assuming this the post in question. I didn't answer because I thought everyone else did a good job explaining it. There was also a large portion of my previous post that was left unanswered as well.

Originally posted by Quadrivium
Barcs,
I think it may be time for us to set some guide lines. It would seem that.....
"what we have here, is a failure to communicate"
The biggest problem I see that we may be having is with the term "species" and no wonder...
see: plato.stanford.edu...
What I mean by "species"- All animals defined as a group. Example: The group clasified as flies. With in this group are many, many species of flies but they are all flies.

First the definitions you posted are from philosophy. We are talking biology here. The thing with species is that it is for the sole purpose of labeling creatures based on reproductive capabilities. In my post a few above this I describe it in detail.

I do not see in the fossil record anything that would show me otherwise.
I looked at your link on the fossil record. I see assumption and speculation through out it.

Could you give me some examples of these assumptions and speculations? The fossil record fully backs up slow change over time.

How can they possible say that some fossils were related to others when they only have an image to go by?
To truly prove this they would need DNA samples. All because a fossil looks like another does not mean they are related

Perhaps you should get into the field of paleontology and learn for yourself how they make those distinctions. It's not just an image, it's a 3 dimensional structure, based on studying bones for years. Do you realize that when Ardipithicus Ramidus was discovered it took over 10 years before they could release the information, because they needed to extensively study the bone structure and compare it to other creatures like modern humans and the tons of other ancestors we have found. They don't just throw the bones together and guess what it is. They study it and scrutinize it to the most extreme detail. Before we even knew what DNA was, the fossil record showed evolution. Then when we learned genetics and microbiology it further confirmed what the fossils all seemed to indicate. Slow change over time. They have found DNA for many creatures, but obviously it doesn't last forever so on most older organisms like dinosaurs you won't find genetic evidence in most cases.

Animals that seem identical may belong to completely different species. This is the conclusion of researchers at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, who have used DNA analyses to discover that one of our most common segmented worms is actually two types of worm.

www.sciencedaily.com...
Also you may want to give another link for this:
Speciation has been observed many times: www.talkorigins.org...
This site actually gives meanings for the word "species" but it does go on to say something I found interesting in section 3.0

The literature on observed speciations events is not well organized. I found only a few papers that had an observation of a speciation event as the author's main point (e.g. Weinberg, et al. 1992). In addition, I found only one review that was specifically on this topic (Callaghan 1987).

This review cited only four examples of speciation events. Why is there such a seeming lack of interest in reporting observations of speciation events?

It's just like I said above with the species terminology. The lines between species can be drawn all over the place, but we relate it to humans today and use us as a starting point to measure.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Here's another link that shows speciation happening in a lab. Again, it's not a separate process from genetic mutation and natural selection, it is the measurement of the ability to reproduce. Yes there is still a lot of studying to be done, and they don't know everything yet.

To test this idea, I asked about two dozen graduate students and faculty members in the department where I'm a student whether there were examples where speciation had been observed in the literature. Everyone said that they were sure that there were. Next I asked them for citings or descriptions. Only eight of the people I talked to could give an example, only three could give more than one.

Without the name of the institution, there's no way to take this as evidence for anything. Have you tried asking a biologist?

I hope this answers your concerns I did stop following this thread for a while because of the spammer that wouldn't stop posting.

Hi guys,

Biology has, um, evolved to the point where it has outgrown classifying species based on visible morphological characteristics. They now look at genetic, molecular, and biochemical characteristics to define species.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
There is no proof that we are even in fact from this galaxy, in addition to there never being anyone that has demonstrably proven this wrong either. Aside from some ill answers and weak explanations, I have nothing solid that tells me we are from earth. Every person I know face to face that I present this with agrees with me. It's just the people on this thread that don't.

You clearly have no logical process. There is tons of proof that we are genetically related to the other organisms on this planet through some process, yet you say that you need negative proof against us being extra-galaxial?

What counts as something solid to you? A thousand year-old book passed down by illiterates?

You must not have very smart friends.

reply to post by Varemia


The only proof there is, as you tout, is the simple fact that we share the same protiens in DNA. And thats it.

Now look, right on the front page of ATS, a doctor has announced that telepathy is real, and he has proven it so.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You guys need to get with the program. This is something I have been saying all along. The only thing this guy has NOT realized is that he wont be able to get any further than this because the DNA has to be corrected first. Once we figure that part out, its all down hill.

But remember, the 10% brain myth is a myth.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by itsthetooth
There is no proof that we are even in fact from this galaxy, in addition to there never being anyone that has demonstrably proven this wrong either. Aside from some ill answers and weak explanations, I have nothing solid that tells me we are from earth. Every person I know face to face that I present this with agrees with me. It's just the people on this thread that don't.

You clearly have no logical process. There is tons of proof that we are genetically related to the other organisms on this planet through some process, yet you say that you need negative proof against us being extra-galaxial?

What counts as something solid to you? A thousand year-old book passed down by illiterates?

You must not have very smart friends.

Proof positive of why ID should under no circumstances be taught in schools.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia

 

The only proof there is, as you tout, is the simple fact that we share the same protiens in DNA. And thats it.

Now look, right on the front page of ATS, a doctor has announced that telepathy is real, and he has proven it so.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You guys need to get with the program. This is something I have been saying all along. The only thing this guy has NOT realized is that he wont be able to get any further than this because the DNA has to be corrected first. Once we figure that part out, its all down hill.

But remember, the 10% brain myth is a myth.

We share the same skeletal structure, organ distribution, diseases, breathing, and eating habits of almost every mammal on the planet. Proteins, eh?

reply to post by Varemia

We share the same skeletal structure, organ distribution, diseases, breathing, and eating habits of almost every mammal on the planet. Proteins, eh?

I see, and its just not possible that a creator used recycled parts eh?
It's not possible that even though there might be similarities, we aren't related?
It's not possible that all life including that out in the cosmos, is made the same way?

I think your making a bold assumption, and I think a lot of the steps and theories in evolutionism are just that, assumptions.

The fact is, you have nada, zero, zilch, that tells us we are all related. It's simply a fabrication in your mind that helps you make a connection and understand how its all possible. Of course with nothing to back it up.
The only thing you have is bacteria and viruses in speciation, and that's it. The rest is speculation.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
The fact is, you have nada, zero, zilch, that tells us we are all related. It's simply a fabrication in your mind that helps you make a connection and understand how its all possible. Of course with nothing to back it up.
The only thing you have is bacteria and viruses in speciation, and that's it. The rest is speculation.

If what I have is nothing, then you have less than nothing, so right back at ya, bub.

Sure, a "creator" could have potentially used already existing parts, but the gradual change in the fossils that shows intermediate forms of humans from primordial apes is very hard to ignore (apparently easy for you to ignore). Still, being created off life forms already here does not make us extraterrestrial. We can easily have untapped brainpower, but that has nothing to do with evolution.

reply to post by Varemia

If what I have is nothing, then you have less than nothing, so right back at ya, bub.

Sure, a "creator" could have potentially used already existing parts, but the gradual change in the fossils that shows intermediate forms of humans from primordial apes is very hard to ignore (apparently easy for you to ignore). Still, being created off life forms already here does not make us extraterrestrial. We can easily have untapped brainpower, but that has nothing to do with evolution.

I have yet to see these gradual changes you tout about. All I ever heard about is new species that were found.

Darn tooten untapped brainpower has nothing to do with evolution, its something we have always had, and are now finding out we were bottlenecked, just like it says in the bible. Wow, another big coincedence.

reply to post by itsthetooth


We don't actually know the species distinctions in the fossil record because they are not alive for us to test whether they can breed with modern humans or apes. Technically, if they could, they would not be a different species, merely a genetic variation. Usually speciation occurs when genetic groups are kept apart for a long enough time that their chromosomes change in a way that make it so they cannot breed anymore.

reply to post by Varemia

We don't actually know the species distinctions in the fossil record because they are not alive for us to test whether they can breed with modern humans or apes. Technically, if they could, they would not be a different species, merely a genetic variation. Usually speciation occurs when genetic groups are kept apart for a long enough time that their chromosomes change in a way that make it so they cannot breed anymore.

Is there some rule that says you can't extract DNA from a fossil? And yes I read about the gametic isolation between species, even though they are the same species. I think it shows poor judgment to make assumptions that because they can't breed, they must be a new species. I mean its like saying there can't possibly be anything else wrong with them that prevents them from mating, like ER maybe they aren't attracted to them. I think at best the inability to reproduce COULD mean they are a new species with nothing factual to support it.

You know, there could be so many different things going on that led to them not producing, but we automatically choose the idea that its a new species, and that must be why. It's the trifecta of pseudo science.

People laugh at me for thinking god was a space alien but I sure in the heck don't roll with that pseudo science, so why am I the odd ball?

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Is there some rule that says you can't extract DNA from a fossil?

Yes. Fossilization is the literal slow replacement of organic material with non-organic material, such as sediment and others. The formation is rarely perfect because of how easy fossilization can be interrupted if the organic material degrades too fast or is crushed by rock movement. So, it can be near-impossible to extract DNA from them.

And yes I read about the gametic isolation between species, even though they are the same species. I think it shows poor judgment to make assumptions that because they can't breed, they must be a new species. I mean its like saying there can't possibly be anything else wrong with them that prevents them from mating, like ER maybe they aren't attracted to them. I think at best the inability to reproduce COULD mean they are a new species with nothing factual to support it.

That's the scientific definition of species. You seem to be thinking of the larger taxonomic group of animals.

You know, there could be so many different things going on that led to them not producing, but we automatically choose the idea that its a new species, and that must be why. It's the trifecta of pseudo science.

They've tested it many times with mice and rabbits by isolating them in different ecosystems for a number of generations. It's not like they believe it willy nilly. Some guy thought it up as a logical possibility, and then they tested it.

People laugh at me for thinking god was a space alien but I sure in the heck don't roll with that pseudo science, so why am I the odd ball?

Because it's not pseudo science, and your reason for believing god was a space alien is based on extremely illogical sources. You refuse to question Sitchens' resource-gathering techniques, even though his ideas are so contrary to common belief. You simply accept it, and what the Bible says (after it was reviewed a dozen times by people who never experienced the original events [and as they often say in History classes, history is written by the winners, so it will make the writers look good]).

I just think your blind acceptance of something that simply "jives" with your belief system is what makes me laugh at you. You are blind to your blind acceptance. And I'll agree, I've been in the same position, since it's super easy to fall into, as humans love to believe stuff. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean I'll sacrifice my logical thinking process and proven scientific experimentation just to make you feel good.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
People laugh at me for thinking god was a space alien but I sure in the heck don't roll with that pseudo science, so why am I the odd ball?

That's not why people laugh. Heck, if the bible is based on real stories it seems far more likely god was a group of aliens rather than an omnipotent being. The reason people laugh is because you don't do an ounce of research about anything, you just make tons faulty assumptions about something you know nothing about. You won't read any evidence provided to you and you make statements like "Is there some rule that says DNA can't be extracted from a fossil?" or "I think it shows poor judgment to make assumptions that because they can't breed, they must be a new species.". That's where the laughing comes in because all that shows is that you haven't read a single paragraph about fossilization or the definition of species, even though its been clearly sourced and explained to you several times in this thread. I probably shouldn't have responded but it had to be said. You should watch the "Why do people laugh at creationists" youtube series. He does a good job explaining why so many claims are ridiculous. Who knows maybe some day you'll be a part of that series.

Furthermore:

www.proof-of-evolution.com...

Please go down this list of hominid fossils and read the brain capacities and everything else. It clearly shows small change over time. No changes were sudden. There isn't a set date when the species changes. Look at Neanderthals, many scientists consider them a sub species of homo sapiens, since they did actually breed with humans way back when. That probably wouldn't be possible with modern humans today. They also had bigger brain size and have had their entire genome sequenced. There is even a decent different between modern humans and humans 50,000 years ago. There is not a single piece of objective evidence that suggests otherwise. Humans have changed slowly over time, which proves that we are still evolving to this day.

reply to post by Varemia

Yes. Fossilization is the literal slow replacement of organic material with non-organic material, such as sediment and others. The formation is rarely perfect because of how easy fossilization can be interrupted if the organic material degrades too fast or is crushed by rock movement. So, it can be near-impossible to extract DNA from them.

Now see, I disagree. I'm finding several sites that claim that dna can be extracted from fossils.

www.talkorigins.org...
naturalselection.0catch.com...
scienceblogs.com...
www.mhrc.net...

That's the scientific definition of species. You seem to be thinking of the larger taxonomic group of animals.

True, but I see it in the same way. I don't agree that just because they can't mate, that it proves a different species.

They've tested it many times with mice and rabbits by isolating them in different ecosystems for a number of generations. It's not like they believe it willy nilly. Some guy thought it up as a logical possibility, and then they tested it.

I still say it doesn't prove them to be an alternate species. I think at best all it proves is that they don't want to mate.

Because it's not pseudo science, and your reason for believing god was a space alien is based on extremely illogical sources. You refuse to question Sitchens' resource-gathering techniques, even though his ideas are so contrary to common belief. You simply accept it, and what the Bible says (after it was reviewed a dozen times by people who never experienced the original events [and as they often say in History classes, history is written by the winners, so it will make the writers look good]).

I just think your blind acceptance of something that simply "jives" with your belief system is what makes me laugh at you. You are blind to your blind acceptance. And I'll agree, I've been in the same position, since it's super easy to fall into, as humans love to believe stuff. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean I'll sacrifice my logical thinking process and proven scientific experimentation just to make you feel good.

Your kidding me. I have been on this thread long enough to watch people guess the points on evolutionism. I don't take documentation as blind acceptance. The book was clearly not written with the intent of a child to understand it, I'm sure most adults have a problem understanding it, especially if they aren't reading it from the supernatural perspective.

reply to post by Barcs

That's not why people laugh. Heck, if the bible is based on real stories it seems far more likely god was a group of aliens rather than an omnipotent being. The reason people laugh is because you don't do an ounce of research about anything, you just make tons faulty assumptions about something you know nothing about. You won't read any evidence provided to you and you make statements like "Is there some rule that says DNA can't be extracted from a fossil?" or "I think it shows poor judgment to make assumptions that because they can't breed, they must be a new species.". That's where the laughing comes in because all that shows is that you haven't read a single paragraph about fossilization or the definition of species, even though its been clearly sourced and explained to you several times in this thread. I probably shouldn't have responded but it had to be said. You should watch the "Why do people laugh at creationists" youtube series. He does a good job explaining why so many claims are ridiculous. Who knows maybe some day you'll be a part of that series.

Really well I provided links earlier proving my questions valid.

reply to post by Barcs

Please go down this list of hominid fossils and read the brain capacities and everything else. It clearly shows small change over time. No changes were sudden.

Well first of all your making an assumption that they are related by using the word change. There is nothing that proves they were ever related to begin with.

There isn't a set date when the species changes.

You mean there isn't a date that can be determined. Thats because it's not changing.

Look at Neanderthals, many scientists consider them a sub species of homo sapiens, since they did actually breed with humans way back when. That probably wouldn't be possible with modern humans today. They also had bigger brain size and have had their entire genome sequenced. There is even a decent different between modern humans and humans 50,000 years ago. There is not a single piece of objective evidence that suggests otherwise. Humans have changed slowly over time, which proves that we are still evolving to this day.

One thing your forgeting is that there appears to have allready been life on this planet according to the bible. It's not far fetched and actually makes a lot more sense that some of these off species that are found, are just simply a different species or an intermixed species.

reply to post by itsthetooth


And I just love how no one has the guts to comment on a comment I left here about a scientist that just confirmed telepathy. All this time I have been saying we have disabled powers and people laugh. Whos laughing now?

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by itsthetooth

 

And I just love how no one has the guts to comment on a comment I left here about a scientist that just confirmed telepathy. All this time I have been saying we have disabled powers and people laugh. Whos laughing now?

I think you suffer from motivated reasoning my friend. Nothing can be proved 100%, so there will always be a chance. Unfortuantely focusing on that chance leads us nowhere. Theres more evidence that we came from Earth, than the evidence that we didn't, that tells me, as far as the info I've been given, is that we did in fact come from Earth. Why this is so hard for people to believe, motivated reasoning look it up.