Can you prove evolution wrong

Originally posted by itsthetooth
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.

It's NOT an assumption. I clearly linked the source. We have sequenced the entire genome of the Neanderthal. Yes, that proves we are related.

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

Wrong again. You need to go back and read my other posts about how the species line is drawn, because you obviously did not grasp the meaning of what I said.

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.

Yes, it is far fetched. Other wise you have several dozens of hominid species that appear to change slowly into what we know as modern humans, then humans are brought in to complete the chain almost perfectly. It makes no sense whatsoever. If humans were created, it was done using existing hominid DNA and unless you deny micro evolution as a whole, you can't explain how the rest of life became so diverse without making up wild claims and speculation about gods and aliens.

You don't even know what the difference is between assumptions and scientific facts. You haven't studied evolution, paleontology, biology, chemistry, or any scientific field EVER. You aren't qualified to make 90% of the claims you make and the other 10% is wild speculation.

reply to post by andersensrm

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.

If what your saying is true, than why do we even have evolutionism? I mean its based on a hell of a lot of chances seeing how none of it has been observed in huamns.

Now see, I see things from a different angle, I think there is a hell of a lot more things that prove we aren't from earth, and when I present those for debate on this thread, no one is able to give me a good sufficiant reason on them. I'm sorry but it's sort of unanomouse the way I see it.

reply to post by Barcs

It's NOT an assumption. I clearly linked the source. We have sequenced the entire genome of the Neanderthal. Yes, that proves we are related.

I would like to see that link, because what evolutionists call related and what others call related can be to way different things.

So did they prove its human, or that its not human, or that its partially human?

Wrong again. You need to go back and read my other posts about how the species line is drawn, because you obviously did not grasp the meaning of what I said.

Now is this your own species line, or is it actually based on someones work, or have you don't your own work?

Yes, it is far fetched. Other wise you have several dozens of hominid species that appear to change slowly into what we know as modern humans, then humans are brought in to complete the chain almost perfectly. It makes no sense whatsoever. If humans were created, it was done using existing hominid DNA and unless you deny micro evolution as a whole, you can't explain how the rest of life became so diverse without making up wild claims and speculation about gods and aliens.

Well thats what would happen when you mix species. Just because we might have been created does not mean that other life could not have existed prior to our existance. Well I think using evolution to prove diversity is also a wild claim. There is nothing that says diversity and evoltuion go hand in hand. Now they could, but there is no solid proof of it. Just because we don't have the honest answer doesn't mean we have to go with the best one we are able to make up.

You don't even know what the difference is between assumptions and scientific facts. You haven't studied evolution, paleontology, biology, chemistry, or any scientific field EVER. You aren't qualified to make 90% of the claims you make and the other 10% is wild speculation.

Thats partiallly true, but I am qualified to comment on what I have read, which is that they are based on postulated, and hypothetical theorys. Now if they are being honest, then I should get a prize for figure out that god was a space alien because that is based on documentation, and collaberation, as well as DNA findings.

Toot toot!

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by andersensrm

 

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.

If what your saying is true, than why do we even have evolutionism? I mean its based on a hell of a lot of chances seeing how none of it has been observed in huamns.

Now see, I see things from a different angle, I think there is a hell of a lot more things that prove we aren't from earth, and when I present those for debate on this thread, no one is able to give me a good sufficiant reason on them. I'm sorry but it's sort of unanomouse the way I see it.

But see thats just it, that is motivated reasoning. Sure there is evidence like you posted that we arent from here, but then you go and disregard the mountains of evidence that we are from here. This is motivated reasoning and there have been extensive studies on it. Once people make a belief, they will find facts to support that belief and disregard or ignore facts that contradict. Just because we have no evidence that we evolved on this planet to what we are now, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Doesn't mean it did, either. So we didn't evolve here, but we had to evolve somewhere, we are just arguing on where and when it happened, but it still happened didn't it.

reply to post by andersensrm

But see thats just it, that is motivated reasoning. Sure there is evidence like you posted that we arent from here, but then you go and disregard the mountains of evidence that we are from here. This is motivated reasoning and there have been extensive studies on it.

I seriously looked at things without a biased opinion when I did.

Please give me one shred of what you tout to be evidence that we are from here.

Once people make a belief, they will find facts to support that belief and disregard or ignore facts that contradict.

Not me, I'm looking for things to debate the possibilities.

Just because we have no evidence that we evolved on this planet to what we are now, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

True but I think your odds are skewed greatly against you on this one. You see at least with an alien theory there is a damn good reason why we don't have proof, they don't live here. On the other hand there should be oodles of proof from evolution. Seriously there is no excuse why we can't find any. You can't even say the evidence got abducted by aliens. You seem to also be dismissing the fact that they have been looking for bones for over 150 years now and have collected over 2.5 million fossils and bones. Now how is it that in those odds, they still have nothing. It reminds me of that movie dumb and dumber where Jim Carry is asking Lauren Holly what type of a chance he has dating her. She says something like 1 in a million, and he gets all happy because he still has a chance. These numbers talk for themself. There are no bones man, give it up.

Doesn't mean it did, either. So we didn't evolve here, but we had to evolve somewhere, we are just arguing on where and when it happened, but it still happened didn't it.

It's funny you say that because I do actually think evolution is possible for us in the window of trillions of years. The problem is that earth is not that old, so once again, you know what that means.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Not me, I'm looking for things to debate the possibilities.

As long as it is not the simularities between ant and human activity

reply to post by colin42


There is no simularities between ant and human activity. They are from here, and we aren't.

reply to post by itsthetooth


Shred of evidence that we are from here, the fact that we are here, and have been here for awhile.

Wheres your evidence that the universe even existed 1 trillion years ago???

reply to post by itsthetooth
Just because you say so that does not make it true. If gave you examples and you refused to discuss. So much for you are here to discuss

This guy disagrees with you and he unlike you got off his ar$e and looked for the truth not something that fits your idiots view of life.

How ants and humans are alike

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by itsthetooth

 

Just because you say so that does not make it true. If gave you examples and you refused to discuss. So much for you are here to discuss

This guy disagrees with you and he unlike you got off his ar$e and looked for the truth not something that fits your idiots view of life.

How ants and humans are alike

edit on 10-2-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)

I wouldn't go as far to call this guy an idiot, he certainly doesn't seem like one.

reply to post by andersensrm
You have not read well over 150 pages of his utter tripe then. Here is a brief prediction of how your conversation will go.

He asks a question. You give a reasoned answer. He tells you it isnt so with no reasoned response then asks you another stupid question until you say 'this is a waste of time' and he replies 'so you cant answer me then'

So it is an idiots veiw of life because he refuses to consider or discuss anything that challenges it

I'll sit back and see how long you last. Good luck

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by andersensrm

 

You have not read well over 150 pages of his utter tripe then. Here is a brief prediction of how your conversation will go.

He asks a question. You give a reasoned answer. He tells you it isnt so with no reasoned response then asks you another stupid question until you say 'this is a waste of time' and he replies 'so you cant answer me then'

I'll sit back and see how long you last. Good luck

Okay thanks. Your post made me laugh, theres probably a lot of truth to it. But nonetheless this doesn't make him an idiot, quite the opposite if you think about it.

reply to post by andersensrm
What would you call a person that posts 'we are not from here' on a thread that is meant to be about discussing diversity without refering to evolution? That continually asks questions and requests links only to dismiss all responses and links out of hand only to ask another question he will not discuss the answer to

Who refuses to discuss anything that challenges his views in case he has to revise his views.

Who thinks our hands are proof we do not come from earth. Who after 150 pages still believes a species goes to sleep and wakes up as another which means ......... It will not have anything to eat. This proves evolution is wrong. Yeah right.

No one expects him to change his views but after that many pages his argument should have improved yet it remains exactly as ignorant as it was on the first page he posted and with not one piece of evidence to back any of his statments.

reply to post by Barcs

Hi there barcs,
Is it just me or does this thread go crazy every time a real discussion starts?
Anyway,
It seems that our post are being misinterpreted, on your end as well as mine. Therefore I suggest we have one talking point at a time. First we can discuss species, then move onto fossils if this suits you.

Clarification:
I did not question any student.

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.

This came from a link you provided, here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

That you used as proof for this statement:

Speciation has been observed many times: www.talkorigins.org...

But what the link actually states in section 3.0 is:

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? In my humble opinion, four things account for this lack of interest.
First, it appears that the biological community considers this a settled question. Many researchers feel that there are already ample reports in the literature. Few of these folks have actually looked closely.
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. But everyone was sure that there were papers in the literature.

www.talkorigins.org...

Now, on to species:
I gave the following definition (no this is not the standard textbook definition, I put it in my own words).:

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.

Here is a textbook example.

Species
Species Definition
noun, singular or plural:
species (taxonomy)

(1) The lowest taxonomic rank, and the most basic unit or category of biological classification.
(2) An individual belonging to a group of organisms (or the entire group itself) having common characteristics and (usually) are capable of mating with one another.
Supplement:
A species is given a two-part name: the generic name and the specific name (or specific epithet). For example, Allium cepa (commonly known as onion)
Word origin: Middle English, logical classification, from Latin speciēs, a
seeing, kind, form.

www.biology-online.org...

I do not see how my definition was philosophical, as you stated.

There are many different species of fly.
Can a horse fly mate with a fruit fly? No, but both are still considered to be flys.
They are different species, yet both are still flys.
Quad

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by Barcs

 

Not swapping sides here but:

If you swap all powerful for eternal then time does not become a problem as I would imagine time has no meaning to somthing eternal. It only affects those that have a begining and end. It could be we are inside the machine looking at it being constructed.

In fact given eternity to play with does the creative force even have to be all powerful? Water can do amazingly powerful things given time but you would not call it all powerful in a bucket.

Time after all is a major component in evolution.

So I really have no problem with a creator using evolution as a tool. My problem/question lays with those that deny evolution. They must have an explanation for the diversity we see and I am interested in what that is

Hello colin,
Some how I missed this post.

I believe you "hit the nail on the head" so to speak.

It is hard for us as non- eternal creatures to fathom what eternal means. Many Christians quote "a thousand years to man is as one day to God and one day to God is as a thousand years to man" to mean that the earth was made in 6000 years (6 days of creation).
I think the statement means simply that Gods understanding of time is nothing like our own. He is eternal therefore it would have little to no meaning. Where as we have a limited supply allotted us, therefore, time to us is very important.
On another note,
From our last discussion, can you pick one talking point that you may have had questions about? Or something you just wanted to discuss?
I would very much like to continue our dialogue, I really believe that we may not be as far apart in our beliefs as many seem to think.

Edit: I use the term "beliefs" loosely as many on the evolutionary side of the argument do not see evolution as a belief.

reply to post by andersensrm

Shred of evidence that we are from here, the fact that we are here, and have been here for awhile.

Wheres your evidence that the universe even existed 1 trillion years ago???

Well the fact that the bible says we aren't from here, and sitchen, and Pye, and some others sure do paint a different picture.

I'm sure earth was not the first planet ever created, and who said we had to even be from this universe? There are just way to many possibilities to think of. I'm sure we were abducted, and placed here on earth. The bible concurs, Pye exposes DNA findings that concur, and sitchen concurs.
Look at it this way, if we had something real screwed up that happened to us, there would probably be documentation on it, oh there is.

There is nothing that ties us to this planet aside from Air and Water, and we can't even drink the water unless its processed. We can't even agree on what to eat, much less what was meant to be food.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Well the fact that the bible says we aren't from here, and sitchen, and Pye, and some others sure do paint a different picture.

What proves them right? You neglect to ever really answer this question. Is there any evidence that they are right, or are you BLINDLY FOLLOWING THEM?

reply to post by itsthetooth


I've never believed in the bible, because it paints humans as some glorified race, "man was created in His image", which means that if there is any other intelligent race out there, we are automatically better. It just doesn't make sense to be the answer to the universe, because it's so self-centered.

ETA
And btw you neglected to give me your evidence that the universe has even been around for longer than 14 billion years.

reply to post by Varemia

What proves them right? You neglect to ever really answer this question. Is there any evidence that they are right, or are you BLINDLY FOLLOWING THEM?

Oh not at all. I think the bible is just one source. Sitchen got scriptures from other sources, that concur. Pye proves all this with humans having altered DNA. I mean come on, who in the hell did this, we are still on the learning spectrum of this ourselves. Everything that I'm always bringing up on this thread adds to the fact that we aren't from here. I'm sorry but there is no way that everyone else can be wrong and you be right.

Obviously if we aren't from here, we must be from another planet, then there is the question on how we got here. We have no food here that we can claim as to being ours, that support us with a healthy diet. Food that we aren't stealing from other animals as well. No one on this tread has been able to produce one simple qualifying fact that ties us to this planet. It always leads back to us coming from apes so we must be from earth. With no proof of course.

There is a very distinctive difference between evolution and intervention, we both have theories but intervention has documentation collaberated by several others. Evolution has no proof and there is simply no excuse for not having it. Intervention has little to no proof but aliens don't live here so there is a very good reason for this.

Something that I think is paramount to bring up that I have never said before is how in the hell could we have evolved from another species millions of years ago, and have nothing to show for it? We don't hear or read about stories about uncle rob bibboobo the neanderthal 2 million years ago that invented the wheel. We have nothing to show from this prior period of our evolution. I would find it hard pressed to believe that someone was intelligent enough to create things like the wheel yet not smart enough to keep any records about there creations. And I'm sorry but I can't believe that if we did live here in a neanderthal period, that there is nothing to show for it. I want to make it clear what I mean. There are probably some minor tools like arrow heads and darts but come on, give me a break. Did we live in the dark ages all those years with nothing to show for it, and never grew or excelled like we do now?

Compare this understanding with today. Pretend for the moment that every living human disapeared off the face of the earth and you were an alien visiting. Do you think you would have any problem spotting our inventions and creations, and have any problem understanding how it is that we lived? Hell no, you could pin point how we live and it would be obvious as hell. Granted there is probably a lot more of us now, but our mtDNA indicates we never dipped below tens of thousands of people. So where is the history? I honestly find no reason to excuse this evolutionism gap.

I think where things get even more confusing is there used to be other races that lived here on earth that are no longer here, we might have some of them in our genes. But then there is the question of what heppened to them.

There is only one plausable answer for this, we werent here. We simply were elsewhere.

reply to post by andersensrm

I've never believed in the bible, because it paints humans as some glorified race, "man was created in His image", which means that if there is any other intelligent race out there, we are automatically better. It just doesn't make sense to be the answer to the universe, because it's so self-centered.

ETA
And btw you neglected to give me your evidence that the universe has even been around for longer than 14 billion years.

Well if you think man being created in his image means that, then ya, it wont make sense. That statment is seriously looking like they were referring to an image in a microscope. The problem with so many things in the bible is that they are suppose to be from a supernatural perspective. Unfortuntaly most of these words are ambigious and sadly everyone takes the wrong meaning.