Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by andersensrm

Ohh that makes sooo much more sense, the ostrich grew its wings by accident, because it got hit by a solar flare. The chances and odds, of your thinking are far greater than that of evolution's theory

Ok so you obviously feel that evolution has intent and direction behind it. So tell me, who and what steers this. Is it the evolution bug? Sounds like there is some form of intelligence behind it from what your saying.

There are gaps, that we can't yet explain with evolution,

Don't worry, I can allready tell from what little I have read so far, that there will be hypothetical and postulated theorys to the rescue. And trust me, they will be backword compatible to explain why proof has once again eluded the scope.

so It must not be evolution right??? If we can't figure it out now, we must be wrong, yes it all makes sense now. I think what we all fail to recognize here, is that Zenu the 13 trillion year old god, in human form, planted all of lifes souls inside earths volcanoes, and then blew them up with hydrogen bombs. Thats what really happened, can't you see. Zenu is the creator, all we have to do is find him. It also proves that the universe is older than 15 billion years. Man you must be loving this, I must be opening your mind to the wonders of the universe. So how does it feel knowing how it all came about? Zenu created life, he made the ostrich with wings that won't give him flight, because he wanted to show us that Zenu can do anything!!!

Well what do you expect, your trying to tell me on one hand that this evolution bug is smart enough to change DNA but also makes mistakes, which explains why the osterich got shafted on his wings. Seriously, I would by it more if it were simply a punishment handed down from god.

reply to post by Varemia

Evolution is a description and understanding of a process of change, not a bug. Evolution is not some energy that exists in creatures. It is not a predetermined process that was planning on making the species that occurred.

Ok thats conflicing with what some others on here are telling me. It's sounding more like it has direction and purpose behind it.

It is the best current description of something that is observable and happens to change organisms over time through gene transfers and mutations over generations. If you continue to think there is some force "causing" evolution, then you are a moron who only listens to his own thoughts for proof.

Now your also telling me that this evolution bug (I will just call it as such) does actually alter DNA. So this is why I call it a bug. It knows how to alter DNA, make only positive decisions, and predict the future like how our ability to adapt was given to us.
For example rather than evolution adjusting our bodys to survive on less calcium, the bug gave us adaptation knowing that we would grow brains, and learn how to homogenize, pasterize, fortify, package, ship and refregerate milk.
Now if you don't believe in this, than how could it be this bug chose to deal with our calcium needs in this manner rather than addressing them head on?
There must be intelligence behind it.

reply to post by itsthetooth


It was a punishment from god don't you know?? Too bad the JFK assassination was set up, so Zenu could secretly kill Jesus. Now Zenu and Evolution control the world!

yay its a prove everybody

reply to post by idmonster

Actually Talkorigins is the complete opposite of a creationist website.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Look! It's another "let me show you how much I don't know about science even though I've claim to be a science major who discovered and 'arcane virus'" post from itsthetooth!

It doesn't say theory, it says ...
plurality of theories and hypotheses.

A perfect example of how you claim to be able to read between the lines and take context cues to understand what words mean and then show a complete inability to do it correctly. And then you do a half-assed job at quote mining by cherry picking the words you think support what you're claiming out of context. Stupidity and dishonesty, all at the same time!

It says...

Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses.

Now, if you had reading comprehension that was better than a grade school dropout with multiple head injuries and the understanding of science that you claim to, you'd know that a scientific theory is a unifying concept that unifies the observations of a particular area of science i.e. it absolutely does say "theory" there, you just don't know enough to recognize it.

I allready understand those basic parts.

No, you don't. You clearly don't. You've spent the last however many pages of this thread demonstrating that you don't understand much, if anything, about basic science. From blue laminates, to humans aren't primates, to base pairs are genes, it's pretty clear that whatever education you may have obtained in the biological sciences in the past is no longer in your possession.

These are being introduced as scientific theorys, they are just theorys and hypothetical theorys.

Clearly showing that you don't understand what the word "theory" means in a scientific context. Extra failure points for trying to kluge the words "hypothetical" and "theory" together in the same phrase. Anyone with the science credentials you claim to have would know that, in a science, a hypothesis and a theory are two completely separate constructs and that there's no such thing as "just a theory". A theory is the highest level of understanding that can be attained in the context of science.

True, but I still wouldn't take anything hypothetical, or just theory as a fact.

Nor should you. But evolution is both an observed fact, as has been presented to you repeatedly in this thread, and a scientific theory, which seeks to unify the observable facts. Again, anyone with the science credentials you claim to have would know that facts and theories are two different things, that evolution is both a theory and a fact depending on the context it's being used in, and that there's no such thing as "just a theory".

So now your trying to teach people that postulated (which is another one used later on) and hypothetical theorys are all perfectly tested and found to be scientific fact.

You claim to be a scientist with the discovery of an "arcane virus" under your belt, but you repeatedly show an inability to speak the lingo. Theories aren't postulated. Theories postulate. If you don't understand the difference between those two phrases, then you should stop trying to use the words together in a sentence. It makes you look like an illiterate dimwit.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
With no bug, or no idea of a bug, then you believe that the changes that happen through out evolution are totally random, and non guided at all ?????

It's guided by adaptation and selection. The ones that don't successfully breed or adapt their genetic expression to survive will die out. The ones that are successful will pass their genes on to the next generation. How the hell is this so confusing to you?

reply to post by itsthetooth


No, most of the negative adaptations and mutations cause the species to stop being able to spread its genes. Really man, at least understand evolution before you try to say it's false.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

That's a long article and I'm already very familiar with Mitochondrial Eve. Can you be more specific? Why is it a bad thing to explore other avenues to finding out who we are? Why is that a bad thing?

OMG Happy bunny, you really are a happy bunny aren't you. Are you alergic to reading. WTF man, read it. I promise its worth your time. Just think of it, you might learn something about your TRUE origon that evolution hasn't taught you. Honestly its worth memorizing like I have.

Just don't confuse the mrca with being our first ancestor. They had to publish a correcting because of that flaw.

Er, nobody but nobody has claimed, that I'm aware of, that our most recent ancestor was a Luca. That wasn't a flaw on their part--it was a flaw in the interpretation of others. It's been clarified, yet you still don't seem to understand it.

And even if Mitochondrial Eve turns out to be wrong, it's still the best thing going at the moment. If they got the rate of mutation wrong, it's going to throw their calculations off.

reply to post by Varemia


what hes getting at,, is that evolutionists, with their belief of evolution try to dismiss the possibility that the way of evolution, or anything that has to do with life was created, intelligently...

evolutionists believe that it is completely a process of chance and probability that the conditions were right on this planet, and the sun was the right distance to allow for life to spark into existence, and start its long trek of evolution....

now i agree that very may well be the case, but because this activity is possible in the universe.. i presume that the universe it self, is a form of intelligence... to have been created with the chance for something like life to occur in its diversity and potential.....

another thing i believe he was getting at..... the intelligence behind the creation of the forms and functions of the diverse biology.... what is the "bug" or process that decides to create itself into patterns and systems of distributing energy, and create skeletons and hearts and brains,,, is this something a human dummy you know could create? what is it that is deciding to take into its shape and route of species, is it not what you would call will or intelligence, that drives every living being through their life, through eons of time, allowing their genealogical successors to gain the benefits of their toil and victory?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
what hes getting at,, is that evolutionists, with their belief of evolution try to dismiss the possibility that the way of evolution, or anything that has to do with life was created, intelligently...

I think the point is that there's no evidence for intelligent creation when a natural process makes sense. The point of this thread was for explaining diversity without using evolution, yet all we've gotten is people saying that someone intelligently used evolution to create things.

evolutionists believe that it is completely a process of chance and probability that the conditions were right on this planet, and the sun was the right distance to allow for life to spark into existence, and start its long trek of evolution....

I figure, why not? Chance is a good explanation for why some people win sweepstakes. Why couldn't it start life? I doubt someone intelligently chose the winning ticket for the person who won. It was random. Now, as it is, evolution itself is not random at all. There are a lot of variables that determine when genes will pass down through generations.

now i agree that very may well be the case, but because this activity is possible in the universe.. i presume that the universe it self, is a form of intelligence... to have been created with the chance for something like life to occur in its diversity and potential.....

I'm not sure this makes any sense. A machine doesn't have to be intelligent to do a job. A storm doesn't have to be intelligent to strike a tree with lightning.

another thing i believe he was getting at..... the intelligence behind the creation of the forms and functions of the diverse biology.... what is the "bug" or process that decides to create itself into patterns and systems of distributing energy, and create skeletons and hearts and brains,,, is this something a human dummy you know could create? what is it that is deciding to take into its shape and route of species, is it not what you would call will or intelligence, that drives every living being through their life, through eons of time, allowing their genealogical successors to gain the benefits of their toil and victory?

No, it makes no sense that there is intelligence behind it. It is simply repetition and change over time. As time went on, some organisms became far more complex. There's no force causing them to change. They change because it's not possible to simply clone your genetics perfectly when you have sex and make a baby. You are mixing genetics and adding a minor mutation here and there. Multiply that by a billion years and I think you see what I mean.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to [url= by Varemia[/url]

 

what hes getting at,, is that evolutionists, with their belief of evolution try to dismiss the possibility that the way of evolution, or anything that has to do with life was created, intelligently...

Evolutionists, with their belief of evolution? see this is where the confusion stems, evidence. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, whereas the evidence for a supernatural intelligence being behind anything is.......... non-existent.

Originally posted by ImaFungievolutionists believe that it is completely a process of chance and probability that the conditions were right on this planet, and the sun was the right distance to allow for life to spark into existence, and start its long trek of evolution....

Not true, to accept evolution does not mean you necessarily believe that version of abiogenisis, or indeed any such hypotheses.

Originally posted by ImaFungianother thing i believe he was getting at..... the intelligence behind the creation of the forms and functions of the diverse biology.... what is the "bug" or process that decides to create itself into patterns and systems of distributing energy, and create skeletons and hearts and brains,,, is this something a human dummy you know could create? what is it that is deciding to take into its shape and route of species, is it not what you would call will or intelligence, that drives every living being through their life, through eons of time, allowing their genealogical successors to gain the benefits of their toil and victory?

Three words

Adaptation + Natural selection.

reply to post by iterationzero

Now, if you had reading comprehension that was better than a grade school dropout with multiple head injuries and the understanding of science that you claim to, you'd know that a scientific theory is a unifying concept that unifies the observations of a particular area of science i.e. it absolutely does say "theory" there, you just don't know enough to recognize it.

I like how you just conveniently add your own words to the definition to make it suit your argument. Nope sorry, your wrong, and I caught you trying to pull one over. There is no "scientific" and everyone knows the difference. So take your pseudo science elsewhere.

As far as you continuously referencing my find on the virus, you know nothing about it, so it just shows your honest character and how your so quick to profile people without the possibility of knowing what your talking about.

Now, if you had reading comprehension that was better than a grade school dropout with multiple head injuries and the understanding of science that you claim to, you'd know that a scientific theory is a unifying concept that unifies the observations of a particular area of science i.e. it absolutely does say "theory" there, you just don't know enough to recognize it.

I don't know what to tell you. I grabbed my boss, and had her read this so she could give me her definition and it appears we both agree. I think where the problem might be is that your mistaking a theory for a scientific theory. Your also totally dismissing the words hypothetical and postulated, I guess because you don't want to see or address them.

No, you don't. You clearly don't. You've spent the last however many pages of this thread demonstrating that you don't understand much, if anything, about basic science. From blue laminates, to humans aren't primates, to base pairs are genes, it's pretty clear that whatever education you may have obtained in the biological sciences in the past is no longer in your possession

Sure, you tout, but remember, these has already been explained and your profiling me again.

Now just for giggles I went back and refreshed again on reading up on the term theory. Again, it also states that it is derived from speculation and contemplation.
So I seriously think your the one who is off here.

Clearly showing that you don't understand what the word "theory" means in a scientific context. Extra failure points for trying to kluge the words "hypothetical" and "theory" together in the same phrase.

Itera, did you fail to take your meds today? I did not place hypothetical and theory in the same phrase, they were already there.

Nor should you. But evolution is both an observed fact,

Well then you need to be the brave soul to step up and let them know they need to address it as such, rather than postulated, hypothetical theory's. IMO I think they did this for a reason, because they didn't want to lie.

as has been presented to you repeatedly in this thread, and a scientific theory, which seeks to unify the observable facts. Again, anyone with the science credentials you claim to have would know that facts and theories are two different things, that evolution is both a theory and a fact depending on the context it's being used in, and that there's no such thing as "just a theory"

True but there is such a thing as a scientific theory or a scientific fact.

You claim to be a scientist with the discovery of an "arcane virus" under your belt, but you repeatedly show an inability to speak the lingo.

Maybe its because mine isn't hypothetical or postulated.

reply to post by Varemia

It's guided by adaptation and selection. The ones that don't successfully breed or adapt their genetic expression to survive will die out. The ones that are successful will pass their genes on to the next generation. How the hell is this so confusing to you?

Calm down, the part that's confusing me is not the same part your thinking of.

I like how you use the word guided. What is this mechanism for guidance?
Is it chemical guidance, spiritual, radioactive, or possibly intelligence?

Now the ones that don't successfully breed or adapt, you claim will die out. This of course means bones, lots of bones and fossils. WHERE ARE THEY? Granted we never found Jimmy Hoffa but we did find Bin Laden, we just can't find a single bone to prove any evolution out of the 5 million species here on earth.

No, most of the negative adaptations and mutations cause the species to stop being able to spread its genes. Really man, at least understand evolution before you try to say it's false.

Since the understanding of whats positive and whats negative is all in the perception of the person looking, please explain how this is executed.

reply to post by HappyBunny

Er, nobody but nobody has claimed, that I'm aware of, that our most recent ancestor was a Luca. That wasn't a flaw on their part--it was a flaw in the interpretation of others. It's been clarified, yet you still don't seem to understand it.

And even if Mitochondrial Eve turns out to be wrong, it's still the best thing going at the moment. If they got the rate of mutation wrong, it's going to throw their calculations off.

I don't know who luca is

reply to post by ImaFungi

what hes getting at,, is that evolutionists, with their belief of evolution try to dismiss the possibility that the way of evolution, or anything that has to do with life was created, intelligently...

Yes Ima, and thank you for breaking this for them.
It is a shocking idea isn't it?

another thing i believe he was getting at..... the intelligence behind the creation of the forms and functions of the diverse biology.... what is the "bug" or process that decides to create itself into patterns and systems of distributing energy, and create skeletons and hearts and brains,,, is this something a human dummy you know could create? what is it that is deciding to take into its shape and route of species, is it not what you would call will or intelligence, that drives every living being through their life, through eons of time, allowing their genealogical successors to gain the benefits of their toil and victory?

And your right again.

I'm not making any claims that I have proof that intelligence was involved, but it sure is suspicious.

reply to post by Prezbo369

Evolutionists, with their belief of evolution? see this is where the confusion stems, evidence. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, whereas the evidence for a supernatural intelligence being behind anything is.......... non-existent.

How can you say that while out of 150 years and over 2.5 million bones and fossils we have yet to find one missing link to any of the 5 million species we have on earth?

There is no proof. There is speculation and desire to believe in these things is all. I see it just like a religion so I call it evolutionism.

Originally posted by itsthetooth

It's guided by adaptation and selection. The ones that don't successfully breed or adapt their genetic expression to survive will die out. The ones that are successful will pass their genes on to the next generation. How the hell is this so confusing to you?

Calm down, the part that's confusing me is not the same part your thinking of.

I like how you use the word guided. What is this mechanism for guidance?
Is it chemical guidance, spiritual, radioactive, or possibly intelligence?

Now the ones that don't successfully breed or adapt, you claim will die out. This of course means bones, lots of bones and fossils. WHERE ARE THEY? Granted we never found Jimmy Hoffa but we did find Bin Laden, we just can't find a single bone to prove any evolution out of the 5 million species here on earth.

Adaptation. And. Selection. Both are completely natural processes that happen all the time. Some live and some die, and some never have sex. It's just gene transfer. That's the mechanism, no intelligence required.

Bones BREAK DOWN. They DEGRADE. That means that after enough time, bones won't be there anymore. They will have re-entered the environment. Fossils are freaking RARE. Understand RARE? Does that word mean anything to your ignorant brain?

reply to post by itsthetooth


What would count as a link to you? You clearly choose to ignore all the hundreds and thousands of transitionary fossils, so what counts as a link?

reply to post by Varemia

Adaptation. And. Selection. Both are completely natural processes that happen all the time. Some live and some die, and some never have sex. It's just gene transfer. That's the mechanism, no intelligence required.

I understand that, but the question is how and what drives this natural process.

It sounds like the word natural was just throw in there to tell you to accept it the way it is, without explanation or understanding.

Bones BREAK DOWN. They DEGRADE. That means that after enough time, bones won't be there anymore. They will have re-entered the environment. Fossils are freaking RARE. Understand RARE? Does that word mean anything to your ignorant brain?

I see, so you totally dismiss that we are able to find prehistoric bones, but can't find any more recent ones? How is it that we are able to find dinosaur bones? They are older and rare.