Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by itsthetooth
You have not replied in any way shape or form because you cannot. I have asked you to discuss why all the things we share with ants that no other animals do and you blew of every point with your usual ignorant avoidance and why?

Because if you discussed them you would have to admit you have based your entire idiot non evidenced waffle is wrong.

That either ants are not from here or humans are. You do not answer because you are a liar and a fraud.
Again you avoid an explanation of the part autosomal dominance plays in the survival past puberty of the Bushman.

By default your refusal to discuss any points means you know you are full of crap and ALL of your belief system is wrong.

Why do you seem to be the only one blubering about this.

Because everyone of the others have concluded you are a waste of space and have decided to leave you to wallow in your abject ignorance. They are of course correct.

reply to post by ImaFungi

well i thought you said It was alarmingly prevalent in humans,,, exaggerated compared to other animals,, that is my reasoning on why humans may have more exaggerating areas of sickness and disease...

Oh yes, you can see the sites I just posted for Colin to compare with and you will see that there is no comparison. Humans are sick, plain and simple. I asked my doctor, are humans really sick, she said yes. I asked my family doctor are humans really sick, he said yes. We are sick.

because other animals have for millennia have had a very specific life pattern, growing to the environment and environment growing to them.... humans for he past thousands of years and especially last 200 have been going through great change in environments,, introducing chemicals, and radiations, just a lot more areas to develop abnormalities then if humans never introduced those drastic changed into their environment..

Well I can't argue that we created some of our own problems but I don't think its but a small percentage of what we are dealing with. Another part of this is because of our defects that are in our genes. Did you check out Lloyd Pye's video human genetics.

reply to post by colin42

You have not replied in any way shape or form because you cannot. I have asked you to discuss why all the things we share with ants that no other animals do and you blew of every point with your usual ignorant avoidance and why?

I did respond already. I gave you a list of things we do share with the ant eater. In addition to answering the ones you specifically listed. There was nothing unique about your list.

Because if you discussed them you would have to admit you have based your entire idiot non evidenced waffle is wrong.

Not at all, I still stand on it, and you still have failed to give explanation as to why you don't accept mine while I have already given reason why yours had no merit.

That either ants are not from here or humans are. You do not answer because you are a liar and a fraud.

I never said that ants are not from here, it seems to be a fabrication on your end. What I said is that humans are not from here and by comparison to ants, or rather ant eaters, its obvious.

Again you avoid an explanation of the part autosomal dominance plays in the survival past puberty of the Bushman.

If the genes in question were NOT autosomal dominant, then the bushman could have them, while they would not necessarily effect him.

By default your refusal to discuss any points means you know you are full of crap and ALL of you belief system is wrong.

Only when it appears you have closed your eyes, your ears, and your brain, and your just running your mouth.

reply to post by itsthetooth


Are you saying physically sick? are you personally sick? Id say there are probably 3 billion humans that are lively alive right now, in good health, enjoyment, doing there thing.

reply to post by itsthetooth


So adaptation is not evolution??? So this is a game of semantics, your saying evolution does not exist, because adaptation are not a part of evolution. But anyone talking about evolution is going to say that adaptations is a part of its theory. Thats how evolution explains everything through adaptation. We can call it whatever you want, it doesn't matter. So adaptations lead to what we are now, thats all you were trying to say?

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by andersensrm

 

The average was done across the board for all life, except intelligent life, obviously we haven't found any other examples of that.

So we leave and nothing happens, I don't see how this proves we aren't from here.

I think its important to understand that everything on this planet is supposed, and I emphasize on that word, to be part of a cycle of life. Humans are NOT part of any cycle of life on this planet, in fact we are constantly being rejected by mother nature and we continue to destroy the planet. Our existence is and has always been a threat to this planet. Mother nature is not our mother nature. While this is only one of many things that tell us this, it's probably one of the most important to realize.

The next thing I realize is how we have no target food. Sure we have food, but from a scavengers point of view, we have nothing we positively ID as being specific for humans. As a matter of fact, a science quote I read years ago claimed that scientists had discovered that humans can live alone on bread and milk, neither of which is natural without process.

We have lived the way we live for so long, that we are complacent to accept things even though they are not normal. No one will ever convince me that cows milk was intended for human consumption, and not a single person on this thread has come up with a reasonable reason why we do drink it. It's obvious that the cow was provided to us by god. As with everything else he provided it was noted that none of the things were originally intended for us, as though they are just supplements. In addition, it was noted that none of the things brought here were from our home as well.

There is much more that aid in this direction but I think you get the point. After much thought about this, and the existing life on this planet I started to realize some important things. Evolution CANT be possible. The reason I say this is because I have put a lot of thought into the working agenda of the life on this planet. Everything is suppose to be part of a balanced eco system and we aren't part of it. It's just a tad to obvious. Further more, I realized that evolution is not possible based on there not being a food supply for new species. It's just not possible. If a new species pops up, whats it suppose to eat?

It can't eat the old food it used to as this is for the previous species and would imply no change. It would also mean the new species is stealing food from the previous species. Everything is just balanced to the point where it wouldn't allow new species to survive without stepping on some others toes. Of course its also weird how we are never able to find bones of transgression that prove any connection with other life. We never have a missing link but we always have common ancestors. It's a contradiction from us being able to see a species changing in a lab, but we just aren't able to find any bones to prove it. And where are all the new names and scientists that got to name these new species?

I'm sorry, but I call BS on the whole evolution platter.

Thats the whole point, is to step on other species "toes". Thats where the survival of the fittest comes in. As much as you would like it to be, life isn't balanced. 97% of all the species that have ever lived on earth, are extinct. This is because the animals we see today, essentially stole their food source. Seems pretty simple to me. Now we seem to be a lot different, because we are sentient. We have technology, and thinking minds. Maybe this came about from E.T.'s visiting us and creating us as some type of slave race. When they were done, they left. And now here we are trying to figure it all out. But to say evolution doesn't exist is just a play on words. Your saying evolution is one thing, everyone else is saying its another. Which is why we will get nowhere, as long as you say evolution has nothing to do with adaptation, and we say it does.

reply to post by ImaFungi

Are you saying physically sick? are you personally sick? Id say there are probably 3 billion humans that are lively alive right now, in good health, enjoyment, doing there thing.

Neither, according to doctors, wiki statistcs, pharmacys and the fact that we depend on insurance, we are sick, and diseased.

reply to post by andersensrm

So adaptation is not evolution??? So this is a game of semantics, your saying evolution does not exist, because adaptation are not a part of evolution. But anyone talking about evolution is going to say that adaptations is a part of its theory. Thats how evolution explains everything through adaptation. We can call it whatever you want, it doesn't matter. So adaptations lead to what we are now, thats all you were trying to say?

It's not an issue of semantics, its an issue of definition. If you read the wiki on both of them you will see that evolution comes up under the definition of adaptation but only under a section approved by a well known evolutionist.

Wiki just allowed the definition to stick simply because evolutionists claim that it is part of evolution. The fact is, that its not. It has nothing to do with evolution. Adaptation is a trait or an ability while evoltuion is changes that happen at the molecular level. The have nothing to do with each other.

Evoltuionists had to claim adaptation as part of its formula because they had no other way to explain our redundant adaptation needs, through the eyes of evoltuion.

reply to post by itsthetooth


So scientists came up with the term evolution to show how adaptions lead to new species, when in fact evolution has no part in adaptation???? This just doesn't make sense. Lets just say that adaptation fits in with evolution. Now does evolution exist?

reply to post by andersensrm

Thats the whole point, is to step on other species "toes". Thats where the survival of the fittest comes in. As much as you would like it to be, life isn't balanced. 97% of all the species that have ever lived on earth, are extinct.

I can't argue that our presence here on earth in addition to other things that were brought here and weren't suppose to be, have caused a lot of issues.

I didn't know it was 97% but would challenge that, probably more like 10% which is totally understandable with how things are off balance. And yes things had to of been in a balance when life started on this planet. There is simply no way any life could manage without food, and without being part of the cycle. The only thing that has saved us is our adaptation.

Evoltuionists that think adaptation is part of evoltuion are in essence saying that this evolution mechanism is not only smart enoudh to change our DNA without us knowing why, but also without us detecting its presence. In addition this mechanism was also smart enough to know that we would no manage to live life on earth taking into account all the circumstances, so created an ability for us we call adaptation. I'm sorry man, I just don't buy it.

reply to post by andersensrm

This is because the animals we see today, essentially stole their food source. Seems pretty simple to me. Now we seem to be a lot different, because we are sentient. We have technology, and thinking minds. Maybe this came about from E.T.'s visiting us and creating us as some type of slave race. When they were done, they left. And now here we are trying to figure it all out. But to say evolution doesn't exist is just a play on words. Your saying evolution is one thing, everyone else is saying its another. Which is why we will get nowhere, as long as you say evolution has nothing to do with adaptation, and we say it does.

Well there is no doubt some animals that steel food, and some of that might be in the normal order of things. You have to remember this type of thing is really hard to guage. It's not hard to recognize an outsider however, and humans are not from here.

It is possible that some animals are suppose to be scavengers, but I doubt it. It goes against the idea of target food, and breaks the element of a balanced eco system. There are several things here on earth which are in my mind questionable, as to weather or not they belong. Of course I'm more familliar with humans as I am one myself.

By comparison to most other life here on earth, you will see some that offer no question about being from earth, like the anteater. Then you see on a rare occasion some that don't fit in. These are the ones that I would look at closley and more in depth. With humans its way to obvious.

reply to post by itsthetooth


You keep refering to evolution as some entity, or being of some kind, behind the controls telling us where to go, and what to eat. Its just a term refering to how we adapt and change. Thats all. It doesn't control us or tell us what to do, it just a term that we can use so we understand what we are both talking about. Thats the point of language is to come up with terms so we can all communicate. Thats all it is. I don't know how you get from that, to evolution being some kind of mad scientist.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
I didn't know it was 97% but would challenge that, probably more like 10% which is totally understandable with how things are off balance.

Wow, you really love using your imagination to come up with imaginary numbers to make everything feel better in your mind. Just give up man. Your selective reading, downright twisting of facts, and blatant lies are getting ridiculous.

reply to post by andersensrm

You keep refering to evolution as some entity, or being of some kind, behind the controls telling us where to go, and what to eat. Its just a term refering to how we adapt and change. Thats all.

Well in order for changes to even be possible there has to be direction, drive, or some type of motivation behind it. If not, we would be seeing species with 3 eyes, and we never do. There has to be an acceptable line of things that are allowed to change, and a line of things that wont change.

I think we can all agree that most things on this planet have two eyes, a nose, two ears, a mouth, teeth or a beak. Wings arms or limbs. I'm mean its pretty basic. When we do see things out of these bounds, we refer to them as an unwanted defect. Not something that fits the bill of us being apes then growing a huge brain. It's not a defect.

So there is a common sense when you see the possibilities. I don't believe in evolution at all, but if I did, there would have to be some type of order that predicts what is going to change, and how. If random acts of change just happened with no direction behind them, then we would be seeing animals with two noses, 3 and 4 eyes, 6 and 8 hands. The fact is we don't, and when something in that arena does happen on a very rare occasion, it is considered a defect and that species usually dies quick, at least according to scietists.

I have had people on this thread try to tell me that our total existance is made up of these defects piled on top of defects. The thing that makes no sense is that if that were true why is it that so much life has a basic order of two eyes, two ears, 2 or 4 limbs, one nose, one head. This is out of over 5 million species. It would appear that certain things are just not subject to change.

Aside from defects, the other reason that I call BS on evolution is when new changes do surface, how do we not know that these are actually normal. There is honestly no way to know. We have made an educated decision based on probability that certain things are normal, and other things aren't. The fact is we don't know, we are guessing.

If a species popped up with 4 heads tomorrow we would make an instant decision that its a major defect, and that would pretty much be true, but look at what we are basing it on. All other life that we are familliar with. I would agree anyhow. Now if a human turned up with purple eyes, we would also call it a defect, but the fact is how would we know that its just not a normal option in our species that for some reason never popped up. There is no way to know.

reply to post by itsthetooth


The environment and the individual point the direction. If you can't survive you die, therefore you don't pass on your traits. However if you survive, then your traits proved to be good enough and you will pass them down. No need to have any other outside intervention.

reply to post by andersensrm

It doesn't control us or tell us what to do, it just a term that we can use so we understand what we are both talking about. Thats the point of language is to come up with terms so we can all communicate. Thats all it is. I don't know how you get from that, to evolution being some kind of mad scientist.

It has to, and this is why I refer to evolution as the bug.
It would have to be a bug because it is able to alter our DNA on the molecular level, it is intelligent enough to later our DNA and not be seen in action. Because there are never any traces of bones of a missing link, it would also have to be intelligent enough to hide all bodys. Equiping us with adaptation because it was smart enough to predict our future and knew we would need it, in addition toprogramming us with this ideal trait.

This is why evolution must be a bug.
This is why I find it impossible to believe in it.
One question that comes up especially on this thread, because it is the question of this thread, is without evolution, can you explain bio diversity.
Creation could explain bio diversity.
From a creation point of view, its easy to understand one or more creators using the same DNA technology to build many different walks of life. It's honestly the only way that I see it possible.
Of course there is that little pesky little problem with who made the creator.
Just like with evolution. If we all started from slime, who made the slime.

I think in order for man to have evolved from apes, it would take trillions of years, and well earth isn't that old which means we aren't from earth. This would also expalin why we arne't able to find any missing links, they aren't here.
I'm convinced god was a space alien which is collaberated by the bible, Sitchen, Von daniken, and Pye. I also believe we are stranded on a planet that wasn't meant for us, which is why there is and always will be so many problems. It's obvious the bible is a book of genocide that has been grossly underestimated through missunderstanding.

I also have over 3 decades of studying the paranormal and supernatural which the bible is addressed as a supernatural event. If you don't understand these things, the bible will appear to be fantasy and not make any sense. Because of this, its obvious that a lot of people on this thread are not qualified to be reading such a book, but they argue anyhow. From the supernatural point of view, all of the things that were once missunderstood and made what most say no sense at all, are now in focus, and make complete sense. I read with an unbiased view and get a not so good feeling overall. A book of torture, over looked because everytime god handed down a punishment, we just overlook it not realizing that god did in fact act on his words and though our DNA incorporate these horrible punishments. It's overlooked becuase while we are always told what the punishment will be, we never learned how they would be executed, until now. God played with DNA, which was apparen't from his ezekiel visit with his four headed creature of lion, ox, eagle, and man. Could it be that making man in his image was DNA though a microscope? It's seriously looking like it.

Lloyd Pye's video on human genetics, answers some important questions, if you knew what to ask. Of course Lloyd Pye totally missed what I'm telling you. He thinks that the defects in our genes are from our species being engineered, which sad to say, is very possible. I think they were how god punished us.

reply to post by Varemia

Wow, you really love using your imagination to come up with imaginary numbers to make everything feel better in your mind. Just give up man. Your selective reading, downright twisting of facts, and blatant lies are getting ridiculous.

Well varemia you wouldn't know anything about these numbers as you believe we are on our home planet to begin with.

reply to post by andersensrm


Wow I stand corrected, I found a site that says its more like 99.9% of all species that have gone extinct. WOW.

reply to post by itsthetooth


I still don't understand. Lets say Im an iguana. I like eating plants and stuff. Then one day I'm on a grassy patch with a couple of my buddies near the ocean, it breaks off and I'm sent off into the ocean. After a couple of hours my grassy patch washes up on a island. The plants and stuff that I like to eat are non-existent. I see a couple of my buddies eat some plants, and they end up dead. Then its just me and a couple of other iguanas left. We get desperate and decide to look into the ocean for food. We realize we are really bad at swimming, some of us drown, but we managed to get some plant food fairly close to shore. Over time we make babies and create new generations who have to continually go farther and farther out to get the plant food. Over time we make adaptations and evolve to be better swimmers. Now the iguana has changed, evolved, and all it took was the environment and the individual. No bug necessary. I don't see how there has to be something to "hide the bodies" since nature does a pretty good job destroying the bones and any evidence of them, of course on the odd occasion when they end up as fossils.

reply to post by andersensrm

I still don't understand. Lets say Im an iguana. I like eating plants and stuff. Then one day I'm on a grassy patch with a couple of my buddies near the ocean, it breaks off and I'm sent off into the ocean. After a couple of hours my grassy patch washes up on a island. The plants and stuff that I like to eat are non-existent. I see a couple of my buddies eat some plants, and they end up dead. Then its just me and a couple of other iguanas left. We get desperate and decide to look into the ocean for food. We realize we are really bad at swimming, some of us drown, but we managed to get some plant food fairly close to shore. Over time we make babies and create new generations who have to continually go farther and farther out to get the plant food. Over time we make adaptations and evolve to be better swimmers. Now the iguana has changed, evolved, and all it took was the environment and the individual. No bug necessary. I don't see how there has to be something to "hide the bodies" since nature does a pretty good job destroying the bones and any evidence of them, of course on the odd occasion when they end up as fossils.

If this were how things work, why is it that the ant eater hasn't evolved away from eating ants? I mean there is no question he was made to eat ants, and you can't argue that he evolved into eathing ants, what did we evolve into eating? Cows milk? Processed food.