Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by flyingfish


Such as:

1. the micro and macro-evolution argument
2. entropy and the second law of thermodynamics
3. the 11th dimension theory (I am sure that is not what it is called) which I heard someone say on here :/

They say evolution is theory (and some how that equates to being shaky or false?), yet you can prove the 11 dimension, which is purely speculative (does not mean false) shows their is a god. Evidence versus speculation?

Originally posted by elle.mental
It seems to me that if evolution was the way that things were created, that there would still be creatures in the process of evolving. Since it is doubtful that creatures would have only evolved in the past, then for evolution to be a valid possibility for explaining how things came to be, there would be physical proof in the world around us. It would be common to see an ape/man in all stages of development and there would be many other examples of animals in the process of evolution. Since there is not physical evidence that can be produced showing that we are evolving today, then it is very unlikely that we evolved in the past.
Times and seasons occur on schedule, generations of humans and animals throughout written history have remained virtually unchanged, they are born, reproduce young like themselves and eventually they die and the next generation continues on the same path... there may have been adaptation to climate or other environmental situations, but there have not been significant changes to man or beast as long as records have been kept. I think it is far more likely that living things were purposely created to be exactly what they are.

There are and a quick google would have answerd this before you posted it. In a wales there's a moth. It used to be black when the crap from the mines coverd the towns but now that most mines have shut down there's not so much black soot around anymore and the moths run the risk of getting picked off by birds as they're black. So guess what? The new generations are turning white. They're adapting to thier new environment. Or re adapting to the old one before mining.

colin you do realize you are dealing with a belief that a being with unlimited power created the whole universe, right ?

so creating some worms that live in the depths of the atlantic abyss is literally childs play

reply to post by JB1234


Again you bring how life started into a discussion on evolution that only describes how life evolved.

Science clamours to create life. Even if that is true what does that have to do with evolution?

Particles that travel faster than the speed of light. Scientists are asking for this to be varified, these very same scientists are not saying it is so until it can be repeated and proved.

If proved it expands our knowledge it does not prove everything we know to be wrong. Sorry about that.

Evolutionists and all other science invites those that wish to test its findings. I dont see that as arrogance. Save that for those that have read a book that claims all the answers.

If it can be verified that homo erectus did not die out 140,000 years ago and became extinct later than that date then whoopee. You cannot keep asking if man evolved from a common ancestor where is the common ancestor. It does not however change what evolution shows us even if we find homo erectus living today.

Again no other explanation on the diversity we see without using evolution, just an attack on cherry picked issues you think you can challenge without offering anything in its place.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
reply to post by colin42

 

Ah, but if you want to be scientific, you have to prove evolution is true. The burden of proof lies there, not with people with other opinions. Frankly, there isn't any real proof, just speculation.

And if you want to challenge evolution then you must be scientific. Show us that there is no proof. Prove it is all speculation.

Explain the diversity. Show me examples. That is all I ask.

reply to post by colin42


HOw can you prove it wrong if it has not been proven right. Just wide acceptance. If it could prove, not hypothetically, how life began then it is right.


Till then it is wrong.

the only thing i wish evolution would explain to me. what stimulus were primates exposed to.. to begin their evolution to an intelligent being. If primates becoming man was the next obvious step for evolution why have other species not taken the same step??

why are there no felines evolving into intelligent life or canines?? why?? If evolving to intelligent life seemed to be the way to go why do these species not take it??

also why did primates decid to stop evolving to man?? why do we not see the process still happening in the wild? why did all the links between primates and man die out and not primates themselves.. if they are inferior to the evolution of man.. what is the point of an inferior level of evolution to continue existing.

obviously the stimulus for primates evolution was not survival.. what was the stimulus to evolve into man. and given that man really does not fit into nature why would it evolve into man... nature is quite harsh to us.

many nature shows you watch today crap on man being the reason the earth is dieing due to mans mistreatment of earth... why would nature evolve its own destruction?? if it is supposed to improve itself not kill itself off.

all these questions just lead me to believe evolution does not have all the answers. I don't say it has no merit i just think we put waaayyy to many eggs in that basket.

reply to post by colin42


The diversity of life we see on both land and sea...says nothing to me but the wonder of Creation.

Being made by a Creator that programmed a genetic code that had numerous variations within it is adaptation.

Man has adapted to his surroundings...such as Eskimos have blood well suited to colder climates. Yet they remain within their "kind" as Genesis describes it......not evolving into another species...simply an adaptation to fit better within their surroundings.

The thread contains both matters about the origin or life and also the theory of evolution... I was responding to both topics posted by others in this thread. I am well aware that they are seperate subjects.

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
colin you do realize you are dealing with a belief that a being with unlimited power created the whole universe, right ?

so creating some worms that live in the depths of the atlantic abyss is literally childs play

I have no interest in what created the whole universe. Something did obviously and as I have said before call it god/big bang or chemistry it has nothing to do with evolution.

reply to post by yaluk


You can address the question. If not evolution then what. You are saying no proof, prove it.

The evidence shows it is the best decription we have. The way to show it is wrong is to challenge the evidence. Saying it is wrong is not the way it is done. Prove it is wrong. Before you say that it is for evolution to prove. We say we have so now you have to catch up. That argument does not work.

A cat is evolved to play the part of a cat. It is successful in that role/niche what advantages would becoming slow, poor eyesight, bipedal larger brain give a cat? If it did then it would have to compete with us, already established. How much chance for survival would you give it?

You do not see evolution happening now because you refuse to see it TBH.

Man certainly does strive to survive so I dont understand that. The fact we are destroying our enviroment has nothing to do with evolution. The blame lays with greed and overpopulation and this too can be seen with many other successful species.

Originally posted by colin42

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
colin you do realize you are dealing with a belief that a being with unlimited power created the whole universe, right ?

so creating some worms that live in the depths of the atlantic abyss is literally childs play

I have no interest in what created the whole universe. Something did obviously and as I have said before call it god/big bang or chemistry it has nothing to do with evolution.

my point is that it could create anything at anytime, and creating 674,987,123,563,876,239,007,345 new species on planet earth every second of every day would be no sweat

he/she/it could evolve an unlimited number of species over thousands of millenia on trillions of planets with the wave of a magic wand

during nap time

reply to post by yaluk

why are there no felines evolving into intelligent life or canines?? why?? If evolving to intelligent life seemed to be the way to go why do these species not take it??

Probably because they are widely domesticated.... That is such a terrible argument for evolution being false: If it is not proven, it must be wrong? Wow, that is all I can really say. Maybe there is a reason we are the only intelligent life. Probably for the reason why our planet is the only one around (that we know of) that supports life. Conditions were right for our ancestors to evolve in a way that supported intelligence. If you do not understand evolution, and are here to merely squander it's name, you are being very counter productive and making your self look silly. What theory do you propose is correct?

reply to post by JB1234


Hey I dont mind keep repeating the message. Evolution is not and cannot explain creation.

The challenge in the OP was to explain the diverity wwe see without using Evolution. Because others have chosen to include creation is beyond my control as was the change of title.

As yet no one has answered this. It seems they cannot.

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by yaluk

 

You can address the question. If not evolution then what. You are saying no proof, prove it.

The evidence shows it is the best decription we have the way to show it is wrong is to challenge the evidence. Saying it is wrong is not the way it is done. Prove it is wrong. Before you say that it is for evolution to prove. We say we have so now you have to catch up. That argument does not work.

A cat is evolved to play the part of a cat. It is successful in that role/niche what advantages would becoming slow, poor eyesight, bipedal larger brain give a cat? If it did then it would have to compete with us, already established. How much chance for survival would you give it?

You do not see evolution happening now because you refuse to see it TBH.

Man certainly does strive to survive so I dont understand that. The fact we are destroying our enviroment has nothing to do with evolution. The blame lays with greed and overpopulation and this too can be seen with many other successful species.

Okay i have not seen a missing link leading up to a human existing today. so yeah i do not see it happening.

I also do not see other species evolving into intelligent life like primates did. Animals are becoming endangered or extinct. That would be stimulus enough to evolve. survival yet i don't see any evolution in felines or canines.

what stimulus leads to evolution.

the advantage lets say of a lion to evolve is to not be killed off by humans. eventually we will finish off other species whether we want to or not. why do they not evolve for survival. why?

what stimulus lead to the evolution of primates to man?? what stimulus why? what purpose why? we don't fit in nature, everything we have is artificial. we don't fit in nature. why was that the next step?? why?


If it is happening around me point it out?? point it out?

Okay it's not wrong, when was it proved right?? when? how and why? by asking for it to be proven wrong it has to be right.. explain to me why it is right? faith? or facts?

if faith then have fun with your mental masterbation.

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by JB1234

 

Hey I dont mind keep repeating the message. Evolution is not and cannot explain creation.

The challenge in the OP was to explain the diverity wwe see without using Evolution. Because others have chosen to include creation is beyond my control as was the change of title.

As yet no one has answered this. It seems they cannot.

it's actually easy. the forces that drive evolution, diversity, whatever you choose to call it, are divine right down to the spindle fibers. that's where she works her magic !

simple

reply to post by syrinx high priest


Ah I see. So you agree evolution is the answer. The creation part I'll leave to you.

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by syrinx high priest

 

Ah I see. So you agree evolution is the answer. The creation part I'll leave to you.

my beliefs are a seperate issue, I'm just answering your question

one way to see a process like cellular mitosis is random chaos leading to happy accidents that push a species to the forefront and ultimately survival over other species in an ecosystem

or

it could be the way she planned it all along

I mean when you are dealing with infinite power, how hard is it to guide the fibers anyway ?

childs play

reply to post by syrinx high priest


So another supporter of Evolution.

Yes your beliefs are a seperate issue and I would never try to make it otherwise so that is two thing we agree on

reply to post by yaluk


Missing link. Please see other answers as it is bedtime but it has been explained more than once.

Who are we to claim intelligent life is the best stratergy to ensure survival. You said yourself we are destroying our enviroment. The world and life will thrive long after we disapear and wont give us a second thought. We are fast becoming one of the least successful species, how clever is that.

Nope a lion only needs to pass on its genes. Any advantages it has is then passed on to its offspring. The Lions problem is not that it needs to evolve it is that it cannot compete with a bullet.

You may have come late to the thread and the title change is crap and not of my choosing. My question was if not evolution then what?

If evolution is wrong then what explanation do you have?

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by syrinx high priest

 

So another supporter of Evolution.

Yes your beliefs are a seperate issue and I would never try to make it otherwise so that is two thing we agree on

edit on 24-9-2011 by colin42 because: (no reason given)

I'm sorry I'm doing such a poor job of explaining myself. I was a biotechnology student a long time ago. watching a film about mitosis, as they showed the spindle fibers doing their thing, I had an epiphany of sorts, that maybe it's not an accident how they align and move, maybe there is an invisible divine hand !

it's funny, the more you study things in a scientific manner, sometimes you are confronted with something so amazing, so beatiful, so elegant in structure, and design, that you have to wonder if there is more to it than meets the eye

what I was trying to say is maybe the entire process of evolution right down to the amino acids, chromosomes, fibers, the whole kit and kaboodle is part of the divine

HOw can you prove it wrong if it has not been proven right. Just wide acceptance. If it could prove, not hypothetically, how life began then it is right.

reply to post by yaluk


Scientific hypotheses are rated according to their credibility.Scientific theory ranks very high in credibility and has been tested repeatedly as more and more data supports the hypothesis, the greater our confidence in it.

Till then it is wrong.

Sorry you missed the bus.

the only thing i wish evolution would explain to me. what stimulus were primates exposed to.. to begin their evolution to an intelligent being. If primates becoming man was the next obvious step for evolution why have other species not taken the same step??

Intelligence has obvious advantages that can help with survival, so it IS consistent with evolutionary theory.
Much of how larger brains evolved may be explained by neoteny (google it). Evolving a larger brain does not require large genetic change.
Your question on "why have other species not taken the same step??" is absurd and NOT well thought out at all.