Can you prove evolution wrong

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by idmonster

 

You just increased your star rating by one. Thanks

Make that two. That was a fantastic post and directly to the point.

reply to post by HappyBunny
Fantastic post HB. Shows real knowledge and a love for the subject matter. Certainly informed me enough to take a copy.

Thanks again.

reply to post by Barcs

Why are you saying it doesn't prove anything? You said that if evolution was true we should be able to sample DNA from bones 200,000 years ago and compare it to today to see the changes. We DID. That's why we are different from Neanderthal and others. That's how we know that humans have genetically changed since that time.

But I'm not reading anything that says any link was found in those tests.

Wrong again. The entire structure of science is based on the scientific method of gathering facts. It has nothing to do with the probability or whatever you're trying to suggest by using a non scientific, relative term such as "normal".

I think in terms of knowing what variables are possible with any given species, I don't think they have a clue.

I think your totally missing the point, there is NO WAY they could know what variables are normal within a species unless they are just going with what they assume to be normal.

You are clearly not understanding or intentionally pretending genetic mutations don't exist. If they exist, then evolution also MUST EXIST, because evolution IS genetic change sorted by natural selection. There's no other way you can describe it. We are talking science, and scientific definitions. If genetic mutation is "normal", then evolution is "normal".

Of course they exist, but the problem is that if you honestly think this is how we evolved into man, it would take trillions of years to happen.

Why is believing what the evidence suggests, poor? Genetic mutation is proven to exist. That's all evolution is, besides adaptation. You keep on trying to make up your own definition of evolution, but it's not going to work. Not all mutations are harmful and if you actually read the scientific experiments I posted on mutation rates, you'd know that there are several different kinds. A basic google search would work as well.

I also think its a little odd that we have all this proof that it exists, yet cant prove its what happened to us to get us to where we are.

reply to post by colin42

I see you are still running from your 'balanced eco system in a bottle' despite me posting it 3 times for you now and you have the cheek to say I do not respond to your statements.

Well that's because there are businesses that sell them, as a fact of life. I know this is suppose to be colins world on this thread but it seriously cracks me up with you contradict fact.

You never own up to the fact that you are wrong on anything. Sorry man, you were wrong on this one, they are selling eco balanced fish tanks right now as we are talking.

So much for you putting forward a good case. With every avoidance, every run and hide you prove me correct and show the dishonest way you take part in this thread. So what is the runaway list now?

Wolves, Ants, Shrimps, House Sparrows, Milk, Honey, diversity, Balanced eco systems, Bushmen. Not bad for a guy that claims to have discussed everthing and won. Keep running boy but you cant hide..

You never disproved the balanced eco tank, so I'm not hiding from anything. It sounds more like your trying to hide in plain site.

reply to post by HappyBunny

This is directly related to my profession so I can answer this. I deal with this stuff for a living. Worldwide, the average height for males is currently only 5'8", which is only an inch taller than your average Cro Magnon and Neanderthal. The worldwide average for women is 5'3". We Americans and Brits are shrinking slightly for several reasons. (Cro Magnon wasn't 6 inches taller than Neanderthal, by the way. They were actually roughly the same size. There have been a few Neanderthal male skeletons measuring around 5'10".)

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Look at what we use to determine the average and variables of any species. This is what I have basing my recent argument on. I'm not seeing anything like according to strands blah blah blah, our species is only allowed heights differences of 1 foot up and down from 6 feet. No we base our variables on whats common.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Well that's because there are businesses that sell them, as a fact of life. I know this is suppose to be colins world on this thread but it seriously cracks me up with you contradict fact.

There are a lot of businesses that sell things that are fake and there are fools that buy them. There are science fiction writers that sell books to fools about a star child pretending it is a scientific fact and there are fools that buy them and accept it no questions asked. Yeah crimminal isnt it.

You never own up to the fact that you are wrong on anything. Sorry man, you were wrong on this one, they are selling eco balanced fish tanks right now as we are talking.

And you never discuss the points made. How do you explain a shrimp with a 20 year life span dying within 1 to 3 years and still claim a balanced eco system? Your avoidance is infantile

You never disproved the balanced eco tank, so I'm not hiding from anything. It sounds more like your trying to hide in plain site.

Again How do you explain a shrimp with a 20 year life span dying within 1 to 3 years. How do you explain the and nitrite poisoning the shrimp eventually dies from?

DID YOU EVEN READ THE POST SHOWING YOU THIS? What am I saying of course you didnt. And so further down the dishonest slope you slide.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
I think your reading into something that wasn't there. I didn't get anything out of it about genetics changing. What I did get out of it was proof that neanderthal man bred with humans, and thats it.

The point was that the entire genome has been mapped, so we can analyze it and tell exactly what the differences are between homo sapiens of the past and homo sapiens of today. The gene for lighter skin evolved originally in Neanderthals because they lived in Europe for 300,000 years, during a few ice ages, eventually it was shared with homo sapiens when they bred.

Then please show me the scientific fact that tells us that brown, blue, green eyes are normal and why, since its scientific.

Dude, I just CLEARLY explained that "normal" is not a scientific term and has nothing to do with this. Eye color is based on genes being dominant or recessive and being passed down to the offspring accordingly. There is no such thing as "normal". Sometimes people are even born with 2 different eye colors.

Of course some exist, look at Tunguska Russia. Anyhow, all I'm saying is that some of these changes might not be from evolution or mutation, it could just be natural occurances.

Name one single change in a species that isn't caused by mutation. Good luck. Again, you keep trying to define evolution in your own terms, instead of reading the scientific definition. Evolution is change over time caused by genetic mutation and sorted by natural selection. Before you were claiming that humans have not changed and I proved you wrong. Now you are saying they do change, but it's not evolution. Give me evidence of that please. Remember this thread is about explaining diversity without evolution. Now's your chance to do it.

If you are talking about a hypothetical postulated theory, then you would be correct. I don't live by those terms, I go by something a little more solid, like scientific theory, or scientific fact.

Evolution is a scientific theory based on scientific facts. But I guess you don't live by scientific facts, you ignore them.

If you believe that all life as we know it was a branch of genetic mutations, that would take trillions of years for it to happen. How do you explalin that when earth is only 4 billion years old.

Ugggg. Here we go back to this old tired argument. Please prove to me that it would take trillions of years. I want scientific data to back it up. We can measure the mutation rates, and if anything people are theorizing that the rate is TOO FAST not too slow.

Your describing a mechanism that could easier be understood as a bug. A bug that is not only smart enough to change our DNA, but actually know what its doing. A bug that can hide its appearnace and endevours. Now a bug with these credentials must be intelligent, so now its looking like intelligence is behind this in the form of a bug. I'm sorry man, I just don't buy it.

Now you're just making stuff up. There is no science anywhere that suggests evolution is a bug or that it is conscious and knows what its doing. It replicates itself like all living cells. Sorry man, I just don't buy what you are selling. Maybe it would be easier if we stopped using the word "evolution", because that is just a label of the process. Let's focus on what is scientifically proven.

1. Genetic mutation exists - this is the first absolute stone cold fact.

2. Natural selection exists - we can see it in action today

There are several kinds of genetic mutations, and they can be measured and detected. They are caused by various factors. Failed replication, low radiation, other environmental factors. If those 2 things above are facts, then evolution is a fact as well. You just can't comprehend it because you have to imagine years in terms of thousands or millions, when in fact you will only live 60-90 years.

reply to post by itsthetooth
So explain why africans dominate the sprint events. Why Ethiopians dominate the marathon and europeans the swimming. What are the 'allowed normals' there?

reply to post by colin42

There are a lot of businesses that sell things that are fake and there are fools that buy them. There are science fiction writers that sell books to fools about a star child pretending it is a scientific fact and there are fools that buy them and accept it no questions asked. Yeah crimminal isnt it.

OMG you are so incredulous. Did you miss the fact that I had a friend that had one so I know they are real?

As far as the star child being a fake, I haven't read any reviews that prove it to be a fake so I think your blowing smoke.

And you never discuss the points made. How do you explain a shrimp with a 20 year life span dying within 1 to 3 years and still claim a balanced eco system? Your avoidance is infantile

Well that is obviously not an ideal balance then. I never said all human attempts at this were perfect.

Again How do you explain a shrimp with a 20 year life span dying within 1 to 3 years. How do you explain the and nitrite poisoning the shrimp eventually dies from?

DID YOU EVEN READ THE POST SHOWING YOU THIS? What am I saying of course you didnt. And so further down the dishonest slope you slide.

Just because you found a weak example of an eco system doesn't mean that they don't exist.

reply to post by colin42

So explain why africans dominate the sprint events. Why Ethiopians dominate the marathon and europeans the swimming. What are the 'allowed normals' there?

They are different races for one, it is possible that there design is simply different for different purpose.
You have to also weigh environment. Some of these people are subject to different environments allowing them to reach different goals. There is no magical evolution bug at work here.

reply to post by itsthetooth

OMG you are so incredulous. Did you miss the fact that I had a friend that had one so I know they are real?

OMG you are so stupid. Did you miss the post I supplied 3 times showing you the correct link that you got wrong but giving you an explanation of why it is not a balanced eco system.

I never claimed that these torture tanks do not exist, I showed you they are not a balanced eco system.

As far as the star child being a fake, I haven't read any reviews that prove it to be a fake so I think your blowing smoke.

Yeah. I remember a government official saying there is no evidence for Gulf War Syndrome. He also answered NO to the next question, is any science being done to identify it. You just have not looked and refuse to look.

Well that is obviously not an ideal balance then. I never said all human attempts at this were perfect.

You have said in your last two replies that it shows a balanced eco system you nob

Just because you found a weak example of an eco system doesn't mean that they don't exist.

It was your weak example you complete muppet. You have not shown an example of a balanced eco system so cannot honestly maintain they exist.

Your claim you have made a good argument is as pathetic as all your rediculous statments drawn from ignorance.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

This is directly related to my profession so I can answer this. I deal with this stuff for a living. Worldwide, the average height for males is currently only 5'8", which is only an inch taller than your average Cro Magnon and Neanderthal. The worldwide average for women is 5'3". We Americans and Brits are shrinking slightly for several reasons. (Cro Magnon wasn't 6 inches taller than Neanderthal, by the way. They were actually roughly the same size. There have been a few Neanderthal male skeletons measuring around 5'10".)

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Look at what we use to determine the average and variables of any species. This is what I have basing my recent argument on. I'm not seeing anything like according to strands blah blah blah, our species is only allowed heights differences of 1 foot up and down from 6 feet. No we base our variables on whats common.

Actually, I think you're missing the point. There is no rule that says one foot on either side. It's not even true mathematically. The people in the centuries following the Black Death failed to achieve their genetic potential due to factors outside their control. Bottom line is this: there is a huge variation in genetic height, and that genetic height is determined by many factors. Under the right conditions, we may see height increase even further, but as we approach 8 feet our bodies will have to adapt and we'd have to see a major restructuring of many body systems to cope with the load. In other words, we'd have to mutate, just as we did when we first started walking upright.

Do you know what a statistical average or mean is? It doesn't mean no one ever falls outside of those parameters. Nowadays there are plenty of 7 footers who do just fine. Until recently, big bodies were a liability--they use up too many calories and too much energy. But now that trait is cultivated and encouraged. We love our basketball players. The more we encourage that trait, the more common it will become. For their sport, they are normal. Just as 4'9" gymnasts are normal. For as long as a trait isn't weeded out, it'll be with us.

As I mentioned in another thread, there were skeletons found in China dating back 3000 years in which a mummy was 6'6". The Dutch average 6'1". The Danes are right behind at 6 feet. The tallest people in the world, the Maasai, are well over 6 feet tall. Some sources say the men average 6'6". Contrast that with their neighbors, the pygmys, who average 4'6".

So clearly, a genetic height approaching 7 feet is entirely possible but for you to be correct, the pygmys would also have to grow another half a foot and sustain that growth, and there's no evidence that that's happening. Eight feet is pushing it--possible, but not likely without a wholesale adjustment of our physique. And height is to a certain degree inheritable. What you inherit, though, is the potential for achieving a particular height. Whether or not you do is dependent on other factors.

ETA: People who are cold adapted tend to be shorter, with shorter legs. It conserves energy and retains heat by keeping it closer to the core. Warm adapted people can afford to be taller.

reply to post by itsthetooth
I just thought of the reason why you go on about this mythical evolution bug

You are Pinocchio. Is the bug Jiminy? Your nose must be massive by now

From wiki

Pinocchio is often a term used to describe an individual who is prone to telling lies, fabricating stories and exaggerating or creating tall tales for various reasons.

reply to post by Barcs

The point was that the entire genome has been mapped, so we can analyze it and tell exactly what the differences are between homo sapiens of the past and homo sapiens of today. The gene for lighter skin evolved originally in Neanderthals because they lived in Europe for 300,000 years, during a few ice ages, eventually it was shared with homo sapiens when they bred.

Which is all fine, but for the second time now, evolution has nothing to do with mixed breeding. There is nothing that proves this mixed breeding has anything to do with evolution.

Dude, I just CLEARLY explained that "normal" is not a scientific term and has nothing to do with this. Eye color is based on genes being dominant or recessive and being passed down to the offspring accordingly. There is no such thing as "normal". Sometimes people are even born with 2 different eye colors

So now that we have both established that "normal" is NOT a scientific term, now I ask how is it that we assess evolutionary changes to accept them as such?

Name one single change in a species that isn't caused by mutation. Good luck. Again, you keep trying to define evolution in your own terms, instead of reading the scientific definition. Evolution is change over time caused by genetic mutation and sorted by natural selection. Before you were claiming that humans have not changed and I proved you wrong. Now you are saying they do change, but it's not evolution. Give me evidence of that please. Remember this thread is about explaining diversity without evolution. Now's your chance to do it.

Breeding.

Evolution is a scientific theory based on scientific facts. But I guess you don't live by scientific facts, you ignore them.

Ok I haven't seen any facts, all the links I have been given say they are postulated and hypothetical theory's, nothing about facts.

Ugggg. Here we go back to this old tired argument. Please prove to me that it would take trillions of years. I want scientific data to back it up. We can measure the mutation rates, and if anything people are theorizing that the rate is TOO FAST not too slow.

Well its quite simple actually. First your trying to tell me that starting out as apes, we became another species, and humans have them as a common ancestor. To go through all of the changes to allow this to happen would take trillions of years. There is no benchmark, so you are right that most people complain it being to fast, and that's looking at it in existing terms. The problem is that it couldn't have happened in this short of time though microevoltuion or macroevoltuion. Since macro is just micro many times over, it would take trillions of years.

IMO none of these events are real, in any time frame. We have no evidence that has ever proven conclusively that any species became another species. It's something that supposedly happens all the time, even today, but happens over long enough periods of time as so it can't be witnessed. So looking at bones and fossils we are still unable to identify this process. I call total BS on it.

Now you're just making stuff up. There is no science anywhere that suggests evolution is a bug or that it is conscious and knows what its doing. It replicates itself like all living cells. Sorry man, I just don't buy what you are selling.

The evolution bug is made up but fits well with the rest of the evolution theory's. It is in fact the ONLY way I can see to understand these magical changes that happen. I believe that everything happens for a reason, and evolution would be no exception to the rule.

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by itsthetooth

 

So explain why africans dominate the sprint events. Why Ethiopians dominate the marathon and europeans the swimming. What are the 'allowed normals' there?

edit on 1-3-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)

Training. As long as those abilities are encouraged in a culture, they'll continue to exist. But I'll bet not every Kenyan can run a marathon, nor every European win the gold medal.

reply to post by colin42

OMG you are so stupid. Did you miss the post I supplied 3 times showing you the correct link that you got wrong but giving you an explanation of why it is not a balanced eco system.

I never claimed that these torture tanks do not exist, I showed you they are not a balanced eco system.

And I'm saying so what you got a bum link, I still know they exist as I had a friend that owned one.

Yeah. I remember a government official saying there is no evidence for Gulf War Syndrome. He also answered NO to the next question, is any science being done to identify it. You just have not looked and refuse to look.

Actually your wrong again, I have looked and never found anything.

You have said in your last two replies that it shows a balanced eco system you nob

Sure, but in your opinion, its not so balanced. I'm saying so what, they still exist even if you found one not so balanced.

Ok colin since your being so incredulous, here are some more links for you to tear up.

www.advancedaquarist.com...
www.ohgizmo.com...
It's ok colin I know your still learning how to use google so I will do it for you.

It was your weak example you complete muppet. You have not shown an example of a balanced eco system so cannot honestly maintain they exist.

Your claim you have made a good argument is as pathetic as all your rediculous statments drawn from ignorance.

Well then it looks like you got your work cut out for you again, you need to notify all these vendors that there is no such thing.

reply to post by HappyBunny
I was of the understanding Ethiopinas that live at altitude on average have enlarged lung capacity.

There are plenty of white sprinters that train but never reach the medal stand which is dominated by afro and afrocarribean sprinters.

I dont think it is just down to training TBH

reply to post by itsthetooth

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by itsthetooth

 

You utter trolling fool

I don't know, I have a friend that had a sealed tank that was good for many years. It's probably just the shrimp in the bottle that has such a short life, not really balanced. Anyhow, your welcome to research it yourself and see if you can find anymore tanks, I know I have seen them. And where do you get this running, no one is running from anything here. I think its your imagination running away with you, and sad to say but it seems to be doing that a lot.

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by itsthetooth

 

First thing first another of my posts you side stepped

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by itsthetooth

 

So you even get your post wrong. This is the link you should have supplied

[Ecosphere

Below is a comment made by an ex owner

Ecosphere's are quite cruel! The shrimps inside suffer from ammonia and nitrite poisoning, the little bit of algae isn't enough for the shrimps to survive well, and because of this every time they molt the shrimps consumes itself, growing smaller each time! The only reason they can live for 1 - 3 years in the torture chamber is because these Hawaiian Red Shrimps are extremely hardy. Most shrimps wouldn't survive more than a few days!

So it is algea and a shrimp. So much for algea free. Notice the comments the shrimps suffer from ammonia and nitrate poisoning this shows you there is no balance.

BTW also no fish and no plant.
From page 254
Here is a thing.

The Halocaridina rubra: The Hawaiian red volcano shrimp

Red Volcano Shrimp

These unique shrimp have been dubbed “super shrimp” for being highly adaptive and for having one of the longest life spans of any shrimp specie- up to twenty years! Keeping these creatures healthy and happy should be easy and the reward is hours of entertainment for many years.

So the ex owner says 1 to 3 years tops in the globe yet these shrimps have one of the longest lifespans of all shrimp, 20 years. They must truely be torture chambers for the poor shrimp and certainly not a balanced eco system.

And I'm saying so what you got a bum link, I still know they exist as I had a friend that owned one.

You are just too dense to be human Pinocchio. Again I corrected your link. Inever wrote they did not exist and you answer again shows you read nothing supplied.

On your toes boy. Time to run again but this time please keep going.

edit on 1-3-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by itsthetooth
I think your reading into something that wasn't there. I didn't get anything out of it about genetics changing. What I did get out of it was proof that neanderthal man bred with humans, and thats it.

The point was that the entire genome has been mapped, so we can analyze it and tell exactly what the differences are between homo sapiens of the past and homo sapiens of today. The gene for lighter skin evolved originally in Neanderthals because they lived in Europe for 300,000 years, during a few ice ages, eventually it was shared with homo sapiens when they bred.

Then please show me the scientific fact that tells us that brown, blue, green eyes are normal and why, since its scientific.

Dude, I just CLEARLY explained that "normal" is not a scientific term and has nothing to do with this. Eye color is based on genes being dominant or recessive and being passed down to the offspring accordingly. There is no such thing as "normal". Sometimes people are even born with 2 different eye colors.

Thank you. This is what I was trying to get at--and I don't think I explained it very well. With all the genetic variation out there, the best we can say is that a certain percentage has a particular eye color, not that such and such is "normal".

For example, less than 2% of the population has blue eyes. I have blue eyes. Does that make me abnormal? (Or Abby Normal?)

In my field, we use the statistical mean all the time, but they're not adjusted for race and ethnicity. They're adjusted for age.

reply to post by HappyBunny


Now see, everything that your going on about in height differences and so on, shows what we consider normal and safe, and how we base that. We used to think being 8' tall was unhealthy. Based on......??????? we use an assumption based on normalcy. There is no scientific rule that tells us that being 8' tall is unhealthy. We look at everything about life in this way. We make assumptions based on what we consider to be normal.