Can you prove evolution wrong

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

No, it's not an educated guess. We use mathematical formulae to derive the mean, median, mode, and standard deviation.

No we don't, and if we did, how did they come up with that plan and what is it based on?

What, you think we just make that stuff up out of thin air? I assure you there is a mathematical and physical reality for every single number we use.

Originally posted by flyingfish
reply to post by BlackSatinDancer

 

LMAO! Your going to have to jump in a time machine and go back some 7 million years in order to hook up with your dream date.
Dream date

that's great.. good find but like the article says, it doesn't directly link apes to humans or chimps humans... it's just another example of an early hominid that is still much unlike chimps. there's no doubt in my mind that what they pass off as early hominids could have evolved into present day man because they are more like man than they are chimps.... but still no missing link.

the article even goes on to suggest that the only way to explain the stark difference in what we thought were are ancestors is that THEY *devolved*

that just digs the whole deeper in my opinion.

reply to post by HappyBunny

What, you think we just make that stuff up out of thin air? I assure you there is a mathematical and physical reality for every single number we use.

And what exactly do you think they used to come up with those numbers, what was it based on DNA, what?

reply to post by BlackSatinDancer


There's no such thing as devolution. Traits can resurface due to environmental and breeding pressures, but evolution is just the description of continuous change over time due to gene frequency shifts.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by BlackSatinDancer

 

There's no such thing as devolution. Traits can resurface due to environmental and breeding pressures, but evolution is just the description of continuous change over time due to gene frequency shifts.

If this is true then there is something wrong with that article.

Evolutionist hoax?

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

What, you think we just make that stuff up out of thin air? I assure you there is a mathematical and physical reality for every single number we use.

And what exactly do you think they used to come up with those numbers, what was it based on DNA, what?

edit on 5-3-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)

Traits, locations, nutrition, size, environment, etc. There are a lot of factors that can be derived from a fossil and where the fossil was formed. Once you derive the stats on the fossil, and you do this for a few dozen fossils from different time periods (based on stratification and radiometric dating), you can develop mathematical formulae for population distribution and movement.

ok, maybe i read something wrong... been up all night. i swear i thought it said something along those lines...about devolving or evolutionary decline or something....

I'm trying to read through the part where they start talking about apes instead of chimps saying that gorillas and chimps actually make a poor model of what might be our ancestors...and that apes have evolved fast in comparison... is that what it is saying. so now it's apes and not chimps.

We still can't make babies with apes and I'm sure that many on here would like a very detailed explanation of what is preventing them from doing this.

ok, ok... lack of sleep invokes delirium.

this still says to me 'we really have no idea but we changed our story a bit to compensate"

Originally posted by BlackSatinDancer

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by BlackSatinDancer

 

There's no such thing as devolution. Traits can resurface due to environmental and breeding pressures, but evolution is just the description of continuous change over time due to gene frequency shifts.

If this is true then there is something wrong with that article.

Evolutionist hoax?

Ok, I just read the article, and it said nothing about devolution. It was talking about how we have been assuming that our last common ancestor with chimps will be very chimp-like, ignoring the fact that chimps have been evolving for 5 million years since the divergence too. They're explaining that we don't know what the "missing link" will look like until we find it. Nothing really outlandish there.

Originally posted by BlackSatinDancer

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by BlackSatinDancer

 

There's no such thing as devolution. Traits can resurface due to environmental and breeding pressures, but evolution is just the description of continuous change over time due to gene frequency shifts.

If this is true then there is something wrong with that article.

Evolutionist hoax?

That was just one quick link from 09 there is more current data, no one is claiming to know everything there is no know about human origins.
Your men breeding with chimps was just too good to pass up.

Originally posted by BlackSatinDancer
We still can't make babies with apes and I'm sure that many on here would like a very detailed explanation of what is preventing them from doing this.

That's because our chromosome count is currently different than the other apes. And by the way, chimps are apes.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by BlackSatinDancer

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by BlackSatinDancer

 

There's no such thing as devolution. Traits can resurface due to environmental and breeding pressures, but evolution is just the description of continuous change over time due to gene frequency shifts.

If this is true then there is something wrong with that article.

Evolutionist hoax?

Ok, I just read the article, and it said nothing about devolution. It was talking about how we have been assuming that our last common ancestor with chimps will be very chimp-like, ignoring the fact that chimps have been evolving for 5 million years since the divergence too. They're explaining that we don't know what the "missing link" will look like until we find it. Nothing really outlandish there.

yeah, check out last post....

So we have actually no theory of WHAT animal we came from then... is that what you are saying?

oh, yeah yeah... but so are gorillas and the rest of the lots as well. i forget these things. i don't study apes.

but wha i want to know is that are they saying they have no idea what animal we are related to?

..and these hominids are very incomplete and hey do not even reveal what those hominds really looked like in full, so they might have looked pretty human one could argue, but most importantly... they are saying they do not know which species we could be related to and have evolved from and that we have no idea now for a missing link.

right?

Originally posted by BlackSatinDancer
yeah, check out last post....

So we have actually no theory of WHAT animal we came from then... is that what you are saying?

No, we're just not sure what traits we will inevitably share with our last common ancestor with chimps. It's unknown which traits developed first and what traits were bred out as our lines evolved separately.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by BlackSatinDancer
yeah, check out last post....

So we have actually no theory of WHAT animal we came from then... is that what you are saying?

No, we're just not sure what traits we will inevitably share with our last common ancestor with chimps. It's unknown which traits developed first and what traits were bred out as our lines evolved separately.

but that is not what the article sounds like it is trying to say.

It seems to be saying that in hindsight, chimps may be a poor example of an idea of what animal we are related to.
so they think it could be a different one, no?

reply to post by BlackSatinDancer


It's easy to garner a lot of information from only a few bones, especially hands and feet. The bones show muscles, well-used areas, where weight was shifted, etc. This is my area of study. It's not much guess-work.

Originally posted by BlackSatinDancer

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by BlackSatinDancer
yeah, check out last post....

So we have actually no theory of WHAT animal we came from then... is that what you are saying?

No, we're just not sure what traits we will inevitably share with our last common ancestor with chimps. It's unknown which traits developed first and what traits were bred out as our lines evolved separately.

but that is not what the article sounds like it is trying to say.

It seems to be saying that in hindsight, chimps may be a poor example of an idea of what animal we are related to.
so they think it could be a different one, no?

No, they are saying that chimps evolved too since then, so using their current traits as a template for a pre-5 million year old ancestor is pointless. It's not a different animal, just an ancestor with unknown traits.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by BlackSatinDancer

 

It's easy to garner a lot of information from only a few bones, especially hands and feet. The bones show muscles, well-used areas, where weight was shifted, etc. This is my area of study. It's not much guess-work.

well, that isn't really my question but ok.

still no missing link and apparent uncertainty if it was even chimps... sounds like.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by BlackSatinDancer

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by BlackSatinDancer
yeah, check out last post....

So we have actually no theory of WHAT animal we came from then... is that what you are saying?

No, we're just not sure what traits we will inevitably share with our last common ancestor with chimps. It's unknown which traits developed first and what traits were bred out as our lines evolved separately.

but that is not what the article sounds like it is trying to say.

It seems to be saying that in hindsight, chimps may be a poor example of an idea of what animal we are related to.
so they think it could be a different one, no?

No, they are saying that chimps evolved too since then, so using their current traits as a template for a pre-5 million year old ancestor is pointless. It's not a different animal, just an ancestor with unknown traits.

oh oh... ok... gotcha.

but in my opinion, no missing link is no missing link and we are very related to all species in some way... and if you go ALLL the way back... we all come from the same stuff to begin with. Still no explanation of the split for humans.

I think the bones are interesting but just how the hominid looked from a few bones is still very debatable.

not bones... fossils... sorry.

what if the split was to ALL creatures? You know, one big split... wouldn't that be odd.

I mean some animals are more alike than others even if it is a different species.. like a fox and a dog. or a cat and raccoon.

maybe we are no more related to chimps are than horses are to dogs... but more so than horses are to mice.

see what i am saying.

one big split out of the ooze or something.