Can you prove evolution wrong

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Well that depends on if you think evolution is real or a belief. I think its a belief. I haven't been provided with any information yet that doesn't say its a postulated or hypothetical theory.

Maybe its simply because they know they can't prove or witness macro evolution.

No, it doesn't depend on whether you think evolution is real. The science speaks for itself and was conducted by EXPERTS. You are not qualified enough to tell them they are wrong. Simple, fact of the matter. I posted actual science experiments. None of them are assumptions, and unless you have scientific experiments that counter it, you have absolutely nothing. Human mutation rates = studied, observed and proven. It's not a guess.

reply to post by Varemia

Well then how in the world did these people survive?

en.wikipedia.org...

They ate food only within a hundred mile radius, yet they were healthy as ever. I've read some places that eating locally is good for the immune system too, because you will adopt antibodies from some foods and become resistant to an area's diseases.

well.blogs.nytimes.com...

I never said you couldn't survive, its just a lot more work.

reply to post by Varemia

No, theories which have been tested in a lab, observed by hundreds of thousands of scientists, and accepted and debated at scientific panels are decidedly NOT science fiction.

You would have to be a moron to accept the WORD of a random guy writing a book for money over scientific discourse. I mean, you don't have to accept everything the scientific community comes out with, but you should understand that it's not just musings of some guy's imagination (which is technically what your guys do). It's a conglomeration of ideas backed up by evidence and critiqued by literally thousands of people.

So your excuse is that you just trust your guys to never lie. My excuse is that I am an active member in scientific discussions. When new evidence shows up, the theories are adjusted to be more in line with reality. When new evidence shows up against the ideas of your guys, you just dismiss it as made up stuff by "evolutionists."

Do you not see the hypocrisy?

Well like I have explained before, micro-evolution is based on current standards of the understanding of DNA. The fact that I have been pointing out over and over is that our basis for this is assumed averages when it comes to differences in a species. There is nothing scientific that can prove a species is changing per evolution, or per anything else when its not the norm. We are basing our norm on nothing scientific. So its a guess. Evolution is based on a guess, and I'm sorry but that just doesn't sound to scientific to me.

reply to post by HappyBunny

You know what, Toothy? Butt out. I do this for a living and have for the last 20+ years. You don't and I think it's safe to say you don't know what you're talking about.

Well then I got some years on you.

reply to post by Semicollegiate

Being happy is important to health.

No theory can be proven because the scientific method only checks a negative. If a thoery has stood the test of time you can gamble that it is a good approximation of reality and so use the theory to make a prediction in various relevant situations. If your predictions are true you know that the theory is even better and truer than before.
There will always be something about the theory that doesn't match reality exactly and that is why they say that a theory isn't proven.

It's not even that, you have to first ask yourself what it is exactly they are basing the understanding of change on.

reply to post by Barcs

No, it doesn't depend on whether you think evolution is real. The science speaks for itself and was conducted by EXPERTS. You are not qualified enough to tell them they are wrong. Simple, fact of the matter. I posted actual science experiments. None of them are assumptions, and unless you have scientific experiments that counter it, you have absolutely nothing. Human mutation rates = studied, observed and proven. It's not a guess.

Ya the only problem is the foundation of that science. Like I have explained many times over, they are assuming we know and understand what an evolutionary change would look like and I'm calling bs on that.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Well like I have explained before, micro-evolution is based on current standards of the understanding of DNA. The fact that I have been pointing out over and over is that our basis for this is assumed averages when it comes to differences in a species. There is nothing scientific that can prove a species is changing per evolution, or per anything else when its not the norm. We are basing our norm on nothing scientific. So its a guess. Evolution is based on a guess, and I'm sorry but that just doesn't sound to scientific to me.

The small changes that we witness in today's individuals through the study of gene transfers and human genetics prove evolution. If genes change and mutate, which they do, then evolution is true. It's that simple. All evolution is on the macroevolution scale is just a lot of microevolution. I've been trying to drill that into your head, but you refuse to understand it.

Look at it like this, this is a microevolutionary change:

1 = 2

This is a macroevolutionary change:

1 = 2 = 2.5 = 3 = 4 = 5 = 6 = 7 = 8 .... = 965

1 didn't suddenly become 965, it slowly changed over time. Make sense? (and before you may accidentally say something stupid, this has nothing to do with math. It's just a metaphor for what happens in real life)

reply to post by itsthetooth


I think we are the only animal that can be born with a cleft pallet. We are also the only animal that has a spinal cord coming out of the bottom of our head rather than the back of the head. Mutation is like that. Something got a "cleft pallet" in the back of its skull and it worked out because it had a tendancy to be fully erect.

I like the aquatic ape theory myself.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Semicollegiate

 

Being happy is important to health.

No theory can be proven because the scientific method only checks a negative. If a thoery has stood the test of time you can gamble that it is a good approximation of reality and so use the theory to make a prediction in various relevant situations. If your predictions are true you know that the theory is even better and truer than before.
There will always be something about the theory that doesn't match reality exactly and that is why they say that a theory isn't proven.

It's not even that, you have to first ask yourself what it is exactly they are basing the understanding of change on.

Its being based on everything we know. Its a guess, that physics will never change. So far they haven't. Which is why we assume they won't. But whats stopping gravity from all the sudden changing, and our Earth expanding suddenly to twice its size, I don't think that would be good for us. So should we abandon all of our theories, because the best we can do is say, we assume with 100% confidence, that the laws of physics are unchanging. But its just an assumption, so all our theories about physics, according to you, would not really be science. This is a silly notion, and probably borderline insane. I think people get caught up in others telling them what to believe, but this is nothing about that, we just have a bunch of scientists telling us what they see. A lot of people try to deny what they are seeing, but this is nonsense and goes nowhere. How do we know when a plane crashes it won't explode with the power of a nuclear bomb. I mean the crash will be horrific, and there will be lots of fire, but there won't be a nuclear explosion. But how do we know this? It surely has the energy potential, if we accept E=MC^2, but the best we can do is look at hundreds if not millions of examples in our past of explosions and how they work. Using an analysis of materials, and other factors, we can roughly determine what the explosion will be like, we know it won't be nothing, and we know it won't be nuclear. If you can transpose those concepts to that of evolution, we know certain traits are normal, based off averages of millions of species. We have determined normal vs. abnormal traits based on categorical averages of each species. This in turn gives us a picture, in which we can directly see what is within normalcy, and what isn't. How do we know what is abnormal isn't really normal? Because its based off data. The data tells us what is normal and what isn't. Nobody controls the data, we just observe it. If your saying this process doens't "sound" scientific to you, or doens't pose enough credibility to you, I don't know what the hell would.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Semicollegiate

 

Being happy is important to health.

No theory can be proven because the scientific method only checks a negative. If a thoery has stood the test of time you can gamble that it is a good approximation of reality and so use the theory to make a prediction in various relevant situations. If your predictions are true you know that the theory is even better and truer than before.
There will always be something about the theory that doesn't match reality exactly and that is why they say that a theory isn't proven.

It's not even that, you have to first ask yourself what it is exactly they are basing the understanding of change on.

The Greeks were the first culture we know of to assume that things happen in a cause and effect way that could be explained without constant divine intervention. Science is based on obervations of phenomena that can be seen, smelled, touched, tasted or heard by anyone. The most accurate and precise science is based on numbers derived from measurement, which is harder in biology.

The cycle of science is
Data collection
Hypothesis that explains the data
Test the hypothesis, an experiment-- the test must be able to fail if the hypothesis is essentially wrong
** this is where a huge jackpot can happen, sometimes a new phenomenon is discovered like vulcanized rubber or penicillin**
Peer review, retest of the experiment by other scientists
This is the level of most new studies that are reported in the news, hopefully not before this level.

Most scientists would not accept the theory as reliable at this point unless it was within a larger body of theories.

The understanding of change is based on the best scientific explainations that have not been proven wrong.

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
reply to post by itsthetooth

 

I think we are the only animal that can be born with a cleft pallet. We are also the only animal that has a spinal cord coming out of the bottom of our head rather than the back of the head. Mutation is like that. Something got a "cleft pallet" in the back of its skull and it worked out because it had a tendancy to be fully erect.

I like the aquatic ape theory myself.

Do you ever research any of your nonsense? Do a google search on cleft palate then name your animal. Been away for days and come back to read you writing completely wrong info still. Nothing changes

ok this will annoy most of you but its true,
science, maths, time, evolution,religeon are all infact made up by man to try to help us understand the world,
let me elaborate the science we know on this plannet while it helps us understand we do not have anywhere near complete knowledge and theres bull science hypothetical theorys ie made up,conjecture,balloney
maths man made numbers that might not be relevent in a distant solar system, science said life couldnt excist in the depths of the ocean with no light or oxygen but theres sulpher breathing organisms now found here on earth,
so science can be wrong fact.
if evolution happened what stopped it
dont come back with a smart comment about evolution happens over millions of years,because if thats true the apes in the trees now have been evolving for millions of years so then ya smart evolutionists why are they not still evoluting-(new word like it )wheres the human ape babies eh,so i discount darwin on the grounds that he did the best for the time he lived and the information he had available to him.,
now the religeons er most religeons say god or allah is above or whatever diety came from above ok i know religeon is to control the mentally weak but they can not all be wrong about the above bit ,to many religeons state this ,so what is this god who came from above,certainly no god
ok still with me ,on earth it is illegal in some countries to play with dna,well humans maybe it is also illegal in some galaxies, or even maybe earth was an alien collage for dna experiments but you humans will not have that as you think your special,sorry your not but part of our dna is,
let me put it another way ,take a look around you at the animals no look closer see anything
#yet? like how ridiculous some are,how beautifull some are ,and how koalas look stoned these animals can only have come from students and intergalatic stonners,look any way the point is someone come from above to earth and is known as god ,allah,jesus and a few others but they are essentially the same person/alien this is fact humans i dont care if you believe this,but its closer to the truth than you know,ive tried to help you humans now the rest is up to you

reply to post by stuthealien


You sound like you disapprove of what science is telling us, because you don't understand it yourself. All I can say is to read up, or take a class, because you don't seem to know what you are talking about.

reply to post by andersensrm


ok how can you say i dont understand science ha,like the science tesla gave us that the american goverment has been hiding like wireless power or should i say electro magnetic occilation which he invented in 1900,no obviously i do not understand science,or the fact carbon nanotubes are infact led pencil lines drawn on cellotape then the cellotape is melted away in a solution, no i dont undertstand humans trying to ridicle people because there brains cannot take in the information or who are taught using textbooks and the abillity to think outside the box is beyond them,one thing i can say that i will definately be cut up for scientific studies on my death will you?



edited bit ok bit of a long shot here ,not really relevent but maybe so relevent in the ground scheme of this site
wirless power ,surely this solar storm we are getting on earth is a sort of wireless power


edited again so wireless power transmitter resonates magnetic coil at specific frequency /possible sun
wireless reciever is set to resonate at same frequency/possible future earth devices requiring power

Originally posted by colin42

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
reply to post by itsthetooth

 

I think we are the only animal that can be born with a cleft pallet. We are also the only animal that has a spinal cord coming out of the bottom of our head rather than the back of the head. Mutation is like that. Something got a "cleft pallet" in the back of its skull and it worked out because it had a tendancy to be fully erect.

I like the aquatic ape theory myself.

Do you ever research any of your nonsense? Do a google search on cleft palate then name your animal. Been away for days and come back to read you writing completely wrong info still. Nothing changes

I thought wrong about the cleft pallet. I should have googled it.

But as an example of a possible part of the mechanism of puntuated equillibrium the cleft pallet is at least something.

reply to post by Semicollegiate
My Bad as well. I thought it was more of tooths nonsense so should have been a bit more respectful to you. Sorry.

Also where our spine enters the skull is also shown in the evolutionary path and the fossil records show this clearly.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Ya the only problem is the foundation of that science. Like I have explained many times over, they are assuming we know and understand what an evolutionary change would look like and I'm calling bs on that.

What is wrong with the foundation of that science? I want full details with facts to back it up. Evolution is just a label for genetic changes sorted by natural selection. Both of which are 100% verified scientific facts. That's the bottom line, regardless of how many times you repeat the same nonsense over and over.

Reply to post by BohemianBrim

The third option is that we were created by aliens, as self programmable biological machines that have the ability to evolve in response to our everchanging environment.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by Barcs


fact that is baloney,the fact is there is no missing link unless its in your cupboard so science is claiming fact without the vital missing link ,so they are fabricating erm lets look up fabricating on a theosaurus can any one look that up for me please

reply to post by stuthealien
The fact is you are correct. There is no missing link because there is no such thing as the missing link.

Asking for a missing link in fact shows you do not understand evolution at all.

Transitional Fossil