Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by itsthetooth

I never said that I blame all of my lifes problems on aliens, its actually written to be so, there is a difference.

You dont have too. Its obvious to everyone you do not have both oars in the water. We have seen how you read only what you want even if what is in black and white infront of you says something completely different.

It's one thing if I just believed in something that I pulled out of thin air while I'm simply understanding things more correctly.

Your understanding things more correctly? You need to educate yourself to do that and you have the least education of anyone I have ever met.

This is why you never get anywhere arguing with me about having a faith or religion, I have neither.

Complete self delusion. All you have is faith and blind faith at that, which is why you have provided no evidence at all

It's complicated but it would appear that everyone has once again dropped the ball in understanding.

And you keep acussing others of thinking they are right and everyone else is wrong.

Understanding is not a faith.
Understanding is not a religion.
Understanding is not a belief.

Claiming to understand something whilst denying everything that shows you wrong is not a faith either. Its ignorance.

To understand something you must first learn about it. Everything you claim is only in your head and only you believe it. That is a faith and all those lies you put forwards to protect your faith will rot you from the inside.

It would appear that you all of you that don't understand are just not qualified to read the book, much less understand it.

Typical response from the faithful.

You lack the credentials to understand it, so you mock it. A typical reaction from a child.

We are mocking you, poor deluded fool that you are.

reply to post by itsthetooth

And I'm suppose to believe this from someone that believes that humans and apes are the same species.

We can't exchange genes with apes, so clearly we aren't the same species...which is why nobody said we're different species. However, DNA analysis and the fossil record both confirm we have a common ancestor with today's apes.

It's true, you have bushmen on the brain, more than I have aliens.

You have ZERO proof of any alien components in your brain, however, biologically you are the same as some random bushman in the jungle. You are of a different race, but you are 100% the same species. Why? Because you can create offspring with bushmen (well...the women anyway).

If they don't have our genes, they don't have our defects.

They have the same genes as us

Now here is where you always take things to an extreme in your direction. Just because bushmen shared some medicinal ideas does not mean they cornered the market in the idea.

No one's saying that either. However, through trial and error bushman were able to come up with medicine...like pain killers. We still create medicine through trial and error today, even though we are using modern technology. Why do you think large pharma companies run trials in the first place?

No I'm not, in fact I'm sure the bushmen are not responsible for any medication I have taken.

That's because medicine progresses all the time thanks to science...so it makes sense that you wouldn't use the same medicine as they use in the bush. Just like you wouldn't ride a carriage instead of driving a car nowadays.

What I'm trying to say is there might not be gametic isolation between alien humanoids.

There is no such thing as "alien humanoids", and you haven't presented any objective evidence proving otherwise

No its not your basing a simple finding on a reaction or the lack of. Which doesn't in fact prove gametic isolation. Gametic isolation proves gametic isolation, not simply trying to breed, and failing.

If you were a different species than bushmen, you couldn't mix DNA...which you can, so CLEARLY you are of the same species. That's a FACT

Not at all, there is no faith, so there is no religion. Futhermore I'm simply reading things from the correct perspecitve, where as it hasn't been in the past. So at best you can say, its a new understanding. However you can't even use the word new because I'm not the first to agree with it. Looks like your really behind here.

Your entire argument is based on faith because you impressively fail at presenting any evidence proving your point!

Well the only problem with your snake oil theory is that it requires a belief and a believer, none of which applies here. I simply understand correctly, there is a difference.

Given that your entire hypothesis lacks objective evidence, it is entirely based on belief and faith

So you think that successfully breeding is what identifies a species? What about when a horse breeds with a donkey to produce a mule, what do you call that?

Try to get 2 mules to mate...they are STERILE!!

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

Worse he believes they are a different species. Disgustingly ignorant world view.

It reminds me of a quote:

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

Even Darwin was aware of the cultural differences--by the time he wrote Descent, he didn't attribute the differences to racial superiority unlike others of his time. Frazier comes to mind. So do de Gobineau and Muller.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia

 

What do you mean "allowed?" If we can pull a bushman out of his home, where he has lived off the land successfully for thousands of years with few health problems and a fairly long life (60 years or so is extremely lengthy in the wild for any animal as most die of health complications), we could put that bushman right into modern society. There would be a learning curve, sure, but he would survive, and he could have children with other humans, because that's what defines a species.

So you think that successfully breeding is what identifies a species? What about when a horse breeds with a donkey to produce a mule, what do you call that?

edit on 14-3-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)

The mule is sterile--that is the difference. The offspring must be fertile.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by iterationzero

 

I'm going to assume your referring to me.

I never said that I blame all of my lifes problems on aliens, its actually written to be so, there is a difference.

It's one thing if I just believed in something that I pulled out of thin air while I'm simply understanding things more correctly. There is a big difference. This is why you never get anywhere arguing with me about having a faith or religion, I have neither. It's complicated but it would appear that everyone has once again dropped the ball in understanding.

Understanding is not a faith.
Understanding is not a religion.
Understanding is not a belief.
It would appear that you all of you that don't understand are just not qualified to read the book, much less understand it.
You lack the credentials to understand it, so you mock it. A typical reaction from a child.

The hallmark of a pseudointellectual is that they think they understand everything.

I wish you had less understanding and more wisdom, Toothy.

reply to post by colin42

TextCan you prove evolution wrong

Easy.
1. It cannot be duplicated.

2. Language: Language doesn’t fit into the equation, therefore, evolution is obsolete in the equation of the minds on earth because it doesn’t explain the varieties of the many languages that exists here today.

Originally posted by LastProphet527
reply to post by colin42

 

TextCan you prove evolution wrong

Easy.
1. It cannot be duplicated.

BS. We do it all the time in the lab.

2. Language: Language doesn’t fit into the equation, therefore, evolution is obsolete in the equation of the minds on earth because it doesn’t explain the varieties of the many languages that exists here today.

More BS. Have you never considered that maybe language is as natural to us as breathing or walking upright? Other species have language: whales, dolphins, porpoises, and apes, just to name a few. They may not "speak" the way we do, but to say they're not communicating is just plain wrong.

Look at the way deaf babies "babble" with their hands the way hearing children do with their voices. Sign language isn't just a shortcut way for deaf people to talk, you know. It's a full-fledged, mature language with an extensive vocabulary, grammar, and syntax.

Language is an innate trait--if we can't vocalize it, we'll find another way.

Originally posted by LastProphet527
reply to post by colin42

 

TextCan you prove evolution wrong

Easy.
1. It cannot be duplicated.

2. Language: Language doesn’t fit into the equation, therefore, evolution is obsolete in the equation of the minds on earth because it doesn’t explain the varieties of the many languages that exists here today.

1) It has been duplicated THOUSANDS of times in modern medicine. If the theory were wrong, we wouldn't have a lot of the meds we have today. And of course to be classified as a scientific theory, it has to be testable and verifiable...which it is.

2) Evolution fully explains how speech evolved. Dolphins for example have speech too, just different from us. The variety in languages has nothing to do with biology (and therefore evolution), but rather migratory trends and linguistics.

In short...you haven't proven the theory wrong

reply to post by HappyBunny
I would add language is universal. I know of no animal that does not communicate in some way from ants and bees to dogs and cats.

I know what my dog wants whether it is to play, be fed or just want a stroke without him making a noise. I can tell the difference between a playful, scared, alarmed or angry bark.

So in short I would say that not only is language universal but also basic emotions.

Originally posted by colin42
I would add language is universal. I know of no animal that does not communicate in some way from ants and bees to dogs and cats.

I know what my dog wants whether it is to play, be fed or just want a stroke without him making a noise. I can tell the difference between a playful, sacred, alarmed or angry bark.

Just like you can with babies. You can tell if a baby is tired, hungry, needs a change, or is just plain fussy, just from their crying.

So in short I would say that not only is language universal but also basic emotions.

Agreed.

Edited to add: Two articles of interest.

www.physorg.com...

www.dailymail.co.uk...

reply to post by Varemia

A mule is a dead-end species. It cannot mate with other mules, horses, or what have you. Horses and donkeys produce offspring that is not fertile, and the only reason they can make a mule at all is because they are close enough in evolutionary descent to have chromosomes that pair up.

Come on man, do some homework before you post here and look like a fool.

OMG you are such a fool, right like just one generation later they cant breed. It's suppose to happen over millions of years, right dude.

reply to post by Varemia

There is no gametic isolation between humans that live in cities and the humans that we call bushman. They only get that name because of where and how they live, and they do live, not difficultly like you suggest. They thrive.

Stop being so ignorant.

Well this contradicts what Verema just said. Because Mules can't mate with anything and thats just one lineage. Not over time.

reply to post by colin42

And here again you use the deflective lie to avoid addressing the point. Your racism.

Thats what I remember you saying, apes are people too.

Anyhow there is nothing racist about it.

Truth is you have no answer to the bushman. Time for you to run again.

Way I see it, there is no question, I think this is where you always become tongue tied not realizing I'm not going to answer when there is no question, or question mark.

Now show the proof that proves they dont have our genes.

Lesson in the English language, notice how I used the work if. It's speculation.

No. This is where you, as always refuse to admit your wrong. Its why I have no respect for you at all.

What are you talking about Otis, I have admitted when I'm wrong.

You can only be sure if you have investigated. Perhaps ask your wards nurse. Mental home staff are usually pretty knowledgable about the sedations they administer

Dude please your killing me, I'm crying I'm laughing so hard. Bushmen are not responsible for creating our medicinal industry.

You seriously have bushmen on the brain.

Another lie to cover a lie about a commitment to lie.

Well your lie detector is out of whack then.

reply to post by colin42

You dont have too. Its obvious to everyone you do not have both oars in the water. We have seen how you read only what you want even if what is in black and white infront of you says something completely different.

Actually I read everything, your just not happy with my findings, which are true.

Your understanding things more correctly? You need to educate yourself to do that and you have the least education of anyone I have ever met.

Just remember whilst your saying this, that your the one that isn't using question marks at the end of questions, and also the one that believes we are all bushmen, and brothers with apes.

Complete self delusion. All you have is faith and blind faith at that, which is why you have provided no evidence at all

I have no basis for faith, or any need. Now you on the other hand are in evolutionism.

And you keep acussing others of thinking they are right and everyone else is wrong

When there are to many documented facts that add up, and what other people are contesting don't, there you go.

Claiming to understand something whilst denying everything that shows you wrong is not a faith either. Its ignorance.

To understand something you must first learn about it. Everything you claim is only in your head and only you believe it. That is a faith and all those lies you put forwards to protect your faith will rot you from the inside.

I haven't found anything yet to show me wrong, I'm still looking and that is why I'm on this thread. It does seem pretty dead though and there isn't anything with honest resistance. If your calling my understanding a faith, then your challenging me by saying I have it all wrong. In other words you know more about faith then I do. So my question is what do you think I have wrong?

Typical response from the faithful.

Everytime you say faith, I know you don't understand because its not about faith.

We are mocking you, poor deluded fool that you are.

Then I would be right again.

reply to post by MrXYZ

We can't exchange genes with apes, so clearly we aren't the same species...which is why nobody said we're different species. However, DNA analysis and the fossil record both confirm we have a common ancestor with today's apes.

I think your reach into this matter is from a child perspective. It's easy to think what your thinking but there could be other issues that don't allow breeding, not related to gametic isolation. It's just feeble way to try to identify things, and I think science is a little better than that.

You have ZERO proof of any alien components in your brain, however, biologically you are the same as some random bushman in the jungle. You are of a different race, but you are 100% the same species. Why? Because you can create offspring with bushmen (well...the women anyway).

Actually thats not true, I believe that transpermia is possible, and probably happened on a grander scale and probably dozens of times to this planet.

They have the same genes as us

It was just speculation, which is why I said "if", and I haven't read the gene report on them, do you happen to have one or are you talking out of your @$$?

No one's saying that either. However, through trial and error bushman were able to come up with medicine...like pain killers. We still create medicine through trial and error today, even though we are using modern technology. Why do you think large pharma companies run trials in the first place?

All I'm saying is that I don't think that bushmen created the industry.

If I'm wrong send me a link I would love to read it.

That's because medicine progresses all the time thanks to science...so it makes sense that you wouldn't use the same medicine as they use in the bush. Just like you wouldn't ride a carriage instead of driving a car nowadays.

I beg to differ, most of the medication we have is the same old stuff, just recycled.

There is no such thing as "alien humanoids", and you haven't presented any objective evidence proving otherwise

So you find it easy to feel that apes are your brothers, but not so easy to think there could be other life out there? Over 4 million people claim to have had encounters with aliens, and your in denial.

If you were a different species than bushmen, you couldn't mix DNA...which you can, so CLEARLY you are of the same species. That's a FACT

I already established your wrong with this as is the case with donkeys mating with horses.

Your entire argument is based on faith because you impressively fail at presenting any evidence proving your point!

Actually our roles are reversed here, I'm going by clear documentation with what I understand, and your going by an unproven theory. Evolution has never been proven, and this is also proven by the links I have been sent, clearly stating that its a postulated hypothetical theory. So your the one with the faith, I'm just going by what I have read.

Given that your entire hypothesis lacks objective evidence, it is entirely based on belief and faith

I think your wrong again. There is no belief, or perhaps your lack of, is what leads you to believe its a faith.

Try to get 2 mules to mate...they are STERILE!!

Which happens each and every time, no questions asked, and doesn't take millions of years to determine, so your idea that its from evolution is demonstrably WRONG.

reply to post by colin42

I would add language is universal. I know of no animal that does not communicate in some way from ants and bees to dogs and cats.

I know what my dog wants whether it is to play, be fed or just want a stroke without him making a noise. I can tell the difference between a playful, scared, alarmed or angry bark.

So in short I would say that not only is language universal but also basic emotions.

I touched on this for a tad many pages ago, and was met with the same worthless resistance that offered no solution to the question.

Why is it that humans smile when happy and show teeth, yet if almost any other animal shows there teeth its actually a sign of aggression.
They have done tests world wide to determine that smiling is actually universal amongst humans, Yet we don't fit in with our smiles with all the other species.

Why did we choose to distance ourselves from the rest of the life on this planet? It's because we aren't from here.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
I think your reach into this matter is from a child perspective. It's easy to think what your thinking but there could be other issues that don't allow breeding, not related to gametic isolation. It's just feeble way to try to identify things, and I think science is a little better than that.

Er, don't you mean post-zygotic isolation, or even gametic incompatibility? Gametic isolation refers to hybridization. The reason that horses and donkeys can mate at all has to do with the fact that they're in the same genus and their chromosome counts are close enough to form a zygote.

Actually thats not true, I believe that transpermia is possible, and probably happened on a grander scale and probably dozens of times to this planet.

You believe? Where's your evidence?

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia

 

A mule is a dead-end species. It cannot mate with other mules, horses, or what have you. Horses and donkeys produce offspring that is not fertile, and the only reason they can make a mule at all is because they are close enough in evolutionary descent to have chromosomes that pair up.

Come on man, do some homework before you post here and look like a fool.

OMG you are such a fool, right like just one generation later they cant breed. It's suppose to happen over millions of years, right dude.

The number of generations has nothing to do with it. Mules have an odd number of chromosomes--there's an extra one (or one fewer, depending on how you look at it). That is why they're sterile.

reply to post by itsthetooth
You really are the most stupid person I have ever met online or anywhere for that matter

OMG you are such a fool, right like just one generation later they cant breed. It's suppose to happen over millions of years, right dude.

You appear to be the only person who does not know When a horse and donkey mate the mule that is produced is sterile and you were given the reasons why yet you still do not know.

Well this contradicts what Verema just said. Because Mules can't mate with anything and thats just one lineage. Not over time.

Veramia explained to you that Horses and donkey mateing is not the same as european and bushman because the bushman and any other human are the same species. 300 pages and your still thicker than granite

Thats what I remember you saying, apes are people too.

You remember anything you want to but that does not make it true. I have always told you we are all primates but being the thick brainless fool you are you still do not understand the difference.

Anyhow there is nothing racist about it.

Hitler and the Nazi's labeled the Jews as a sub race I suppose their actions was not racist either. Idiots like you label evolution as supporting eugenics when in fact it is idiots like you.

Way I see it, there is no question, I think this is where you always become tongue tied not realizing I'm not going to answer when there is no question, or question mark.

Oh dear the old question mark ploy to avoid answering. It only works for you, everyone else see's a lying, fleeing coward who is scared by the truth.

Lesson in the English language, notice how I used the work if. It's speculation.

When giving a lesson in English get your spelling correct dunce.

What are you talking about Otis, I have admitted when I'm wrong.

The barefaced lie. You are using all your tricks now. Not many left soon be time for your change the subject ploy

Dude please your killing me, I'm crying I'm laughing so hard. Bushmen are not responsible for creating our medicinal industry.

Again not what I wrote. So this is your Pinocchio ploy. The lie, tall story and refusal to learn.

Well your lie detector is out of whack then.

In your case there is more need for a truth detector. Unfortunately there would be nothing you have written for it to detect.

reply to post by colin42


I can't believe after all this time, with all this input, your still blind to the facts.

You believe that we are related to apes.

While we:
Distance ourselves from all the other life on this planet.
Distance ourselves from the harsh elements.
We have to wear clothing to protect ourselves from the weather in most areas. Or do you believe we weren't suppose to live outside of comfortable areas?
We went from having a suited diet, to becoming scavengers and taking on sickness and disease.
We had to adopt an accelerated medical industry to help keep us healthy, in part from living on the wrong planet and in part from genetic damage.
We look to dietitians and supplements to help us hit our nutrition targets because its not easy to do. It's because our food is not here.
Processing all of our water to make it safe for consumption, in addition to drilling for it.
Arming ourselves to protect us from the wildlife rather than trying to fit in with them.
Destroying our planet on a multitude of levels to the point that the planet is rejecting us.
We have clear documentation proving earth is not our home, but because it has been largely misunderstood you accept it as sci-fi.
Our smiles don't even fit in with the rest of the life on this planet.
There is nothing on this planet that you can honestly say is for us. There is not one single life form that would miss us if we up and disappeared off this plant. The planet continues to reject us with sickness and viruses.

We live in a man made habitat. We seclude ourselves from the wild just to survive. In homes and apartments to protect us from the harsh elements. Rather than evolving and growing more hair, we opted to suffer. I'm sorry it makes no sense.

We had a pretty good diet back when we were apes. You could say it was balanced. Also no problem drinking water. So we chose to take on sickness and stress by no long accepting that line of food. Why would we venture out of a diet to having nothing to eat? Again it makes no sense. We have no food that we can say with 100% accuracy, was meant for humans, unless its processed anyhow. Don't reply back to this I have already asked a dozen people that all agree with me, and could care less about simply agreeing. We have no food we can claim here.

We didn't evolve, we were placed here, and probably against our will.
Like I said before, each planet is designed to be in a balance of its own. Our planet is not in balance either because there is outside life brought here, or because we are destroying it.