Can you prove evolution wrong

I just made this account to get into this debate.. first off I love how people completely discredit the idea of creationism because they put it into a context like "magic". If you want to go down the "magic" road lets talk about slime puddles that have been in the deep jungle since the jungle began. why aren't they spitting out little frog people to-be? same goes for apes that have never seen anything but the jungle for generations and generations. shouldn't they be people by now? walking out of the jungle on 2 feet, trying trying to fit into society? evolution is real, but only micro-evolution (which can change by leaps but not species), and so is God. however man i feel just ran a muck with evolution.they figured out pieces of information like "this group of humans living in the Himalaya's are hairier than average" or "this fish in the Marianas trench hunts with a light coming out of his head" and suddenly we all evolved from slime? if scientists are all knowing how come they cant make something like skin, and the brain or an eye? (without taking it from an existing sample tho). If we just pop up out of slime it shouldn't be too hard to speed up the process. 3 key points to evolution and why something had to of made us. 1) if we all came from organisms living on a rock that came from the big bang why did everything take a different shape like people, dogs, cats, birds etc? shouldn't we all be the same and act the same. 2) why do we have a conscience and morals of right and wrong based on feelings? no animal has that. And 3) the biggest question. if the universe made us, then what made the universe? p.s. speaking of the universe check out the nerves in your brain and compare them to the universe. sprott.physics.wisc.edu... . awfully similar..

You can't prove something that doesn't exist.
2nd

reply to post by RebelRouser

I just made this account to get into this debate…

Welcome!

first off I love how people completely discredit the idea of creationism because they put it into a context like "magic".

I think you’re missing the bigger picture of the “magic” context, and that is that there is simply no objective evidence for creationism. It’s an untestable and unfalsifiable, and therefore inherently unscientific, phenomenon because it’s dependent on supernatural causation.

If you want to go down the "magic" road lets talk about slime puddles that have been in the deep jungle since the jungle began. why aren't they spitting out little frog people to-be?

This isn’t related to evolution, this is related to abiogenesis. But the oversimplified answer to your question is that the Earth’s atmosphere when life first arose was vastly different from what it is today. Today’s oxidizing atmosphere would destroy any of the molecular precursors formed before they ever had a chance to form larger molecules and begin to self-aggregate.

same goes for apes that have never seen anything but the jungle for generations and generations. shouldn't they be people by now? walking out of the jungle on 2 feet, trying trying to fit into society?

I’ll answer your question with a question -- what environmental pressures would require them to do so? If a species is surviving and thriving in its niche, there’s no reason for it to evolve.

evolution is real, but only micro-evolution (which can change by leaps but not species),

Speciation has been observed. I’ll be waiting for you to move the goalposts to saying that it can’t occur on a genus level.

and so is God.

That’s open to debate.

however man i feel just ran a muck with evolution.they figured out pieces of information like "this group of humans living in the Himalaya's are hairier than average" or "this fish in the Marianas trench hunts with a light coming out of his head" and suddenly we all evolved from slime?

First, again, the origins of life have nothing to do with evolution -- evolution is only concerned with what life does once it’s already present. There’s a reason Darwin’s book was called “On the Origin of Species” and not “On the Origin of Life”. You’re taking issue with abiogenesis, which is still only really a hypothesis.

Second, you’re ignoring an absolutely staggering amount of evidence for evolution in order to make it seem like less of a scientific theory than it is. Keep in mind that the majority of the evidence for evolution is genetic. So much so that, even if we had absolutely no fossil record, evolution would still be the dominant theory for explaining biodiversity.

if scientists are all knowing how come they cant make something like skin, and the brain or an eye? (without taking it from an existing sample tho). If we just pop up out of slime it shouldn't be too hard to speed up the process.

Scientists are hardly all-knowing, they just don’t assume God as a cause when they don’t know the answer for something. They say that they don’t know and continue to research.

3 key points to evolution and why something had to of made us. 1) if we all came from organisms living on a rock that came from the big bang why did everything take a different shape like people, dogs, cats, birds etc? shouldn't we all be the same and act the same.

Maybe all organisms would look the same if our planet were a single monolithic environment. Organisms adapt to their various niches within various environments.

2) why do we have a conscience and morals of right and wrong based on feelings? no animal has that.

You sure about that? And keep in mind that we keep looking for intelligence and characteristics of intelligence in other animals based on a single data point -- us. Seems pretty hubristic to assume that, no?

And 3) the biggest question. if the universe made us, then what made the universe? p.s. speaking of the universe check out the nerves in your brain and compare them to the universe. sprott.physics.wisc.edu... . awfully similar…

If God made the universe , what made God?

And benzene is six sided, just like snowflakes. It doesn’t mean snowflakes are made of benzene.

thanks for having me.

so where we..

I think you’re missing the bigger picture of the “magic” context, and that is that there is simply no objective evidence for creationism. It’s an untestable and unfalsifiable, and therefore inherently unscientific, phenomenon because it’s dependent on supernatural causation.

you talk about supernatural causation. but really the explanation of life through evolution is the same thing. its like they are trying to explain the alphabet to you while only showing you. "C,G,H,P,S,and X". here let this little 12 year old make my point for me anguishedrepose.com... ove-the-big-bang-theory/. im not a lab geek. im more in the construction field so im not gonna debate the small sciences that support your theory but at the same time dont prove anything.

This isn’t related to evolution, this is related to abiogenesis. But the oversimplified answer to your question is that the Earth’s atmosphere when life first arose was vastly different from what it is today. Today’s oxidizing atmosphere would destroy any of the molecular precursors formed before they ever had a chance to form larger molecules and begin to self-aggregate.

listen to the kid about carbon.. again your missing a lot of letters in your alphabet.

and this

Speciation has been observed. I’ll be waiting for you to move the goalposts to saying that it can’t occur on a genus level.

this is what im saying.. SMALL changes within the species. a bird might change its wing type, or the way it fly's, hunts, its beak, its color, or whatever, but that bird is still a bird. according to evolution if we made a project that had every dog put in a caged environment half in and out of water they should change into whales and fish over time right? if evolution is responsible for us. why haven't alligators started walking upright by now and decided to get out of the swamp? explain to me why monkeys got the secret recipe to being a human but nothing else did. then read this.

www.answersingenesis.org... 09

Maybe all organisms would look the same if our planet were a single monolithic environment. Organisms adapt to their various niches within various environments.

shouldn't every micro organism on earth be something else by now? you act like there was this great force that came in with a gun and made everything change. if it was alive already why would it need to change more. and how would it become grass. and trees. and flowers. then also assume we were on the way next (cause those bastards are so smart) so it made sure all those plants exhaled oxygen after it took the form of the 1,000's of different species of plants. evolutions so flawed with holes its like a screen door. it works when you ignore all the theory killing questions. again. not enough letters.. just like you don't think though the big bang theory. you know how much energy would be released if these planets smashed together to make our world? enough to kill anything living on it. amoebas and all..

You sure about that? And keep in mind that we keep looking for intelligence and characteristics of intelligence in other animals based on a single data point -- us. Seems pretty hubristic to assume that, no?

no it doesn't seem prideful and arrogant. an animal will never think about stealing and if it should or shouldn't. if its hungry and something else has food. its taking that food. a bear will kill another female's cubs just because they are not his. most people would never kill someone else's baby cause it isn't theirs. they don't debate existence, they don't know anything more than there animal instincts which are eat, drink, take care of babies, stay safe. frankly the only thing that i think is hubristic of myself is not putting myself on the same level as a monkey. if you want to keep thinking your relatives were apes that's cool with me. i wont loose any sleep over it. you look at a monkey getting a peanut out of the bottom of a glass by floating it to the top with water, after making multiple trips back and forth and filling it up with a water from a trough across the room as a "miracle of evolution and wit". i look at it as a stupid monkey who's hungry, hes not doing anything that impresses me. dolphins impress me more..

this site was just what i needed. i love having these debates lol

reply to post by RebelRouser

you talk about supernatural causation. but really the explanation of life through evolution is the same thing.

As previously stated, evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. If you want to have a discussion about abiogenesis, I’m more than happy to do so.

here let this little 12 year old make my point for me anguishedrepose.com... ove-the-big-bang-theory/.

The Big Bang theory has nothing to do with evolution either. That being said, claims that Jacob has disproven the Big Bang theory are a little premature. The kid is obviously smart and asks some amazingly astute questions for his age, but it doesn’t look like he’s actually conducted any research to date.

im not a lab geek. im more in the construction field so im not gonna debate the small sciences that support your theory but at the same time dont prove anything.

So you don’t want to debate the evidence for evolution because it involves “small sciences”, whatever that means? It doesn’t seem like you want to actually engage in a debate or discussion at all then.

listen to the kid about carbon.. again your missing a lot of letters in your alphabet.

He’s right -- Big Bang nucleosynthesis can’t form anything heavier than beryllium. But you’d think an astrophysics prodigy would know that at that point stellar nucleosynthesis takes over and can produce anything from carbon to iron, no?

Again, I’ll be waiting to read some of his research when he finally publishes, but this has nothing to do with evolution.

this is what im saying.. SMALL changes within the species. a bird might change its wing type, or the way it fly's, hunts, its beak, its color, or whatever, but that bird is still a bird.

Small changes within a species isn’t speciation. A change in species is speciation. Speciation has been observed. See? I didn't have to wait long for you to move the goalposts.

if evolution is responsible for us. why haven't alligators started walking upright by now and decided to get out of the swamp?

Again, why would an alligator need to evolve into something that walked upright? It’s an apex predator. It’s doing just fine in its niche, it has no need to evolve.

then read this.
www.answersingenesis.org... 09

I think you need to fix the link -- all I get is a blank page. Appropriate, no?

shouldn't every micro organism on earth be something else by now?

I think asking this shows a basic lack of understanding of what the theory of evolution states. If a population of microorganisms is doing just fine in its environmental niche, there's no reason for that population to evolve. You seem to be suggesting that evolution is some inexorable process toward a pre-defined endpoint that occurs regardless of external stimuli.

you act like there was this great force that came in with a gun and made everything change.

Not at all. The changes are constantly occurring and are observable today. Evolution isn’t just something that happened in the past.

if it was alive already why would it need to change more.

Because we don’t live in a static environment on a static planet.

and how would it become grass. and trees. and flowers. then also assume we were on the way next (cause those bastards are so smart) so it made sure all those plants exhaled oxygen after it took the form of the 1,000's of different species of plants.

Or does it make more sense that they all of the plants you’re talking about came from a common ancestor that utilized the chief constituent of an earlier atmosphere for synthesizing food?

evolutions so flawed with holes its like a screen door. it works when you ignore all the theory killing questions. again. not enough letters.. just like you don't think though the big bang theory. you know how much energy would be released if these planets smashed together to make our world? enough to kill anything living on it. amoebas and all..

Except that you're not really raising any scientific questions against evolution, much less "theory killing" ones. In fact, you've shown an open disdain for science. Your arguments amount to ones from personal incredulity -- "I don't understand how this could have happened, therefore it's impossible."

links broken.. it would be irrelevant to you anyway coming from your "niche" talk, which i would like explained. what qualifies as a "niche"? i see loads of apes in our world today so clearly they had to of been doing ok for as long have been. why would one species just decide to become human? why wouldn't it be all of them? shouldn't monkeys should have just evolved into people everywhere if pangia was going on making their land different and making them adapt? Or was there like a 100 square miles of select land that this "driving force" came into, making them change? same goes for crocks and alligators. don't you think they'd be more efficient if they could go on land and stay on land? Or grow bigger legs to make them better at running and catching bigger prey? and i cant tell everything with you is formulas and numbers. you don't take any creativeness into account. take for instance the way we breath in oxygen and produce carbon dioxide for plants to take in. why the hell would micro-amoeba tree's-to-be just to be happen to be aware of us needing oxygen? and why so many colors. it should just be monotone like most planets in our universe. sounds like it was planed out to me..everything here has a purpose. right down to ants that clean up messes. evolution must have thought of that too, its so clever! just explain to me the steps on how we evolve beginning to end. like amoeba, to tadpole, to frog, to frog person, then to monkey? just give me the play by play .. Ive never met an evolutionist that disagreed with the big bang theory either. so tell me what do u believe put earth where it is if you dont believe that

reply to post by RebelRouser

links broken.. it would be irrelevant to you anyway coming from your "niche" talk,

Not at all. I’d read and comment on them.

which i would like explained. what qualifies as a "niche"?

Niche.

i see loads of apes in our world today so clearly they had to of been doing ok for as long have been.

You’re making statements that lead me to believe that you really haven’t put any effort into understanding what claims are put forth by evolution. This statement, for example, implies that you believe that the apes we currently share this planet with haven’t evolved either. As we share a common ancestor with them, and the genetic evidence supports this to an incredible degree, this is simply not the case.

why would one species just decide to become human?

One common hypothesis is that a population at the edge of where a grassland and forest meets were isolated from a population of the same species further in the jungle. In a grassland environment, it’s beneficial to be able to see above the tall grass. Mutations that aided in that endeavor were selected for.

why wouldn't it be all of them? shouldn't monkeys should have just evolved into people everywhere if pangia was going on making their land different and making them adapt?

Another statement that leads me to believe that you don’t really understand what you’re arguing against. First, you’re talking about several orders of magnitude of difference in time -- Pangaea existed somewhere around 250Mya; we diverged from chimpanzees around 6Mya and from Australopithecines about 2.5Mya. Second, evolution acts to create differentiation between populations that are reproductively isolated and exposed to differing environmental conditions. Third, given that you can travel a few hundred miles and be in a completely different environment, why would you assume that all of the landmass would be a single environment? Especially when it was separated in a similar manner to what we see today during the evolutionary events you’re talking about?

don't you think they'd be more efficient if they could go on land and stay on land?

Why? They’re incredibly good at hiding in water and can swim as fast as most of their prey can walk through water.

Or grow bigger legs to make them better at running and catching bigger prey?

Like what? And why do they need to kill larger prey?

and i cant tell everything with you is formulas and numbers.

And you’ve already expressed your disdain and disbelief in science. All while typing on a computer.

you don't take any creativeness into account.

Sure I do. You’re the one who thought that monkeys creating tools to solve problems was nothing special.

take for instance the way we breath in oxygen and produce carbon dioxide for plants to take in. why the hell would micro-amoeba tree's-to-be just to be happen to be aware of us needing oxygen? and why so many colors. it should just be monotone like most planets in our universe. sounds like it was planed out to me..everything here has a purpose. right down to ants that clean up messes. evolution must have thought of that too, its so clever!

It’s called co-evolution. Look it up. If you have a bunch of organisms making a waste product, why wouldn’t some other organism evolve the ability to utilize that waste product? Especially when we’re talking about some relatively simple chemical reactions involved.

just explain to me the steps on how we evolve beginning to end. like amoeba, to tadpole, to frog, to frog person, then to monkey? just give me the play by play ..

The fact that you think evolution proceeds in a linear, chain-like fashion further supports my supposition that you don’t even understand what you’re arguing against.

Ive never met an evolutionist that disagreed with the big bang theory either. so tell me what do u believe put earth where it is if you dont believe that

Again, irrelevant to the topic of this thread. This thread was started for people who don’t subscribe to the theory of evolution to proffer their theory on biodiversity.

You’re making statements that lead me to believe that you really haven’t put any effort into understanding what claims are put forth by evolution. This statement, for example, implies that you believe that the apes we currently share this planet with haven’t evolved either. As we share a common ancestor with them, and the genetic evidence supports this to an incredible degree, this is simply not the case.

Im putting little effort into responding to these posts hence the typos, un-capped letters, and lack of documented evidence because im aware of the fact that were on a forum for a site called above top secret. clearly your an educated fellow so im just going to make some more points before you hurt yourself with every big word you can use. nobody in real life talks like that unless your wearing a white lab coat all day.

1) you say fossil records prove everything, so link me to the fossil records for the missing link. the generation of man monkeys that had specific traits of a chimp and of a man. or any evolved species for that matter. if u think a frog can become a monkey wheres the monkey frog? or the in-betweens on any evolved species. every species was clearly made as its on species.

2) how did the big bang theory start? you didnt answer this.

3) i wanted the chain like fashion explained. not to delve into why i dont understand it. so when you explain each step to me you can listen to how stupid it sounds

4)

If you have a bunch of organisms making a waste product, why wouldn’t some other organism evolve the ability to utilize that waste product? Especially when we’re talking about some relatively simple chemical reactions involved.

wheres my dog to eat my S#@t? he doesn't do anything else but live here, its the least he could do to help out. they've had at least 15,000 years around us. how long does it take to utilize our waste and adapt? you'll say 1 of 2 things. your gonna either tell me, it will take millions of years. or why would they? they don't need to because they can hunt. and id say to you that makes no sense for any insect parasite or animal to go the crap eating route when they could develop fangs and better ways to hunt. you act like everything moves in a set fashion but it makes decisions based on its environment. so if that's the case why wouldn't everything climb its way to the top of the food chain. what makes it just decide to settle for whats its doing like alligators.sounds a tad contradicting.

and 5)

Sure I do. You’re the one who thought that monkeys creating tools to solve problems was nothing special.

its not. when they start talking ill be impressed. ive seen dogs play basketball, open dishwashers,cabinets,doors, hunt,and more. ive seen finches with the cactus needles, dolphins communicate through squeaking and order attacks on schools of fish in a uniformed hunting technique using bubbles and circling the prey, elephants paint. and still after all that im not stupid enough to put them on a human level

Originally posted by TWISTEDWORDS
What if in the beginning we had only these two things.
1.) Something
2.) Nothing

The problem is that you're assuming that there was a "beginning." Time doesn't work that way. It doesn't flow forward like a river. That's an illusion.

Once you get past the notion that time is linear, and that there was a beginning, then you'll see that both evolution and the need for a "god" (however you wish to define it) to make it happen are notions based on old, false assumptions, and that neither of them is accurate.

reply to post by RebelRouser



Disgustingly undereducated

specific traits of a chimp and of a man

What are you implying? No evolutionary biologist in the world suggests that we came from Chimpanzees. We share a common ancestor. This is why people like you have no business trying to "disprove" evolution. You don't know the facts. You just regurgitate crap that you hear from Ray Comfort or Kent Hovind.

how did the big bang theory start? you didnt answer this.

Who cares? That is not the subject at hand. Evolution is not the explanation of how life began. Look up Biogenesis or Abiogenesis.

reply to post by Blue Shift

notions based on old, false assumptions, and that neither of them is accurate.

Saying Evolution is an assumption implies that it has no evidence. If that is the conclusion you have come to, you have not done proper research. You may have missed the 150+ years of research that is floating around.

reply to post by RebelRouser

Im putting little effort into responding to these posts hence the typos, un-capped letters, and lack of documented evidence because im aware of the fact that were on a forum for a site called above top secret.

I didn't call attention to anything grammatical about your posts, only the content. It's obvious from your responses that you don't really understand what claims are made by the theory of evolution, so why not put effort into understanding it before you argue against it?

clearly your an educated fellow so im just going to make some more points before you hurt yourself with every big word you can use. nobody in real life talks like that unless your wearing a white lab coat all day.

Sorry if you don't like the way I talk and I'm not sure what it has to do with our discussion of evolution. And, up until a week and a half ago, I did wear a lab coat for most of the day.

1) you say fossil records prove everything, so link me to the fossil records for the missing link. the generation of man monkeys that had specific traits of a chimp and of a man. or any evolved species for that matter. if u think a frog can become a monkey wheres the monkey frog? or the in-betweens on any evolved species. every species was clearly made as its on species.

No, I've stated the opposite -- the genetic evidence for evolution is overwhelming and remains its strongest support. In fact, in the total absence of any fossil record at all. there's still enough genetic evidence for it to be a fully functioning scientific theory.

The fact that you're asking for a "missing link" with a straight face again bolsters my assertion that you don't even understand what you're arguing against. But if you're looking for transitional fossils, there are many. If you're insistent on it being from a species that's around today, we have a remarkably clear picture of the evolution of the horse. Or you could read about Australopithecus sediba which, based on its mosaic features, is a likely transitional species between Australopithecus and Homo.

2) how did the big bang theory start? you didnt answer this.

In a thread and a discussion about evolution? I don't see the need to.

3) i wanted the chain like fashion explained. not to delve into why i dont understand it. so when you explain each step to me you can listen to how stupid it sounds

The fact that you're asking for a "chain of evolution" is still more evidence that you don't understand what you're arguing against. Come back when you understand enough to know why that question doesn't even make sense in the context of our discussion here.

wheres my dog to eat my S#@t?

We were talking about gases being produced as waste products of respiration and you make the leap to animals eating each other's feces. Brilliant.

you act like everything moves in a set fashion but it makes decisions based on its environment.

No, actually I've stated that evolution is dependent on environmental pressures. You keep misrepresenting evolution as stating that it's an inexorable force that continues regardless of environment. Misrepresenting the opposing side in an argument so that you can bring evidence against the faulty artificial construct you've created for your own convenience is called a strawman argument.

so if that's the case why wouldn't everything climb its way to the top of the food chain. what makes it just decide to settle for whats its doing like alligators.sounds a tad contradicting.

Why would every organism become an apex predator? Prey species typically breed early and often -- being prey is never selected out of the population. Just being unfit prey.

its not. when they start talking ill be impressed. ive seen dogs play basketball, open dishwashers,cabinets,doors, hunt,and more. ive seen finches with the cactus needles, dolphins communicate through squeaking and order attacks on schools of fish in a uniformed hunting technique using bubbles and circling the prey, elephants paint. and still after all that im not stupid enough to put them on a human level

You call it "not being stupid enough". I call it not being able to see past your own ego and anthropocentricity.

Originally posted by Tony4211
Saying Evolution is an assumption implies that it has no evidence. If that is the conclusion you have come to, you have not done proper research. You may have missed the 150+ years of research that is floating around.

Of course there is evidence.
But if the conclusion drawn from the evidence is based on
at least one incorrect assumption from the start, what good is it?
The two assumptions:
Time only "flows" from the past to the present and into the future.
Mutations are random, following the flow of time.

reply to post by Blue Shift

But if the conclusion drawn from the evidence is based on
at least one incorrect assumption from the start, what good is it?

Really? So not only is evolution wrong, but your view is flawless? How does one flaw led to being an entire process being wrong? You can not throw out all of the irrefutable evidence of evolution, like the many transitional fossils that have been discovered because we are not %100 of what species links us and our common ancestor. That is not a very good argument.

Really? So not only is evolution wrong, but your view is flawless?

if you look around at the simple things.. ya its pretty flawless.. like "not an accident" flawless.so flawless man has been trying to recreate it in labs for years. i love how you keep avoiding the big bang question too. you really think i care what thread im on. give me a break.. im trying to hear you personal view is on how everything came to be. you and me have two very different theories with evolution. i believe in dogs from wolves, cats from lions kind of deal but not monkeys to people tadpoles to monkeys kind of crap, its as debatable as God because you werent there and neithere were those scientists. all this is is speculation. in order for evolution to work you need the beginning. you cant just start at the monkey. and im sorry i just dont see an amoeba turning into a monkey..

reply to post by RebelRouser

i believe in dogs from wolves, cats from lions

You are not even worth debating. Dogs don't come from wolves and cats do not come from lions. They share a common ancestor. Just as humans and chimpanzees do.

Originally posted by iterationzero
... you're not really raising any scientific questions against evolution, much less "theory killing" ones.

You're basically saying that there has to be a "reason" or a "need" for a species to randomly change by complete accident into a new species, no? I'm thinking by reason or need you mean an environmental stress, no? Can you explain what was the environmental stress that caused our missing link the need to give rise to us- the weakest link in the whole chain?

by "come from" you really need me to break down what i mean? you guys are ridiculous. you sit perched waiting for any way to get out of answering simple questions i ask. "The domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris[3] and Canis lupus dingo[1][2]) is a domesticated form of the gray wolf, a member of the Canidae family of the order Carnivora."-wiki.. sooo if a dog was a domesticated version of a wolf. it _____ from a wolf. "derived" and "comes" are 2 adjectives that i would use there.. and cats dirive from wild cats. wild cats are in the felis genus same as sand cats, the all come from the felidae family.. yup i said it."come from"

meant to say tigers*