Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by RebelRouser
[more

I am tempted to just ignore your posts due to your attitude being one of confrontation rather than debate as you originally stated.

Even though all of your questions have been addressed you still have not played your part in this debate of offering an explanation of how the diversity we see around us has come to be without referring to evolution.

Your questions show little understanding of how evolution works and so you must have a much better explanation for diversity which is why you have no need to understand it.

As a debunker of evolution you have a chance to explain how diversity of life came to be. The stage is yours and I look forward to your response.

My attitude comes from being in rooms and having discussions with you people. its not like your the first one ive talked to about evolution. it gets old quick, esp when you shake your head and laugh like were ill informed and you hold all the answers. you pull out irrelevant evidence left and right that ignores the main root of everything. tell me.. if there is no god what started everything? i understand this thread is about proving evolution wrong. the thing is im not saying its wrong, but im not saying its right. it obviously happens but life goes so much deeper than evolution, it doesnt explain why were here or anything. you guys treat it like a crutch. if you lean on it hard enough you dont have to deal with the main problem. which is a simple question "what started the evolution process?". you cant just start at evolution of whatever microscopic organisms u think started everything, then explain.. its like skipping steps.. but you say im out of line when im talking about the big bang in an evolution thread? listen, you cant believe in evolution of monkey to man if you believe in God. (again which is why god is also a reliant topic here). then when im trying to find out what you think put us here and then you pull out comments like "your arrogant" because i dont think im a present day monkey and believe that God created man. (all which is based on a monkey using tools and learning a very dull form of sign language. My dog knows what "walk" means even if im talking to someone nearby and its in a conversation. she goes and gets her leash.. she mush be on the dawn of a new civilization of dog people! but youll tell me no. cause monkeys are the bees knees.. you ever think that they can do what they do because they are pretty much the only species with opposable thumbs and have the ability to put that thought into action? you want to put them on some pedestal like cats in ancient Egypt but it does not however make em' human. sorry to break it to you :/.. there's just no concrete evidence to tell me im wrong either.

reply to post by RebelRouser


Im confused from reading these posts now. I keep seeing you mention where life came from not focusing on how its diversified and adapted over time. Evolution honestly doesn't explain origins of first life it only helps explain how it it 'flourished' in a sense. When you start on about big bang you are delving into theoretical physics which requires some imagination and some heavy math skills...something which evolution study doesn't so much require.

Another misconception I keep seeing is that evolution must mean that every species is going to make some real big physical change over time making it a substantially different ancestor. But like we see in some species, the design has been acceptable for a very long time and nothing much has changed other then maybe size. Some things work and aren't affected by the environment as much as others who change and and pass on things that work, in the end potentially making a new 'branch' in evolution.

Evolution doesn't discount an original creator, it doesn't try to. It does however show how species have varied and been so similar across the globe. If you want to be upset at any group of people go after the theoretical/astro physicists who lean towards life originating from a big bang.

i agree^^

thats why im waiting for one of these guys to confirm their belief in the big bang too. but they just avoid the creation topic all together and focus on the evolutionary part. which i have yet to say is wrong too. im saying if someone asked you in real life "how did humans get here?". you cant just say "evolution" because its not really an answer, its more along the lines of cognitive dissonance to me.

reply to post by RebelRouser


So in the end, would you say some creationist priorities are wrong when taking the literal interpretation of the bible and fighting evolution with it?
Evolution is shown with observable facts and data collected, but its not claiming that it proves the start of life. Why are creationists getting so upset over something that doesn't disprove god and disproves that everything wasn't created in 6000 years (or whatever the current belief is)?
The argument has really become pointless in the end since evolution has nothing to do with creation and creationism seems to want something to do with evolution. Its like one of those friendships where one person wants something more and one just wants to be friends...awkward all round.

reply to post by RebelRouser


You make too many generalisations. Someone can still believe in god and accept (Please Note) Man and apes have a common ancestor.

Why cant we, when discussing Evolution ignore god and or creation? A recipe on how to make a milk shake does not require knowledge of how to milk a cow.

If you are looking for the answer to how life started you will not find it in the theory of evolution. You certainly wont understand evolution from the standpoint that humans are the superior animal, the peak of what all life strives for.

Humans are really good at being human. Dogs are really good at being dogs. If they tried to swap roles both would fail. Remove the enviroment we live in and if we cannot live long enough to pass on our genes we die off and become extinct just as many other life forms have and will.

Originally posted by RebelRouser
i agree^^

thats why im waiting for one of these guys to confirm their belief in the big bang too. but they just avoid the creation topic all together and focus on the evolutionary part. which i have yet to say is wrong too. im saying if someone asked you in real life "how did humans get here?". you cant just say "evolution" because its not really an answer, its more along the lines of cognitive dissonance to me.

edit on 12-10-2011 by RebelRouser because: (no reason given)

If someone asked me in real life how did we get here we would probably be in a pub and I would guess taxi and unless we had a very long time the only answer would be evolution and we would be very drunk before we got very far into it.

If someone asked me how did life start I would not have a clue, would not pretend otherwise.

No one is avoiding the creation topic it is purely it has no place when talking about evolution.

So again this thread was started to give others a chance to explain the diversity of life without using evolution.

Give it a go.

So in the end, would you say some creationist priorities are wrong when taking the literal interpretation of the bible and fighting evolution with it?

give me an example of that? and before you answer just know that not all people representing a religion speak for that religion.. we all have our own private opinions. I believe in Christianity so start there.

Why cant we, when discussing Evolution ignore god and or creation? A recipe on how to make a milk shake does not require knowledge of how to milk a cow.

this is a pretty ignorant statement. it clearly proves my point on the way you think with forgetting the beginning steps. you put little thought into all the effort it takes to milk the cow, pasteurize the milk, make the ice cream, how you get the sugar for it, and then theres the flavoring, (aka) all the huge steps involved in the before process.. you just look at taken for granted ice cream in the fridge and throw a little milk in it and your like "ohhh that's how its made"

Humans are really good at being human. Dogs are really good at being dogs. If they tried to swap roles both would fail.

You believe evolution put humans here from monkeys and then you say something like this? put a monkey squad in ANY job in daily life and it would fail. this is what im talking about with the theory makes no sense. its like stuff picks and chooses what it does according to scientist.certain things made it through in "natural selection", but it decided to take the next few thousand years off with the rest of the apes. they didnt need to be standing on two feet, they were fine as is.. no need to fix something thats not broken.. but we managed to make the cut..

So again this thread was started to give others a chance to explain the diversity of life without using evolution. Give it a go.

in short cause im not gonna go through every species. everything adapts to its environment through micro-evolution it makes small changes through time to better fit its surroundings. its hot in Africa (the peoples skin is black there because it cant be fair white skin or it will be burnt ) it adapted. people tend to be hairier in colder areas. the finch beaks etc... small changes can be made as long is it stays within the same realm of the species. u act like its so easy for amoeba to change to little parasites in the water and somehow over time that becomes a monkey then humans. but a dog to human change is crazy and just out of the question. it makes absolutely no sense to me

Originally posted by camaro68ss

Originally posted by Sinny
Well the facts are that we humans share much of the same DNA with apes.

However, some of our DNA is untraceable, and there is the tiny little matter of that missing link still.

I vote aliens meddled with the genetics on this planet.

I can say the same thing about dogs. humans share 95% DNA with a dog but i dont walk around on 4 legs?

im gonna quote what this guy said before you start talking about monkey dna and how close it is

reply to post by RebelRouser


Yep, just as I thought you are nothing but a troll. You pretend to be new to the forum and then suddenly post as a vetran.

You again call people ignorant which is a pretty ignorant stance and do not put anyhting other than wind ups as a response.

You know full well the 'dont need to know how to milk a cow to know how to make a milk shake was an illustartion but attack it anyhow.

You mate are not here to debate and my interaction with you is over.

is that british slang for something? or are you calling me an actual troll (as in one under a bridge)? either way its pretty gay.. im not posting like a veteran. this isnt really a site im that im too concerned with impressing people like yourself on. if you cant take an aggressive argument than i suggest u take a walk anyway if you get all butt hurt over me making abrasive points which you keep missing. if you cant explain how evolution began than i dont care what u have to say about it in its later stages cause it sounds to me you cant explain it. its speculation of man that's dabbled in science really only in the last 200 years. ill leave you with some reading while ur at the pub

here u go

reply to post by RebelRouser


An example of where creationists get their priorities wrong would be Kent Hovind whom believes a creator is responsible for every single thing we see, including diversity among our species (evolution). This is where creationists get flustered since they believe that evolution will destroy what creationists believe.

The basic fact is this: Creation does not equal evolution. Evolution does not explain origins of first life nor the origins of the universe. Evolution only deals with observable facts which support the theory that life forms can adapt and change over time its not trying to be anything more or less, yet creationists make it more then that then attack it for not being complete. Eventually when more gaps are filled in, and more data collected, we may finally start to answer origins of the first life and the universe but its a long long way off if ever achievable.

Would it be satisfactory for a creationist to believe that a creator started life (in any form) and the petri dish called earth developed and evolution was just a by product of his/her/it's experiment? Will it damage their faith for believing in a creator and evolution?

reply to post by topherman420


This was why I started this thread. The pro evolution group are always being tasked to show the evidence for evolution which we duly do given the restrictions of this type of forum.

I wanted to start a new slant and that was to ask if not evolution then explain bio diversity and despite a few interesting 'ideas' no one from the Anti evolution group has taken up this chance or embraced the idea of discussing the subject from a different angle.

The offer is still open but I cannot see anyone willing to try so does this mean there are no credible alternatives?

Isn't it possible that fossil records show an interpretation of what happened and not a definitive truth? Two scientists could argue about what the fossil records show. I also find it skeptical that the missing link is always "found" and it is just a piece of bone or some miniscule body part. In my view, evolution has not adequately explained just how human beings came to be. So until that happens I can't really prove it wrong except to say it's not a complete theory.

reply to post by filosophia


This is why I hate the title change to this thread but it is not my site so I have to live with it. I do not want you to prove evolution wrong.

If evolution is wrong then what is your explanation for the diversity we see. The only problem I have with using creation in this discussion is if someone tries to deny evolution using it.

reply to post by RebelRouser

My attitude comes from being in rooms and having discussions with you people. its not like your the first one ive talked to about evolution. it gets old quick, esp when you shake your head and laugh like were ill informed and you hold all the answers.

I haven't done the textual equivalent of shaking my head and laughing because I think I have all the answers. I've done it because, based on your strawman arguments against evolution, you've made it clear that you not only don't have a good grasp of what claims are made by the the theory of evolution and the evidence supporting them but that you really don't care to.

you pull out irrelevant evidence left and right that ignores the main root of everything. tell me.. if there is no god what started everything?

Your questions regarding the origin of the universe are being ignored because they're off topic for the thread. If you want to talk about that, feel free to start your own thread instead of repeatedly trying to hijack this one. And, further, acceptance of evolution is hardly inconsistent with belief in God. Check out the writing of Dr. Kenneth Miller and how he reconciles his research with his religious beliefs.

i understand this thread is about proving evolution wrong.

No, if you read the thread you'd understand that the intent was for creationists to provide their own hypothesis that explains biodiversity. A mod changed the title of the thread and did a poor job at that.

the thing is im not saying its wrong, but im not saying its right. it obviously happens but life goes so much deeper than evolution, it doesnt explain why were here or anything. you guys treat it like a crutch. if you lean on it hard enough you dont have to deal with the main problem. which is a simple question "what started the evolution process?".

The fact that the mechanism by which traits are passed down through successive generations of organisms produces occasional errors which can in turn result in different traits appearing in those organisms is the origin of the evolutionary process.

you cant just start at evolution of whatever microscopic organisms u think started everything, then explain.. its like skipping steps…

So you won't believe in evolution unless you can be shown every single organism that ever existed? What a reasonable burden of proof you're introducing! Especially since we have evidence of at least some of those organisms, but there's exactly zero evidence supporting your alternative hypothesis that "godunnit". And, again, you're completely ignoring the genetic evidence for evolution which is far greater than the fossil evidence for evolution.

but you say im out of line when im talking about the big bang in an evolution thread?

Yes, because cosmology has nothing to do with biodiversity.

listen, you cant believe in evolution of monkey to man if you believe in God. (again which is why god is also a reliant topic here).

Two facts:

1. A majority of citizens in developed nations accept the theory of evolution. (Note: On a country by country basis, the sole exceptions to this are Turkey and the United States, with the U.S. having a level of acceptance of evolution only slightly below 50%.)
2. A majority of the citizens of developed nations are theists of one sort or another.

When those two facts are taken together, it quickly becomes obvious that there are millions of people that both believe in God and accept evolution. If you want to be a little more correct in your statement, you should change it to, "you cant believe in evolution of monkey to man if you believe in a literalist interpretation of Genesis, for which there is zero objective evidence in support a literalist interpretation and several hundred years worth of evidence collected that refute a literalist interpretation."

there's just no concrete evidence to tell me im wrong either.

You mean there's none that you'll actually take the time to investigate on your own.

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by filosophia

 

This is why I hate the title change to this thread but it is not my site so I have to live with it. I do not want you to prove evolution wrong.

If evolution is wrong then what is your explanation for the diversity we see. The only problem I have with using creation in this discussion is if someone tries to deny evolution using it.

Ok, that explains it because your OP had nothing to do with your title. I got it now.

You asked to explain the diversity of nature, and I can do so by not going with Creationism but a theory called Emanationism. Now I am not completely knowledgeable about this Emanationism but I know enough to say that it is an alternative to creation and evolution and it is best explained with these other two systems. So here goes:

Creationism: A God willingly created things, like a painter deciding on what color to use, a la Bob Ross

Evolution: Things randomly evolve, from single cell to complex intelligent beings, a la Monkeys Writing Shakespeare.

And now for the alternative Emanationism. Emanation meaning to derive from a source. Emanationism means everything derives from its prior. Children derive from parents, plants derive from seeds, and the moon derives its light from the light of the sun. The process of emanationism is based on the golden ratio, 0,1,1,2,3,5,8... in which nature proceeds downwards from utter simplicity to complexity, and that is what explains the diversity of nature, this nature principle creates or emanates downwards just like a continuous sequence of 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,... and so nature will go on forever but never quite reach infinity. Infinity doesn't really exist in the physical world, because it is an abstract number that has no real number attached to it. However, the basis of the world comes from simplicity, in that 1 is the building block of all numbers, just like atoms are the building blocks of all things, and thoughts are the building blocks of all ideas. What this means is emanationism has a downwards and upwards progression, illustrated most famously by the philosopher Plotinus, in which all things proceed downwards from The One, towards complexity (i.e. matter), and then back again, from matter to nature to the One, but through a mental process as opposed to a physical process. So in other words all things emanate from The One, and then contemplate their way back to The One.

As I said, this may not answer all your questions, but just so you know, there is an alternative to Evolution and Creationism and it's called Emanationism although it's not publicized much but it does have its basis in the Greek philosopher Plotinus.

reply to post by filosophia

Creationism: A God willingly created things, like a painter deciding on what color to use, a la Bob Ross

Personal disclosure: back when I believed in God, I used to picture him looking like Bob Ross. How can you not?

Evolution: Things randomly evolve, from single cell to complex intelligent beings, a la Monkeys Writing Shakespeare.

You’re missing a big chunk of the mechanism you’re equating with evolution -- it's selection acting on random mutations. The process of mutation is more or less random, but the process of selecting for or against particular mutations isn’t. And that’s only one of several mechanisms for evolution.

And now for the alternative Emanationism. Emanation meaning to derive from a source. Emanationism means everything derives from its prior. Children derive from parents, plants derive from seeds, and the moon derives its light from the light of the sun. The process of emanationism is based on the golden ratio, 0,1,1,2,3,5,8... in which nature proceeds downwards from utter simplicity to complexity, and that is what explains the diversity of nature, this nature principle creates or emanates downwards just like a continuous sequence of 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,... and so nature will go on forever but never quite reach infinity. Infinity doesn't really exist in the physical world, because it is an abstract number that has no real number attached to it. However, the basis of the world comes from simplicity, in that 1 is the building block of all numbers, just like atoms are the building blocks of all things, and thoughts are the building blocks of all ideas. What this means is emanationism has a downwards and upwards progression, illustrated most famously by the philosopher Plotinus, in which all things proceed downwards from The One, towards complexity (i.e. matter), and then back again, from matter to nature to the One, but through a mental process as opposed to a physical process. So in other words all things emanate from The One, and then contemplate their way back to The One.

Um… OK. There’s lots of woo in there, but I don’t see any explanation for biodiversity. Can you be a little more explicit in the intermediate steps that take us from “everything emanates from something else” to the variation of life forms?

As I said, this may not answer all your questions, but just so you know, there is an alternative to Evolution and Creationism and it's called Emanationism although it's not publicized much but it does have its basis in the Greek philosopher Plotinus.

The initial information I’m seeing on the subject says that it’s an alternative to creationism and materialism, not creationism and evolution. It seems to speak more to the origin of the universe as opposed to the origin of species.

Evolution exists.

it may not be in the form of Darwinian evolution.
i think they call this Spontaneous evolution.

Just Sayin.

reply to post by filosophia


I've done my best to understand emanation. Let's see if I am even close as I doubt it.

I know a single cell organism will not really correspond to 1 but let’s just say it does to avoid loads more words.
So single cell = 0,1, Multi cell 0,1,1 and similar steps towards more complex life forms and all this emanates from a perfect force/god probably preceding or =zero.

I try to picture things so another way to explain if the above is confused. This force could be thought of as the sun, the centre of everything. This force has consciousness and its is this that ‘emanates’ all the life we see. A little like the sun emanates light and heat.

I’ll stop there as I expect I have all this wrong but TBH there was not much I could find on it.