Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by rhinoceros


And yet again you overshot the point and have no concept of what I am talking about. You picked apart only one part of my theory (which is the opposite of creationism btw), and you forget that google is only the first stop for info these days, since it has become corporatized. That does not mean it is the last stop as well. Use your imagination. There are plenty of resources available out there, and google is far from being the only search engine out there. Your laziness does not prove me wrong, it only strengthens my point. Also, my point does not reside in a specific year (may have later than 15 million, but by far older than 3 and a half. See there's me admitting my fallibility, which is something you are obviously incapable of.), but in the inherent fallibility of the whole evolutionary theory when applied to Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Any other parts of my argument you wish to pick apart, or are you just gonna keep making assumptions? You know what they say about assuming, now don't you?

Originally posted by xXxinfidelxXx
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

If you found nothing, than try a different search engine until you do (google can be sporadic). It's that simple. If you think you can insult me from the get-go and then get me to provide you with the research that I have put my own time into, you are obviously a little bit confused. If you don't find what you're looking for at that point, than I guess there is no hope for you. Where you seem to misunderstand every time is that I did not come here, instigate and then complain, I came here, presented my version of it, was attacked, and thus, went on the counter-attack. Also a very simple and easy to understand premise, for those with a fully functioning brain. Maybe you should have someone explain that to you someday. When idiots like you counter with political jawboning and character assassination without even looking at the rest of my arguments, it may fly with the idiotic masses, but it does not fly with me. Seriously, stop wasting space in my reply box. You may be able to pull off something constructive in the time that you have saved by not bugging me. It's doubtful but anything's possible right?

Look, it's really simply: 15 million years ago there were only things that looked similar to today's monkeys, and that's a FACT. Definitely, there were no homo sapiens alive back then.

As for your "try a different search engine", I actually did that...and guess what, still NOTHING. You pulled that figure out of your ass and instead of admitting it, you simply pull the old "I can't be bothered to provide evidence" card

Google search results (yes, I checked way past the first page...)

[url=http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AkP1h2CthzGLhQLQCLCgnLWbvZx4?p=15+million+years%2Chuman+fossil&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-701]Yahoo[/ url]

Yahoo actually has 1 result...from hallofthegods.org, a creationist website

I won't try Bing because it uses the same search algorithm as Yahoo.

So given that no scientific sources seem to mention anything about those 15m year old human fossils, and only a creationist website does...well...your "years of research" were probably pretty one-sided

reply to post by itsthetooth


Thank you. I am honestly too tired to try to squeeze anymore of an argument out of my brain amongst all of the crap that is being thrown around here, as I actually work for a living, unlike most of the aggressors here. I give up, but feel free to keep carrying the torch here lol. You're doing a better job than I am.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Ask a question you believe the bible or being spiritual cant answer and I will find the answer for you.

Cancer...cure?

My guess is, science will eventually solve that one before the bible

Originally posted by xXxinfidelxXx
Also, point out that you are from a country that is privilaged enough to actually pay you to learn does not constitute an argument, it only makes you look like an overly-privilaged, holier than thou jack ss.

It wasn't an argument, I was merely pointing out that your Ad hominem of me wasting money into a "BS degree" was incorrect.

Originally posted by xXxinfidelxXx
Any other parts of my argument you wish to pick apart,

What arguments? All I see is Ad hominems and ideas with no support. The 15 million year thingy would have been a great point since this is how the theory of evolution is falsifiable (Precambrian rabbit fossil unearthed and game over), but as I expected, it turned out to be but a fragment of your imagination. Funny how just a few minutes ago it was the cornerstone of your case against human evolution.

reply to post by MrXYZ


No more one sided than yours. How bout instead of revelling in how wrong I am, you go and find the next oldest fossil and rub that in my face instead of just acting like a child. Also, again, that was only a small fragment of my argument. 1 down, a hundred to go. Better get cracking, you're gonna be busy for a while. How bout instead of telling me THAT I am wrong repeatedly, try telling me HOW I am wrong. I was trying to explain myself until I got frustrated, but the fact of the matter is, I have provided you with far more than just a date to reference off of, and yet you overlook all of that just to show everyone else how superior you think you are. So I futzed one number. Career scientists do that every day and generally never admit being wrong until there is no other option but to admit failure. Get over yourself. Seriously. Your self-importance has obviously gotten the best of you. Also, you do realize that Sri Lanka used to be referred to as Ceylon, eh. Might help if you include all information in your search, assuming that you care enough to, which you probably don't.

Originally posted by xXxinfidelxXx
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

No more one sided than yours. How bout instead of revelling in how wrong I am, you go and find the next oldest fossil and rub that in my face instead of just acting like a child. Also, again, that was only a small fragment of my argument. 1 down, a hundred to go. Better get cracking, you're gonna be busy for a while. How bout instead of telling me THAT I am wrong repeatedly, try telling me HOW I am wrong. I was trying to explain myself until I got frustrated, but the fact of the matter is, I have provided you with far more than just a date to reference off of, and yet you overlook all of that just to show everyone else how superior you think you are. So I futzed one number. Career scientists do that every day and generally never admit being wrong until there is no other option but to admit failure. Get over yourself. Seriously. Your self-importance has obviously gotten the best of you. Also, you do realize that Sri Lanka used to be referred to as Ceylon, eh. Might help if you include all information in your search, assuming that you care enough to, which you probably don't.

edit on 28/3/2012 by xXxinfidelxXx because: (no reason given)

Wait...you come here making some bat# crazy random claim, then belittle people who point out that you haven't provided any evidence, then send them off to search for evidence themselves, and when they come back PROVING how wrong you are (link in my last post) you call them "childish"?? Are you for real?

Re-read your last few posts! They're 95% you bitching about how you're being treated, and 5% "content" that's been proven wrong.

And it doesn't matter where the skeleton was found, there were simply no homo sapiens skeletons back then

But given how sure you are of yourself, I'm sure you can back up your claim. Or are you still going with the old "can't be bothered" routine? Doesn't help your credibility

reply to post by xXxinfidelxXx

Okay, I'll address the rapid human evolution period around 400,000 - 300,000 years ago, which is characterized by the rapid increase of our brain size. Believe it or not, this did not necessarily require a single mutation in a protein-coding gene. We are a result of our genes, and the patterns to what degree and in what order they are expressed. So basically, a larger head for example requires but a delay in the expression of a small set of genes. The same applies to larger brains. It's still made from the same cells, it's just that some cells keep on dividing for a longer time. As to why it happened, to me it looks like alien overlords were not involved, but nature was selecting for bigger brains because of some advantage (like thinking) it provided in regard to making babies and keeping them alive until they managed to repeat the process. The larger brain of e.g. Cro magnon and Neanderthal in comparison to modern man might have been for example the result of compensation for lack of an abstract language (as we know, at least existing languages are not that old, e.g. Indo-European and Uralic languages are both younger than the youngest Cro magnon discovered), arrival of which probably sealed the fate of our species due the whole new level of consciousness.

reply to post by rhinoceros


Larger brain = more intelligent = survives more easily

So imagine a group of homo erectus. Some of them had slightly larger heads and brains than others...just like some people today have different brain or hand sizes. Now, the one with the larger brain size is probably a bit cleverer, even if it's just a bit...over thousands of years that offers an advantage, and he will therefore procreate and survive more (probably not in that order). His children will have the "large brain" trait too, and pass it on over generations until we're stuck with the brain we have today.

The thing I'm curious about is how on earth are we going to look in 500,000 years if we don't blow ourselves up because of some spaghetti monster feud before that? We know women have become shorter and heavier on average for a long time now...will that continue?

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Larger brain = more intelligent = survives more easily

Larger brain = higher energy consumption = more prone to starving

There's a downside to every trait.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Larger brain = more intelligent = survives more easily

Larger brain = higher energy consumption = more prone to starving

There's a downside to every trait.

Yeah, but it allows you to figure out farming and using decent traps instead of merely throwing stones

Oh, and of course it's not abound brain size...if it were, a lot of whales would be more intelligent than us. It's about density. Not that this changes anything for this discussion...

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Yeah, but it allows you to figure out farming and using decent traps instead of merely throwing stones

Ants 'figured' out farming with their miniscule brains. In regard to us, my hypothesis is that the arrival of abstract language enabled the higher level thinking required for figuring out farming etc. Not that unlikely, considering estimates of the ages of root languages are quite close to the neolithic revolution period. To me at least this seems plausible. How are you going to figure out sans abstract concepts that taking seeds from plants and planting them into the ground results in new plants next year?

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Larger brain = more intelligent = survives more easily

Larger brain = higher energy consumption = more prone to starving

There's a downside to every trait.

Which is probably the main reason we started eating meat. We probably wouldn't have been able to survive otherwise. ALL of the brain's calories come from carbohydrates and EFA's are necessary for brain growth and development.

We needed another energy source to feed the rest of the body. Even if you're starving, half of your body's calories go to feed the brain.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

Larger brain = more intelligent = survives more easily

So imagine a group of homo erectus. Some of them had slightly larger heads and brains than others...just like some people today have different brain or hand sizes. Now, the one with the larger brain size is probably a bit cleverer, even if it's just a bit...over thousands of years that offers an advantage, and he will therefore procreate and survive more (probably not in that order). His children will have the "large brain" trait too, and pass it on over generations until we're stuck with the brain we have today.

The thing I'm curious about is how on earth are we going to look in 500,000 years if we don't blow ourselves up because of some spaghetti monster feud before that? We know women have become shorter and heavier on average for a long time now...will that continue?

edit on 28-3-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

Hey, speak for yourselves!

My daughter has a test today on evolution today in biology. On her study sheet, she had this cartoon:



That's why we're getting shorter and fatter: too many high calorie, nutrient-poor foods.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Yeah, but it allows you to figure out farming and using decent traps instead of merely throwing stones

Ants 'figured' out farming with their miniscule brains. In regard to us, my hypothesis is that the arrival of abstract language enabled the higher level thinking required for figuring out farming etc. Not that unlikely, considering estimates of the ages of root languages are quite close to the neolithic revolution period. To me at least this seems plausible. How are you going to figure out sans abstract concepts that taking seeds from plants and planting them into the ground results in new plants next year?

edit on 28-3-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

I have to disagree. IMO abstract thinking and language is far, far older than the Neolithic Revolution. Doesn't art require abstract thinking? They found a "paint factory" dating back 100,000 years in South Africa. Not only had they figured out how to make paint (which requires a rudimentary knowledge of chemistry even if they didn't understand it in those terms), but they knew enough to store it in abalone shells. Abalone shells are glazed. Other shells would just absorb the color.

www.guardian.co.uk...

Why on earth make paint at all? Why, to create things, of course. Even if it's only painting beads, it's still art. You do it to make things look pretty, and that's a valuable commodity for trade. And if there's trade, there must be language.

That kind of knowledge takes trial and error...which takes time.

I side with the theory that language is an innate to us as walking upright.

reply to post by MrXYZ

The bible isn't objective evidence...especially considering the FACT that it's demonstrably wrong in many cases.

But of course you already know that and simply chose to ignore that fact

Well the only thing that you keep coming up with as being wrong is the living in the whale for 3 days, yet when I ask you if you have tried it, I don't seem to get an answer from you. I could care less if it sounds impossible, or if all the science points to it being wrong, I want to know if you have tried it, otherwise your talking out your @$$.

Actually, our life span has been increasing dramatically over the years

(It also never was a 1000 years...) According to history in the bible, yes it was.

OMFG!!

1) Yes, there is something amiss because the bible's figure is demonstrably wrong.

2) Have you even read the bible??? It doesn't start 2,000 years ago for crying out loud. I'm an atheist, but even I know that!

In case you're wondering why the numbers don't add up...it's because the figure in the bible is complete and utter nonsense, as is the actual process.

Does that mean the bible is a bad book? Obviously not, billions of people read it (some more thoroughly than others it seems), so it is successful. What it does mean though is that you CAN'T use it as a scientific reference for anything but what people BELIEVED back then...which doesn't automatically match reality.

Again, you have not personally tested all these theories so I know your talking out your @$$.

"Even the bible" isn't exactly a good argument

As for hidden powers, nothing has been proven. Persinger's "god helmet" (that's how he calls his device) hasn't been peer reviewed, and his results haven't been analyzed yet...which he admits. It is possible that the results are skewed because of the participants suggestibility...which he also admits. More research is required.

So pretending telepathy is real and proven is dishonest.

It sounds pretty clear cut and dry to me, he was able to get a sympathetic response from someone in a different room.

reply to post by xXxinfidelxXx

Thank you. I am honestly too tired to try to squeeze anymore of an argument out of my brain amongst all of the crap that is being thrown around here, as I actually work for a living, unlike most of the aggressors here. I give up, but feel free to keep carrying the torch here lol. You're doing a better job than I am.

Well I wouldn't say that, you do seem to know how to put people in there place, and they have been so rude and incredulous toward me that its sickening. I need to learn to not tuck my tail all the time.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Well the only thing that you keep coming up with as being wrong is the living in the whale for 3 days, yet when I ask you if you have tried it, I don't seem to get an answer from you.

You're kidding, right? I explained at least half a dozen times how PHYSICALLY and BIOLOGICALLY people can't survive inside whales.

You're simply ignoring the answer...the same way you do every time something debunks your fantasy world beliefs

As for other stuff that's wrong, I posted a link to over 50 things several times now...and once again, you simply ignore that too. You also ignore that that silly global flood didn't happen, or that the Genesis account is demonstrably wrong. But hey, who cares about facts, right?

You claiming people used to live over 1,000 years is laughably wrong. THINK for crying out loud. What's your proof for saying they lived that long? DNA and fossils definitely don't back it up, and the bible is clearly not proof, just like the Koran isn't proof either

reply to post by MrXYZ


I just have to ask, because someone brought this up. If you actually believe that we evolved from apes, why did we not adapt our language to that existing language? They don't speak our language and we don't speak there's. Ever wonder why that is? I'll give you an obvious clue, its because we did not evolve from them.