Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by PurpleChiten

No darlin, theories are used in the formulation of laws. I don't care if you like it, I don't care if you you want to cover your backside, that's the way it is whether you like it or not.

I'm not the once "covering my backside" -- my statements haven't changed. Yours, on the other hand, have. You started by saying:

You don't have to agree with other theories that are brought up, and you can put all your support into the one you like best and some theories are better than others, but they are still theories. They may even become "Laws" some day with enough proof, but for now, they're theories, that is, a set of possibilities supported by whatever data is pesented to support them but not proven beyond absolution.

Post.

Those are your words, cut and pasted from your post, in that little ex box up there. I've highlighted the most important part in bold. Now you're saying that laws are derived from theories. So we are now in agreement that, contrary to your earlier statement above, scientific theories never become scientific laws. A law can be derived from a theory, a law can be a part of a theory, but one never "turns into" the other. I'm really glad we have this straightened out and can move on.

Now, in keeping with the spirit of the thread, what's your theory for biodiversity?

reply to post by iterationzero


I just had to comment about some of this, even though I know it wasn't my conversation.

People thinking that evolution is "just a theory".

People thinking that, if we evolved from monkeys, there shouldn't still be monkeys.

People thinking that evolution is something that takes place in individual organisms.

People thinking that abiogenesis and the Big Bang are the same thing as biological evolution.

People thinking that evolution and atheism are the same thing.

It's funny how your complaining about over simplifying, when I see you doing the same thing. Anyone who has read the same evo links that I keep getting directed to, would know right away that evolution is not a theory, its actually a series of theories and hypothesis. I do believe there is a tad bit of fact in there as well. As mentioned on this link here...
www.talkorigins.org...
I have yet to see anything from any source claiming any form of evolution in humans. I only find some speciation in some aquatic life, some bacteria, some viruses and according to some other random sites, some insects. According to this page...
en.wikipedia.org...

If we evolved from monkeys, there will always be the question as to why they are still around. The only way that bi-latteral evolution could occur is if speciation was also happening at the same time. My problem with the theory is that if this was in fact how it happened, its a little funny how we are unable to provide any common ancestors. In addition to the fact that there would have to many of them, over a long period of time. In addition to this we saved nothin from this event. We share nothing with them, we speak nothing of the same language, and IMO there would have been things that would have stayed.

On top of all of this, if this was how evolution really worked, our various species here on earth would look a lot different than it does now. We would have tons of species that are speciated a lot more than we see, and a lot less than what we are left with. These intermediate species are simply not here. It also makes no sense that this could happen unless the failure rate was extremly high, and was only surpassed by more procreation. None of which do we see. What we see is that most species actually live, and from that they can't evolve. Your betting that the success of evolution never shows a failure rate, and it would have to be that way in order for it to work. Not to mention that specieation has only been observed in some life, very few.

I think its a little funny how evolution is going on right under our noses, and in a multituide of different ways, and we can't identify it. The closest we have come to identifying it is by saying that we found some changes so it must be evolution. Meh, I think assumptions are being made and there is no solid facts to back them up. The strongest argument I have seen on here was over kodiac bears crossbreeding with polar bears. The problem is you started with two bears and you end up producing bears. Nothing has changed. We are missing an epic amount of intermediate species on this planet that would make evolution oh so obvious. We are also missing the deaths of those attempted and failed, that would also be needed to prove that speciation isn't a creator. We are also missing speciation in the majority of life on this planet as well. Lets face it, we are missing a lot.

Hey Tooth, I was thinking about something eariler today, and it connects with you in a way.

You are basically claiming interventionism, i.e. humans are not / were not originally from planet Earth, or something of that nature, correct?

Riddle me this ....

Plants and Animals (including humans)

Humans exhale Carbon Dioxide, and inhale Oxygen.

Plants exhale Oxygen, and inhale Carbon Dioxide


We are completely linked with plants, and this is another example of evidence that points toward Evolution.
Plants need us, and we need them.

And by plants, this includes algae, which produces much of the Oxygen we breath.

So riddle me this... if everything on this planet is "bad" for humans (or whatever you theory says), how come plants and humans / animals are so linked?

ATTENTION CREATIONISTS!

The following should be considered required reading before going forward. If creationists don't read it, than nobody else should respond!

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by itsthetooth

I have yet to see anything from any source claiming any form of evolution in humans. I only find some speciation in some aquatic life, some bacteria, some viruses and according to some other random sites, some insects.

A fascinating thread. As a laymen without much education, I find it a struggle to see your overall points. I realise this doesn't mean your points are wrong, only that I struggle to understand. There are lots of sources quoting speciation in all sorts of things as well as humans, are you claiming we should be able to observe speciation as in, happens while you watch?

www.publish.csiro.au...

www.sciencemag.org...

www.plosgenetics.org...

www.jstor.org...

There are also some great examples of isolated evolution and comparative "niche" filling, when we consider the life forms on either side of the Wallace Line, for example. Marsupial equivalents of rodents, grazing animals, canines, tigers, monotreme equivalents of aquatic rodents etc. Creatures evolving in isolation according to their environment, to seemingly fill a similar niche. What alternative ideas do you have for this, that someone just built them that way?

If we evolved from monkeys, there will always be the question as to why they are still around.

I don't think science claims this. We didn't evolve from modern monkeys, we share an evolutionary ancestor (who is no longer "still around"). We eventually evolved into modern humans, they evolved into modern monkeys, separately. There is absolutely no reason why modern monkeys should not exist, the same as there is no reason why modern humans should not exist.

These intermediate species are simply not here.

My understanding could be wrong, though I see every species as intermediate. Because they are given names/ taxonomic classification etc. doesn't mean the process of evolution stops.

We are missing an epic amount of intermediate species on this planet that would make evolution oh so obvious.

All species are evolving and therefore could be considered intermediate. Look at the fossil record from Australopithecus onward. Seems compelling, even if is incomplete, for obvious reasons. We are most certainly Apes.


It's fair enough to be skeptical of evolutionary theory. Though it also seems obvious that you are not sceptical, but simply have your mind made up for whatever reason. Looking through this thread it seems obvious that, short of a time machine, nothing and no one will convince you. People have put some very compelling arguments forward, it has been very educational, so in that way I thank both yourself and the op for the thread. In the end it's up to yourself what you choose to believe.

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
I was trying to simplify it for someone who didn't appear to know much, then got slammed out of the blue is what happened... I've learned to not over simply anything without clearly stating that I'm doing so. Apparently quotation marks aren't enough :/

I think you'd understand the reaction if you read the last 10 pages or so of Tooth's posts. Yeah, generalizations probably aren't the best thing to make when describing science. People make a lot of topics here using catch phrases like "blind chance events" and all kinds of things that generalize and misunderstand science to the point its ridiculous. Science is very specific, so when explaining it, it's best to be specific unless you're trying to teach children.

Thanks for taking the time and being civil and further explaining. It's actually very helpful. I only joined on the 8th, so I'm a bit new... and I spent a great deal of time teaching children so that's probably one of the reasons

* children from 15 to 30ish in age, but children nonetheless

edit on 14-5-2012 by PurpleChiten because: (no reason given)

Quite a few people in this thread have science degrees, so really, there's no need to treat them like children. If that's the way you teach (considering you can't even get the terminology straight from what I can see), then it's no wonder science education is as screwed up as it is.

Just sayin'.

Oh, and by the way, you're doing a lousy job of editing your posts. Deleting the text doesn't make them go away.

Originally posted by libertytoall
I think the question in this thread without reading through it should be "can you prove evolution right?" Of course you can't..

Obviously you can't prove the entire theory, but as far as the process of modern evolutionary synthesis, it's a slam dunk as far as proof goes.

reply to post by Confusion42

Hey Tooth, I was thinking about something eariler today, and it connects with you in a way.

You are basically claiming interventionism, i.e. humans are not / were not originally from planet Earth, or something of that nature, correct?

Riddle me this ....

Plants and Animals (including humans)

Humans exhale Carbon Dioxide, and inhale Oxygen.

Plants exhale Oxygen, and inhale Carbon Dioxide


We are completely linked with plants, and this is another example of evidence that points toward Evolution.
Plants need us, and we need them.

And by plants, this includes algae, which produces much of the Oxygen we breath.

So riddle me this... if everything on this planet is "bad" for humans (or whatever you theory says), how come plants and humans / animals are so linked?

Well you have to consider the fact that there are over 5 million species on this planet, and aside from the ones in water, they all breath air. It's however no coincidence. We could have been created this way. You question is right along the lines of why we all have the same DNA. Evolutionists don't understand that a creator could have just as easily of used the same recycled parts. However I'm not saying that either one is the answer. In order for creationalists to be correct, who made the creator. In order for evolutionists to be correct, who made the first slime. There seems to be a who at the backing of every question, not that it has to be a who.

If your trying to say that the relationship between plants and humans proves evolution, I'm not seeing it.

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum


Thanks for the links Cog, they were perhaps the most informative yet. One of the things that I think is being overlooked here, and I have to bring this up because I'm assuming you havent read all of my posts, is about identifying speciation.

We base this on change, unless anyone can prove differently, I haven't seen any other way. The problem underlies in the baseline for these perimeters. It's complicated but what I'm trying to say is that we don't know exactly what this vehicle looks like that causes evolution. If we did know, then they would be able to identify it in fossils which they are also unable to do. Not to be confused with change. IMO change can happen without the idea of evolution.

How can evolutionitsts make claims that evolution is in progress, while they are unable to identify it, unable to recreate it, unable to detect it in fossils. They can't. This is why I call evolution a super bug, one that has enough power to not only change our DNA, but do so without leaving a trace so that we can't identify it. It seriously makes no sense.

Humans are NOT from apes, and there are a lot of things that prove that. As an example HAR1 proves it. There is no way we evolved from anything with this complex string of DNA that isn't found in any other living thing on this planet. Not like we have DNA tested everything but for sure other primates. Apes just have good overlap in DNA so it gives the illusion of a relationship. You have to look at this more from the angle of... course we have a lot in common with other life here, we should as we all breath air and share in a lot of other things. The 97% DNA we share with apes still leaves for millions of unexplained gene difference, including HAR1.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
How can evolutionitsts make claims that evolution is in progress, while they are unable to identify it, unable to recreate it, unable to detect it in fossils. They can't. This is why I call evolution a super bug, one that has enough power to not only change our DNA, but do so without leaving a trace so that we can't identify it. It seriously makes no sense.

They ARE able to identify it, recreate it, AND observe it in the fossil record. Stop repeating that lie. I know I've already posted what exactly causes genetic mutations. It's not some bug, it's environmental factors. Google is your friend.

Humans are NOT from apes, and there are a lot of things that prove that. As an example HAR1 proves it. There is no way we evolved from anything with this complex string of DNA that isn't found in any other living thing on this planet. Not like we have DNA tested everything but for sure other primates. Apes just have good overlap in DNA so it gives the illusion of a relationship. You have to look at this more from the angle of... course we have a lot in common with other life here, we should as we all breath air and share in a lot of other things. The 97% DNA we share with apes still leaves for millions of unexplained gene difference, including HAR1.

Are you going to source that claim yet? No, ancient aliens, isn't a science journal.

reply to post by Barcs

They ARE able to identify it, recreate it, AND observe it in the fossil record. Stop repeating that lie. I know I've already posted what exactly causes genetic mutations. It's not some bug, it's environmental factors. Google is your friend.

I have yet to see anything that shows the vehicle of evolution. Now your claiming they have observed it. All I have read about says they have observed the results but not actually witnessed whats causing it, much less whats behind it.

All the links I have read say nothing about proving that evolution is to blame for changes, it's looking more like therr are changes so it must be evolution to blame.

Are you going to source that claim yet? No, ancient aliens, isn't a science journal.

I doubt very seriously if ONLY science journals can offer truthful important information.

Maybe wiki is good enough, you know google is YOUR friend too.
en.wikipedia.org...

I think where we keep splitting apart in our understanding is that speciation being observed anywhere is based on a theory of it possibly being from natural selection, or mutation, etc. Since those theorys have never been proven, this is where I'm more interested in facts rather than speculation. They couldn't even narrow it down for christ sakes they had to make up several options. Mutations, natural selection, sexual selection. None of which has been observed because if it was, the theory of evolution would no longer be a hypothesis.

I'm getting this off of an evolution site btw.

Originally posted by HappyBunny


Quite a few people in this thread have science degrees, so really, there's no need to treat them like children. If that's the way you teach (considering you can't even get the terminology straight from what I can see), then it's no wonder science education is as screwed up as it is.

Just sayin'.

Oh, and by the way, you're doing a lousy job of editing your posts. Deleting the text doesn't make them go away.

edit on 5/15/2012 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)

From what I've seen, MANY of them need to be treated like children. The terminology wasn't screwed up, just used in a way they didn't like and I don't really care if they like it or not. For the love of God, doesn't anyone know what quotation marks are used for??? Oh well, not my problem if they are so narrow minded and anal retentive that they have to attack vernacular that they don't favor instead of being constructive.
I would hazard to guess that my degrees trump theirs as does my ability and understanding from what I've read. It's somewhat akin to you having a discussion with a 4 year old about the method they use to tie their shoes and them getting upset if you say the bunny goes down the hole instead of under the tree then a whole group of 4 year olds getting upset about where the bunny went.
As far as editing, I'm well aware of it and if you bothered reading the "reason" on them, perhaps it would sink into your head why it was done ...probably not, but, oh well. Hop along now.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Well you have to consider the fact that there are over 5 million species on this planet, and aside from the ones in water, they all breath air.

Species of what?

Did you understand what I was saying?

Plants breath in Carbon Dioxide, and exhale Oxygen as a by-product.

Animals / Humans breath in Oxygen, and produce Carbon dioxide as a by product.

You seem not to be able to explain why it is that plants' by-product is oxygen, and humans / animals by-product is Carbon Dioxide.

This means animal life and plant life is LINKED.

Both rely on each other.

It's however no coincidence. We could have been created this way.

God of the gaps?

See, this is the difference between science, and religion (and / or in your case, outright fantasy belief).

Science actually tests things and uses the results to develope answers to questions such as these.

Religion (and / or whatever you use) just say "we could have been created this way."

Your argument is not even an argument; It is the most extreme type of ignorance.

If, thoughout human history, human's never sought to answer questions, and instead said "we could have been created this way," we would still be living in caves...


How can you say "it's no coincidence, we could have been created this way."? as an answer?

It's the same as saying, "A Car just works, it's no coincidence, the blue invisible smurfs created the car!"

You question is right along the lines of why we all have the same DNA.

NO, my question DOES NOT DEAL WITH DNA!

Why did you even reply? You literally are trying to replace my question with your own, and than answer your own question.

I AM ASKING about Plants, and how plants use Carbon Dioxide and produce oxygen as a by-product, while human's / animals use oxygen and product carbon dioxide as a by-product.

I am talking about Oxygen, and Carbon Dioxide.

This is what I am talking about.

You are not even trying to answer. Instead, you are TRYING TO PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH.

Ofcourse everybody here thinks your nuts; You think answering other's questions includes re-writing their questions and answering your own question instead.

Pathetic!

Evolutionists don't understand that a creator could have just as easily of used the same recycled parts.

YOU ARE NOT ADRESSEING MY QUESTION.

I AM TALKING ABOUT PLANTS AND ANIMALS / CARBON DIOXIDE AND OXYGEN.

How dare you put words in my mouth by claming that I am asking something which I am not, and than attempt to answer your own question claiming it's mine?

Are you this ignorant?

If your trying to say that the relationship between plants and humans proves evolution, I'm not seeing it.

STOP PUTTING WORD'S IN MY MOUTH.

Wowser's, you just don't get it?

Learn to read bro

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs

 

I doubt very seriously if ONLY science journals can offer truthful important information.

Wow, your complaint about Evolution, a benchmark of science, is because it's science?

ONLY science deals with Evolution.

Their are belief systems called religion, which are based on fantasy, and demand people to accept truths that lack any and all evidence.

Science deals with Evolution.

To say that you don't agree with evolution because science deals with evolution, is outrageous.

Just a "What if"...
What if evolution was God's way of creating mankind and the story in Genesis is just the "condensed version"? Would creationists be able to accept that or would they still swear that there is no possible way that evolution could possibly have any credence at all? Would evolutionists be able to accept the possibility of a God or would they continue to deny it?
Now I do realize that there are creationists that accept evolution, mostly on these grounds and there are evolutionists that accept God, but why do the extremes on each side refuse to look at the possibility?

reply to post by PurpleChiten


And a wink of God's eye is said to be equivalent of 10 thousands years. Therefore God's week seems to be right around 14 billion Earth years long. Accordingly we are just seconds passed midnight on a very early Monday morning on God-time.

I always through that out to literal creationists. They balk at it. Then I say, "You do believe what is said in the Bible correct? If so use the brain God gave you and do the math. Atheists on the other hand say I'm merely rationalizing religious texts, and I say to that, "Yep do because I'm a rational man."

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
Just a "What if"...
What if evolution was God's way of creating mankind and the story in Genesis is just the "condensed version"? Would creationists be able to accept that or would they still swear that there is no possible way that evolution could possibly have any credence at all? Would evolutionists be able to accept the possibility of a God or would they continue to deny it?
Now I do realize that there are creationists that accept evolution, mostly on these grounds and there are evolutionists that accept God, but why do the extremes on each side refuse to look at the possibility?

What if an invisible soda can, created the universe?

They both have the same amount of evidence... none...

Unless, ofcourse, talking snakes is what you call evidence?

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool
reply to post by PurpleChiten

 

And a wink of God's eye is said to be equivalent of 10 thousands years. Therefore God's week seems to be right around 14 billion Earth years long. Accordingly we are just seconds passed midnight on a very early Monday morning on God-time.

I always through that out to literal creationists. They balk at it. Then I say, "You do believe what is said in the Bible correct? If so use the brain God gave you and do the math. Atheists on the other hand say I'm merely rationalizing religious texts, and I say to that, "Yep do because I'm a rational man."

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12)

“Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us – he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.” (Psalm 137:9)

“This is what the Lord Almighty says... ‘Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (1 Samuel 15:3)

(and there is more)..

Yuupp. very "rational'?