Can you prove evolution wrong

Colin, wolves and sparrows are all well and good, but there are other animals which demonstrate a much clearer relationship with man. There are over a thousand different species which parasitize humans. Some, like Deer Ticks, aren't too choosy, but many such as lice and tape worms have numerous species specific to humans. That is, they reach maturity and reproduce only inside humans and no other animal on this earth. They depend entirely upon humans for food, shelter, and to spread their eggs. Bear in mind that it is not unusual for a mammal to be subject to such a large number of parasitic species.

What's even cooler is that the life cycle of most parasites involves multiple organisms. So while the parasite only matures and reproduces in humans, it has larval stages that develop in other animals. Not just the common ones like pigs and cows either, but even obscure animals like snails and frogs Some parasites have life cycles that take them through 4 or more different animals before they wind up in a person, its crazy.

So it turns out that there are literally hundreds of animals that share an intimate and natural relationship with humans, while simultaneously weaving him into the the local ecosystem by simultaneously relying on other local animals. And hey, it turns out at that lots of those redundant adaptations serve purposes we hadn't even thought of. Like shoes keeping hookworms away from our feet, and fire killing off the dozens of parasites in the meat we cook.

I highly reccomend the book Parasite Rex, by Carl Zimmer. It offers a lot of fascinating information on things that are all around us, all the time.

reply to post by colin42

It must be really hard for you living in a world with all the disabled abilities you have. I am sorry to point out that yet again that your disabled reading ability has let you down as I never mentioned wolves attacking wolves.

NO, I was keeping fair contrast with your prior analage.

If you are commenting on husband and wives. We were talking about relationships so the comparison was valid but hey thats probably above your comprehension as well.

Than wolves killing other wolves would be a correct analage.

Your making assumptions again. Your judgment is ,lets just say another disabled ability.

I must say you are getting very creepy with your obsession around my death so you had best keep these wierdo fantasies to yourself from now on.

So NOW your admitting you would die in the same presence with these beasts, rather than saying we have a strong relationship with them.

I'm not interested in your death as I am that its just going to be a reality check for you. It might happen so quick however that you might not have time to ponder what and why it happened.

The point is we have a relationship with wolves. Look you have already confessed you were wrong and that I was right, stop grovelling.

I'm smacking my own face in shame Colin. Even after all the links I provided you and I might add a video that shows a guy getting attacked by a wolf because he got to buddy buddy with one. You still believe we have a relationship with wolves. Let me ask you then, what does this relationship entail, and what are the circumstances around it?

We have and have had a long relationship with the wolf. We now both agree this. I have again proved you wrong and you need to accept that and move on.

Wolves attacking humans is NOT a relationship Colin.

reply to post by colin42

Look I have warned you nicely. Keep your pervy fantasy's to yourself. Your creepy ability seems not to have been disabled but you need to keep it in check.

There is nothing pervy about your demise.

Another U turn How can they be related to wolves if they as you wrote previously are not from here?
Dogs and wolves can breed and produce viable young. They are the same. Wolfdog
If they are from here and related to wolves then we must have had a relationship with wolves and still do.

It is an excellent example of unexplainable ecception, just like that with the horse and the donkey to make a mule.
There are only three options here.
They both are possibly not from here, or one is and the other is not, or they are both from here.

They are both scavangers having no target food, except that wolves have seem to make a career out of killing for meat. Then again they could both be from here and have just lived through coextinctions. Whats odd is that there food also went extinct. Unless you want to believe that there whole purpose in life is to attack other animals and eat them. The fact that there is no gametic isolation between them is perhaps one of the best examples for evolution. Unfortunatly it does very little from the numbers view because there are only these two cases compared to the over 5 million species on this planet.

What ever the case is, it obviously happned to both dogs and wolves. If you want to believe one is not from here, than chances are pretty high so is the other. If you want to believe there food went extinct, than it happen to both of them as well.

ITS A RELATIONSHIP. You can tag whatever you like on the front or end but it remains a relationship.

And you lack the intuition to draw the boundrie. So if I go up to a lion in a cage and spit on him and piss him off, you would then say I now have created a realtionship between man and lion. Even still if I fed the lion you would also claim that a relationship between man and lion has been created. Only in YOUR mind Colin. Your examples of relationships are very subjective, and I don't think your seeing this. In fact a good percentage of the garbage you have been trolling on here is highly subjective.

Yes just wanted to see if you knew. So how would dogs be victims of coextinction?

Well this is where the gaps of evolution would come in. If there was ever a spotlight for evolution in my book this is it. With things missing and disappearing, causing gaps that would normally tie connections between species. When one thing on this plant dies, 100 follow as the eco balance has been broken. Again, I can see you still don't grasp the whole idea of the balance but it is actually very delicate and very important.

Ah the ritual lie. No you called me a fool when I told you all life was dependant on all other life. Another win for me even if you wont admit it. We revisited balanced eco systems a page or two ago. You lost the argument again.

I'm glad to see your finally agreeing with me, except I don't ever recall you agreeing to an eco balance, which is also why you asked the prior question.

Tut tut. Assumption again. Proof please or it did not happen.

The proof is everywhere Colin and I have allready addressed this.
There is nothing on this planet that would just die if we up and disappeared off this planet.
There is also nothing specific that would harm us by disappearing, which is why we have no target food.
We are not an important part of any structure on this planet.
There is nothing we depend on as far as food that would make a difference to us, and nothing that eats us that would suffer.

Nope you called it the an unnatural relationship (A bit like your fantasy around me). You also failed to show why you believed it was not natural. You lost the point.

So because you put food out for wild dogs, if they eat it, you are then saying you created a bond between man and wild dogs. Even though all wild dogs woudln't see the tie, but I guess you don't see it either.

Your making a horrible assumption here that just because one event happens where humans feed wild dogs, that all of a sudden all wild dogs will know about this and therefore you can claim that man has a relationship with wild dogs.

Says you but remember your comment about one person not being judge and jury. Your silly restriction was rejected by all. You lost that point.

Your answer is very subjective.

396 pages and this is the level of your understanding of evolution. Are you really sure you are a borderline genius?

I was being sarcastic because your explanation of relationships would appear normal with my analage of the field mouse.


[quote

reply to post by colin42

No mention was made of eco balance, your disabilities are letting you down again. You celebrated your win too soon. What a pity.

Actually it was and pissed and moaned about the shrimp in the tank about it. Anyhow your agreeing with me so I won finally. I have to admitt Colin I am seeing some progress here.

I take it your comment on blood type is just because your ability to make sense is disabled.
You have already agreed we have a relationship with wolves and a long standing one at that. Your backsliding just highlights your dishonesty. But hey it is part of your religion to lie.

I didn't mean blood in that way I meant blood drawn.

And we're back to target food...one dumb argument after another, recycled over and over again while logic and rationality get thrown overboard to protect that silly little personal religion.

reply to post by MrXYZ

Like I said, HAR1 only pertains to the difference in the genome sequence, and NOT like you wrongfully stated that chimps don't have it at all. So in the end, you were clearly wrong. Citing a program doesn't give you any more credibility either unless you post an original excerpt because clearly you are very prone to misinterpreting science if I fits your personal religion.

And of course our genome sequences are slightly (!!!) different than those of chimps, just like the ones of sharks and tuna. Still doesn't prove any of your claims though, just like NOTHING you posted in around 400 pages has

You must have your beer goggles on. It's not my fault I was quoting a program.

Anyhow I love how you totally ignored the fact that I was talking about us having disabled abilitys and then later on in the thread a scientist claims telepathy as a fact.

So which is it, was I right or am I just lucky in predicting the future?

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Like I said, HAR1 only pertains to the difference in the genome sequence, and NOT like you wrongfully stated that chimps don't have it at all. So in the end, you were clearly wrong. Citing a program doesn't give you any more credibility either unless you post an original excerpt because clearly you are very prone to misinterpreting science if I fits your personal religion.

And of course our genome sequences are slightly (!!!) different than those of chimps, just like the ones of sharks and tuna. Still doesn't prove any of your claims though, just like NOTHING you posted in around 400 pages has

You must have your beer goggles on. It's not my fault I was quoting a program.

Anyhow I love how you totally ignored the fact that I was talking about us having disabled abilitys and then later on in the thread a scientist claims telepathy as a fact.

So which is it, was I right or am I just lucky in predicting the future?

You weren't quoting the program, for that you would have to post the transcript or link the clip. At least now we know you also don't know the definition of "quoting".

And as has been mentioned before, no proof of telepathy has been provided as the experimental doesn't hold up to peer reviews...a core component of scientific method. The theory of evolution on the other hand holds up to peer reviews. You really have to watch those DVDs as you don't even understand what you're criticizing.

And no, you weren't right because as I have shown you didn't even understand the HAR1 thing correctly

reply to post by colin42

Colin, wolves and sparrows are all well and good, but there are other animals which demonstrate a much clearer relationship with man. There are over a thousand different species which parasitize humans. Some, like Deer Ticks, aren't too choosy, but many such as lice and tape worms have numerous species specific to humans. That is, they reach maturity and reproduce only inside humans and no other animal on this earth. They depend entirely upon humans for food, shelter, and to spread their eggs. Bear in mind that it is not unusual for a mammal to be subject to such a large number of parasitic species.

What's even cooler is that the life cycle of most parasites involves multiple organisms. So while the parasite only matures and reproduces in humans, it has larval stages that develop in other animals. Not just the common ones like pigs and cows either, but even obscure animals like snails and frogs Some parasites have life cycles that take them through 4 or more different animals before they wind up in a person, its crazy.

So it turns out that there are literally hundreds of animals that share an intimate and natural relationship with humans, while simultaneously weaving him into the the local ecosystem by simultaneously relying on other local animals. And hey, it turns out at that lots of those redundant adaptations serve purposes we hadn't even thought of. Like shoes keeping hookworms away from our feet, and fire killing off the dozens of parasites in the meat we cook.

I highly reccomend the book Parasite Rex, by Carl Zimmer. It offers a lot of fascinating information on things that are all around us, all the time.

And now Colin, you get to see for the first time on this thread, somone with some real intelligence. These are the types of things that raise questions in the idea of intervention. Of course it doesn't make it impossible but it sure raises more questions. It is possible that if thousands or even hundreds of thousands of people were transported here, that they had these pre-existing parasites in there system, which would explain how they got to earth. Only problem with that is how were they able to multiply since they don't usually transfer from one human to another. There are only two options here. Either the parasites were brought over like some of the other life, or its just a coincidence they like to spawn on and in humans.

reply to post by itsthetooth


Or they simply evolved alongside humans which is the simple/rational explanation...as opposed to your nonsense intervention hypothesis that has no objective evidence behind it, which explains why intervention isn't even a theory (not that you'll ever understand the difference...you made it abundantly clear that you lack the necessary logic/rationality for that to happen, even after it was explained numerous time)

Postulated hypothetical theory....you should become a stand up comedian

reply to post by MrXYZ

And we're back to target food...one dumb argument after another, recycled over and over again while logic and rationality get thrown overboard to protect that silly little personal religion.

In case you fell off track, Target food has nothing to do with religion.

At all.

The only reason why these things keep coming up is because Colin keeps bringing them up from association.
There is also no protection of any religion. I don't care for religion in case you have once again missed that as well. I just feel that there are a lot of important things in the bible that tell us about our existance here on earth, thats all. It's just a history of how we got here, and why we are here, and what happened to us in the process.

I don't disagree that some things in the bible are unexplainalbe, but I don't think that means its a worthless book at that. Besides all accounts in trying to discredit the bible, aren't taking into account that there were supernatural elements in the original involvment. So of course we aren't going to be able to recreate all of it.

So you still never answered me. Was I correct about us having powers or am I just damn lucky at predicting the future?

Oh and I need to correct this, its telepathy as a *proven* fact.

reply to post by MrXYZ

And as has been mentioned before, no proof of telepathy has been provided as the experimental doesn't hold up to peer reviews...a core component of scientific method. The theory of evolution on the other hand holds up to peer reviews. You really have to watch those DVDs as you don't even understand what you're criticizing.

And no, you weren't right because as I have shown you didn't even understand the HAR1 thing correctly

Actually I can quote something without sharing the quote.

As far as peer reveiews, you will have to do a little research like I did, and realize that it did hold up to peer reveiws, and the title still sticks that telepathy is a fact.

reply to post by MrXYZ

Or they simply evolved alongside humans which is the simple/rational explanation...as opposed to your nonsense intervention hypothesis that has no objective evidence behind it, which explains why intervention isn't even a theory (not that you'll ever understand the difference...you made it abundantly clear that you lack the necessary logic/rationality for that to happen, even after it was explained numerous time)

Postulated hypothetical theory....you should become a stand up comedian

Well at least I'm a comedican thats able to predict the future. I'm going to assume you feel that way since you still havent commented on it.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

And as has been mentioned before, no proof of telepathy has been provided as the experimental doesn't hold up to peer reviews...a core component of scientific method. The theory of evolution on the other hand holds up to peer reviews. You really have to watch those DVDs as you don't even understand what you're criticizing.

And no, you weren't right because as I have shown you didn't even understand the HAR1 thing correctly

Actually I can quote something without sharing the quote.

As far as peer reveiews, you will have to do a little research like I did, and realize that it did hold up to peer reveiws reveiws, and the title still sticks that telepathy is a fact.

No, it didn't hold up to peer reviews as no one could recreate the experimental, even though other scientists tried. Look up the definition of peer reviews...as this is something else you don't understand.

And no, unless you post the transcript of the show or link the clip you aren't quoting...that would be paraphrasing, something you'd know if you ever had to write a proper uni paper. For a "borderline genius" it's surprising you don't know that.

While you're at it, you might also want to read up on the definition of "fact"...because your posts make it clear you also don't get that either

I haven't commented on your predicting the future comment as even by your standards it's silly...

reply to post by MrXYZ

You weren't quoting the program, for that you would have to post the transcript or link the clip. At least now we know you also don't know the definition of "quoting".

And as has been mentioned before, no proof of telepathy has been provided as the experimental doesn't hold up to peer reviews...a core component of scientific method. The theory of evolution on the other hand holds up to peer reviews. You really have to watch those DVDs as you don't even understand what you're criticizing.

And no, you weren't right because as I have shown you didn't even understand the HAR1 thing correctly

Well since I didn't share the link to the program I watched I will say that I was referencing the program.

You might want to read some other links about Persinger. They are still calling it a proven fact, and I looked at some of the reviews, but there doesn't seem to be any credible giving there input. It's one of the unfair things about reviews, you get every one with an opinion and not necessarly the credibility.

This is why I'm not so bent on buying the idea of having to have something reviewed.

The HAR1 deal still sticks. The program I watched made it clear that there is no way we could have evolved with the differences.
It was clear that HAR1 didn't even exist in other life. According to wiki it does, but it varys greatly.
Either way I was still correct, it doesn't exist in humans in the same way.

reply to post by MrXYZ

No, it didn't hold up to peer reviews as no one could recreate the experimental, even though other scientists tried. Look up the definition of peer reviews...as this is something else you don't understand.

And no, unless you post the transcript of the show or link the clip you aren't quoting...that would be paraphrasing, something you'd know if you ever had to write a proper uni paper. For a "borderline genius" it's surprising you don't know that.

While you're at it, you might also want to read up on the definition of "fact"...because your posts make it clear you also don't get that either

I haven't commented on your predicting the future comment as even by your standards it's silly...

Now is it silly because of your own reasons that you wont comment about it, or is it silly that I did in fact predict the future? Of course we all know thats not possible, so maybe its just that I was correct to begin with. Nothing silly about that huh?

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

You weren't quoting the program, for that you would have to post the transcript or link the clip. At least now we know you also don't know the definition of "quoting".

And as has been mentioned before, no proof of telepathy has been provided as the experimental doesn't hold up to peer reviews...a core comp onent of scientific method. The theory of evolution on the other hand holds up to peer reviews. You really have to watch those DVDs as you don't even understand what you're criticizing.

And no, you weren't right because as I have shown you didn't even understand the HAR1 thing correctly

Well since I didn't share the link to the program I watched I will say that I was referencing the program.

You might want to read some other links about Persinger. They are still calling it a proven fact, and I looked at some of the reviews, but there doesn't seem to be any credible giving there input. It's one of the unfair things about reviews, you get every one with an opinion and not necessarly the credibility.

This is why I'm not so bent on buying the idea of having to have something reviewed.

The HAR1 deal still sticks. The program I watched made it clear that there is no way we could have evolved with the differences.
It was clear that HAR1 didn't even exist in other life. According to wiki it does, but it varys greatly.
Either way I was still correct, it doesn't exist in humans in the same way.

Given that it even exits in chickens even though you claimed otherwise you were clearly wrong and misreferencing the program...as you do so often. And of course it varies between species because THEY ARE DIFFERENT SPECIES, and you'd expect differences

Thanks for admitting to not have known what "quoting" means. As a next step, I suggest you learn proper referencing.

reply to post by MrXYZ

Given that it even exits in chickens even though you claimed otherwise you were clearly wrong and misreferencing the program...as you do so often. And of course it varies between species because THEY ARE DIFFERENT SPECIES, and you'd expect differences

Thanks for admitting to not have known what "quoting" means. As a next step, I suggest you learn proper referencing.

I never admitted to not knowing what quoting means, I simply said I would just use the term referencing.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Given that it even exits in chickens even though you claimed otherwise you were clearly wrong and misreferencing the program...as you do so often. And of course it varies between species because THEY ARE DIFFERENT SPECIES, and you'd expect differences

Thanks for admitting to not have known what "quoting" means. As a next step, I suggest you learn proper referencing.

I never admitted to not knowing what quoting means, I simply said I would just use the term referencing.

AFTER you were told that what you did isn't a "QUOTE", ergo you were wrong and admitting it because you changed it to "referencing" (and obviously incorrectly as the facts don't back up your original claims that HAR1 only concerns humans)

reply to post by MrXYZ

No, it didn't hold up to peer reviews as no one could recreate the experimental, even though other scientists tried. Look up the definition of peer reviews...as this is something else you don't understand.

some of the peer reviews were shared in the standard reviews.

So what your saying is youll accept the word of peers long before youll accept the word of the DR.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

No, it didn't hold up to peer reviews as no one could recreate the experimental, even though other scientists tried. Look up the definition of peer reviews...as this is something else you don't understand.

some of the peer reviews were shared in the standard reviews.

So what your saying is youll accept the word of peers long before youll accept the word of the DR.

As per scientific method, a theory needs to hold up to peer reviews (which it doesn't given that NO ONE was able to recreate the experiment). So yeah, unless it hold up to peer reviews, it's definitely not a scientific fact. You might wanna read the Wiki post about scientific method