Can you prove evolution wrong

More about the Skink:




^ A yellow-bellied three-toed skink carrying live embryos.

Along the warm coastal lowlands of New South Wales (map), the yellow-bellied three-toed skink lays eggs to reproduce. But individuals of the same species living in the state's higher, colder mountains are almost all giving birth to live young.

...

Evolutionary records shows that nearly a hundred reptile lineages have independently made the transition from egg-laying to live birth in the past, and today about 20 percent of all living snakes and lizards give birth to live young only.

news.nationalgeographic.com...#

reply to post by OLD HIPPY DUDE

Didn't you say,"evolution still applies today. It's not about adapting"
Adapting is the evolution of thought.

No, I said that evolution is ALL about adapting. I did not ever say it was not. It's just on a large timescale.

And then you said,
"The ability to learn is more important to our survival than anything else and "(that ability comes naturally)".

There is more to just learning "how" to do something, there is the how under different conditions "the when" and "why" . And to say that it is natural is absurd. If one understands how,when and why they do something and repeats the process enough times the process will become natural. And the process must be taught.

You are completely confusing what I posted. I'm talking about the ABILITY to learn, not the process of learning or the information learned. Every child is different, and proof of this comes in the classroom, where a room full of students are taught the same things, by the same teacher, in the same environment, yet the grades and success of the individual students vary. I'm talking about the natural ability to take in knowledge and make use of it. You can't be taught how to be taught. Let's take chimpanzees for example. They can be taught a variety of things, from putting together a puzzle to using basic sign language. But they can't be taught computer programming or nuclear physics. This is because their brain cannot comprehend things on the level that ours can. They don't have the same ability to learn and retain information. Luckily they don't yet need to adapt to New York City and learn the stock market, or they would surely become extinct. Humans, on the other hand, need to make money to survive this environment, for the most part.

Science ommits facts that that do not fit the puzzle or contradict a theory.
This is how science works and always will. I suggest you do more reading and not on line or in a library but college and science societys and academys research papers. A lot of research is rejected not because of facts but by popular belief and because it would shatter other accepted theorys.

Is it opposite day? You are describing creationism, not science. Find me a credible scientific study that contradicts evolution or is ignored in evolutionary studies, even though it's backed up by testible evidence. Science doesn't omit facts, it omits opinion. Everything in science starts with a hypothesis, but once data is gathered and experiments are verified it becomes theory. God has not left the hypothesis stage.

Yes, thought is evolution too and a thought is mental not physical .

So, please explain where the mental part of evolution comes in. Thoughts don't trigger genetic mutations that are passed down to the next generation. The only thing "mental" about evolution is the simple fact that as humans, the dumber people have a lower chance of survival. But again, that's based on the physical brain and its ability to learn. You can gather tons of knowledge throughout your life and be very intelligent, but if you don't have the common sense to watch where you're going and get hit by a bus, then evolution has passed you by. The simple fact is that some people are BORN smarter than others. I know there's all kinds of other factors involved as well, but I'm trying to keep it simple.

Originally posted by Nosred

Originally posted by jeichelberg
reply to post by Nosred

 

It is still a skink...right? I mean, it is not something else entirely...The fact remains it is still a skink...a different type of skink, but it is still a skink...

No, they are still members of the Skink genus but they are entirely different species now. They are not the same species anymore. They have diverged on the evolutionary tree into entirely separate species. Homo Sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis are both members of the Homo genus, but they are not the same species. It would be incredibly ignorant to say a Neanderthal is the same thing as a human, or vice versa. It is no less ignorant in this situation with the skinks.

They are as much the same animal as Chimpanzees and Bonobos are. Both Chimpanzees and Bonobos are members of the genus Pan, but they are not the same species.

Are you sure you even understand evolutionary theory? It's rather silly to try to argue against something you don't entirely understand isn't it?


Edit: In case you're not getting this, species in the Skink genus have diverged into separate egg laying and non-egg laying species. This is irrefutable evidence of evolution happening right before our very eyes. You have failed to offer an alternative explanation for this phenomena.

Another example of evolution occurring right in front of us:

Striking differences in head size and shape, increased bite strength and the development of new structures in the lizard’s digestive tracts were noted after only 36 years, which is an extremely short time scale,” says Duncan Irschick, a professor of biology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. “These physical changes have occurred side-by-side with dramatic changes in population density and social structure.

...

Observed changes in head morphology were caused by adaptation to a different food source. According to Irschick, lizards on the barren island of Pod Kopiste were well-suited to catching mobile prey, feasting mainly on insects. Life on Pod Mrcaru, where they had never lived before, offered them an abundant supply of plant foods, including the leaves and stems from native shrubs. Analysis of the stomach contents of lizards on Pod Mrcaru showed that their diet included up to two-thirds plants, depending on the season, a large increase over the population of Pod Kopiste.

www.sciencedaily.com...

edit on 26-10-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)

Actually testing shows that we have neanderthal DNA in us.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

And I've read in more than a couple of books on anthropology that an anthropologist walking down the street will sometimes spot neanderthal features in people. Apparently if you could get a full blooded neanderthal and dress them in modern clothes, the average joe wouldn't realise what they were looking at.

I was watching a documentary a while ago about a french anthropologist who was on her way to proving that neanderthal actually produced us, a mutation. And that neanderthal and the mutation (us) overlapped and so would have also bred together. I've not been able to find the sources for that documentary on the net as i forget the name of it though and I'm planning on spending a day hitting the National and Australian geographic shops as well as the ABC shops to see if I can find the DVD because it's a real eye opener.

Well, I see a skink...I do not see anything different than a skink...sorry...There are all kinds of different animals...and species within families...I fail to see how this proves that at some point along the line, this skink will become anything else other than a skink....what do you suppose this skink will become...And there is nothing in that article indicating it will become something else...

I offered my view on what I believe to be the cause for biodiversity...it is simple...adaptation...both sides have their views on what started the whole shebang...Mine is a creator started it, the opposite is true for many...Both sides lay a claim to the word adaptation...one side claims this is all it is and that is it...the other says it is evidence that a deer went into the water for ten minutes one day, twenty the next, and then before you knew it...PRESTO...fins...and a leftover pelvic bone...which is still useful by the way...sorry...I cannot buy it...

reply to post by Nosred


Oh, but it is how science works. And as you said, "I am not your teacher"
So stop with your juvenile insults and do some good research reading..
You are aware how one gets their research accepted and published, It's called a "peer review".
You are aware that those who sit on review boards have had their research accepted and to accept an opposing or conflicting theory could do damage to their own research and cast doubt on their credibility.
There are mountains of research papers that will never be viewed by the public for many,many, many reasons besides for not being conclusive proof.

Originally posted by jeichelberg
Well, I see a skink...I do not see anything different than a skink...sorry...There are all kinds of different animals...and species within families...I fail to see how this proves that at some point along the line, this skink will become anything else other than a skink....what do you suppose this skink will become...And there is nothing in that article indicating it will become something else...

I offered my view on what I believe to be the cause for biodiversity...it is simple...adaptation...both sides have their views on what started the whole shebang...Mine is a creator started it, the opposite is true for many...Both sides lay a claim to the word adaptation...one side claims this is all it is and that is it...the other says it is evidence that a deer went into the water for ten minutes one day, twenty the next, and then before you knew it...PRESTO...fins...and a leftover pelvic bone...which is still useful by the way...sorry...I cannot buy it...

Alas, we've reached the "sticking their fingers in their ears shouting 'lalala can't hear you'" stage.

The fact is that these Skinks have evolved into entirely separate species, that is the very definition of evolution. You can not deny this, scientists have observed the change. One species evolved and branched off into different species. That is evolution, like it or not.

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
I have a problem with eukaryotes and prokaryotes not having any ancesters.
I have a problem with the Cambrian explosion.
I have a problem with horse shoe crabs never changing.
I have a problem with whales "evolving" from a tiny deer.
I have a problem with humans "evolving" from physically robust creatures only 250,000 years ago and the first thing we do is make clothes.
I have a problem with humans developing and passing on defective genes that kill the child before the age of puberty like cystic fibrosis.
I have a problem with junk dna that has no function that we know of.

I have a problem with people who don't research anything, and aren't even willing to pick up a book or free DVD and learn, yet criticize people who spend their lives learning and studying. Offer your own alternative backed by evidence, if you don't agree with the science. Or at least point out in detail which parts you think are wrong. You are making nothing but generalizations based on no knowledge whatsoever of the subject.

I have a problem with gravity
I have a problem with the earth being round
I have a problem with the sun providing energy to sustain life on earth

LOL, the knowledge is out there. Educate yourself or forever be a slave to your own ignorance. It's up to you.

edit on 26-10-2011 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

You hit the nail on the head. Also what it seems these people want isn't to have evolotion explained but to have the catalysts of life itself explained.

The theme seems to be..

Evolution bad. Creationism good. Must fight evolution. Must not research evolution but must fight it.

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
reply to post by Nosred

 

Oh, but it is how science works. And as you said, "I am not your teacher"

There's a difference between not feeling the need to provide readily available information to you people for the 100th time that you probably won't even read anyways, and making stark accusations of some grand conspiracy composed of the world's most intelligent and educated people in order to cover up evidence of your religious beliefs being anything *other* than complete bollocks, then providing nothing to support this claim.

It is not my fault if you are too lazy to so much as read the Wikipedia article on evolution before trying to argue against it, I don't really feel the need to provide a link to Wikipedia for you. There's a difference between that and what you did.

So stop with your juvenile insults and do some good research reading..
You are aware how one gets their research accepted and published, It's called a "peer review".
You are aware that those who sit on review boards have had their research accepted and to accept an opposing or conflicting theory could do damage to their own research and cast doubt on their credibility.

Please provide evidence of this happening in relation to evolution. If a paper gets rejected for saying "God did it, evolution is a lie" that doesn't mean it's some sort of conspiracy, it just means the paper was bollocks.

Originally posted by steveknows
Actually testing shows that we have neanderthal DNA in us.

Of course we share neanderthal DNA, we're related. We share chimpanzee DNA as well. It doesn't make us the same species.

Originally posted by Nosred

Originally posted by jeichelberg
Well, I see a skink...I do not see anything different than a skink...sorry...There are all kinds of different animals...and species within families...I fail to see how this proves that at some point along the line, this skink will become anything else other than a skink....what do you suppose this skink will become...And there is nothing in that article indicating it will become something else...

I offered my view on what I believe to be the cause for biodiversity...it is simple...adaptation...both sides have their views on what started the whole shebang...Mine is a creator started it, the opposite is true for many...Both sides lay a claim to the word adaptation...one side claims this is all it is and that is it...the other says it is evidence that a deer went into the water for ten minutes one day, twenty the next, and then before you knew it...PRESTO...fins...and a leftover pelvic bone...which is still useful by the way...sorry...I cannot buy it...

Alas, we've reached the "sticking their fingers in their ears shouting 'lalala can't hear you'" stage.

The fact is that these Skinks have evolved into entirely separate species, that is the very definition of evolution. You can not deny this, scientists have observed the change. One species evolved and branched off into different species. That is evolution, like it or not.

You must have read very clearly, correct? Allow me to snippet...There are all kinds of different animals...and species within families..I wrote that very clearly in my reply to the photo...And the fact you would claim this is evolution, rather than simple adaptation to different demands place on the organism, is the fundamental argument...No one argues adaptation...No one is arguing they are still skinks...Now, when you get a skink that transforms, say...into a widgetpotamus...get back with me...

reply to post by Nosred


I am not bring God into this, you are .
It does appear though that Wikipedia is your god of truth.
You should do research beyond the internet and public librarys . "I am not your teacher, and I'm not going to argue with a stubborn child."

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
reply to post by Nosred

 

I am not bring God into this, you are .

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
reply to post by Nosred

 

And you are not my mother or my God and your word is not law.

Lie much?

It does appear though that Wikipedia is your god of truth.

No, I'm saying the least you can do is read the f***ing Wikipedia article on a subject before you come onto a public forum saying that the subject is false.

Originally posted by jeichelberg
You must have read very clearly, correct? Allow me to snippet...There are all kinds of different animals...and species within families..I wrote that very clearly in my reply to the photo...And the fact you would claim this is evolution, rather than simple adaptation to different demands place on the organism, is the fundamental argument...No one argues adaptation...No one is arguing they are still skinks...Now, when you get a skink that transforms, say...into a widgetpotamus...get back with me...

Yes, and Humans and Chimpanzees are still both Hominidae, yet you deny that they are related for whatever reason. No one here's saying that they aren't still part of the Skink genus, I'm saying that they evolved into separate species. That's how evolution works.

You clearly do not understand how it works:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/09ebf080c6c5.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by Nosred

Originally posted by steveknows
Actually testing shows that we have neanderthal DNA in us.

Of course we share neanderthal DNA, we're related. We share chimpanzee DNA as well. It doesn't make us the same species.

I know that. Hey I'm not fighting you here. What i'm saying is that this testing isn't saying we're related like with the other geat apes but that they (neanderthal) are our ancesters. And that we and neanderthal interbred due to the overlap. We couldn't breed with a chimp.

reply to post by Nosred


And furthermore, I notice you conveniently left off any sort of cogent response to the rest of my post...I understand how difficult it must be for someone of your vast intellect to suffer the rest of us, the intellectually challenged individuals who have difficulty grasping the definitions of simple words like evolution and adaptation...frankly, I am quite pleased and astounded the name calling has ceased...However, I would remind you that for those who have all of this intellect, it should be a relatively simple thing to be able to explain how/why a skink species is not a skink...and why a deer who spends 10 minutes in water, then 20 the next, and then POOF, transforms into a whale...I believe a lot of DNA can be found to be shared across the entire spectrum of life as we know it...

Originally posted by jeichelberg
reply to post by Nosred

 

And furthermore, I notice you conveniently left off any sort of cogent response to the rest of my post...I understand how difficult it must be for someone of your vast intellect to suffer the rest of us, the intellectually challenged individuals who have difficulty grasping the definitions of simple words like evolution and adaptation...frankly, I am quite pleased and astounded the name calling has ceased...

The rest of your post was irrelevant to my example of the skinks, thus I didn't feel the need to respond to it. Stop with the ad hominem now please.

However, I would remind you that for those who have all of this intellect, it should be a relatively simple thing to be able to explain how/why a skink species is not a skink...

I have, they've started giving live birth instead of laying eggs. Despite being members of the skink genus, they have diverged into entirely separate species. They are no more the same species than Humans and Neanderthals were. In fact they are even more different from each other, as Neanderthals did not lay eggs.

and why a deer who spends 10 minutes in water, then 20 the next, and then POOF, transforms into a whale...I believe a lot of DNA can be found to be shared across the entire spectrum of life as we know it...

edit on 10/26/2011 by jeichelberg because: Clarity of response

I made no such claim, though I did some light research and it is apparent that whales evolved from small semi-aquatic deerlike mammals, according to recent fossil studies at least.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

And no, evolution does not happen overnight. This is not pokemon-land.

I believe a lot of DNA can be found to be shared across the entire spectrum of life as we know it.

Then you should also be aware that the DNA evidence supports the theory of evolution right?

One of the strongest evidences for common descent comes from the study of gene sequences. Comparative sequence analysis examines the relationship between the DNA sequences of different species,[1] producing several lines of evidence that confirm Darwin's original hypothesis of common descent. If the hypothesis of common descent is true, then species that share a common ancestor will have inherited that ancestor's DNA sequence. They will have inherited mutations unique to that ancestor. More closely related species will have a greater fraction of identical sequence and will have shared substitutions when compared to more distantly related species.

The simplest and most powerful evidence is provided by phylogenetic reconstruction. Such reconstructions, especially when done using slowly evolving protein sequences, are often quite robust and can be used to reconstruct a great deal of the evolutionary history of modern organisms (and even in some instances such as the recovered gene sequences of mammoths, Neanderthals or T. rex, the evolutionary history of extinct organisms). These reconstructed phylogenies recapitulate the relationships established through morphological and biochemical studies. The most detailed reconstructions have been performed on the basis of the mitochondrial genomes shared by all eukaryotic organisms, which are short and easy to sequence; the broadest reconstructions have been performed either using the sequences of a few very ancient proteins or by using ribosomal RNA sequence.

Phylogenetic relationships also extend to a wide variety of nonfunctional sequence elements, including repeats, transposons, pseudogenes, and mutations in protein-coding sequences that do not result in changes in amino-acid sequence. While a minority of these elements might later be found to harbor function, in aggregate they demonstrate that identity must be the product of common descent rather than common function.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Nosred


Who denied that apes (the debate over placing Pan in the hominid strain is still open), are not related to man...As far as I am concerned, I am related to a fern...I believe that for a fact...

Originally posted by jeichelberg
reply to post by Nosred

 

Who denied that apes (the debate over placing Pan in the hominid strain is still open), are not related to man...As far as I am concerned, I am related to a fern...I believe that for a fact...

Then what is your problem here? I'll ask this again: Are you sure you know what evolution is?

reply to post by Nosred


Believing that we share DNA with many other life forms leads me to look for a much simpler, readily apparent explanation...and that explanation is thus...I see a carpenter building a house frame with a hammer, boards, and nails...The builder is there...the tools remain the same...the methods of construction are relatively the same..and the basic blocks of wood and nails are the same...yet different forms across the spectrum...

As an aside, I am unsure I understand what you were trying to communicate with the use of progressively upright primates and the subsequent blurry cat???

Originally posted by Nosred

Originally posted by jeichelberg
reply to post by Nosred

 

Who denied that apes (the debate over placing Pan in the hominid strain is still open), are not related to man...As far as I am concerned, I am related to a fern...I believe that for a fact...

Then what is your problem here? I'll ask this again: Are you sure you know what evolution is?

I believe I have stated this may be a matter of semantics...I have a problem with understanding how a deer turns into a whale...and do not use my POOF or PRESTO as a matter of time...I do not believe it matters if you give it a billion years...a deer would not change into a whale...gradually or suddenly...

Originally posted by jeichelberg
I believe I have stated this may be a matter of semantics...I have a problem with understanding how a deer turns into a whale...and do not use my POOF or PRESTO as a matter of time...I do not believe it matters if you give it a billion years...a deer would not change into a whale...gradually or suddenly...

But of course all these different species being created out of thin air by a magic invisible sky wizard makes more sense than the observable and testable process of evolution. Why was I so foolish as to believe otherwise?


Edit: Also, have fun explaining ring species to me since you don't believe in evolution:

en.wikipedia.org...

^Explain this phenomenon to me since evolution obviously doesn't exist.


Edit: Also please explain plasmid functions for me:

en.wikipedia.org...