Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by Anonymous404


Now here is something to ponder about not being able to prove evolution. Unlike any alien theory, evolution has no excuse to not be proven. Aliens do not live here, and therefore there is good reason why its so hard to prove. On the other hand evolution is happening everywhere and under our noses, yet we can't prove it. I'll take it one step further. You have past, present and future.

None of which can be used to prove evolution, which is total BS. Sure they have proven some cases of speciation, but they have no proof that evolution is causing it. I say past because you should be able to compare fossils with todays life and determine microevoltuion, and they have failed to do this. I say present because you should be able to witness micro and macro evolution in its mid stages, and again they have failed to do this. Future I say because we should be able to see species brancing off, and we don't.

Here's a great resource I thought I'd share, even though I know some won't even both to really read it or understand it.

Misconceptions about Evolution.

reply to post by itsthetooth


Already addressed no reason to rehash.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You can't back up your claims with objective evidence your argument is NOT valid.
End of story get over it.

reply to post by Connector


Thanks for the link.
Here is another great resource.

reply to post by Connector


So your trying to say that macro evolution has been recreated in a lab?

reply to post by flyingfish


I was quoting a major new find in science about ADHD being linked to smoking pregnancies. You don't think they are wrong as well do you?

Evolution is NOT testable, macroevolution has never been recreated, and it can't be so your lying.

Again evolution is not recreateable , macroevolution has never been recreated, so your lying.

My claims are backed up with historical documents. Now its not my fault you don't accept those, but thats your decision. You don't have any solid reasons to not accept them aside from the fact that they don't feed into your delusion.

reply to post by itsthetooth


Already addressed.
You can't back up your claims with objective evidence your argument is NOT valid.

reply to post by flyingfish


Depends on what your talking about.

The bible is a historical document, so it is vallid.
As far as the ADHD find, well it was a doctor that discovered it.

psychcentral.com...

The bible is a historical document

Grimms' Fairy Tales is also a historical document. By your logic, that collection of stories are actual real accounts of history, too.

If I were to come here and use this collection of stories as evidence that the characters contained in them are true and the events actually happened, wouldn't I need to bring something else to back that up? A book cannot be used as evidence that what is contained in that book is true.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Connector

 

So your trying to say that macro evolution has been recreated in a lab?

No, I am not saying anything. I posted a link pertaining to the thread discussion. Pretty simple. Why do you always feel the need to rephrase peoples posts and tell them what they are saying? They are saying what they posted.

Also, from your source.....

finds that children exposed to secondhand smoke in the home are twice as likely to develop either ADHD or a learning disability.

This has absolutely nothing to do with with evolution. Exposure to contaminants as a child causing metal disabilities is NOT evolution. But guess what? ADHD seems to be mostly genetic and the introduction of those contaminants COULD be triggering the genetic defect passed down from their parents. Ya know....sort of like one of the base premises of evolution, the passing on of genetic defects to offspring. This also backs up what people have been trying to tell you. Evolution is just a word for a process. It has no goals, no end game, for better or worse.


ADD & ADHD Health Center.

Experts do know that ADHD has a strong genetic component. In addition, they think that genes that control the levels of certain chemicals in the brain called neurotransmitters seem to be different in those with ADHD.

What is the genetic connection to ADHD? ADHD tends to run in families. Studies have shown certain genetic characteristics that occur with high frequency in families where one or more family member has ADHD. Also, if one or both parents have ADHD, their children are more likely to develop the condition. And at least one-third of all fathers who had ADHD in their youth have children with ADHD.

At the same time.....

In some cases, though, there is no genetic link to ADHD.

and it is caused by contaminants ( as per your smoking example), head injuries, low birth weight, unhealthy pregnancy, etc. Again that is not evolution. It is happening after the genetic combination i.e fertilization. If they pass that genetic trait on though, well........

reply to post by CoherentlyConfused

Grimms' Fairy Tales is also a historical document. By your logic, that collection of stories are actual real accounts of history, too.

If I were to come here and use this collection of stories as evidence that the characters contained in them are true and the events actually happened, wouldn't I need to bring something else to back that up? A book cannot be used as evidence that what is contained in that book is true.

Well there is no way you can prove or disprove something from that erra. The fact is that there were to many people involved in the making of the bible for it to be fake.

reply to post by Connector

So your trying to say that macro evolution has been recreated in a lab?


No, I am not saying anything. I posted a link pertaining to the thread discussion. Pretty simple. Why do you always feel the need to rephrase peoples posts and tell them what they are saying? They are saying what they posted

Then maybe I should rephrase what I'm saying. Macroevolution has never been witnessed anywhere.

finds that children exposed to secondhand smoke in the home are twice as likely to develop either ADHD or a learning disability.


This has absolutely nothing to do with with evolution. Exposure to contaminants as a child causing metal disabilities is NOT evolution. But guess what? ADHD seems to be mostly genetic and the introduction of those contaminants COULD be triggering the genetic defect passed down from their parents. Ya know....sort of like one of the base premises of evolution, the passing on of genetic defects to offspring. This also backs up what people have been trying to tell you. Evolution is just a word for a process. It has no goals, no end game, for better or worse.

Good so now your getting the point. Second hand smoke can cause a disease in a thrid party that would be viewd as a genetic change, or evolution, yet its not. So my point is that not every change can accounted for in evolution. But its actually worse, not any change can be accounted for in evolution because they can't identify the changes and where they are coming from.

ADD & ADHD Health Center.


Experts do know that ADHD has a strong genetic component. In addition, they think that genes that control the levels of certain chemicals in the brain called neurotransmitters seem to be different in those with ADHD

It's admitted right there that its a genetic change. AKA evoltuion to some.

What is the genetic connection to ADHD? ADHD tends to run in families. Studies have shown certain genetic characteristics that occur with high frequency in families where one or more family member has ADHD. Also, if one or both parents have ADHD, their children are more likely to develop the condition. And at least one-third of all fathers who had ADHD in their youth have children with ADHD.

So it becomes an autosomal dominate gene, not cool. But all change in the eyes of evolution either way.

and it is caused by contaminants ( as per your smoking example), head injuries, low birth weight, unhealthy pregnancy, etc. Again that is not evolution. It is happening after the genetic combination i.e fertilization. If they pass that genetic trait on though, well........

None the less its a change that would be counted as evolution. This is why I'm calling BS on evolution, its not.

reply to post by itsthetooth


The above post has zero objective evidence.
It's obvious to anyone with a half a brain your trying to forge (yet another) straw-man argument.
If you think *proving evolution wrong* is your job...YOUR FIRED.

reply to post by itsthetooth


God ( pun intended).....I can't be bothered replying claim by claim to this nonsense you've posted. Ironically, you are basically agreeing with me on and you don't even realize it.

He's the cliff notes:

A genetic change/mutation to an already living person, caused by environmental influence is not evolution. The passing on, to offspring, of those changes/mutations is.

Getting lung cancer from cigarette smoke is not evolution. If you were to pass on a gene that increases your chance of lung cancer, it is evolution.....genetic disposition. It's pretty simple. Have you ever bred anything? Plants, animals etc? It is evolution in it's simplest form.

Mendel's Law of Segregation

I can't believe that I replied to this nonsense again. The funny thing is, I have researched alien intervention deeply and do think there is a possibility that it did indeed occur. At the same time, the evidence for evolution is blindly obvious and does not go against intervention. In other words ( save you re-phrasing my sentence), intervention and evolution can go hand in hand. Did we receive a evolutionary "bump" in the past...perhaps, but we know that evolution is happening.

The thing is, you've done such a p1ss poor job of making any reasonable argument/debate, it makes the whole idea look ridiculous You've mis-used terms, make terms up, don't correctly understand scientific terminology or method, contradicted yourself numerous times, changed positions, provided NO veritable facts, no peer reviewed papers, blatantly lied, used ad hominem and straw-man tactics, declared that no one has proven you wrong when they have MANY times, don't bother to read or study the info that has been presented or even the info/links YOU provide, shown a poor level of reading comprehension, claimed passages from the bible ( i.e human living in a whale) are fact with no proof other then the bible itself, yet demand laboratory/scientific proof for evolution ( and it has been provided)....The sad thing is you don't even understand the basic principles of evolution, nor do you wish to learn.

And so I don't have to respond to the meaningless and factless reply that will surely follow....

No the bible is not acceptable as veritable proof. As another posted stated...a book cannot be used to confirm itself as true. Can it be used to cross reference...sure.

Lord Pye and the "Star child":

DNA testing in 1999 at BOLD (Bureau of Legal Dentistry), a forensic DNA lab in Vancouver, British Columbia found standard X and Y chromosomes in two samples taken from the skull, "conclusive evidence that the child was not only human (and male), but both of his parents must have been human as well, for each must have contributed one of the human sex chromosomes."[4] Further DNA testing in 2003 at Trace Genetics, which specializes in extracting DNA from ancient samples, isolated mitochondrial DNA from both recovered skulls. The child belongs to haplogroup C. Since mitochondrial DNA is inherited exclusively from the mother, it makes it possible to trace the offspring's maternal lineage. The DNA test therefore confirmed that the child's mother was a Haplogroup C human female. However, the adult female found with the child belonged to haplogroup A. Both haplotypes are characteristic Native American haplogroups, but the different haplogroup for each skull indicates that the adult female was not the child's mother.[3]

starchild wiki

cont. next post.

The low down on Von Daniken ( who's writing did spark my interest into the ancient astronaut theory):

At the age of 19, von Däniken was given a four-month suspended sentence for theft. [7] Von Däniken withdrew from school, and became apprenticed to a Swiss hotelier.[8] After moving to Egypt, he was convicted for fraud and embezzlement.[7] He then became manager of the Hotel Rosenhügel in Davos, Switzerland, during which time he wrote Chariots of the Gods?, working on the manuscript late at night after the hotel's guests had retired.[9] In December 1964, von Däniken wrote Hatten unsere Vorfahren Besuch aus dem Weltraum? ("Did our Ancestors have a Visit from Space?") for the German-Canadian periodical Der Nordwesten.[10] Chariots of the Gods? was accepted by a publisher in early 1967, and printed in March 1968.[9] In November 1968 von Däniken was arrested for fraud, after falsifying hotel records and credit references in order to take out loans[9] for $130,000 over a period of twelve years. He used the money for foreign travel to research his book.[7] Two years later,[9] von Däniken was convicted for "repeated and sustained" embezzlement, fraud and forgery, with the court ruling that the writer had been living a "playboy" lifestyle.[5] Von Däniken entered a plea for nullity on the grounds that his intentions were not malicious and the credit institutions were at fault for failing to adequately research his references.[9][5][7] Von Däniken was sentenced on 13 February 1970 to three and a half years imprisonment and fined 3,000 francs.[9][11] He served one year of this sentence before being released.[7][12] His first book, Chariots of the Gods?, had been published by the time of his trial, and its sales allowed him to repay his debts and leave the hotel business. Von Däniken wrote his second book, Gods from Outer Space, while in prison.[7][5]

That writing as careless as von Däniken's, whose principal thesis is that our ancestors were dummies, should be so popular is a sober commentary on the credulousness and despair of our times. But the idea that beings from elsewhere will save us from ourselves is a very dangerous doctrine - akin to that of the quack doctor whose ministrations prevent the patient from seeing a physician competent to help him and perhaps to cure his disease. —Carl Sagan, Foreword to The Space Gods Revealed[14]

Other authors had already presented ideas of extraterrestrial contacts in the past. Däniken made the same claims using similar evidence, sometimes identical, didn't credit properly these past authors and sometimes didn't give any credit at all.[15][notes 1]

In Chariots of the Gods?, Däniken wrote that a non-rusting iron pillar in Delhi, India was evidence of extraterrestrial influence.[17] In a later Playboy interview, when told that the column showed some signs of rust and its method of construction was well understood, Däniken said that since writing the book he had learned of investigations reaching other conclusions, and no longer considered the pillar to be a mystery.[18][19]

Von Daniken wiki

I suggest you read the whole article as goes somewhat in depth on his shady and dishonest past.

Finally Sitchen:

Prof. Ronald H. Fritze,[22] author of the book Invented Knowledge: False History, Fake Science and Pseudo-religions,[22] mentions the example of Sitchin's claim that the Sumerian sign Din-Gir means "pure ones of the blazing rockets", adding that "Sitchin's assignment of meanings to ancient words is tendentious and frequently strained."[23] Fritze also commented on Sitchin's methodology, writing that "When critics have checked Sitchin's references, they have found that he frequently quotes out of context or truncates his quotes in a way that distorts evidence in order to prove his contentions. Evidence is presented selectively and contradictory evidence is ignored."[23]

Sitchin's linguistics seems at least as amateurish as his anthropology, biology, and astronomy. On p. 370, for example, he maintains that "all the ancient languages . . . including early Chinese . . . stemmed from one primeval source -- Sumerian". Sumerian, of course, is the virtual archetype of what linguistic taxonomists call a language-isolate, meaning a language that does not fall into any of the well-known language-families or exhibit clear cognation with any known language. Even if Sitchin is referring to written rather than to spoken language, it is unlikely that his contention can be persuasively defended, since Sumerian ideograms were preceded by the Azilian and Tartarian signaries of Europe as well as by a variety of script-like notational systems between the Nile and Indus rivers.[27]

Sitchen wiki

Again I suggest reading the whole article ( it's wiki, your fav source). You are done...pleasant days Don't expect a reply

reply to post by flyingfish

The above post has zero objective evidence.
It's obvious to anyone with a half a brain your trying to forge (yet another) straw-man argument.
If you think *proving evolution wrong* is your job...YOUR FIRED.

How can anyone prove it wrong when it was never proven right to begin with. I have never read anything that says evolution was anything more than a hypothesis.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish

 

The above post has zero objective evidence.
It's obvious to anyone with a half a brain your trying to forge (yet another) straw-man argument.
If you think *proving evolution wrong* is your job...YOUR FIRED.

How can anyone prove it wrong when it was never proven right to begin with. I have never read anything that says evolution was anything more than a hypothesis.

Your straw-man has already been addressed no reason to rehash.




You can't back up your claims with objective evidence your argument is NOT valid.

reply to post by Connector

God ( pun intended).....I can't be bothered replying claim by claim to this nonsense you've posted. Ironically, you are basically agreeing with me on and you don't even realize it.

He's the cliff notes:

A genetic change/mutation to an already living person, caused by environmental influence is not evolution. The passing on, to offspring, of those changes/mutations is.

The passing on of genes is NOT evolution.
OMG how many more natural events is evolution going to try to claim. First I hear that when a breed doesn't want to mate, thats evolution, then that when it does want to, that is also evolution. Then when DNA is mutated that is evolution, and now your saying when it just passes on genes normally that is also evolution.

This evolution bug sure is responsible for a hell of a lot in order for us to not be able to identify any of them. A big crock if you ask me.

Getting lung cancer from cigarette smoke is not evolution. If you were to pass on a gene that increases your chance of lung cancer, it is evolution.....genetic disposition. It's pretty simple. Have you ever breed anything? Plants, animals etc? It is evolution in it's simplest form.

Now that is something new, now your telling me that evolution is responsible for more than changes, imagine that. The next thing you know evolution will be responsible for my paycheck.

I can't believe that I replied to this nonsense again. The funny thing is, I have researched alien intervention deeply and do think there is a possibility that it did indeed occur. At the same time, the evidence for evolution is blindly obvious and does not go against intervention. In other words ( save you re-phrasing my sentence), intervention and evolution can go hand in hand. Did we receive a evolutionary "bump" in the past...perhaps, but we know that evolution is happening.

Then you must have some mixed feelings thinking we evolved from here when you also think we possibly aren't even from here.

The thing is, you've done such a p1ss poor job of making any reasonable argument/debate, it makes the whole idea look ridiculous You've mis-used terms, make terms up, contradicted yourself numerous times, changed positions, provided NO veritable facts, no peer reviewed papers, blatantly lied, used ad hominem and straw-man tactics, declared that no one has proven you wrong when they have MANY times, don't bother to read or study the info that has been presented or even the info/links YOU provide, shown a poor level of reading comprehension, claimed passages from the bible ( i.e human living in a whale) are fact with no proof other then the bible itself, yet demand laboratory/scientific proof for evolution ( and it has been provided)....The sad thing is you don't even understand the basic principles of evolution, nor do you wish to learn.

Oh please, I even came up with target food which was necessary to provide answers to the problem solving. I never contradicted myself except one time where I wasn't including aquatic life in the math.

No one has proven me wrong on any of the scenerios I came up with, hell Colin coudln't even address my questions one on one, he had to throw in an additional species to make it work, and even then it still didn't work. I don't know what your smoking but no one on here has had a leg up on me, and ignoring my definitions is not an automatic win either. See this is where your delusional, I never said that I know living in a whale is fact, I said it might have been possible with supernatural intervention.

I totally understand the principles of evolution, and you know what, it doesn't work, it can't work, its not possible in real life.

And so I don't have to respond to the meaningless and factless reply that will surely follow....

No the bible is not acceptable as veritable proof. As another posted stated...a book cannot be used to confirm itself as true. Can it be used to cross reference...sure.

Lord Pye and the "Star child":

This is what I mean about you not having a clue how to pick your battles. Pye has the ONLY proof of the skull, so what the hell are you going to do to prove it wrong?

DNA testing in 1999 at BOLD (Bureau of Legal Dentistry), a forensic DNA lab in Vancouver, British Columbia found standard X and Y chromosomes in two samples taken from the skull, "conclusive evidence that the child was not only human (and male), but both of his parents must have been human as well, for each must have contributed one of the human sex chromosomes."[4] Further DNA testing in 2003 at Trace Genetics, which specializes in extracting DNA from ancient samples, isolated mitochondrial DNA from both recovered skulls. The child belongs to haplogroup C. Since mitochondrial DNA is inherited exclusiv

reply to post by Connector

DNA testing in 1999 at BOLD (Bureau of Legal Dentistry), a forensic DNA lab in Vancouver, British Columbia found standard X and Y chromosomes in two samples taken from the skull, "conclusive evidence that the child was not only human (and male), but both of his parents must have been human as well, for each must have contributed one of the human sex chromosomes."[4] Further DNA testing in 2003 at Trace Genetics, which specializes in extracting DNA from ancient samples, isolated mitochondrial DNA from both recovered skulls. The child belongs to haplogroup C. Since mitochondrial DNA is inherited exclusively from the mother, it makes it possible to trace the offspring's maternal lineage. The DNA test therefore confirmed that the child's mother was a Haplogroup C human female. However, the adult female found with the child belonged to haplogroup A. Both haplotypes are characteristic Native American haplogroups, but the different haplogroup for each skull indicates that the adult female was not the child's mother.[3

Exactly correct, and this lab only had the ability to test the mtDNA back at that time, so Pye had to wait years for Nuclear DNA testing to even be possible because he had reason to believe that it might hold additional information. And it did, the nuclear was not human, which was the whole story of the skull,, but I guess you missed the most imortant part.

At the age of 19, von Däniken was given a four-month suspended sentence for theft. [7] Von Däniken withdrew from school, and became apprenticed to a Swiss hotelier.[8] After moving to Egypt, he was convicted for fraud and embezzlement.[7] He then became manager of the Hotel Rosenhügel in Davos, Switzerland, during which time he wrote Chariots of the Gods?, working on the manuscript late at night after the hotel's guests had retired.[9] In December 1964, von Däniken wrote Hatten unsere Vorfahren Besuch aus dem Weltraum? ("Did our Ancestors have a Visit from Space?") for the German-Canadian periodical Der Nordwesten.[10] Chariots of the Gods? was accepted by a publisher in early 1967, and printed in March 1968.[9] In November 1968 von Däniken was arrested for fraud, after falsifying hotel records and credit references in order to take out loans[9] for $130,000 over a period of twelve years. He used the money for foreign travel to research his book.[7] Two years later,[9] von Däniken was convicted for "repeated and sustained" embezzlement, fraud and forgery, with the court ruling that the writer had been living a "playboy" lifestyle.[5] Von Däniken entered a plea for nullity on the grounds that his intentions were not malicious and the credit institutions were at fault for failing to adequately research his references.[9][5][7] Von Däniken was sentenced on 13 February 1970 to three and a half years imprisonment and fined 3,000 francs.[9][11] He served one year of this sentence before being released.[7][12] His first book, Chariots of the Gods?, had been published by the time of his trial, and its sales allowed him to repay his debts and leave the hotel business. Von Däniken wrote his second book, Gods from Outer Space, while in prison.[7][5]

I have allready explained that just because he made a mistake is not conclusive proof that ALL of his work much less any of the rest of his work is not credible.

The only debunking I was ever able to find out about sitchen really looked to be more like nit picking, and mean really it was very small inaccuricies that as far as I'm concearned were worthless attempts.

reply to post by itsthetooth



Unless you have something to back up your claims what you think carries ZERO weight in this discussion.
STOP spamming the same unsubstantiated claims that have already been debunked! your only fooling yourself.

If you can't back up any of your claims with objective evidence. IT IS WORTHLESS FOR DEBATING EVOLUTION.

Try again. This time I don't want to read "I have never read anything that says evolution was anything more than a hypothesis. " I want your evidence....and it MUST BE OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE.

If your having trouble understanding what objective evidence is- "Google" the definition and abide by the definition.

I would not ask any less of myself or anyone else on these forums.
Show some respect and quit insulting our intelligence.

EDIT: If you cannot play by the rules then go away never to be heard from again.