Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by amfirst1

Evolution is real, just not human evolution on Earth. It takes hundred of billions of years to evolve into humanoids not millions. Micro evolution is real macro evolution such as Darwinism is false

The missing link the article explains how out of date that is. Darwin was over 150 years ago. The theory has evolved since then and mountains of evidence stacked.

I cannot see how you can claim 100's of billions of years as the universe is around 14.6 billion. Let's take that one step further. If your claim Aliens intervened then how did they get so smart to travel here just to date a human ancestor?

Simple fact, not a single missing link has been ever discover proving man came from apes.

We did not evolve from an ape, we share a common ancestor.

And if humans did evolved on Earth, why are the other creatures so far behind humans?

What do you base that on? We cannot run as fast as a cheetah. We have pretty poor hearing and sight compared to many other species. The fact is we have evolved to be adaptable tool user with a large brain. Other species have evolved to be successful in their niche'.

What are the other creatures basically evolved in the same time scale and humans are skewed billions of years more evolved.

I don’t understand your point?

Everything else just doesn't make sense. If humans evolved on Earth then there should be other creatures came arouned the same time as humans should also be as intelligent as us, but there are none.

That is because you don’t understand evolution. It is not about the next level of achievement. It is about small changes over time selected for by the environment.

We have evolved to be good at being humans. If we tried to live the life of say a rat we would fail miserably in a place where the rat thrives.

reply to post by colin42

Dishonest again. I asked for a logical argument supported by evidence and links with quotes from those links. I guess you are too lazy and to ignorant to do it

Nothing to answer here. No comment

And the links don't support the evidence ?

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

Dishonest again. I asked for a logical argument supported by evidence and links with quotes from those links. I guess you are too lazy and to ignorant to do it

Nothing to answer here. No comment

And the links don't support the evidence ?

You appear to have a problem reading again. Where is the logical argument and the supporting evidence? Where is the quotes from those links? No need to comment further

reply to post by colin42

There are a few ways to look at this. You could consider that some people lie, so there may not be millions, or you could go the other route and realize that not everyone reports their occurances so its probably an accurate figure.

Er .... I don’t need your opinion. There was enough conjecture, hypothesising and guess work in your link which points to a strong possibility of sleep paralysis explaining a large portion of these experiences but you chose not to mention this. Or any of the other points that were part of the article. The actual article had a semblance of a balanced opinion. You never do.

OH Christ colin, of course I read it, what makes you think I haven't. I read that link a long time ago. What is it about the link that makes you believe I didn't read it. Because its pertaining to people complaining about sleep paralysis? Yes there is a connection in case you didn't know.

I don’t have to say anything. Your link says it all:
A Roper Poll claimed that nearly four million Americans have had certain “indicator” experiences and therefore had probably been abducted by aliens. But a study of 126 school children and 224 undergraduates shows knowledge of aliens is related more to watching television than to having the relevant experiences

Maybe you better read it again, as it only pertains to undergraduates.

With some exceptions,1 many scientists have chosen to ignore the poll because it is so obviously flawed. However, because its major claim has received such wide publicity, I decided a little further investigation was worthwhile.
There is more that shows you read exactly what you wanted to read and made a conclusion based on what you believe and not what you read. Pathetic.

So you are correct I do not need to comment, your link say's it all

I guess you missed the point all together, as usual. You see if just ONE of the 4 million is telling the truth, then you are wrong.

What do you think those odds are?

And just like Bee's and Ants we make our own food and so that must qualify as well then.

No because as I have maintained, the definition of natural excludes human involvement.

nat·u·ral/ˈnaCHərəl/Adjective: Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
Noun: A person regarded as having an innate gift or talent for a particular task or activity.
Adverb: Naturally: "keep walking—just act natural".

And I could really care less if you hunt and pecked for a defintion that doesn't bring up human involvment, the difference is that mine used was the first found, while you probably spent 20 minutes specifically looking for one to fit your belief.

The biggest source of information at your fingertips and you reply with, 'probably the ant' . So the ant came first. Where did the ant eater come from?

Well he didn't evolve from the ant LOL.

Well done by the way. Trouble is it lists small schooling fish (that is a wide range of foods). Herring is quite a large group so quite a menu but wait ...... Also sand lance, capelin as well as krill.

That must not qualify as you claim that 'target food' is one food that the animal eats. The humpback is not from here then Or of course the simple answer. No such thing as your made up term, 'target food'

No species can eat more than one thing, and probably have more than one target food, but its a main food. From what I read Krill was a main food for humpbacks.

How do you cram in so many mistakes into one short ranting paragraph. Read the links I supplied and it shows you are just a frightened childish fantasist that will deny anything to maintain his 'happy ever after' world.

Edit: Almost missed it. You never explained this from you on this very point:

I'm lost about your rant here, I'm not understnading your problem.

reply to post by itsthetooth

No species can eat more than one thing, and probably have more than one target food, but its a main food. From what I read Krill was a main food for humpbacks.

Yes, some animals/plants specialize and only go after very specific food sources...others simply don't. Guess what explains that perfectly

Say it with me: EVOLUTION!

reply to post by MrXYZ

Again, they aren't sure at all...they could only be sure if ALL ADHD patients showed those traits...which ISN'T the case.

Funny how you continue to use arguments that you don't really seem to understand in the first place...

It doesn't matter, they are just admitting NOW that they have identified the genes, so my point is how were they excluding them from the idea of evolution if they are just now able to locate them?

Simple, they weren't, in other words they were looked at as though they were changes brought on by evolution.

I was correct.

reply to post by idmonster

I had to repost this complete.

Check the quote relating to the "widly publicised figure that is often ASSUMED"...do you see it....that word....assumed! The word you often quote if you think it can belittle a statement made by others.

You constantly dismiss anything you dont believe in if you think you can.

Along with colins dismisal statements when yopu make a prat of yourself, I will ads.

"unfounded assumption, not an admissable argument."

Assumptions are fine if you can demonstrate that that assumption is based on supporting evidence.

So my reply to your insistence that millions have been abducted is..........


Unfounded asumption, not an admissable argument !

Which is why I never claimed we have solid proof of these events. HOWEVER, unless you can explain how 4 million people are all having the same nightmare, it only stands to reason that they are all having the same experience.

reply to post by MrXYZ

Yes, some animals/plants specialize and only go after very specific food sources...others simply don't. Guess what explains that perfectly

Say it with me: EVOLUTION!

Thats the difference between you and I, I'm not guessing at what proves intervention, I'm looking for solid proof and facts.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Again, they aren't sure at all...they could only be sure if ALL ADHD patients showed those traits...which ISN'T the case.

Funny how you continue to use arguments that you don't really seem to understand in the first place...

It doesn't matter, they are just admitting NOW that they have identified the genes, so my point is how were they excluding them from the idea of evolution if they are just now able to locate them?

Simple, they weren't, in other words they were looked at as though they were changes brought on by evolution.

I was correct.

How on earth do gene defects disprove evolution??? They happen in animals (and plants) too

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Yes, some animals/plants specialize and only go after very specific food sources...others simply don't. Guess what explains that perfectly

Say it with me: EVOLUTION!

Thats the difference between you and I, I'm not guessing at what proves intervention, I'm looking for solid proof and facts.

Well then, you better keep on looking because so far you've presented ZERO

reply to post by MrXYZ


You know rather than grasping at straws to try to find things that fit into your belief, why don't you look to more solid things like proof. Getting proof of evolution would be nice, not this half baked idea that its used in medical science. WTF are they genetically cloning life to use it? You can't use the full frame of evolution especially if its NOT PREDICTABLE.

So stop with the stupid claims that we are using it in medical science. What they are probably using is speciation, which is only about 1/12th of the theory. So you can't say they are using evolution unless they are using all of it, including macroevolution.

Your just doing nothing but misinterupting poorly explained material.
If I'm wrong I want to know specifrically how they are using macroevoltuion in medical science.

reply to post by MrXYZ

How on earth do gene defects disprove evolution??? They happen in animals (and plants) too

So now your trying to claim that my friend having ADHD is in fact from evolution. Thats a bat crazy idea man.

reply to post by itsthetooth

OH Christ colin, of course I read it, what makes you think I haven't. I read that link a long time ago. What is it about the link that makes you believe I didn't read it.

Your reply based on your link shows you did not read it or at the very least did not understand it and only took from it what you wanted ignoring what the article was explaining. Simple deduction.

Because its pertaining to people complaining about sleep paralysis? Yes there is a connection in case you didn't know.

As usual you ignore the issues I raised and opted to give me more of your opinion. Nothing worth commenting on there.

Maybe you better read it again, as it only pertains to undergraduates.

CLASSIC not only did you miss the 126 school children you missed this 'shows knowledge of aliens is related more to watching television than to having the relevant experiences' Maybe you had better read the WHOLE article again.

I guess you missed the point all together, as usual. You see if just ONE of the 4 million is telling the truth, then you are wrong.

See you ignored 'it is so obviously flawed'. and the part where they ESTIMATED 4 million from their sample findings based on population. You know a guess.

What do you think those odds are?

Show me some real evidence and I will give it go. Till then: No argument, evidence. No comment.

No because as I have maintained, the definition of natural excludes human involvement.

That old boy is your opinion. No evidence. No further need to comment Seen your link before. The same cherry picked quote you always give and not sourced. Not considered until it is.

And I could really care less if you hunt and pecked for a defintion that doesn't bring up human involvment, the difference is that mine used was the first found, while you probably spent 20 minutes specifically looking for one to fit your belief.

I spent no time looking. I dismissed your opinion supported by nothing.

Well he didn't evolve from the ant LOL.

Not an answer. Try again. Where did the ant eater come from?

No species can eat more than one thing, and probably have more than one target food, but its a main food. From what I read Krill was a main food for humpbacks.

The hump back does and your link shows it. Krill was last on the list and was written 'Also krill'. If it had been the major part of its diet they would have said. They did not. So again your silly made up 'target food' fails even the slightest test. No need for further comment

I'm lost about your rant here, I'm not understnading your problem.

I see your not answering again. Pathetic. Try again:

Clearly dogs and wolves have evolved from one or the other, If you want to believe in evolution anyhow, so why is it they can mate? Meanwhile we have times where the same species can't mate. Obvious tampering.

Yet in another post you claim:

Which is all a very good analysis but ony if you honestly believe that dogs migrated from wolves, which I don't.

So what one is it?

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

You know rather than grasping at straws to try to find things that fit into your belief, why don't you look to more solid things like proof. Getting proof of evolution would be nice, not this half baked idea that its used in medical science. WTF are they genetically cloning life to use it? You can't use the full frame of evolution especially if its NOT PREDICTABLE.

So stop with the stupid claims that we are using it in medical science. What they are probably using is speciation, which is only about 1/12th of the theory. So you can't say they are using evolution unless they are using all of it, including macroevolution.

Your just doing nothing but misinterupting poorly explained material.
If I'm wrong I want to know specifrically how they are using macroevoltuion in medical science.

All I and the others have done was post links to well sourced (!!!) scientific articles that prove how wrong you are. You on the other hand try to argue by MAKING UP WORDS. And you're accusing us of not providing proof?

That has to be the most ironic post on ATS

And why do you consider the FACT (!!) that the theory is actively applied in modern medicine "half baked"?? You say they can't predict things using it, but that's EXACTLY what they're doing

Also, they don't just "use speciation", they also use it to for example figure out how life forms like viruses or bacteria build up resistances. But who cares about FACTS, right tooth?

In short: As always, you are simply wrong. It's not even a matter of you not knowing any better, it's simply you ignoring facts to protect that silly little personal religion you built up in your head.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

How on earth do gene defects disprove evolution??? They happen in animals (and plants) too

So now your trying to claim that my friend having ADHD is in fact from evolution. Thats a bat crazy idea man.

Yes, gene defects are part of evolution tooth!

The Tasmanian devil for example is about to extinct because of one.

Which is why I never claimed we have solid proof of these events. HOWEVER, unless you can explain how 4 million people are all having the same nightmare, it only stands to reason that they are all having the same experience.

4 BILLION people LAST NIGHT dreamt they had passionate sex with Kate Upton. Has to be all based on experiences, yes?

Show me one instance of an 'alien abduction' where the person had no prior knowledge of the concept of 'alien abductions?'

reply to post by itsthetooth
What do you think evolution is? If you think your friend having ADHD disproves evolution, might I suggest reading a book, or one of the hundreds of wiki articles on evolution that have been posted in this thread.

You are creating your own theory of evolution, imagine someone saying 'i don't believe gravity can occur because I don't like skittles, and because of that gravity can't occur.'

This is what you sound like.

reply to post by MrXYZ


Let's not forget we are talking to one who won't listen, he who believes in Abrahamic fairy tales.

In the end the theists just can't see it, even when he loses every debate.

reply to post by colin42

OH Christ colin, of course I read it, what makes you think I haven't. I read that link a long time ago. What is it about the link that makes you believe I didn't read it.

Your reply based on your link shows you did not read it or at the very least did not understand it and only took from it what you wanted ignoring what the article was explaining. Simple deduction

Thats because your going under the notion that sleep paralysis causes the theory of abduction. Which is total crap.

See you ignored 'it is so obviously flawed'. and the part where they ESTIMATED 4 million from their sample findings based on population. You know a guess

Only because not everyone reports when it happens.

Not an answer. Try again. Where did the ant eater come from?

He came from the same place that they other 5 million species came from, we don't know to be sure.

No species can eat more than one thing, and probably have more than one target food, but its a main food. From what I read Krill was a main food for humpbacks.

The hump back does and your link shows it. Krill was last on the list and was written 'Also krill'. If it had been the major part of its diet they would have said. They did not. So again your silly made up 'target food' fails even the slightest test. No need for further comment

It doesn't matter, you get the point.

So what one is it?

Neither, I'm thinking there is something we don't know or understand. Since creation is to tuff to grasp it does make more sense because there is way to much life.

reply to post by MrXYZ

All I and the others have done was post links to well sourced (!!!) scientific articles that prove how wrong you are. You on the other hand try to argue by MAKING UP WORDS. And you're accusing us of not providing proof?

Evolution is not repeatable, its not predictable, yet your trying to convince me its used in medicine. Thats bat crazy. How can they use a theory that is unprovable in medicine? The only way is if they are using speciation, as its the only thing thats been proven, and even that is not complete.

That has to be the most ironic post on ATS

And why do you consider the FACT (!!) that the theory is actively applied in modern medicine "half baked"?? You say they can't predict things using it, but that's EXACTLY what they're doing

Also, they don't just "use speciation", they also use it to for example figure out how life forms like viruses or bacteria build up resistances. But who cares about FACTS, right tooth?

In short: As always, you are simply wrong. It's not even a matter of you not knowing any better, it's simply you ignoring facts to protect that silly little personal religion you built up in your head.

Yep, its all speciation, wiki concurs with what your saying. There is no way macroevolution could be used to help in medicine.