Can you prove evolution wrong

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by itsthetooth

 

Again, the DNA still proves both parents were human as Yale University found out. Yet you continue to believe an author who has no degree that would qualify him to prove his claims instead of hard facts...simply because it somehow fits your preconceived beliefs. That's the very definition of ignorance

You can't seriously act like the monkeys below when it comes to facts:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e1e2710c4d6d.jpg[/atsimg]

edit on 5-11-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

I don't think another species having x and y chromosomes is that far fetched.
It's like I said before, there are parts that SHOULD appear human, because it is humanoid, doesn't mean its human.

Originally posted by itsthetooth

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by itsthetooth

 

Again, the DNA still proves both parents were human as Yale University found out. Yet you continue to believe an author who has no degree that would qualify him to prove his claims instead of hard facts...simply because it somehow fits your preconceived beliefs. That's the very definition of ignorance

You can't seriously act like the monkeys below when it comes to facts:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e1e2710c4d6d.jpg[/atsimg]

edit on 5-11-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

I don't think another species having x and y chromosomes is that far fetched.
It's like I said before, there are parts that SHOULD appear human, because it is humanoid, doesn't mean its human.

But they're not monkeys

This is all so..............

After reading so many posts on so many threads in regards to this kind of debate I've had to come to the conclusion that those who don't understand evolution and the forces behind it aren't just lazy or bilnd but rather they have a low IQ.

Seriously you people are unbelievabley ignorant.

reply to post by steveknows


I think thats the problem, we understand it, and we agree its possible, why isn't there proof that it is in what fact happened to us.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by steveknows

 

I think thats the problem, we understand it, and we agree its possible, why isn't there proof that it is in what fact happened to us.

Who's we? In alot of the posts people are calling monkeys apes and saying even more stupid things like if a human mated with a primate. WE ARE PRIMATES!

And you can't see it happening for the same reason you don't see a mountian crumble down to dust before your eyes but be sure that when a pebbles bounces to the ground near your feet it is in fact the mountain crumbling.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Without evolution, how do you explain the various races of human and their differences that are clearly indicative of their environments?

BTW apes are not humanoids, and humans did NOT evolve from primates 2 million years ago. Homo Sapiens go back 200,000 years. The homo genus evolved from its predecessor the Australopithecus 2.5mya. The earliest known tools date back 3.5mya, used by Australopithecus (aka Lucy). That genus goes back to around 4 million years ago. That came from Ardipithiticus. Hominids as a whole go back at least 7 million years and share a 'recent' common ancestor with many of the great apes, and if you go far enough back, all primates as well. The actual split is estimated around 15 million years ago, when the creatures were very similar. If you go back 40 million years, you find that hominids and primates actually trace back to a newt like creature. Things change in 10 million years. You act like humans just appeared straight from monkeys with no intermediate species between. All you have to do is a simple google search to find this info. New hominid fossils keep getting found and keep filling in the gaps, but people still nitpick and say, "well where's the one in between THOSE 2?"



This Futurama clip sums it up perfectly.

www.myvidster.com...

I think thats the problem, we understand it, and we agree its possible, why isn't there proof that it is in what fact happened to us.

No, you clearly don't understand it, and by posting that you proved him right. There is "Oodles" of proof as you call it and if you still pretend to ignore it after all the facts that have been posted here and ignored, then I feel sorry for you. There's nothing wrong with having your own theory about homo sapiens early evolution and changes, but you can't deny a scientific fact without presenting evidence that is greater than stories written down from 10,000+ years ago. You need to work with the facts and move forward from that, not work backward from the conclusion and try to squeeze in whatever you can find to fit it and cherry pick the rest of the evidence. That's not how science works.

Aliens visiting the earth in the past and manipulating our DNA doesn't contradict evolution or science and is way more plausible than thinking we were brought here from somewhere else when we so closely match all life on this planet, and fit perfectly in the evolutionary tree.

You also still haven't explained the rest of life on this planet. Did everything evolve EXCEPT humans? Was all life created and then placed here? Did the makers evolve somewhere else? You seem to argue against evolution as a whole, but I can't really tell because your arguments are so vague.

reply to post by bottleslingguy

see that's what I mean when I say you are nitpicking. Tell me what that seal represents then.

Why not ask someone who has a background in ancient Semitic languages or ancient Sumerian studies? I don't have to offer up an alternate translation of the seal to show that Sitchin is wrong. Sitchin makes a positive claim -- that the star and surrounding dots is a representation of our solar system. It is a claim that is demonstrably wrong, as the symbol he interprets as our Sun is a generic symbol for any other star; the symbol for our Sun is distinct from it and, in fact, appears alongside the generic star symbol on other seals.

I said ok then let's say it represents a constellation.

Great, because that's what every single language expert says it is.

Are the Sumerians saying the seal commemorates the time when people from the Pleaides came to Earth and taught man agriculture?

Given that I've stated several times now that the constellation represented on VA 243 is not the Pleiades, no.

Isn't that the basic interpretation behind the seal? that the tall figure sitting on his levitated throne is giving some dumbass farmer a new and improved plow? You seem to know a lot about it, can you interpret it for me, please?

Here's a broader question -- why does the mythology of ancient cultures often include stories of knowledge given to us by deities? Is it because that knowledge was literally transmitted to them in some fashion by aliens? Or is it because writing comes after advancements are made in agriculture and other technologies, so know one really knows who invented it, so they ascribe their technological advancements to deities after the fact? In effect, it's an ancient version of the "god of the gaps" argument. There's no written record of who invented the plow, so we'll just say that gods did it.

I see a similarity between the people on the tablet's profiles and the Moai of Easter Island don't you? Amazing how many cultural coincidences you find when you look.

(next you'll say: "but you have no evidence")

you've got to be able to jump off the paper

No, I'll say: you're seeing exactly what you want to see. I don't see beards on the Easter Island statues. I don't see protruding foreheads on the Sumerian seals. It's like your own little version of paraeidolia.

Originally posted by iterationzero
Why not ask someone who has a background in ancient Semitic languages or ancient Sumerian studies? I don't have to offer up an alternate translation of the seal to show that Sitchin is wrong.

It's funny how at times you pretend to know nothing about this and at other times are an expert. and you're more interested in nitpicking the details of the meaning of the seal. Even if Sitchin got a percentage wrong, the context is clear. Why do you keep ignoring the gist that people from another planet gave them knowledge of agriculture and actually their entire culture? Sure they called them gods big deal, they were gods to them. If the people actually DID do all that by themselves, why wouldn't they take the credit? Wouldn't it be to their advantage to show how superior they were? Wouldn't that be a better way tangibly to show people they didn't need a god? There would be actual people of the tribe or groups or maybe it was more like an ancient think tank where they all got together around a rock table and said "ok let's build a magnificent culture with cities and everything else that goes with making a successful culture (even though we are like the earliest city in history and have nothing to go by). Wouldn't THOSE guys take the credit? Why would they make up this elaborate hoax?

Your first explanation of "no one remembers who designed these amazing palaces and megalithic structures so we'll just make something up." is nonsense and I can't believe you spent all that time building up to it adding all sorts of bs just to say that. It makes you sound like you aren't as smart as you really are and that's what puzzles me about guys like you. Why would you dance around those contextual parts? maybe you are avoiding them precisely because you know it is a flaw in your reasoning.

You mentioned "cultural coincidences" and that's another example where I can tell you don't want to go there. You're NOT seeing what you don't want to see.

reply to post by HillbillyHippie1

Did you not read what I said? Intelligent Design Theory is the ONLY testable theory and it is being tested everyday. Humans are intelligent and we are designing life. Do you read the news? What do you think intelligent design is supposed to be if it is not intelligence designing life?

I think you're confusing testable with being able to reproduce a phenomenon. I can recreate any amino acid sequence you want using a series of properly prepared chromatography columns, but that doesn't mean that our cells create the same sequences using that method. Intelligent design has made certain testable predictions and they all fall into three categories:
1. Predictions that have been falsified, such as irreducible complexity.
2. Post hoc rationalizations, which aren't predictions at all, but rationalizations of observations after the fact.
3. Predictions that are identical to those made by the theory of evolution, with evolution being the favored explanation by Occam's razor given the complete lack of objective evidence for a designer.

Originally posted by Barcs
... There's nothing wrong with having your own theory about homo sapiens early evolution and changes, but you can't deny a scientific fact without presenting evidence that is greater than stories written down from 10,000+ years ago. You need to work with the facts and move forward from that, not work backward from the conclusion and try to squeeze in whatever you can find to fit it and cherry pick the rest of the evidence. That's not how science works.

...Aliens visiting the earth in the past and manipulating our DNA doesn't contradict evolution or science and is way more plausible than thinking we were brought here from somewhere else when we so closely match all life on this planet, and fit perfectly in the evolutionary tree.

... Did everything evolve EXCEPT humans? Was all life created and then placed here? Did the makers evolve somewhere else?

I don't deny dna can adapt to changing environments and it's possible dna can be upgraded or transformed by some external source such as photons or perhaps influences in the Higgs Field. My money is on advanced beings playing with these natural mechanisms to their own advantage namely creating us to do their hard work. Is it THAT out of the question to imagine such a thing given the vast potential for life throughout not only our galaxy but the entire universe? I know it's the "slave" thing that makes smart people dance around the context of this issue. Some folks just can't go there.

reply to post by bottleslingguy

Iterationzero and I disagree with the meaning of a symbol on a specific tablet the Sumerians made depicting man being given agriculture from a race of space people.

No, we disagree about the meaning of a symbol on a specific tablet the Sumerians made depicting a man being given a plow by a god figure. You're inserting Sitchin's exceedingly loose interpretation that "god figure" means "race of space people". This is an interpretation that has been rejected by everyone except for Sitchin and his supporters because it lacks any sort of evidence.

I'm assuming he agrees it literally represents actual space people because he didn't object when I brought that up.

You'd be assuming incorrectly. I hadn't replied until today because I was out of town.

He's hung up on whether the symbol represents our solar system or a constellation.

I'm not hung up on it. I'm choosing the interpretation that is internally consistant with the translation of other Sumerian seals. Sitchin seeks to cherry pick a single set of symbols on a single seal and, for no apparent reason, translate it differently from similar symbols on other seals.

I say our solar system because the planets match up with ours

How, exactly, do they match up with ours?

and also because the Sumerians say that's what it means.

Can you demonstrate where the Sumerians say that the star symbol surrounded by dots on seal VA 243 is our solar system?

I don't think anybody disagrees the Sumerians were talking about people from another planet they called Nibiru in our solar system (they counted the bodies in our solar system from the farthest planet in toward the sun and described them accurately) but Iterationzero probably doesn't want to talk about that issue though.

Again, you'd be mistaken in your assumption as to what I'd like to discuss for the reason I mentioned above. Maybe you should pay a little more attention to the objective evidence you don't have for your argument instead of commenting on my willingness to discuss this topic. But on to the actual content...

If you do some basic research on the matter, you'll find that nobody agrees with Sitchin in saying that the Sumerians were talking about people from another planet they called Nibiru in our solar system. In fact, there are searchable translations available online and you'll find that there isn't a single text in the entire cuneiform record that describes Nibiru as a planet beyond Pluto, that connects Nibiru with the Annunaki, or has Nibiru regularly moving through our solar system in a 3600 year cycle. These are all inventions by Sitchin that aren't supported by the facts.

He/she says the center object is a star in a constellation somewhere else because the star is depicted with four radiating lines with a central disk and the Sumerians regularly depicted our sun as simply a disk (like the ones you see in Egyptian symbols) without any radiating lines.

You have it completely backwards, which makes me wonder if you've even actually looked at photographs of the seal itself. The star symbol on VA 243 has six points, no radiating lines. The symbol for our Sun has four points and radiating lines.

Even if it does represent another constellation IZ is missing the big picture that we are still being told they were space people.

So even though you, and Sitchin, can't get the basic facts correct, your interpretation is still the right one? Laughable.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Probably the biggest problem in this picture is all of the plethora of proof showing we evolved from primates.

I'm glad that you're finally willing to accept that there is a plethora, an excess of, evidence for our evolution from primates. I don't understand how this is the "biggest problem" with the theory of evolution, but I'm still happy to see you accept that there is the "oodles" of evidence you repeatedly ask for, even though you have no evidence for your hypothesis.

reply to post by bottleslingguy

What is described at that link is the exact opposite of how Sitchin describes Nibiru.

I'm sick and tired of having to debunk obvious crooks like Sitchin...he's either a crook trying to sell books to gullible people, or simply dumb and uneducated.

Why Sitchin is demonstrably wrong.

Even more wrong

Originally posted by iterationzero
... with evolution being the favored explanation by Occam's razor given the complete lack of objective evidence for a designer.

The odds are in favor of Intervention Theory as the simplest, most tangibly provable explanation given the percentage of viable planets in the cosmos. You can have the argument that the biosphere evolved naturally after the appearance of single celled life popped up out of nowhere. I think that more likely points to the subject of a Panspermian origin if anything. My gripe is with modern humans who appeared around 250,000 years ago right about when the Sumerians say they did. They also considered Earth as the seventh planet and indicated that with a symbol of seven dots. It is seventh if you count inward. How do you suppose they got that right- cultural coincidence?

reply to post by bottleslingguy

most tangibly provable explanation

Then where's your proof? Because that Sitchin nonsense is demonstrably wrong and NOT proof. So please, enlighten us, what proof do you have?

According to you, it's tangibly provable...which means you have hard objective evidence. Show it, or PLEASE stop spreading your uneducated pseudo-science nonsense

reply to post by itsthetooth

The only difference here is we have some not so accepted proof of evolution, otherwise it would be unanomouse.

Not accepted by you, but still the predominant theory for biodiversity in the world today. Seriously, you don't want to play the popularity game and say things like "not so accepted proof". The theory of evolution, and the overwhelming evidence for it, has far more people accepting it than not.

We also have no accepted proof of aliens otherwise it would be accepted as well.

You're right. As soon as you can provide objective evidence for even their existence, you'll be orders of magnitude ahead of where you are now when it comes to supporting your hypothesis. Evolution, on the other hand, has all of the currently available evidence in it's favor.

reply to post by iterationzero


There's more scientists called "Steve" (not Steven, Stephen, Stephan, etc....just "Steve") than there are scientists not believing in evolution. Yet some fools still pretend it's up for debate. Our education system must really be failing...

LINK

And the sad part is, the only Western country where people believe less in the theory than in the US is Turkey because of fundamentalist Islam.

reply to post by itsthetooth

1. In my over thirty years studying the supernatural and paranormal, I always thought it was odd that reports about other life that visits us, seems to always have special powers, and we don’t. Looking at this from the commonality of life, we appear to be missing some abilities.

In my over thirty years of reading The Lord of the Rings, there's always walking talking trees… trees that have special powers that my trees don't.

2. There are multiple suggestions in the bible that also concur with us having ability’s removed from us, as a form of punishment. One of which is telepathy, and another called perceive. There might be others missing as well.

There are multiple suggestions in the Harry Potter series that I should be able to make an animal for appear by brandishing a wand and yelling "Expecto Patronus!" But it never works. J. K. Rowling must have disabled some of my powers.

3. Vestigial organs are present in the human species, and could be part of some or our disabled ability’s.

Vestigial and atavistic organs are well researched and understood.

4. Only using 10% of our brain, or at least 10% of it’s capability, means we are missing 90% of it’s function.

Are you still repeating this one even though multiple people, including myself, have provided you with evidence that it's nothing more than a myth?

5. The size of our head is not average by comparison to other life here on earth. In comparison to our body size, our head exceeds the compared percentage by anything else here on earth.

Ants have even bigger head to body ratios. Guess they must be the most evolved species and, therefore, rulers of the planet. I, for one, welcome our insect overlords.

6. Lloyd Pye reveals DNA findings that could also support the idea of us having disabled powers. The first is that our DNA has been tampered with, and the second is the inverted sections, the third is the dormant unrecognizable sections. And just so you know his results in this was the LAST thing I looked up because I knew if someone did what I thought they did to us, there would be DNA to prove it. And I was shocked as hell to not only find tampering but all the other pieces that fit like a glove.

There's zero evidence that our DNA has been tampered with, inversions are common in many species (Do you understand the concept of molecular strain and how inversions help to relieve that strain in DNA strands to make them more stable?), and all species have noncoding DNA. Pye wants to sell books.

7. Heightened remaining senses. As just a small example we are the only species that has sex for enjoyment, but there are many more examples. There are many things about are existing senses that could be overly sensitive as a result of missing ability’s.

Are you still repeating this one even though multiple people, including myself, have provided you with evidence that it's nothing more than a myth?

reply to post by bottleslingguy

Ok great. How about you explain how it works? Like, when a sub-species instantly loses two chromosomes. Does it happen by one of the mothers having a "better" adaptably mutated child or does it happen randomly all at once species wide? How does the split happen? Our species has 46 chromosomes and primates have 48 so then somewhere down the line our common ancestor's species started having some offspring more like apes with 48 chromosomes and also some offspring more modern human like us with 46? Are there species wide genetic directives that affect the mothers all at once so they start having these mutated offspring? What is the mechanism and please don't give me the old "go find out yourself" routine. If you know so much it shouldn't be hard to explain this so anybody can understand. Otherwise how can anyone else believe you know what you are talking about?

If you'd take the time to educate yourself, you'd know that we didn't "lose" two chromosomes. Two chromosomes fused with no loss of genetic material from the original chromosomes. Chromosomal fusion is well researched, well understood, and ubiquitous throughout nature.