Can you prove evolution wrong

Originally posted by MrXYZ
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

edit on 6-11-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

If you can't read the tablets yourself why do you believe these other translations? Forget the context of the writings and think about the civilization for a minute. They weren't cave people scratching on bones with rocks, they built palaces and were intellectually very advanced, seemingly more than we are today. The rise of cultures around the world have too many similarities to be a coincidence. Does Occam's Razor account for coincidences? They even talk about more ancient cities than themselves that was always thought to be total myths until we started finding them. We've also found gold mines from 150,000 years ago down in SE Africa. The funny thing is the Sumerians said that's what was going on down there and even called it the Abzu (in Sitchin's interp of course). I argue he's right about it because the ancient gold mines corroborate the story.

And that's not circular logic either, I didn't write about the gold mines the Sumerians did seven or so thousand years ago. I really don't think the "coincidence" argument holds water for not only the Sumerians nailing the story literally but also for the idea that we as a species popped into existence with this innate sense of culture, architecture, math, astrology, science, medicine, schools etc. 250,000 years ago. I mean Neanderthals may have had the animal skin clothing thing down pretty well but going from that to complex textiles and fine art in the blink of an eye is a real stretch of the imagination. If modern humans appeared with the cognitive ability to go to the moon, where are the ancestors that were only half as smart? For such a recent split it would appear our last common ancestor wasn't big on achievements. We didn't come from Neanderthals, they are a different species than us, so where are the creatures we most recently sprang from? When you look at the known timelines they jump all over the place clearly not a natural flow. Not even close.

reply to post by bottleslingguy

It's funny how at times you pretend to know nothing about this and at other times are an expert.

It's called "reading comprehension" and "synthesis of information".

and you're more interested in nitpicking the details of the meaning of the seal.

The meaning of the seal is in the details.

Even if Sitchin got a percentage wrong, the context is clear.

Exactly! Sitchin got 100% wrong. The context is clearly not what he states.

\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.

But you insist on calling them "space people".

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?

You'd think that the guy in the Middle Ages that invented the accordion bellows would have taken credit, no? I mean, it revolutionized ironworking and blacksmithing, right? But we have no clue who he was. And that was within the last millennium. During a time when people kept written records of things.

Your first explanation of "no one remembers who designed these amazing palaces and megalithic structures so we'll just make something up."

I don't think I ever said anything about palaces and megalithic structures. We were talking about agriculture, no?

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.

I'm not the one relying on an interpretation taken out of context, unlike Sitchin.

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.

When have I used the expression "cultural coincidences". Please stop making claims as to what I've said unless you want to go back and find it in a post. It's incredibly dishonest.

reply to post by bottleslingguy


Why do I trust that site more than Sitchin?? Because the guy who wrote it has ACTUALLY STUDIED the subject, he got his Ph.D….while Sitchin has NO QUALIFICATIONS and is only a fiction author.

And that guy's not alone, Sitchin's work has been disproved by a ton of scientists...

Do you also trust J.K. Rowling more than Einstein when it comes to physics?

We didn't come from Neanderthals, they are a different species than us

And once again you make an uneducated statement that's DEMONSTRABLY wrong.

May I suggest you start reading some actual science sources rather than that pseudo-science hogwash? Because with every single post you make it more obvious that you criticize something you don't understand...and that makes you look kinda silly.

Originally posted by iterationzero

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

that would be correct

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by iterationzero

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

that would be correct

Who cares about facts, right?

reply to post by MrXYZ

we also share sea sponge dna but they are also a different species than us just like the Neanderthals. We didn't come from them, we share ancient ancestors and if you follow Intervention Theory it makes sense because our dna comes from an artificial blending with an earlier species. Just as the Sumerian record shows.

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by iterationzero

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

that would be correct

Who cares about facts, right?

Has main stream science ever been wrong? You just keep swallowing the crap. Your camp's whole argument relies on the "coincidence" factor. That's about as reliable as faith.

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

we also share sea sponge dna but they are also a different species than us just like the Neanderthals. We didn't come from them, we share ancient ancestors and if you follow Intervention Theory it makes sense because our dna comes from an artificial blending with an earlier species. Just as the Sumerian record shows.

We share common DNA with ALL life forms!! Which makes perfect sense given the theory of evolution states common ancestry. Intervention isn't required

And scientists aren't saying it was a "coincidence" or "accident"...they actually explain the processes that lead to the outcome. So not sure why you claim stuff that's demonstrably wrong...and every time someone corrects you by presenting hard facts, you simply ignore them. Like that "we only use 10% of our brain" nonsense you keep on lying about

Originally posted 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?

It has actually been shown that one of our chromosomes is a combination of 2 chromosomes. At some point in the past, some mommy had a baby with this fused chromosome. That baby was fit enough to survive and make more babies later in life, and those babies made babies, etc. This genetic abnormality spread, probably under the radar for a while, until those with the genetic abnormality tended to survive more often than those without it. Those with 46 chromosomes started to mate in different geographic locations than those with 48, and the two gene pools finally split into different species.

Honestly, it can be debated exactly how it happened, but all science is sure of is that it happened. The rest is just the best guess based on the way things are and the evidence provided by fossils. Mutations that cause bipedal tendencies do exist. I saw a documentary about a poor chimp who was born with a mutation that made him walk upright. Unfortunately, no one ever let him mate (those jerks), so we can't study the biologic effects it might have had on offspring.

can I ask what "adaption" is? and as far as speciation goes: "Speciation may also be induced artificially, through animal husbandry or laboratory experiments. " wikipedia

Let's follow along with the evolution model then: a species evolves for trillions of years becomes so advanced in cognitive abilities and science that it can explore other planets and even terraform barren planets and stock them with interesting biodiversity for food and enjoyment. Sounds plausible to me, I don't disagree ADAPTATION is involved within a species. I just don't see the huge numbers or types of intermediate species (which should be there mixed in with the others) that are missing from the geological record. The record actually supports intervention theory with the big gaps and huge transformations between species in a geologic blink of an eye.

Adaption takes on two forms. There is the variation based on environment, which takes effect after only a few generations of living in an area, and these are simply environment caused activations of different gene sequences already present. The other form of adaption is that of mutation. Mutations happen every day in offspring all the time. It's like making a copy of something, but the pixels have a couple fragments each time. Usually these fragments are minor, but sometimes they can be deadly, or even beneficial. Beneficial or useless mutations tend to spread through the generations and cause minor changes in organisms.

Also, the intermediate species aren't missing. It's just hard to find fossils when they form so rarely, and everything degrades into the earth. The record very strongly supports evolution through natural process. It is just mind-boggling to imagine the time scale we're talking. These "huge" transformations between species on a geologic scale only tend to take place when a climate change occurs, causing all but those able to survive to die off. When you have a smaller gene pool of specific characteristics, then you will see a much greater change much faster. This is why the human race almost appears to have stopped changing recently. We can now breed with people living in completely different parts of the world, and we can build shelters which let us create our own climate, so we don't have to adapt as much to survive.

Really, tool-making is all that separates us from the other animals, and some animals do make tools. Heck, crows have problem-solving abilities. It's really quite fascinating.

reply to post by Varemia

Heck, crows have problem-solving abilities. It's really quite fascinating.

Birds are highly intelligent especially when you consider their brain size.

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by iterationzero

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

that would be correct

Who cares about facts, right?

Has main stream science ever been wrong? You just keep swallowing the crap. Your camp's whole argument relies on the "coincidence" factor. That's about as reliable as faith.

Agreed !

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

we also share sea sponge dna but they are also a different species than us just like the Neanderthals. We didn't come from them, we share ancient ancestors and if you follow Intervention Theory it makes sense because our dna comes from an artificial blending with an earlier species. Just as the Sumerian record shows.

We share common DNA with ALL life forms!! Which makes perfect sense given the theory of evolution states common ancestry. Intervention isn't required

And scientists aren't saying it was a "coincidence" or "accident"...they actually explain the processes that lead to the outcome. So not sure why you claim stuff that's demonstrably wrong...and every time someone corrects you by presenting hard facts, you simply ignore them. Like that "we only use 10% of our brain" nonsense you keep on lying about

edit on 6-11-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

I haven't mentioned the brain thing, so you're confusing me with someone else in this discussion. I mentioned the "coincidence" factor because someone else here is using that argument. "hard facts"

reply to post by bottleslingguy


I never heard it was proven wrong. What I read about was that we don't use 10% of our brains but rather 10% of the capacity of our brains. I heard this way back in high school. So we are not only missing 90% of the capacity, but there is also a lot of uncertanity as to what sections do what. In addition there is a vestigal organ in the center of our brain.

All more to the fact that our abilitys have been bottlenecked by our supposed creator.

reply to post by Varemia


What proof do we have of ANYTHING else evolving from another species? I mean after all there is over 5 million species here on earth, can you produce at least one of them?

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by bottleslingguy

 

I never heard it was proven wrong. What I read about was that we don't use 10% of our brains but rather 10% of the capacity of our brains. I heard this way back in high school. So we are not only missing 90% of the capacity, but there is also a lot of uncertanity as to what sections do what. In addition there is a vestigal organ in the center of our brain.

All more to the fact that our abilitys have been bottlenecked by our supposed creator.

edit on 6-11-2011 by itsthetooth because: /

It's a hoax.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia

 

What proof do we have of ANYTHING else evolving from another species? I mean after all there is over 5 million species here on earth, can you produce at least one of them?

We can trace the evolution of hundreds of species

Here's one: Birds

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia

 

What proof do we have of ANYTHING else evolving from another species? I mean after all there is over 5 million species here on earth, can you produce at least one of them?

We can trace the evolution of hundreds of species

Here's one: Birds

It looked good until the last part "the relationship between dinosaurs, Archaeopteryx, and modern birds is still under debate."

reply to post by bottleslingguy


I don't understand you guys, this is IMO proof in writing, while you guys are digging up fossils trying to put a puzzle together that wont fit. One of my favorite arguments on here is how the other guy only wanted to accept information from books.

However he was quick to exclude the bible, sitchen, von daniken, and pye, all which offer books.

reply to post by itsthetooth


Are you kidding?
You do realize some books are fiction and some should be read as such.

Originally posted by flyingfish
reply to post by itsthetooth

 

Are you kidding?
You do realize some books are fiction and some should be read as such.

Only when they indicate they are fiction.

Here is a quote...
For over 45 years, Erich von Däniken has pursued the theory which postulates that Earth might have been visited by extraterrestrials in the remote past. Erich von Däniken, the world's most successful non-fiction writer of all time

Lloyd Pye's wikepedia...Categories: 1946 birthsAmerican novelistsAmerican non-fiction writersAncient astronaut speculationLiving peopleTulane Green Wave football playersAmerican football running backsPeople from Houma, LouisianaPeople from Pensacola, FloridaPseudohistoriansPseudoscientistsHidden categories: Use dmy dates from May 2011Persondata templates without short description parameter

Sitchen didn't get such a good rap..Sitchin's hypotheses are not accepted by scientists and academics, who dismiss his work as pseudoscience and pseudohistory. Sitchin's work has been criticized for flawed methodology and mistranslations of ancient texts as well as for incorrect astronomical and scientific claims. Nothing which says however that he was ever proven to be a fraud.

[