Can you prove evolution wrong

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
if humans are just an accident, a fluke, then why does the double slit experiment change results when human observation is added?

why would the universe be "structured" around something that it has no awareness of, and is indeed an accident?

think about it.

i have nothing against evolution philosophically, but i don't believe it happened. it wouldn't matter to me if it did.

edit on 21-9-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)

The double slit experiment shows a difference when a measurement is made. The measurement involves a physical interaction, human or not. No human has actually stuck their eye in the slit to see where the photon goes: your consciousness learns of the physical interaction with the instrument. This is not to say that consciousness is not "essential", this is to say that, because consciousness is how you experience everything, well, of course, consciousnes cannot be removed from the measurement process. But your consciousness does not make the wave function collapse: interaction between the wave function and the instrument does.

-rrr

There is no geological record that life evolved on earth.

i'm not sure how this thread has progressed through 3 pages worth of opinions but this is a response to the OP's question, which i believe is, how do non-evolution believer's explain fossil's and how we as a human species came about to be here, if not by evolution.

Firstly i agree that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, and i believe this law applies to God. With that, i believe God created this earth with the unused matter of other earths that weren't in use for his great purpose. This is is a lot younger than scientists think it is yet their tools show its millions / billions of years old because the matter they're studying wasn't always in this form, an idea often overlooked by science (the earth we lived on wasn't always the same chunk of rock we know it to be). I hope i'm explaining myself well, i believe this earth was the creation of God and was created from multiple planets. These planets, being far older than our current Earth, had fossils within the earth and had dinosaurs and the like. I feel this always gives answers to the ancient human remains found, but that's not to say that the origin of those remains is not this earth, God doesn't just speak through the Bible i feel, this time or since the time of Adam. Not all of God's Word is contained within the Bible, which goes to answer your second question, i believe we, the human race, are children of God, and that this is not the only planet where His Children live

Originally posted by HazyChestNutz
There is no geological record that life evolved on earth.

Blatantly false. This may be true of some lineages, but this is untrue for ants, at least. I don't expect anyone to dig through every known fossil record of every creature, but to assert there there is zero evidence at all of any creature evolving is simply a show of ignorance.

www.pnas.org...

Sphecomyrma freyi, a fossilized ancient ant found in amber, is without a doubt one of the first terrestrial ants. Showing defining characteristics of both ants, and their ancient ancestors, wasps.

In case anyone couldn't figure it out, I love ants.

Well seeing as how it's late and I'm a little disgruntled with the title of this post I'll just say a couple of quick things.

First off, there is creationist science. As a matter of fact, if any of you bother to look into it, it makes a whole lot more sense than evolution. And no it isn't all chalked up to, "God did it." I'm quite sick of that phrase personally.

Of course it does go about providing evidence for a Creator, so to speak, as opposed to the belief that the universe, planets, creatures etc....etc...are the result of billions of years of change.

Here's some things I would like the evolutionists reading this to look up.

1. Spiral Galaxies. If the universe was indeed billions of years old we would not see any spiral galaxies because the middle of these galaxies rotates faster than the "arms" of the galaxies.

2. Polonium 214.

3. Man made pottery depicting humans interacting with dinosaurs.

4. Evidence for a great deluge. (aka. The story of the flood and Noah's Ark.) The amount of evidence that the entire earth was at one time completely engulfed in water is absolutely astounding, and frankly, it would be a crime against science to ignore it.

5. The Big Bang. If you believe in it, then how did it start? Now don't get me wrong, I know you don't have all the answers and neither do I, but this theory directly contradicts one of the most basic scientific facts. Of course the same argument could be used for God himself, however, if there is indeed a being powerful enough to create the universe, he is certainly not bound by the laws of the universe.

These are just a few things off the top of my head to consider.

OKAY... I say aliens did it. There is more that enough evidence on ATS that aliens both exist and have been present on earth for millennia.

ALIENS geneticly engineered all life on earth and probably terraformed the planet as well.

There I said it.

Go on laugh it up.

Unfortunately there is not a lot in the way of facts to prove this theory. I know the ancient egyptians believed iIt's in their mythology.

How about how crocadiles, snakes, and most inscets have admitedly been around unchanged for millions of years.

Theres far more proof evolution doesnt exist, compared to the zero proof it does.

We are not evolved monkeys, too many differences in too short of time.

Neanderthals were not evolved monkeys, they were an upright walking species of ape. We have hunted and killed them off almost completley, we call them "Sasquch"

"Our" Science is mostly wrong because of people like Darwin.

Originally posted by kman420
How about how crocadiles, snakes, and most inscets have admitedly been around unchanged for millions of years.

Theres far more proof evolution doesnt exist, compared to the zero proof it does.

We are not evolved monkeys, too many differences in too short of time.

Neanderthals were not evolved monkeys, they were an upright walking species of ape. We have hunted and killed them off almost completley, we call them "Sasquch"

"Our" Science is mostly wrong because of people like Darwin.

Excellent use of logic, I applaud you. That's right, I can bake a cake in 45 minutes, so that means all cakes, and specifically all of my cakes, have to be baked in 45 minutes.

If a creature can survive in its' environment in it's current form, then yeah, it'll remain unchanged. That's how it goes. But let's look at snakes. We have pythons, anacondas, gardner snakes, king snakes, cobras. They are all snakes, each one is relatively unchanged from the next. Coloration, size, maybe some flaps. They have changed based on where they live, what they eat, and what their predators are, now haven't they? Twisting words and using twisted logic only creates a twisted mind and belief structure. No offense meant, but your statement is illogical at best. Animals can still diverge, and just because of speciation or new lineages doesn't mean the ancestor has to die off.

Evolution happens over millions of years, but it doesn't mean it has to happen.

See my previous post regarding Specomyrma freyi for my reply to your "zero proof of evolution" argument.

Firstly I don't think anyone here can prove evolution 100% false, but nevertheless I'll spit some facts out

1) There are no transitional fossil records of evolution, sure there are many fragments of bones that have been recovered from many species, however why is that all the bones that have been recovered show no signs of any species in transitions?

2) Transitions in evolution make NO SENSE and many of the transitions that would need to take place would server NO PURPOSE for the specie for instance the jaw bones of reptiles would need to dislocate and slowy transitions into the mammals ear bones which is sensitive to sound but during that transition how would the reptile open it's jaw and many of the transitions would make the animal vulnerable to other predators thus falsifying natural selection

3)Evolutionists admit that 99.9% mutations are harmful to the animal making 0.1% possibility for the mutation to be helpful to the animal, if you really think about this it's a very small number when you times 0.1xmillions (throwing a random number) of mutations that would need to take place in order for a fish to evolve to human in a mere 6 billion years? Mathematicians proven it would take trillions of years in order for that to happen.

4)Science has proven that you CANNOT spring life out of a non-living organism. Scientist have done experiments recreating the elements on earth 6 billion years ago and found that they could not replicate the essential amino acids needed to create vital proteins for simple cells.

5)Cambrian Explosion

6)There's other vital gasses in the atmosphere besides oxygen and some more plentiful such as nitrogen, why is that there's no species thriving on any other gasses besides oxygen? Wouldn't it make more sense for natural selection to use the most plentiful gasses of them all?

7)There are many organs in the human body that requires one another in-order to function properly that is why many evolutionist cannot explain the evolution process of the eyes or ears or DNA system. I have heard many ridiculous explanations but again they are all assumptions no evidence to support their claims

8) Lastly ask yourself, if everything in this universe operates on LAWS not unorganized coincidences such as natural selection, but if natural selection were true how the hell does natural selection knows to work that way? who gave cells instructions to divide, mutate and operate with their own functions such as the blood cell? Do you honestly believe that the complexity of our bodies our DNA system our BRAINS was architect by blind luck?
That's like saying a dog who knows nothing in life but relying on the dog to build space ship to fly to mars in 6 billions years, is it impossible... no... but seriously what are the chances?

There's many many more facts that points to intelligent design. I think anyone who believe in blind luck is a LOONEY. It makes FAR more logical sense that we were created by intelligent design than trillions of improbable coincidences.

Originally posted by samaka
Firstly I don't think anyone here can prove evolution 100% false, but nevertheless I'll spit some facts out

1) There are no transitional fossil records of evolution

There most certainly are transitional fossils. Where is this stuff coming from? For me, evolution is an elegant suggestion of God's intricate, subtle, and sophisticated methods, not having to resort to I Dream of Jeannie eye blinks, or Bewitched nose wiggles to achieve His/Her/Its purpose, if any, but patiently allowing Natural Law to unfold unmolested over billions of years.


Transitional fossil
Pretty decent Wiki article on transitional fossils.

A few selected transitional fossils
Nice illustrated list of important transitional fossils.

Something to keep in mind as you all go forward with this thread, regardless of which side you are on (if any): Lack of evidence from one camp does not in any way count as evidence for the other camp. Some people get this confused.

reply to post by Heehaw


Aaaah! So I'm not that crazy after all. I find gentics is a very interesting subject. A little question for you then. Whether it be in a natural setting or in a controled eviroment, have mutations been odserved which had yeilded the same results, micro-organisms or otherwise?

I finally created an account to throw in my two cents.. thanks .

But anyways, why can't there be degrees of both in the world? I personally believe in creationism, but i also beleive there is a degree of evolution too. Look at everything around us, I don't think God created every single living thing on the planet. That being said, I also don't think that monkeys could evolve to humans, or fish grow legs and stay away from it's natural home.

A friend showed me a very interesting book a while back. I don't rmember who it was by or what is was called, sorry about that. But it was about the science of creation, as stated in a previous post. One of the things that stuck with me, it was talking about how God has always been and always will be, he was before the laws of the universe. So he dosn't have to follow them since he originaly created them.

Of course if Gods time is infinite then his perception of time has to be different then our time, since we only get to experience 100 years on earth. One of my favorite sayings includes the difference of time we have... It's the one with the kid conversing with God asking him how long is a second for him... if you havn't heard it i would recomend googling it. Do I think that God created the earth in 6 days, Absolutly... HOWEVER it was from his frame of time. On earth it was most likely millions, possibly billions of years.

Anyways back to evolution, you'd have to completly stupid and ignorant not to believe some degree into it. I personally like to think of it more like adaptation however. My favorite example is The Blind Cave Tetra. It's a fish that lives in nothing darknes, It's adapted by loosing it's sense of sight since it is useless. This is to increse all the other senes of a fish to ensure it's survival. There are bases to every virtually every species in thie world. Dogs and wolves all have the same base look and traits, same can be said about lizards and fish. This list goes on and on. But no animal base can become a completly seperate species base.

That being said I could be completly wrong, and will accept if i am completly wrong. I want to learn more, and the only way to learn more is to be open minded. So why can't we have both? Why can't the earth be 7,000 years old, or possible billions of years old? why can't we have a God? Sorry if I rambled i just wanted to hit on every major thing that's being discused on this thread. Please note this is what I believe, not you (if you have these beliefs bro fist!) So don't look down on me as a sub human for not believing in what you say HAS to be true.

Originally posted by notquiteright
Something to keep in mind as you all go forward with this thread, regardless of which side you are on (if any): Lack of evidence from one camp does not in any way count as evidence for the other camp. Some people get this confused.

edit on 22-9-2011 by notquiteright because: I was upside down

Indeed! Very well said.
I have read a lot of ATS topics and this seems to be a consistent situation.

reply to post by Racey

I think you are pretty close to the truth. It is however difficult to scientifically proof it.
:-)

Originally posted by XLR8R
reply to post by Heehaw

 

Aaaah! So I'm not that crazy after all.

I find gentics is a very interesting subject. A little question for you then. Whether it be in a natural setting or in a controled eviroment, have mutations been odserved which had yeilded the same results, micro-organisms or otherwise?

Fruit flies are commonly used for genetic experiments due to the simplicity of them all-around. It's very common in laboratory settings, at least, for different lines of fruitflies to experience the same mutations based on environment and such. For instance, you can take two sets of parents of fruit flies, place them in the same environment, and reproduce similar mutations.

The same goes for some ants, actually. In laboratory studies, Monomorium I believe it was, experienced heat-shock. They were placed into the upper extremes of their temperature tolerance (50ish C) for 30 to 110 minutes, and different colonies would experience similar genetic deformities, including gynandromorphism. This is when both male and female tissue appears on an individual. In some cases, it's divided right along the sagital axis producing literally half-male, half-female individuals. It was most striking in species with different colored males than females. You could get half red, half black individuals, or in some cases, mosaics where spots of black would appear on the red body. Anyway, I digress.

I like the people who try to combine the two stories. It's really a novel idea, and I don't see any reason why it couldn't be the case. I may believe in evolution, but I do have a belief structure based on a deity of sorts. I subscribe to the idea that all living things have souls, and we cannot reproduce these artificially. These souls are essentially the energy of what some may call "God". Until we can create life wholly, I don't intend on changing my believe here. But I still don't think anyone whipped all this into being, I do believe this cosmic energy infused with certain chemical compounds to create the first life, and this life evolved into what it is today.

Allow me to pose a question to individual creationists: Do you believe ALL living things have souls? Do they go to heaven/hell? Do cats, dogs, fish, and horses all have souls? Are humans God's one and only creation, and/or are we only privy to getting an afterlife at all?

Originally posted by HazyChestNutz
There is no geological record that life evolved on earth.

That's because the earth turns itself inside out so any record left at the time would have long dissapeard. To use just what you said as a point of arguement is like saying there's no fossilised record of your conception therefor you must be a test tube baby.


Lame

Originally posted by Heehaw

Originally posted by HazyChestNutz
There is no geological record that life evolved on earth.

Blatantly false. This may be true of some lineages, but this is untrue for ants, at least. I don't expect anyone to dig through every known fossil record of every creature, but to assert there there is zero evidence at all of any creature evolving is simply a show of ignorance.

www.pnas.org...

Sphecomyrma freyi, a fossilized ancient ant found in amber, is without a doubt one of the first terrestrial ants. Showing defining characteristics of both ants, and their ancient ancestors, wasps.

In case anyone couldn't figure it out, I love ants.

edit on 21-9-2011 by Heehaw because: (no reason given)

I think he means from way back in the primordal soup. It's a lame arguement he's used. Im fact it's really very lazy.

Now I'll say I lean towards the alien involvement side but not by much. What we look at is the Sumerian myths matching up with the bible, one could say they might have been seasonal myths interpreted into a one god religion as a result of various influences, god kings claiming they were Messiahs or divinely influenced as Alexander did keeping in mind Christianity came about after the Hellenistic empire. What throws a ditch into this is the apocalyptic theory. It tends to be useless and induces fighting among various groups of people who begin to believe the other side is evil such as Islam towards Judiasm or Christisnity. A messiah will save all people as long as they fight evil and refuse to give In and hold their monotheistic god to being able to solve their problems.

reply to post by camaro68ss


Where are the billions of "man" bones that should litter the planet, you ask? Simple...where are the billion of bear bones that litter the woods? I mean if there is no evolution then Bears have been around since the beginning right? We should be stumbling over them all the time, and finding them every time we dig a hole.....So where are they?.....The answer is incredibly obvious...Most bones decompose. It's a very rare process to find either preserved bones or fossilized bones that are of thousands of years old, let alone millions. Why is that hard to understand?!? We are lucky we've found as many fossils that we have...Including a multitude of transitional fossils. Which isn't to suggest there isn't a myriad of DNA evidence as well. You can pretty much prove Evolution simply by looking at the DNA evidence of it, without even having to resort to bones or fossils of bones.