Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by itsthetooth


You have been shown to be in error on all of the points you make about evolution and yet you still repeat them. TBH I dont care I am not here to debate Evolution. I want to hear an explanation of the diversity without it.

You keep saying that you must be ignorant to think life is only here on this planet. Who told you that all evolution supporters believe there is not life elsewhere? For your assumption to work evolution must be true

You then repeat the universe is teeming with life. We dont know that but lets say it is. Forget that a civilisation would have to progress far enough to be able to travel the universe and forget it would have to be arround to coincide with ours.

Hole 1

Without evolution how did life on another planet reach a point to be able to come to earth to genitically alter us? You maintain it could not happen here so why could it happen else where?

reply to post by itsthetooth


Not sure this will be worth it given that you've religiously ignored every evidence that goes against your belief...but here we go...

Evolution seems to be based on theorys that are based on theorys, also based on theorys.

Yes...and in science, a "theory" is the highest grade of certitude you can obtain. Do you believe in gravity? How about aspirin fixing your headache? Those are "scientific" theories, but they work, are testable, have nothing speaking against them, and are peer reviewed.

Molecular evolution in the severe degree needed is a theory.

Yes, a scientific theory that works. We are actively applying it in modern medicine

In order for us to have evolved in such a way, it would have had to have occured to thousands through another theory of natural selection, to avoid incest.

Wrong again, there are plenty of small groups of animals living together without any issue. And once a certain trait gets passed on, if that specimen just moves on, it will spread through mating with others.

There are no massive amount of fossils to support 1/2 of this theory.

Except...we have MILLIONS of them, all of which fully support the theory.

DNA confirms it too

Why is it we can find dinasour bones and no human bones?

Because dinosaurs lived around 230m years ago, while modern humans hadn't evolved until around 250k years ago.

Humans have less chromosomes than primates. Does this really need explanation.
If you disagree, please explain what we gave up and how much less we became than primates.
I guess we lost our tails.

We have less because some chromosomes fused.

And it's not as if you necessarily lose something because you have less chromosomes. Take ferns for example, they have over 380 pairs of chromosomes, more than humans.

The biggest nonesense in all of this is how there is no proof of transgression. There are no fossils to prove transgression. Of course I'm assuming there were many stages, not just one. In this many stages we are missing bones of before of tens of thousands never dipping below that.

Oh the old "no transitional fossils" argument

There are MILLIONS of transitional fossils that all match up...

You might think intervention is harder to belive in based on there being no proof ...

That is correct...contrary to evolution, your intervention hypothesis has ZERO objective evidence in support.

You have to be pretty ignorant to believe we are alone in this universe. There is a lot of life out there and some do visit us, and some do interact with us. There is so much life out there they even have fights and wars, we are lucky we haven't been involved with any such thing yet. Even FEMA trains to prepare for a UFO encounter.

Proof?

Oh, and your video looks like a massive swarm of birds and a shaky cameraman

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by itsthetooth

 

You have been shown to be in error on all of the points you make about evolution and yet you still repeat them. TBH I dont care I am not here to debate Evolution. I want to hear an explanation of the diversity without it.

You keep saying that you must be ignorant to think life is only here on this planet. Who told you that all evolution supporters believe there is not life elsewhere? For your assumption to work evolution must be true

You then repeat the universe is teeming with life. We dont know that but lets say it is. Forget that a civilisation would have to progress far enough to be able to travel the universe and forget it would have to be arround to coincide with ours.

Hole 1

Without evolution how did life on another planet reach a point to be able to come to earth to genitically alter us? You maintain it could not happen here so why could it happen else where?

edit on 11-11-2011 by colin42 because: (no reason given)

Well your just looking at this from the point of view that we know everything, and there is no way any other life could be smarter than us, because we are the cats meow. The fact is there is other life that is much older than we are and were probably old before we were made.

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by itsthetooth

 

You have been shown to be in error on all of the points you make about evolution and yet you still repeat them. TBH I dont care I am not here to debate Evolution. I want to hear an explanation of the diversity without it.

You keep saying that you must be ignorant to think life is only here on this planet. Who told you that all evolution supporters believe there is not life elsewhere? For your assumption to work evolution must be true

You then repeat the universe is teeming with life. We dont know that but lets say it is. Forget that a civilisation would have to progress far enough to be able to travel the universe and forget it would have to be arround to coincide with ours.

Hole 1

Without evolution how did life on another planet reach a point to be able to come to earth to genitically alter us? You maintain it could not happen here so why could it happen else where?

edit on 11-11-2011 by colin42 because: (no reason given)

I don't believe I have been shown that I'm in error on any single one of them.

reply to post by itsthetooth

You've raised all of these points multiple times in this thread and they've be responded to multiple times. You choose to ignore people's responses to you questions and keep repeated the same tired, refuted arguments over and over again. I'm fairly sure that your reply to this post will consist of either denying that you say anyone's response to your posts or claiming that all of the evidence presented for why your personal understanding of evolution is fundamentally flawed is fake.

reply to post by colin42

Can you prove evolution wrong?

The most curious aspect of this is that those who believe in the theory of evolution don't require proof to believe and those who don't won't be swayed even with it. The same goes for creationists.

The arguments really get heated, too.

This topic is beyond debate because hearts and minds will not be changed once the belief is embedded. Creation relies on faith and evolution relies on an incomplete science. This isn't going to change in our lifetimes unless either God comes in person to set the record straight or there are a whole series of major discoveries to fill the numerous gaps in the historic record of the species.

So, beyond that... it's all about the fight, not the truth or the outcome... the latter of which which is never in doubt.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by itsthetooth

 

Not sure this will be worth it given that you've religiously ignored every evidence that goes against your belief...but here we go...

I'm sorry but I'm not aware of anything you have touted to be evidence.

Evolution seems to be based on theorys that are based on theorys, also based on theorys.

Yes...and in science, a "theory" is the highest grade of certitude you can obtain. Do you believe in gravity? How about aspirin fixing your headache? Those are "scientific" theories, but they work, are testable, have nothing speaking against them, and are peer reviewed.

Godd example the only difference is gravity can be seen in effect.

Molecular evolution in the severe degree needed is a theory.

Yes, a scientific theory that works. We are actively applying it in modern medicine

If your correct than why are primates considered to be a different species? Everything I read said that sever amounts of genetic drift Was NEVER able to change a species.
I think you missed the part where it's theory based on theory, based on theory.

In order for us to have evolved in such a way, it would have had to have occured simotaniously to thousands each time, in each stage, through another theory of natural selection, to avoid incest.

Wrong again, there are plenty of small groups of animals living together without any issue. And once a certain trait gets passed on, if that specimen just moves on, it will spread through mating with others.

So does this mean you would procriate with your relatives?

There are no massive amount of fossils to support 1/2 of this theory.

Except...we have MILLIONS of them, all of which fully support the theory.

DNA confirms it too

For all we know, those are different species. It's not proof we evolved from them. DNA did not prove we are direct decendants. Your confusing the word ancestor with relative.
Dinosour bones are much older so why is it we can find dinasour bones and no human bones?

Because dinosaurs lived around 230m years ago, while modern humans hadn't evolved until around 250k years ago.

So it's easier to find older bones ?????? WTF !

Humans have less chromosomes than primates. Does this really need explanation.
If you disagree, please explain what we gave up and how much less we became than primates.
I guess we lost our tails.

We have less because some chromosomes fused.

And it's not as if you necessarily lose something because you have less chromosomes. Take ferns for example, they have over 380 pairs of chromosomes, more than humans.

Your still not giving me a good answer on how it is that we lost some. I would assume in all of the theorys you have, that you would have made one up for this part.

The biggest nonesense in all of this is how there is no proof of transgression. There are no fossils to prove transgression. Of course I'm assuming there were many stages, not just one. In this many stages we are missing bones of before of tens of thousands never dipping below that.

Oh the old "no transitional fossils" argument

There are MILLIONS of transitional fossils that all match up...

Really so are they a different species, or are they human?
You might think intervention is harder to belive in based on there being no proof ...

That is correct...contrary to evolution, your intervention hypothesis has ZERO objective evidence in support.

You have to be pretty ignorant to believe we are alone in this universe. There is a lot of life out there and some do visit us, and some do interact with us. There is so much life out there they even have fights and wars, we are lucky we haven't been involved with any such thing yet. Even FEMA trains to prepare for a UFO encounter.

Proof?

Oh, and your video looks like a massive swarm of birds and a shaky cameraman

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

www.youtube.com...

Chapter 13 to be specific.

I'm glad to see that you have insight so well that only you could spot the massive swarm of birds and a shaky camera worker. Did it ever occur to you that just maybe birds are ruled out. I guess ignorance is bliss.

Originally posted by itsthetooth

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by itsthetooth

 

How many more pages are you intending to copy and paste?

To make things worse you have copied and pasted nonsense all of which tries and fails to attack evolution when the purpose of this thread is for you and others that say evolution is wrong to explain the diversity we see today without using evolution. Something no one has even attempted.

We have shown here and in countless other threads the evidence which seemingly is all utter tosh in your and others opinion. So now it is time for you to show us the error of our ways.

Please explain the diversity we see today.

Evolution has never been able to explain how natural selection occured to get us to where we are today. It's clear from the page I copy and pasted that when DNA starts to deviate, the species dies out. Tests and studys were done and proven conclusive. You can't have genetic drift to the degree claimed to evolve us from primates. Even when there was genetic drift and the species lived for a short time, it was still the same species, tested many times over. So the problem here is we are a different species than primates, therefore it's not possible we evolved from theme.

It goes back to what I was asking at which point did we stop being able to reproduce with them? It's simply not possible and even if it was then your faced with it having to happen to thousands simotaniously as to avoid incest.
It's just not possible

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

You've been told time and again that we "are" a primate. It seem that your best arguement against evolution is to ignore things that are explained to you.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Humans have less chromosomes than primates. Does this really need explanation.
If you disagree, please explain what we gave up and how much less we became than primates.
I guess we lost our tails.

This I already explained to you, but I'm somewhat versed in the knowledge, so I'll repeat.

The reason humans have 46 chromosomes while all other apes have 48 is because we have a single fused chromosome. In other words, it is 2 chromosomes in one. That is how the genetic data was able to allow for our species to continue breeding.

Now, if I need to explain this further, we have 23 unique chromosomes, each with a double. One of these is very large and has "ends" of chromosome markers in the center. This is directly indicative of a fusion of two chromosomes. Boom, you have one species with 46 and one with 48.

Now, will you learn from this, or will you ignore it and continue being the ignorant fool you keep acting like?

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Humans have less chromosomes than primates. Does this really need explanation.
If you disagree, please explain what we gave up and how much less we became than primates.
I guess we lost our tails.

This I already explained to you, but I'm somewhat versed in the knowledge, so I'll repeat.

The reason humans have 46 chromosomes while all other apes have 48 is because we have a single fused chromosome. In other words, it is 2 chromosomes in one. That is how the genetic data was able to allow for our species to continue breeding.

Now, if I need to explain this further, we have 23 unique chromosomes, each with a double. One of these is very large and has "ends" of chromosome markers in the center. This is directly indicative of a fusion of two chromosomes. Boom, you have one species with 46 and one with 48.

Now, will you learn from this, or will you ignore it and continue being the ignorant fool you keep acting like?

Aside from yourself believing it to be fact is there any sources or links, because Lloy Pye says the opposite.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Aside from yourself believing it to be fact is there any sources or links, because Lloy Pye says the opposite.

I learned it in Biological Anthropology class, a university course.

To sum it up based on what I have just refreshed my memory on, telomeres are markers that are at the ends of chromosomes. Evolution theorists proposed that in order for humans to have 46 chromosomes, 2 of the ape chromosomes must have fused at some point, so years later, geneticists looked. Lo and behold, Chromosome 2 was longer and had a telomere in the middle. Both halves matched the ape chromosomes very well.

And here are some supporting links:

fourdollarsalmostfive.blogspot.com...

www.evolutionpages.com...

www.pnas.org...

This one explains how the offspring with the mutation could be fertile:
pandasthumb.org...

And here's a good video on the topic:



Try and deny facts now.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Aside from yourself believing it to be fact is there any sources or links, because Lloy Pye says the opposite.

I learned it in Biological Anthropology class, a university course.

To sum it up based on what I have just refreshed my memory on, telomeres are markers that are at the ends of chromosomes. Evolution theorists proposed that in order for humans to have 46 chromosomes, 2 of the ape chromosomes must have fused at some point, so years later, geneticists looked. Lo and behold, Chromosome 2 was longer and had a telomere in the middle. Both halves matched the ape chromosomes very well.

And here are some supporting links:

fourdollarsalmostfive.blogspot.com...

www.evolutionpages.com...

www.pnas.org...

This one explains how the offspring with the mutation could be fertile:
pandasthumb.org...

And here's a good video on the topic:

Try and deny facts now.

Now thats pretty cool, but is there anything that proves that it is in fact what happened or is this just an educated guess. What I mean is, is there any other possibility that it's just a coincedence.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Now thats pretty cool, but is there anything that proves that it is in fact what happened or is this just an educated guess. What I mean is, is there any other possibility that it's just a coincedence.

Unless you have another explanation for it, then the most logical explanation is that we have the same chromosomes as our ape ancestors. We simply have two of the chromosomes fused together.

As far as I know, no one else has a good explanation, and evolutionists predicted the find. Since science is largely based on the ability to predict future outcomes, then it's Science: 1, Creation: 0.

reply to post by Varemia


Oh I have a few. IMO intervention isn't a question, it does nothing but provide answers. I can totally see how others would dismiss it, but there is one thing I have learned in the over 30 years of studying reports about alien contacts. You cant trust aliens. I think in my entire life that I have had an interest in reports I have yet to see one that is positive for the contact or abductee.

There is the odd chance that someone actually wants to be abducted but given the reports of pain some of these people go through I'm sure they would change there opinion. I have never seen an alien in person (that I know of) and I have seen a UFO. I don't think these visits are in abundance but on the other hand you have to look up in the sky or you will miss them.

My point is that I don't think I will ever see an alien in my life time. At the same time I had convinced myself I would also never see a UFO, and I ended up seeing one just a few months ago. When I see strong clues in the bible, our DNA and in sumerrian text telling us that intervention is what happened to us, it shocks me how people are struggling so hard to try to make sense of evolution. You can probably convince yourself of anything if you work hard enough at it.

I don't see that with intervention. I do understand however that if you don't have the 30 + years like I do reading about these things, they can be in front of your face and you would miss them. I think the DNA is similliar simply because we are both HUMANOID. It reminds me of star child with Lloyd Pye. The DNA results proved that the mtdna was human but that the mother and father DNA was cohearant and not human. There were however sections of the DNA that did appear human while other sections were not. I think he missed what was going on, I think its the same reason, there were parts that appeared human only because it was HUMANOID.

reply to post by itsthetooth


What parts of our genetic code are not human? If it's in our code, then it's human by default.

As for your beliefs, they are founded in personal belief, not testable theory. As a result, you cannot prove evolution wrong, and have therefore forfeited your arguing rights in this thread. The topic title is "Can you prove evolution wrong?"

It seems to me that you cannot, unless you pull more evidence out than "aliens dunnit"

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by itsthetooth

 

What parts of our genetic code are not human? If it's in our code, then it's human by default.

Well I must have confused you, its my fault for assuming you knew about the star child, you can watch here...

www.youtube.com...

As for your beliefs, they are founded in personal belief, not testable theory. As a result, you cannot prove evolution wrong, and have therefore forfeited your arguing rights in this thread. The topic title is "Can you prove evolution wrong?"

Well I might be wrong but I made an assumption that proving we were not from earth, also means we did not evolve. So in that your correct, but only because I'm saying we didn't evolve here on earth.

My belief is based on redundant elements found with the bible, Sitchen, Pye, and von daniken. So again your saying they are all wrong, and the proof we have in writting is also fake, while we have nothing but unprovable theorys with evolution.

It seems to me that you cannot, unless you pull more evidence out than "aliens dunnit"

reply to post by itsthetooth


Um, that's called a mutation. I remember someone linking you to an article that disproved the DNA analysis on the star child. Have you seen some of the mutations nowadays? They're not all aliens.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by itsthetooth

 

Um, that's called a mutation. I remember someone linking you to an article that disproved the DNA analysis on the star child. Have you seen some of the mutations nowadays? They're not all aliens.

For a minute there I thought you were going to say he evolved. No it's not a mutation, if you watched the clip and would have learned that mutations are usually also sharring obvious deformities. There is nothing about the skull that looks deformed other than the fact that it looks nothing like a human. Remember that just because it's different doesnt mean its deformed.

If this thing had eyes I would have liked to seen how far out his eyeballs hung because he has very little socket depth where ours are very deep. What are the chances of this thing not being an alien versus and actually being a mutation with no obvious defects. It is by far another species.

If you were able to compare his DNA to humans and apes, you would surly find the same scenerio we just wrote about. They should all look a hell of a lot alike because we are all humanoid. Keep in mind, your talking about DNA and not genes. Comparing the genes is where the obvious difference would be found. As another example if you were to compare a dogs DNA to a cats DNA they might also look a lot alike, but the genes would be very different.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by itsthetooth

 

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

Why do you keep on repeating this blatant lie???

I had to bring this up again. You keep saying its a lie yet there is no way you could explain a savant. You know why, because savants are accessing more of specific parts of there brain.

This is really a stupid argument here, and your lacking common sense.

It's like your trying to convince me that a car can only go 55 MPH when there are rare situations where we find cars going 120 MPH. There is only one explanation for this, your wrong. The brain is obviously capable of a lot more than we are realizing.

reply to post by redoubt


To be clear. The title was changed, not by me and not changed within the spirit of the thread.

If you read the OP I stated clearly that this thread was for those that say evolution is wrong to show the diversity we see without it.

This was precisely to break the get nowhere arguments and at least change things around