Can you prove evolution wrong

1
what im saying is dung beetles, ants, cockroaches, termites, etc. were specifically made for cleanup, nothing more.. they werent made to make decisions that could either destroy the world or enable it to flourish is more my point. why were we granted that power? that goes for every animal out there. you like to take things out of context alot. obviously i dont believe we debate destroying everything in the world intentionally unless your retarded and you really thought that's what i meant.

2

Evolution shows we are entangled with all life on this planet and bellieving we can wipe out all other life and still rule the world is utter nonsense

clearly were capable. look at the grizzly population when the settlers moved across the states. it dwindled to practically nothing. that would go for all endangered species. what would happen if we weren't told to protect them? shouldnt they evolve and not let that happen? let me guess "they were much weaker than you cause we are far superior" even though according to you we came from them.. makes no sense

as for where i got sharks? from you guys obviously.

MrXYZ
Well, we have a pretty good understanding how humans evolved...it took longer than a "few times"

LINK
en.wikipedia.org...:Age-of-Man-wiki.jpg

Protozoa, Gastraeada, Helmintha, Prochordonia, Arcania, Cyclostoma and Selachii Se`la´chi`i
n. pl. 1.An order of elasmobranchs including the sharks and rays; the Plagiostomi. Called also Selacha, Selache, and Selachoidei. and if im reading that jumbled tree wrong i should started at Cyclostoma. (which is not far off from sharks but you jump all over it like "woah woah woahhh.. we were never sharks.. we were bonless slimy fish get it right" yet you defend it still like its not just as ridiculous) again you jumping all over the small errors

as for my info. i get a lot of it from the other dudes you share the cool-aid with

iterationzero

-If a population of microorganisms is doing just fine in its environmental niche, there's no reason for that population to evolve?

so what was the deal with us? monkeys are still here. couldnt of been that rough for them..

-But the oversimplified answer to your question is that the Earth’s atmosphere when life first arose was vastly different from what it is today. Today’s oxidizing atmosphere would destroy any of the molecular precursors formed before they ever had a chance to form larger molecules and begin to self-aggregate

heres where i got the temperature. but i shoulda said the atmosphere.idk how much can change in the atmosphere that would make life want evolve in a crazy fashion, besides temp, humidity, and oxygen/nitrogen to ratio. besides, if it started in the water what would that matter?

-what environmental pressures would require them to do so? If a species is surviving and thriving in its niche, there’s no reason for it to evolve.

well wtf is taking the siberian tiger so long to pull through by evolving? or the komodo dragon, grizzly, and blue whale? is their time just up? evolution should do something about that cause it sounds like the pressures on..

just to set you guys straight, im not against science like its the "devils work" obviously i agree. everyone in the world does. it just doesn't explain why we were monkeys. sorry.. the only beef i have with evolution is it putting us pretty much a shade above a monkey when i know that theres never been any proof of us ever being one besides some micro evolutionary finds leading you guys to that conclusion. as far is proof goes. again. you cant explain why everything is as diverse as it is. like explain color, and appreciation for it, or for anything for that matter. explain love, but most of all explain why if everything else in your evolution idea, meshes together forming us into what we are. why do we not just do our one purpose like everything else and contribute? why did we excel and everything else paled in comparison? like we were special or something. nothing does what we do.. point out an animal and all show you 5-10 just like it. but humans.. not too much like us huh? thats why you jump right to your monkey conclusion cause its all you can come up with

Originally posted by RebelRouser


just to set you guys straight, im not against science like its the "devils work" obviously i agree. everyone in the world does. it just doesn't explain why we were monkeys.

Evolution doesn't say we're descended from apes. What Darwin said is that humans and apes are descended from a common ancestor, which isn't quite the same thing.

reply to post by RebelRouser


You must forgive me as I am just a science dumbass but when you write

i feel like everything here is pretty much purposeless except us

I did not realise being able to destroy or save the world was the purpose of life. Also being retarded as I am when you wrote

we can kill off everything if we decided to. we are the main attraction to earth

To silly me I took it that you thought man could survive without a diverse eco system because we are the main attraction. Poppycock.

Again you vary wildly even in this. You say we are the main attraction and then insinuate that I believe we are superior to grizzly bears. Thats your position surely?

When you say ants and termites where desiged to be clean up nothing more are you talking the worker, soldier, queens, drones or do they all do their share of the house work

No, you never got we evolved from sharks from anyone, not even on your side of the debate. That one is all yours.

The old monkeys are still here nonsense. I refer to looking this info up yourself, stated in the last reply. I also dont care where you got the tempreature thing from. You said me. I corrected you.

Actually, and this is really going to rub you up the wrong way. evolution does not put us a shade above a monkey. Apes (whom with we share a common ancestor) and humans are both modern species.

Evolution does and can explain the diversity we see around us now and in the past. Like it or not monkey boy we are all related and all special. Read up on it.

reply to post by HappyBunny


Sure, because we just know for a fact that aliens couldn't possibly have Y chromosomes.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

Sure, because we just know for a fact that aliens couldn't possibly have Y chromosomes.

Ah, but you can't prove that, can you?

If it has a Y chromosome and is able to mate with a human female, it's human.

Originally posted by HappyBunny
This is what happens when we do science through press release. He's going to try to bypass peer review?

No one will take him seriously.

even this current geneticist won't "come out" until everything is in place for peer review. That's what's so paradoxical about the subject- Pye has asked for help in studying the skull and people blew it off. They either knew the ramifications of being associated with something like this or they flippantly passed it off as a disease. A few (according to Pye) knew it was strange just by examining it but didn't want the heat that comes along with something like this. You can't deny the existence of a type of willful ignorance in the science community. Maybe it's caused by a lack of intuition or something, but whatever it is it sure as heck gets in the way of progress.

So now Pye is getting together with a film production team to record the efforts to map the genome which is not cheap.

Originally posted by HappyBunny
What Darwin said is that humans and apes are descended from a common ancestor, which isn't quite the same thing.

shouldn't it be that we all share a common ancestor with the first forms of life on Earth then? We all come from eukaryotes and prokaryotes and they just popped out of the slime as completely formed single celled forms of life right?

reply to post by itsthetooth

You should read a little further into the Wiki pages you link. Here's the definition of sexual reproduction from the link you could have clicked in the Wiki you cited:

Sexual reproduction is the creation of a new organism by combining the genetic material of two organisms.

It has nothing to do with the act of sexual intercourse, only that there's more than one source of genetic material. So, yes, your example of a "test tube baby" is still sexual reproduction.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Categories: 1946 birthsAmerican novelistsAmerican non-fiction writersAncient astronaut speculationLiving peopleTulane Green Wave football playersAmerican football running backsPeople from Houma, LouisianaPeople from Pensacola, FloridaPseudohistoriansPseudoscientists

See that part? The part that also says he's a pseudohistorian and a pseudoscientist? But somehow he's more credible than real historians and real scientists that share the results upon which they base their claims in peer reviewed publications.

reply to post by iterationzero

See that part? The part that also says he's a pseudohistorian and a pseudoscientist? But somehow he's more credible than real historians and real scientists that share the results upon which they base their claims in peer reviewed publications.

I doubt seriously if peer reviewed publications is what determins legitimacy. And your just seeing what you want to see. Did you miss the part where he is also listed as NON FICTION?

reply to post by iterationzero


True except that intercourse is the assumed role for humans. I dunno, do you find yourself using another method?

reply to post by HappyBunny

Ah, but you can't prove that, can you?

If it has a Y chromosome and is able to mate with a human female, it's human.

I think your assuming a lot here.
It's really open and hard to know untill we show up at ET's doorstep and ask for a DNA sample.

reply to post by itsthetooth

I doubt seriously if peer reviewed publications is what determins legitimacy.

It's not the only thing but, in the wide world of science, it's a big one. The whole point of peer review is that people can see exactly how you did your experiment, the data your experiment produced, and the rationale for your conclusions.

And your just seeing what you want to see.

You're the one that brought how he's categorized by Wikipedia into the discussion and then completely ignored the fact that he's listed as a pseudoscientist and pseudohistorian.

Did you miss the part where he is also listed as NON FICTION?

"Nonfiction" doesn't mean "true" or "accurate". Since you like Wiki so much, here's the definition of "nonfiction" from that source:

Non-fiction (or nonfiction) is the form of any narrative, account, or other communicative work whose assertions and descriptions are understood to be fact. This presentation may be accurate or not—that is, it can give either a true or a false account of the subject in question—however, it is generally assumed that authors of such accounts believe them to be truthful at the time of their composition or, at least, pose them to their audience as historically or empirically true.

reply to post by itsthetooth

From your own post:

In sexual reproduction, mitochondria are normally inherited exclusively from the mother.

...

So the keyword here is "sexual." Making babys in a dish are not a event of sex.

It may not be sex, but it's still sexual reproduction.

reply to post by iterationzero

It's not the only thing but, in the wide world of science, it's a big one. The whole point of peer review is that people can see exactly how you did your experiment, the data your experiment produced, and the rationale for your conclusions.

Well I'm sure he wants it presented professionallly which takes planning. I do agree however that he should do it.

You're the one that brought how he's categorized by Wikipedia into the discussion and then completely ignored the fact that he's listed as a pseudoscientist and pseudohistorian.

No had I of ignored that part, I would have deleted them or only posted the ones I'm looking at. Instead I posted all of them, and of course I did see them all.

"Nonfiction" doesn't mean "true" or "accurate". Since you like Wiki so much, here's the definition of "nonfiction" from that source:

Well pseudoscience doesn't mean hes fake either. It's just someones opinion.

reply to post by iterationzero

It may not be sex, but it's still sexual reproduction.

I think you have missed the whole point here. I'm sure you would agree that ... lets just say reproduction, involves two.

Star child involved three.

Now you wouldn't dare call it a minajatwa, because the act of sex was not present to make this happen. It's proof that aliens have and have for some time had an interest in using the human reproductive system for various purposes.

Since you wanted to bring up wikipedia again, you might want to check out the wikipedia on alien abduction... en.wikipedia.org... and realize that the reproductive system is one of the mentioned highlights. I had a link long ago that stated there are over 4 million reports from people being abducted and over 1/2 of those are reported to be the standard grey aliens.

If you find it hard to believe in such things, maybe you can tell me how 4 million people around the globe are all having the exact same nightmare.


www.exopaedia.org...

reply to post by itsthetooth

Well I'm sure he wants it presented professionallly which takes planning. I do agree however that he should do it.

What's he waiting for? He's been at it since 1999. In an earlier post, you claimed that all of evolution must not be true because we've been researching one particular area of it for the last 23 years. All Pye has to do is give solid evidence regarding a single organism. It seems that, by your own reasoning, if he were able to give that evidence he would have by now.

No had I of ignored that part, I would have deleted them or only posted the ones I'm looking at. Instead I posted all of them, and of course I did see them all.

No, if you had deleted that part you would have been hiding it. There's a difference between ignoring something and hiding it. Since you claim to have read them all, you just consciously chose not to address the rest of categories he's included in that are relevant to the conversation at hand i.e. you ignored it.

Well pseudoscience doesn't mean hes fake either. It's just someones opinion.

By that reasoning, it's just someone's opinion that he's a nonfiction author.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by iterationzero

 

It may not be sex, but it's still sexual reproduction.

I think you have missed the whole point here. I'm sure you would agree that ... lets just say reproduction, involves two.

Star child involved three.

Now you wouldn't dare call it a minajatwa, because the act of sex was not present to make this happen. It's proof that aliens have and have for some time had an interest in using the human reproductive system for various purposes.

Since you wanted to bring up wikipedia again, you might want to check out the wikipedia on alien abduction... en.wikipedia.org... and realize that the reproductive system is one of the mentioned highlights. I had a link long ago that stated there are over 4 million reports from people being abducted and over 1/2 of those are reported to be the standard grey aliens.

If you find it hard to believe in such things, maybe you can tell me how 4 million people around the globe are all having the exact same nightmare.


www.exopaedia.org...

edit on 19-11-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)

Simple... scalar. Not saying that anyone is making 4 million people have the same nightmare because none of this is really made evident to me factually, but if it were true.... I'd say that an alternate possibility is definitely scalar.

For the record, I do not blame everything on scalar but this reality is being presented to you with an endless supply of duality and as fast as they put up satellites and try to captivate you at every turn, but you can't find any aliens anywhere you look.... i'd say you should at least let it cross your mind.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
I think you have missed the whole point here. I'm sure you would agree that ... lets just say reproduction, involves two.

Star child involved three.

Um, no, it didn't. You assert that the child had three parents, but all the genetic data correlates to humans. They found an X and Y chromosome, human mitochondrial DNA, a partially complete Chromosome 1 (from a human), and they still haven't mapped the rest of the genome. I and others have shown you pictures of children with hydrocephalus that have heads that look almost exactly the same as the star child.

What is the miscommunication here, and how does this have anything to do with evolution?

reply to post by BlackSatinDancer

Simple... scalar. Not saying that anyone is making 4 million people have the same nightmare because none of this is really made evident to me factually, but if it were true.... I'd say that an alternate possibility is definitely scalar.

For the record, I do not blame everything on scalar but this reality is being presented to you with an endless supply of duality and as fast as they put up satellites and try to captivate you at every turn, but you can't find any aliens anywhere you look.... i'd say you should at least let it cross your mind.

It would seem scalar is more something that evolution is based on.
I will agree with you though, that you might not be seeing aliens in a lot of places. I guess it just depends on where you look and if your even looking.

Heres a clip of two UFO's paying a visit to the space shuttle...www.youtube.com...
Now what might you think is piloting them?