Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by Varemia


Ya but we also have 70% rats DNA so does that mean we are related to them too?

reply to post by Varemia


Well granted it makes it convienent for that angle, but everyone wants to know how old we are and they are witholding it.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia

 

Ya but we also have 70% rats DNA so does that mean we are related to them too?

Yes,but not directly...The relations between species biologically just proves humans and animals have similiarities,because we use the same building blocks of life sustaining energy.

Just some are more complex than others,but the same in regards to atomic biology and DNA.

Has it ever been confirmed in past times or even today,if there were any species which contained an exact replica of the human genome or just shared similiar life building material,which the earth readily supplies?

reply to post by Varemia


Are you suggesting that I have ape genes,or is it possible they have mine instead...has it been proven all species didn't derive from humans and not the other way around?

reply to post by Daedal

Yes,but not directly...The relations between species biologically just proves humans and animals have similiarities,because we use the same building blocks of life sustaining energy.

Now primates have a 97% tie to human DNA but your so sure that it's not just overlap just like we share with Rats?

Just some are more complex than others,but the same in regards to atomic biology and DNA.

The complexity only adds to the less chance we evolved.

Has it ever been confirmed in past times or even today,if there were any species which contained an exact replica of the human genome or just shared similiar life building material,which the earth readily supplies?

I think its just chance. Its a evolution view over creation.

I think it's just as possible if not more possible that a creator is using recycled parts.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

Well said! We evolved to adapt to Earth's resources, just as other organisms did. If an alien came down to visit, we couldn't even buy him a drink--it would probably kill him, because he didn't evolve to tolerate Earth's minerals and compounds.

I'm not sure we're the most "successful" species, though. We've only been around in our current form for about 200,000 years. Bacteria, on the other hand, have been here since the beginning, and they'll be here when the sun dies. We probably won't be. I guess it depends on how you define "successful."

Well I think they are omitting the true age because they are scared at what they have found. You see the 200,000 claim is just a common ancestor and a missconfusion that they named her Eve. It gave people the false impression she was the first mother. When in fact she was just a common ancestor. Our lineage goes back further but they aren't letting us know how much.

I think its because they have discovered that we are older than earth and well that just doesn't make any sense to them and they don't want to scare people.
It would be obvious we aren't from here.

Er, no it wouldn't. All it would mean is that we're older as a species than they think we are.

reply to post by HappyBunny


Well thats a given. I think its because of how much older that they are scared to release it.

They devised a clever way to break it to us with a basic point not to scare us. Yes we are older than they thought and what a better way to announce this without saying we are older than dirt. Again I have no proof, its just a gut feeling. I base it on two things. The first is that they claim to have mapped the entire genome, which means they know exactly how old we are within 2 decimals. The second is the let down from the Assam tribune indicating this point and how we must look to more pioneering ways to figure out where we came from.

Turns out this Assam tribune clip I have is somewhat word for word with wikepedia.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by DorkLard

[There is no monkey in my DNA, not one drop thats a fact, the theory of evolution is as it is a theory.

You guys sure love to use words like "fact" when in fact you are completely wrong.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

This is OLD news. Our genes are 97% the same. Lol @ not one drop. I wonder where you learned that "fact".

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

Well thats a given. I think its because of how much older that they are scared to release it.

They devised a clever way to break it to us with a basic point not to scare us. Yes we are older than they thought and what a better way to announce this without saying we are older than dirt. Again I have no proof, its just a gut feeling. I base it on two things. The first is that they claim to have mapped the entire genome, which means they know exactly how old we are within 2 decimals. The second is the let down from the Assam tribune indicating this point and how we must look to more pioneering ways to figure out where we came from.

Turns out this Assam tribune clip I have is somewhat word for word with wikepedia.

en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 30-11-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-11-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)

With all respect, itsthetooth, gut feelings don't prove anything. I see a lot of outrageous claims and conjecture made by you, but nothing to back it up.

No, I can't prove it wrong. And micro-evolution has been proven to exist. I prefer the term environmental adaptation to evolution.

One thing I bet you don't know about Darwin's famous skeletal model showing a hunched backed monkey, a hunched backed human and an upright human. The actual skeletons in his model, the human ones, with the hunch backs, have been proven to have-had spinal diseases which directly resulted in their backs being hunched, throwing the entire model out the window, Darwin didn't know about the spinal abnormalities, he pieced together a picture which he already had in his head. It's easy to find pseudo-proof of something if you want to see it badly enough.

reply to post by Razimus


Darwin's theories are actually only used as the basis for understanding where evolutionary science first began. The man was not aware of the science of gene transfers and the mechanics behind them.

Nowadays, we can look at genes and see which ones we share with which animals. We can then trace back to when we shared out ancestry with them.

Honestly, it seems like most of the arguments here from itsthetooth and such are resulting from a basic misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. If a person doesn't understand it, then naturally they will fight it. I've already recommended books to itsthetooth, but I'm not sure if he'll read them or not.

reply to post by micmerci


This is operating under the assumption that we have found all bones and evidence there is to find. Is there anyone making this claim? Because I'm pretty confident that our scientific understanding is incomplete, which where the God of the gaps comes into play. When we have a gap in knowledge, it is so easy to pop god right in there, however, as we've seen in the past, when science eventually fills in those gaps, God gets squeezed out.

reply to post by HappyBunny


Well anything I comment on is usually supported by multiple things together. However in this one situation its speculation and I'm upfront about it.

reply to post by Varemia


I need that liink to the free video order.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia

 

I need that liink to the free video order.

Free video order? You can likely find any of these books at your local library. I assume your city still has one. Use it.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

Well anything I comment on is usually supported by multiple things together. However in this one situation its speculation and I'm upfront about it.

I am pretty sure you cannot refer to one post where you show any of your comments in this thread have been supported.

Just to let the new posters here know. This thread is for those that believe evolution to be wrong, To explain diversity without it. The title change was not mine.

reply to post by colin42

explain diversity without it

You most definitely can not explain diversity of life with creationism. If that is even what you believe. It does not account for the changes in species that we see happening right before our eyes. (a few years, not literally before our eyes)

reply to post by Tony4211

Did you even read my post?

I am asking those that believe evolution is wrong to explain the diversity we see around us today without refering to evolution.

There has been 90 pages now and no one has attempted it. 90 pages tells me they cannot even come close.

reply to post by colin42

I am pretty sure you cannot refer to one post where you show any of your comments in this thread have been supported.

Actually everything I believe is supported by multiple sources, which I have shared but will share them again in case you forgot. The bible, Erich Von Daniken, Lloyd Pye, Zecharia Sitchen..


It would appear more like they are just sources you don't want to accept so you claim that I don't have any sources.
Big difference.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Yep, done that. Even read the books, didnt bother with the tee shirt.

Now explain the diversity we see without refering to evolution.