Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by itsthetooth


Ah yes, the Star Child, because it's impossible to have been any of the mutations listed here:

Genetic Disorders

They are working on sequencing the DNA and have only been able to get fragments at a time. What they have found have been human chromosomes, human mitochondria, and human DNA. Nothing supports alien, and if you bring up the "unmatched" string of DNA, couldn't that have been caused by a genetic disease as well? If your chromosomes, which dictate your development, have a mutation in them, then it has the potential to completely rewrite huge segments of DNA. There is nothing particularly unusual or alien about it.

reply to post by Varemia

Ah yes, the Star Child, because it's impossible to have been any of the mutations listed here:

Genetic Disorders

They are working on sequencing the DNA and have only been able to get fragments at a time. What they have found have been human chromosomes, human mitochondria, and human DNA. Nothing supports alien, and if you bring up the "unmatched" string of DNA, couldn't that have been caused by a genetic disease as well? If your chromosomes, which dictate your development, have a mutation in them, then it has the potential to completely rewrite huge segments of DNA. There is nothing particularly unusual or alien about it.

Well the only thing I ever caught that was human was the mtDNA while the rest had unhuman base pairs. This was explained as this creature being labed. Of course it makes total sense with storys from people getting abducted. If this skull is human then it was more then sick without signs of abnormal defects. I'm actually shocked your not buying this as an early stage of evolution. It also has no signs of any defects. Anyhow it has over 30% more brain mass, no iniot, shallow eye sockets that couldn't possibly house human eyes, even if he had graves disease. The eye sockets are also dropped down where the nose should be and its totally missing any signs of sinuses. How do you explain it having adult teeth with more adult teeth waiting to come down? Must be a defect of some sort LOL. It's not human.
Are you possibly looking at just the first test, or any others? Because the first test was proven to be false by a more advanced test later on.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Are you possibly looking at just the first test, or any others? Because the first test was proven to be false by a more advanced test later on.

edit on 4-12-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-12-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)

I never saw where it was shown that the first test was faulty. It was limited, but not faulty.

Also, you probably missed my post at the end of the last page. Where did you get the idea of it having to take trillions of years to evolve? Your concept of time seems to be skewed severely.

reply to post by Varemia

I never saw where it was shown that the first test was faulty. It was limited, but not faulty.

Also, you probably missed my post at the end of the last page. Where did you get the idea of it having to take trillions of years to evolve? Your concept of time seems to be skewed severely.

The first test was only a primer test and ONLY tested mtDNA. So they said it was human. He had to wait years for better technology to come out so that he could compare nuclear DNA. Some matched, and some didn't. It appears to have alien mother, and alien father and Human mtDNA which would indicate this guy was made in a test tube. The human chromosomes were scraped out of the nucleus. The incubater or serrogate would have been human. It's possible that a human carried this alien to birth, also possible a human package was abducted and brought to term in a dish. We can do this today its called a zygote.

The idea of it taking trillions of years is based on microevolution, and how we have never found that missing link. It's the only explanation for the vast amount of differences between us and primates, and the lack of evidence. Unfortuntaly its not possible because earth is dated at 4 billion years. Even if I'm wrong in my guesstimation, your trying to sell me on the idea that we evolved from primates in just 4 billion years. There is never any benchmark on what we were before that because we are unable to find any of these stages. We are also unable to observe any comparable changes in older DNA from old human bones.

This is all so hard to comprehend looking at it from the perspective of a creator because we just can't imagine the intelligence and technology. Let me give you a heads up. There is advanced technology in the bible. Atomic bombs in the bible, two way radio communications in the bible. I'm not even going to mention pryamids and hieroglyphics clearly documenting advanced technology prior to biblical days.

We were placed here. Some guy with the right tools, knowledge, and powers made a lot of things happen. At best he even frankenstiened us as a species. Water was added to our planet to cause a flood which is also in the bible, sodom and ghamora was blown up by an atomic bomb, two way radio communications were used between Moses and god.

Let me ask you an honest question and give me an honest answer. If you had the ability to make life, like all the species here on earth, would you do so, and make a lot of them and even make planets? Or would you not use this talent?

reply to post by Xcalibur254


dude, you need to look at your own information.

for instance

this is why i dont take you people seriously. you delve into an idea some guy had and then you turn around and try to say were ignorant for doing the same thing. making you, a hypocrite..

Dart claimed that the skull must have been an intermediate species between ape and humans, but his claim about the Taung Child was rejected by the scientific community at the time due to the belief that a large cranial capacity must precede bipedal locomotion.[1] This was exacerbated by the widespread acceptance of the Piltdown Man.

ir Arthur Keith, a fellow anatomist and anthropologist, suggested that the skull belonged to a young ape, most likely from an infant gorilla. It was not until 20 years later that the (((((((public))))))))) accepted the new genus and that australopithecines were a true member of Homininae.

a.k.a naive people who blatantly turn there backs to God just want to so badly believe what they do..

which in my opinion is purely subconscious. you dont want to have to feel responsible for doing anything bad, or feel like you should even strive to be good, and by good, i mean things like going out of your way to help people or along lines like that. its much easier to accept a more comfortable belief and connect the dots you want. but when you do that you are cheating yourself. you will never see the big picture.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by ironbutterflyrusted

 

How far could a limited gene pool take a species.? could there be a scenario whereby a species returns to a type that existed in the past.? a set of changes that returns, and is still viable because the favored environment has changed very little over time...dry arid, wet marsh, etc.

I had to share my finds on this. Of course I learned this off a site sharing thoughts on evolution. There are two parts to evolution. Microevolution which is real and has been observed and Macroevolution which has been explained like a tornado ripping through a junk yard and magically assembling a jet airplane. Evolutionists want to believe this over aliens doing it, even though we have it in writting.

The other part that is causing so much confusion is how all life as we know it is all made up of the same protiens and amino acids. Its the arrangment of those that create a sort of programming per se. So it does give the appearnace that we are all related to all life. Of course evolutionists miss the fact that it could just as easily be a creator that did all this, or several creators.

I see you could not let a page go by without talking about a tornado in a junkyard. It is still an very bad analogy of Evolution but may be a good representation of your mind

Yes we are all made up of the same protiens amino acids. It does not give the appearance it is another piece of evidence that you have decided to ignore in favour of 'Aliens'. You question Evolutionists logic after that statement? Really?

Going back to a previous post and infered here you believe all creatures that ever lived were created as is. Is that correct?

reply to post by RebelRouser

Dude the reason why you don’t take anyone seriously has nothing to do with what they write. Your forum name and photo explains that.

a.k.a naive people who blatantly turn there backs to God just want to so badly believe what they do..

which in my opinion is purely subconscious. you dont want to have to feel responsible for doing anything bad, or feel like you should even strive to be good, and by good, i mean things like going out of your way to help people or along lines like that. its much easier to accept a more comfortable belief and connect the dots you want. but when you do that you are cheating yourself. you will never see the big picture.

This coming from a person that uses insults as a form of communication. Dude you need to read your book again as I am sure there is somthing about loving your neighbour as you would yourself. I suppose being forgiven your sins from a bloke in a dress and white collar if you repent is not cheating yourself then?

Other recent posts:
So we are back to the 'star child' as the only desperate claim for proof. As stated before it is 900 years old. So even if it was 100% alien and was found sitting in a spacecraft it still has nothing to say about the origins of man and more importantly the topic of this thread.

Explain diversity without referring to evolution. Go on and try it, or are you too embarrassed.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
The idea of it taking trillions of years is based on microevolution, and how we have never found that missing link. It's the only explanation for the vast amount of differences between us and primates, and the lack of evidence. Unfortuntaly its not possible because earth is dated at 4 billion years. Even if I'm wrong in my guesstimation, your trying to sell me on the idea that we evolved from primates in just 4 billion years. There is never any benchmark on what we were before that because we are unable to find any of these stages. We are also unable to observe any comparable changes in older DNA from old human bones.

What missing link? Why is trillions the only explanation? I'm saying we evolved from primates within 2-10 million years. Do you know how long you live? Do you know how much a human being will change over just 10,000 years? Multiply the seemingly small change by a couple hundred and you have a pretty big change. Perhaps even 3% of the DNA.

Let me ask you an honest question and give me an honest answer. If you had the ability to make life, like all the species here on earth, would you do so, and make a lot of them and even make planets? Or would you not use this talent?

I don't see the relevancy of the question. I might, if I had the power, but that doesn't validate the idea of the possibility of someone having done it.

reply to post by colin42


Oh not at all. I think it proves probability. We have just as much proof of evolution, depending on what people want to accept. We know from reports that aliens like to play god. Isn't it ironic I are unsure who our god is or how we got here.

Diversity could be nothing more than a creator recycling the same things, with different things about them.

reply to post by itsthetooth


Micro-evolution happening disproves that idea. If it can happen on a small scale, it will happen on the large scale given enough time. And no, not trillions of years.

reply to post by itsthetooth

We have just as much proof of evolution, depending on what people want to accept.

And there's the crux of the matter. Evolution is a field of scientific research. You can't pick and choose what you want to accept as evidence. It all works together to prove that evolution is an empirically verifiable fact. Ufologists on the other hand has taken a decidedly non-scientific approach to their field of study. For the most part ufology follows a top-down design in which their conclusion is already made and they are looking for evidence to prove that conclusion. This leads to a large number of biases. Science on the other hand uses a bottom-up design where individual data points are collected and then synthesized to reach a conclusion. Then there's also the fact that science relies on empirical evidence whereas ufology uses whatever it can get, most of which is not empirical in nature.

To look at evolutionary biology and ufology and then to state that they present equally supported cases either belies a lack of knowledge of how scientists operate; how ufologists operate; or both.

reply to post by itsthetooth


I'm still trying to find a source for this. I know I've read it before. Here however is evidence of paint being used at least 100,000 years ago.

A 100,000-Year-Old Ochre-Processing Workshop at Blombos Cave, South Africa

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

Oh not at all. I think it proves probability. We have just as much proof of evolution, depending on what people want to accept. We know from reports that aliens like to play god. Isn't it ironic I are unsure who our god is or how we got here.

Diversity could be nothing more than a creator recycling the same things, with different things about them.

edit on 5-12-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)

Evolution does not depend on evidence people want to accept. It depends on repeatable, peer reviewed evidence. Where is your evidence that shows Aliens like to play God? You cannot even prove aliens exist let alone what games they like to play.

In all environments and everywhere we look we find life evolved to survive within its niche and your response. 'It is nothing more than a creator recycling the same things.' And you accuse Evolution of reaching, sheesh!

So I take it from that response that you will not be putting forward any explanation of the diversity we see today, from pole to pole and from the sky down to the bottom of the deepest oceans.

reply to post by colin42

Explain diversity without referring to evolution. Go on and try it, or are you too embarrassed.

He won't. He'll repeat his original nonsense arguments and act like nobody answered his questions.

The fact of the matter is that nothing else other than evolution can explain the diversity of life. All alternatives are based on religion and faith, which is not science. It's funny how not a single person has even attempted it. I wonder why.

"Dude, it takes trillions of years for life to evolve! I can't understand science, so it means I am correct. Lets pretend we can't observe evolution in action today or that it isn't verified by thousands of individual facts. A tornado doesn't go through a junkyard and spit out a Ferrari, so how could evolution be true???"

So you have facts to back your hypothesis

"yeah, the fact that it would take trillions of years for life to evolve proves it. There's no other way it could happened"

But this link right here explains the process perfectly, and clearly shows it doesn't take trillions of years

"That's just a guess. You really believe that a tornado can spit out a brand new Ferrari? Cars have evolved and are designed, therefor it proves that everything was".

-ad infinitum-

sigh

so in other words. because stuff is diverse and different from each other,. there is no God? how do u come to that? how do you know thats not what it planned it to do. the fact is. you can tell me all day about evolution. but if it can just appear from thin air as you guys so surely believe. why can it not be duplicated? (without taking it from something already here). through years of research and trying to figure it out, why cant we do it? but you blindly put ur faith in the stuff just happening on its own like magic. there has to be something that started it. something cant just come from nothing.. btw dont u think if we were all little organisms like omeba (that dont differ from eachother), just decide they weren't feeling being identical to its amoeba brothers so it just decided to be something else on its own. like a tree instead of a fish. why wouldn't it be the same? or maybe just trees and people. why would it decide to be animals and insects and every crazy thing in between? its so complicated you cant even begin to understand it so u just force it to work by being blind.

off topic but i dont care.. stuff like this makes me think our government is behind aliens (even though it may be fake but idk, its hard to tell sometimes). but i do kinda feel that there are real aliens and we just reverse engineered their ship or something. but i wonder if there are aliens. what do they believe? they clearly didnt make all the planets, so do they have alien religions?

www.youtube.com...

copy and paste the link cause it refuses to work

reply to post by Varemia

What missing link? Why is trillions the only explanation? I'm saying we evolved from primates within 2-10 million years. Do you know how long you live? Do you know how much a human being will change over just 10,000 years? Multiply the seemingly small change by a couple hundred and you have a pretty big change. Perhaps even 3% of the DNA.

Every time we go down this avenue I end up asking where are the bones? We have found 19. I'm more inclined to believe those are aliens, and not ancestors.

I don't see the relevancy of the question. I might, if I had the power, but that doesn't validate the idea of the possibility of someone having done it.

I understand that, its just that I wanted you to see how easy it might be if a creator was involved.

reply to post by Varemia


Science has proven over and over that a species has never been observed changing species. They have tried to see this happen and it never does. Just think, if you were correct about macroevolution we would have a hell of a lot of sub species and we don't. We don't have any out of 5 million species on this planet. Unless we are the only thing evolving on this planet.

reply to post by Xcalibur254

And there's the crux of the matter. Evolution is a field of scientific research. You can't pick and choose what you want to accept as evidence. It all works together to prove that evolution is an empirically verifiable fact. Ufologists on the other hand has taken a decidedly non-scientific approach to their field of study. For the most part ufology follows a top-down design in which their conclusion is already made and they are looking for evidence to prove that conclusion. This leads to a large number of biases. Science on the other hand uses a bottom-up design where individual data points are collected and then synthesized to reach a conclusion. Then there's also the fact that science relies on empirical evidence whereas ufology uses whatever it can get, most of which is not empirical in nature.

And you are right, not because aliens don't exists or visit us, but because the evidence is hardly left behind, and doesn't live on this planet. It's the only way they can asses these things.

To look at evolutionary biology and ufology and then to state that they present equally supported cases either belies a lack of knowledge of how scientists operate; how ufologists operate; or both.

I guess that depends on how much the person knows about each. I know more about the supernatural.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


Could have been aliens for all we know.