Getting to the Bottom of Evolution

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 12:19 AM
link   
tooth

You win the award for most perversions of the scientific method and terrible theology. Claiming that evidence is false when it contradicts a belief is not an alternative explanation, because it denies the evidence instead of explains it.

The entire Bible is open to personal interpretation. So, which Bible is the real Bible? You know not all Christian sects use the same Bible. Why do some Canon contain only the first 5 books of the Bible and other Canon contain over 80 books? The problem is what you think, what you personally believe, and what you feel, all have no bearing on what is true.

Please review your elementary biology before posting your opinions.




posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Tooth, present us proof of magic or forever carry your "clown" title proudly


And no, the bible ISN'T proof of magic!! Why not? Because if it were your reasoning would be circular:



Show us OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE instead of myths. Show us that you're not insane enough to through reality and logic overboard. Show us that you're not like the little kid in Peter Pan who believes magic's real if he just claps his hands fast enough


PS: I'm not holding my breath



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 





The entire Bible is open to personal interpretation. So, which Bible is the real Bible? You know not all Christian sects use the same Bible. Why do some Canon contain only the first 5 books of the Bible and other Canon contain over 80 books? The problem is what you think, what you personally believe, and what you feel, all have no bearing on what is true.

Please review your elementary biology before posting your opinions.
But what you don't understand is that the only reason the bible is open to personal interpretation is because most people miss the fact that it's titled in the supernatural section. It's because of this confusion, there are many different perspectives. Now you can trust somone that has studdied the supernatural for over 30 years or you can keep playing the guessing game.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Tooth, present us proof of magic or forever carry your "clown" title proudly

And no, the bible ISN'T proof of magic!! Why not? Because if it were your reasoning would be circular:
I have a better idea, how about we leave the responsibility on you to prove evolution, siince you have been so poor at comprehending definitions.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Tooth, present us proof of magic or forever carry your "clown" title proudly

And no, the bible ISN'T proof of magic!! Why not? Because if it were your reasoning would be circular:
I have a better idea, how about we leave the responsibility on you to prove evolution, siince you have been so poor at comprehending definitions.



Evolution is a proven scientific theory that is actively applied...and it's a FACT. It has been proven and you've been provided with dozens (probably hundreds) of links to scientific resources proving us right.

The problem is, you can't accept reality because your mini-religion brainwashed you...which prevents you from accepting facts


But I see, you don't have any real objective evidence to prove magic exists



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Evolution is NOT a scientific theoy, its hardly a hypothesis. What litmus has evolution passed to be called a theory?




Evolution is a proven scientific theory that is actively applied...and it's a FACT. It has been proven and you've been provided with dozens (probably hundreds) of links to scientific resources proving us right.
Every link I have been provided is clear that these ideas are in the hypothesis stages of a theory, not a single one of them claims evolution to be a fact.

If it were a fact, we would be using it everyday in science, and making claims that we use evolution for this or for that.

The fact is you can't use it for anything because its not predictable, if it was, you would be able to tell me what species I'm evolving into but you can't.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


And now you're blatantly lying


FYI, we are using it in science daily
edit on 16-11-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   
This has to be cleared up on EVERY evolution thread.






In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge,[



wiki




Scientific theory, like the the theory of evolution, is not the same as a theory in everyday life.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





And now you're blatantly lying

FYI, we are using it in science daily
Now YOUR lying again. The only thing being used in science is the adaptation of bacteria and viruses, which has never been proven to have anything to do with evolution.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 





Scientific theory, like the the theory of evolution, is not the same as a theory in everyday life.
Some could argue, that evolution is well explained, I'm not going to go there, I don't believe that flooding someone with to much information is proof of the point. However it is still lacking proof, there is no evidence of evolution.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 





Scientific theory, like the the theory of evolution, is not the same as a theory in everyday life.
Some could argue, that evolution is well explained, I'm not going to go there, I don't believe that flooding someone with to much information is proof of the point. However it is still lacking proof, there is no evidence of evolution.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Here, I can give you a simple form of evolution right now, that is visible right now, that you can't accusse of overwhelming you with information or proof:

the flu



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





And now you're blatantly lying

FYI, we are using it in science daily
Now YOUR lying again. The only thing being used in science is the adaptation of bacteria and viruses, which has never been proven to have anything to do with evolution.


What are you talking about? That IS evolution. The only reason change happens quicker in microscopic life is that generations move on so much quicker...so viruses for example can adapt a lot faster than larger lifeforms.

We see the same thing in larger life forms, just at a MUCH slower rate. Just look at dog breeders for example. A windhound for example looks drastically different from a Chihuahua. Breeding those difference didn't take that long on a cosmic scale. Of course they're still dogs. But guess what, if you continue to breed for drastic changes like that, in 50,000 years, or 500k years, or 50m years you will have 2 species that look nothing alike.

The changes might make them look as different as a cow and a horse...or a rat and an elephant...both of those have a distant common ancestor as the fossil record and DNA proves...but they are now completely different species.

If you had a dog who has slightly longer legs than is "normal" (just like some people have longer noses), you could breed him with another dog that has the same traits. These traits are inheritable and it's likely their offspring will also have slightly longer legs. If you go on for generations and generations and generation that trait will become more and more prominent. In nature this happens through natural selection, but we can recreate it if we breed dogs.

Anyway, if you continued that for thousands of years, the end result will be something that looks very different than a dog, and you probably wouldn't call it a dog.

Now let's say you do the same exact thing but in reverse...so only let dogs breed that have shorter than average legs. After thousands of years, you will get something with really tiny legs that doesn't look like a dog at all...maybe more like a seal with stumps.

And here's the kicker: "Stumpy sausage creature" and "giraffe like future creature" would have a common ancestor...that original race we started from.

We KNOW (!!) this would happen because the changes we have produced in dogs for example are already so drastic...and nothing suggests we couldn't simply continue this breeding process forever. The fossil record proves it too as every species, dated to its period fits the "tree of life". We can follow back common descent all the way back in time...and DNA confirms it as well as we can see how allele frequencies in DNA changes, which is the very definition of evolution.

In short...do some research before talking nonsense



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


There has also been recent evolution in humans.

Lactose tolerance (not intolerance) is a fairly recent move in human evolution. As all mammals, except for humans now, develop intolerance after infancy. Since humans have domesticated cattle, and now have a milk protein diet after infancy, four different allelles for tolerance have been developed.

Another current one is among Tibetian (Tibeten?) women. Due to the high elevations there. Women who have higher oxygen concentratioin in their blood, have higher survival rates for their babies. So that is REALLY, natural selection at work, in humans, right now.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish
 





The entire Bible is open to personal interpretation. So, which Bible is the real Bible? You know not all Christian sects use the same Bible. Why do some Canon contain only the first 5 books of the Bible and other Canon contain over 80 books? The problem is what you think, what you personally believe, and what you feel, all have no bearing on what is true.

Please review your elementary biology before posting your opinions.
But what you don't understand is that the only reason the bible is open to personal interpretation is because most people miss the fact that it's titled in the supernatural section. It's because of this confusion, there are many different perspectives. Now you can trust somone that has studdied the supernatural for over 30 years or you can keep playing the guessing game.



Feel free to delude yourself, but don't tell me I don't understand the Bible.
Which version of the Bible is the one including the language that you have mastered in your 30 year study?
Before you answer I will give you fair warning...
If you are going to make things up you should make sure that the person you are discussing these things with is as ignorant of the Bible as you are.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 





Here, I can give you a simple form of evolution right now, that is visible right now, that you can't accusse of overwhelming you with information or proof:

the flu
Ok but like I keep saying, adaptation has nothing to do with evolution and I would like to see what proof there is that they are related. It's highlighted in the wiki from a seperate author, known as an evolutionist. Simply making the claim that adaptation is part of evolution dosn't cut it, I want to know what test and what basis there is to come to this conclusion.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by nixie_nox
 





Here, I can give you a simple form of evolution right now, that is visible right now, that you can't accusse of overwhelming you with information or proof:

the flu
Ok but like I keep saying, adaptation has nothing to do with evolution and I would like to see what proof there is that they are related. It's highlighted in the wiki from a seperate author, known as an evolutionist. Simply making the claim that adaptation is part of evolution dosn't cut it, I want to know what test and what basis there is to come to this conclusion.



Tooth, for crying out loud, it isn't just an empty claim.

Evolution is defined as a change in allele frequency in DNA. Adaption changes the allele frequency in genes, so yes, adaption IS part of evolution...and that's a FACT!



"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."


Link

That change happens with every single generation...and yes, even in humans.


After those hundreds of pages you STILL don't even understand what the theory really stands for. That's amazing...



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





What are you talking about? That IS evolution. The only reason change happens quicker in microscopic life is that generations move on so much quicker...so viruses for example can adapt a lot faster than larger lifeforms.
No its because its adaptation and not your silly evolution.

Just realize that the only way something can adapt is if it is given a choice and a choice is made, it requires intelligent thought in order to process.

Peoples noses growing bigger from living in higher altituides could be an example of evolution, not adaptation.




We see the same thing in larger life forms, just at a MUCH slower rate. Just look at dog breeders for example. A windhound for example looks drastically different from a Chihuahua. Breeding those difference didn't take that long on a cosmic scale. Of course they're still dogs. But guess what, if you continue to breed for drastic changes like that, in 50,000 years, or 500k years, or 50m years you will have 2 species that look nothing alike.
That all depends on the breed, the bloodline and the breeding. They will always be dogs however, at least you admitted that. So by you own admission evolution does NOT explain diversity.




The changes might make them look as different as a cow and a horse...or a rat and an elephant...both of those have a distant common ancestor as the fossil record and DNA proves...but they are now completely different species.
Your making an uneducated guess, as there is no proof that all of these species are related. We might even share some simular DNA but that in itself is not proof. Again a creator could have just as easily of used the same DNA.




If you had a dog who has slightly longer legs than is "normal" (just like some people have longer noses), you could breed him with another dog that has the same traits. These traits are inheritable and it's likely their offspring will also have slightly longer legs. If you go on for generations and generations and generation that trait will become more and more prominent. In nature this happens through natural selection, but we can recreate it if we breed dogs.
What your failing to understand in all of this is that your example is flawed because those could all be permissable allowances within that species to begin with. Your making an observation based on differences but claiming that these differences are out of the norm. Breeding longer legs with longer legs might yeild longer only legs, but there is no proof you made a new species.




Anyway, if you continued that for thousands of years, the end result will be something that looks very different than a dog, and you probably wouldn't call it a dog.
Scientists have tested your theory with fruit flys, and everytime the species starts to have serious changes, it dies quickly. There is no proof that if that same change was to happen over millions of years, that it would all of a sudden be accepted, that is guess work of evolution and there is no proof or basis for it.




Now let's say you do the same exact thing but in reverse...so only let dogs breed that have shorter than average legs. After thousands of years, you will get something with really tiny legs that doesn't look like a dog at all...maybe more like a seal with stumps.
Again that depends on if its all within in the confines of whats acceptable in the programming of the DNA. You can try to force a two headed human through DNA work but chances are its not going to live. There is no proof of this in real time, in the past, or in the future, so don't automatically assume that it might be permissable if it were passed on slowly.




We KNOW (!!) this would happen because the changes we have produced in dogs for example are already so drastic...and nothing suggests we couldn't simply continue this breeding process forever. The fossil record proves it too as every species, dated to its period fits the "tree of life". We can follow back common descent all the way back in time...and DNA confirms it as well as we can see how allele frequencies in DNA changes, which is the very definition of evolution.
Again it all depends whether or not its acceptable within the confines of the DNA. DNA has safety features, I don't know if you know this or not. There was an experiment done with flowers as an example to try to force color change.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





We KNOW (!!) this would happen because the changes we have produced in dogs for example are already so drastic...and nothing suggests we couldn't simply continue this breeding process forever. The fossil record proves it too as every species, dated to its period fits the "tree of life". We can follow back common descent all the way back in time...and DNA confirms it as well as we can see how allele frequencies in DNA changes, which is the very definition of evolution.


So the test was something like this....
They could force the color purple on a white flower by entering the code two times for the color purple. They could choose any of the normal colors by entering that color twice in the correct spot. They also tried entering the color purple three times and it reverted back to a white flower. So you can see there is error correction in DNA. When you talk about a species eventually evolving into another species its not possible within the understanding of DNA. Now you might think that evolution is responsible for changing the DNA but as you can see, this evolution would have to be one hell of an intelligent entity to pull off the stunts your claiming.




In short...do some research before talking nonsense
As you can see, I have.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 





There has also been recent evolution in humans.

Lactose tolerance (not intolerance) is a fairly recent move in human evolution. As all mammals, except for humans now, develop intolerance after infancy. Since humans have domesticated cattle, and now have a milk protein diet after infancy, four different allelles for tolerance have been developed.

Another current one is among Tibetian (Tibeten?) women. Due to the high elevations there. Women who have higher oxygen concentratioin in their blood, have higher survival rates for their babies. So that is REALLY, natural selection at work, in humans, right now.
Wait a minute, I'm confused here. Lactose intolerance has grown as far as I knew, and what are you claiming about protein in milk? I wasn't aware it packed a good amount of protein, everything I'm finding says its fair in protein.
Cows milk was adopted because we are seriously lacking any supply of calcium, and please don't reply back to me with claims about fruits and veggies, I have done way to much research on this and can tell you that sardines have the highest amount of calcium. Humans need 1000mg per day, and even with sardines you would have to eat 5.4 servings, or one pound of sardines a day to break even. Cows milk is not a natural supplement as its processed and it wasn't meant for us to drink to begin with. However about 4 servings of dairy will do the trick, or processed cheese is even better.

The fact is we are obviously missing a supply of calcium, and its because like the bible says, we were given everything from just about every planet, but none of these things are from our home. In english this means that none of the food we eat was actually intended for us.






top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join