Can you prove evolution wrong? -- Part 2

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: turbonium1

So still no actual proof just opinion?.

The proof is thousands of years of time which have never evolved one single species, or even indicated such a thing.

When you have anything more than your unsupported opinion that evolution is valid in any way, please let me know!

That's complete BS, I'm sorry. Speciation has been accomplished in a lab along with tons of other testable evidence for evolution. You blindly deny it, but can't offer any supporting evidence. No surprise there, why not just admit you can't prove it wrong? That's the purpose of this thread.

You can prove all this evidence wrong, right?

www.talkorigins.org...

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
Recently soft tissue was recovered from a dinosaur, so anything is possible..

No it wasn't. You are talking about FRAGMENTS of fossilized blood cells, not actual soft tissue. If we had soft tissue, we'd be able to get genome information from it, but alas they are just tiny fragments, not even a full cell and it's fossilized.

You too are selectively wandering away from the point. Many subjects on the internet, not necessarily google, would not be in the public domain without it. Regardless of the subject, it allows people the ability to exercise their own individual "Critical" thinking, outside of the highly controlled "Institutions". Nothing is settled!

That's completely wrong, I'm sorry. You can search google for literally anything and there will be some crank somewhere promoting it as truth. You can look up the cheese moon theory, hollow earth, hollow moon, etc etc etc and you will always find an idiot supporting it. That doesn't mean it hasn't been settled by science. Many folks deny science and don't care. The internet is free speech, anybody can literally post anything or create a yoututbe video / website proclaiming their assumptions as truth.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
Recently soft tissue was recovered from a dinosaur, so anything is possible..

No it wasn't. You are talking about FRAGMENTS of fossilized blood cells, not actual soft tissue. If we had soft tissue, we'd be able to get genome information from it, but alas they are just tiny fragments, not even a full cell and it's fossilized.

You too are selectively wandering away from the point. Many subjects on the internet, not necessarily google, would not be in the public domain without it. Regardless of the subject, it allows people the ability to exercise their own individual "Critical" thinking, outside of the highly controlled "Institutions". Nothing is settled!

That's completely wrong, I'm sorry. You can search google for literally anything and there will be some crank somewhere promoting it as truth. You can look up the cheese moon theory, hollow earth, hollow moon, etc etc etc and you will always find an idiot supporting it. That doesn't mean it hasn't been settled by science. Many folks deny science and don't care. The internet is free speech, anybody can literally post anything or create a yoututbe video / website proclaiming their assumptions as truth.

Let me translate what you just shared.


"You slaves have been over educated and are now a threat to us owners. How dare you even consider thinking for yourselves. We have specialized prison guards who have been highly trained to teach you everything you need to know, or that is, everything we want you to know. How dare you step outside of the matrix of control, you do not have that right. Your right, is to believe everything we teach, science, religion, politics. We set the standard as to what is and isn't acceptable, not you! It was Settled 30,000 years ago, everything was settled 30,000 ago.

So sit down, shut up, get back into the box, and things will go well for you, if you do. We will use the tools of ridicule, insults, tags, and division, to keep you in line."

I'm sorry, I seem to have gone off on a tangent again, "I'm sorry", what were you saying? What was your point, again?

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

My point is that I'm tired of people misrepresenting science to promote personal beliefs (ie your false claim about soft tissue). Your slave master analogy is laughably absurd. I'm not telling you to shut up or not speak your mind. I'm telling you why some of your claims are invalid. You think that because somebody has a website about their personal ideas or beliefs that it means science hasn't already settled the issue. That's wrong and young earth creationism is direct proof of that. There are many false claims online. The fact that people are stubborn about them doesn't make them any less false.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
a reply to: testingtesting

No need to wait it is happening all the time.

Oh, you mean its happening all the time, like Subduction? You know, that thing the continents do, but no one has ever "Observed" it, kind of thing? Sure, sure, Ill wait.

????????????????????
So, subduction is a myth as well? Science really is a closed book to you, isn't it? You keep pointing to scientific theories that have growing mountains of evidence behind them and then claiming that they are somehow unproven. Sadly for you they are not.

This time, I am compelled to compliment you on your use of words.

Again, I love science. In science, true real science, THE OBSERVATION MUST COME FIRST, NOT THE THEORY! And I care not what subject it concerns!!! A tiger and a lion mate, you have a liger. That, is a observation. It is also how many things in history have happened, I strongly suspect.

Ahh yes, subduction. The evidence does tend to pile up (Along the Shore lines/ pressure ridges/ called mountains) rather high, doesn't it? But that's my observation, outside of the highly controlled all mighty religion of the Peer Review.

Now that is true Evolution. Planetary crust Evolving into mountains. . So there ya go, I just proved evolution to be true. It just dosen't apply to biological life forms, they seem to do it the old fashion way, mating.

I have some very bad news for you. Observation did come first, in terms of subduction especially, and then the theory. Off you go now and pick up a very basic book about geology.

a reply to: Barcs

My point is that I'm tired of people misrepresenting science to promote personal beliefs

I couldn't agree more...!

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Observation did come first

Care to share? Are you saying "Mole People" saw the earth go under the continents? And those mole people are millions of years old to share that with? Do tell, who observed subduction directly.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Do you think you came from a monkey? Do you think your monkey ancestor was special and able to evolve into a human while the other moneys were too dumb and stayed behind to stay monkeys? Maybe somewhere down the line a human donked a monkey and a child was able to be born, but they didn't evolve into monkeys.

originally posted by: odzeandennz
can evolutionists tell me where or how consciousness evolved, or why only one species seemed to have developed this. why aren't there more like us, why don't we have a natural predator, why don't we have a mating season for reproduction like every species known to man.

A more believable instance would be a male monkey sleeping with a female human and the human bearing the child that had more human traits than monkey since supposedly the DNA in a human and monkey is close. Evolution is ignorant though, and unproven.

LOL

always with the monkeys...

a reply to: Akragon

If we come from monkeys why can't we speak monkey!.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Observation did come first

Care to share? Are you saying "Mole People" saw the earth go under the continents? And those mole people are millions of years old to share that with? Do tell, who observed subduction directly.

Sorry, I did tell you to go away and read a book. Start off with the earliest geologists, like James Hutton, who mapped the rocks of the UK. That's observation by the way. Then follow the spread and expansion of the knowledge of other geologists, who all observed so many different processes, including sedimentation and just as importantly vulcanism. The discovery - observation as you would put it - of fault lines was a major step forwards, as was the growing realisation that there were so many different types of these fault lines. The discovery of subducting faults - on a continental scale - as well as the realisation that there were great lines of volcanoes that ran parallel to them... well, why ruin the surprise.
Read a book.
Might shine a little light in there.

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: Akragon

If we come from monkeys why can't we speak monkey!.

we can...

just gotta go to church silly

LOL ya i went there

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Do you think you came from a monkey? Do you think your monkey ancestor was special and able to evolve into a human while the other moneys were too dumb and stayed behind to stay monkeys? Maybe somewhere down the line a human donked a monkey and a child was able to be born, but they didn't evolve into monkeys.

...... Ever read a book on this subject? Please do, it will explain a few things. For instance we share a common ancestor with the great apes. There's a difference.

a reply to: LSU0408

Mahahahaha.
I bet you imagined that in great detail.

Monkeys donkey a human cheers for the laugh

a reply to: LSU0408

Oh and how is this more believable? You seem to not know the first thing about biology, let alone evolution.

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: odzeandennz
can evolutionists tell me where or how consciousness evolved, or why only one species seemed to have developed this. why aren't there more like us, why don't we have a natural predator, why don't we have a mating season for reproduction like every species known to man.

A more believable instance would be a male monkey sleeping with a female human and the human bearing the child that had more human traits than monkey since supposedly the DNA in a human and monkey is close. Evolution is ignorant though, and unproven.

LOL Evolution is ignorant and unproven? I'm laughing that you said it was ignorant. There has been so much research into evolution. Scientific research...that is the exact opposite of ignorant.

There is so much research, data, evidence on evolution. But as I always ask, what is the alternative theory? How are we here?

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: Akragon

If we come from monkeys why can't we speak monkey!.

The bigger question:

Here's a thought: How about reading the literature!!! I know - you don't like to be confused with the facts. But here goes anyway. And guess what - these are real scientists who go into the lab, do experiments, collect data, collaborate with other scientists, publish their work which is then peer reviewed. What a find!

Chimpanzee–human last common ancestor

1.  Patterson N, Richter DJ, Gnerre S, Lander ES, Reich D (2006). "Genetic evidence for complex speciation of humans and chimpanzees". Nature. 441 (7097): 1103–8. doi:10.1038/nature04789. PMID 16710306.
2. ^ Arnason U, Gullberg A, Janke A (1998). "Molecular timing of primate divergences as estimated by two nonprimate calibration points". J. Mol. Evol. 47 (6): 718–27. doi:10.1007/PL00006431. PMID 9847414.
3. ^ Wakeley J (2008). "Complex speciation of humans and chimpanzees". Nature. 452 (7184): E3–4. doi:10.1038/nature06805. PMID 18337768. "Patterson et al. suggest that the apparently short divergence time between humans and chimpanzees on the X chromosome is explained by a massive interspecific hybridization event in the ancestry of these two species. However, Patterson et al. do not statistically test their own null model of simple speciation before concluding that speciation was complex, and—even if the null model could be rejected—they do not consider other explanations of a short divergence time on the X chromosome. These include natural selection on the X chromosome in the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, changes in the ratio of male-to-female mutation rates over time, and less extreme versions of divergence with gene flow. I therefore believe that their claim of hybridization is unwarranted."
4. ^ "Out of the Pan, Into the Fire" in: Frans B. M. De Waal, ed. (2001). Tree of Origin: What Primate Behavior Can Tell Us About Human Social Evolution. pp. 124–126. ISBN 9780674010048.
5. ^ "If man and old world monkeys last shared a common ancestor 30 million years ago, then man and African apes shared a common ancestor 5 million years ago..." Sarich & Wilson (1971)
6. ^ Venn, Oliver; Turner, Isaac; Mathieson, Iain; de Groot, Natasja; Bontrop, Ronald; McVean, Gil (June 2014). "Strong male bias drives germline mutation in chimpanzees". Science. 344 (6189): 1272–1275. Bibcode:2014Sci...344.1272V. doi:10.1126/science.344.6189.1272. PMC 4746749 . PMID 24926018.
7. ^ Based on a revision of the divergence of Hominoidea from Cercopithecoidea at more than 50 Mya (previously set at 30 Mya). "Consistent with the marked shift in the dating of the Cercopithecoidea/Hominoidea split, all hominoid divergences receive a much earlier dating. Thus the estimated date of the divergence between Pan (chimpanzee) and Homo is 10–13 MYBP and that between Gorilla and the Pan/Homo linage ≈17 MYBP."Arnason U, Gullberg A, Janke A (December 1998). "Molecular timing of primate divergences as estimated by two nonprimate calibration points". J. Mol. Evol. 47 (6): 718–27. doi:10.1007/PL00006431. PMID 9847414.
8. ^ White TD, Asfaw B, Beyene Y, et al. (October 2009). "Ardipithecus ramidus and the paleobiology of early hominids". Science. 326 (5949): 75–86. Bibcode:2009Sci...326...64W. doi:10.1126/science.1175802. PMID 19810190.
9. ^ Patterson N, Richter DJ, Gnerre S, Lander ES, Reich D (June 2006). "Genetic evidence for complex speciation of humans and chimpanzees". Nature. 441 (7097): 1103–8. Bibcode:2006Natur.441.1103P. doi:10.1038/nature04789. PMID 16710306.
10. ^ Wakeley J (March 2008). "Complex speciation of humans and chimpanzees". Nature. 452 (7184): E3–4; discussion E4. Bibcode:2008Natur.452....3W. doi:10.1038/nature06805. PMID 18337768."Patterson et al. suggest that the apparently short divergence time between humans and chimpanzees on the X chromosome is explained by a massive interspecific hybridization event in the ancestry of these two species. However, Patterson et al. do not statistically test their own null model of simple speciation before concluding that speciation was complex, and—even if the null model could be rejected—they do not consider other explanations of a short divergence time on the X chromosome. These include natural selection on the X chromosome in the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, changes in the ratio of male-to-female mutation rates over time, and less extreme versions of divergence with gene flow. I therefore believe that their claim of hybridization is unwarranted."
11. ^ Scally A, Dutheil JY, Hillier LW, et al. (March 2012). "Insights into hominid evolution from the gorilla genome sequence". Nature. 483 (7388): 169–75. Bibcode:2012Natur.483..169S. doi:10.1038/nature10842. PMC 3303130 . PMID 22398555.
12. ^ Van Arsdale, A.P. "Go, go, Gorilla genome". The Pleistocene Scene – A.P. Van Arsdale Blog. Retrieved 16 November 2012.
13. ^ Moorjani, Priya; Amorim, Carlos Eduardo G.; Arndt, Peter F.; Przeworski, Molly (2016). "Variation in the molecular clock of primates". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 113 (38): 10607–10612. doi:10.1073/pnas.1600374113. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 5035889 . PMID 27601674.
14. ^ Mann, Alan; Mark Weiss (1996). "Hominoid Phylogeny and Taxonomy: a consideration of the molecular and Fossil Evidence in an Historical Perspective". Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 5(1): 169–181. doi:10.1006/mpev.1996.0011. PMID 8673284.
15. ^ B. Wood (2010). "Reconstructing human evolution: Achievements, challenges, and opportunities". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 107: 8902–8909. Bibcode:2010PNAS..107.8902W. doi:10.1073/pnas.1001649107. PMC 3024019 . PMID 20445105.
16. ^ Bradley, B. J. (2006). "Reconstructing Phylogenies and Phenotypes: A Molecular View of Human Evolution". Journal of Anatomy. 212 (4): 337–353. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7580.2007.00840.x. PMC 2409108 . PMID 18380860.
17. ^ Wood and Richmond.; Richmond, BG (2000). "Human evolution: taxonomy and paleobiology". Journal of Anatomy. 197 (Pt 1): 19–60. doi:10.1046/j.1469-7580.2000.19710019.x. PMC 1468107 . PMID 10999270.
18. ^ McBrearty, Sally; Nina G. Jablonski (2005). "First fossil chimpanzee". Nature. 437 (7055): 105–108. Bibcode:2005Natur.437..105M. doi:10.1038/nature04008. PMID 16136135.
19. ^ "'Virtual fossil' reveals last common ancestor of humans and Neanderthals | University of Cambridge". 2015-12-18. Retrieved 2016-07-14.

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: odzeandennz
can evolutionists tell me where or how consciousness evolved, or why only one species seemed to have developed this. why aren't there more like us, why don't we have a natural predator, why don't we have a mating season for reproduction like every species known to man.

A more believable instance would be a male monkey sleeping with a female human and the human bearing the child that had more human traits than monkey since supposedly the DNA in a human and monkey is close. Evolution is ignorant though, and unproven.

Your making way too much sense for the "Institutionalized" mind to comprehend lol lol

I believe your on the right path, ya know, all that begoting goin on in the bible. But then again the object of this exercise isn't to get to the real truth, but ONLY, the truth of the Almighty PRP. Everything else MUST be purged!

Interesting story from Russia about a gal named Zana. Seems some "Begotin" was going on and she had at least 3 children, that lived.

The year is 1850. The place is the Ochamchir region of Georgia in Russia. A group of local hunters are prowling through the forests in search of whatever they can find - What they DO eventually find, shakes their beliefs to their foundations and leaves the world with an enigma that has yet to be explained.

What they saw appeared to be human - and yet not human. It seemed to be young and female with ape-like features. Her arms,legs,and fingers were unusually thick. her bosom was described as "Massive" and she was covered with thick dark hair. She was also said to be absolutely ferocious, nevertheless, the hunters managed to capture her alive and brought her to the isolated mountain village of T'khina fifty miles from Sukhumi, where she was given to a nobleman called Edgi Genaba.

So violent and ferocious was she, that for the first three years after her capture she was kept in a cage where she dug herself a hole to sleep in. The village people were terrified of her rages and would not venture near - food was thrown to her.

exemplore.com...

But since science refuses to even look at the story, or, review the DNA EVIDENCE, it just never happened, and dosen't exist.

Cross Breading anyone? Or, bestiality....

Humans and Neandertals may have hooked up much earlier than previously thought.

Early ancestors of humans in Africa interbred with Neandertals about 110,000 years ago, an international group of researchers reports online February 17 in Nature. That genetic mixing left its mark on the DNA of a Siberian Neandertal, the researchers have discovered. While many humans today carry bits of Neandertal DNA, this is the first time human DNA has been found embedded in a Neandertal’s genes.

If the finding is correct, it indicates that the relationship between humans and Neandertals goes further back and is more complicated than scientists supposed, says Sarah Tishkoff, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Pennsylvania who was not involved in the study.

Geneticists knew that early modern humans and Neandertals mated about 47,000 to 65,000 years ago (

www.sciencenews.org...