Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by Varemia

Lesson #2, Toothy. The theory of evolution does not say that we came from apes. It says that man and apes both evolved from a common ancestor.

Lesson #3: Not enough change and you sacrifice adaptability.

Your example is based on the assumption that evolution proves diversity, and it doesn't.

reply to post by colin42

I respond off task? What the hell is that? Are you trying to avoid off topic because you have never once attempted it?

I think its more because of your lack of understanding about intervention. It might seem like I was avoiding but its your lack of knowledge.

Again you would not know what a scenario was. Prove me otherwise lay out your scenario for Alien intervention.

It could explain diversity as well.

Despite everyone else on this thread saying that you have done a very poor job and done it in a very dishonest way? Really?

I haven't been dishonest, I think your confusing your lack of knowledge with me being dishonest.

Telling me you believe you could have proven diversity by saying aliens used spare parts left over from other animals was not explaining diversity it was describing your level of inteligence.

Well I never said it had to be aliens but that is possible too.

Diversity is all around us. There is nothing more you need to do than look to prove diversity. You were asked to explain it without refering to evolution. You never have and telling me what you believe you could do means nothing at all.

I'm going to stick with the recycled parts theory.

And that tripe is your explanation and you wonder why I do not answer any of your ignorance based replies. Sheese.

So it is not too hard to describe diversity without refering to evolution. Go ahead. DO IT.

Not a fifth time, I'm sticking to recycled parts.

reply to post by HappyBunny

Look up square cube law and you'll why 10 feet tall people are not normal and never will be.

You can look up "normal distribution" if you want to know what defines "normal".

All I'm saying is there is nothing solid on scientific grounds that give us the right to claim anything to be normal based on commonality.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Your example is based on the assumption that evolution proves diversity, and it doesn't.

Your post is based on the assumption that you know what you're talking about, and you don't.

Evolution does not prove diversity. Diversity proves itself. You can see it observing the millions of creatures in nature. Evolution EXPLAINS diversity.

Ahhh why do I keep responding?

reply to post by Barcs

Um, this has already happened. We have mapped the genome of Neanderthals (archaic homo sapiens) and Denisovans and compared it to ours.

Do you have any links proving this?

When did I ever claim anything about being normal?

I didn't say you, I'm talking about how science looks at these things.

Once again you are ignoring the facts and trying to change the subject. Human mutation rates were reviewed by a bunch of other biologists that confirmed the same thing, plus it has been done by more than one group of scientists.

Which is fine, but your ignoring the possibility that those could be normal.

Your only argument is that they MIGHT be lying (which is very poor),

They don't have to be lying, they just might not understand.

but yet you don't hold the bible or Pye to the same standards. You have no proof that any scientist lied about mutation rates, once again you just guess and assume that 90% of the scientific community is creating this mega conspiracy to trick people for no apparent reason with nothing to gain.

That's because Pye's findings confirm what is in the bible, adding more belief.

but yet you don't hold the bible or Pye to the same standards. You have no proof that any scientist lied about mutation rates, once again you just guess and assume that 90% of the scientific community is creating this mega conspiracy to trick people for no apparent reason with nothing to gain.

That's because your assuming that those changes are tied into evolution and I'm trying to say that they might just be a normal part of all life, and have nothing to do with evolution.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

Look up square cube law and you'll why 10 feet tall people are not normal and never will be.

You can look up "normal distribution" if you want to know what defines "normal".

All I'm saying is there is nothing solid on scientific grounds that give us the right to claim anything to be normal based on commonality.

And what I'm saying is that there is a scientific and statistical definition of "normal."

reply to post by itsthetooth

I think its more because of your lack of understanding about intervention. It might seem like I was avoiding but its your lack of knowledge.

You consider yourself a prophet, a teacher of man. You have never explained intervention. Try it. Increase my knowledge.

It could explain diversity as well.

So this is your explanation of diversity? Aliens might have done it? You actually see that as explaining diversity without refering to evolution and you wonder why I do not take you seriously. Explain how the intervention theory works with diversity.

I haven't been dishonest, I think your confusing your lack of knowledge with me being dishonest.

When someone has been caught lying as many times as you have been. Science master and discoverer of an arcane virus a few examples amongst many then there is no confusion. Dishonest is what you are.

Well I never said it had to be aliens but that is possible too.

Explaining diversity is not achieved by listing a couple of outlandish possibilities. I actually believe you are incable of providing any logical argument or entering into any meaningful discussion. You just dont have the IQ

I'm going to stick with the recycled parts theory.

Knew you would. Explain how the recycled parts theory works.

Not a fifth time, I'm sticking to recycled parts.

That was the second time so caught lying again. Explain how the recycled parts theory works.

BTW I see you have run away from the shrimp in a bottle, your so called balanced eco system.

reply to post by HappyBunny

And what I'm saying is that there is a scientific and statistical definition of "normal."

What I'm saying is that some of the scientific is based on statistical.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

And what I'm saying is that there is a scientific and statistical definition of "normal."

What I'm saying is that some of the scientific is based on statistical.

:brickwall:

reply to post by colin42

You consider yourself a prophet, a teacher of man. You have never explained intervention. Try it. Increase my knowledge.

It shouldn't be to hard for you to grasp. After all you do believe that all life comes from other life. Isn't it possible that there is other life out in the cosmos? Life that is perhaps more intelligent than our own? Life that could possibly visit us?

So this is your explanation of diversity? Aliens might have done it? You actually see that as explaining diversity without refering to evolution and you wonder why I do not take you seriously. Explain how the intervention theory works.

Well there are many open ended possibilities but life could even be engineered by aliens. Tha'ts what Pye believes anyhow.

So this is your explanation of diversity? Aliens might have done it? You actually see that as explaining diversity without refering to evolution and you wonder why I do not take you seriously. Explain how the intervention theory works.

I haven't lied about anything, but can see what my father once told me, that if you look hard enough for anything, you will eventually find it.

Explaining diversity is not achieved by listing a couple of outlandish possibilities. I actually believe you are incable of providing any logical argument or entering into any meaningful discussion. You just dont have the IQ

Well if it took you 253 pages to determine this, I can see what I'm up against.

Knew you would. Explain how the recycled parts theory works.

Well some people look at overlap as a sign of evolution I say it might just be a creator using the same parts for other life, which is actually very possible.

That was the second time so caught lying again. Explain how the recycled parts theory works.

BTW I see you have run away from the shrimp in a bottle, your so called balanced eco system.

I don't know, I have a friend that had a sealed tank that was good for many years. It's probably just the shrimp in the bottle that has such a short life, not really balanced. Anyhow, your welcome to research it yourself and see if you can find anymore tanks, I know I have seen them. And where do you get this running, no one is running from anything here. I think its your imagination running away with you, and sad to say but it seems to be doing that a lot.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Your link doesn't work. What's the source anyway? Are you just googling any website that has something written against evolution and believing it without a second thought?

Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by itsthetooth

 

Your link doesn't work. What's the source anyway? Are you just googling any website that has something written against evolution and believing it without a second thought?

edit on 29-2-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

Why change the habit of a life time Educated in the school of Google and qualified from the university if wikipedia.

Twice

reply to post by rhinoceros


Oh not at all, I consider anything that anyone presents to me.
The only problem I have been having is most of the information that people have been sending me about evolution are listed as postulated or hypothetical theory's.

Anyhow, here is a better link, I was trying to get you a pic.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

Oh not at all, I consider anything that anyone presents to me.
The only problem I have been having is most of the information that people have been sending me about evolution are listed as postulated or hypothetical theory's.

Anyhow, here is a better link, I was trying to get you a pic.

en.wikipedia.org...

Maybe you should check this. Feel free to report back any objections you have to the text.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

Oh not at all, I consider anything that anyone presents to me.
The only problem I have been having is most of the information that people have been sending me about evolution are listed as postulated or hypothetical theory's.

Anyhow, here is a better link, I was trying to get you a pic.

en.wikipedia.org...

Maybe you should check this. Feel free to report back any objections you have to the text.

edit on 29-2-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

Ugh, Dembski. "Nuff said.

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

Oh not at all, I consider anything that anyone presents to me.
The only problem I have been having is most of the information that people have been sending me about evolution are listed as postulated or hypothetical theory's.

Anyhow, here is a better link, I was trying to get you a pic.

en.wikipedia.org...

Maybe you should check this. Feel free to report back any objections you have to the text.

edit on 29-2-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

Ugh, Dembski. "Nuff said.

It criticizes Dembski's conclusions. What exactly is your problem with this?

reply to post by itsthetooth

It shouldn't be to hard for you to grasp. After all you do believe that all life comes from other life. Isn't it possible that there is other life out in the cosmos? Life that is perhaps more intelligent than our own? Life that could possibly visit us?

And that is you teaching me about intervention. What a sorry specimen you are

Well there are many open ended possibilities but life could even be engineered by aliens. Tha'ts what Pye believes anyhow.

That is your explanation of diversity using the intervention theory. How impressive ........ that is not.

I haven't lied about anything, but can see what my father once told me, that if you look hard enough for anything, you will eventually find it.

And that had what to do with the intervention theory or diversity?

Well if it took you 253 pages to determine this, I can see what I'm up against.

I have been telling you that your IQ is very low for many pages and again this shows you do not read any information given to you and could not comprehend it if you did.

Well some people look at overlap as a sign of evolution I say it might just be a creator using the same parts for other life, which is actually very possible.

That is your explanation on the recycled parts theory? Really that is all you got? Tell you what just explain diversity, I dont think you even know what it is.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

Oh not at all, I consider anything that anyone presents to me.
The only problem I have been having is most of the information that people have been sending me about evolution are listed as postulated or hypothetical theory's.

Anyhow, here is a better link, I was trying to get you a pic.

en.wikipedia.org...

Maybe you should check this. Feel free to report back any objections you have to the text.

edit on 29-2-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

Ugh, Dembski. "Nuff said.

It criticizes Dembski's conclusions. What exactly is your problem with this?

Exactly. Just mentioning the guy's name makes my eyes roll. He can't prove his theories mathematically no matter how many times he says he can. And his specified complexity argument has been shown to be demonstrably false.

ETA: The book you linked to is really interesting. I think I'm going to order it.

Let’s talk about peer review, why it’s important in understanding how science works, and why scientific hypotheses must pass peer review in order to be accepted as a theory.

Honestly, it’s dead simple really.

1. A scientist observes an occurrence in the natural world.
2. He presents a hypothesis as to what he believes is happening.
3. He designs an experiment in order to test his hypothesis.
4. He publishes his methods and his results.
5. Other scientists attempt to recreate the experiment, looking for error in the method or results.
6. If the tests prove different to the original, other scientist will again try to replicate the experiment.
7. Through a battery of tests and experimentation one of two results will become apparent; either the hypothesis presented originally is right, or wrong.
8. If the hypothesis is proved to be correct, it becomes a theory.

So, if a hypothesis is shown to be correct, why not call it a fact?

Remember Mendel of the pea plants? Good, glad you’re paying attention. Well, Mendel stated that each of the parent plants provided half of the traits to the offspring, and that certain traits were dominant over others. The experiment was replicated time and again and proved that Mendels hypothesis was correct.

Now let’s for a moment call Mendels hypothesis a fact! What happens 200 years later, when, with better observational equipment, it is shown that some bacteria and fungi don’t actual split the amount of “traits” equally? All of a sudden science is re-writing facts. This doesn’t mean that Mendel was wrong; in fact it would be safe to say that under the exact circumstances that Mendel observed them his hypothesis is a fact for pea plants.

So science either has to accept that in order to call something a fact, it has to be so accurate in its description that the information would be useless anywhere else. (Cue for people proving something wrong and being counter argued with “Ah! But was your lab exactly 30 cubic meters with an airflow rate of 20 litres a minute through a Yamaha air con system at 20 degrees with a south facing window ….blah, blah, blah)

So in understanding of the point of science being to refine data, scrutinise more carefully, measure more accurately, science refers to the majority of its “facts” as theories.

Another thing about peer review, is that it allows scientist to accept a theory based on the review of other respected scientists, this leave them to integrate the results into their own work, without having to perform the experiment themselves.

1. Scientist A publishes method and result.
2. Scientist B replicates experiment and publishes results.
3. Scientist C notices scientist B is a creation scientists and dis-regards his review, replicates scientist A’s work for himself.
4. Scientist D recognises scientist C as being well respected in the field and accepts his results as good.
5. Scientist D uses finding from scientist A’s experiment and alters his own experiments accordingly.
6. Scientist D discovers cure for cancer.

And peer review is becoming more and more a part of all of our lives….In fact, right here on ATS there is a form of peer review that can indicate at a glance how well respected a members posts are.

Just under the avatars, there are indicators for Posts, Flags and Stars. The more stars you have, the more people like your writing, but this needs to be balanced with the number of posts made. You can work out a percentage of stars to posts and give the person the appropriate amount of respect.

As an example, I am running at about 50%, so I guess middling (I will work on my writing)

There are some members on this thread running as high as 80% and 90%, and it’s clear when you read their posts why the score so highly.

There are also those way down below 10% (actually, just one on this thread – now there’s an interesting game…spot the bad poster)

reply to post by itsthetooth
You utter trolling fool

I don't know, I have a friend that had a sealed tank that was good for many years. It's probably just the shrimp in the bottle that has such a short life, not really balanced. Anyhow, your welcome to research it yourself and see if you can find anymore tanks, I know I have seen them. And where do you get this running, no one is running from anything here. I think its your imagination running away with you, and sad to say but it seems to be doing that a lot.

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by itsthetooth
First thing first another of my posts you side stepped

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by itsthetooth

 

So you even get your post wrong. This is the link you should have supplied

[Ecosphere

Below is a comment made by an ex owner

Ecosphere's are quite cruel! The shrimps inside suffer from ammonia and nitrite poisoning, the little bit of algae isn't enough for the shrimps to survive well, and because of this every time they molt the shrimps consumes itself, growing smaller each time! The only reason they can live for 1 - 3 years in the torture chamber is because these Hawaiian Red Shrimps are extremely hardy. Most shrimps wouldn't survive more than a few days!

So it is algea and a shrimp. So much for algea free. Notice the comments the shrimps suffer from ammonia and nitrate poisoning this shows you there is no balance.

BTW also no fish and no plant.
From page 254
Here is a thing.

The Halocaridina rubra: The Hawaiian red volcano shrimp

Red Volcano Shrimp

These unique shrimp have been dubbed “super shrimp” for being highly adaptive and for having one of the longest life spans of any shrimp specie- up to twenty years! Keeping these creatures healthy and happy should be easy and the reward is hours of entertainment for many years.

So the ex owner says 1 to 3 years tops in the globe yet these shrimps have one of the longest lifespans of all shrimp, 20 years. They must truely be torture chambers for the poor shrimp and certainly not a balanced eco system.