Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by MrXYZ

No, the point is you completely misinterpreted the information

Your going to have to repeat it.

The theory of evolution IS a scientific theory, and that's a FACT. Kinda ironic you call me an idiot

I have never been provided with anything that states that evolution is a scientific theory. I have however had some that state its a postulated hypothetical theory.

Except for those thousands of fossils and DNA samples you mean? It's the same procedure we'd use on your dad's remains

Only problem is that the ludicrious idea of evolution makes it impossible to track.
If they were able to find a close ancestor how would they be able to know its a common ancestor, versus another species all together? There is no way to prove relation and if you do, its close enough to just say its human. I think its also very important to note that all research I read about in speciation, clearly states that anytime severe changes occured, the species dies quickly. So there is no way we could have a common ancestor from apes in such a short time. IMO it would take trillions of years at the understood pace, and well, earth isn't that old so what does that tell you?

What manual? I hope you're not talking about the bible, because manuals have to be objective and factual...the bible clearly isn't

The bible is a historic manual filled with clues about our background.

Nothing in the above post is based on facts

In essence, you're simply preaching your own belief...but sadly fail completely at backing any of it up with hard facts, just like the average creationist.

Pye makes these claims and I have yet to find one single person on the internet that has contested it.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

Prove that we didn't have DNA labs thousands of years ago. While you're at it also prove that these signs you speak of couldn't have happened naturally. After that please list the relevant loci so I check them myself

First of all if you honestly believe that we had DNA labs thousands of years ago, then you are also admitting that we in fact did not evolve, but rather DE-EVOLVED!

Second if you claiming that all of these changes are happening naturally, then we are the only ones its happening to.

It doesn't matter what I believe. I asked you to prove that we didn't have DNA labs 1000s of years ago. Also, losing our DNA labs together with our technology need not be connected to our genetics. It could simply be due to a fall of a culture (like say Atlantis, referred to in ancient text, and thus obviously a certified fact, right?). So again, prove that we didn't have DNA labs 1000s of years ago.

As for "these changes". What are "these changes"? You still didn't list the loci in the human genome. Also, you haven't provided any evidence that "these changes" are not happening in all life. "These changes" are certainly not chromosomal fusions, because many pages ago I already showed multiple examples of chromosomal fusions from nature. Remember? So at least we know, that that part of Pye's argument is total bull#. If I had to guess, I'd say you never verified these "facts" spewed out by Pye. Instead, you're just blindly believing what he says.

reply to post by rhinoceros

It doesn't matter what I believe. I asked you to prove that we didn't have DNA labs 1000s of years ago. Also, losing our DNA labs together with our technology need not be connected to our genetics. It could simply be due to a fall of a culture (like say the Atlantis, referred to in ancient text, and thus obviously a certified fact, right?). So again, prove that we didn't have DNA labs 1000s of years ago

And by agreeing to that, you are also saying we DE-EVOLVED!

As for "these changes". What are "these changes"? You still didn't list the loci in the human genome. Also, you haven't provided any evidence that "these changes" are not happening in all life. "These changes" are certainly not chromosomal fusions, because many pages ago I already showed multiple examples of chromosomal fusions from nature. Remember? If I had to guess, I'd say you never verified these "facts" spewed out by Pye. Instead, you're just blindly believing what he says.

Youll have to watch pyes video, he doesn't give any loci. However I'm waiting to find someone to contest his findings.

Also a quick search in wiki by our defects through sickness and disease will surly start adding up something is wrong, but its a quick way to see what hes talking about. As far as the inverted sections and junk DNA, well we do have vestigal organs.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
And by agreeing to that, you are also saying we DE-EVOLVED!

No I am not. Now prove that we didn't have DNA labs 1000s of years ago.

Also a quick search in wiki by our defects through sickness and disease will surly start adding up something is wrong, but its a quick way to see what hes talking about. As far as the inverted sections and junk DNA, well we do have vestigal organs.

Since we're the most studied species on this planet, it's obvious that we are aware of more diseases affecting us than any other species. I already said this. Sampling effect.

reply to post by itsthetooth

I have never been provided with anything that states that evolution is a scientific theory. I have however had some that state its a postulated hypothetical theory.

Evolution is a scientific theory just like all the others. Here's what a scientific theory is (it lists evolution specifically!!): LINK

Only problem is that the ludicrious idea of evolution makes it impossible to track.
If they were able to find a close ancestor how would they be able to know its a common ancestor, versus another species all together? There is no way to prove relation and if you do, its close enough to just say its human. I think its also very important to note that all research I read about in speciation, clearly states that anytime severe changes occured, the species dies quickly. So there is no way we could have a common ancestor from apes in such a short time. IMO it would take trillions of years at the understood pace, and well, earth isn't that old so what does that tell you?

Clearly it doesn't take trillions of years. It just shows that your sources don't understand statistics and mathematical modelling

The bible is a historic manual filled with clues about our background.

Problem is, it's not factual and often demonstrably wrong.

Pye makes these claims and I have yet to find one single person on the internet that has contested it.

No one can contest it because he doesn't share his data

Even worse, the one time he did, one of the top neuroscientists in the country debunked his theory...which he obviously didn't like because it makes it harder to sell books to gullible people. Explains nicely why he now refuses to share his data

Pye is a clown, and that's a FACT!

reply to post by rhinoceros

No I am not. Now prove that we didn't have DNA labs 1000s of years ago.

If your trying to say that we once had the ability to do DNA lab work, and then somehow lost it all including the knowledge of knowing that we knew how to do it, we de evolved.

Since we're the most studied species on this planet, it's obvious that we are aware of more diseases affecting us than any other species. I already said this. Sampling effect.

If that were true we wouldn't have vets. There is work done on many other species not just humans. Granted more so on humans but still some work done. The difference is staggering, and its hard to contribute that to simply being that we are looked at more.

I see what your saying however that Pyes findings are just one great big coincidence. Ya right.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
If your trying to say that we once had the ability to do DNA lab work, and then somehow lost it all including the knowledge of knowing that we knew how to do it, we de evolved.

Simply making the point here that it's impossible to prove anything (outside mathematics) completely. Also demonstrating that ancient Atlantian DNA labs are just as likely as Pye's aliens who 'probably' live in this galaxy (both are about equally unlikely in comparison to modern synthesis). Finally, it might be "cultural devolution", which has nothing to do with natural evolution. There's no such thing as "devolution". In genetic context such thing would require magic.

Since we're the most studied species on this planet, it's obvious that we are aware of more diseases affecting us than any other species. I already said this. Sampling effect.

If that were true we wouldn't have vets. There is work done on many other species not just humans. Granted more so on humans but still some work done. The difference is staggering, and its hard to contribute that to simply being that we are looked at more.

If it was true that humans were the most studied species, we wouldn't have vets? Where's the logic in that?

reply to post by MrXYZ

Evolution is a scientific theory just like all the others. Here's what a scientific theory is (it lists evolution specifically!!): LINK

Only people on ATS are claiming such garbage, prove it. I have yet to see any links that prove evolution to be a fact.

Clearly it doesn't take trillions of years. It just shows that your sources don't understand statistics and mathematical modelling

Then we should be able to see the changes in a lab and we don't.

Problem is, it's not factual and often demonstrably wrong.

Prove it.

No one can contest it because he doesn't share his data

His findings are out on the table for anyone to contest.

Even worse, the one time he did, one of the top neuroscientists in the country debunked his theory...which he obviously didn't like because it makes it harder to sell books to gullible people. Explains nicely why he now refuses to share his data

Pye is a clown, and that's a FACT!

What scientist, what theory, and prove it.

reply to post by rhinoceros

Simply making the point here that it's impossible to prove anything (outside mathematics) completely. Also demonstrating that ancient Atlantian DNA labs are just as likely as Pye's aliens who 'probably' live in this galaxy (both are about equally unlikely in comparison to modern synthesis). Finally, it might be "cultural devolution", which has nothing to do with natural evolution. There's no such thing as "devolution". In genetic context such thing would require magic.

But you are saying that is surly what must have happened, after all it makes more sense we de evolved rather then thinking aliens messed with our DNA.

If that were true we wouldn't have vets. There is work done on many other species not just humans. Granted more so on humans but still some work done. The difference is staggering, and its hard to contribute that to simply being that we are looked at more.

If it was true that humans were the most studied species, we wouldn't have vets? Where's the logic in that?

Here is where your logic failed. Think about all of the sickness that animals get, and how much we know about animals to keep them healthy. Compare that to humans, do you think humans need more attention than animals, of course they do. Do humans still get sicker more often then animals even though we alegedly on top of our game, Yes, humans still get sicker. Sounds to me like we aren't doing so well. So your wrong.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
But you are saying that is surly what must have happened, after all it makes more sense we de evolved rather then thinking aliens messed with our DNA.

Does it make more sense that we evolved naturally instead of being result of alien experiments? Yes. To what end would we have been modified? Is this why I am saying that we evolved? No. I'm saying that we evolved, because that is what every single observation we have ever made points to.

Here is where your logic failed. Think about all of the sickness that animals get, and how much we know about animals to keep them healthy. Compare that to humans, do you think humans need more attention than animals, of course they do. Do humans still get sicker more often then animals even though we alegedly on top of our game, Yes, humans still get sicker. Sounds to me like we aren't doing so well. So your wrong.

Apart from mice, rats, yeasts, and a few other model organisms, we don't know almost anything about animal health in comparison to human health. I don't agree with the premise that humans get sicker more often than animals. That's only a statistical artifact that has to do with the sampling effect that I am now mentioning the third time. If a moose gets sick, does this piece of data ever make it to our books? Nope. It's the same with basically all animals. They don't seek treatment, thus the diseases are never diagnosed.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Only people on ATS are claiming such garbage, prove it. I have yet to see any links that prove evolution to be a fact.

The very link I posted and you quoted contains the link proving evolution is a scientific theory

Then we should be able to see the changes in a lab and we don't.

You're kidding, right? How do you think we develop modern meds??? Google speciation and you'll find tons of examples of it in the lab (and nature).

Sometimes I'm not sure if you're trolling or simply parading ignorance.

Prove it.

We know the bible isn't historically accurate because that silly global flood demonstrably never happened, ergo Noah's arch story isn't correct either, the exodus of the Jews isn't historically accurate, and of course humans didn't just pop up on earth as told in the bible.

And of course the whole "surviving inside whales" thing which is BAT# CRAZY!! Comon', for crying out loud, we live in the 21st century and not fantasy land

Do I need to go on?

His findings are out on the table for anyone to contest.

His CLAIMS are...but it's impossible to test them if he doesn't release the data he bases his claims on. And that's something he never bothered to do since that neuroscientist debunked his hypothesis the one time he did

What scientist, what theory, and prove it.

The one who proved his entire starchild hypothesis is nonsense because the skull is 100% human: LINK

And of course all DNA studies found out that skull is 100% human. Only that clown Pye claims there's alien components, yet he refuses to release any data that would prove so. He merely claims it's the case...which isn't science, it's a JOKE.

reply to post by itsthetooth


You really arent very bright are you.

Your cries of "prove it, prove it" make you appear very dishonest when people offer evidence which you dismiss out of hand and then offer no supporting evidence for your own theory.

If only you applied the same exacting standards to your own methods as you want others to adhere to.

Why dont you try to offer evidence as to why you believe the evidence offered by others is wrong. Not your opinion, or belief, but real evidence.

If you believe Pyes work proves intervention, quote his findings, the methods he used, and how this proves his hypothesis.

Many times people on here have done this for you, and many times you have fallen back on religious faith while claiming not to.

EXAMPLE
The bible is a historical manual.
The bible has been shown to be wrong.
Prove it.
The bible says a man can live inside a whale.
Maybe it was a metaphore for a boat.

THIS IS TRUE
A man cannot live inside a whale, you know this, I know this, and the only way it could be possible is by invoking magic. "God could allow a man to live in a whale if he wanted to"

Now with you not being religious, you call on the possibilty of a metaphore. And here I totally agree with you. Of course its a metaphore...the whole book is a metaphore, used to explain the world that the people who wrote it lived in. And do you know what we call a book full of mataphores....a storybook.
THIS IS TRUE

The tales of the Grimm's were metaphores, Hans Christian Anderson, metaphores, the bible...metaphores, and all of them fictional tales designed to teach a message of some sort.

The proof that I offer for the above as a fact is exactly equal to the proof for the bible, and that is that it must be true because it says so in the paragraph up there.^^^^

Originally posted by itsthetooth
And by agreeing to that, you are also saying we DE-EVOLVED!

Ok, seriously? There's no such thing as de-evolution. Evolution is not a continuously improving system. It's just a description of a great number of changes in genetics over time. Sometimes this leads to increased complexity, and sometimes things become simpler. They just usually become more complex because through evolution, most times genes will simply turn off when not needed (ie. still be in the genes) while new genes develop which produce new functions. This is why humans still have the chimp-ish genes for a full body of hair and the genes for a monkey tail, but they are inhibited by a protein that developed a long time ago.

Also, your figure of 1000 times more genetic defects is based on what source, exactly?

reply to post by idmonster
Pinocchio tooth has claimed a background in science. Previously claimed to be a science master and a discoverer of an 'arcane virus'.

This means he must know full well how to put forward as reasoned argument backed with supporting evidence.

He must be aware due to his aledged background that it is he that must provide proof that the bible is what he says as he is the one claiming it to be factual.

If he continues to fail to do this, which he will then he is the pathological liar that I claimed he is and pretty much a waste of time.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by itsthetooth
But you are saying that is surly what must have happened, after all it makes more sense we de evolved rather then thinking aliens messed with our DNA.

Does it make more sense that we evolved naturally instead of being result of alien experiments? Yes. To what end would we have been modified? Is this why I am saying that we evolved? No. I'm saying that we evolved, because that is what every single observation we have ever made points to.

Here is where your logic failed. Think about all of the sickness that animals get, and how much we know about animals to keep them healthy. Compare that to humans, do you think humans need more attention than animals, of course they do. Do humans still get sicker more often then animals even though we alegedly on top of our game, Yes, humans still get sicker. Sounds to me like we aren't doing so well. So your wrong.

Apart from mice, rats, yeasts, and a few other model organisms, we don't know almost anything about animal health in comparison to human health. I don't agree with the premise that humans get sicker more often than animals. That's only a statistical artifact that has to do with the sampling effect that I am now mentioning the third time. If a moose gets sick, does this piece of data ever make it to our books? Nope. It's the same with basically all animals. They don't seek treatment, thus the diseases are never diagnosed.

We have vets for livestock and our pets because we are in more contact with them than the rest of the animal world. Even dogs can get colds. They get cancer, leukemia, arthritis, organ failure...and my mother has had two diabetic cats.

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by idmonster

 

Pinocchio tooth has claimed a background in science. Previously claimed to be a science master and a discoverer of an 'arcane virus'.

This means he must know full well how to put forward as reasoned argument backed with supporting evidence.

I want to know where he got his degree from. www.diploma-mills-r-us.com?

reply to post by rhinoceros

Does it make more sense that we evolved naturally instead of being result of alien experiments?

Actually no it doesn't. There are just dozens of things that suggest we aren't from here. It has been the basis for my whole argument on this thread.
We don't fit in on this planet. We have no target food. The planet is rejecting us. We are destroying the planet. We isolate ourselves from the rest of the life on this planet. We manufacture our own food and living arrangements. We don't even drink the water here unless we process it first. We are overwhelmed with sickness and disease and just in our species alone by comparison. There is the suggestions in the bible that clearly indicate we aren't from here. There is the findings in our DNA suggesting tampering with our DNA. The list goes on but there is a smidge of it.

To what end would we have been modified? Is this why I am saying that we evolved? No. I'm saying that we evolved, because that is what every single observation we have ever made points to.

On the Mod question it can really depend on what your asking. I have several reasons to believe that even in the bible, modifications were done to us as a form of punishment. It's just sick, to the point of genocide. And observations I have ever looked at only make suggestions of evolving. I have yet to see anything conclusive. Like you will hear me saying many times over, there is a lot of assuming going on in the evolution theory.

Apart from mice, rats, yeasts, and a few other model organisms, we don't know almost anything about animal health in comparison to human health. I don't agree with the premise that humans get sicker more often than animals. That's only a statistical artifact that has to do with the sampling effect that I am now mentioning the third time. If a moose gets sick, does this piece of data ever make it to our books? Nope. It's the same with basically all animals. They don't seek treatment, thus the diseases are never diagnosed.

Well I would agree with you except for one problem. Animals in captive. We want to know everything we need to know to keep them from getting sick. I have to totally disagree with you on this fact. The difference is staggering and granted some of it could be sampling but not that much of it. Have you wiki searched the names of sickness and disease. I got TC'd for trying to post them on here, there is that many of them.

reply to post by MrXYZ

The very link I posted and you quoted contains the link proving evolution is a scientific theory

You better read that again, cause I just read it and it says that its only an established theory. And all that means is that a lot of people are accepting it as fact, not that it necessarily a fact.

You're kidding, right? How do you think we develop modern meds??? Google speciation and you'll find tons of examples of it in the lab (and nature).

Sometimes I'm not sure if you're trolling or simply parading ignorance.

I'm not talking about specieation I'm talking about macroevolution. There is not one confirmed case of it.

We know the bible isn't historically accurate because that silly global flood demonstrably never happened, ergo Noah's arch story isn't correct either, the exodus of the Jews isn't historically accurate, and of course humans didn't just pop up on earth as told in the bible.

Of course it never occurred to you that that's exactly what happens when aliens abduct people and move them. They just appear. DUH.

And of course the whole "surviving inside whales" thing which is BAT# CRAZY!! Comon', for crying out loud, we live in the 21st century and not fantasy land

You are commenting on things in which you have no basis to comment on. Have you tried to live in a whale? Do you know of anyone that tried to live in a whale? Not to mention that that particular whale could have reacted differently than our whales today might. You are not qualified to judge a situation in which you haven't tested yourself. Your just squawking your box.

His CLAIMS are...but it's impossible to test them if he doesn't release the data he bases his claims on. And that's something he never bothered to do since that neuroscientist debunked his hypothesis the one time he did

You moron, the human genome is public information. Just because you don't know how to assess it personally doesn't mean anything is being withheld.

The one who proved his entire starchild hypothesis is nonsense because the skull is 100% human: LINK

All you gave me was a wiki site with an authors title, nothing here about debunking Pye's starchild.

And of course all DNA studies found out that skull is 100% human. Only that clown Pye claims there's alien components, yet he refuses to release any data that would prove so. He merely claims it's the case...which isn't science, it's a JOKE.

The only test I ever heard of that claimed the skull (don't know why this is being brought up to begin with) was before we had the ability to test for nuclear DNA. It's to my memory they tested the mtDNA and it came back human, but the nuclear DNA does not. He had to actually wait years for DNA testing to be created before he could have it tested.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Actually no it doesn't.

Actually, yes it does.

We don't fit in on this planet.

Uneducated opinion

We have no target food.

Don't even know what that means but I can already tell it's yet another uneducated opinion.

The planet is rejecting us.

Implying the planet is conscious.

We are destroying the planet.

So?

We isolate ourselves from the rest of the life on this planet.

So?

We manufacture our own food and living arrangements.

So?

We don't even drink the water here unless we process it first.

So?

We are overwhelmed with sickness and disease and just in our species alone by comparison.

False information.

There is the suggestions in the bible that clearly indicate we aren't from here.

Bible is just one ancient mythology among thousands of others.

There is the findings in our DNA suggesting tampering with our DNA.

This is a blatant lie.

reply to post by idmonster

You really arent very bright are you.

Your cries of "prove it, prove it" make you appear very dishonest when people offer evidence which you dismiss out of hand and then offer no supporting evidence for your own theory.

What do you expect while everyone expects me to just take there word on things, without taking my word on anything.

If only you applied the same exacting standards to your own methods as you want others to adhere to.

I am, they want proof, and so do I.

Why dont you try to offer evidence as to why you believe the evidence offered by others is wrong. Not your opinion, or belief, but real evidence.

I have, for like the umpteenth time now, evolution is quoted as being a Postulated Hypothetical theory.

If you believe Pyes work proves intervention, quote his findings, the methods he used, and how this proves his hypothesis.

I don't understand whats so difficult about this. Pye used the human genome, the human genome is public information. It's not like he had to dig to the ends of the earth to find the stuff. He might in fact have never needed to visit a lab with all of this information available to the public online.

Pye proving intervention is not the issue. I'm confident he does that. The idea however of humans on earth having access to DNA labs back around biblical times is crazy. If this is true, we have truly de evolved which was the first thing I ever said on this thread.

EXAMPLE
The bible is a historical manual.
The bible has been shown to be wrong.
Prove it.
The bible says a man can live inside a whale.
Maybe it was a metaphore for a boat.

Your attempts are just to discredit just like discrediting Pye or any of the other authors. The problem here is that while we may not have all the answers or just possibly aren't understanding everything, is not proof that all of the rest of the work is wrong. Your making an assumption and your wrong.

THIS IS TRUE
A man cannot live inside a whale, you know this, I know this, and the only way it could be possible is by invoking magic. "God could allow a man to live in a whale if he wanted to

Well it does sound odd, but with the supernatural powers that were around in the bible, who knows. On the other side, I haven't tried, it, and I have heard of anyone that has tried it. It's an unknown. That doesn't automatically mean its wrong. So again, your making an assumption and your wrong in doing so.

Now with you not being religious, you call on the possibilty of a metaphore. And here I totally agree with you. Of course its a metaphore...the whole book is a metaphore, used to explain the world that the people who wrote it lived in. And do you know what we call a book full of mataphores....a storybook.
THIS IS TRUE

Except for the purpose of the metaphor being different. Just like in the chapter of ezekiel, talking about a charriot coming down to earth. They didn't have the word UFO, or flying saucer, so does that mean its a fairy tale. NO it doesn't. Again your wrong. Your making assumptions and missing the point. Now had the book have been written in todays time I would have to totally agree with you. I think this is different.

The tales of the Grimm's were metaphores, Hans Christian Anderson, metaphores, the bible...metaphores, and all of them fictional tales designed to teach a message of some sort.

The proof that I offer for the above as a fact is exactly equal to the proof for the bible, and that is that it must be true because it says so in the paragraph up there.

I never heard of the tales of the grimms.