Can you prove evolution wrong

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

No, what it shows is that we are alike. We have similar immune systems and organ systems. That is why we use mice and monkeys in lab experiments.

Well there is that too.

Good. Glad you admit it, because a few pages back you said that we weren't alike.

Aside, have similar things with other life IMO does not prove anything. It could have just as easily have been a creator playing with the same ideas and progressing. The fact that only some parts of evolution have been witnessed in a lab pretty much tells us that it will never be a proven fact.

Well, that's a different tune than the one you've been singing for 314 pages, where you've said repeatedly that we've never witnessed evolution in the lab.

People are going to believe in what they want to believe in regardless of the facts.

That's the most accurate statement you've made in this whole thread.

reply to post by rhinoceros


I read under the experimental approach on this.

The genetic markers is what amuses me. I have said this in the past, will say it again. Genetic markers will never be able to prove anything when we don't know what variables an organisim has to begin with.

As an example, lets say someone pops up with purple eyes. We might call that a defect right off the bat because we have never had someone with this before. My point is how do we not know that it has and will always be an option that has just never surfaced before. Rest assured it would instantly called evolution. We have nothing to base the ground work on. We dont know enough about biology to determine changes to be out of the norm. Norm per species, not norm based on average or our assumptions.

Here is another example. People are usually between say 5 and 6 feet tall. Now if someone turns up being 8 feet tall, he would be considered to be a defect or evolving. IMO how do we not know that 8 feet tall people are actually normal and we are all the odd ones. We don't, we have know way to know. This ground level is the the whole structure for evolution. It's built on an assumption.

reply to post by HappyBunny

Good. Glad you admit it, because a few pages back you said that we weren't alike.

That seriously depends on how close your looking. For example the differences between humans and apes. On one hand you could say we are the same, just looking at the chromosomes, but when you break it down to the genes there are actually millions of differences.

This is why I say it must have taken trillions of years for us to have evolved from a common ancestor. The math is simple. Millions of different genes. It's a scientific fact that if a species tries to change to much, to soon, it dies and very quick. So this had to be a very slow progression, so slow that speciation probably didn't happen. Allowing our species to breed and carry on. Trillions of years.

Now the problem is that earth isn't that old. Earth is said to be just over 4 billion years old, so there is a problem with how we allegedly evolved here. Oddly enough this once again points to intervention. It looks like we weren't evolving here on earth.

reply to post by itsthetooth


Dude, trillions? The universe is only around 14 billion years old. You really need to figure out how long a million or even a billion years is.

reply to post by Varemia

Dude, trillions? The universe is only around 14 billion years old. You really need to figure out how long a million or even a billion years is.

Oh I know.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia

 

Dude, trillions? The universe is only around 14 billion years old. You really need to figure out how long a million or even a billion years is.

Oh I know.

This may help you in the visualization. This is a pictorial example of the appearance of various ever larger sums of money. Notice how large it gets and how fast. That's what I'm talking about when I'm talking about the length of time it took for us and the chimps to separate from what we were to what we are today in around 5.5 million years:

www.pagetutor.com...

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

I read under the experimental approach on this.

The genetic markers is what amuses me. I have said this in the past, will say it again. Genetic markers will never be able to prove anything when we don't know what variables an organisim has to begin with.

Read the whole thing. Clearly stated: "The E. coli long-term evolution experiment is an ongoing study in experimental evolution led by Richard Lenski that has been tracking genetic changes in 12 initially identical populations."

As an example, lets say someone pops up with purple eyes. We might call that a defect right off the bat because we have never had someone with this before. My point is how do we not know that it has and will always be an option that has just never surfaced before. Rest assured it would instantly called evolution. We have nothing to base the ground work on. We dont know enough about biology to determine changes to be out of the norm. Norm per species, not norm based on average or our assumptions.

No scientist would call that evolution. Lay people might make such mistakes, but scientists understand that evolution is about allele frequencies in populations, not about single mutants. Now again:

If you disagree with evolution being a natural phenomenon, then what is your explanation for the outcome of the E.coli long-term evolution experiment. If you go the micro vs. macro way, then also explain the mechanisms that prevents a lot of micro from being macro. Good luck!

Please answer this time.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Millions of different genes.

I believe, the current estimate for total number of protein-coding genes in the human genome is about 30,000. Not millions. Currently, the record holder for the largest number of protein-coding genes is a unicellular eukaryote with about 70,000 genes. You average bacteria has about 5,000 genes (some have as few as 500).

Originally posted by itsthetooth
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.

nobody expects you to take their word for anything...thats why they're offering links to back up their statements..try and reciprocate in kind

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.

And they're offering proof, you're not.

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.

by you! you're doing the worst kind of quote mining, quite literaly taking individual words to make a sentence.

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.

And yet still fails to show what he did or how he did it. only shows what he claims are his results. Thats fine, as long as he doesnt expect anybody with more than half a brain to take him seriously.

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.

True, we dont have all the answers, and we dont claim to, but the answers we have can be backed up wit empirical evedence. (dont ask...it's already beeen provided)

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.

No, it doesnt sound odd..it sound ridiculous, and my assumptions are never wrong. Assumptions are like oppinions are like arseholes, everybody has one and yours stinks.

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.

You have no right to say I'm wrong, in your world my opinion and my assumptions are equaly as valid as any other and as equaly likly to be correct and true. If you disagree with this then you sir an arse. IMHO

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 t

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster

 

I never heard of the tales of the grimms.

yes you have

# The Frog King, or Iron Henry
# Our Lady's Child
# The Story of a Youth Who Went Forth to Learn What Fear Was
# The Wolf and the Seven Little Kids
# Faithful John
# The Good Bargain
# The Twelve Brothers
# Brother and Sister
# Rapunzel
# The Three Little Men in the Wood
# The Three Spinners
# Hansel and Grethel (called Gretel in this version)
# The Three Snake-Leaves
# The White Snake
# The Valiant Little Tailor
# Cinderella
# The Riddle
# Mother Holle
# The Seven Ravens
# Little Red-Cap
# The Singing Bone
# The Devil with the Three Golden Hairs
# The Girl Without Hands
# Clever Hans
# The Three Languages
# Clever Elsie
# The Wishing-Table, The Gold-Ass, and The Cudgel in the Sack
# Thumbling
# The Elves (two stories)
# The Robber Bridegroom
# The Godfather
# Frau Trude
# Godfather Death
# Thumbling as Journeyman
# Fitcher's Bird
# The Juniper-Tree
# Old Sultan
# The Six Swans
# Little Briar-Rose
# Fundevogel
# King Thrushbeard
# Little Snow-White
# The Knapsack, The Hat, and The Horn
# Rumpelstiltskin
# Sweetheart Roland
# The Golden Bird
# The Two Brothers
# The Queen Bee
# The Three Feathers
# The Golden Goose
# Allerleirauh
# The Hare's Bride
# The Twelve Huntsmen
# The Thief and His Master
# The Three Sons of Fortune
# How Six Men Got On in the World
# Gossip Wolf and the Fox
# The Pink
# The Old Man and His Grandson
# The Water-Nix
# Brother Lustig
# Hans in Luck
# Hans Married
# The Gold-Children
# The Singing, Soaring Lark
# The Goose-Girl
# The Young Giant
# The Elves (another story with that title)
# The King of the Golden Mountain
# The Raven
# The Peasant's Wise Daughter
# The Three Little Birds
# The Water of Life
# The Spirit in the Bottle
# The Devil's Sooty Brother
# Bearskin
# The Willow-Wren and the Bear
# Sweet Porridge
# Wise Folks
# Stories About Snakes (called paddocks in this version)
# The Poor Miller's Boy and the Cat
# The Two Travellers
# Hans the Hedgehog
# The Shroud
# The Skilful Huntsman
# The Two Kings' Children
# The Cunning Little Tailor
# The Bright Sun Brings It to Light
# The Blue Light
# The Wilful Child
# The King's Son Who Feared Nothing
# Donkey Cabbages
# The Old Woman in the Wood
# The Three Brothers
# The Devil and His Grandmother
# Ferdinand the Faithful
# The Iron Stove
# The Four Skilful Brothers
# One-Eye, Two-Eyes, and Three-Eyes
# Fair Katrinelje and Pif-Paf-Poltrie
# The Shoes That Were Danced to Pieces
# The Six Servants
# The White Bride and the Black One
# Iron John
# The Three Black Princesses
# Knoist and His Three Sons
# The Maid of Brakel
# Domestic Servants
# The Lambkin and the Little Fish
# Simeli Mountain
# Going A-Travelling
# The Donkey
# The Ungrateful Son
# The Turnip
# The Old Man Made Young Again
# The Three Sluggards
# The Shepherd Boy
# The Star-Money
# The Stolen Farthings
# Brides On Their Trial
# The Sparrow and His Four Children
# Snow-White and Rose-Red
# The Glass Coffin
# Lazy Harry
# The Griffin
# Strong Hans
# The Hut in the Forest
# The Goose-Girl at the Well
# Eve's Various Children
# The Nix of the Mill-Pond
# The Poor Boy in the Grave
# The True Sweetheart
# The Spindle, The Shuttle, and The Needle
# The Sea-Hare
# The Master-Thief
# The Drummer
# The Ear of Corn
# Old Rinkrank
# The Crystal Ball
# Maid Maleen
# St. Joseph in the Forest
# The Twelve Apostles
# The Rose
# Poverty and Humility Lead to Heaven
# God's Food
# The Three Green Twigs
# The Aged Mother
# The Hazel-Branch
# Cat and Mouse in Partnership
# The Wonderful Musician
# The Pack of Ragamuffins
# The Straw, the Coal, and the Bean
# The Fisherman and His Wife
# The Mouse, the Bird, and the Sausage
# The Bremen Town-Musicians
# The Louse and the Flea
# The Tailor in Heaven
# The Wedding of Mrs. Fox (two stories)
# The Elves (one more story)
# Herr Korbes
# The Dog and the Sparrow
# Frederick and Catherine
# The Little Peasant
# Jorinda and Joringel
# The Wolf and the Man
# The Wolf and the Fox
# The Fox and the Cat
# Clever Grethel (called Gretel in this version)
# The Death of the Little Hen
# Gambling Hansel
# The Fox and the Geese
# The Poor Man and the Rich Man
# Old Hildebrand
# Doctor Knowall
# The Jew Among Thorns
# The Flail from Heaven
# The Three Army-Surgeons
# The Seven Swabians
# The Three Apprentices
# The Lazy Spinner
# The Fox and the Horse
# The Lord's Animals and the Devil's
# The Beam
# The Old Beggar-Woman
# Odds and Ends (called hurds in this version)
# The Story of Schlauraffen Land
# The Ditmarsch Tale of Wonders
# A Riddling Tale
# The Wise Servant
# The Peasant in Heaven
# Lean Lisa
# Sharing Joy and Sorrow
# The Willow-Wren
# The Sole
# The Bittern and the Hoopoe
# The Owl
# The Moon
# The Duration of Life
# Death's Messengers
# Master Pfriem
# The Little Folks' Presents
# The Giant and the Tail

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by itsthetooth

 

That is because evolution is a bunch of theory's put together. Just like its described in the first sentance...

in fact embraces a
plurality of theories and hypotheses.

Exactly and theories mixed with hypotheses are NOT fact.

A theory is also not a fact.

edit on 23-3-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)

Does anyone else find it odd that toothy replied to his own post like he was replying to someone else's?

Methinks something is awry here, that may explain many other ridiculous replies.....

reply to post by Varemia


that looks pretty close for millions of genes to change, it wouldn't happen in leaps with every lineage otherwise we would be able to see it right now.

reply to post by rhinoceros

Read the whole thing. Clearly stated: "The E. coli long-term evolution experiment is an ongoing study in experimental evolution led by Richard Lenski that has been tracking genetic changes in 12 initially identical populations."

But again I don't think your listening to me. What is the ground floor used to identify those changes to begin with? How do we not know that its all the same species period and not evolution? We don't.

If you disagree with evolution being a natural phenomenon, then what is your explanation for the outcome of the E.coli long-term evolution experiment. If you go the micro vs. macro way, then also explain the mechanisms that prevents a lot of micro from being macro. Good luck!

Well its not that I disagree its that its not listed as such because all of the theorys of evolution have not been witnessed.

The mechanism that prevents micro from becoming macro is speciation. If you go back to wiki and read up on it you will lean that anytime great changes happen, they die, plain and simple. And good luck back to you.

reply to post by rhinoceros

I believe, the current estimate for total number of protein-coding genes in the human genome is about 30,000. Not millions. Currently, the record holder for the largest number of protein-coding genes is a unicellular eukaryote with about 70,000 genes. You average bacteria has about 5,000 genes (some have as few as 500).

I was referring to the 3% difference there is between us and apes.

reply to post by idmonster

nobody expects you to take their word for anything...thats why they're offering links to back up their statements..try and reciprocate in kind

BUT NO ONE IS OFFERING ANY LINKS THAT SAY EVOLUTION IS REAL!

reply to post by idmonster

And they're offering proof, you're not.

Sending me to sites that clearly indicate that evolution is not a fact, is far from proof.

by you! you're doing the worst kind of quote mining, quite literaly taking individual words to make a sentence.

I wasn't trying to pass it off as exact, it was even in past tense so I also quoted the sections so you could see for yourself.

And yet still fails to show what he did or how he did it. only shows what he claims are his results. Thats fine, as long as he doesnt expect anybody with more than half a brain to take him seriously.

Its all pretty clear to me, did you not watch the video? If I had a lab and the know how, I feel he has offered enough for me to challenge him.

True, we dont have all the answers, and we dont claim to, but the answers we have can be backed up wit empirical evedence. (dont ask...it's already beeen provided)

The ONLY part of evolution that has been backed up is speciation.
There are two problems with speciation.
First there is nothing to compare it to as a limitation to know whats a normal change and whats an evolution change.
Second the species never changes species which once again disproves evoltuion all to hell.

No, it doesnt sound odd..it sound ridiculous, and my assumptions are never wrong. Assumptions are like oppinions are like arseholes, everybody has one and yours stinks.

I wasn't stating an opinion, I was stating a fact.

You have no right to say I'm wrong, in your world my opinion and my assumptions are equaly as valid as any other and as equaly likly to be correct and true. If you disagree with this then you sir an arse. IMHO

Well dont get on here acting like you got your feelings hurt. Your the one that supposedly has all the correct answers. Just becasue your finding out you don't is not my fault.

reply to post by idmonster


I have heard of some of those.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia

 

that looks pretty close for millions of genes to change, it wouldn't happen in leaps with every lineage otherwise we would be able to see it right now.

I see you really can't grasp the time periods involved. You literally cannot visualize it, so you are acting as if the time is shortened, and that nothing will change within that time. Not only is it stupid, but it's moronic. I'm done dealing with your crap. I'm out of this thread, taking it off my subscription list. I really hope that one day you're no longer ignorant, tooth.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Shows you how much you pay attention, I never claimed to be a science master.

Shows how much you lie. Yes you did, I even pasted your words to you. Your delusion means you have now decided it never happened is par for the course. You now claim you have gone to school with a science base. Another obvious lie

I thought it meant that I knew how to identify arcane viruses.

No it means you are just a pathetic liar. You claimed to have discovered the arcane virus when you announced you were a science master.

No one can prove the bible, and you know this. Geeze.

And so you, by your very own words cannot use it as a document of fact.

In the mean time I have been waiting for ANYONE to prove evolution to me, but it looks like that site that I keep getting sent to sums it up. A postulated hypothetical theory is one that hasn't been proven.

This is not the place to prove anything to anyone. What you have done is show cased your total ignorance and inability to absorb information.

Here is something for you to contemplate about DNA. Breeding from within your family unit should be avoided at all costs.

reply to post by rhinoceros

Rhino, you're trying to explain coding genes to someone who doesn't understand the difference between a base pair, a gene, and an allele.