Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by rhinoceros

Yes, but that is not gradual accumulation of micro. Gradual means, that it happens over a long period of time. Inducing mutations on fruit flies by radiation is not gradual change over a long period of time. And again, evolution does not happen on the level of individuals. It's gradual change over long period of time. Repeat after me: gradual change over a long period of time.

But if this were true we would have large groups of species that couldn't sucessfully breed with there counterparts. And we don't have that. Almost all humans can interbreed with each other, with a very rare instance here and there. In addition we would have a plethora of sub species with all of the 5 million species on this planet, we also don't have that.

reply to post by rhinoceros

Actually, we do. For example, there are over 100,000 known fly species. As to why know such variation in larger animals, you need to understand not only evolution but also ecology, and I'm not going there.

Ok lets look at this. 100,000 known fly species. First off, is there 100,000 different names to go with each of them? After all when a new species is found, we are very quck to name them for credit. I would like to see something that backs up what your saying here.

Probably the biggest problem that your overlooking here is that they are all 100,000 still FLY'S. And they will remain as such which adds no credibility to evolution.

There's literally no scientific debate about evolution. The people who don't accept it as a fact are 99% fundamentalists, who have been brainwashed in their youth into a religion.

Well then you need to start contacing all the authors on these evolution links because it would appear that they too don't believe evolution to be a proven fact either. I have yet to see anything that says otherwise.

So again, prove that 'micro' (undeniable fact) accumulation doesn't result in 'macro'. Understand, that the only way such can happen is, if there's some force that deliberately prevents gradual accumulation of change from an earlier type. Even then, you would still have to explain the fossil record, I mean, if there was some mechanism that prevented gradual accumulation of too much change, then where are the 100 million year old fossils that are nearly identical to present day life?

Easy... en.wikipedia.org...

There is clearly the omission of this being witnessed in humans, and its only been observed in some aquatic life. So let me know when you start swimming then we can consider it.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Going to school and being a master are two different things you idiot.

Page 7 of your topic 'Its officila God was a space astronaught 'In Skunk works, 8 posts down You wrote

I'm a science major, if its not obvious, I'm also the identifier of an arcane virus. I'm trying to find someone help me get a wikipedia put up about it because it should be listed.

Which makes your comment to me a great big lie.

I never announced to be a master at anything you moron. You might have come to that conclusion based on moronic assumptions, which you do a lot then you turn around and call me ponocioo.

So the next time you call ne a liar or an idiot just remember I can prove you are both. Just like you have no proof of anything else you fantasise about Pinocchio.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish

 

Again you fall on the argument from ignorance.
WEAK SAUCE.

Well here, read it for yourself.

en.wikipedia.org...

As you can see, its never applied to humans, you have just made bold assumptions.

LOL you read!
Your the only one making bold assumptions.
Do you not even read your own replies.
Your an exercise in bold assumptions.

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by itsthetooth

 

Going to school and being a master are two different things you idiot.

Page 7 of your topic 'Its officila God was a space astronaught 'In Skunk works, 8 posts down You wrote

I'm a science major, if its not obvious, I'm also the identifier of an arcane virus. I'm trying to find someone help me get a wikipedia put up about it because it should be listed.

Which makes your comment to me a great big lie.

I never announced to be a master at anything you moron. You might have come to that conclusion based on moronic assumptions, which you do a lot then you turn around and call me ponocioo.

So the next time you call ne a liar or an idiot just remember I can prove you are both. Just like you have no proof of anything else you fantasise about Pinocchio.

edit on 24-3-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)

Again!! your very words prove your dishonest!
You are bald face lying!
You claim alien intervention and cite the bible as objective evidence for denying evolution.
ALL you do is make assumptions! saying "All I have ever said is that we don't know" is a lie too!
WTF! are you trying to confuse some would be sheeple in the church of tooth!
Your the worst of the worst, not just a lier but out right deceiving.
Trying to twist words to prove a false dichotomy. SHAME ON YOU!!

Originally posted by itsthetooth

You think evolution claims that our species is but a few thousand years old?

I didn't say that, but I'm glad you brought it up. There is something golden that I think you should read for yourself to better understand what is going on. If you look up mitochondrial DNA on wiki and read the entire article, you will notice that they claim to have mapped the entire genome. You will also notice that they are making a claim that we have a common ancestor 200,000 years ago. Whats funny is that they are also bolding admitting that this obviously rules out religion and adds more credibility to the idea of evolution. Then they turn around and say that they need to look to more pioneering ideas to come up with final answers.

They have totally omitted our actuall age, even though they claim to have mapped the entire genome. The reason why they are saying we need to look at more pioneering ideas is IMO because our true age is older than earth, and well thats not suppose to be possible. They surly couldn't publish such a finding because all it would do is make people laugh at them and destory there credibility.

Please refer me to the actual part that you have a problem with. This is no doubt yet another misunderstanding rising from ignorance.

What I meant in the previous reply is that its a little odd that we bring nothing to the table from our earlier days. I think we can say there is arrows, camp fires, stone tools, arrow heads, and thats about it. You actually expect me to believe that the millions of years prior to biblical times we lived like cavemen and never advanced.

, then you want me to believe that all of a sudden things just took off, and we have the wheel, vehicles, electronics, weapons of mass destruction,

I often think about that too, I mean what caused the sudden rise of culture. I think it's related to two things. One is language. I think the arrival of language must have caused a massive change in our species, because all of a sudden we could utilize our brains in a completely new way. After that, I think the second important part was agriculture (neolithic revolution). This again enabled new stuff. Then we have bronze age, printing, etc. advances, and finally, the internet. However, I don't think it's fair for you to say that the caveman never advanced. To the contrary we see a gradual change in their tools to ever more sophisticated and efficient designs..

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

Yes, but that is not gradual accumulation of micro. Gradual means, that it happens over a long period of time. Inducing mutations on fruit flies by radiation is not gradual change over a long period of time. And again, evolution does not happen on the level of individuals. It's gradual change over long period of time. Repeat after me: gradual change over a long period of time.

But if this were true we would have large groups of species that couldn't sucessfully breed with there counterparts. And we don't have that. Almost all humans can interbreed with each other, with a very rare instance here and there. In addition we would have a plethora of sub species with all of the 5 million species on this planet, we also don't have that.

You can't look at humans and make general assumptions about nature. We are in many ways very unnatural species (not to be misunderstood, saying unnatural in a sense that we're e.g. a global species). I see you still didn't understand the point about species concept. Species, subspecies, race, etc., these are human defined terms. We could just as well say that there are many subspecies of humans instead of races (or whatever is the politically correct term). It's the same thing over and again with (almost) whatever species we look.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Ok lets look at this. 100,000 known fly species. First off, is there 100,000 different names to go with each of them? After all when a new species is found, we are very quck to name them for credit. I would like to see something that backs up what your saying here.

Look here. If only, you would also provide evidence when asked.

p.s. the wiki speciation article doesn't answer the following in any way:


So again, prove that 'micro' (undeniable fact) accumulation doesn't result in 'macro'. Understand, that the only way such can happen is, if there's some force that deliberately prevents gradual accumulation of change from an earlier type. Even then, you would still have to explain the fossil record, I mean, if there was some mechanism that prevented gradual accumulation of too much change, then where are the 100 million year old fossils that are nearly identical to present day life?

reply to post by rhinoceros

Look here. If only, you would also provide evidence when asked.

p.s. the wiki speciation article doesn't answer the following in any way:


So again, prove that 'micro' (undeniable fact) accumulation doesn't result in 'macro'. Understand, that the only way such can happen is, if there's some force that deliberately prevents gradual accumulation of change from an earlier type. Even then, you would still have to explain the fossil record, I mean, if there was some mechanism that prevented gradual accumulation of too much change, then where are the 100 million year old fossils that are nearly identical to present day life?

Well I can't disprove it any more than god being a space alien or that there are pink unicorns in the sky, did you have something that actualy proves it?

reply to post by itsthetooth

Denial is the PRIMARY psychological symptom of addiction. It is an automatic and unconscious component of addictions. Addicts are often the last to recognize their disease, pursuing their addictions into the gates of insanity, the collapse of health and ultimately death.

Tooth's new avatar.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Just though of yet another problem for Pye and you. He claims the chromosome 2 fusion is thanks to aliens, yes? You take this to mean, that humans came on this planet a rather short time ago, right? So, how do you explain the fact, that we can actually date the fusion event to a rather high certainty (molecular clock from the degradation rate of the useless now middle telomere sequences), and it's millions of years old..

p.s. No, I don't have anything that proves that a lot of micro isn't in fact macro. I'm arguing to the contrary..

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by itsthetooth

 

Going to school and being a master are two different things you idiot.

Page 7 of your topic 'Its officila God was a space astronaught 'In Skunk works, 8 posts down You wrote

I'm a science major, if its not obvious, I'm also the identifier of an arcane virus. I'm trying to find someone help me get a wikipedia put up about it because it should be listed.

Which makes your comment to me a great big lie.

I never announced to be a master at anything you moron. You might have come to that conclusion based on moronic assumptions, which you do a lot then you turn around and call me ponocioo.

So the next time you call ne a liar or an idiot just remember I can prove you are both. Just like you have no proof of anything else you fantasise about Pinocchio.

edit on 24-3-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)

Hahahahahaha lololololol

this should be the standard response to anything this ignoramus says.

Well done sir, when i read the original denial of the claim i was all set to hunt this down and quote it myself. Theres actualy another denial relating to tooth stating that " humans suddenly appearing from apes in biblical time", on the prevous page with the standard "i didnt say that" when questioned on it. And the best thing is, he cant refute it cos its time over on edit. I guess this will be ignored.

seems to be happening quite a lot.

reply to post by itsthetooth
Because you cherry pick what you want from any post with more than one answer I have split my responses into seperate posts.

Children did not know how to read in biblical times you idiot so I doubt very seriously if the book was meant to be a fairy tale.

What was this an answer too? Let me recap the point. I originally wrote:

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.

You replied:

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

My response to that was:

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

Your latest reply is:

Children did not know how to read in biblical times you idiot so I doubt very seriously if the book was meant to be a fairy tale.

Now I never once mentioned fairy tales. Never called it a childrens book so it appears your reading skills or lack of, have let you down again and you are the idiot.

Now address the point that if you cannot, by your own admission 'prove the bible' you cannot use it as a document of fact.

reply to post by rhinoceros

Just though of yet another problem for Pye and you. He claims the chromosome 2 fusion is thanks to aliens, yes? You take this to mean, that humans came on this planet a rather short time ago, right? So, how do you explain the fact, that we can actually date the fusion event to a rather high certainty (molecular clock from the degradation rate of the useless now middle telomere sequences), and it's millions of years old..

p.s. No, I don't have anything that proves that a lot of micro isn't in fact macro. I'm arguing to the contrary..

No I meant do you have any proof that it happens or even happened in humans at all? The only info I can find about speciation is on aquatic life.

reply to post by idmonster

Going to school and being a master are two different things you idiot.

Page 7 of your topic 'Its officila God was a space astronaught 'In Skunk works, 8 posts down You wrote


I'm a science major, if its not obvious, I'm also the identifier of an arcane virus. I'm trying to find someone help me get a wikipedia put up about it because it should be listed.

Which makes your comment to me a great big lie.

Not at all, I am a science major, whats the problem?

I never announced to be a master at anything you moron. You might have come to that conclusion based on moronic assumptions, which you do a lot then you turn around and call me ponocioo.

So the next time you call ne a liar or an idiot just remember I can prove you are both. Just like you have no proof of anything else you fantasise about Pinocchio

And I stick by my words you moron. I'm a science major not a science master. OMG get a life.

Hahahahahaha lololololol

this should be the standard response to anything this ignoramus says.

Well done sir, when i read the original denial of the claim i was all set to hunt this down and quote it myself. Theres actualy another denial relating to tooth stating that " humans suddenly appearing from apes in biblical time", on the prevous page with the standard "i didnt say that" when questioned on it. And the best thing is, he cant refute it cos its time over on edit. I guess this will be ignored.

seems to be happening quite a lot.

I suggest you go back to school Id and learn the difference between major and master. What an idiot LOL.

reply to post by colin42

Now I never once mentioned fairy tales. Never called it a childrens book so it appears your reading skills or lack of, have let you down again and you are the idiot.

Now address the point that if you cannot, by your own admission 'prove the bible' you cannot use it as a document of fact.

Oh not at all because that seems to be the direction that some other idiots on here are going towards. It obviously wasn't meant to be a childrens book.

reply to post by colin42

Now address the point that if you cannot, by your own admission 'prove the bible' you cannot use it as a document of fact.

Wow your just eager beaver to get that bible set aside at any costs aren't you? Whats wrong Colin does the bible pose a threat to the very idea of evolution? Does it put wrench in your works? Why don't you learn to master your own,,,,,better yet major your own subject before you go putting others down.

reply to post by colin42


Speciation has never been observed in humans, and its only been observed in some aquatic life and a few others. Why are so many people making that bold leap into humans?.

Macro evolution has never been witnessed and they also aren't able to identify it with all the bones and fossils from millions of years ago. Ever wonder why? Are you sure your not making another bold assumption that macro evolution can even exist? Everything I read up on said the species dies rather quickly at that.

Probably the worst part is what exactly are these changes based on, what are the compared against? They are based on assumptions made about each life, and what might or might not be considered a regular change within each species. An assumption based on what we think we know about each species. The ground floor for this assesment is horrible at best. Anyhow, this is what they base changes on. They obviously can't look at ANY change and assume its evolution in progress. They have to make an educated guess on whats normal, and whats not. It's a total guessing game. They cant make an informed decision on any of this because there is no rule book that tells us whats allowable and whats not. We go off assumptions. Your precious evolution is structured entirely on these assumptions.

You lie like a rug colin, then you have the gall to claim I'm the liar. Sorry man the only one I have seen here lying is YOU.

reply to post by idmonster

Going to school and being a master are two different things you idiot.

Page 7 of your topic 'Its officila God was a space astronaught 'In Skunk works, 8 posts down You wrote


I'm a science major, if its not obvious, I'm also the identifier of an arcane virus. I'm trying to find someone help me get a wikipedia put up about it because it should be listed.

Which makes your comment to me a great big lie.


I never announced to be a master at anything you moron. You might have come to that conclusion based on moronic assumptions, which you do a lot then you turn around and call me ponocioo.

So the next time you call ne a liar or an idiot just remember I can prove you are both. Just like you have no proof of anything else you fantasise about Pinocchio.

Just like with the theory of evolution, you sure do assume a lot. Your assuming that just because I majored in a science background, that I in fact mastered the subject.

Do me a favor, the next time you think your so slick in trying to make an ass out of someone, please remove the ME from ASSUME.

Sorry but you were wrong again.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Speciation has never been observed in humans, and its only been observed in some aquatic life and a few others. Why are so many people making that bold leap into humans?

You just invent stuff as you go. Speciation has never been observed in humans - what does it even mean? That modern humans haven't diverged into new species? Nobody would expect this over such a short period of isolation. As to the "bold leap", not only is there a mountain of "indirect" evidence, but there's also that fact that nobody has managed to put forth a mechanism that could prevent this force of nature from happening. One might wonder, why you make the bold leap and assume in absence of evidence to the contrary (you can forget the Pye rubbish) that what REAL SCIENTISTS are saying, isn't in fact true.

Macro evolution has never been witnessed and they also aren't able to identify it with all the bones and fossils from millions of years ago. Ever wonder why? Are you sure your not making another bold assumption that macro evolution can even exist? Everything I read up on said the species dies rather quickly at that.

Has never been witnessed directly, since this is impossible due to the time required. Crying this again and again makes you look incredibly stupid. Ever wonder why 100 million year old fossils are not identical to contemporary animals? Or why 200 million year old fossils are not identical to 100 million year old fossils? If there's no evolution, then where did the flora of Earth come from, again and again? Just think, don't bother answering. I'm done talking with you. Not only are you a liar (identifier of arcane virus my ass), but you also demonstrate completely inability to reason and accumulate new knowledge.