Can you prove evolution wrong? -- Part 2

a reply to: Noinden

And you know this how? Because of the theory you believe in. Yeah.

a reply to: peter vlar

Yeah, we're the kids that escaped the basement while mom and dad were gone, yet you can't debate one single topic without flying off the handle like a 10 year old melodramatic kid that thinks he's right about everything.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Well here's the thing... While some people have had the interest in reading up on all of that, those of us who don't share the same enthusiasm (because we believe in a different theory) have been told our entire lives that we came from monkeys. This is the first debate I've ever been in where I was told the monkey in that picture isn't really a monkey. Normally people argue that we DID come from monkeys. I've heard our DNA is similar with monkeys and don't deny that, I just think humans have always been humans and didn't evolve from anything.

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: TzarChasm

Well here's the thing... While some people have had the interest in reading up on all of that, those of us who don't share the same enthusiasm (because we believe in a different theory) have been told our entire lives that we came from monkeys. This is the first debate I've ever been in where I was told the monkey in that picture isn't really a monkey. Normally people argue that we DID come from monkeys. I've heard our DNA is similar with monkeys and don't deny that, I just think humans have always been humans and didn't evolve from anything.

I don't know what "different theory" you're referring to (more likely a hypothesis since all evidence supports the prevailing theory) but clearly, your aversion to research is impacting your general comprehension of the subject. this is not something we can be blamed for. sometimes you just gotta do your own homework.

a reply to: LSU0408

Because I've repeated some of the experiments and they agreed. That is how science works. If your idea is testable and it is repeatable it passes.

a reply to: LSU0408

I say you can't prove it not that it is wrong. You make a claim about physical things you can test them.

Evolution hasn't happened after thousands of years, not even one POSSIBLE sign of it..

That's crystal clear proof of evolution being a complete farce.

Offspring of apes have always been apes, and they always will be apes, forever after.

10,000 years of nothing evolving, so why would anything change in the next 10,000 years? Or another 10,000? Or 100,000 years? Or in another 10 million years?

Evolution is supposedly a long, continual process of all species. Among countless species on Earth, at least one species would have shown some indication of evolving, over the past 10,000 years.

Nonsense..

a reply to: turbonium1
Very wrong on that, many new species have appeared in the last millenium.

New species are evolving faster than ever

Britain has gained about 2,000 new species over the past two millennia, because our predecessors converted forests into managed woodlands, orchards, meadows, wheat fields, roadsides, hedgerows, ponds and ditches, as well as gardens and urban sprawl, each providing new opportunities.

Galapagos finches caught in act of becoming new species

a reply to: LSU0408

Your that guy from Band Camp no?

Remember that one time at Band Camp, you.....

Coomba98

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: TzarChasm

Well here's the thing... While some people have had the interest in reading up on all of that, those of us who don't share the same enthusiasm (because we believe in a different theory) have been told our entire lives that we came from monkeys. This is the first debate I've ever been in where I was told the monkey in that picture isn't really a monkey. Normally people argue that we DID come from monkeys. I've heard our DNA is similar with monkeys and don't deny that, I just think humans have always been humans and didn't evolve from anything.

I don't know what "different theory" you're referring to (more likely a hypothesis since all evidence supports the prevailing theory) but clearly, your aversion to research is impacting your general comprehension of the subject. this is not something we can be blamed for. sometimes you just gotta do your own homework.

The “different theory” they kept referencing was their own hypothetical scenario based entirely on their own cognitive dissonance and informed solely by their willful ignorance. In one of their replies before getting banned, the poster explained to me that their “theory” is that humans were always humans, evolved from nothin and then bred with Neanderthal. Since they’ve been banned there isn’t much rationale in pointing out the glaring holes in their logic. Anyone else who had a basic understanding of 10th grade biology can see how easy it is to falsify this twaddle

As LSU0408 explained, they have purposely refused to read up on anything that had to do with evolutionary theory because they didn’t believe in it so there was no impetus to understand the MES. It’s a pretty common occurrence. They don’t believe in one aspect of science and close themselves off to it entirely. This degree of willful ignorance leads to some real gems like “This is the first debate I’ve ever been in where people say the monkey in the picture isn’t a monkey”. It would be a laughable moment if it weren’t so sad and ironic. I personally couldn’t imagine entertaining a topic in which I didn’t study the opposing side of the argument as vehemently as Ineould the side I were defending. It has nothing to do with interest in the subject matter and everything to do with understanding your opponents positions and why they hold those views. If you don’t grasp both sides of the topic then you may as well be a blind man trying to discuss the subtle differences in shade that Monet employed in his paintings.

a reply to: peter vlar

The “different theory” they kept referencing was their own hypothetical scenario based entirely on their own cognitive dissonance and informed solely by their willful ignorance.

I beg to differ. True, my theory is individualized. But the counter theory "Creation", everyone over the age of 60 was taught to be "Fact", not theory. Certainly a large portion of that education was based on someone sitting on a cloud waving a magic wand. Obviously some of this can not be true. But none the less, we as adults can decide for ourselves, what and what not to believe.

they have purposely refused to read up on anything that had to do with evolutionary theory because they didn’t believe in it so there was no impetus to understand

Again, I bed to differ! Just because I do not agree does not mean I am not aware of the counter argument. I am painfully aware of it. And what I have observed is the only thing Evolving, is the theory of evolution. The theory as stated by Darwin was straight forward, one species evolved into another. A very basic study of DNA and how it works is sufficient to dispel Darwin's mindset.

It has nothing to do with interest in the subject matter and everything to do with understanding your opponents positions and why they hold those views.

That, works both ways! And something that has been missing from this thread, at minimum. I have spent more time in mind sets and rationale and trains of thought more than I care to remember. I have been extremely attuned to the differing points of view, and their genesis. And that is the most troubling of all.

But, that is not what we are here for, is it?

SPECIES

(1) : a category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus or subgenus, comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding, and being designated by a binomial that consists of the name of a genus followed by a Latin or latinized uncapitalized noun or adjective agreeing grammatically with the genus name
(2) : an individual or kind belonging to a biological species
e : a particular kind of atomic nucleus, atom, molecule, or ion

www.merriam-webster.com...

This is offered of proof of Evolution?
Galapagos finches caught in act of becoming new species

In 1981, the researchers noticed the arrival of a male of a non-native species, the large cactus finch.

Professors Rosemary and Peter Grant noticed that this male proceeded to mate with a female of one of the local species, a medium ground finch, producing fertile young.

I caught a German Shepard and a pug mating and a new species was created named a German pug. A dog is a dog, a finch is a finch. They didn't evolve, they mated. And because the DNA was close enough the off spring were viable.

With selective mating (Breeding) new dog breeds are "Evolving". Breeders pick the "Traits" they want and breed those traits together. That is the difference between dogs. The same I would assume would be the same for finches, or the almighty, human. The only difference one happened in the wild, while the other happened at the hand of man.

A Wolf will mate with a Coyote or Dog when they are in "Heat", and will not "Eat". Why? because they are in the same "Species". It is the same with humans, regardless of skin. Do they create a new species? No, only the same species, with minor variation.

DNA, as I understand it, does not allow within itself a creative power, only replication with minor variations. To "create", or evolve, the DNA code, must be manipulated, something the wildlife is incapable of. They can only breed, minus any external manipulation, breeders.

A shark has been a shark for millions upon millions of years because his DNA, and traits do not allow for any cross breeding. He, will "Eat", and could care less about "Heat". Same holds true for other life forms.

If you don’t grasp both sides of the topic then you may as well be a blind man trying to discuss the subtle differences in shade that Monet employed in his paintings.

Very true. Something I know first hand, everyone seems to want to hold on to Evolution, and I might add, Subduction, in a religious manner, refusing to be open minded to the possibilities. I can, and do quite often compromise. And, have gone to the point of accepting the possibility that both theories hold water. But my opponents refuse. Or at least, that is my view. No progress, real progress can take place, with that mindset.

Scientists, regardless of "Discipline" at the end of the day, are no more than humans, subject to error. Just like all the rest of us!

Reptiles, do not Evolve into mammals. They do not contain sufficient traits to allow this. When Science observes a Alligator giving birth to a monkey, let me know!

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

I caught a German Shepard and a pug mating and a new species was created named a German pug. A dog is a dog, a finch is a finch.

Except all domestic dogs are the same species. The finches are different species. Producing different breeds of dogs is not evolution.

DNA, as I understand it, does not allow within itself a creative power, only replication with minor variations.

Evolution is not "creation", it's simply changes in DNA caused by mutations, which are then subject to natural selection. A semi-aquatic four-legged mammal might be born with slightly smaller hind legs and less fur on its body, and this will prove beneficial when swimming underwater where that animal can find more food and avoid land predators. Its offspring might have more of those little changes, gradually turning a four-legged mammal into today's whales and dolphins: www.youtube.com...



Meet Ambulocetus - a whale with legs: www.youtube.com...

A shark has been a shark for millions upon millions of years because his DNA, and traits do not allow for any cross breeding.

A shark has been a shark for millions upon millions of years because it survives very well the way it is. That of course doesn't mean that no changes happen to sharks at all. There are many different species of sharks, and many species are extinct. We're certainly lucky that the Megalodon isn't swimming around in the oceans anymore. Prehistoric sharks were different to the modern ones: en.wikipedia.org...

~~~

Creationists not understanding the basics of evolution is what makes threads like this frustrating.

originally posted by: turbonium1
Evolution hasn't happened after thousands of years, not even one POSSIBLE sign of it..

That's crystal clear proof of evolution being a complete farce.

www.sciencelearn.org.nz...

I love how you guys always exaggerate to the extreme degree. Not one possible sign of it? There's one big one in humans alone. Only 1/3 of the world can consume lactose past adulthood.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Your entire post can be summarized as "i dont actually understand the theory of evolution and even if I did, I dont have to believe it if i dont want to." in that case, there is no point discussing anything with you except why agreeing to disagree is the cleanest way to end this exchange. And i believe that is self explanatory.

Ironic username, btw.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: turbonium1
Evolution hasn't happened after thousands of years, not even one POSSIBLE sign of it..

That's crystal clear proof of evolution being a complete farce.

www.sciencelearn.org.nz...

I love how you guys always exaggerate to the extreme degree. Not one possible sign of it? There's one big one in humans alone. Only 1/3 of the world can consume lactose past adulthood.

Which means humans are evolving into some kind of lactose-intolerant species, then?


All humans are still humans, and always will be humans, and many who like eating cheese.


Normal.

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

I caught a German Shepard and a pug mating and a new species was created named a German pug. A dog is a dog, a finch is a finch.

Except all domestic dogs are the same species. The finches are different species. Producing different breeds of dogs is not evolution.

DNA, as I understand it, does not allow within itself a creative power, only replication with minor variations.

Evolution is not "creation", it's simply changes in DNA caused by mutations, which are then subject to natural selection. A semi-aquatic four-legged mammal might be born with slightly smaller hind legs and less fur on its body, and this will prove beneficial when swimming underwater where that animal can find more food and avoid land predators. Its offspring might have more of those little changes, gradually turning a four-legged mammal into today's whales and dolphins: www.youtube.com...

Meet Ambulocetus - a whale with legs: www.youtube.com...

A shark has been a shark for millions upon millions of years because his DNA, and traits do not allow for any cross breeding.

A shark has been a shark for millions upon millions of years because it survives very well the way it is. That of course doesn't mean that no changes happen to sharks at all. There are many different species of sharks, and many species are extinct. We're certainly lucky that the Megalodon isn't swimming around in the oceans anymore. Prehistoric sharks were different to the modern ones: en.wikipedia.org...

~~~

Creationists not understanding the basics of evolution is what makes threads like this frustrating.

Every species of shark, must have evolved from prehistoric shark species?

All humans must have evolved from some prehistoric ape-man species, too?


All domestic cats evolved from saber-tooth tigers, maybe?


In being fairly similar in many ways to modern apes, humans must have evolved from some type of prehistoric ape species, for sure!!


Whenever some extinct species looks similar to a species today, it's surely got to have evolved from it, ok?


No species evolving in thousands of years - THAT is clearly the proof there is no such thing as 'evolution'.


Nothing has evolved over all recorded history.

Ancient Egyptians were humans, like today. They had domestic cats, like we do today.

And this was about 5000 years ago, at least.

Same as ever before, same as it will be forever after.

a reply to: turbonium1

So you are very sure that nothing has evolved in that time, or that say humans have gained mutations?

As you are making an extraordinary claim (evolution does not happen). You need to provide extraordinary proof

a reply to: turbonium1

Lactose persistence (the ability for adults to eat lactose and get benefit from it, as opposed to say gastric issues) is actually the mutation. It is most prevalent in populations where cattle were herded, and their milk used as a food source (butter, cheese, milk) as opposed to just eating them for their meat. There are several different instances of this occurring. Its not just one place this arose.

The inability past weening to get benefit from lactose (which is a sugar, in case you do not know) contianing foods, is the state from which the mutation for lactose persistence has come from. If you look at nature, very few creatures can digest lactose in their adult form, for where would they need to do so? As far as we know this is a mutation unique to humans. One which shows an adaption coincident with cattle herding (for milk).

That is one example of evolution neighbour.

Another would be antibiotic resistance in bacterium.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: turbonium1

Lactose persistence (the ability for adults to eat lactose and get benefit from it, as opposed to say gastric issues) is actually the mutation. It is most prevalent in populations where cattle were herded, and their milk used as a food source (butter, cheese, milk) as opposed to just eating them for their meat. There are several different instances of this occurring. Its not just one place this arose.

The inability past weening to get benefit from lactose (which is a sugar, in case you do not know) contianing foods, is the state from which the mutation for lactose persistence has come from. If you look at nature, very few creatures can digest lactose in their adult form, for where would they need to do so? As far as we know this is a mutation unique to humans. One which shows an adaption coincident with cattle herding (for milk).

That is one example of evolution neighbour.

Another would be antibiotic resistance in bacterium.

Lactose is the first thing humans ever ingest.

Lactose intolerance is not a genetic trait of humans, or 'evolving' in humans.

Some drink milk all their lives, some never drink it at all. Same as some eat beef, and some are vegetarians.

I don't drink milk because I don't like the taste of it. But I eat cheese all the time, because I love the taste of it. And I like butter, and ice cream, too.

Humans aren't evolving into a non-dairy species. And it is not a mutation.


It's impossible to support a complete fantasy like evolution.

Every species of life on Earth, today, has always been that species, and always will be.

There is no evolution of a species, into another species. We have 10,000 years of proof now, and 10.000 years from now. And forever after that, as well.


Evolution holds up the remains of an extinct species, or a few pieces of an unknown species, finds the most similar species of it, living today, and proclaims the species living today 'evolved' from the extinct species. Over millions of years, naturally..

They claim to have evidence of this, in their DNA. Both species share much the same DNA.

Every species on Earth shares much the same DNA, of course, but they don't mention that!!


The only thing I consider is actual proof, actual evidence. Evolution has none. It is a farce.

It was built to support the other myths. Life came from primordial soup. It branched off into every other species. Those species evolved into other species, again and again, into species living today.

Gravity was another fantasy that came along. It made planets round. It held oceans in place, curving around spheres. Because they had another fantasy claim, that Earth was not flat, it was a sphere. They needed to invent something that holds oceans around a sphere. Enter 'gravity'.

Earth had to start spinning 1000 miles an hour, the Sun had to be 93 million miles away, and so on, when they turned Earth into a sphere. Gravity spins Earth, and holds the moon in place.

Sell it.

Almost every classroom had a globe of Earth, usually on the teacher's desk. Science class had the classically absurd 'earliest apes evolving into humans' poster, prominently displayed on the wall.

Gravity was accepted as if a proven fact, when it was, and is, a ridiculous theory.

It was a theory that 'explained' every problem away