Can you prove evolution wrong? -- Part 2

a reply to: turbonium1

The only thing I consider is actual proof, actual evidence.

Says the guy that believes the earth is flat...

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: turbonium1

The only thing I consider is actual proof, actual evidence.

Says the guy that believes the earth is flat...

Because there IS proof of it being flat.

Planes have instruments measure level flight. When they fly level for nearly 1000 miles, as shown by their instruments, and at the same altitude, also shown by their instruments, it is proven to be flat.

And if you think that doesn't prove a flat Earth, you need to explain why.

a reply to: turbonium1

Wash, rinse, repeat...

Still looking for the mutation that turned the octopus into a wombat...

Oh it's a slow process? Mutants breeding for thousands of years.. ? Think how illogical that is. Show me proof that Downs syndrome is going to take over. I'll give them a million years.

Beauty disproves Darwin. You desire perfection, not mutation. The definition of beauty is absolutely the perfect example of a specimen. If these forms are not definite, attractions to positive traits would not exist.

There's no way two 3 armed people will commence the outbreeding of the 2 arm population for millions of years straight.

Apparently, we are all evolving into a new species that can't eat cheese, or ice cream.

It's a slow process, of course.

When evolution doesn't happen over 10,000 years, it doesn't happen over millions of years, either.

I'm proposing the THEORY OF PURPLE FLYING ELEPHANTS. It is the theory that the entire planet is slowly evolving humans into purple flying elephants. It takes several million years, so it cannot be easily detected. But in about 5 million years, we'll all be purple elephants, flying around the Earth.

Science classes will teach students about it, and put 'man to purple elephant' evolution posters on their walls.

a reply to: turbonium1

So you think it a flat earth and don't believe in evolution so what are theories on how we got here and why the earth would be flat?.

originally posted by: turbonium1
Every species of shark, must have evolved from prehistoric shark species?

Correct. Not from a single species, but from several.

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

Also correct.

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

Domestic cats evolved from Felis sylvestris lybica (the African wildcat) which, by the way, was discovered buried in ancient Egyptian cat burial grounds. icatcare.org...

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

That's just one line of investigation, others being paleontology and genetics.

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

Not necessarily from it, but from the common ancestor.

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

Except lots of species have evolved in the last few thousands of years, as I have already pointed out to you (with links).

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.

5000 years is too short a time frame to see more notable changes. Try 5 million years.

originally posted by: wildespace
I have two questions for Creationists:

#1 Why do whales have remnants of hind limbs in their body?

#2 Why did God create Adam with nipples?

I have another question for creationists. Why did George Clooney get an award from the Pope? Was he doing work within the Catholic church that prompted the Pope to give an award?

Why would a man like Clooney who believes in marriage by his marriage to Amal Clooney support a clergy that defies scripture in forbidding marriage to its clergy?

And if Clooney is supporting a false church, what does that say about Muslims who marry possible Catholics movie stars? Does that mean that a Muslim is more concerned about a man's wealth than his stance against false theology?

Muslims are supposed to be staunch creationists. Evolution is considered heresy in Islam. They don't teach it in Saudi Arabia.

originally posted by: turbonium1
Which means humans are evolving into some kind of lactose-intolerant species, then?

No it means that this particular mutation helped certain groups of homo sapien populations survive. There is no set direction of evolution. Everything just slowly changes as genetic mutations accumulate in a species.

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

It's not about liking cheese, it's about being able to DIGEST it without getting sick. Some cheeses can be digested without lactase, by the way. Aged cheeses like cheddar are usually okay to eat, even if one is lactose intolerant. Certain unprocessed raw unpasteurized milks can be digested as well because they contain the enzyme that helps it be digested. If you think this is just made up, then read the data provided instead of being so willfully ignorant about it.

Anyways, that's neither here nor there. That mutation is a clear sign of evolution, and you claimed there were none, so consider that claim debunked.

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

This is a complete lie. The exact gene for it has been isolated. Yes, it is proof of evolution. Otherwise you must offer a more plausible explanation based on evidence, and we KNOW you don't have that.

Nothing has evolved over all recorded history.

This has already been proved wrong, but I guess when in doubt, ignore the contradictory evidence and repeat the original lie.

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.

You just keep lying and lying. Evolution has been confirmed in a lab. Speciation has been accomplished. Sorry that you hate evolution, but lying about it doesn't change anything. Science doesn't care if people deny it, the facts speak for themselves.

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

www.talkorigins.org...

Doesn't lying get old?

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

All of that has been proved and confirmed. LOL!

a reply to: AdKiller

Do you have any real arguments or just straw mans? You guys are absurd liars trying to justify your religion by lying about science. It's pathetic.

I can prove evolution true. Genesis 10 says that each tribe of the sons of Noah had their tongue and speech. The next Chapter, Genesis 11, says that at the Tower of Babel when God confused and multiplied the languages that the world was of one speech and one language.

And yet I have had Baptists tell me, who live in Kill Devil Hills, N.C., you know who you are, that the Bible never contradicts itself.

A prominent creation science teacher I used to watch videos of, Dr. Kent Hovind, said of the Bible, it's all true or it's all false. They either spoke one language or they didn't. Therefore it is all false. Therefore the story of creation as it occurs in the Bible is untrue, according to Kent Hovind, who was imprisoned for 10 years on tax violations in addition to being a creation science preacher.

a reply to: turbonium1

Learn some biology. Mammals all loose the ability to tolerate lactose as the grow up. Humans evolved the ability to tolerate it. However this is not universal. Why? Because it's the newer trait.

Another question for creationists:

After the Great Flood, why did all the polar bears head straight to the Arctic, all the penguins to the Antarctic, and all the kangaroos promptly hopped to Australia?

originally posted by: wildespace
Another question for creationists:

After the Great Flood, why did all the polar bears head straight to the Arctic, all the penguins to the Antarctic, and all the kangaroos promptly hopped to Australia?

Because they wanted to make Jesus look dumb for engaging in sorcery, like walking on water even though the old testament forbids magic.

originally posted by: SickWave

originally posted by: wildespace
Another question for creationists:

After the Great Flood, why did all the polar bears head straight to the Arctic, all the penguins to the Antarctic, and all the kangaroos promptly hopped to Australia?

Because they wanted to make Jesus look dumb for engaging in sorcery, like walking on water even though the old testament forbids magic.

How about magically impregnating women without waiting for their explicit consent? Witchcraft indeed...

a reply to: SickWave

However Jesus states (or actually to be truthful someone says he did, as this is not a first person statement) that followers of JC are exempt from the prohibitions of the old testament, hence all the pig eating going on SO does Mr Chirst actually prohibit magic? Given he performs it (oh wait its called miracles) as do several saints, and followers. We can argue the difference, however I think you will have to be aware, miracles are not unique to the bible, and several bible events are magical. QED, glass houses, stones, bad idea.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: turbonium1
Which means humans are evolving into some kind of lactose-intolerant species, then?

No it means that this particular mutation helped certain groups of homo sapien populations survive. There is no set direction of evolution. Everything just slowly changes as genetic mutations accumulate in a species.

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

It's not about liking cheese, it's about being able to DIGEST it without getting sick. Some cheeses can be digested without lactase, by the way. Aged cheeses like cheddar are usually okay to eat, even if one is lactose intolerant. Certain unprocessed raw unpasteurized milks can be digested as well because they contain the enzyme that helps it be digested. If you think this is just made up, then read the data provided instead of being so willfully ignorant about it.

Anyways, that's neither here nor there. That mutation is a clear sign of evolution, and you claimed there were none, so consider that claim debunked.

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

This is a complete lie. The exact gene for it has been isolated. Yes, it is proof of evolution. Otherwise you must offer a more plausible explanation based on evidence, and we KNOW you don't have that.

Nothing has evolved over all recorded history.

This has already been proved wrong, but I guess when in doubt, ignore the contradictory evidence and repeat the original lie.

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.

You just keep lying and lying. Evolution has been confirmed in a lab. Speciation has been accomplished. Sorry that you hate evolution, but lying about it doesn't change anything. Science doesn't care if people deny it, the facts speak for themselves.

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

www.talkorigins.org...

Doesn't lying get old?

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

All of that has been proved and confirmed. LOL!

Most life is based on DNA.

Evolution happens to sprout new species out of simple-cell microbes, which works superbly because of....

Evolution takes place over millions, and billions, of years.


Scientists don't know how to create life, or evolve a species into another species, while creating life, or creating new species from others, cannot be explained.

The scientists find an explanation for aircraft, computers, skyscrapers, sculptures, paintings, music, and many other creations - from a species using higher intelligence creating them, largely, with intent.


It seems to me that creating life would take far more intelligence than to create a computer, or a plane, no?

We would've done it, if we could. It takes intelligence to create a plane, so why would the creation of life itself be dumb luck?

A plane builds itself out of nothing, and flies. All by luck..


Magic. Sure.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: turbonium1

Learn some biology. Mammals all loose the ability to tolerate lactose as the grow up. Humans evolved the ability to tolerate it. However this is not universal. Why? Because it's the newer trait.

I've always liked cheese, but I've always hated milk.

Perhaps my ancestors were early 'Cheddar-Man', millions of years ago! Gouda-Man was enemy, who all died in battles. Thus, an evolution of the superior Cheddar-species.

You are talking about distinct traits within a single species.


A human is taller now, which has always been available in humans, with more nutrition, etc.

Many factors are involved.

That is not a species turning into another species - nothing works like that.


Do you think mutation is a progression of a species? The very opposite.

And the species is not evolved by mutations into another, separate species, either.

a reply to: turbonium1

what's your theory again? Do you have a superior model to explain diversity in species? Please share it with us. Prove evolution wrong.