Can you prove evolution wrong? -- Part 2

a reply to: wildespace
Take as much time as you like (or take your pick what questions to respond to; it's not like there are that many to choose from anyway). I'll check in a couple of weeks or so whether people are done chasing their own tales and patting eachother on the backs. And then again in a couple of weeks, the questions about the Chromosome #2 fusion-storyline I asked many months ago (perhaps even years) also haven't been answered yet. It's a bit tricky for me to find them though, so I'll just link my own thread that I started here 1.5 years ago, I'm sure there are some questions in there as well that haven't been answered or responded to for those with nothing better to do then post on this forum week in week out without ever addressing, reasonably responding to or honestly acknowledging the issues with the so-called "evidence" (and in particular regarding their behaviour and that of their teachers that are 'tickling their ears', which is involved here):

Watch "Gradual Change of Things" or "Development" (Over Time) in Action

originally posted by: wildespace
Jeesh, it's gonna be really hard to go through all those longs posts and try to reply to each question or statement.

Any chance we could keep the posts fairly short and focusing on just one or two things at a time?

Fat chance of that! He does it on purpose so people won't waste time arguing against his walls of texts that are filled with irrelevant tangents. He will never focus on a single topic and get straight to the point. It would make refuting him too easy.

Great video about whale evolution: www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEkcw_M8nfw


The whole video channel is quite interesting, gonna give it a watch over the weekend.

originally posted by: wildespace
Jeesh, it's gonna be really hard to go through all those longs posts and try to reply to each question or statement.

Any chance we could keep the posts fairly short and focusing on just one or two things at a time?

I do want to ask a question about it though for which I have not gotten a satisfactory answer yet, why is it that certain textbooks or musea display or used to display Rhodocetus with flippers and a tail fluke? (or what is the reason Dr. Gingerich, who found the fossil, gives in the interview below?)

2 questions, do you require an even shorter comment than the one above to answer or respond to either of these 2 questions truthfully or honestly? The 2nd question should be really easy to answer (and one can even limit their answer to 1 or 2 words). It does require one to watch the video and be able to process or understand what Dr. Gingerich, who found the fossil, is acknowledging* there. I said something about speculation in the comment before that (among other related subjects), a comment to which you responded with by pointing out that (among other things):

Theory of evolution isn't just some blind guess or fantasy;...

Followed by a reference to the so-called "mountain of evidence" for evolutionary philosophies (not "the theory of evolution" as defined by some people that conveniently leave out the subject of common descent, which was the main topic of evolutionary ideas/philosophies in my commentary, as it was in your comment about whales and the comment I was initially responding to in this thread) that I have concluded is a house of cards by considering the relevant facts/certainties/truths and "drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction". As per Newton's recommendation that I'm partly quoting there.

* acknowledge: google dictionary

1. accept or admit the existence or truth of.

That would be the opposite of denying reality, denying inconvenient facts/truths, or simply conveniently ignoring them or distracting from them with red herrings and other techniques.

Do you need any further assistance to "focus...on just one or two things at a time?"

Do you consider this so far as us having a genuine conversation where both sides are willing to consider what the other person is saying or asking, and perhaps even attempting to understand what issues they might have with the other persons views/beliefs and way of arguing or thinking? (regardless that it's electronic and not verbal)

Does this comment to you appear respectful to you? Even when there might be some things in it that are perhaps not 'tickling your ears'? (not what you want to hear or be asked or think about in terms of self-reflection, which I highly encourage and is also the reason why I'm asking this particular question for my own self-reflection regarding 1 Peter 3:15).

Have you ever heard of the phrase "Know thyself"? (open question to everyone who may read it)

If this comment has already become too long because of new questions that I was curious about, is it really that hard* to focus on the opening of my comment and in particular the only 2 questions that my initial response to you started with after a short introduction? *: as you state when you described it as "it's going to be really hard...". Or was that just more a comment out of convenience or some unwillingness to not answer either of those 2 questions for some reason? I'd love to hear it if that's the case and I won't judge or condemn you for it, I actually find it quite understandable and I'm very used to it on ATS. I don't find it particularly useful though, but perhaps this comment can make it more useful in terms of encouraging self-reflection and doing self-reflection (for everyone).

a reply to: wildespace
Just to be clear, what I refer to as self-reflection is sometimes also referred to as introspection in the field of psychology, which I find too fancy a term for my taste, so I'm sticking with the term self-reflection or 'know thyself' even though those terms have been historically used to refer to something other than what some people call introspection (which sounds really smart; I have no desire to sound smart, my main concerns revolve around clarity and understandability). And those words "self", "reflection", "know" and "thyself" seem easier to understand for especially young people than "intro" and "spection" combined. That's not saying they don't use self-reflection in the field of psychology as well to refer to the same concept, such as here for example (no need for reading that link, just an example):

Introspection in Psychology: 87 Self-Reflection Questions, Exercises & Worksheets

... The informal reflection process can be described as examining our own internal thoughts and feelings and reflecting on what they mean. ...

Here's something to practice some self-reflection on (for everyone here, I recommend reading my signature and text under my name first):




I so hope you've ever watched Stargate S03E03 for the self-reflection to have more of a chance of success though and that you're familiar with the admiration for Lucius Lavin that he receives in that episode by those taken in by his fancy storytelling. Even though his stories are filled with logical flaws and contradictions, or simply entirely unreasonable and leaving out inconvenient details that when asked about, he dodges or comes up with a clever answer that only leads to more questions by those who are not taken in by him (such as Sheppard). But people are blinded by something to notice it.
Here's some more to reflect on:

Oh wait, found a full version:

originally posted by: whereislogic
I do want to ask a question about it though for which I have not gotten a satisfactory answer yet, why is it that certain textbooks or musea display or used to display Rhodocetus with flippers and a tail fluke?

I'll stick to this one for now, for mine and everybody else's convenience.

I don't profess to know all the details about this, or what their reasoning was for this, but I'd assume that they had incomplete skeleton. What they did have, looked whale-like enough, so they decided to speculate and add the tail fluke and front flippers. Subsequent fossil discoveries showed that the Rodhocetus didn't have tail fluke or flippers, effectively making it a cetacean with legs.

This doesn't magically disprove the "from land to water" theory, it just shows that the Rodhocetus was a whale-like creature that still retained its front legs (which, most likely, were webbed).

a reply to: wildespaceGet them to try and explain where the RH- blood factor comes from. And how that factor supports Evolution!

They will either downplay its importance, or simply ignore it like they do everything else, that does't fit their agenda of ignorance!

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

You really need to put down that glass of Kool-Aid if you think Anthropologists and evolutionary Biologists have some secret agenda.

Everyone knows about the ABO blood group system but most people are pretty clueless about the Rh blood group which consists of 50 unique antigens. The 5 most important antigens in the Rh group are D, C, c, E and e. When talking about Rh positive and Rh negative, we are talking about one specific antigen out of 50, the D antigen. More specifically, when referring to Rh neg, were talking about 15% of the population who do not have the D antigen and this antigen is the result of 2 genes, RHD and RHCE.

As of now, we don't have an exact time or place where the mutation giving rise to the above mentioned alleles occurred. All we can do is hypothesize until more genetic data is compiled, particularly archaic DNA. Because the ability to sample and test archaic DNA is literally only a few years old, there are limits on how far back in time we can go but the ability to do so is constantly expanding. The oldest DNA to be studied is 400 KA from Sima de Los Huesos but that's a whole separate topic...

One thing we have determined thus far is that the D antigen is primarily found in European populations and some from the Fertile Crescent. Both of these areas are known habitats for Neanderthal so a possibility is that the allele was inherited from admixture events. Another possibility is the protections from toxoplasma gondii, better known as toxoplasmosis and it is typically transferred from feline fecal matter. To be more clear, Rh- individuals had a faster negative reaction to toxoplasmosis than African or Asian individuals where the D allele is rare. Until cats were domesticated a few thousand years ago, they were absent from Europe but common in other parts of the world thus the positive D worked just fine when coming into contact with toxoplasma gondii. Approximately 30% of Europeans test positive for toxoplasmosis.

As mentioned above, in Europe where there were no cats post LGM. But there isn't any clear correlation between the two yet so I'm simply running with hypothesis. Since you seem to think this has some other level of importance, perhaps you could enlighten us with your thoughts and hold off on the condescension for a hot minute

a reply to: peter vlar

You really need to put down that glass of Kool-Aid if you think Anthropologists and evolutionary Biologists have some secret agenda.

And you ask me to be less condescending? No, not all of them, obviously, just the ones that slant the facts to theories that just don't hold water, in laymen terms. You can speak "Laymen", right? Okay then...

To be a bit more specific, RH - (Negative) means a person is lacking the Rhesus Monkey protein. And, 85 % of the population have the RH +. But you know that...

Generally speaking, the RH + can go back 200,000 years, but, the RH- only goes to 30,000 to 35,000 years back. You speak of cats? Funny, its of note that the domesticated dog goes back to the same timeline. I find that quite interesting.. VERY INTERESTING.

At any rate...

Presently, there are now carriers of the RH-, as parents, that produce RH +, and visa versa. But I strongly suspect that wasn't always the case. From my research if a live birth occurs it can be either but seems to follow a 15 generational cycle. And that is in the general public. But that doesn't hold true for those groups that tend to keep their "Bloodlines" pure, probably close to 2 % of the population. And of even greater interest are who compiles that 2(5)%.

There are traits that can be associated with the RH - blood groups. Of course it is debatable, but if only a few of them are actually true, then what we have is actually a sub species to the RH +. For myself I do not believe it to be a mutation, at all. But rather a hybridization of human beings occurring some 30,000 years ago.

Please let me first clarify, that this IS NOT a list put together by our website personally. This is a "cumulative list" of certain characteristics that a majority of people with Rh Negative Blood are said to share in common.

Some of these may sound silly, some familiar; but this is part of the information you will find online related to the subject or Rh-Negatives. I have simply made the information available for you to review in a central location on this site.

A feeling of not belonging
Truth seekers
Sense of a "Mission" in life
Empathy & Compassion for Mankind
An extra rib or vertebra, some are born with a tail(called a “Cauda”)
Higher than average IQ
ESP Ability
Love of Space & Science
More sensitive vision & other senses.
Increased of psychic/intuitive abilities
Cannot be cloned
Lower body temperature
Higher blood pressure (some say lower)
Predominantly blue, green, or Hazel eyes
Red or reddish tint to hair color
Increased sensitivity to heat & sunlight
Unexplained Scares
Piercing Eyes
Tend to be Healers
Empathetic Illnesses
Ability to disrupt electrical devices
Prone to Alien Abductions
Experience unexplained phenomenon
Physic Dreams and/or Ability

Traits of Rh- Negative Individuals

Obviously the above traits do not apply to the entire population as a group, with some exceptions, due to the two races interbreeding over time. In other words, some of the traits can rub off.....

Add on top of that the issues involved with cross mating the RH+ and RH-. Live births were not the norm in history, and only recently with medication can the child survive. The condition is known as hemolytic or Rh disease. But isn't a disease at all, its a normal antibody reaction, to a alien substance. The immune system is working exactly as it was intended.
So, because of the above traits, I consider RH - to be a separate, sub race, and all RH+ to be the parent race, regardless of color of skin.
If one looks at the traits you will notice "Higher than average IQ". Other sites state the IQ is actually "insanely" high. It is said Nicola Tesla was a RH - so their might be a grain of truth in it. But if one extrapolates the higher IQ, and was maintained in "Family" bloodlines, it wouldn't be long before the RH -'s were subjugating the simpler minded RH+'s. Which if one looks at the present world, and that group of "Pure Bloods" or 2 % at the top, one might see, that, that is, exactly what happened. Its not a club at the top, its pure bloodline family's. "They Live, We Sleep".
Its a list of "global" shakers, makers, and breakers.

Former U.S Presidents
Former President Eisenhower Type O-Neg
Former President John F. Kennedy Type AB-Neg
Former President Richard Nixon Type O-Neg
Former President Bill Clinton AB-Neg
Former President George W. Bush Sr. Type A-Neg

Monarchs
Pharaoh Ramses II Type B-Neg
Shroud Of Turin was AB-Neg is this correct?
Prince Charles Type O-Neg and his late Grandmother
Queen Elizabeth Type O-Neg
Prince William is also negative

Interesting Authors
Zacharia Sitchin Type Neg
Brad Steiger O-Neg
Erik Von Daniken Type O-Neg
Robert Anton Wilson Type Neg

Celebrities
Mick Jagger Type AB-Neg (Of running with the devil fame)
Fox Mulder “X-files” Type O-Neg
Marilyn Monroe was Type AB-Neg
Dan Aykroyd Type O-Neg

High Profile Murders
O.J. Simpson is Type A-Neg “who killed”
Ron Goldman Type O-Neg
Laci Peterson Type O-Neg (remember she was kidnapped and killed)

Monkey Blood, RH Negative Blood Types, Presidents And Royalty

But wait, there's more.........

Astor
Bundy
Collins
DuPont
Freeman
Kennedy
Li
Onassis
Reynolds
Rockefeller
Rothschild
Russell
Van Duyn
Merovingian (Royal Family)

The Dragon Legacy: The Secret History of an Ancient Bloodline Page 380

There may be other "Traits" that science has not identified, yet. Some believe the pure blood families at the top can do some rather, unbelievable things, and that, they can at will, allow other "Beings" to cohabit in their bodies. This is in reference to "Satanic" activities. Though my research does not go too deeply into those aspects, from what I have seen with my own eyes, I wouldn't doubt it.

Since you seem to think this has some other level of importance, perhaps you could enlighten us with your thoughts and hold off on the condescension for a hot minute

Now for my "Attitude". I am of the opinion that if the above it true, then these families are directing, editing, adjusting, buying, selling, all aspects of our reality. In simpler terms, they are the creators of today's matrix, or Paradigms of life. To include, history, science, politics, monetary policy, war, and Religion, globally.

I do not view all RH- to be evil, in fact, quite the opposite. Things happen for reasons, and just because we don't see the reason right away, doesn't mean there isn't one. And, I am wise enough, to keep certain things, to myself.

So, when I see "Their" BS, I'm going to call them out on it, and sometimes it wont be pretty! They are natural con artists!

Now, you want to know why fluoride is in the water, and Mercury in our teeth? Hot moment over.

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: turbonium1
SHOW EVIDENCE OF AT LEAST ONE SPECIES CURRENTLY EVOLVING, OR HAVING SOME INDICATION OF EVOLVING, OVER THE PAST 10,000 YEARS.

6 Animals That Are Rapidly Evolving
7 Animals That Are Evolving Right Before Our Eyes
Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island

Snails are evolving different penises.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

Evolution is not limited to animals, you know.

In the 1880s a flower called Spartina anglica originated in Southampton Water in the UK.

In the mid-1900s another new flower, Senecio cambrensis, naturally speciated in North Wales in the UK, while around the same time two species of flower Tragopogon mirus and T. miscellus appeared in Washington State in the US.

www.bbc.co.uk...

Elephants are going to fly with their ears in about 10 million years, but it's impossible to identify the change over 10,000 years. But it is happening, okay?

Extremely unlikely, flight is achieved by use of front limbs, not ears. But the elephants are definitely losing their tusks, which allows them to survive poaching. www.independent.co.uk...

Elephants are somehow noticing tusks are a big problem, and so elephants are now starting to evolve without any tusks!

Are you kidding?


Animals cannot breed out any 'part' they have, because they'd be better off to not have that specific 'part' anymore!!!

Every rhino should be 'hornless', tigers should be skinless, cows shouldn't be eating so much!!


Tusks cannot be 'evolved' out of a species.

Females don't have tusks. Adult males have tusks.

Would most female elephants breed with large-tusked males, or non-tusked males?


Tusks have defended elephants against all types of predators, to the very end, if needed.

A poacher is a predator, too.

Tusked males defend the group against another predator, with a lethal weapon.

The tusked leaders defended them, and without them, none would have survived against a predator like poacher-man!


Elephants would want EVEN BIGGER TUSKS, if anything at all!!


Why would anyone believe such s$%t ???

It's called 'adaptation'.

A bird will adapt to it's environment, but it's still the very same species of bird.

edit: nvm

a reply to: turbonium1
Except the bird does not adapt to its enviroment in the sense of evolution. Ypu do not evolve new traits as you age, you are either born with them (via a heritable mutation) or you don't.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: turbonium1
SHOW EVIDENCE OF AT LEAST ONE SPECIES CURRENTLY EVOLVING, OR HAVING SOME INDICATION OF EVOLVING, OVER THE PAST 10,000 YEARS.

6 Animals That Are Rapidly Evolving
7 Animals That Are Evolving Right Before Our Eyes
Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island

Snails are evolving different penises.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

Evolution is not limited to animals, you know.

In the 1880s a flower called Spartina anglica originated in Southampton Water in the UK.

In the mid-1900s another new flower, Senecio cambrensis, naturally speciated in North Wales in the UK, while around the same time two species of flower Tragopogon mirus and T. miscellus appeared in Washington State in the US.

www.bbc.co.uk...

Elephants are going to fly with their ears in about 10 million years, but it's impossible to identify the change over 10,000 years. But it is happening, okay?

Extremely unlikely, flight is achieved by use of front limbs, not ears. But the elephants are definitely losing their tusks, which allows them to survive poaching. www.independent.co.uk...

Elephants are somehow noticing tusks are a big problem, and so elephants are now starting to evolve without any tusks!

Are you kidding?


Animals cannot breed out any 'part' they have, because they'd be better off to not have that specific 'part' anymore!!!

Every rhino should be 'hornless', tigers should be skinless, cows shouldn't be eating so much!!


Tusks cannot be 'evolved' out of a species.

Females don't have tusks. Adult males have tusks.

Would most female elephants breed with large-tusked males, or non-tusked males?


Tusks have defended elephants against all types of predators, to the very end, if needed.

A poacher is a predator, too.

Tusked males defend the group against another predator, with a lethal weapon.

The tusked leaders defended them, and without them, none would have survived against a predator like poacher-man!


Elephants would want EVEN BIGGER TUSKS, if anything at all!!


Why would anyone believe such s$%t ???

That's not how evolution works, and you should know it well by know, but you still come up with these childish rebuttals. Mutations mean that some elephants may be born with smaller tusks, or maybe even no tusks at all. Since elephants use the tusks for various purposes (offence, defence, digging, etc.) natural selection has been favouring them having tusks so far. But with the poachers being a new factor, elephants with smaller tusks or no tusks at all have a greater chance to survive and have offspring. Tusk shape and size are inherited. www.britannica.com...

Tusks can be evolved out of species, just like wings can be evolved out of a bird. Or do you think God played a cruel joke on the Kiwi by creating it without wings?

a reply to: Akragon

Yup.

Just look at the dem party.

Way too easy question.

But seriously folks, I might be here all week.

Shouldn't everything move forward?

Evolution is beneficial for survival.

It's up in the air for me.

Or are you beating the dino to mammal again?

Everyone knows creation is where it's at.

a reply to: Revolution9 Kudos for a magnificent post! I agree with all you've written and would like to add that I feel the movement to evolve is written into our code by the Creator - it is a simple command that says "grow" and means that perpetually each organism is genetically driven with each new one that is formed to push the boundaries further each time, and sometimes this doesn't work and we get genetic defects and the attempted improvements fail, but at other times the changes are upgrades and they advance that species. I feel that all of this is a journey along the path to perfection that our Creator wants everything to achieve - so that eventually every organism has become as perfect as it can be.

originally posted by: DumpBox
a reply to: Revolution9 Kudos for a magnificent post! I agree with all you've written and would like to add that I feel the movement to evolve is written into our code by the Creator - it is a simple command that says "grow" and means that perpetually each organism is genetically driven with each new one that is formed to push the boundaries further each time, and sometimes this doesn't work and we get genetic defects and the attempted improvements fail, but at other times the changes are upgrades and they advance that species. I feel that all of this is a journey along the path to perfection that our Creator wants everything to achieve - so that eventually every organism has become as perfect as it can be.

Just curious, if that is your explanation, then why are most mutations copy errors? Why would a creator use a mostly random process as a primary mechanism for change?

a reply to: burgerbuddy

Evolution is beneficial for survival.

that is a very generalizing statement about an arbitrary process that has killed as many species as it has improved

very easily. If evolution was how it works we would see many examples of fossilised records showing transitions.
We would also in the course of human experience have descriptions describing this phenomena.

A moth changing colour or patterns to blend with their environment is not an example of species evolving from one thing to next. That process is a metamorphosis.

a reply to: AthlonSavage

Ignorance is no excuse. Do your homework.


Fossils Reveal Truth About Darwin's Theory
By Robin Lloyd | February 11, 2009 04:42am ET

www.livescience.com...

With the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin this week, people around the world are celebrating his role as the father of evolutionary theory. Events and press releases are geared, in part, to combat false claims made by some who would discredit the theory. One frequently cited "hole" in the theory: Creationists claim there are no transitional fossils, aka missing links. Biologists and paleontologists, among others, know this claim is false. As key evidence for evolution and species' gradual change over time, transitional creatures should resemble intermediate species, having skeletal and other body features in common with two distinct groups of animals, such as reptiles and mammals, or fish and amphibians.

At least hundreds, possibly thousands, of transitional fossils have been found so far by researchers. The exact count is unclear because some lineages of organisms are continuously evolving. Here is a short list of transitional fossils documented by Prothero and that add to the mountain of evidence for Charles Darwin's theory. A lot of us relate most to fossils of life closely related to humans, so the list focuses on mammals and other vertebrates, including dinosaurs.