Can you prove evolution wrong? -- Part 2

originally posted by: Skyfox81

Truly, I mean no offence or negativity. But is there any honest, scientific, reason, why evolution.... the fact not the theory is wrong?

Lets discuss like adults.

When was it proven a fact though? It has never been observed in a lab. Mice remain mice, fruit flies remain fruit flies, finches remain finches, microbes remain microbes. Organisms cannot change into another kind of organism, despite over 100 years of selective breeding in labs throughout the world trying to prove it. It's hard to prove a negative, but I think the failure to demonstrate an organism changing into another organism shows evolution doesn't happen. There have been a combination of millions of fruit fly generations across the world, many undergoing intense selective breeding conditions, yet they remain fruit flies...

more evidence:
humans co-existed with dinosaurs (link)

The evidence for "missing links" is essentially non-existent. Despite the theorized millions of years where these transitional hominids were walking the earth, we have yet to find even one complete fossil of them. For example, look at the lucy fossil, its remains are wayyyy too sparse to make any sort of rational discernment on what it actually was:



Majority of the skull - missing. And this is one of the more complete "missing links".

WWII plane found beneath 260 feet of ice (link) demonstrates the ice layers form wayyy faster than theorized by evolutionary theorists.

"Ooparts" are out of place artifacts that disprove the timeline of evolution. These are everywhere, but here are some examples :ooparts disproving the possibility of evolution (link)

Not to mention, mechanistically, evolution's theorized piece-by-piece mutations could not have sequentially formed any organ that requires multiple components to be there simultaneously. I made a thread about it here (link)



I could go on if you're interested. Evolution is a fairy tale that has distorted the process of people's self-realization.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: turbonium1

Again, there is no "evolving into" anything. Life just slowly changes in varying environments. There is no end goal. It's not that complicated to understand but you purposely choose not to so you can spew your verbal diarrhea.

It's called 'adaptation'.

No, that's called evolution.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Try that again

Sad how humans are still fighting over Gods. Evolutionary theory did not do anything, just humans

a reply to: Quadrivium

Noiden commented and if he would not have made a leap of faith by adding "Evolution just is! End of story" we would not be having this conversation.

He added it on to append on his existing point and say that evolution was a natural process! I can't believe you can't grasp the context after having it explained to you by both me and him. You dishonestly separated that one phrase from the rest of his paragraph to present it out of context and it was obvious. That fallacy is called quote mining. In reference to any natural process, "it just is" is an acceptable alternative to having an intended purpose, in fact it's the exact opposite of such.

Pretending that he was suggesting there was no evidence for evolution and it "just happens" as an explanation is flat out dishonest and you know it. Next time keep people's paragraphs and points together instead of quote mining and this entire thing could be avoided. Kind of a waste to keep beating this dead horse, though....

originally posted by: cooperton
Yeah I messed up there.

Regardless, there's no complete remains of a missing link from this common ancestor. Considering the theorized amount of time that this lineage would have been, it is very telling that we cannot find one complete unambiguous fossil of this transition. It strongly insists there was no such thing as the evolutionary narrative.

I respect you admitting your mistake, but you just took a sharp left turn away from what is being discussed about human and chimp DNA. You always do this. You completely ignored the post refuting you and change the subject. No surprise all of your other threads start on a single topic but eventually go through all the same repetitive typical creationist talking points. Present claim, get refuted, divert to next claim, eventually get back to original claim. I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if you shifted back to dinosaurs living with humans now. The BS never ends.

originally posted by: cooperton
You're defending your bigotry by making another bigoted statement?

Calling YOU a dishonest person is not bigotry, it's a statement of fact.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Skyfox81
a reply to: turbonium1

Ok, so given evolution has way more evidence than gravity, what evidence do you have evolution doesn't exist?

Neither one has any evidence, so it's a moot question anyway.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
Sad how this evolution theory divided people and makes war.

It's quite obviously the religion that is dividing people. You don't see creationists campaigning against cells, germs, atoms and most other scientific theories and multiple theists are in this thread agreeing with evolution. It's just the silly young earthers that reject evolution because it conflicts with their literal versions of ancient texts. It's cherry picking. They have no problem with all other science acquired by the same method, but for evolution they have double standards. You are on the losing side if you are defending such intellectual dishonesty.

a reply to: Barcs

the best part is how they pat themselves on the back after every second post

Its like religion celebrating on the 10 yard line while science scores the winning touchdown at every game... lol

a reply to: Barcs

As I said we will have to agree to disagree then.
Care to answer the question at the end of the post you quoted? Maybe we can be more productive.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Try that again

Sad how humans are still fighting over Gods. Evolutionary theory did not do anything, just humans

Honest question:
Seeing how Evolution works, if religion went extinct, what would fill its place.
Science?
Do you not think people would find something to fight about if that were the case as well?

a reply to: Quadrivium

Honest answers.

(a) Religion or spirituality will not go extinct. However, current religions might become less popular. Its the way of the species.
(b) Science is not going to fill the place of the metaphysical. It does not have anything to do with it.
(c) One can be religious/spiritual and also agree with or work in the sciences (I am deeply spiritual, and I am a a scientist, neither conflicts with the other).

We as a species are always going to fight about something. Out6of9Balance, was mistakenly attributing conflict to the theory of evolution. Which I pointed out was wrong. The theory did not do it, the way humans reacted to it, because it offended their sensibilities did. IF Darwin had dumbed it down, and not mentioned that we as a species share close kinship with apes, there would probably have been less of a problem by the deeply religious, who see humanity as their dieites special snowflakes.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Barcs

the best part is how they pat themselves on the back after every second post

Its like religion celebrating on the 10 yard line while science scores the winning touchdown at every game... lol

You act as if people who believe in God don't believe in science, or as if science is totally alien to them.

Again, a bigoted comment about religious people.

I like science, empirical science, not fantasy theories that aren't based in reality. I constantly post and address real empirical science to portray my points. If you believe in science so much, and think it is the touchdown, then argue science with me... It is what lead me to where I am today. Pure, unbiased, empirical science. You can start with my post at the top of this page.

a reply to: cooperton

And for the second time... im speaking of the religious people in this thread... and other threads like it

This does not in any way imply that all religion people do the same thing... just as not all religious people are dishonest

You may like science, but you don't like evolution because it conflicts with your world view... and it seems you will lie cheat and steal to try to prove it wrong...

Fortunately we have some scientists in the house which means... you're arguing out of your league

Which also means we see the same old techniques and tactics

And by the way as you already should know... i believe in God

Just not your god

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: cooperton
it seems you will lie cheat and steal to try to prove it wrong...

Can you show an example? I try my best to never do any of those things.

And by the way as you already should know... i believe in God

Just not your god

I believe in the Most High God. Source of all. Transcendent of the limitations of time. Archetype of humankind. Love. Goodness. Truth. Justice. Mercy. Peace.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Barcs

As I said we will have to agree to disagree then.
Care to answer the question at the end of the post you quoted? Maybe we can be more productive.

There is nothing to disagree about. You are trying to change the context of Noinden's post, and the only one with authority to tell you what he meant by that is Noinden, himself, and he explained it. Are you trying to say you are inside his head and understand the context of his statement better than him? It was pretty obvious what was being said, IMO. You just pounced on a catch phrase you didn't like, isolated it out of context and didn't realize it wasn't saying what you think it was.

What, in your opinion, is the best evidence for evolution?

See if I answered this with "evolution just is," then you have a reason to be annoyed.

Regardless, this thread is about proving evolution wrong. Name a single scientific research paper you can refute that backs evolution.

Evolution doesn't hinge on one single piece of evidence, it is built on all of the evidence put together. Evidence which spans across many independent fields of scientific inquiry like chemistry, biology, genetics, and geology, with hundreds of thousands of research papers to back it.

talkorigins.com...

biologywise.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

humanorigins.si.edu...

en.wikipedia.org...

Most of which is compiled in the following thread along with MUCH MORE:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: cooperton
You act as if people who believe in God don't believe in science, or as if science is totally alien to them.

Again, a bigoted comment about religious people.

No need to "act" when this has been demonstrated by you ad nauseam.

I like science, empirical science, not fantasy theories that aren't based in reality.

Translation: I only support science that doesn't conflict with my personal fantasies.

Can you show an example? I try my best to never do any of those things.

Example: You claimed that evolution is impossible because you can't remove a human heart and survive it and when your baseless assumption was corrected, you ignored all counterpoints and changed the subject.

originally posted by: Barcs

As I said we will have to agree to disagree then.
Care to answer the question at the end of the post you quoted? Maybe we can be more productive.

There is nothing to disagree about. You are trying to change the context of Noinden's post, and the only one with authority to tell you what he meant by that is Noinden, himself, and he explained it. Are you trying to say you are inside his head and understand the context of his statement better than him? It was pretty obvious what was being said, IMO. You just pounced on a catch phrase you didn't like, isolated it out of context and didn't realize it wasn't saying what you think it was.

Are you trying to say that you are inside of his head?
As I explained to skifox:
"Even if that were the case, which I do not believe it to be, saying "It just is, end of story" shuts down communication.
It would still be based in faith as well. The natural phenomena we label as evolution may be replaced by something else in 100 years.
Look at all the things we thought we knew, as the best possible explanation for something, that have been disproven in the past.
It may be the best way to describe what we see at the moment, with the limits of our understanding, but who knows what the future holds.
To believe "it just is" in the context, you are talking about, makes it even more faith based in my honest opinion. There is no way you can know for sure but it is what you believe."

Get over it already, you were and are wrong on this one as I said before you can spin it anyway you like but you are still wrong. Suck it up buttercup and stop crying about it already.

Regardless, this thread is about proving evolution wrong. Name a single scientific research paper you can refute that backs evolution.

No it's not. Never was, no matter what the title says.

I was asking for your opinion on the best #1 evidence, not the entire bloated theory.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
Are you trying to say that you are inside of his head?

Nope, which is why I go with how HE explained it, not your stupid misinterpretation and disingenuous quote mine out of context.

No it's not. Never was, no matter what the title says.

You are as delusional as it gets. Context eludes you yet again.

I was asking for your opinion on the best #1 evidence, not the entire bloated theory.

Thanks for proving you don't grasp the basics of science. I'm not playing silly gotcha games. I've heard it a million times. I will give you evidence you will complain that it doesn't prove the entire theory. Evolution is defined by ALL the evidence not one single piece. I gave you the best pieces of evidence and even those are just the very tip of the iceberg. If you don't want to learn about it and improve yourself, that is on you.

I don't play silly semantics games. Prove any one of those piece wrong and then we can BEGIN to discuss it. Thus far you have brought absolutely nothing to the table but distractions.

originally posted by: cooperton


When was it proven a fact though? It has never been observed in a lab. Mice remain mice, fruit flies remain fruit flies, finches remain finches, microbes remain microbes. Organisms cannot change into another kind of organism, despite over 100 years of selective breeding in labs throughout the world trying to prove it. It's hard to prove a negative, but I think the failure to demonstrate an organism changing into another organism shows evolution doesn't happen. There have been a combination of millions of fruit fly generations across the world, many undergoing intense selective breeding conditions, yet they remain fruit flies...

So you have something wrong here. A scientific theory is based on facts, if there is no facts then it is a scientific hypothesis. People get the general term "theory" confused with "scientific theory" which must be fact based to be called that.

As discussed with your fruit flies... they picked a couple of traits and they saw changes in those traits after 600 generations. This is not "intense" to just pick a couple of traits, but CHANGES were seen. We know there is over 1500 species of fruit flies, so there are differences around us. We also know humans have gone 6000+ generations since another species, so we are talking about 250 years of generations of fruit flies to most likely see a species change of 6000+ generations AND you need to add in natural selection and not lab selection of a couple of traits.

I could go on if you're interested. Evolution is a fairy tale that has distorted the process of people's self-realization.

You have this lab called planet earth...you need to get out in it sometimes. To try and cherry pick a couple of topics that don't even help you while ignoring the 1000s of others that support evolution you are not winning any argument.

BTW do you believe God created the planet in its current start 6000 years ago. I'm not trying to troll you, I just want to know what you think how life came about.

A big problem in all of this is no one really understands what is being debated and so we are trying to compare two totally different things and it doesn't work.

1. Intelligent design or randomness is what we should call the "WHY"
2. Evolution is nothing more than a "HOW" as it can be either intelligent design (God) or randomness (Chaos Theory).

You are all trying to match up a "why" against a "how" and it just doesn't make sense. God could have created the earth 6000 years ago to be exactly as we see it, or God could have started earth on a path exactly as we see it 14.6 billion years ago beginning with most of the universe as hydrogen.

Evolution doesn't mean no God, just as any other understanding that we have about our universe doesn't also mean no God.
There is a 24 part lecture called "what Darwin didn't know" and if anyone can listen to that and still say "but the fruit flies!" then that person is 100% locked in their beliefs no matter what.

REMEMBER: Evolution does not explain life, or how life started. It just explains how changes in DNA with the positions of CGAT will give you different species, but remember ALL life has the same DNA and ALL life has matching DNA to a point. Even a grape vine have 17% human matching DNA, as example.

Evolution has also shown us that internal and external forces (natural selection) will change DNA bit by bit by flipping the order of CGAT around and sometimes it does nothing and sometimes it creates a new good/bad trait. Finally we know with enough changes over time (lots of time) what we call a new species will come about after too many DNA changes...some changes and you have a human compared to a chimp (98% matching DNA) or lots of changes and you have a human compared to a grape vine (17% matching DNA)


Having 360,000 species of beetles means either evolution happens or God really really really loves beetles.