Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by Xcalibur254

Like I said read a book on neuroanatomy. The pineal gland hasn't been considered vestigial since at least 1917 and we have known about its production of melatonin since the 1950s. Then again you said your research was focused on the supernatural which tends to ignore any research related to the brain since Descartes.

Well I wouldn't say that, if its plausible I'm interested in it. I searched it too and found a bunch of sites on melatonin as well. It's funny how the first 3 I ever looked up say its a vestigal organ.

Pye's video on human genetics brings some interesting fears to mind.
The first is that someone has tampered with our DNA. It's so evident in numerous ways that someone has altered our DNA. Traces of shotty lab work in our DNA that go against the idea that these changes came naturally like in the form of evolution. Humans are fairly new to dealing with human DNA so the only answer is that aliens did this to us. More specificaly God did this to us. You see in all of the punishments that get handed down to us thorugh the bible we are always told what the punishment will be but never told how its executed. We also know that the punishments are said to be carried on through our offspring as well. DNA. Of course the first clue that God was behind this dirty deed wasn't the punishments , it was him showing up in the Ezekiel chapter in a UFO accompanied by a four headed creature of lion ox eagle and man.

The inverted sections in our DNA could be reversed to disable some brain activity. I remember reading about testing done with altering DNA and that if you don't know what your doing the DNA will actually reset itself. Inverting them looks like it might force them to keep the changes. The 4000 defects could be various punishments. The section of dormant DNA that don't fit any description they have seen before could be the disabled powers. I'm speculating on this but it is odd how its so fitting. It really looks like he screwed us up pretty bad.

reply to post by Xcalibur254

And your point being? As I have stated already the only reason the pineal gland was ever considered special is because doctors used to think that it was the only structure in the brain that didn't appear in a pair. We have since proved this belief false. Unfortunately, New Age authors still stick with this claim because for some reason they don't look at any brain research that has been done since Descartes, who popularized the belief that the pineal gland is special in modern Western thought. He's also the one that many look to when they espouse a belief in dualism. I will however recommend a book to you and itsthetooth. Check out The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James. He's widely regarded as the greatest psychologist of all time, but he was also very spiritual. Unfortunately, he couldn't reconcile his work with his faith and became depressed. This work pretty much shows him trying to find a way to be a scientist and a religious man.

Thats to bad he was faced with both. Sounds like an interesting book. I do allready have the stingy gene on my xmas list, pretty sure Ill get it too, but if I have room I;ll check this one out.

reply to post by steveknows

And that would be because the "missng link" fossils are somewhere miles off shore where a coastline used to be. Think AAT.

Possible but doesn't matter. According to wikipedia, our mtDNA shows that our race never dipped below tens of thousands. So I always end up asking where are the bones?

reply to post by steveknows

I'm open to the idea that some all divine force created the building blocks of the universe and then just sat back to see what happened. But that's as far as my common sense will allow me to go.

No it wont, you have more common sense than that. Try this on for size. If you had this amazing talent to make life, all life as we know it, both big and small, smart and simple, would you ever stop making new life?

I'm a musician and I keep making music becaue I CAN. I think life is just like that.

It brings to mind an interesting point that I should have made long ago. There are so many things we are dealing with because of what God did to us. Removing our telepathy is just screwed up. A much faster and effecient way to communicate. It was also the downfall of god losing control of us in the bible. You see when the bible said that god can hear our thoughts and prayers, it wasn't magic, its telepathy. The problem is that telepathy has a limitation of range. The way I was able to figure this out was how he had Moses build the arc of the covinent. It was a radio device so that Moses could talk to God. But why if he could hear our thoughts and prayers. Well its because telepathy has a limitation in range. This is why god lost controll of us. You can't mind controll an entire planet all at the same time.

reply to post by steveknows

The reason a human baby is so defenceless is because evolution had a choice to make. Either wait until the baby could be born and take care of itself in a relativaly short time and then have humans die out because its big brained head can't fit through the birth canal.

Or we could just simply be in the wrong enviroment. We don't actually have a proper enviroment here for us if you think about it. Keep in mind that while your claiming this, you are also claiming that we are the only species that this has happened to. In other words we are the only ones evolving.

Or have the most powerful brain on the planet come out with an undeveloped body and have that infant be dependant on a parent for what is a long long time compared to other animals. The under devoloped body is a trade off to the large brain.

Or it could be that because we aren't in our natural enviroment, it takes longer to get our kids to a safe point.

I swear that the people who argue against evolution on this and other threads haven't read a single book on the subject. And have never read a book on human biology.

I have read some things on evolution and I'm not to impressed. You have to weigh into the picture the possibility that these things are the way they are, simply becuase it's different on our home planet.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by steveknows

 

Darwin never said we evolved from apes he said that we have a common ancester. Also what you see today isn't our natural habitat. We have been able to manipulate our enviornment and not be subject to it this is why we have become so successful.

You know the only reason someone created the whole idea of the common ancestor was simply because no one has been able to produce a missing link. So it becomes the missing link and an excuse. Throwing another lineage in the pot doesn't make it anymore plausible.

You have made it clear that you intend to remain the see no evidence monkey. You admitted you wont read anything that is 'a bit long', the read no evidence monkey.

Your ideas fly in the face that even daily experience shows to be nonsense.

OK. So being more informed than anyone else and knowing things only you understand. EXPLAIN THE DIVERSITY WE SEE TODAY WITHOUT EVOLUTION.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by steveknows

 

The reason a human baby is so defenceless is because evolution had a choice to make. Either wait until the baby could be born and take care of itself in a relativaly short time and then have humans die out because its big brained head can't fit through the birth canal.

Or we could just simply be in the wrong enviroment. We don't actually have a proper enviroment here for us if you think about it. Keep in mind that while your claiming this, you are also claiming that we are the only species that this has happened to. In other words we are the only ones evolving.

No. The reason a human baby is so defenceless is because evolution had a choice to make. Either wait until the baby could be born and take care of itself in a relativaly short time and then have humans die out because its big brained head can't fit through the birth canal. Or have the most powerful brain on the planet come out with an undeveloped body and have that infant be dependant on a parent for what is a long long time compared to other animals. The under devoloped body is a trade off to the large brain.

And we are the only species this has happened to. No other species gives birth to an infant which is so defenceless for such a long time. And this is because it takes so long for the body to catch up. any other beast can stand or walk or cling within a few hours of being born.

Nothing you have said is educated or researched but all guess work. You respond with claims that a quick google search would show you is wrong. The truth is you have no idea what you are talking about and you can't even give a plausable example of anything. All you cando respond in such a way which shows you fail to have even the most basic understanding of evolution and human biology. You surely aren't worth debating with. You go for the ailen thing because you fail to grasp the basic concept of evolution.

For someone who is against evolution you sure show the traits of the 3 wise monkeys.

Aliens pffft How foolish and kindagarden. Where's your evidence? Where's your space craft? In fact why don't you point us to the planet we come from if not earth? Where is anything of scientific standing that backs up the crap you vomit?

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

Nah. dont bother to read anything it contains as it all contradicts your 'beliefs'. You certainly have said many times that animals do not get sick but hey if you now say they do I suppose that means progress.

I would be more than glad to read it providing it doesn't take an hour, or you can point out which part to read.

Nope you are purposely missing that both chimp and human mothers need the same things to prevent the same problems in the same doses.

It could be a complicated situation where human presence on earth has knocked off that balance that happens to keep us in line. I say us because we do share a lot of traits with them, not to say we are related. We share 97% of the same DNA with primates, and 70% with rats, but we aren't related to them either.

Also keep in mind that that 3% difference in DNA is MILLIONS of genes. There is simply no way that millions of genes could change on there own in the blink of an eye. In addition to it leaving no trace of doing so. Even odder is how some peeps on here are telling me its natural selection while others tell me that there is purpose behind it, and changes are only made to advance us. Why is it that out of the other 5 million species here on earth, we have none that have evolved into anything else that we can identify to have evolved? Why is it that huamns are the ONLY thing we are able to say has evolved? It's because it never happened.

It is not a nesessity as nature does not care if a child is born unable to survive as it ensures life goes on by excess, only we care if our child is born with physical defects that threaten its life. We gained the knowledge of how to combat this by science

It a valid statement that nature does not care if a child is born, but if it were a chimp, it does care and its taken care of. If you leave a human baby unattended, its screwed. Not being able to leave a child unattended in the wild is a dumb idea but a good clue that just maybe we aren't from here. Of course there is also a difference of interaction with the other life and the ability of a baby not being able to take care of himself.

So unless you now say chimps were brought here by aliens then you and your beliefs have some major problems which I am sure you will ignore and deny

No, why would I ignore or deny. There is nothing substantial to prove they came here with us. Unless the jungle, food and enviroment came with them as well. Again they are part of something here, we are not. There is a big difference if you think about it.

Look you silly person. Sometimes you need to read something that may take an hour to either confirm your viewpoint or LEARN new information. The TV and Wiki just does not cut it. You are a very good example of that.

So you roll out the nonsense about chimp 98% la la la. How many hoops do you have to jump through to avoid facing the truth? Please do not explain to me again your idiotic view on DNA differences gained by reading some one stop god shop wiki page.

Like it or not you are related to all Apes and at the moment the rest of Apekind are showing a higher level of evolution than you. Like it or not yes we are related to rats but a lot further away. And after 100 pages you still are asking the same questions on page 1, still spouting the same fundemental errors.

Because you have something lacking in your life you wish to blame on aliens rather than face the problem and correct it does not make evolution wrong.

Again you talk utter garbage. Look around you. Blue tits have 16 to 20 chicks per nest and the parents will be lucky if one survives to adulthood. This is repeated throughout nature at every level in the food chain and before you say it, yes even man was and sometimes still is on the menue.

Nature does not care if you are human, insect, fish or fowl and everyone of the species contained in that struggles for life without exception.

Yes and as I knew you ignore all the simularites between man and chimp. All the proofs that you say lead you to believe man 'does not fit' also applies to chimps from aliens hands to illness but you choose again the 'see no evidence monkey' to suit your argument.

What evidence is there for evolution? I would be surprised if you could give me 10 examples that are scientifically proven to be the result of evolution. Darwins theories are seriously flawed if looked at closely and contradictions within his published theory show that as he neared completion of his work he no longer had the belief that evolution was the answer as there were more examples to refute his theory than there are to support it. As our knowledge grows we should question the theories and accepted notions of what was written hundreds of years ago as our knowledge of nature and our world are much greater than in Darwins time. Science can see that there is a design in make-up,our DNA. We are not a result of evolution but of creation.There is no evidence for evolution. A few bones dated to 4 million years ago does not prove we have a common ancestry with those bones ( ie:Lucy).It just shows some type of homonid was around at that time..not neccesarily an ancestor of man. Remember,I need at least 10 examples that are scientifically proven to be the result of evolution. There is No Missing Link and none will ever be found..false flags will be flown but under scrutiny will be found to be false.Accept that the creator (God) made us in his own image and that we didn't evolve. What happened to the evolution of the crocodile? the trilobyte? Why have they not evolved?

Originally posted by stgazza
What evidence is there for evolution? I would be surprised if you could give me 10 examples that are scientifically proven to be the result of evolution. Darwins theories are seriously flawed if looked at closely and contradictions within his published theory show that as he neared completion of his work he no longer had the belief that evolution was the answer as there were more examples to refute his theory than there are to support it. As our knowledge grows we should question the theories and accepted notions of what was written hundreds of years ago as our knowledge of nature and our world are much greater than in Darwins time. Science can see that there is a design in make-up,our DNA. We are not a result of evolution but of creation.There is no evidence for evolution. A few bones dated to 4 million years ago does not prove we have a common ancestry with those bones ( ie:Lucy).It just shows some type of homonid was around at that time..not neccesarily an ancestor of man. Remember,I need at least 10 examples that are scientifically proven to be the result of evolution. There is No Missing Link and none will ever be found..false flags will be flown but under scrutiny will be found to be false.Accept that the creator (God) made us in his own image and that we didn't evolve. What happened to the evolution of the crocodile? the trilobyte? Why have they not evolved?

So you've conducted a log term analysis of Darwins and others works on evolution have you. Was this while you were getting your Phd and honours and such? I hope it was because that's what you're going up against when you give your layman opinion.

Here. Enjoy. I'm sure you can find ten. Not that the world will stop if you remain unaware as to reality.

ngm.nationalgeographic.com...

reply to post by itsthetooth

No its more like your just NOT taking his word. Because Pye coudln't possibly say anything thats true right?

No, I'm not taking Pye at his word without evidence. You're more than happy to take him at his word because of confirmation bias. I'll be more than happy to take him at his word once he starts publicly providing sources for his claims.

Like I said before, he probably had this information shared with him from the Labs hes working with.

Again, this is a total fabrication on your part. He first started making these claims in 1997. He didn't start working with genetics labs until 1999.

It is odd how his information did seem to be the last key to confirm everything I was looking at. Keep in mind again Pye was the last thing I found, it was in total hindsight, and he makes no claims about god or the bible.

No, he doesn't. But he was a "colleague" (his word) of Sitchin, who based his work on von Däniken, who included the Bible in his work. See how easy it is to see why it would agree with what you were seeing in the Bible?

I allready listed how to search for his video and in fact you watched it and corrected me on 2 dozen defects rather than 12.

You don't seem to understand what a source is and how it's different from a claim. You make the claim that we have over 4000 genetic defects and that 24 of them will kill us before puberty. Your source for this claim, i.e. the citation you would attach if you were writing a paper, is Pye's video. What is Pye's source for making that claim i.e. what citation would he attach if he were writing a paper?

reply to post by itsthetooth

Except that website still doesn't confirm your claim that all of us have all 4000 genetic defects. So upon what are you basing your claim that we all have 4000 genetic defects, 24 of which will kill us before puberty? Note that the first one mentioned is sickle cell anemia. I don't have sickle cell anemia and I'm willing to bet you don't have it either. So do I have the other 3999? The next one mentioned is Down's Syndrome. I don't have Down's Syndrome. So do I have the other 3998? I don't have Turner's syndrome, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, fragile-X syndrome, hemophilia, Huntington's chorea, Tay-Sachs disease, or cystic fibrosis. So do I have the other 3991? So it seems that your claim that we all carry all of the genetic defects that Pye is talking about is bunk. Or is he working off of some other list that none of us are privy to?

Pye is talking about potential genetic diseases that people may or may not have. Further, if Pye's claims were correct and these diseases were the result of genetic tampering on our species by aliens, then why do we share so many of these diseases with primates?

And since you keep making that claim that we can't "survive to puberty without constant medical attention", can you provide a list of the 24 genetic defects that we all have that prevent us from surviving to puberty without medical attention? Because I'm willing to bet that I don't have any of those either.

reply to post by bottleslingguy

are you saying you didn't know that and wouldn't believe it until you saw more evidence?

No, I was hoping that itsthetooth would do her own homework and see that her claim that we all have the 4000 genetic defects Pye is talking about is ludicrous.

and then I'm sure you'll deny that information too.

Why would I deny the information you've presented? I've seen the site before and, more importantly, I've read actual peer-reviewed research on some of the diseases mentioned in that article. Specifically Tay-Sachs, because my wife is Jewish, and sickle-cell anemia, because I wrote a paper on it for one of my grad classes. Since you're so quick to assume that I'll deny what's on that site, I'm inferring that you accept what's there as well. So keep in mind that source of many, if not all, of these genetic diseases is well understood. We can observe the mechanisms by which they occur and they weren't put there by evil aliens.

You don't find it strange that as a species we went from banging rocks for millions of years and then out of the blue we started building cities with mathematics that rival today's designs and incorporated things like pi and the golden ratio, languages, medicine, law/justice, out of nowhere we just came up with civilization and across the globe too with supposedly no interaction.

Ah, yes... the old "out of the blue" argument. Less hyperbole.

Occam's scrutiny would say advanced beings is the best, most probable answer. Why not?

Because your claim of interventionism is based on several things. First, that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe. While I agree with this claim, there is still no objective evidence for it. Second, that the intelligent life that exists elsewhere in the universe visited us. I don't agree with this claim for several reasons, and there is still no objective evidence for it. Remember the preamble to Occam -- "All other things being equal..." So since you can't offer up objective evidence for the existence of aliens or that they've visited us, the naturalistic explanation given by evolution is the correct one.

Originally posted by ExodusG

Originally posted by LogiosHermes27
reply to post by colin42

 

In the year 2245, your scientist will find out that their carbonating analogy was off by 345 million years.

In 2027,a scientist will bring proof that its no way that a ape or mans ancestor could still be living in the same time, going to see ones relatives at the zoo.

In 3015 scientist will find out that the big bang was not even close to what the early scientist have claimed it to be.

In 2012, a man will explain what the alpha 1 and the 0 omega really meant.

Everything evolved…everything, ‘Even sound’


Sounds legit, but no source, cant believe it! Just kidding "lol" but sounds really interesting

Did you get this off some book or something? (Just curious)

In addition, in 2167, a scientist will discover a way to reprogram eyesight, and with that being, he will discover that there are other realms inside the very realm we live.

Evolution is good for this period of learning but its more to it then meets the ‘EYE’

edit on 21-9-2011 by LogiosHermes27 because: (no reason given)

Every thing i say is really not in your time of evolvement to understand.
From what i do and how i do it i cant see or go to the months...its easy to get there but hard to find some one in those times looking at a calendar for the presice date.

'Exclusive' fyi.

Do you know that your average dream consist of you acually time traveling in some form or mater?

Do you know that your dejavue come from dreams that youve had 1 to 27 years previously before that day?

DO YOU KNOW THAT DEJEVUES ARE A FORM OF TIME TRAVELING INTO THE FUTURE?

Did you know that your HD aqua clear dreams are you actually 'Realm Jumping'.

Do you know that if you meditate and get to that certain level ,that if you thought of a telescope or binaculers you can 'Far See'.

Originally posted by LogiosHermes27

Originally posted by ExodusG

Originally posted by LogiosHermes27
reply to post by colin42

 

In the year 2245, your scientist will find out that their carbonating analogy was off by 345 million years.

In 2027,a scientist will bring proof that its no way that a ape or mans ancestor could still be living in the same time, going to see ones relatives at the zoo.

In 3015 scientist will find out that the big bang was not even close to what the early scientist have claimed it to be.

In 2012, a man will explain what the alpha 1 and the 0 omega really meant.

Everything evolved…everything, ‘Even sound’


Sounds legit, but no source, cant believe it! Just kidding "lol" but sounds really interesting

Did you get this off some book or something? (Just curious)

In addition, in 2167, a scientist will discover a way to reprogram eyesight, and with that being, he will discover that there are other realms inside the very realm we live.

Evolution is good for this period of learning but its more to it then meets the ‘EYE’

edit on 21-9-2011 by LogiosHermes27 because: (no reason given)

Every thing i say is really not in your time of evolvement to understand.
From what i do and how i do it i cant see or go to the months...its easy to get there but hard to find some one in those times looking at a calendar for the presice date.

'Exclusive' fyi.

Do you know that your average dream consist of you acually time traveling in some form or mater?

Do you know that your dreams are actually your brain sorting through and keeping what's relevent in the experience you had that day both mental and physical and dumping what's not relevent.

Do you know that your dejavue come from dreams that youve had 1 to 27 years previously before that day?

Do you know that in your brain you have areas of immidiate memory and long term memory and sometimes the immidiate memory gets sent to the long term area of your brain so it feels like you've experienced it before but you haven't.

DO YOU KNOW THAT DEJEVUES ARE A FORM OF TIME TRAVELING INTO THE FUTURE?

Do you know that dejavue was just addressed above.

Did you know that your HD aqua clear dreams are you actually 'Realm Jumping'.

Eh?

Do you know that if you meditate and get to that certain level ,that if you thought of a telescope or binaculers you can 'Far See'.

Eh?

reply to post by Xcalibur254


point was they knew it had spiritual significance. how do you suppose they could make such a specific connection like that way back then?

reply to post by LogiosHermes27

Did you know that this thread is for those that deny evolution explains and describes, with evidence the diversity we see today to give their explanation for it.

I cannot however reject dejavue because many of the points being made here I am sure I have seen before, all that is except for an alternative explanation for diversity.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by steveknows

The reason a human baby is so defenceless is because evolution had a choice to make. Either wait until the baby could be born and take care of itself in a relativaly short time and then have humans die out because its big brained head can't fit through the birth canal.

Or we could just simply be in the wrong enviroment. We don't actually have a proper enviroment here for us if you think about it. Keep in mind that while your claiming this, you are also claiming that we are the only species that this has happened to. In other words we are the only ones evolving.

The birth channel of a woman remains the same wherever she is, it does not depend on the eviroment. An elephant nurses its infant for around 2 to 4 years and Elephant society is built around protecting the young until maturity. Most if not all mammals do so your reply is not only stupid it totally denies the evidence you can see without using books or wisdom from Pye

Or have the most powerful brain on the planet come out with an undeveloped body and have that infant be dependant on a parent for what is a long long time compared to other animals. The under devoloped body is a trade off to the large brain.

Or it could be that because we aren't in our natural enviroment, it takes longer to get our kids to a safe point.
No it is precisely how Steveknows descibed it. Did you not read it? There is no evidence to support your reply at all. It's gibberish.

I swear that the people who argue against evolution on this and other threads haven't read a single book on the subject. And have never read a book on human biology.

I have read some things on evolution and I'm not to impressed. You have to weigh into the picture the possibility that these things are the way they are, simply becuase it's different on our home planet.

edit on 10-12-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)

I do not believe you have read anything on evolution which is why you keep posting the nonsense you do containing statements that show complete ignorance of evolution. The scant knowledge you do show would lead me to reply I am not impressed and that is an understatement.

You dont have to believe starwars is true to understand the story says Luke Skywalker flies around in an Xwing.

You know, now that I think of it, this thread is very funny. When a creationist asks "can you prove creation wrong", all these evolutionists jump on him and start yelling "we don't have to prove anything to you! The burden of proof is on you!!!".
But now, suddenly when the question is asked in exactly the same context regarding evolution, this is suddenly a very valid question, and the ones who have doubts regarding evolution, are suddenly seen as incompetent for not disproving it. Hypocrisy at its best..