Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by Varemia

That was me not Isthetooth. He pulled me up a couple ago for saying 98%. I have seen 99% as well but I dont really need to argue over a percentage when 97% or 99% is the same.

reply to post by Varemia

You still haven't explained why you assume there must have been a creator. Also, you seem to continuously track back to the slime thing, saying that everything must have a creator. You can't have a creator without the creator having first be either created as well or generated through some natural process. No matter what, there is always a starting point to the existence of something in the universe. That's why the big bang is so intriguing, because we can chart the expanding universe from essentially the beginning of time by looking at farther and farther sources of light.

Well I have gone much deeper in thinking on this. Like who created the bang, who created the materials that allowed that bang, who created air, electrons etc..... These answers are not easy for sure. I would never say a creator has to be the answer but at this point its impossible to understand wtihout one.

But this thread isn't about the creation of the universe. It's about explaining the diversity of life without the aid of evolution. You seem to automatically reject evolution without fully understanding it, so what theory do you have if you have one? And if you don't, and will continuously say "I dunno, maybe god dunnit," then this is not the thread for you. Your musings about how you think humans are extraterrestrial have nothing to do with explaining the diversity of life

Well I think its hard to understand that without first understanding the universe itself, not that we have a clue. This is where I think a lot of unanswered questions will remain.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by steveknows

 

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.

So are you saying that Darwin had a phd and because of such he couldn't possibly be wrong?

You know I'm not saying that Darwin had a Phd. How could practically the father of evolutionary science have a Phd in it?. You do fail to spot the obvious. But you obviously don't realise the science of evolution didn't die with Darwin and today all the Phd's on the science show all you say to be crap. In fact there's alot you say that yo're obvioulsy just making up as you go along. I am saying that YOU ARE WRONG. You don't even give a solid debate and you've nothing to support your arguement and the fact that you know zip about the very thing you disgree with just makes it a waste of time debating with you.

reply to post by colin42

Sorry but your last post shows above all you are the learn nothing monkey.

111 pages many of which contain. 'Evolution does not discount a creator.' and 'Evolution has nothing to say about a creator'.

Well one thing I hve learned from here is that people are really stuck in there existing beliefs.

I think its important to note that I wasn't in at the start of this post so the 111 pages have not been subjected to any of my input, maybe about 30 of them have.

111 pages and you are still saying 'we came from slime'. despite being corrected many times by many people

Well if I never explained, I guess this is a good time as any, if we evolved from primates, what did they evolve from? It all comes down to us starting at some point from slime.

111 pages and you still dont understand saying god did it, the bible says does not explain the diversity we see today.

Now you have this one dead on correct but what you don't realize that its because the bible is a book of intervention not creation.

111 pages and you again repeat 'we have been frankenstiened without showing the doctor or the tools he used.

We we are still new to DNA ourselves, and I'm sure it was what was done. It's even possible that when god made us in his image it was meant though the image of a microscope.

111 pages and you are still writing about our damaged DNA and still have not show anything to back it up.

111 pages and you still are saying over 4000 defects and your only proof is Pye said so. This despite having this shown wrong to you just one or two pages back.

111 pages and you are still asking me to put myself in the place of this 'alien' creator when I have made it quite clear I see no evidence for it and in fact see more against it.

Pyes video on human genetics is proof of damaged DNA // ok no one has presented anything saying 4000 defects is wrong and I would love to see that one/// I haven't been presented with anything that says there is no evidence that god wasn't an alien creator.

111 pages on and you persist in informing me about 5 million species and have yet to explain it. AS IN. Explain the diversity we see today if evolution is wrong.

111 pages on and I still would not be suprised if you are still clining to, 'I have never seen a monkey give birth to a human or a cat to a duck'.

Your are indeed the learn nothing monkey above all.

Well I think 5 million species says a lot about diversity. // I'm still trying to figure out how that one step worked./// Yes you have taught me nothing, perhaps its because of the the claims your making about stuff you never presented.

reply to post by itsthetooth

OMG, Itera I have watched that video over 30 times, I'm sure I don't need to go back and guote the marker time for you. Just becaue you don't sickel cell does not mean that its not in your genes. OMG. Yes you don't have any of them, you have them in your genes, they will get passed on to your children as well who could in fact surface with some of them.

Which is, once again, something you've made up on your own. If that were the case, if every person on Earth had the genes for every single of the 4000 genetic defects, than each autosomal dominant disorder would be apparent in half of the population. For example, half the people on Earth would have Marfan syndrome. Ludicrous.

Thats a loded question. Do you know how many we share? And which ones?

How is it loaded? I posted a link for you several posts ago with one of many papers on the subject. I guess you didn't bother to read it.

Most of those Itera are in the form of imunization at birth.

Except immunizations aren't there to correct the genetic disorders that you keep talking about. They're there to prevent the spread of disease. And the mortality rates for those diseases before we started vaccinating against them and before we had modern medical technology? Let's take a look at a nasty one that we still immunize against -- diphtheria. 10% of those infected would die. At it's worst, it infected about 150k people a year in the 1920s, so about 15k a year were dying from it. Total world population at that time? About 1.8B people. So less than one percent of one percent of people contracted it, and only one tenth of those people died, but somehow that equates to us needing those immunizations before puberty to survive, at least in your mind. Ludicrous.

I dunno, are you living in some remote part of the world and have never seen a doctor from birth?

I don't, but there are obviously people who survive to puberty and beyond without the immunizations that I received as a child. So, again, your claim that we can't survive to puberty without medical intervention is, at best, hyperbole.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Now I had to comment on this, this is weird. The only thing I ever learned about sickel cell is only black people get it.

It's quite a feat of evolution because, while it has some definite detrimental effects, it renders those infected effectively immune to malaria.

Itera, I know you haven't watched von danikens charriots of the Gods.

Why would I watch it? I've read it many times and still have a copy somewhere. It's fun read.

There is oodles of proof around our globe that we were visited and possibly inhabited by other beings.

You have a personal definition of "proof" that is quite unique.

Or is it because daniken got busted for something that your now prejudice? It wasn't even work related. What happened anyhow, did he get a speeding ticket?

I don't understand why you don't get this -- he admitted to committing fraud and fabricating evidence for his books.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by steveknows

 

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 see evolution making choices just makes no sense. If your right however then please explain why evolution has completly seperated us from this planet as well as everything else on this planet?

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.

In a way your agreeing with me here. There is no excuse as to why we are so defenseless for so long.

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.

I don't know why you would thing its not educated or researched. I allready said the direction is the same with Sitchen, Von Daniken, Pye and the bible. Well not everything on the internet is accurate in case you didn't know. No I think I have more than the basic concept of evolution down. It's just a series of unconnected theorys, most of which have never been witnessed.

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?

Well now your clearly showing why you don't believe in anything I have placed on here. Just because you were brought up to believe wrong doesn't mean your right.

Please don't claim that I have agreed with you in any way because a person with an IQ of 10 would be able to work out that I haven't.

Nothing you say is based in even a theory. There's no science behind it. I can say that the gibbly gobs from thwack are what created the world but there's no science behind it which is what you're doing.

Von Daniken was a tool. He lied in his books and people like yourself swallowed it up. One of his claims is that the easter island statues couldn't have been moved by man becuase there were no trees on the island to make rollers. In fact science had known for years before writing his book that the reason there was no trees is because the islanders cut them all down and he knew this. But he also knew that people like me weren't about to rush out and buy his books but rather people like you, the ones who can be sucked in. There's oh so many things he writes about that HE knew to be crap. And here you are using it and calling it science. You're lame. In fact every source you meniton is actually lame.

I'm not discussing this with you anymore you bring nothing to the table.

reply to post by itsthetooth


I am not here to teach you anything. You have your beliefs, I have a scientific theory back up by evidence.

What I am getting pretty tired of is that you persist is saying evolution says (fill your own nonsense in here) and when you are corrected, (That does not mean you have to accept). When you are corrected you continue to repeat the same nonsense.

At least give us the courtesy of showing you have listened and quote evolution correctly as we do when quoteing from the information you give us.

reply to post by LogiosHermes27


Oh, how cool, you're back to predetermination again which is so awesome as chaos theory is such garbage.

reply to post by Varemia

Evolution is not conscious. It is a description of a natural process that simply happens. Evolution is not driving to make us fit the planet best. Evolution is not driving to make us better as we evolve. Evolution is simply changes in organisms over time as a result of the things happening to them genetically and environmentally. The survivors spread their slightly changed genes and after a great deal of generations, the small changes accumulate and would appear to be large changes if you put it next to its ancestor.

I see then it just must be a coincedence that 99.9% of the species fit in or have a nitch here and we don't.

I don't know why you feel that other animals are so perfect for the environment. There are thousands of accounts of animals driving themselves to extinction simply because they killed all the food that was available. There are accounts of predator-free islands where a deadly creature and its family will wash up and reproduce, causing completely new evolutionary pressures on the peaceful life there.

For example the polar bear migrating because he is out of food is natural and not because of global warming that huamns have caused?

Dodo birds, for example, had no defense mechanisms because there were no predators on the island. Humans show up, and the birds walk up them inquisitively. Humans being the animals that we are, started up and killing them for fun, even though they didn't taste good. It is just fun to kill as a human, and that's another reason we are a dominant species on the planet. There is nothing alien about it

I'm not sure where you were going with this but I can agree we certainly have some problems, most of which stems from us not being on our correct planet. These akward things surly would not exist, neither would depression, suicide, homosexuality, killing for fun, not to be confused with random acts of kindness. alcohol, drugs, cigerettes and many others. It's our way to try to cope with how this planet rejects us. We cant up and leave (yet) so we take it out on our self. Mother nature will continue to push us off forever untill we get back to our intended planet.

Remember that every planet would have a balance and we are not part of that balance here. Somewhere out there, is s home made just for us. It would be so obvious what everything there is in relation to our needs. Take a look here at earth and find a single thing that you can honestly say makes you feel tied to this planet.

reply to post by colin42

So lets add to the list. I will not count the 5 mill species and the creation thing just spewed out again. A blue tit is a bird, the part about a nest was a bit of a give away.

111 pages and you still cherry pick what part of a reply you choose to give your stock answer too. Point in question you address the food chain but not the fatility rate of blue tit chicks.

111 pages and you again talk about all planets having life and an eco system and a balanced one at that depsite having it pointed out to you no one has discovered any life anywhere else than this planet. Our home.

Ya I had to ask my son and it sounds like your talking about a bird we have called the blue footed boobie. I'm sorry but I don't know anything about the birds.
Well thats because we still have no means of travel at this time, I mean we are still playing with the moon while these other planets that could sustain life are millions or billions of light years away. As an example they just found a planet that has some fitting qualitys for us humans...Kepler 22b
news.yahoo.com...

Planets have to be constructed in an eco balance otherwise nothing could live for a good period of time. Or do you think that the drive behind all of this creation could care less about things like that. There is a lot of common sense you have to open your eyes to on this. Whoever or whatever made all of us and the life and planets, not only knows what they are doing but loves life, would you at least understand that ????

111 pages and we are still treated to the bike tyres and the tornado in a scrap yard despite, as has been made clear them being a very bad analogy.

I expect the list to grow.

Obviously because your still not getting it, oh and even after 111 pages to boot.

reply to post by colin42

111 pages and we are still treated to the bike tyres and the tornado in a scrap yard despite, as has been made clear them being a very bad analogy.

I expect the list to grow.

That depends on a couple of things, first of all it could have been Pye's work directly that discovered all of this.
The other thing you have to realize is that it's also possible that if a Lab did this work for him, and it happens to be owned or operated close to religious channels, he might not have permission to divulge who did it. It's blatantly obvious that aliens altered our DNA and well you know religious folks would not sit well with that especially if they helped find it out.

reply to post by colin42

Have you ever played a game of cluedo. Pye could say Reverand Green did it with a rope in the library. The game is not over until he opens the envelope and shows the evidence.

Well but there are some differences in this baisc analoge. First is that the person that did it, left a calling card. You see no one that we know of has the technology to alter human DNA, and the findings alone were just discovered recently. He makes it clear that those DNA changes are even present in bones dated back to biblical times. There is only one excuse aliens or some other form of advanced civilization did this to us. Either way you look at it, we werent pure as a species once we stepped foot on this planet. We know from even the bible that advanced technology was present in biblical days. Two way radio, atomic bombs, telepathy and other things.

Pye is claiming victory whilst keeping the proof in the envelope. If you believe that is realiable evidence more fool you.

Pye's work is in a very nitch field and he has come under tremendious resistance just in trying to get work done on the star child skull for example. Some labs would look at it for one second and say no way am I touching that thing. Some people don't want to be invoved in what it could mean, they are scared. Sad to say, we have people today afraid of the truth.

reply to post by Varemia

Pye is claiming victory whilst keeping the proof in the envelope. If you believe that is realiable evidence more fool you.

Oh I missunderstood I thought you were saying they automatically have the defects we do. So what I'm reading is they are suseptible to getting a lot of the same things we do. Which they should, there DNA is very simular to ours.Its like your not understanding how mice can get the same types of sickness as rats.

Originally posted by itsthetooth

There is life on Earth that will die if exposed to air and oxygen in particular. They're called anaerobic.

Which is fine, but I would venture to say they are just a tad out of there element. Earth is filled with air, and well if don't like air your on the wrong planet. It's possible things that are anaerobic are actually not from earth. In other words they could have been brough here.

Wrongo. Back in the beginning, the Earth had no oxygen in its atmosphere. Once bacteria learned to photosynthesize and chemosynthesize, the O2 concentration increased. This was not a good thing because all of the organisms around then hadn't evolved to utilize oxygen. So,most of the organisms that couldn't adapt to the increase in O2 died. Back then, that was all of them, except the ones who made it into bogs and muck and slime, places where there is little to no oxygen.

The Earth is on something like its fourth or fifth atmosphere.

Migrate, adapt or die.

Dont dismiss fitting in just because some things work. Remember that all life as we know it is made up of the same protiens and amino acids. It's hard to explain but what I would look for is when there aren't things that dont work. Thats a clue that something is wrong.

And...what doesn't work?

All life being made up of the same amino acids and proteins should be a very big clue that we evolved from the same place.

No, we're not. We're part of the biosphere of this planet. We belong here.

No we do not belong on earth. I know you might feel differently but your wrong. Just because we breath air, and drink water does not mean this is our home. We can't even drink the water unless we process it. Get a clue, there is nothing here on earth that says you belong here, and I challange you on ANY example you could possibly send back about this.

Go without water for a couple of days and see what happens. Go on, I dare you. Want to see your teeth fall out, your gums shrivel up and your eyes shrink into your head? Wouldn't that be fun?

You're making stuff up as you go along.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia

 

You still haven't explained why you assume there must have been a creator. Also, you seem to continuously track back to the slime thing, saying that everything must have a creator. You can't have a creator without the creator having first be either created as well or generated through some natural process. No matter what, there is always a starting point to the existence of something in the universe. That's why the big bang is so intriguing, because we can chart the expanding universe from essentially the beginning of time by looking at farther and farther sources of light.

Well I have gone much deeper in thinking on this.

That's the funniest thing I've heard in this thread!

But this thread isn't about the creation of the universe. It's about explaining the diversity of life without the aid of evolution. You seem to automatically reject evolution without fully understanding it, so what theory do you have if you have one? And if you don't, and will continuously say "I dunno, maybe god dunnit," then this is not the thread for you. Your musings about how you think humans are extraterrestrial have nothing to do with explaining the diversity of life

Well I think its hard to understand that without first understanding the universe itself, not that we have a clue. This is where I think a lot of unanswered questions will remain.

By saying we're alien to this planet, all you're doing is moving the responsibility for creation somewhere else. You're not addressing the fundamental question.

reply to post by iterationzero

He makes public claims, but provides no evidence to support those claims to he public. This has nothing to do with my personal preferences. It has to do with providing support for ones claims.

Well again your assuming the work is not his own. Your also not including the possibility that he is working with Labs that don't want to have there name involved with these findings. I just explained this a second ago, but it's possible that some of these labs have close ties to religious groups and as you can see these findings just slaughter all forms of religion.

How could it be possible that god made my species 10,000 years ago when we are finding all new and old bones to have what appears to be altered DNA? There is only one answer, he wasn't our original creator.

So you're admitting that you just made it up?

I haven't looked into it as deep as you have but I wont use the excuse that its not public.

Von Däniken was correct from the start? The man plagiarized his early material from "The Morning of the Magicians", which in turn plagiarized H. P. Lovecraft, who was a science fiction author. Von Däniken has admitted to fabricating evidence and committing acts of fraud to sell books. If you're foundation is von Däniken, you're in for rude awakening when it comes time to face the facts.

Well I got news for you, just because he plagiarized does not mean the rest of his work is wrong. Much less does it mean it was plagerized too. Who did he steal it from, the bible. I have found a plethora of things in the bible myself that WERE NOT found by anyone else that conclude these findings to be on track. So how is that possible. Not to mention in the process of all of this your saying that just because he got busted one time, there is no way he could be telling the truth.
I'm sorry but your wrong.

Given that his biography on his website indicates that he became a fiction writer immediately after graduating from Tulane with a BS in psychology, there's no reason to believe that he did any research of any kind on his own. Can you provide the name of the institution at which he did the research? Or the publications in which he presented his findings to the public? Who knows, it could have been the first in a new field. It doesn't matter, the claims now are presented as NON FICTION, and he is also listed in the genre as well.

reply to post by steveknows

You know I'm not saying that Darwin had a Phd. How could practically the father of evolutionary science have a Phd in it?. You do fail to spot the obvious. But you obviously don't realise the science of evolution didn't die with Darwin

Well I don't think it was ever alive to begin with. He had a vision in trying to connect some dots that don't connect. I blame all of this on our strong need to want to know the answers. This is where intervention wins again. The bible was always taught to be positive when in fact its horrible and murderous, evolution was a positive way to explain we are all related, probably so we don't feel so alone. Intervention offers nothing in this direction, its not a crutch its not a new belief or anything thats going to make you feel warm and fuzzy inside, its how we got screwed. Frankly it makes me sad. A christian once asked me then why do you believe in it. You see the mentality here I have to deal with. It's not about being happy or feeling warm and fuzzy, its about knowing the truth. I want to know the truth no matter how painful it is.

and today all the Phd's on the science show all you say to be crap. In fact there's alot you say that yo're obvioulsy just making up as you go along. I am saying that YOU ARE WRONG. You don't even give a solid debate and you've nothing to support your arguement and the fact that you know zip about the very thing you disgree with just makes it a waste of time debating with you.

Well I do know a little about evolution and I have read some things. I would't say I know everything, but I know enough of the gaping holes to make me realize what your buying into is not accurate.
But I'm not here to convert people, your welcome to enjoy or clutch onto anything you like, thats why your you, and I'm me, I just want to know the truth and wont settle for parlor tricks which I'm sorry to say but evolution seems to be full of those.

reply to post by iterationzero

Which is, once again, something you've made up on your own. If that were the case, if every person on Earth had the genes for every single of the 4000 genetic defects, than each autosomal dominant disorder would be apparent in half of the population. For example, half the people on Earth would have Marfan syndrome. Ludicrous.

What I got from it was that we ALL have these defects in our genes. He never went into it only being certain haplo groups.

How is it loaded? I posted a link for you several posts ago with one of many papers on the subject. I guess you didn't bother to read it.

No I guess I missed that too.

Except immunizations aren't there to correct the genetic disorders that you keep talking about. They're there to prevent the spread of disease. And the mortality rates for those diseases before we started vaccinating against them and before we had modern medical technology? Let's take a look at a nasty one that we still immunize against -- diphtheria. 10% of those infected would die. At it's worst, it infected about 150k people a year in the 1920s, so about 15k a year were dying from it. Total world population at that time? About 1.8B people. So less than one percent of one percent of people contracted it, and only one tenth of those people died, but somehow that equates to us needing those immunizations before puberty to survive, at least in your mind. Ludicrous.

And you probably never noticed that primates never get vaccinated for this and they live fine.

I don't, but there are obviously people who survive to puberty and beyond without the immunizations that I received as a child. So, again, your claim that we can't survive to puberty without medical intervention is, at best, hyperbole.

Well if I was unclear, I'll clear it up now you MAY die from them. Hows that.

Originally posted 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 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.

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.

And the dependence on parents caused another shift, too. It promoted pair bonding between adult males and females, and out of that grew the family unit. Out of that came larger social groups, and so on up the ladder till we get to where we are now. All primates are social creatures. They form family units and troops (tribes) just like we do. We can afford to be dependent on others for a few years--there is safety in numbers.