Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by Varemia

This is wrong. Where do you get this figure and this idea that animals just automatically fit their environments? They only seem like they do because all the ones that don't fit and adapt die. Humans have circumvented this with technology. Our niche is actually rainforests, where we spent the majority of our evolution. You can find aboriginals living quite healthily (those that survive selection) in the trees in South America.

The only problem with your claim is that you still never provided me with an acceptable reason why we left our balanced lifestyle. Now you could just say that we evolved for the better but I have allready proven that is the farthest thing from being true. We are way worse off in terms of fitting in.

So then it becomes an issue of us being forced out, but not all of us got forced out. My BS meter is warning me right now.

What? Didn't I mention that somewhere around 97% of all species ever are extinct?

I have never heard such an outrageious claim, were any of them sub species that we are talking about here?

Are you serious? Nature is not friendly... to any creature. Yes, we're not in balance with nature, but that's because a creature doesn't have to be. Creatures that go against nature usually die. We survived.

My example of the dodo bird obviously went over your head. Would you like examples of predators in the animal kingdom that caused mass extinctions because they rode on a log and made it to a new area? How is that balanced?

No not really because I'm talking about living on a different planet and your talking about traveling down a log. Not a good match. Yours never left earth.

Originally posted by vasaga

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by vasaga

 

So you knew what the OP asked? well dont get upset when you are corrected then.

Diversity?

Doesn't matter. Lack of explanation does not mean that the one who has an explanation is right. Isn't that one of the fundamental arguments that you guys use all the time? Not knowing how X happened is not proof that God did it. Well, the same applies in this case as well. No one providing an explanation is no evidence that evolution is true. And if anything, evolution and creation are not opposites and can easily co-exist.

And I do have my own view on things, but I'll never share it. Not when I already know what kind of responses I'm going to get. It's pretty obvious that people in this thread are not interested in alternative views, but simply interested in imposing their own.

Edit: And oyeah, spare me the "it's not my own view, but the truth" bull.

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

Evolution dies not lack an explanation and it is backed up by evidence. You cannot explain diversity evident by the total lack of it when asked so until you can come up with a theory, backed with evidence Evolution wins, every time.

I agree not knowing X is no proof god did it. It does not stop the claims by the creationists side though does it?

I also agree evolution has nothing to say about creation but creationist cannot understand or will not understand this fact.

We, on this thread have not had anyone put forward an alternative only blind faith in a guy called Pye and rubbish about we dont fit.

You have your own thoughts but will not share. What a cop out. So again you post on a thread asking for an alternative explanation with no intent to do so.

Creationists do not seem able to grasp the concept and get upset when we ask for an alternative explanation to evolution and I believe that anger stems from the knowledge that you do not have one.

BTW "it's not my own view, but the truth"

reply to post by itsthetooth

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.

There's zero indication that the work is his own research.

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

You didn't know, so you made it up.

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.

So he's a plagiarist, has admitted to committing fraud, and has admitted to fabricating evidence... but he still might be right? Ludicrous.

Who did he steal it from, the bible.

I already explained where he plagiarized his work from.

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.

It's not "one time". The pattern of fraud and fabrication runs throughout his work.

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.

Anyone can claim anything they want. Without providing evidence to back those claims up, they are worthless. And keep in mind that he's also categorized as a pseudoscientist byt the same website that categorizes him as a nonfiction writer.

reply to post by itsthetooth

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.

I'm not talking about haplogroups, I'm talking about autosomal dominant disorders. If we all had all 4000 of these genetic disorders, 50% of the population would have Huntington's disease but only 0.007% of the population has it. Ergo, we don't all have all 4000 genetic defects.

No I guess I missed that too.

Color me completely unsurprised. It was probably too long for you to bother to read anyway.

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

No, actually they can get the same diseases that we get vaccinated for and can die or be crippled from them just like we do. Hepatitis, measles, polio, herpes... all can be contracted by other primates and they'll have the same effect on them.

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

You weren't unclear. You've stated repeatedly that we would die before puberty without this kind of medical intervention. Not that we may die, you said that we would die. Like I said, it was nothing but hyperbole on your part stemming from ignorance.

reply to post by itsthetooth
How can you say 'I have never heard such an outrageious claim, were any of them sub species that we are talking about here?' when you have been told this time and time again.

Does nothing sink in? Your the one making madcap claims about being dropped off here by aliens without a shred of evidence. You the one in denial whenever you are shown that the explanations you give are so far out of wack that you appear to live in a black hole.

People take the time to explain the things you bring up are so rediculous with a reasoned explanation and your considered response appears to be little more than 'we dont fit' with no consideration for the info given at all.

Evidence is not Pye said. Evidence is not god said and certainly not van daniken wrote.

There is not one species on this planet that lives in balance, not one. There is not one planet in the universe that we know has life let alone a balanced eco system and guess what if we were to find one that we could live on it would have to be close, no the same as earths eco system to support us. So your nonsensical idea holds no water anywhere but in your head.

Our planet is ever changing and life has to change with it or perish. Evolution shows this. Deny it with your nonsense all you like. Hold true to the 3 monkeys of ignorance as hard as you can grasp because you will convince no one

reply to post by itsthetooth

Well just because have homo sapiens older than that, does not mean that our species was here back then too. Its just more proof we aren't related.

Just fyi, we ARE homo sapiens

So yeah, if homo sapiens existed waaaay before 10k years ago, then so did we as a species...because like I said, we are homo sapiens

Pye shows there is no mistake that our DNA has been altered. However he claims a different reason. You see he feels that the alterations and plethora of defects could be from our species actually being engeneered. Sad to say, he could be right. I think they were how god executed his punishments on us.

You are creating your own religion, nothing you or Pye say is backed up by objective evidence

Specieation appear to just be allowed variances within a species, like blue eyes, versus brown eyes, or green eyes. These species are said to have been witnessed actually changing, yet we never have any proof, much less a new species name of what they changed into. This is more likely because it never changed species to beign with.

We've witnessed speciation in the lab and in nature, and both the fossil record and DNA fully backs it up...

Microevolution might be real within allowed variances in that same species, but it never changes into another species. The idea behind what causes this is also somewhat of a mystery. I'm hearing from some people that there is an intelligence behind it, while others are saying its totally random. If it were random, we have zillions of different species branching off from the original species, creating with it, a plethora of sub species many times over. Of course we have nothing like this. We have our 5 million species and nothing we could call intetween them.

Please...PLEASE...at least read the basic article about evolution on Wikipedia. Your post clearly shows you don't really understand how the theory works.

LINK

The term "macroevolution" frequently arises within the context of the evolution/creation debate, usually used by creationists alleging a significant difference between the evolutionary changes observed in field and laboratory studies and the larger scale macroevolutionary changes that scientists believe to have taken thousands or millions of years to occur. They may accept that evolutionary change is possible within species ("microevolution"), but deny that one species can evolve into another ("macroevolution").[1] Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature.[12] The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is thus demonstrably false and without support in the scientific community.

If you narrow it down to us and primates ( which seems to be the biggest topic ) then I have to ask why no other species have been allowed to evolve too.

Every single life form around you has evolved, and is still constantly involving, and that of course includes us.

Macroevolution would still have left behind a trail of transgression. We have no proof of anything transforming ever. It's the biggest crock in the series of theorys not working together. This is why I always ask where are the bones. Even though we claim to have found 19 possible, they aren't even able to tie any of them to us either.

We have THOUSANDS of fossils, so your "where are the bones" is laughable

And of course the DNA record fully backs it up too...so even if for some weird reason you distrust fossils, you'd still have that to debunk

This evolution monster is tricky. It works without being seen, never exposes what its doing, never chooses the same direction and somehow destroys all the evidence. I have some ocean front property I would like to sell you in Colorado too.

Tricky...sure. But from your posts it's pretty clear that you don't understand even the most basic evolutionary concepts.

Intervention has very good reasons why that is very little if any proof. First of all aliens don't live here, now they used to, and we have proof of that, but I'm talking about now.

What proof?????

Aliens don't come down to visit us and leave calling cards. Anytime we are faced with something real, it quickly gets debunked because we have no way to prove it being alien. Which is the case wtih the star child skull.

No, in the case of the star child skull we know that it's 100% human

reply to post by itsthetooth

Well I have the video and cant see how it is that you missed the entire thing presenting oodles of proof that our planet was once visited and possibly inhabited by other beings.

The "evidence" he presents is built on logical fallacy. False dichotomies, straw man arguments, non sequiturs, tautological arguments... the list goes on. And he wraps it all up in a big blanket of ethnocentrism.

Your kidding me, you don't take a single shred of ET evidence in that movie as proof. WOW. I wonder how might you think the prymids got here? Nazda lines?

Like I said, nothing but ethnocentricity. "Stupid brown people... no way they could have done it themselves. Must have been aliens."

Ok but he never said ALL of his books were fraud. Your just stretching it and being prejudice.

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Keep right on believing in a man that has admitted to committing fraud and fabricating evidence and the disciples that came after him.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by itsthetooth

 

Pye shows there is no mistake that our DNA has been altered. However he claims a different reason. You see he feels that the alterations and plethora of defects could be from our species actually being engeneered. Sad to say, he could be right. I think they were how god executed his punishments on us.

You are creating your own religion, nothing you or Pye say is backed up by objective evidence

Yeah, he sounds like my priest when I was about 13 trying to tell us that disabled children are that way because of the sins of their parents.

We've witnessed speciation in the lab and in nature, and both the fossil record and DNA fully backs it up...

I'm so glad you said that. I started to post a response to that but thought better of it. I'm getting a little tired of posting stuff that I know he won't read or even attempt to understand.

We have THOUSANDS of fossils, so your "where are the bones" is laughable

I think he was referring to the "missing link." Of course we have thousands of fossils, but they represent such a small fraction of all the organisms that have ever lived.

Sorry, I know this wasn't directed at me. I just had to agree with what you were saying about speciation.

reply to post by iterationzero

There's zero indication that the work is his own research.

Based on ????

You didn't know, so you made it up.

I lost track of the subject.

So he's a plagiarist, has admitted to committing fraud, and has admitted to fabricating evidence... but he still might be right? Ludicrous.

Has he admitted doing the same thing again in the rest of his work?

I already explained where he plagiarized his work from.

You probably did, and some time ago.

It's not "one time". The pattern of fraud and fabrication runs throughout his work.

When who and how was this determined?

Anyone can claim anything they want. Without providing evidence to back those claims up, they are worthless. And keep in mind that he's also categorized as a pseudoscientist byt the same website that categorizes him as a nonfiction writer.

Well thats good so we all agree he would know the difference.

reply to post by bottleslingguy

Are you acting this way because you want me to prove to you that I have a good enough reason to believe what I believe?

No, I just hate to see Occam's razor misapplied to the degree which you just misapplied it.

If you already know this stuff, why do you keep saying there is no objective evidence? Let's take Gobekli Tepe for example, when you put that place in our "commonly understood as fact" time line there is no objective evidence that stone age people did that or could do that. If you just brush it off with a typical "Well ancient man was very crafty" comment you haven't proven anything. There are megalithic structures all around the world that share similar designs and degree of accuracy that we would be hard pressed to do today. Can you give me objective evidence how these things were done? And don't link me to some guy who uses power tools and makes a model nowhere near the scale of the original. The most plausible explanation is that those otherworldly folks are more than likely the candidates than stone age humans with rocks, logs and vines. Your version makes no sense is violates laws of physics.

And this is objective evidence of the alien visitors how, exactly? It's definitely making us question our current notions of early civilization. But just because we don't know all of the answers at this point doesn't mean aliens did it.

Your naturalistic explanation is neither plausible nor correct.

As opposed to your supernatural explanation that you have zero evidence for?

You can't build these structures with primitive tools to the degree of sophistication they have reached. If it's so simple why can't we do it today? Explain tool marks on ancient sculptures and the "tomb" in the great pyramid. Explain the erosion patterns from rain on the Sphynx suggesting a much older age. This stuff is objective and there is a lot of it. Nothing naturalistic or even logical about your version.

How is it not naturalistic? It just means we may have had the timeline wrong, not that aliens did it.

Seriously, you're as bad as the traditional creationists with their cries of "I dunno... God did it!" Keep invoking your evidence for aliens as "we don't know, so it must be aliens" because as we learn more and more about the world around us, your aliens are going to continue to be an ever-shrinking ball of scientific ignorance.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia

 

This is wrong. Where do you get this figure and this idea that animals just automatically fit their environments? They only seem like they do because all the ones that don't fit and adapt die. Humans have circumvented this with technology. Our niche is actually rainforests, where we spent the majority of our evolution. You can find aboriginals living quite healthily (those that survive selection) in the trees in South America.

The only problem with your claim is that you still never provided me with an acceptable reason why we left our balanced lifestyle. Now you could just say that we evolved for the better but I have allready proven that is the farthest thing from being true. We are way worse off in terms of fitting in.

So then it becomes an issue of us being forced out, but not all of us got forced out. My BS meter is warning me right now.

What? Didn't I mention that somewhere around 97% of all species ever are extinct?

I have never heard such an outrageious claim, were any of them sub species that we are talking about here?

Are you serious? Nature is not friendly... to any creature. Yes, we're not in balance with nature, but that's because a creature doesn't have to be. Creatures that go against nature usually die. We survived.

My example of the dodo bird obviously went over your head. Would you like examples of predators in the animal kingdom that caused mass extinctions because they rode on a log and made it to a new area? How is that balanced?

No not really because I'm talking about living on a different planet and your talking about traveling down a log. Not a good match. Yours never left earth.

I don't know why you keep going on about balance in nature. There's no such thing. Nature is brutal--it is survival of the fittest, really. A dog eat dog world, so to speak.

Nature is a nonlinear chaotic system. There's nothing balanced about it.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Based on ????

Based on... the complete lack of indication that he's done any of his own research?

I lost track of the subject.

Shocking.

You probably did, and some time ago.

Nope, did it in the last few pages. Sorry if you missed it.

When who and how was this determined?

By his own admission. You're really having some trouble grasping that this guy was out to sell books, not uncover the truth about our past.

Well thats good so we all agree he would know the difference.

His categorization as a pseudoscientist suggest that, at best, he's just ignorant of science and is making things up as he goes or, at worst, he's a complete fraud. Which would you prefer? Stupid or a liar?

reply to post by iterationzero

I'm not talking about haplogroups, I'm talking about autosomal dominant disorders. If we all had all 4000 of these genetic disorders, 50% of the population would have Huntington's disease but only 0.007% of the population has it. Ergo, we don't all have all 4000 genetic defects.

Well he used the word humans or We so thats the impression I got.

No, actually they can get the same diseases that we get vaccinated for and can die or be crippled from them just like we do. Hepatitis, measles, polio, herpes... all can be contracted by other primates and they'll have the same effect on them.

I would guess there is a 97% chance they can contract the same things we get. And with a rat, would have a 70% chance.

You weren't unclear. You've stated repeatedly that we would die before puberty without this kind of medical intervention. Not that we may die, you said that we would die. Like I said, it was nothing but hyperbole on your part stemming from ignorance.

Well that depends if you meant things we contract or things we automatically have in our genes.

I think that the idea that "aliens did it" is what people use because of lack of understanding of the natural processess involved in evolution. It wasn't uncommon for primitive tribes to attribute modern technology to some higher being simply because they didn't understand it. I think that because these people don't understand evolution, as can be seen by the responses, then they believe it was either Adam and Eve who kicked us off or it was aliens. And if they don't stand by what they say then they just don't know at all and they don't like to say that they don't know at all.

They don't grasp the concept of evolution so they need to believe in the other things and complete lack of evidence for those other things makes no diference.

reply to post by colin42

How can you say 'I have never heard such an outrageious claim, were any of them sub species that we are talking about here?' when you have been told this time and time again.

Well unless I missed something here I don't consider a polar bear mating with a kodiac bear, producing a bear to prove evolution.

Does nothing sink in? Your the one making madcap claims about being dropped off here by aliens without a shred of evidence. You the one in denial whenever you are shown that the explanations you give are so far out of wack that you appear to live in a black hole.

Your joking I have don't nothing but prove, beyond a reasonable doubt that we were dropped off here, and in fact one of the evolutionists on here is agreeing with me. The bible says so, Sitchen says so, Pye says so, Von daniken says so, how much more do you need untill you see your just being ignorant.

People take the time to explain the things you bring up are so rediculous with a reasoned explanation and your considered response appears to be little more than 'we dont fit' with no consideration for the info given at all.

Trust me in the 30 or so pages I have participated in I have done more than say we simply don't fit in. If you lack the slightest ability to seperate yourself from whats around you, you will never free up your mind to understand whats going on.

Evidence is not Pye said. Evidence is not god said and certainly not van daniken wrote.

True but when they all say different things that paint the same picture it means your blind.

There is not one species on this planet that lives in balance, not one. There is not one planet in the universe that we know has life let alone a balanced eco system and guess what if we were to find one that we could live on it would have to be close, no the same as earths eco system to support us. So your nonsensical idea holds no water anywhere but in your head.

Thats because your taking the understanding to an extreme. Your thinking I mean food should be handed to us on a silver platter, not that we should have to breed, feed, slaughter, process package, ship and prepare it.

You need to open your eyes (not that its easy) to see whats going on. You have to seperate yourself from your everyday lifestyle to see whats going on here.

Our planet is ever changing and life has to change with it or perish. Evolution shows this. Deny it with your nonsense all you like. Hold true to the 3 monkeys of ignorance as hard as you can grasp because you will convince no one

I think our planet is changing too. I think we cause a lot of inbalance here and are paying the price for it.
Our planet is suffering because we are causing an inbalance, now please tell I'm wrong and humans don't harm this planet? On our home planet we wouldn't have to hurt the planet to survive, everything we need is there in a balanced eco system.

Until I will not accept your false evoltuion, see your false evolution, or hear your false evotuion.

Just because our planet has changes is not proof of evolution.

reply to post by MrXYZ

Just fyi, we ARE homo sapiens

So yeah, if homo sapiens existed waaaay before 10k years ago, then so did we as a species...because like I said, we are homo sapiens

Lol its been so long since I have even heard that term I actually forgot. Anyhow is the proof of HS being here prior to 10k in the form of DNA or carbon dating?

You are creating your own religion, nothing you or Pye say is backed up by objective evidence

Well your not the only one that has said this to me. But I think its important to understand that religion, at least in the way we understand it is bad. God used religion to try to keep control of us. Of course who believes in control right. Of course it is pretty hard to prove the act of something even in todays standards. It's complicated but I thing with unmatched information from Pye, Daniken, Sitchen, and the bible, its pretty clear what happened. In fact I'm so sure we aren't from here that it's not a question of if, but how. We were either a manufactured species or we were abducted. Pye says we were manufactured and there are scriptures in egypt that support the theory. Watch anchient aliens. It's just an odd chance that Daniken, Pye, sitchen and the bible all tell us that god was an alien.

Please...PLEASE...at least read the basic article about evolution on Wikipedia. Your post clearly shows you don't really understand how the theory works.

Well that was worded in what I feel, not a quote. A species has never been witnessed changing into another species.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Lol its been so long since I have even heard that term I actually forgot. Anyhow is the proof of HS being here prior to 10k in the form of DNA or carbon dating?

Actual DNA samples...that's also how we know homo sapiens bread with Neanderthals.

It's complicated but I thing with unmatched information from Pye, Daniken, Sitchen, and the bible, its pretty clear what happened.

Not one of those sources uses objective evidence as backup...

In fact I'm so sure we aren't from here that it's not a question of if, but how.

Again, you have zero objective evidence to back up that claim

Even worse, actual facts debunk your claims...

A species has never been witnessed changing into another species.

Clearly, you haven't even bothered to click the links I posted...they show that we have witnessed speciation both in the lab and in nature. And both the fossil record and DNA fully back it up too.

Look, you are clearly ignoring facts, and that's kinda sad given this website's "deny ignorance" mantra

reply to post by MrXYZ

Every single life form around you has evolved, and is still constantly involving, and that of course includes us.

Well good then we should have proof of what we were before we were homo sepiens, in addition to what we were before that and so on. But of course we don't, because it never happened.

We have THOUSANDS of fossils, so your "where are the bones" is laughable

And of course the DNA record fully backs it up too...so even if for some weird reason you distrust fossils, you'd still have that to debunk

Well thats my fault for not being clear, we have never found any bones that connect us to another species.

Tricky...sure. But from your posts it's pretty clear that you don't understand even the most basic evolutionary concepts.

Well I do get mixed messages from people on here as well.

What proof?????

Nazda lines, matsu pitchu, egyptian prymids, greek and roman empires, Evidence of atomic bombs in biblical times, the arc of the covenant, Easter island Moai, the mayans, the tibetan conture, The mojavorata, The gilgamish, Ankydo, The kuran texts, The monestary of Dusani, val camonica in italy .

These are just some I pulled out of the first 24 minutes of Erich Von Danikens Charriots of the gods. Now the movie goes on for 1.33.13 and about every 3 minutes he presents you with another item here on earth that proves we have been visited. You need to just watch the movie.

No, in the case of the star child skull we know that it's 100% human

Well the first test only tested the mtDNA the second test tested the nucluear DNA and that part came back all alien.

reply to post by iterationzero

The "evidence" he presents is built on logical fallacy. False dichotomies, straw man arguments, non sequiturs, tautological arguments... the list goes on. And he wraps it all up in a big blanket of ethnocentrism.

I don't agree I think it was very unbiased and neutral.

Like I said, nothing but ethnocentricity. "Stupid brown people... no way they could have done it themselves. Must have been aliens."

You must have missed the fact that they were talking about biblical times LOL.

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Keep right on believing in a man that has admitted to committing fraud and fabricating evidence and the disciples that came after him.

Wow if you really think he is such a fraud why are so many people following him?

reply to post by itsthetooth

Well good then we should have proof of what we were before we were homo sepiens, in addition to what we were before that and so on. But of course we don't, because it never happened.

I just told you that we have DNA evidence that fully backs it up

Well thats my fault for not being clear, we have never found any bones that connect us to another species.

Except…we have bones that do just that...and again, DNA fully backs it up going back even past 500,000 years ago.

But who cares about facts, right?

Well I do get mixed messages from people on here as well.

Read the links...no mixed messages

Nazda lines, matsu pitchu, egyptian prymids, greek and roman empires, Evidence of atomic bombs in biblical times, the arc of the covenant, Easter island Moai, the mayans, the tibetan conture, The mojavorata, The gilgamish, Ankydo, The kuran texts, The monestary of Dusani, val camonica in italy .

These are just some I pulled out of the first 24 minutes of Erich Von Danikens Charriots of the gods. Now the movie goes on for 1.33.13 and about every 3 minutes he presents you with another item here on earth that proves we have been visited. You need to just watch the movie.

Every single one of those things can be explained rationally without aliens

I think you watched a bit too much of that Ancient Alien show

Well the first test only tested the mtDNA the second test tested the nucluear DNA and that part came back all alien.

I'm not sure how more often I have to repeat this, but THERE ARE NO OFFICIAL STUDIES PROVING ALIEN DNA or nuclear DNA!! All you have is Pye's word, which is ridiculous. He's a crook who simply wants to sell his books

He made those statements years ago, and always promised to publish the results...instead, we're still waiting and we have is his word. That's not proof, that's a joke, and you'd have to be incredibly gullible to fall for that pseudo-science.