Can you prove evolution wrong

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by Xcalibur254

 

I was keeping this to myself but I worked at two of the labs where the skull was tested as the scientist in charge. Each time we tested the DNA it was found to be 100% human and residue on it found to be bull excrement, we believe this came from Pye.

Pye cried a lot when I told him he would not be able to use this info as it would negatively affect his book sales.

I am waiting for the right time to release both the results of the testing and photo's of Pye blubbing like a baby. Trust me the documents exist but I have to be careful how I release them.

Are you serious? That is so cool. Go get 'em. Please make it soon I would love to see this.

Originally posted by LogiosHermes27
reply to post by steveknows

 

TextDo 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

Your analogy is so human,but its human thinking.

what does what you said have to do with loooking in the future some 20 years?

edit on 11-12-2011 by LogiosHermes27 because: (no reason given)

Of course I'm human. But even if I wasn't, what I stated in reponse to your dejavue claims is still neuroscience and not analogies as you have claimed. And not some "out there you've rememberd a dream form 27years ago and you were time travelling" thing.. Which is what you've said. Here's the link again.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And you stated that dejavue was time travelling. I pointed out why we have dejavue and it's not time traveliing. Here it is again.

"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."

Why did you make out that what I said was so confusing?

Originally posted by HappyBunny

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.

You're correct. There's more as well. People look at us today and think that we don't fit nature but the fact that we do and that it is there is very clear.

A parent with an infant can be single today and get by because of the way our social systems are set up. But if you went back to hunter gatherer days a single parent with an infant and with no help would be in a lot of trouble as would the child,

A child above the age of about 7 years in a hunter gatherer situation has an ability to look after itself, to a point, in the wild . It can track and hunt small game and identify herbs and vegitables which are safe to eat. But up to about 7 years of age it really takes two people minimum as it requires alot of looking after and some one always watching it, you don't want to take it on a big hunt.

After 7 years of age there's no real reason for a couple to stay together as the child doesn't need both for survival. if something happens to one parent the child and other parent would be ok in the wild. Also because of the driving need of diversity which is the key to survival the child and one parent would be ok to survive if one of the parents became promiscuous which isn't uncommon to be culturaly acceptable in tribal people today.

What I'm trying to say is that one child above 7 years of age and one parent could get along just fine in a hunter gatherer world. We think we're so different today yet the human race still suffers the 7 year itch even if they don't act on it. Or another way is to say that the human race still has the need to diversify like our primal ancesters even if the social structure today doesn't require it to be so.

If a couple are going to split up today it's usually around the 7 year itch period. Just about the amount of time it takes two adults to bring a child to the level of being semi indipendant it the wild.

Now toothy or some one might say that a 7 year old would not be semi indipendant in the wild based on the 7 year old who lives next door or something. Make no mistake people. A 7 year old kalahri bushman could run rings around any city or suburban adult when it comes to surviing in the wild. We are not as seperated form nature as people think.

And as you have pointed out HappyBunny, we work in great numbers, so I say that if one adult and one child can survive then we really do rule in numbers. Just like the other primates only we're no longer subject to our environment, We create it.

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by itsthetooth

 

You just wrongly again said no one has observed evolution in humans so you must agree no one has observed Pyes so called proof you base your idiotic ideas on so they must be wrong as well. If you now say they are not then you prove yourself a total fake.

you replied

No one has ever been able to prove evolution in humans. In addition we never will find that missing ancestor, because he isn't there.

Now address what was written. If you say no one has observed evolution in humans so you must agree no one has observed Pyes so called proof you base your idiotic ideas on so they must be wrong as well. If you now say they are not then you prove yourself a total fake.

If you avoid the question again then you still show you are a total fake.

Hi. So you chose to try and dodge the bullet and totally ignored this question. I will keep asking it until you respond.

You say we cannot show evolution being observed in humans and so you reject the whole of evolution.
Pye has not shown any evidence that you base you whole silly belief in. By your own standards you should reject anything he says.

What is your response?

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

If that's the "logic" you work with, let me do the same as Pye:

Giant purple unicorns (with yellow stripes) roam the universe, but the are invisible to the human eye. They feed on sun rays and their farts not only create life, they also smell like roses and chocolate. Those unicorns wanted water (because like horses they drink water...duh), and even though the universe is full of water, they figured it's more convenient to enslave humans to put water into giant buckets they could drink out of.

What proof and sources do I have to back any of this up? Tons, but I won't share it with you. Just believe me, trust me...it's the truth

"Science" according to Pye, comedy gold

Well if they are invisible, how do you know about them?

Just trust me, they exist...I have data as proof. Won't share that data with you, but I do have it...just like Pye

reply to post by itsthetooth

Well I'm sure he makes his share of mistakes like all of us, and its not that hes the new mesiah, its just that he has to much making sense in the correct direction. You have to remember that I found pyes work as the last thing in all that I found, and it was in total hindsight. I knew that the only way god could do what he did to us was through genetics.

Now thats not even Pye's claim, so you can't make any claims about fake motives here. Pye has nothing to do, and could care less about anything in the bible. What he doesn't know is that the DNA findings he presented acutally complete missing pieces of a very large puzzle. What are the chances I ended up with the understanding (through the bible anyhow) that aliens altered our DNA, and found Pye's video?

You're sidestepping the issue. You just tried to present a mechanism, an incorrect one at that, for how herpes is a genetic defect based on a half-assed reading of a paragraph on a wikipedia page. I presented the same mechanism to you in an earlier thread, complete with links to peer reviewed, journal published research that refuted Pye's claim the genetic insertions only happen in the lab and never in nature. When I presented the argument, you called the work "fake", even though you never read the research. But now you're trying to present the same mechanism because, in your mind, it supports Pye's claims.

Confirmation bias, thy name is itsthetooth.

Honestly the only way you can dispute them is to either find another lab that dissagrees or go out and do the lab work yourself. None of which do I hear you doing.

No, the only way I can dispute them is if he actually presents the data to back his claims. Which he refuses to do. Again, you seem to be unclear on the way science works.

If your referring to human genetics I haven't heard anything.

So you agree that he has presented no sources to back up his claims?

I never claimed he was a genetic researcher I asked you how you know he didn't do the work himself.

Yes, you did. So please show evidence that he did the research himself or admit that this was yet another lie on your part.

We we do all have to play on equal terms right.

Apparently not, since you'll just dismiss real research out of hand but will accept the word of a psychology major who won't present evidence to back his claims.

I'm going to assume that Blah blah blah is short for "I have no way to disprove this."

I didn't expect you to understand this, but it was shorthand for whatever your next excuse was for not presenting evidence to back your claims was going to be.

Every evidence (as you tout) to have shared with me either clearly explains that its still under investigation or that we have never identified that missing link. In other words, we have no proven connection.

The fact that you're still asking for "that missing link" means you haven't understood the evidence presented to you. You continue to make your claims without providing evidence to back them up, but reject any evidence to the contrary out of hand as not being conclusive enough. Hypocrisy.

Originally posted by colin42
These people survived by using the stars as a calender do you think it beyond them to notice one star remains in position. The polar star?

Also you assume Aliens when another world could just as easily mean another advanced culture.

I still cannot see what this has to do with evolution though or an alternative to describe diversity.

And they talk about the people that come from the stars as this "advanced culture" you mentioned. They come right out and say it. They don't take the credit for anything. They say, "so and so told us how to do this" when they talk about their culture and spiritual teachings.

Actually I'm sorry to kinda get way off the subject but in a way would it matter about evolution if we have been genetically manipulated? I've agreed all along that there is definitely some mechanism of adaptation but seeing how we today can artificially tweak genes why is it so unreasonable to suspect we are the product of it ourselves? I understand it can be a scary notion but I'd rather know the truth, it would raise some new philosophical questions for me. I wonder what God is to aliens?

Originally posted by MrXYZ
They didn't get our solar system right for crying out loud!! Sitchin completely misinterpreted the ancient texts. Take the Berlin seal for example, he got that one completely wrong

So enlighten us, what's your proof that the were visited by aliens? Because the Sumerians for sure didn't talk about any aliens. Don't believe me? You can search every single translated Sumerian text for free thanks to Oxford University: LINK

Show me one single sentence that would prove aliens visited them.

They called them Those Who From Heaven Came To Earth.

The Sumerians aren't the only ones who say it. Cultures from all over the world talk about Star People and call them various names but the gist is basically the same and they all talk about interbreeding, implantations (such as the Starchild Skull proves), people flying with them to other star systems, etc. You don't have to believe it and you can ignore the evidence I couldn't care less if I can't "prove" this to you.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs

 

How does DNA itself prove aliens?

Well its real simple and common sense but I think your not the only one missing this so I better explain this.

Nope, but that is a common mistake. You're creating a false dichotomy by refusing to admit the third possibility: that humans are responsible.

Our DNA has been tampered with. All humas here on earth have proof in there DNA that someone has gone in and made changes. Now it's only been recently that we have even learned how to do this type of work ourselves. So how is it possible that all humans new old and dead back from thousands of years ago, all test to have the same DNA changes. Alien technology. Unless you think we were advanced, then de evolved then re evolved.

Losing the ability to use advanced technology isn't devolution in the biological sense. We'd still be just as intelligent and capable as we were before--but we wouldn't have the resources we needed to exploit. That's the difference. Environmental stresses drive evolution--they don't cause it to go backwards.

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by MrXYZ
They didn't get our solar system right for crying out loud!! Sitchin completely misinterpreted the ancient texts. Take the Berlin seal for example, he got that one completely wrong

So enlighten us, what's your proof that the were visited by aliens? Because the Sumerians for sure didn't talk about any aliens. Don't believe me? You can search every single translated Sumerian text for free thanks to Oxford University: LINK

Show me one single sentence that would prove aliens visited them.

They called them Those Who From Heaven Came To Earth.

The Sumerians aren't the only ones who say it. Cultures from all over the world talk about Star People and call them various names but the gist is basically the same and they all talk about interbreeding, implantations (such as the Starchild Skull proves), people flying with them to other star systems, etc. You don't have to believe it and you can ignore the evidence I couldn't care less if I can't "prove" this to you.

Even if that were true, that still doesn't prove that we are aliens.

Originally posted by iterationzero
No, the only way I can dispute them is if he actually presents the data to back his claims. Which he refuses to do. Again, you seem to be unclear on the way science works.

"Fantastic claims require fantastic evidence" so you'd think scientists would be banging at Pye's door to study every crumb of that thing. Why the hell wouldn't they be interested? It's real. It's tangible. It's testable and would be the smoking gun that would solve the whole issue of, not only are there aliens all around us and throughout history but they've been messing around with our dna just as we do, not only with domesticated animals, but ourselves. We do it to ourselves and have gone to the Moon. See any connections there?

reply to post by HappyBunny

It's more an issue of you not being able to believe it than it is lack of proof. That one single answer solves all the mysteries around the world. It makes more sense in explaining why we are the way we are. Geneticists agree our appearance on the world stage 200,000 years ago was a "special event" in the genome with no precedent in the world of evolution. The answers are staring us right in the face.

Originally posted by steveknows

You're correct. There's more as well. People look at us today and think that we don't fit nature but the fact that we do and that it is there is very clear.

A parent with an infant can be single today and get by because of the way our social systems are set up. But if you went back to hunter gatherer days a single parent with an infant and with no help would be in a lot of trouble as would the child,

A pregnant woman with children below age 7 would be in really big trouble. They would be totally defenseless in the latter stages of pregnancy. Even now, with all the advantages and social support services we have now, having multiple kids under age 7 or 8 is exhausting. This is part of the reason the women in many cultures band together to raise the children.

A child above the age of about 7 years in a hunter gatherer situation has an ability to look after itself, to a point, in the wild . It can track and hunt small game and identify herbs and vegitables which are safe to eat. But up to about 7 years of age it really takes two people minimum as it requires alot of looking after and some one always watching it, you don't want to take it on a big hunt.

After 7 years of age there's no real reason for a couple to stay together as the child doesn't need both for survival. if something happens to one parent the child and other parent would be ok in the wild. Also because of the driving need of diversity which is the key to survival the child and one parent would be ok to survive if one of the parents became promiscuous which isn't uncommon to be culturaly acceptable in tribal people today.

Yes, and it promoted sexual dimorphism. Even now, men are larger than women although that gap has shrunk considerably, although I think we women can be forgiven for thinking that on average, 5 inches in height and 50-80 pounds heavier is quite big enough. And promiscuity happens a lot more than most people are willing to admit.

What I'm trying to say is that one child above 7 years of age and one parent could get along just fine in a hunter gatherer world. We think we're so different today yet the human race still suffers the 7 year itch even if they don't act on it. Or another way is to say that the human race still has the need to diversify like our primal ancesters even if the social structure today doesn't require it to be so.

I don't think we're monogamous at all. Serial monogamists, maybe, but the idea that you're supposed to spend your whole adult life with one person just seems ridiculous and always has. You have man-made strictures in the form of religion telling you one thing but your genes are telling you something else. Marriage is for one reason only: exclusive sexual access to one mate for the purposes of primogeniture.

If a couple are going to split up today it's usually around the 7 year itch period. Just about the amount of time it takes two adults to bring a child to the level of being semi indipendant it the wild.

Now toothy or some one might say that a 7 year old would not be semi indipendant in the wild based on the 7 year old who lives next door or something. Make no mistake people. A 7 year old kalahri bushman could run rings around any city or suburban adult when it comes to surviing in the wild. We are not as seperated form nature as people think.

Ain't that the truth! I know our urban jungle is every bit as dangerous as the bush in its own way, but our kids are so sheltered they don't have a clue how to handle even that because we won't let them. If you dropped your average 15 year old off 20 miles from home, they wouldn't have the first clue how to get back on their own. Part of becoming a functioning adult is learning to navigate the perils of your environment. It's not natural for us to want to keep them dependent on us, but that's what we're doing by not allowing them to fail on their own.

And as you have pointed out HappyBunny, we work in great numbers, so I say that if one adult and one child can survive then we really do rule in numbers. Just like the other primates only we're no longer subject to our environment, We create it.

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

And we have some measure of control over it. But even that isn't without risk.

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

It's more an issue of you not being able to believe it than it is lack of proof.

Believe what, exactly? Again, it still doesn't prove that they're aliens.

That one single answer solves all the mysteries around the world. It makes more sense in explaining why we are the way we are. Geneticists agree our appearance on the world stage 200,000 years ago was a "special event" in the genome with no precedent in the world of evolution. The answers are staring us right in the face.

Do you have a cite for that? There was nothing "special" about it. We are not special. The Earth is not special. We're pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

I guess you have never considered that many ancient genetic lineages simply haven't survived.

Originally posted by itsthetooth What specifically are you talking about when you say this? I have to know because nothing beats Pye's findings for health and medicine.

I'm talking about people completely ignoring scientific facts, for example the links that were posted with the evidence of macro evolution, transitional fossils and human evolution. There is no evidence behind Pye's claims unless he chooses to release it. You continuously fail to provide any evidence for anything you've ever said in this thread.

I think it can be subjective when you read it wrong, and like I have mentioned before, thats not anyone else fautl but your own.

Wrong. Subjective is subjective regardless of how I read it. Objective evidence means tangible physical evidence. Subjective is using stories from thousands of years back or a science fiction author who makes claims but fails to provide the evidence that you can examine and verify for yourself.

www.godonthe.net...

Read that about objective vs subjective evidence. The definitions don't change.

I looked at the links and find the same things ( just easier to read) that I was finding in wiki. There is never any proof that connects us to an ancestor. Now there are other beings, and NON human species, but they are just that. Does it shock you that there has been other humanoid life here on earth?

It doesn't shock me, because we evolved and it is just another piece of evidence to add to the mountain of facts that is evolution. The bolded statement is a flat out lie. The evidence has been posted in this thread. If you have an issue with it, then please provide quotes and sourced statements from the scientific studies and show why they are wrong, using scientific facts and data instead of "Oh well i don't see it that way, that's just science's opinion". No it's scientific fact, unless you can demonstrate it to be wrong using experiments and facts. Good luck.

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

It's more an issue of you not being able to believe it than it is lack of proof. That one single answer solves all the mysteries around the world. It makes more sense in explaining why we are the way we are. Geneticists agree our appearance on the world stage 200,000 years ago was a "special event" in the genome with no precedent in the world of evolution. The answers are staring us right in the face.

So its an issue of faith? You expect people to honestly believe something with no evidence to support it, yet pass it off as science and evidence? Prove the bolded statement, please.

Originally posted by LogiosHermes27


It will be very quick…very quick when the solar flares hit this earth on that particular day…they wont feel a thing im told.

lil one, you know that it will be just like the movie 2012. Youz say that what happens in movies and on TV always comes true. Are u flipping on stuff likes the "Mitt the Flip?"

reply to post by Barcs

take the tangible evidence of worldwide megalithic structures- people are arguing that that is just an indication of a more advanced culture that has since disappeared. And that's my point, you can't do the things to very hard and very heavy stone that had to be done in order to get the same effects. They're basically saying that for two million hears hominids didn't advance much past having different angles to sharp rock edges and then all of a sudden, 200K years ago we're quarrying, carving, transporting and constructing with tolerances that rival today's ability, stone blocks weighing tens up to over a thousand tons. In reality in order to do those things you need concentrated forces that must be comparable to today's cranes and power tools. No matter how much you bang on rocks with another rock or tie better knots to rope, you still need the forces involved and unless somebody can make a better theory than "we just don't know how they did it", then that's the end of the story in my opinion. And the best they can argue is that it must have been some mysterious group of people who had some magical ways of manipulating stone into jig saw puzzle pieces and fitting them together so well they haven't moved over thousands of years. That developing a base 60 mathematics, medicine, law/justice, schools, arts and much more is no big deal and perfectly rational to assume it happened by chance and by the way similarly around the globe. The "common" perception of our past is more flawed than the idea that aliens have brought it about and we've been chasing their coattails all along. People need to wake up to it and end this pervasive ignorance.

bottom line is unless you have a better idea of where these ancient cultures went and how to cut and move heavy stones with something other than metal tools it is apparent the lost ancient cultures and technology had to come from outer space. Are you suggesting that a superior culture existed more than 10K years ago and then completely vanished? What would you be basing that on?

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Do you have a cite for that? There was nothing "special" about it. We are not special. The Earth is not special. We're pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

I guess you have never considered that many ancient genetic lineages simply haven't survived.

edit on 12/12/2011 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)

edit on 12/12/2011 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)

Sure we're special. Special in the sense that we don't have a niche in the environment. Our dna is special. Our use of tools and exploration outside the planet makes us very special.

Earth IS special to me in the sense that we need to stop polluting it, but yes you are right there are many earth like planets out there.

Do you really think we don't stand out in the big picture?

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Do you have a cite for that? There was nothing "special" about it. We are not special. The Earth is not special. We're pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

I guess you have never considered that many ancient genetic lineages simply haven't survived.

edit on 12/12/2011 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)

edit on 12/12/2011 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)

Sure we're special. Special in the sense that we don't have a niche in the environment. Our dna is special. Our use of tools and exploration outside the planet makes us very special.

Earth IS special to me in the sense that we need to stop polluting it, but yes you are right there are many earth like planets out there.

Do you really think we don't stand out in the big picture?

No, I don't. There's nothing special about us. We aren't the pinnacle of anything and our existence wasn't inevitable. I know that's a big blow to our collective ego and sense of purpose, but maybe that's why we invented religion--as a psychological crutch.