Can you prove evolution wrong

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?

We occupy a very clear niche, and you can track through time how we got there. Also, our DNA isn't any different than that of a mouse, palm tree, or bunny rabbit. The components are all the same.

We are currently on top of the food chain, but so where the dinosaurs millions of years ago. In 2m years, or hell, 10m years, humans won't look like they do today. And that's a FACT

Which puts a funny spin the whole "created in his image" thing, considering we looked different 500k years ago, and 1m years ago, and of course different again in another 5m years. So unless god is a shape shifter, he didn't create us in his image

Sorry to burst your "I'm speciul" bubble

reply to post by HappyBunny

and that's what makes us special- we need psychiatrists (haha I know what you're gonna say), we need technology, our infants are helpless, we don't fit in with the way the rest of the biosphere works.

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

and that's what makes us special- we need psychiatrists (haha I know what you're gonna say), we need technology, our infants are helpless, we don't fit in with the way the rest of the biosphere works.

Yeah we do, we just kind of "exited" our biosphere voluntarily. Our adaptations made us have to use our adaptations to survive. You do know that crows, dolphins, and other species use tools too, right?

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

and that's what makes us special- we need psychiatrists (haha I know what you're gonna say), we need technology, our infants are helpless, we don't fit in with the way the rest of the biosphere works.

We don't need technology, the majority on this planet survives without it just fine. Believe it or not, there's animal psychiatrists...and successful ones too. And of course animal infants are often just as helpless. In short, no, we're not special from a biological standpoint

reply to post by colin42

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?

Well Pye has presented material that appears to either be his own work, or kept from due to the sources not wanting to be involved. I never said I questioned the sources of evolution, I'm contesting the theory based on the fact that we have nothing we can see to back it up.

Now on the other hand, Pye is exposing over 4000 defects in our genes. What a coincedence, People here are very sick and even need medical intervention from birth where all the other life doesn't.

Seriously this is a no brainer.

reply to post by MrXYZ

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

So what I would look at here is if there could be any reasons why you might be the only one coming out with this and why your sources cant be shared. I can't think of any. In addition, does this make any sense at all, and again it doesn't. Pye exposing mass defects in our genetics is VERY fitting. So if he picked a lie, he picked a very good one.

reply to post by iterationzero

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.

Oh not at all, I have just never heard anything so ridiculess in my life as DNA magically changing. It goes against the very essence of what it is, and what it's purpose does. I do know that GMO's can be an acception but thats internention of some type and not the same.

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.

Well no, I'm just unclear in how YOUR science works.

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

I never said he did.

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

No I didn't, I asked you how do you know that he didn't do the work himself, there is a big difference.

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.

Well since he is being upfront and open about it, AnYONE can test it and challenge it, so knock yourself out.

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.

Well like I said before if you really think he pulled this out of his @$$, I'm sure anyone with the right background would have no problem dissproving him, I guess thats not you so maybe you should shy away from doing so. If you just have to be sure, real sure, because you have doubts, then knock yourself out and dissprove him.

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.

Pye did not seek me out, I found him on accident. On the other hand you are out looking for evolution, so your side to this is not even compareable.

reply to post by HappyBunny

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.

I know Happy, I was being sarcastic, but I'm glad you called me on it because they might not have gotten it either.

reply to post by Barcs

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.

It is released, which is why you know about it.

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.

What I mean is I agree with you, it's subjective if you read it wrong, and I know your reading it wrong which is why it's subjective.

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.

I don't think making up theorys to provide an excuse for lacking evidence is factual evidence.

reply to post by MrXYZ

We occupy a very clear niche, and you can track through time how we got there.

This I have to hear, Please Please Please Please tell me what our nich is?

Also, our DNA isn't any different than that of a mouse, palm tree, or bunny rabbit. The components are all the same.

Just like the basic compents in a lawnmower are close to that of a car, but they aren't the same.

We are currently on top of the food chain, but so where the dinosaurs millions of years ago. In 2m years, or hell, 10m years, humans won't look like they do today. And that's a FACT

Really, so please tell me what exactly we are suppose to eat.

Which puts a funny spin the whole "created in his image" thing, considering we looked different 500k years ago, and 1m years ago, and of course different again in another 5m years. So unless god is a shape shifter, he didn't create us in his image

Whats odd about that, evolution is a shape shifter. LOL.

Sorry to burst your "I'm speciul" bubble

Nope I"m still floating.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

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

So what I would look at here is if there could be any reasons why you might be the only one coming out with this and why your sources cant be shared. I can't think of any. In addition, does this make any sense at all, and again it doesn't. Pye exposing mass defects in our genetics is VERY fitting. So if he picked a lie, he picked a very good one.

I'm not sharing my data for the very same reason Pye doesn't share his, which makes my claims just as valid as his

reply to post by itsthetooth

This I have to hear, Please Please Please Please tell me what our nich is?

Right now...top of the food chain, just like the dinosaurs millions of years ago. Our specific niche depends on the location.

Just like the basic compents in a lawnmower are close to that of a car, but they aren't the same.

Are you saying our DNA is somehow more complex? Because it isn't

Really, so please tell me what exactly we are suppose to eat.

No clue what we'll eat in the future, I don't have a time machine. But given that humans are still evolving, and given the change we went through over the past few 100k years, it's only reasonable to assume we won't look as we do today. Even in only the last 100 years we changed a bit

Whats odd about that, evolution is a shape shifter. LOL.

It's called adaption and natural selection

Or to use the scientific term, a change in allele frequency...

Nope I"m still floating.

Good for you. Snooki thinks she's special too...but biologically speaking, she, just like all the rest of us, isn't

reply to post by LilDudeissocool

lol,never little dude.
i was told it will be quick,but this is in the far future.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

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?

Well Pye has presented material that appears to either be his own work, or kept from due to the sources not wanting to be involved. I never said I questioned the sources of evolution, I'm contesting the theory based on the fact that we have nothing we can see to back it up.

Now on the other hand, Pye is exposing over 4000 defects in our genes. What a coincedence, People here are very sick and even need medical intervention from birth where all the other life doesn't.

Seriously this is a no brainer.

That is boloney and you know it, well I hope you know it?
The evidence gathered to support evolution is someones own work but they put their findings up for peer reveiw before it can be accepted. Pye does not.

By contesting the theory you are indeed questioning the evidence, well done you should. You should do the same with Pye and the fact he hides his evidence should make you question it even more but you dont, very bad.

Evolution shows you plenty of evidence to back it up but you refuse to look. Pye offers you none yet you blindly accept it because you want it to be true.

You have been told and shown your nonsense about 4000 defects is bull crap yet you keep repeating it. No one accepts it, your looking foolish. Everything dies its the price you pay for living. Infant mortality happens and for your info happens more with the other species whether you want to accept it or not. To deny it is childish.

I dont know if you know you are lying to yourself but I do know you are lying to us to justify your delusions. So until you question Pye's 'evidence' and find more than just 'Pye said'. Let me know when you find anything that backs his rubbish and that does not mean a U-Tube link. That means a peer reviewed paper.

Until you do that you have nothing to say. Your bankrupt. I would call you a snake oil seller but no ones buying it.

reply to post by MrXYZ

I'm not sharing my data for the very same reason Pye doesn't share his, which makes my claims just as valid as his

Why not ??? Pye shared his Data, just not any sources. Again just because he didn't list any doesn't mean there are any.

reply to post by MrXYZ

Right now...top of the food chain, just like the dinosaurs millions of years ago. Our specific niche depends on the location.

Interesting.... Now back in the time we werent at the top of the food chain, who was, and what ate us ??

Are you saying our DNA is somehow more complex? Because it isn't

Nope I'm saying there are a lot of parts that would be simular.

No clue what we'll eat in the future, I don't have a time machine. But given that humans are still evolving, and given the change we went through over the past few 100k years, it's only reasonable to assume we won't look as we do today. Even in only the last 100 years we changed a bit

I was asking about right now.

It's called adaption and natural selection

Or to use the scientific term, a change in allele frequency...

So you call it a shape shifter when you don't want it to apply yet you believe in evolution LOL.

reply to post by colin42

That is boloney and you know it, well I hope you know it?
The evidence gathered to support evolution is someones own work but they put their findings up for peer reveiw before it can be accepted. Pye does not.

Well then why don't you become a peer, and let him know that you have done your own research, or worked with a lab and find is work fraudulent.

By contesting the theory you are indeed questioning the evidence, well done you should. You should do the same with Pye and the fact he hides his evidence should make you question it even more but you dont, very bad.

Pye hasn't hidden any evidence, its the sources your snickering about. He's actually very forthcoming with evidence.

Evolution shows you plenty of evidence to back it up but you refuse to look. Pye offers you none yet you blindly accept it because you want it to be true.

I see, so you think I get a warm and fuzzy believing that someon took advantage of us, hacked up our DNA to the point we are sick, and left us stranded as castaways on a planet we don't belong on. Right dude, we all want that warm and fuzzy don't we.

You have been told and shown your nonsense about 4000 defects is bull crap yet you keep repeating it. No one accepts it, your looking foolish. Everything dies its the price you pay for living. Infant mortality happens and for your info happens more with the other species whether you want to accept it or not. To deny it is childish.

Just because I have been told and shown, does not mean that I feel any of it is valid. No one has produced a single clue to make me believe Pye is wrong, other than what are his sources. It's got to be the lamest come back I have ever heard. And I don't want to live infant mortality anyhow (I don't think anyone would.). What info happens with other species ???

I dont know if you know you are lying to yourself but I do know you are lying to us to justify your delusions. So until you question Pye's 'evidence' and find more than just 'Pye said'. Let me know when you find anything that backs his rubbish and that does not mean a U-Tube link. That means a peer reviewed paper.

I doubt seriously if something has to be peer reviewed to determin its authenticty.

Until you do that you have nothing to say. Your bankrupt. I would call you a snake oil seller but no ones buying it.

I think Itera told me just as many people buy von daniken and Pyes books as are that believe in evolution. So I dunno.

Originally posted by micmerci
I have a question for the pro evolutionist. I think that mathematically speaking, the population of the earth would be far greater than 7 billion if man has been here reproducing as long as the theory of evolution claims we have. Can someone validate/refute this mathematically?

before i start i want to state that i am not an expert and my numbers are not exact
a long time ago there was a super volcano that erupted reducing the human population to thousands we are all direct decadents of those few thousand and im sure there have been some pretty big natural events like that
as i said i am not an expert but i know something like that happend

reply to post by tetriswoooo

Can someone validate/refute this mathematically?

Mathematically, can you validate your claim? It is mathematically impossible to come up with something like that. There are way too many variables to account for. You know, with diseases, natural disasters and war, I think that population has been maintained quite well.

reply to post by tetriswoooo

before i start i want to state that i am not an expert and my numbers are not exact
a long time ago there was a super volcano that erupted reducing the human population to thousands we are all direct decadents of those few thousand and im sure there have been some pretty big natural events like that
as i said i am not an expert but i know something like that happend

I'm not an expert either, but you might want to ask some of the others on here cause they seem to be. I guestimated it would take us trillions of years to evolve from primates and well there is just the problem that earth is not that old, which once again makes my suggestion of intervention seem all that more valid. While the trillions was rectally derived, it seems to be pretty close with how I"m understanding evolution.

The only math I'm able to find providing figures is based on some aguatic life and it says that it takes about 10,000 offspring to create a sub species. With that example we are never told what exactly it changes into, but it certainly never becomes another species. Further more this has never been observed in humans. The best example I have been given so far is a polar bear that mated with a kodiac bear. The problem is that we started with two bears and ended up with bears,