Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by flyingfish

Judging from your last post your still playing the same ignorant card after all these same questions have been answered time and time again.

You must have missed my post as well as all the countless others that clearly answer your questions again and again

Well the ony ignorance on my part is while reading the links when they would at some point indicate that they are either inconclusive or under investigation or just a postulated theory, it would sort of tick me off and I would stop reading.

reply to post by Barcs

Have you really not read a single link that was posted? TONS of them are about humans. I was talking more about evolution as a whole, but it's demonstrated and observed in lots of organisms, INCLUDING humans. What reason do you have to believe that DNA can mutate in millions of other plants and animals, but not in humans? The DNA itself is not much different.

I never read anything about mutating humans, that sounds more frankenstienish. The only observations I read about in speciation were exclusivly in some aquatic life and viruses.

I still don't understand if you are claiming intervention happened with every species on earth, or if it only happened with humans. So you're either saying all animals on earth evolved except us, OR that nothing evolved and aliens chilled here on earth for 3 billion years and left not a single trace of evidence creating all these species separately. Please clear this up. Evidence would be nice, but you keep ducking it every time I ask. Dedicate some legitimate time and read some of those articles. They are very informative and evolution does not even have to contradict intervention. If aliens came down and did genetic experiments on hominids that were already here on earth, there's no need for contradiction of evolution at all. You are claiming that we were created somewhere else and brought here, contradicting science. Why create humans from scratch, when there are plenty of templates already there? Why would humans have the same type of DNA as every living thing on earth if we were made somewhere else and brought here? It's far more likely we were made here, if it's true.

But like you said, intervention is not a re-creatable event, therefor there is no objective evidence for it. That was my point all along, which shows you are clearly posting in the wrong thread. I just noticed a new ancient alien theory thread just started up. You may want to check it out.

Well your exactly right, there is no need for contradiction. I don't believe it happened here on earth, and this is what I have been saying to others. I think evoltuion in humans would totally be plausible in say trillions of years. Problem is earth hasn't been aroudn that long so it once again points elsewhere. I wasn't trying to answer who or what made us. I know just as much as the next smho. I only know that humans aren' from earth, so we were placed here. Now what created us before that step I dunno. I have to say though that in all the links I was provided I would look at them and something almost immediatly jumped out at me telling me it's not backed by truth.

It's seriously ticked me off as I'm hoping to find some solid proof in all of these links.
As far as being in the wrong thread, if there was any proof we evolved right here on earth from another species, then it's possible that intervention may not be how we got here. So in that sense I'm in the right thread.
However nothing has convinced me enough to the point that I can buy the paradox of exploded theorys, so maybe I am in the wrong thread.

reply to post by Barcs



I can't watch all of them.
I have to ask, because they are bringing it up in one video, what is our position in nature and how do we fit in?

I'm interested with this thread to know whats really the truth behind.

reply to post by itsthetooth

How could humans evolving over a trillion years be probable but not billions? Your inquiry is misguided and is obviously bounded to your poor understanding of what evolution is. Time is only relevant to Poisson Distributions (mutations are Poisson Distributions) up to the point that some thing is actualized. In this case that "thing" is the cumulative mutations generation after generation, but its silly to think there would require a certain number of mutations to lead to a feature, or a marked trait. When in fact all it takes is one mutation to have an impact. A mouse has more genes than we do and a tube fish has 20x the number of DNA molecules, and is about the size of a primate femur. Thus according to you a tube fish would require 20 trillion years minimum of time to evolve.

You are misunderstanding the links provided to you. All of the mechanisms described are actual understood facts, what is postulated is arbitrary conveniences to explain the why of an adaptation, which is all fine and good to talk about but in the field of science is for the most part futile, though interesting. A theory is the various ways one can describe a fact, thus evolution being a fact, human evolution being a fact, and the postulates merely serving to describe the fact.

You don't understand evolution, or basic scientific vernacular, go learn it.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Excellent, now that we both agree on how I had put it, and it just isn't possible. now you understand the point I was trying to make using it as an example. Evolution just isn't possible.

And you've managed to get it wrong for a fifth time. The existence of a crocoduck, or a creature like it, would falsify evolution. The fact that no such creature has been found supports evolution.

So now your going to try to accuse me of making my own meaning on something that doesn't exist?

The crocoduck exists as a hypothetical example of something that, in the minds of the two fundamentalist creationists who created it, would prove evolution. Unfortunately for them, they're understanding of evolution was about as well-rounded as yours, so the example they gave would actually falsify evolution if it existed. You still don't seem to understand that you should be looking for a crocoduck, or a similar creature, because it would falsify the theory of evolution.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Your kidding me. You believe in something that is based on hypothetical theorys and we are the lopsided ones.

A hypothesis and a theory are two different things in science. You should learn the difference between the two before you say things that are this silly.

This is usually brought on by how the person was raised. Myself I was raised in a partail catholic and part agnostic family. You were probably brought up atheist. This is why you believe in what you do. It's the only logical answer for yourself.

Which just goes to show how flawed your logic is. Given how few atheists there are in this country to begin with, a vanishingly small number of them were "raised atheist". My acceptance of evolution as a scientific fact and the theory of evolution as the explanatory framework for it predates my atheism by about twenty years. Yet another example of your amazingly incorrect deductive reasoning.

reply to post by iterationzero


so then why is it so unheard of that earlier species of sentient beings evolved on several of the other billions of Earth like planets in our galaxy? you'll say, "sure it's possible that they evolved but just impossible that they would pick this planet out of all the rest to come and visit. plus there is no proof". And I would say the proof is all around us. The dam is breaking my friend.

reply to post by bottleslingguy

The "but things are so pretty" proposition is by no means proof of anything. Please provide any science which proves we were visited by beings from another solar system who changed the course of primate evolution.

reply to post by bottleslingguy

Excellent non sequitur reply to my post to itsthetooth. Can you be a little clearer when you're replying? Thanks.

Originally posted by area51addict
I'm interested with this thread to know whats really the truth behind.

The basic truth is that Darwinism has evolved into a dogma, and anyone who questions it will get attacked like they just killed a billion babies.

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

I'm tired of spelling things out for you only to have (when I ask you a question) you give me a reply like that which indicates to me you don't know wtf you're talking about.

Yes, I know. Anyone who doesn't agree with you just plain doesn't know wtf they're talking about. And yet you haven't managed to understand a single point that was made not just by me, but by anyone else in the thread.

"It's not me, it's the rest of the world that's screwed up!!"

Give me a break.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
They allready gave a comparison, they said it was more like tooth enamel.

That doesn't answer the question.

But did you miss the part where it's explained that the old blood is red in color rather than black like out blood would be when its dried and old.

So? That still doesn't prove anything and I never said it was blood. Marrow, maybe, in which case my explanation suffices.

So you think it could be a neanderthal with over 30% brain mass compared to humans, and no sinuses, several sets of adult teeth, and a bone composite that does not fit earths standards. Having bone thats more like tooth enamil is not close to anything we have here. The oxygen phosperus, calcim and carbon line up ALONE prove without a doubt it aint from around here.

Wow, can you saw STRAW MAN?? Where the hell did I even hint that it could be Neanderthal??

Where do you get the 30% brain mass from? I think you mean volume, and an increase in volume can be caused by hydrocephalus. As for the sinuses, not everyone has them in the same place. My ex used to get really bad dizzy spells to the point he'd pass out. He finally had an MRI done and they found out his sinuses were in the back of his head, not the front like most people. It's actually not all that uncommon.

Now, he could be a little strange sometimes, but I'd never call him an alien.

] Genetic abnormalities were easily ruled out as its symetrical. In most cases it would not be.

Nonsensical.

When they discovered the first dinosaur bone they didn't say, "Aliens from outer space!" They said, "Previously unknown creature."

Well thats a good point but we always knew dinasours were here before us so NOT.

This doesn't even deserve a response. You couldn't have shown more ignorance of history if you tried.

There is only ONE NIH data base.

You're quite wrong.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

I'm going to take a good guess and say that those types of bones are in the NIH. So if it were neanderthal, or any others that match up with we think could be relitives, it would have matched.
Thats not the case, it's an unknown, but its coherent.

Again not worth a response.

And actually, Neanderthals were human and those of us of European ancestry have anywhere from 1-4% Neanderthal DNA. Looking at it that way, the Neanderthals are still with us. If they weren't human, that wouldn't be possible. Can Pye explain how an alien from another planet had the same number of chromosomes as humans in order to breed with them?

I never wanted to go here, but looks like I will have to. You guys need to realize that its very possible that humanoids of inteligent design (in other words excluding primates) might be able to mate with others that are also intelligent design.

You know, when you're already in a hole, it's generally a good idea to STOP DIGGING.

I can't even respond to the rest of that post except to say that such a lack of science education and critical thinking really makes the future of America seem pretty hopeless.

“Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.” - Mahatma Gandhi

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

I just copied her stupid reply to my question and gave it back to her just like I do to you when you say stupid things

Well, he made a valid point. While he and others back up their claims with objective evidence, you present ZERO proof or objective evidence. And all the while you pretend your claims are a "valid alternative", or even worse, "definitely correct while evolution isn't". It's really quite laughable

130+ pages, and you haven't presented anything even remotely resembling objective evidence. In essence, you're just rambling and stating a belief that lacks any rationality or logic

for what it's worth "he" is a "she" and she obviously hasn't a clue what I'm talking about. When I mentioned the red residue inside the cancellous holes, she said it's obviously dried blood. Dried blood inside 900 year old bone? First of all when blood dries it turns black and then after bacteria have scoured it from the bone there is nothing left but pure white bone. She has no empirical evidence to support anything she's been saying.

things like that lead me to believe she hasn't done her homework and I don't have time for poseurs

Back off, dude. I said red marrow, not blood. From Dec 23, 10:22 am:

The cancellous holes in the bone have a red residue which is not found in any bone on Earth. The fibers embedded INSIDE the bone matrix is not found in any living organism on Earth. There are tons of empirical evidence to support something other than human, it's not my opinion.

You just said it--I bolded it. In your opinion.

Also, that "red residue" could be the remains of red bone marrow, which is frequently found in spongy (cancellous) bone. It's caused by hematopoiesis. And guess what? Cancellous bone is where the exchange of calcium ions takes place. That's why that type of bone is more prone to osteoporosis.

Biology 101.

Blood:

Blood is a specialized bodily fluid in animals that delivers necessary substances such as nutrients and oxygen to the cells and transports metabolic waste products away from those same cells.

In vertebrates, it is composed of blood cells suspended in a liquid called blood plasma. Plasma, which constitutes 55% of blood fluid, is mostly water (92% by volume),[1] and contains dissipated proteins, glucose, mineral ions, hormones, carbon dioxide (plasma being the main medium for excretory product transportation), platelets and blood cells themselves. Albumin is the main protein in plasma, and it functions to regulate the colloidal osmotic pressure of blood. The blood cells are mainly red blood cells (also called RBCs or erythrocytes) and white blood cells, including leukocytes and platelets. The most abundant cells in vertebrate blood are red blood cells. These contain hemoglobin, an iron-containing protein, which facilitates transportation of oxygen by reversibly binding to this respiratory gas and greatly increasing its solubility in blood. In contrast, carbon dioxide is almost entirely transported extracellularly dissolved in plasma as bicarbonate ion.

en.wikipedia.org...

Bone marrow:

Bone marrow (Latin: medulla ossium) is the flexible tissue found in the interior of bones. In humans, bone marrow in large bones produces new blood cells. On average, bone marrow constitutes 4% of the total body mass of humans; in adults weighing 65 kg (143 lbs), bone marrow accounts for approximately 2.6 kg (5.7 lbs). The hematopoietic compartment of bone marrow produces approximately 500 billion blood cells per day, which use the bone marrow vasculature as a conduit to the body's systemic circulation.[1] Bone marrow is also a key component of the lymphatic system, producing the lymphocytes that support the body's immune system.[2]

en.wikipedia.org...

Red marrow:

Red Bone Marrow

About 99 percent of the red bone marrow’s output is erythrocytes; erythropoiesis is the process of producing erythrocytes. The red bone marrow also produces platelets (clotting cells) and granulocytes, a type of LEUKOCYTE (white blood cell). The cells that make up the bone marrow are BLOOD STEM CELLS, which continuously replicate to replenish the bone marrow and differentiate into three parent lines, or precursors, that produce blood cells.

www.beltina.org...

reply to post by HappyBunny

what does
wikipedia say about bone marrow leaving a red residue in 900 year old bone?

reply to post by uva3021

how bout the Sumerian writings that say so?

reply to post by iterationzero


I can sure do a better job about it than you

the excessive smiley faces are an homage to Mrxyz

reply to post by uva3021

How could humans evolving over a trillion years be probable but not billions?

I'm looking at allowable changes within a species without the species dying out. IMO it would take trillions of years not billions.

Your inquiry is misguided and is obviously bounded to your poor understanding of what evolution is. Time is only relevant to Poisson Distributions (mutations are Poisson Distributions) up to the point that some thing is actualized. In this case that "thing" is the cumulative mutations generation after generation,

So now your going to try to convince me that we are one giant mutation. But we aren't seeing any other species in the midst of transition right now.

but its silly to think there would require a certain number of mutations to lead to a feature, or a marked trait. When in fact all it takes is one mutation to have an impact.

Now your going to try to convince me that a monkey can give birth to a human.

A mouse has more genes than we do and a tube fish has 20x the number of DNA molecules, and is about the size of a primate femur. Thus according to you a tube fish would require 20 trillion years minimum of time to evolve.

In the links I read there was never a set amount of drift per time or species. So its all guesstimation on both sides.

You are misunderstanding the links provided to you. All of the mechanisms described are actual understood facts, what is postulated is arbitrary conveniences to explain the why of an adaptation, which is all fine and good to talk about but in the field of science is for the most part futile, though interesting. A theory is the various ways one can describe a fact, thus evolution being a fact, human evolution being a fact, and the postulates merely serving to describe the fact.

No one link from wiki in specific, stated that it was a postulated theory. And some others were specifically stateing to be either incomplete, or under investigation as a theory. In all the links presented to me I only found one that looks like it's legit. Speciation. However it never makes any claims about it being seen in humans, only viruses and specific aquatic life.

reply to post by iterationzero

And you've managed to get it wrong for a fifth time. The existence of a crocoduck, or a creature like it, would falsify evolution. The fact that no such creature has been found supports evolution.

And I got it for the 6th time, you apparently are missing my point. I know its not possible, I know it would disprove evolution. You keep missing the point where I'm saying IMO that it would be the closest thing to evolution that has been presented to me thus so far. In other words you guys haven't presented me with anything even feesable.

The crocoduck exists as a hypothetical example of something that, in the minds of the two fundamentalist creationists who created it, would prove evolution. Unfortunately for them, they're understanding of evolution was about as well-rounded as yours, so the example they gave would actually falsify evolution if it existed. You still don't seem to understand that you should be looking for a crocoduck, or a similar creature, because it would falsify the theory of evolution.

No I got it, it was just my way of trying to say it beats everything else you guys have presented me with so far. I'm being sarcastic.