Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by itsthetooth

You can claim that you were being sarcastic when it's been pointed out that you're making things up as you go along to support your argument all you want. It's clear at this point that it's just a deflection on your part because you simply don't have the evidence to back your claims.

Well then you havent been paying good attention because you would also know that I'm not a creationalist.

I didn't say you were, just that you're using creationist arguments. You seem to be kindred spirits with them.

And of course your not smart enough to realize that ataining objective evidence from biblical times is not that easy.

That's an interesting claim. Let me respond to it with an anecdote that may seem like a non sequitur at first, but I promise that it'll make sense in the end:

There's a craft brewery out here on the East Coast called Dogfish Head. They make some of the most interesting beers I've ever had the pleasure of trying. One of their series of beers is called the Ancient Ales series. The flagship beer in this series is called Midas Touch -- absolutely amazing, has white muscat grapes, honey, saffron, all kinds of tasty ingredients. Did the head of the brewery just make up a recipe that sounded cool and slap a catchy name on it? Nope. The brewery head actually worked with a molecular archaeologist to have residue from clay pots found in King Midas's tomb analyzed so they could piece together the recipe for the beer. These clay pots date back to the eighth century BCE, right in the middle of Biblical times. The same brewery released another beer in the series from the twelfth century BCE based on similar residue found in pottery in Honduras. The coup came when they were able to release one based on residue found in pottery in China from the seventh millennium BCE.

So, no offense, if some craft brewer in Delaware can work with a bunch of scientists and get enough objective evidence to recreate beer recipes that, in at least one case, edging up on nine thousand years old, your claim that objective evidence from Biblical times is hard to come by seems extremely pathetic. It's far more likely that the supposed evidence for your claims simply doesn't exist in the first place.

Originally posted by itsthetooth

To my understanding the 1999 test through trace genetics did not even have nuclear testing yet, so no, they couldn't test for it. In 2003 which I think was through labs 242, they got it all.

So the first test came up human, because they were only looking at the mtDNA. Then with the next test they got human mtDNA and alien nuclear DNA.

Nope. The 1999 test got the nuDNA, which showed the child had an X and Y chromosome, proving it is a human male and that his father was also human. Pye later claimed this test was invalid due to contamination. In the 2003 test, after six attempts they were (conveniently) unable to recover the nuDNA even while getting the mtDNA.

Here is where it gets compicated. IMO ! I always understood that some parts of DNA could match other life provided there were simularitys in that species. This alien was humanoid, so it probably should have some human types of DNA. But not all.

That is one hell of an assumption, don't you think?

If an alien has the same DNA as humans, even in part, you will NEVER prove it to be alien. Ever.

You just shot yourself in the foot big time.

Where is the reference to the 342 base pairs??? We could all do a simple search at BLAST right now...if only we had that information. Oh wait, we can't. Pye conveniently hasn't released it!

Thats Pyes DNA and he has that right.

And you haven't stopped to wonder WHY he hasn't released it? It's supposed to be his crowning achievement, his claim to fame, his I'll-be-in-the-history-books-forever piece of evidence, right? You'd think he'd be shouting it from the rooftops.

Also, you're missing the point that they only analyzed ONE gene.

I missed what your talking about here.

One gene, 342 base pairs.

If it has human chromosomes, then it's human.

Depends, are they talking about the mt section or the nuclear.

No, it doesn't depend. It has an X and a Y.

You have ONE SKULL. Where's your mass proof?

But I guess that doesn't apply to you, does it? It only counts when you want it to.

Well no your missing the point that humans through evolution have to have always lived here, and aliens dont. thats why I don't have mass proof and you should.

Survey says....ZAP. Your standard of proof is actually greater--you're the one making the ridiculous claim that the Starchild is an alien, not me.

We don't even know that alien life exists (although it's a pretty good bet that it does).

Not believing in alien life at this point is the same as thinking the earth is flat.

You know, only children think in such black and white terms. But that's what you do best, isn't it? Anyone who doesn't agree with you is an automatic flat-earther?

reply to post by HappyBunny

I asked you which database he used...and you don't know. I find that very curious.

Some of his slides showed him using BLAST and others using NIH.

reply to post by HappyBunny

Well, that puts you in a bit of a pickle, doesn't it?

It just makes it almost impossible to get confirmation or agreement on anything. However it doesn't disprove the possibility. Just because we aren't willing to accept things socially is not a valid argument for dissagreement.

Nice trying to squirm out of it. Stop twisting everything to suit you when you get caught in a lie.

No I'm not squirming, I'm making a correction, and your profiling me just like iterao was doing.

I'd have to ask what physical differences?

You better go back and watch the video again becasue I don't know them all by heart. Some are very well used adult teeth with more waiting to come down, no iniot, smaller chewing radius, 30% more brain volume, very shallow eye sockets, no sinuses, oddly shaped top portion of the head, much harder composite in comparision to human bone, Different sized spine axis, and much more all without any signs of defects.

The point was this: Knowing that we're still discovering humans we didn't even know existed, it's even more of a stretch to conclude that the Starchild is alien. It is much more scientifically sound to classify it as a previously unknown human.

And of course that is the first thing they look at when they find something like this. And I agree it must first be looked at in this way to start. Unfortunatly it doesn't fall into the norm of hominoids as it has some unusual differences.

Do you have kids, by any chance? And yes, children can have adult teeth at age 5. My own daughter had her first adult tooth at 4. I think I told you this story already. Baby teeth don't have roots, so the adult teeth are there waiting to come down long before they actually do. Baby teeth actually form in utero and are below the gumline until they come in.

And thats fine and dandy but would you expect her to get another set of teeth on top of her adult teeth?

Oh my God.

Well you couldn't possibly expect to live off the two sets of teeth we get in 1000 years time would you? Did you not see the decayed condition of SC's tooth?

And that is an adult tooth with more waiting to drop down.

Negative proof. Try again.

There is nothing to prove, you sent the link and they all network from the same site.

You are comparing the Starchild to a Katy Perry song? Seriously? The Starchild is a biological organism; therefore, by definition, it is a biological question.

Your confused on this because your misguided in the real definition of the word spirit or ghost. It took me going to hell and back to figure this out on my own but it all once again has to do with the power called telepathy. You see the people writing the bible didn't have the word telepathy, so they were trying to describe what was happening to them in the best way they could.. I even asked a legalist christian that REFUSES to believe in ET, If they were sitting down one day minding there own business, and started to hear voices, what would they think its from. At first she thought she might be having a breakdown, or going crazy, but not everyone in the bible could be crazy so her next guess was a ghost or spirit. AH HA, two common words used in the bible that we have been missunderstanding all this time. We did have it 1/2 right though. These poor people had no other way to describe there minds being invaded with conversation other than calling them a spirit or a ghost.

FYI I replied about finding more links on DNA queries

reply to post by iterationzero

You can claim that you were being sarcastic when it's been pointed out that you're making things up as you go along to support your argument all you want. It's clear at this point that it's just a deflection on your part because you simply don't have the evidence to back your claims.

Well your still profiling me and coming up with biblical proof at this stage is pretty impossible. On the other hand you have no excuse and should be tripping over proof, and your not.

I didn't say you were, just that you're using creationist arguments. You seem to be kindred spirits with them.

Now your profiling me on another topic.

So, no offense, if some craft brewer in Delaware can work with a bunch of scientists and get enough objective evidence to recreate beer recipes that, in at least one case, edging up on nine thousand years old, your claim that objective evidence from Biblical times is hard to come by seems extremely pathetic. It's far more likely that the supposed evidence for your claims simply doesn't exist in the first place.

It's pretty hard to produce evidence on faith and events, but I"ll leave that up to you to sit on. We do however have the plethora of religions and churches that have seem to carry on the work, not that I believe they know what they are doing.

reply to post by HappyBunny

Nope. The 1999 test got the nuDNA, which showed the child had an X and Y chromosome, proving it is a human male and that his father was also human. Pye later claimed this test was invalid due to contamination. In the 2003 test, after six attempts they were (conveniently) unable to recover the nuDNA even while getting the mtDNA.

Can you give me some pinpoint referencing on this cause you like the 4th person that has said this and I must have totally missed it.

That is one hell of an assumption, don't you think?

Not at all, in fact there is even a name for it, its called "overlap" and we share 70% overlap with rats, and 97% with primates.

If an alien has the same DNA as humans, even in part, you will NEVER prove it to be alien. Ever.

Depends on how well you understand the DNA your looking at. We share 70% identicle DNA with Rats, do you think they can tell us apart? We share 97% matched DNA with primates, can we tell them apart?

You just shot yourself in the foot big time.

Not at all, its just a hell of a lot more complex than you were thinking.

And you haven't stopped to wonder WHY he hasn't released it? It's supposed to be his crowning achievement, his claim to fame, his I'll-be-in-the-history-books-forever piece of evidence, right? You'd think he'd be shouting it from the rooftops.

Well he couldn't be holding back to make money thats for sure, and I laugh everytime I hear he is doing this to sell books. Whats the name of the book? I never bought one.

One gene, 342 base pairs.

To my memory this was the coherent non matching base pair right? This is why your getting so lost, again your not allowing overlap. And you need to understand why you have to be flexible in this area. If DNA programmed an arm in a human and a primate or humanoid period, that section of DNA is probably going to be identicle. But when you find something that doesn't match, thats when you know its not human.

No, it doesn't depend. It has an X and a Y.

Well it depends on if they pulled this out of the mtDNA or the nuclear DNA and your also making assumptions that it has to not have x and y chroms in order to be alien. You don't know, no one knows for sure what alien DNA is or isn't suppose to look like, is my point. We only know when we compare it to human that if its different, its not human, thats all we know.

Survey says....ZAP. Your standard of proof is actually greater--you're the one making the ridiculous claim that the Starchild is an alien, not me.

I have to suggest it again, there are too many things telling us that its not from around here.

You know, only children think in such black and white terms. But that's what you do best, isn't it? Anyone who doesn't agree with you is an automatic flat-earther?

Would your prefer narrow minded?

reply to post by itsthetooth

Not believing in alien life at this point is the same as thinking the earth is flat.

This really gets at the heart of the problem with your claims of interventionism. You seem to have difficulty separation what is observable fact from what is unfounded belief.

The fact that the Earth is not flat has been known since the third century BCE, is based on objective evidence, and is demonstrably true.

The speculation that alien life exists elsewhere in our Universe is just that -- speculation. Many scientists, I'd even argue that most scientists, including myself, believe that extraterrestrial life exists, but that's all it is at this point -- a belief. There's no objective evidence for it at this point; it is not demonstrably factual.

That's the difference between thinking the Earth is flat and thinking there's no extraterrestrial life.

reply to post by itsthetooth

It's pretty hard to produce evidence on faith and events, but I"ll leave that up to you to sit on.

So we can produce objective evidence for plenty of things from "Biblical times" i.e. hundreds and thousands of years BCE, but not for the things you're claiming.

reply to post by HappyBunny

Nope. The 1999 test got the nuDNA, which showed the child had an X and Y chromosome, proving it is a human male and that his father was also human. Pye later claimed this test was invalid due to contamination. In the 2003 test, after six attempts they were (conveniently) unable to recover the nuDNA even while getting the mtDNA.

Good luck with this line of reasoning, HB. The duplicity of Pye regarding his test results and his outright admission that he's looking for a lab that will say it's alien DNA before they've even analyzed it have been pointed out to itsthetooth by myself and several others during the course of this thread. I'm sure you can guess what the response was.

reply to post by iterationzero

This really gets at the heart of the problem with your claims of interventionism. You seem to have difficulty separation what is observable fact from what is unfounded belief.

Actually your wong on both accounts, The bible is a documented fact not an unfounded belief.

The fact that the Earth is not flat has been known since the third century BCE, is based on objective evidence, and is demonstrably true.

I was being sarcastic with happy in case you missed it.

The speculation that alien life exists elsewhere in our Universe is just that -- speculation. Many scientists, I'd even argue that most scientists, including myself, believe that extraterrestrial life exists, but that's all it is at this point -- a belief. There's no objective evidence for it at this point; it is not demonstrably factual.

Well that speculation has been witnessed by over 4 million people, some of which I might add that don't believe in such things. Sometimes physical traces of contact are left behind in the form of implants and scars.

If your trying to elude to the idea that people are just having nightmares, then I think its a little odd that 4 million people are all having the same nightmare. You might want to contact FEMA and let them know that chapter 13 of there service manual is usless and you know this yourself for sure because you personally have never seen anything.

That's the difference between thinking the Earth is flat and thinking there's no extraterrestrial life.

Nope thats the difference between being sarcastic and being upfront.

reply to post by iterationzero

So we can produce objective evidence for plenty of things from "Biblical times" i.e. hundreds and thousands of years BCE, but not for the things you're claiming

Not exactly, I think that Pye has produced some amazing facts.

Good luck with this line of reasoning, HB. The duplicity of Pye regarding his test results and his outright admission that he's looking for a lab that will say it's alien DNA before they've even analyzed it have been pointed out to itsthetooth by myself and several others during the course of this thread. I'm sure you can guess what the response was.

I don't think he is looking for a lab that will call it alien so much as a lab that qualifys to identify it as such in the event that it is.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Actually your wong on both accounts, The bible is a documented fact not an unfounded belief.

It's documentation of what people beliefs were several thousand years ago, not factual events.

I was being sarcastic with happy in case you missed it.

Sure you were. Sure you were.

Well that speculation has been witnessed by over 4 million people, some of which I might add that don't believe in such things. Sometimes physical traces of contact are left behind in the form of implants and scars.

Eyewitness observations are notoriously unreliable and there are other explanation for your claims of "implants and scars". Hardly objective evidence.

Nope thats the difference between being sarcastic and being upfront.

Maybe you should expend some of the effort you've been devoting to sarcasm and playing little "gotcha" games to providing the evidence for your claims of interventionism.

reply to post by iterationzero

It's documentation of what people beliefs were several thousand years ago, not factual events.

Your making a personal observation based on things that have or have not happened to you personaly. It doesn't dissprove that it could have happened to someone else.

Sure you were. Sure you were.

Your profiling me again.

Eyewitness observations are notoriously unreliable and there are other explanation for your claims of "implants and scars". Hardly objective evidence.

Most results end up in an unknown.

Maybe you should expend some of the effort you've been devoting to sarcasm and playing little "gotcha" games to providing the evidence for your claims of interventionism.

Maybe you could do the same with evolution, but I myself would settle for something that simply proves evolution to be possible, sarcastic or not.

reply to post by iterationzero

So we can produce objective evidence for plenty of things from "Biblical times" i.e. hundreds and thousands of years BCE, but not for the things you're claiming.

What exactly are you referring to, give some examples.

Some things can't be proven like interactions with others, and things that were said, and even the punishments that god alegedly handed down to us. Or wait, is it possible that is what Pye found.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Your making a personal observation based on things that have or have not happened to you personaly. It doesn't dissprove that it could have happened to someone else.

No, I'm saying that you need to provide objective evidence for the events you're claiming are factually correct in the Bible.

Most results end up in an unknown.

And filling those unknown gaps with aliens is a logical fallacy.

Maybe you could do the same with evolution, but I myself would settle for something that simply proves evolution to be possible, sarcastic or not.

The evidence has been provided to you. Your lopsided standard of evidence for anything related to evolution causes you to reject any claim other than aliens did it, in spite of the lack of evidence to support that claim.

reply to post by itsthetooth

I gave examples of objective scientific evidence gathered from samples that, in some cases, were close to nine thousand years old. The first example that I gave was from Turkey and was dated to the eighth century BCE, so right general region of the world and time period to be called Biblical. So they can find that, but you can't produce objective evidence to support your claims that deal with events that shaped our entire civilization from the same time period? It's far more likely that the evidence to support your claims doesn't exist. Which, in turn, makes them speculation on your part.

reply to post by iterationzero

No, I'm saying that you need to provide objective evidence for the events you're claiming are factually correct in the Bible.

Oh well no problem, anyone can do that, Your kidding right? How is anyone going to produce evidence of events that happened over thousands of years ago?

Well for starters if God did punish us through DNA, then it looks like Pye found it and doens't know it.
We might have other forms of evidence in powers missing through vestigal organs.
Of course there are also sections of our DNA described by Pye as being dormant, which could also be our disabled powers.
Probably the best evidence is that god felt it was necessary for us to document it, so that we would know what he has doing to us.

And filling those unknown gaps with aliens is a logical fallacy.

Not anymore than using evolution.

The evidence has been provided to you. Your lopsided standard of evidence for anything related to evolution causes you to reject any claim other than aliens did it, in spite of the lack of evidence to support that claim.

Not at all, but when the links you guys are sending me to clearly state they are either inconclusive, or under investigation, or a postulated theory, it sums it up for me.

reply to post by iterationzero

I gave examples of objective scientific evidence gathered from samples that, in some cases, were close to nine thousand years old. The first example that I gave was from Turkey and was dated to the eighth century BCE, so right general region of the world and time period to be called Biblical. So they can find that, but you can't produce objective evidence to support your claims that deal with events that shaped our entire civilization from the same time period? It's far more likely that the evidence to support your claims doesn't exist. Which, in turn, makes them speculation on your part.

It's a good argument, just like how your also not able to find the missing link that ties us to primates.

I would say that just because it is harder to produce, does not mean that it didn't happen, it simply means its harder to produce evidence. I think most of the events that happened in the bible were supernatural related and very little proof would exist to begin with. You have to understand that the people back in that time were dealing with a highly advanced species, or several, and in the odd chance they were able to keep any physical proof of anything, it would quickly be scooped up by anyone for religious value.

The dead sea scrolls, the arc of the covenant, the ten comandmants, which I might add is how some of our laws and rules were established. All the way down to same sex marriages not being allowed.

We needed guidence because after god stripped us of our basic knowledge, we would have been a wreck. He wanted people to rule this land and mine gold for him. When we refused to comply, we were punished, its that simple.

reply to post by itsthetooth

What theory would a "missing link" support, because its certainly not evolution. Right now there are approximately 7 billion "missing links" in this world, its a continuum of differential reproduction and has been for billions of years. Though regardless go to any museum and you will find primate fossils that form a clear gradient outlining how humans have changed from an archaic bipedal primate form to the modern man

Originally posted by uva3021
reply to post by itsthetooth

 

What theory would a "missing link" support, because its certainly not evolution. Right now there are approximately 7 billion "missing links" in this world, its a continuum of differential reproduction and has been for billions of years. Though regardless go to any museum and you will find primate fossils that form a clear gradient outlining how humans have changed from an archaic bipedal primate form to the modern man

"differential reproduction... for billions of years"?hunh?

this is how it was done back then:

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

I don't doubt for one minute that there is some natural genetic mechanism that can make changes within a species. I also don't doubt there are artificial ways of making changes within a species. Does nature make leaps across one species to another to make something radically different like having a deer turn into a whale? Can we do that artificially? I'd say we're on our way so why is it so unreasonable to think advanced species ( like millions of years smarter than us) could find this planet and want to terraform it? If we entertain the idea today why couldn't somebody else "billions of years" ago? It's more plausible to rational thinkers that that was the case and not "a bunch of slime got horny et voila!".

ps
your "clear gradient outlining how humans have changed from an archaic bipedal primate form to the modern man" is a joke