Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by BillyTJames


Well not according to the links you guys are sending me.

reply to post by BillyTJames

If you start with a large group of humans and put them in the jungle, the ones with the most suitible attributes will be the ones that survive to sexual maturity and produce offspring, this offspring will inherit the favorable genes so the group will evolve to contain more individuals posessing those genes.

Well it also depends on if they learn from the ones that die so that it doesn't happen to them as well.

I hope this doesnt sound racist because its not but just look at african americans, they are so athletic and muscular because the weaker ones would have died on the slave ships and the slave owners would pair up the individuals who could do the most work. Thats why african americans are often so large and muscular

Just because there are asthetic differences does not prove evolution. Thats like saying black skin was meant to be in the sun because they can reflect the sun better.

I have no doubt that traits can be bread, its allowed withing a species, but where does it change into another species?

reply to post by itsthetooth


I have posted the story regarding goatsbeard in the US multiple times now and you have yet to respond. If one species cannot evolve into another species why did these plants do just that?

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

How about right on Pye's website? See here:

Must be the part where he says some of it comes back human. But where did you get the part that it was the father specifically?

What was the father? The father is human, too.

We've moved beyond the morphological, can't you tell? You're the one who's hyping up the DNA "evidence." And morphologically, the child is human. Really.

First I better make a temporary correction that I mean neanderthals as some peeps on here are claiming humans are primates.

So your saying we are no longer morphing but growing in mind?

We're not Power Rangers, you know. Do you know what morphological means?

How about this plea right on Pye's homepage?

So the book hasn't even boon written yet he is looking to get funding for it? Does it look like hes making a killing?

If he can't even reveal the genetic test results, I'm not holding my breath for him to release his tax returns.

The 1999 test showed a Y chromosome. Period, end of story.

If it doesn't have to have an X and Y to be alien, then the presence of the X and Y shows it's not alien. Ergo, it's human. Finite, the end, goodbye.

You don't know that. You have never studdied alien DNA so your making a pretty bold statement, in addition to the fact that they could be referring to mtDNA and not nuclear DNA.

**slaps forehead**

I'm done with you, really.

If the evidence showed the Starchild to be anything but human, I'd definitely be interested. But the evidence doesn't show that. Keep deluding yourself--that's up to you.

I'm shocked you evolutionists havent jumped on this claiming THIS is the missing link. Because its the closest to that from anything thats been presented. It just has way to many differences to be human is the problem. I believe that DNA appears human in part because it is humanoid. Just like how a rat shares 70% overlap with us as well.

There is no "missing link." That's just a myth creationists love to toss around because they don't really understand what evolution does and does not say, nor do they understand how fossils are formed.

reply to post by iterationzero

You mean like the proven fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun and how it was immediately accepted by everyone and how 100% of everyone in the world accepts it today? There's little correlation between something being a fact and whether or not people accept it.

Evolution doesn't conflict with religion; there are plenty of theists out there who accept evolution. Actually, there are plenty of theists out there who are also biologists who do research in the field of evolution. Ken Miller is the first one that comes to mind and even wrote a book about how he reconciles his faith and the fact of evolution. The conflict comes from people taking their creation myths literally regardless of the scientific evidence presented to them. Because, after all, when a story written several thousands of years ago and scientific fact are in conflict, it must be the story written several thousand years ago that's correct.

Damn good points and all valid.

Even I ran into this problem with intervention.
How is it possible that god allegedly created us 10k ago while our mtDNA is clearly showing us to be over 200,000 years old. There is only one answer I could come up with and that is that he used parts from existing life and mixed us with other life, through DNA.
There was another conflict of interest with the bible indicating that earth is not our home. How is it that we are missing a home when once again god made us on earth? The aforementioned also corrected this. Of course this could also mean that when god made us in his image, that image could have been through a microscope or DNA.

reply to post by iterationzero

You mean like the proven fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun and how it was immediately accepted by everyone and how 100% of everyone in the world accepts it today? There's little correlation between something being a fact and whether or not people accept it.

Those are observed theorys and have not been observed in humans.

reply to post by itsthetooth

So your only answer reconciling scientific fact with the Bible is that aliens did it?

reply to post by steveknows

But you used our environment as evidence that we haven't evolved and aren't native to our planet. I was explaining that you're not seeing it because you can't get see the hunter gatherer due to the laptop.

Steve...
Buddy...
Can you please re-explain this part because I'm not understanding it at all. I'm not sure but I think you were trying to make an analoge.

And adaption and evolution are very close together as there's biological adaptions ie white skin for humans who walked out of africa and became europeans. And inovative adaptions ie developing the use of fur lined shoes.

Well the two can easily be confused with one another while there is a very strict difference.
As an example, as humans, we drink water. But we can't just drink any water. We have to drink clean, usually processed water.
Now had we of evolved, we would be able to drink any water, or least the strict guidlines to such would have allowed us more access to water in the way it is. But we didn't evolve, we adapted which is actually in the form of processing the water to make it safe to drink.

Because as I said we have developed speech. Our visual cues are more subtle. We no longer have to emphasises our feelings as because of the evolution of speech we can say "you're a tool" and just give our heads a bit of a shake left and right to back up visually what we're saying. It would be very hard for me to point out how wrong you are through grunts and gestures.

Well we did develope speech but not because of why your thinking. It would appear that we have disabled powers, one being telepathy. From what I can tell, it was actually the first power god removed from Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. To place impunity between them. And man did it. We don't know it, but a different form of communication is pre-packaged in our design that would allow much higher and much faster transfer of thought and communications. Speaking with out mouths was once again a form of adaptation (not evolving) because our intended communication channel has been removed.
Out of everything I have looked at in terms of redundant things that back them up, having disabled powers ranks high on the list with 7 things to prove it to be true.

Good. Get researched

Yes I found where wiki included humans. I was only reading the first two paragraphs.

reply to post by Xcalibur254

I have posted the story regarding goatsbeard in the US multiple times now and you have yet to respond. If one species cannot evolve into another species why did these plants do just that?

I must have missed them, sorry. Goatsbeard does sound familliar, are you sure I didn't answer you?

reply to post by HappyBunny

What was the father? The father is human, too.

Are you sure thats not the part where he says SOME of the genes come back human?

We're not Power Rangers, you know. Do you know what morphological means?

Sorry I was being sarcastic and should have used evolving. Yes I know what it means.

If he can't even reveal the genetic test results, I'm not holding my breath for him to release his tax returns.

Everyone is complaining about this. You know if he hasn't even made a book yet, which appears to be the case, he wont have to file.

There is no "missing link." That's just a myth creationists love to toss around because they don't really understand what evolution does and does not say, nor do they understand how fossils are formed

Well then I wont use that term. What I will say is there has never been a confirmed connection that ties us to any other species. In addition there has never been any solid ties made about any other life here on earth either. Ever wonder why?

reply to post by iterationzero

So your only answer reconciling scientific fact with the Bible is that aliens did it?

No my only answer is that we have clear documentation that aliens did it.
We have remnants all over the globe proving that aliens were once here.
We have over 4 million people claiming to have had contact with other life.
Clear documentation that the person claiming to be our creator was in fact an alien.
Clear documentation that our DNA was altered as a control method.
Documentation showing we have had powers removed from us.
And now findings in our DNA that proves all the aformentioned.

Dont forget all the authors as well saying that aliens did it.

reply to post by itsthetooth

I have no doubt that traits can be bread, its allowed withing a species, but where does it change into another species?

From what i know there are two main types of speciation (the process by which new species arise) and these are allopatric speciation and sympatric speciation and both have to do with RIMs or reproductive isolating mechanisms
en.wikipedia.org...

In allopatric speciation a starting population is seperated by a geographical barrier (RIM), for example a mountain. If that starting population was a group of black beetles and one part of the mountain had dark terrain and another had snow the black beetles wouldnt survive well in the snowy part because they would stand out and be predated upon, there for any individuals who mutated a lighter colour would be the ones that reproduce. After enough time eventually they would become a seperate species meaning they are unable to produce fertile offspring with each other.

same deal with sympatric except the species are in the same geographic area but have behavioural RIMs which prevent them mating. Picture showing sympatry


[atsimg]http://www.geo.arizona.edu/Antevs/nats104/SymptrcSpctnSml.jpg[/atsimg]

Hopefully i sort of answered your question if you look at that wikipedia link it does a better job of explaining than me and im sure youtube will have plenty of speciation videos too. Even though i believe in evolution i dont think im the decendant of an ape haha

reply to post by itsthetooth

Wow.

I am honestly speechless. I asked you to respond directly to the evidence and to post evidence of your theory and you ignored it plus side stepped every single question. This is simply an epic fail on your part. You are so stubborn in your ways, it's not even worth going back and forth anymore. You can't argue a simple point without tons of fallacies and ignored information.

"All children under 10 would die without medical intervention" - Proven wrong, you change the subject to some link about which states in the US require vaccinations. That's called a red herring. Look it up. The government also requires you to pay taxes. Does that indicate we wouldn't survive without paying them?

"Microevolution has never been observed in humans" - Proven wrong, regardless of trying to change the subject back to macroevolution and failing again to address races of human. Neanderthal isn't a race of human. Australopithecus Afarensis is not a race of human.

You completely dodged the link I posted with 20+ different types of evidence for macro evolution. I'm seriously dying of laughter here. The one thing you have proven this entire thread, is that you are a troll and are clogging up what could be a very interesting thread with hypothetical nonsense. You responded to at least 40 pages of scientific facts and evidence with a one liner that didn't have anything to do with it, or show any quotes or ANYTHING. That is disrespectful and intellectually dishonest.

Good riddance.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Lol humans can drink water, it doesn't have to be avion. I doubt the Myceneans drank avion water.

reply to post by itsthetooth

What you have is beliefs founded on speculation with zero objective evidence for them, and therefore not proof. Further, I question your interpretation of many of the sources of information you're using to come to these conclusions. You lack understanding of the basic science that you're trying to use to support your claims e.g. you think that base pairs are genes. You have displayed an inability to read past the first two paragraphs of your own sources e.g. your adamancy about humans not being primates when your own source stated the opposite. Show some respect for the rest of us and try to engage everyone in this conversation on the same level at which we've been engaging you.

Originally posted by BillyTJames

Natural selection drives evolution in nature in a similar fashion where the selective breeder is mother nature....

so then why do we need medical technology to fight disease and improve our life expectancy? why wasn't that all weeded out a long time ago? Why aren't we stronger after having to exist for thousands of years without technology? If we are the result of millions of years of hominids existing off the land, why would we need to all of a sudden put on clothes? Modern man does not fit in with the rest of the natural world.

reply to post by Barcs


how is this thread interesting if everybody is agreeing with each other?

reply to post by bottleslingguy


Ok, yeah technology has essentially removed many of the selction pressures that would have been exerted upon our ancestors but evolution is still going hard. An example of this can be found in the loss of wisdom teeth which are becoming less and less common due the fact they are no longer needed.

health.howstuffworks.com...

Humans are no less subject to evolution than any other organism. Myopia has become more common in modern times because of the invention of glasses etc but that doesnt mean that humans are some how exempt from evolution but rather that the selection pressures are different, as in its not the survival of the biggest or strongest or fittest but maybe intelligence is a stronger selection factor than it was. Time will tell who knows what the future holds for the human race.

I dont think we evolved from apes all though all the evidenve suggests that we did, Out of africa and multiregional hypothesis

reply to post by BillyTJames

Markov model suggests humans and chimpanzees speciated apart 4.1 million years ago.
en.wikipedia.org...

If merit were simply based on suggestion, I should get a prize for intervention.

In allopatric speciation a starting population is seperated by a geographical barrier (RIM), for example a mountain. If that starting population was a group of black beetles and one part of the mountain had dark terrain and another had snow the black beetles wouldnt survive well in the snowy part because they would stand out and be predated upon, there for any individuals who mutated a lighter colour would be the ones that reproduce. After enough time eventually they would become a seperate species meaning they are unable to produce fertile offspring with each other.

Well it all sounds nice and fitting until I read that it was just a suggestion when applying it to humans.

same deal with sympatric except the species are in the same geographic area but have behavioural RIMs which prevent them mating. Picture showing sympatry

I was allready aware of this with an experiment done with fruitflys. It still has nothing to do with humans.

Hopefully i sort of answered your question if you look at that wikipedia link it does a better job of explaining than me and im sure youtube will have plenty of speciation videos too. Even though i believe in evolution i dont think im the decendant of an ape haha

I think there is a big difference between speciation and genetic drift within breeds, and I think this is whats causing a lot of people to get off track and not understand the difference.

Sorry. this threads so long im not sure exactly what your opinion is.. You think that no species have ever arose through the process of speciation?

Isnt genetic drift just loss of alleles through random events?

I was allready aware of this with an experiment done with fruitflys. It still has nothing to do with humans.

Syampatic speciation is just as valid as allopatric to buy one is to buy the other.. And i was just using animals as an example that speciation is a valid concept and if one group of humans was placed on a earth like planet with differing conditions while the rest renained here over millions of years they would diverge into different species