Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by itsthetooth

Well its not that it upset me as much as I tend to not look at it in depth because all you do is profile me.

You don't read your own sources of material because I point out when you're lying?

Your kidding me, its obvious.

Answer the question or admit that you can't.

For the 3rd time I allready said I was exagerrating. And its not interventionism any more than yours is evolutionism.

You only admit to exaggerating and making things up when someone points it out and harangues you into admitting it. Just like the "blue laminate".

Sorry never heard of it.

Obviously. Not that you were expected to given the ignorance you've displayed when it comes to how vaccines work, infection rates of the diseases we vaccinate for, and mortality rates of those diseases.

No you actually eluded to it by claiming that our adaptation ruled out the need for any evolution.

I can't be blamed for your inferences, especially given that you've already confirmed that you don't really read all the way through things.

Your the one claiming that evolution has the ability to change our DNA, branch out to create different species.

You're still claiming that evolution changes our DNA, which is wrong. Evolution is a change in heritable characteristics within a given population over successive generations. The mechanisms by which DNA changes to provide a variety of traits aren't evolution. The selective forces, whether natural or artificial, that cause one of those traits to be favored over another aren't evolution. Evolution is the action of those selective forces on the results of those DNA-altering mechanisms. You can't separate them and claim only one half of it is evolution. That's why all of your arguments against evolution are strawman arguments.

Now hell our own scientists cant even do all that, so this evolution bug must be smart.

You've just claimed that artificial selection doesn't happen. Which is absolutely false and another example of you just making things up to suit your argument. Next time you eat a banana, thank artificial selection. Because wild bananas, the ones that existed before humans started cultivating them, are nothing like the ones you see in your grocery store.

We chose to distance ourselves from wildlife, so in a sense, yes.

So did we leave or were we "pushed out"? You're changing your story on the fly here.

There is not ONE shred of evidence that says we are from earth, aside from us drinking water ( which we have to process first) and breathing air.

We have to process our drinking water because we've polluted it so heavily. And you seem to be missing the point -- there's no reason to believe that we're not from Earth until you can provide some evidence that we're not. Which you've failed to do as of yet.

reply to post by newyorkee
The best answer to that I can think of is it is much easier for a poor person to have nothing than a rich one.

Once far enough down the evolutionary path it becomes increasingly harder to adapt specialised skills and so it is far more likely that the more specialised forms become extinct when their enviroment changes.

This is illustrated in the mass extinction of the dinosaurs. Pretty much nothing much larger than a rat survived.

So I dont think man or any other higher creature could de-evolve. They either adapt or die out.

So now your saying that because the only objective evidence is in the form of documentation, its subjective. How did you ever get to where you were able to allow yourself to believe in evolution? Did you actually conduct the theorys yourself? The bible is not subjective, thats just simply your opinion, and your entitled to that, but you know what they say about opinions.

reply to post by itsthetooth


Time for another video this one deals with itsthetooths 2nd foundational falsehood.

-Disclaimer- I don't expect itsthetooth to read, watch or even be able to understand any of this.

If the Bible had been written by a supreme being, then it wouldn’t contain the mistakes that it does. If it was written by a truly superior being, and meant to be read as a literal history, then the Bible wouldn’t contain anything that it does. As a moral guide, it utterly fails, because much of the original Hebrew scriptures were written by ignorant and bigoted savages who condoned and promoted animal cruelty, incest, slavery, abuse of slaves, spousal abuse, child abuse, child molestation, abortion, pillage, murder, cannibalism, genocide, and prejudice against race, nationality, religion, sex, and sexual orientation. Why? To justify their own inhumanity by claiming to do the will of God.

Here is the script a brilliant read.

reply to post by Tiger5

Wow

1) Evolution is mandatory in mostof the civilised world. America is an exception perhaps but then America is falling behind in terms of scientific knowledge and has had to important scientists. I hope the creationists are very proud of this statistic.

I would strongly be curious to know if its always been that way or just recently.

2) As a matter of fact I am a qualified biologist and I do have a religion. Not all religionists are simpletons only fundamentalists.

Wow thats a twist.

3) There has been evidence of natural selctin and it is easily proven when a single specis has been trapped in differing environment and evolved different Phenotypes. You have also proven it in drug resistance diseases. The discovery channel is your friend.

Here is where I start questioning if it's possible that those were allowable changes within the organizim to begin with. And the truth is, we may never know.

4) The very concept of Species that you quote relies on genes which are a key compnent of genetics. All mutations have a genetic basis. and the mutated genes can be identified.

And again I think those could just be permissible differneces within the species to begin with. Unlike me growing wings tomorrow.

3) There has been evidence of natural selctin and it is easily proven when a single specis has been trapped in differing environment and evolved different Phenotypes. You have also proven it in drug resistance diseases. The discovery channel is your friend.

Here is where I start questioning if it's possible that those were allowable changes within the organizim to begin with. And the truth is, we may never know.

4) The very concept of Species that you quote relies on genes which are a key compnent of genetics. All mutations have a genetic basis. and the mutated genes can be identified.

And again I think those could just be permissible differneces within the species to begin with. Unlike me growing wings tomorrow.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again trying to implore your intelligent design dogma with words like "allowable changes" and "permissible differneces".
-
Clearly you have no clue about how biology works, do you have any idea how many millions of years it would take for you to develop wings?

To even write that is beyond ridiculous, I'm embarrassed for you.

reply to post by colin42

Thanks for thinking my question was excellent but you forgot to answer all the questions it contained. Try again.

If Aliens did it then explain what must be billions of species since the earth became habitable when you add in microbial life, (essential to the eco systems of this planet) then how did they achieve this megalithic task. The effort makes pyramid building look less than a child’s mud pie. WHY NO EVIDENCE?

If all the species were created by aliens, why don’t we see new species being created today? They obivously cant stop!!

I'm sorry, your slang is throwing me off sometimes.

Let me try again.
When I'm talking about aliens doing it, I'm only thinking about humans specifically. While its just a theory that aliens made everything, it would certainly make more sense if there was a grand creator, or creators that werent aliens as in the realm that we understand them to be.
Like I said, IMO there is no way that a creator, or evolution could have made all of this becuase we always get stopped at the starting point. Which came first the chicken or the egg? If aliens made us, who made the aliens, if a grand creator made us, who made the creator. If evolution made us from slime, who made the slime. So you see we always get stuck at the begining.

From a program I watched. It would appear that planets equipped with life are magically formed through a combined process of creation and evolution. We know that evolution plays a part in the forming of a planet, it has to, there is no denying this. But at the same time there seems to be life allready equiped on new planets. But it doesn't seems like everything is evolving from something else but that there was specific life gifted into the process. This gets complilcated because like in the design of humans you would have to have several hundred or thousand so that you don't end up with incest. So its not just a hit and miss process like that thought of in evolution, its very solid and robust.

I watched a different program about quantium physics saying that the chances of a human being created accidently are like .01 to the 21st power. And thats just one human, not many and not other life. Basically you have a better chance of hitting lotto 100 times in a row.

If there isn't a creator behind all of this work, then its impossible to imagine how. I'm even taking evolution into consideration. The only reason creationisim has the lead at this point is because religion was slayed to rest with mitochondrial DNA telling us that we have a common ancestor 200,000 years ago. Now one thing they have clearly omitted in this is our true age. The funny part is they actually know our true age because they are also admitting to have successfully mapped out the whole genome. So they are keeping it from us on purpose. The only reason why is because its saying that we are older than earth, and as you can guess, that just wouldn't sit well with anyone.

Of course we are older than earth, we arent from earth.


To answer your questions, how did earth end up with so much diversity in life, they had to be all created. Now if I'm wrong, then there is an evolution bug that is a trillion times smarter than Einstien, and knows how to reprogram DNA and how to predict the future.I doubt seriously if aliens made all this but you never know. Maybe they designed a cocktail of life that once exploded, expands and has billions of life forms. As far as trying to realize how someone could achieve such a task, you have to remember that aliens had atomic bombs in biblical times, there is no telling what machines they could design to make life, even a plethora of life. There could be mass life making machines out there, the skys the limit.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

I beg your pardon?

SC was found to be a zygote. I thought you watched the video ??? Anyhow that is how they figured out why it was able to have human mtDNA and alien nuclear DNA. Our doctors can do zygotes today but we didn't have that technology 900 years ago, so even yet another proof of advanced technology from alien species.

A zygote is the initial cell that results from fertilization which is the union of two gametes--the ovum and sperm cells, which combine to form a diploid cell. (Go look up diploid.) A zyogte is THE earliest developmental stage of an embryo in multicellular organisms. Sheesh.

Now, who needs to read up on zygotes again?

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

Explain what you mean by that, please.

I was only saying that you found an odd situation that I don't think was the norm in what we are talking about.

That made no sense whatsoever.

Originally posted by Tiger5

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Tiger5

 

First of all if evolutionism was ever found to be correct, it would be mandatory in all schools.
Religion would all fall to the wasteside, and you and I wouldn't be having this conversation.
There has never been any common ancestors found to be related to humans. There has never been any proof of humans evolving into, much less from another species.
There has never been any witness of any species ( out of the 5 million here ) evolving to or from anything else.
There have been small instances of viruses mutating but even then, you still have the same species.
We lack bones of any transgression or any species and I'm not being told that due to our superior intelligence, we actually stopped evolving.

It looks more and more like one big unconnected theory.
Everytime I get a link sent to me to check these things out, the link always indicates that its either a hypothetical theory, or still under investigation, or a postulated theory.
I think its pretty clear whats going on, and I'm shocked the rest of you don't see it too.
I'm not even going into the fact that we aren't from earth.

Wow

1) Evolution is mandatory in mostof the civilised world. America is an exception perhaps but then America is falling behind in terms of scientific knowledge and has had to important scientists. I hope the creationists are very proud of this statistic.


2) As a matter of fact I am a qualified biologist and I do have a religion. Not all religionists are simpletons only fundamentalists.

3) There has been evidence of natural selctin and it is easily proven when a single specis has been trapped in differing environment and evolved different Phenotypes. You have also proven it in drug resistance diseases. The discovery channel is your friend.

4) The very concept of Species that you quote relies on genes which are a key compnent of genetics. All mutations have a genetic basis. and the mutated genes can be identified.

HI Tiger,

You get points for trying, but it's a lost cause. He doesn't even understand the difference between a base pair and a gene, and worse, he's made no attempt to learn.

reply to post by iterationzero

You don't read your own sources of material because I point out when you're lying?

So which is it, do I not read my own material or do I lie, or are you just profiling me?

Answer the question or admit that you can't.

Ok here are some that will kill you without medical intervention.

Here is 25
mphdegree.org...

Here are the ten worst.
listverse.com...

Heres 10 more.
www.bjorkaoddities.com...

I'm laughing that your challenging me on this part because your basically saying doctors are not needed for the most part and we would still be alive today without them. It's shocking to realize they go through 9 years of schooling, earn the highest respected position in our society for you to sit back and say they don't do that much. Maybe what you can do since your so sure we don't need medical intervention to survive is go out and infect yourself with some of the aformentioned and refuse medical treatment and watch how long you live. Or rather how quick you die.

You only admit to exaggerating and making things up when someone points it out and harangues you into admitting it. Just like the "blue laminate".

You know I had web pages that supported this before I formatted my computer. I allready told you it was a mistake. You must live a flawless life and never make mistakes. I must also point out that I was never hiding my mistakes.

Obviously. Not that you were expected to given the ignorance you've displayed when it comes to how vaccines work, infection rates of the diseases we vaccinate for, and mortality rates of those diseases.

I know how those work, what are you trying to profile me on now?

I can't be blamed for your inferences, especially given that you've already confirmed that you don't really read all the way through things.

Only those related to those that profile me.

You're still claiming that evolution changes our DNA, which is wrong. Evolution is a change in heritable characteristics within a given population over successive generations.

Which requires the altering of DNA to result in change. There no way those changes can be made without it going through the DNA. Otherwise we would all have identicle DNA.

The selective forces, whether natural or artificial, that cause one of those traits to be favored over another aren't evolution. Evolution is the action of those selective forces on the results of those DNA-altering mechanisms. You can't separate them and claim only one half of it is evolution. That's why all of your arguments against evolution are strawman arguments.

Another postulated theory?

You've just claimed that artificial selection doesn't happen. Which is absolutely false and another example of you just making things up to suit your argument. Next time you eat a banana, thank artificial selection. Because wild bananas, the ones that existed before humans started cultivating them, are nothing like the ones you see in your grocery store.

I'm sure there are differences but you started with a bananna and ended up with a bananna, It was all allowences within the species to being with. I see no magic here.

So did we leave or were we "pushed out"? You're changing your story on the fly here.

Both.

We have to process our drinking water because we've polluted it so heavily. And you seem to be missing the point -- there's no reason to believe that we're not from Earth until you can provide some evidence that we're not. Which you've failed to do as of yet.

Actually thats not true, you lack the ability to set yourself apart from your experiences in life, to see this for yourself. There is nothing here that ties us to earth, its ok that you sidesteped my question, its ok I understand, you couldn't answer it if you wanted to. It was a trick question, there is no answer because we aren't from here. Anything you could possibly mistake otherwise could ealily be shot down.

Never mind.

reply to post by flyingfish


I watched it, it was ok, I have seen better.
He has some good points but most the problems people are having that he brings up are because your not reading the book from a supernatural perspective. In addition, god did lie, and was evil and deceitful. This is something else others don't know from reading it. It's like so obvious too.

Originally posted by flyingfish


Again trying to implore your intelligent design dogma with words like "allowable changes" and "permissible differneces".
-
Clearly you have no clue about how biology works, do you have any idea how many millions of years it would take for you to develop wings?

To even write that is beyond ridiculous, I'm embarrassed for you.

Ah, but it probably DID take millions of years. That's the trouble with creationists--they fail miserably because they never take into account the concept of time.

Oh, and wings were probably selected not for flight but for thermoregulation.

I was wondering about the "permissible differences" stuff too so I skipped over most of his post.

reply to post by flyingfish

Again trying to implore your intelligent design dogma with words like "allowable changes" and "permissible differneces".

There are allowable differences like I have blue eyes, you probably have brown eyes. I think DNA can be pretty complicated and I think we don't understand everything at this point.

Clearly you have no clue about how biology works, do you have any idea how many millions of years it would take for you to develop wings?

YES OMG I was being sarcastic. I need a sarcasim button. Here is one ...

Originally posted by Tiger5
Wow

Welcome to our world.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish

 

Again trying to implore your intelligent design dogma with words like "allowable changes" and "permissible differneces".

There are allowable differences like I have blue eyes, you probably have brown eyes. I think DNA can be pretty complicated and I think we don't understand everything at this point.

Clearly you have no clue about how biology works, do you have any idea how many millions of years it would take for you to develop wings?

YES OMG I was being sarcastic. I need a sarcasim button. Here is one ...

So why is it "allowable" or "permissible"? I have blue eyes, too. So what?

You're not making any sense at all.

reply to post by HappyBunny

A zygote is the initial cell that results from fertilization which is the union of two gametes--the ovum and sperm cells, which combine to form a diploid cell. (Go look up diploid.) A zyogte is THE earliest developmental stage of an embryo in multicellular organisms. Sheesh.

Now, who needs to read up on zygotes again?

This fertilized cell could be for example alien mother and alien father.
They can then take a maternal package from a human female, scrape out the chromosomes and insert that cell into her womb.

She could carry that baby to full term and when its born it will have alien mother and father nuclear DNA and human mtDNA.
Dont quote me on the specifics, I just understand the basics.

reply to post by HappyBunny


What I'm saying is I don't think the example you gave was the norm.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

A zygote is the initial cell that results from fertilization which is the union of two gametes--the ovum and sperm cells, which combine to form a diploid cell. (Go look up diploid.) A zyogte is THE earliest developmental stage of an embryo in multicellular organisms. Sheesh.

Now, who needs to read up on zygotes again?

This fertilized cell could be for example alien mother and alien father.
They can then take a maternal package from a human female, scrape out the chromosomes and insert that cell into her womb.

She could carry that baby to full term and when its born it will have alien mother and father nuclear DNA and human mtDNA.
Dont quote me on the specifics, I just understand the basics.

Apparently you don't. You said the Starchild was a zygote. ALL multicellular animals start out as zygotes.

As for the rest, what proof do you have that that's what happened? That a human woman was a surrogate for an alien couple? That's crazy.

We know beyond doubt that the mother is human from haplogroup C. The father is human, too. Which blows your theory right out of the water.

reply to post by HappyBunny

So why is it "allowable" or "permissible"? I have blue eyes, too. So what?

You're not making any sense at all.

All I'm saying is that there is no way for us to know that they were just allowable differences that were always in the genetic package to begin with.

I'll make an example.
Lets say for the first time ever a person is born with purple eyes. Now we have blue, brown, green, and hazel, even black, but we have never seen purple before. It is possible that it was always an option but for some unknown reason it just never surfaced.