Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by colin42

Here is a little hint. The fact that DNA is repeated through ALL living things shows EVOLUTION and we have the evidence to prove it. It was not an accident. Its cause and effect.

And how do you know a creator wasn't just using recycled parts to make additional life?

reply to post by colin42

Are you writing this from the land of OZ because you certainly have no contact with reality here? This proves my point. You intend to understand nothing Evolution says. You have no understanding of even the world you live in. Shame on you.

Out of 250 million bones and fossils that have been harvested, please point me to one, just a single one that proves evoltuion. You have to have sucker written on your forehead to believe in this stuff.

Here is another ignorant totally braindead reply. You admitt to having no evidence. Where is thee clear documentation??? If you are talking the bible that is neither clear or documentation.

It's clear if you read it correctly like stated in the begining, from the supernatural perspective. I think your confusing how its taught with how its suppose to be read.

You have fallen into that catagory of the norm where most people are being taught wrong.

152 Pages and you still talk S##T about our ancestors waking up on day converting into another species. That is what your book says not what evolution shows. BLIND MONKEY AGAIN.

I think I can tell when your yelling or upset because your sentances stop making sense. Anyhow, your challenging someon that also happens to be the identifer of a virus. I'm smart enough to know the difference between fact and BS. If we aren't suppose to convert into another species, then how in the hell did we evolve from monkeys?

The question was 'who claimed he loved us?' It seems there are more gods about than the one you hang everything on. So which God are you speaking of? Show me how you know your god is the true god and all the other religions are wrong. Try answering a question with some resemblance of foundation.

Good point, and I have to admitt you are probably the best person I have chatted with here so far that pays enough attention to listen and understand.
Yes I'm talking about more than one god. The one that put us here or abducted us might have also have been our creator, if we were frankenstiened. He did not IMO have a love for life as he sure did kill a lot of us. On the other hand, the real creator, or creators of life must have had a love for making life, because of all the life there is.

So you intend not to answer the question. Ok that shows you cannot. BTW I also never got an answer to my application for the hall of fame along with 18 million other people that can show the early atmosphere and how life changed it.

I'm lost in this question, are you trying to say that life created the atmosphere?

Your assuming our intelligence was designed to compensate for being on a wrong planet and being subject to such.

You need to explain that one because it makes no sense.

Well your argument was that our intelligence was our nich by comparison to other life having physical things that allow them to nich in life. I'm calling BS on it and saying that our intelligence has been what has saved us but evoltuion could not have been smart enough to know that leaving us with nothing other than intelligence would have been fine.

What I'm saying is that there is always an obvious nich to a species belonging to a planet. Yes the anteater is obvious, and many other life, is obvious. Look at humans, what obviously ties us to this planet, Nothing, not a damn thing.

You really are deluded.

Not at all, your also assuming that those 200,000 years we lived here on earth, I'm saying we only lived the last 10,000 years here.

Neither its common sense. Just like assuming we were suppose to drink cows mucous. Granted we need that calcium, so we need the cow but do you really think we were meant to drink from the cow? If so then you must also agree each family was suppose to own there own cow to fill that need. It's just so wrong when you really look at it.

No you are not trying to hide behind this nonsense again are you? Are you that desperate? At no point in any of the 150 pages you have taken part in have you applied common sense. This subject was done to death pages ago and you was shown to be profoundly wrong as usual. It appears you are even clueless when it comes to diet and have chosen to remain so.

Your the one whos hiding. You refuse to give me a straight up answer as to why we drink cow mucous. Dont worry its a trick question, there is no answer aside from god putting cows here for us.

reply to post by colin42

Here is a list of calcium rich food you may wish to ignore.

spinach broccoli, bok choy, turnips, okra, asparagus, artichoke, carrots, celery, cauliflower, cucumbers and peas. Peas and beans in particular are very rich in calcium, look for navy beans, black turtle beans, and chickpeas. There are also many fruits which are recommended for calcium content, including oranges, apples, bananas, grapes, lemons, pineapples, cherries, cranberries, watermelons, and pomegranates.

True but did you bother to look at the RDA needs and what those offer? You would have to gorge yourself on these foods. The bottom line is its just not possible to have a vairety diet while gorging yourself on these things. The highest on the charts for cacium was processed cheese, with sardines just under that. Getting down to the bottom of the list is all these you shared. We weren't meant to live on a boat and have access to sardines, not to mention our need grows with age, where I thought it was the opposite. Anyhow, its another scenerio where you can see that we are screwed and there is no happy medium to getting your RDA. It's obvious that on our home planet, there is food that is plentiful in calcium.

No NO NOOOO!!!!!! You have not explained diversity in any shape or form. Evolution explains diversity. You say evolution is wrong, a non starter. EXPLAIN DIVERSITY WITHOUT IT. You have been asked to do this from the OP onwards.

Well don't pop a gasket. Evolution COULD explalin diversity, and creationalism COULD explain diversity. Your assuming we have all the options and its either one or the other, I"m saying there might be some other options we don't know about yet.

reply to post by Tiger5


Tiger...
buddy...
I think you accidently quoted something I wrote and displayed it as though you wrote it.

It took me a while to learn how to quote properly, basically it pissed off enough people that I had to get it down.

Anyhow...

Well why don't we simply apply your logic to cars. The fact that most care are a mixture of the five building blocks of Steel, plastic, rubber, copper and lead should by your logic indicate that all makes of car have 1 creator. Is this true??

Yes I would feel safe to say that humans made cars.

reply to post by colin42

It has not done that for me, what I get from it is desperate people trying to make sense of things using unprovalbe theorys.

What? What has that answer got to do with the original question?

Sorry I lost track here.

AND AS YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD MANY TIMES. Evolution does not tell you how life started. It explains how it progressed and diversified. Will you ever grasp this?????????

Well ya I had assumed it wasnt possible without explaining the begining. On the other hand I always heard we started from slime. It's just a tad to tough to believe.

There is no 'If your wrong' you have never been close to correct. You have been told many times what our niche is only an drooling idiot would not be able to recall being told it so many times before.

If your referring to making tools, tools are a form of adaptation, not evolution. So thats not possible.

We are a tool user. Our niche expands each time we increase our tech. We are a jack of all trades and a master of none. (our hands play a major part in this BTW, as alien as they may appear)

That makes no sense. It's as though your saying that this evolution bug, as I like to call it, was smart enough to know that by equipping us with tool making abilities, we would be ok.

Thats evolution not the supernatural.

Another senseless reply. What was it supposed to mean?

My 30 years is in supernatural and paranormal, not evolutionism.

What? What!!!!!. Unless life has always been then there has to be a creative force of some sort. This is what you base your stupid theory on.

Its hard to imaging life as we see it, without some intelligent force behind it. Who knows, that intelligence could be in the form of the evolution bug. I'm not 100% sold on any of it because you still end up with that same old question, who made the creator.

This is why you attack evolution despite evolution having nothing to say about creation. You really need to explain this one mate.

Well probably what your detecting is my choice in order. I would belive in creation long before I would believe in evoltuion. The problem is that they both have open ends at the begining. Again, I'll say there is something out there that we haven't even began to understand.

reply to post by colin42

The master of avoidance points the finger at me

You have been shown 'the missing link' is a complete falasy but you have avoided and ignored that everytime you have been shown. Why would I waste my time doing the same thing only to get the exact same response from you????????????????????

So now your admitting that we are not all related to anything else. Thus no proof of a connection.

reply to post by colin42

My word you are unbelievable. You have explained your ignorance of thermodynamics by inventing a missing link, another missing link.

Your whole premise is set on there being one or more creators even though I have reminded you time and again this thread is about explaining diversity without evolution and has nothing to do with creation.

Just because your close minded and not able to comprehend how a creator could easily explain diversity does not mean I'm avoiding.

If you cannot accept we evolved from slime and find it impossible to believe in creator/s then what the hell have you been on about through all these pages of drivel.

Well now you got side tracked, the OP was never about who created us, its about diversity, or dissproving it, which Is not hard to do considering the lacking evidence of evolutionism.

reply to post by Quadrivium
(Sighs with relief)

I would expect life would have needed to have began in water whether that be a puddle, ocean or something in between. The how I leave to others to decide.

reply to post by itsthetooth

I'm lost in this question, are you trying to say that life created the atmosphere?

Will answer the rest when time allows. Follow the link to answer your question.

scijinks.nasa.gov...

So as you see. No life 'fits' and yes life begets life. We are ALL reliant on each other for survival and all that matters to life is that it continues with or without us.

It also shows you very simply planets are not formed with a balanced eco system as you keep saying.

reply to post by colin42

Will answer the rest when time allows. Follow the link to answer your question.

scijinks.nasa.gov...

So as you see. No life 'fits' and yes life begets life. We are ALL reliant on each other for survival and all that matters to life is that it continues with or without us.

It also shows you very simply planets are not formed with a balanced eco system as you keep saying.

Ok so what other life here on earth depends on humans, aside from domesticated animals.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Your kidding me, you actually believe this plague coudln't wipe us out.

Your claim was that we would die of these things before reaching puberty without medical intervention and would therefore become extinct as a species. The vaccine for Bubonic Plague has existed for less than ten years and isn't part of the regular vaccination schedule for children or adults. We encountered it multiple times in the history of our species and we're not extinct from it. So please explain how we would all be dead of Bubonic Plague before puberty without the medical intervention that none of us has received for it and how it will wipe us out as a species without the medical intervention that didn't exist every time there's been a pandemic of it.

I guess its true what they say, none of us think its a problem until its a problem for us individualy.

It has nothing to do with who thinks what is a problem for who. It has to do with the fact that we encountered all of those diseases multiple times in the history of species, before we had vaccines or treatments for them, and none of them led to our extinction. Your claim that these things would kill us all before reaching puberty is baseless. Your claim that these diseases would lead to our extinction without medical invention is baseless. Like all of your claims so far.

But I'll bet they are still banannas huh?

Yes, but they're a difference species of banana. Or are you making up your own definition for species as you go along?

Not at all, we know that we can kill wildlife, but choose not to. Which is a good thing because we should'nt.

So how did the wildlife then "push us out" if we could kill it?

Its not a hypothesis, its from clear documentation and its about 10,000 years ago.

It's a hypothesis and a testable one. All I have to do is show that we've found Homo sapiens remains that date back before 10kya. Here's just one example of Homo sapiens remains that we've found that date back farther than that. The particular ones discussed in that article are from about 24kya (two and a half times older than should be possible according to your hypothesis) found in France. They sequenced the mtDNA and found that they belonged to haplogroup N, which represents the northern part of the out-of-Africa migration of modern humans. So your hypothesis has been proven wrong.

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by Quadrivium

 

(Sighs with relief)

I would expect life would have needed to have began in water whether that be a puddle, ocean or something in between. The how I leave to others to decide.

So we agree that life on earth began in water.

So in your opinion what came next? Dinosaurs, mammals, birds or reptiles?

On a side note........
I find it rather intriguing that most of the people in this thread, who believe in evolution, say that it has nothing to do with the beginning of life.
Twenty years ago that was all you would here from an evolutionist............. how life started as pond scum and evolved into one species, then that species evolved into several differnt species and so on.
Now it would seem that evolution is just used to explain the diversity of life not the origins of life.
Ah.......the theory of evolution is evolving!!
Or is it adapting to survive?
(Just an observance Colin, did not mean to derail our discussion.)

reply to post by itsthetooth

I'm watching some videos about how evolutionism is pseudoscience and how several people have tried to cash in on some findings that never were anything special.

One doctor busting people on such claims has written a book called "voodoo science." By DR park.

Two books have been written that expose eight man frauds in evolutionism.
The bone peddlers by William Fix and Bones of contention by Martin Lubenow.

Exposing eight men that fall into this voodoo science.

]
And? I watched a video about a school full of wizards in England called Hogwart's. Must be true since I saw it in a video, right?

The laws of thermodynamics state that everything is in a natural state of decay.

Given that you don't understand basic scientific methodology, genetics, evolution, or immunology, I can guarantee that you don't understand thermodynamics.

Here's the second law of thermodynamics for you:

The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the tendency that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential equilibrate in an isolated physical system. From the state of thermodynamic equilibrium, the law deduced the principle of the increase of entropy and explains the phenomenon of irreversibility in nature.

Please explain how that conflicts with the theory of evolution.

reply to post by iterationzero

Your claim was that we would die of these things before reaching puberty without medical intervention and would therefore become extinct as a species. The vaccine for Bubonic Plague has existed for less than ten years and isn't part of the regular vaccination schedule for children or adults. We encountered it multiple times in the history of our species and we're not extinct from it. So please explain how we would all be dead of Bubonic Plague before puberty without the medical intervention that none of us has received for it and how it will wipe us out as a species without the medical intervention that didn't exist every time there's been a pandemic of it.

I never said the bubonic plague would wipe us out before puberty. What I said was that out of 4000 defects in our genes, 2 dozen of them wouldn't allow you to make it past puberty per Pye's video.

It has nothing to do with who thinks what is a problem for who. It has to do with the fact that we encountered all of those diseases multiple times in the history of species, before we had vaccines or treatments for them, and none of them led to our extinction. Your claim that these things would kill us all before reaching puberty is baseless. Your claim that these diseases would lead to our extinction without medical invention is baseless. Like all of your claims so far.

Well I disagree. We did have to burn all of the bodies and isolate ourselves from infected people. I think we just got lucky. I think we could have just of easily been extinct.

Yes, but they're a difference species of banana. Or are you making up your own definition for species as you go along?

Are you trying to tell me that a bananna changed into an apple, or that a bananna changed into something we dont have a name for. Or is it just a different type of bananna?

So how did the wildlife then "push us out" if we could kill it?

We chose not to be invasive, and try to not bother wild life. So in a sense we were pushed out. We didn't have to be, but we chose to be.

It's a hypothesis and a testable one. All I have to do is show that we've found Homo sapiens remains that date back before 10kya. Here's just one example of Homo sapiens remains that we've found that date back farther than that. The particular ones discussed in that article are from about 24kya (two and a half times older than should be possible according to your hypothesis) found in France. They sequenced the mtDNA and found that they belonged to haplogroup N, which represents the northern part of the out-of-Africa migration of modern humans. So your hypothesis has been proven wrong.

Your wrong again. Your assuming that we were the first and only humanoids here on earth. Which of course we know is not true, this is even mentioned in the bible many times.

reply to post by iterationzero

I'm watching some videos about how evolutionism is pseudoscience and how several people have tried to cash in on some findings that never were anything special.

One doctor busting people on such claims has written a book called "voodoo science." By DR park.

Two books have been written that expose eight man frauds in evolutionism.
The bone peddlers by William Fix and Bones of contention by Martin Lubenow.

Exposing eight men that fall into this voodoo science.
]
And? I watched a video about a school full of wizards in England called Hogwart's. Must be true since I saw it in a video, right?

I'm sure its incredulity. I guess a lot of peeps on here suffer from it.

Given that you don't understand basic scientific methodology, genetics, evolution, or immunology, I can guarantee that you don't understand thermodynamics.

Here's the second law of thermodynamics for you:


The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the tendency that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential equilibrate in an isolated physical system. From the state of thermodynamic equilibrium, the law deduced the principle of the increase of entropy and explains the phenomenon of irreversibility in nature.

Please explain how that conflicts with the theory of evolution.

Simple, the law of thermodynamics appears to be things winding down, and evolution is winding up. It's all backwards.

And it doens't even matter if it technically shouldn't apply, everything on earth is privy to the laws of science. It has to one way or another. Looking at it from the overall picture, it is very odd, and backwards. I think Darwin said it best, when he said that if he was unable to find any bones of transgression or any living species thats evolving, that his theory was all wrong. He was right, it was all wrong.

I'm not able to think of anything else on this planet winding up, thermodynamics or not.

reply to post by itsthetooth

I never said the bubonic plague would wipe us out before puberty. What I said was that out of 4000 defects in our genes, 2 dozen of them wouldn't allow you to make it past puberty per Pye's video.

More backtracking and another baseless claim. So what are the 24 that won't let us live past puberty and what's the medical intervention that every Homo sapiens for the last 200k years has gotten to prevent them from being fatal?

Well I disagree. We did have to burn all of the bodies and isolate ourselves from infected people. I think we just got lucky. I think we could have just of easily been extinct.

So you disagree, but have no facts or evidence to back that position. Just a feeling.

Are you trying to tell me that a bananna changed into an apple, or that a bananna changed into something we dont have a name for. Or is it just a different type of bananna?

You seem to be unclear as to the definition of a species.

Your wrong again. Your assuming that we were the first and only humanoids here on earth. Which of course we know is not true, this is even mentioned in the bible many times.

Proving that you didn't even read the link I just gave you. They didn't find some other species of humanoid, they found remains of Homo sapiens -- our species, of haplogroup N to be specific -- dated to 24kya in France. And those aren't even the oldest remains of Homo sapiens found to date. Meaning we weren't brought here 10kya as you just claimed. Your hypothesis has been falsified.

reply to post by itsthetooth

I'm sure its incredulity. I guess a lot of peeps on here suffer from it.

I think in your case it's called credulity -- if it says aliens did it, it must be true.

Simple, the law of thermodynamics appears to be things winding down, and evolution is winding up. It's all backwards.

Where in the second law of thermodynamics does it say that things are "winding down"? Further, if you had bothered to read it and try to understand it, you'd see that it only applies to closed systems. The Earth is, be definition, not a closed system.

And it doens't even matter if it technically shouldn't apply, everything on earth is privy to the laws of science.

Another example of your lack of understanding of basic science. A scientific law is only required to under a given set of conditions. The second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to closed systems.

It has to one way or another. Looking at it from the overall picture, it is very odd, and backwards. I think Darwin said it best, when he said that if he was unable to find any bones of transgression or any living species thats evolving, that his theory was all wrong. He was right, it was all wrong.

This is amazing. I'm watching you evolve into a creationist in front of my very eyes. You're using all of their stock arguments. If you had actually read any Darwin instead of just trying to find arguments against evolution at creationist websites, you'd know the full context of his quote about that subject. Darwin wasn't stating that there were no transitional forms, they even recognized transitional forms 150 years ago, he was discussing why there weren't more transitional forms being found.

Seriously, quote mining is recognized as one of the most intellectually dishonest ways of making an argument shy of outright lying, to the point that even the more reputable creationist websites won't do it. Then again, we've all seen you make up lies to support your case, so I guess we shouldn't put it past you to quote mine.

I'm not able to think of anything else on this planet winding up, thermodynamics or not.

There are plenty of examples of negentropy here on Earth, because Earth is not a closed system. Here's one example from everyday life -- surfactant molecules, like soaps, in solution will self-assemble into structures called micelles above a certain concentration (called the critical micelle concentration), thus reducing the entropy of the system.

Go learn some basic thermodynamics and where which laws apply before you make yourself look any more uneducated on the science you're trying to use to make your case.

Originally posted by iterationzero

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

You're changing your stories again. The list you provided earlier consisted of diseases that were contracted from an external pathogen. The lists you're providing now are a mix of genetic disorders (and, again, we're not the only species that suffers from genetic disorders, contrary to your earlier claims) and those arising from external pathogens.

Let's take the first couple from the first link you provided and see if they would cause us to go extinct, as you claim.

1. Batten Disease -- "Batten disease is very rare and occurs in an estimated 2 to 4 out of every 100,000 births in the United States." And it's autosomal reces(en.wikipedia.org...)

Hardly an extinction level event without medical treatment given that there's no cure or vaccination for it.

2. Bubonic Plague -- A vaccine wasn't developed until about 2005 and it's not even part of the regular set of vaccinations given to children. We've survived several outbreaks of it in the history of our species.

Just to add to this, but the Delta 32 or CCR5 is probably a genetic mutation that conferred resistance to multiple diseases--and it came from exposure to plague. And even if it wasn't plague, it was some other disease like TB.

A couple of years ago, there was a case in which a bone marrow recipient was "cured" of AIDS. It turned out that the donor was a Delta 32 carrier. Up to 15% of Europeans are immune to HIV and other diseases, but it is rare in Africa and Asia. This would partially explain why rates of HIV infection are higher among Africans and Asians.

en.wikipedia.org...

Evolution in action.

reply to post by iterationzero

More backtracking and another baseless claim. So what are the 24 that won't let us live past puberty and what's the medical intervention that every Homo sapiens for the last 200k years has gotten to prevent them from being fatal?

Pye never gave names, and neither did I. All I said was there are sure a lot we would have been dead from without medical intervention.

Thus, the list I provided you.

So you disagree, but have no facts or evidence to back that position. Just a feeling.

It did only take out 70 million people but another one took out over 300 mill. Do you honestly question something of that size.

You seem to be unclear as to the definition of a species.

Actually it seemed more like you were, so this is why I was quizing you. I noticed you didn't answer.

Proving that you didn't even read the link I just gave you. They didn't find some other species of humanoid, they found remains of Homo sapiens -- our species, of haplogroup N to be specific -- dated to 24kya in France. And those aren't even the oldest remains of Homo sapiens found to date. Meaning we weren't brought here 10kya as you just claimed. Your hypothesis has been falsified

Your assuming that group is one that traveled here later, it might not have been. It's pretty hard to prove or disprove and I have allready thought about all of this. If your saying that it looks like the group that was here before 10kya is the one still here, then its also possible most of them got to go back home. It's a mess of possibilities as you can see.

Its also possible that through cross breeding, and idendifying groups, those were removed and sent back home. The ONLY thing about having that pre dated group still here tells me, is that they were here before 10k and are still here. It has little to nothing to do others that could have come, and gone. However it makes you wonder if those groups were singled out by there group and returned, which is also possible.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Xcalibur254

 

The first test was able to find both X and Y chromosomes. The only way this would be possible is if both of its parents were human. The test you're referring to is the most recent. That one found around 250 base pairs of human DNA and 350 base pairs of unidentified DNA. However, as I have pointed out in the past that is a common problem with BLAST when using small samples. Considering the human genome is composed of over 3 billion base pairs I'd say that 600 base pairs is a pretty small sample.

Well having x and y in anything other than human would be ludicris. However we don't know anything about aliens, so it is still possible as odd as it sounds.As far as the base pairs how did you come to the conclusion about using blast? How are you familliar with this?

Are you saying that other animals don't have an X or Y?

www.plosone.org...