Can you prove evolution wrong

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by BlackSatinDancer

 

oh, i just cannot TALK to the XYZ guy.

it is NOT ME saying that man is more DIVINE... IT IS MAN.

Not sure why you don't like debating with me...can't deal with objective evidence and facts?

Now...evolution is a GRADUATING SCALE,,,got it? (jeez, I really hate when i have to do this)

k altogether.

We have a higher brain capacity than animals, but biologically we aren't any different. A few million years ago, dinosaurs were the most intelligent being. And in a few million years whatever will be the most intelligent life form on earth might be a descendant of us, but he won't be homo sapiens

So, if evolution is real up to this point, why would it stop there? Why would there not be MORE and MORE FUTURE SPECIES THAT PUTS ITSELF EVEN ABOVE MAN?

That's exactly what I'm saying. Due to evolution, in a few million years whatever might be the most intelligent life form might not exactly look human to us.

How many dead human bodies do you see in the grocery store? How many donkeys do you see getting BAPTIZED? Sure, NASA might send MONKEYS in space but it sure as HELL isn't because they are smarter... it's because THEIR LIVES ARE NOT AS VALUED AMONG MEN.

Just fyi, humans kill others all the time. We don't really value human life above others all that much...at least some of us don't. We send monkeys to space (or did so decades ago) because their bodies are similar to ours (evidence in favor of evolution fyi). It's normal we try to protect people we like, just like a pack of wolves will also defend eachother against an outside threat or danger.

it is ALL IN SYNC with THAT GRADUATING SCALE when you compare it to the differences we are looking at NOW.

What difference? How is human evolution other than that of animals or plants???

Independent creativity.

Again, what are you talking about? What creativity? Evolution isn't a conscious process!

Evolutions OWN SCALE presents a creative force or species much smarter and much more deserving that US as the END RESULT simply by looking at it's own damn process!

proof that a conscious creative force is behind all that? And how exactly does this disprove the theory of evolution? I really struggle to see your point? Do you believe the theory or not?

It's really a simple concept, why is this person arguing with my personal beliefs when i am not even TALKING about my own beliefs. I am talking about the evolutionary scale here.

You said we are devine...as in..."from god". We have ZERO evidence of that!! So yeah, you ARE talking about your personal beliefs...and you also try to sell them off as truths or facts...which is obviously wrong

i'm trying to TELL YOU SOMETHING.

It's kind of obvious why i use caps... i just cannot belive how you are dragging my words out. I have to say that the last two posts (this one included) i have not read...at all... and I'm replying to them.

You might not believe this but your words just shut me down!

I read one line and see that you are trying to twist the meaning of my post and it is so infuriating that i LITERALLY cannot proceed reading it.

it's like i say "But my favorite color is BLUE.... get it.... BLUE"

and then you reply "I really don't see your facsination with red or why you get so upset and use caps...balah blah blah bl;ah....

and then you MULTIQUOTE...and AT LENGHT.

ah geez... you wouldn't be trying to waste my time would you?

that is EXACTLY what i think you are doing.

i really wish i could debate with you but it is just so damn circular... your arguments... so circular.

It's like my mind says "yes, read it" and then my eyes go "NO FREAKING WAY ARE YOU READING THAT"

you are totally and purposefully misconstruing my meaning i feel...just being dodgey on purpose and anyone who reads what i wrote should easily understand my point.... even if they still believe it's all evolution.

but you cannot deny that to evolve a species into being smarter and more independently creative creates the possibility that there may be EVEN MORE evolution to come that would result in THAT SPECIES becoming even smarter and thinking itself more divine like man DOES...and more independantly creative.

MEANING WHAT EXACTLY?

just like WE are now playing with OUR OWN GENES... we will go on to do this on even BROADER SCALES... until we are what? creating new species OURSELVES.

Who is most likely to do that?

the animals?

the clouds in the sky?

the words in a book?

what is good and what is bad.... doesn't matter. WHAT are we more like? that is the question? like animals?

NOOOO!

we are more like something totally and completely different.

we are headed for being the very idea that evolution HATES

First of all, I don't really see what you are trying to say. You seem to totally agree that the theory of evolution is correct, right?

I really hope you realize that what you call "playing with genes", gene technology and so on actually relies on the theory being correct. Another point that proves the theory. Thanks for bringing that up.

But what point are you trying to make? The point that just because we slowly start to be able to manipulate genes doesn't mean we are the result of some higher species doing so to "get us started". We simply don't know what got it started...but yeah, we believe that we're scientifically very advanced thanks to our first attempts at manipulating genes, or flying to the moon. But I'm sure the ant is pretty amazed at its ant hill too

reply to post by colin42

A loaded question? You mean you cannot answer it but just cannot bring yourself to admit it infront of an audience.

Your question was answered. Now answer mine.

Ok "Thinking."

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

A loaded question? You mean you cannot answer it but just cannot bring yourself to admit it infront of an audience.

Your question was answered. Now answer mine.

Ok "Thinking."

Whats this?

Are you coming over to the dark side

Originally posted by MrXYZ
First of all, I don't really see what you are trying to say. You seem to totally agree that the theory of evolution is

o the moon. But I'm sure the ant is pretty amazed at its ant hill too

that's very true. that is ego. Species other than man does have ego, thanks for pointing that out but they are still very rigid in their natures. they never break out into song or dance so to speak. We may actually get some of that from the playful nature of chimps but look at how we are a species of totally different rank... in our own eyes. Don't try to just brush off the fact that we have any other species in chains if we so desire and we do whatever we want with the world. We do what we want with THEIR world. You really can't deny what DOES separate us. Ego is just a backlash. If i attack the general concept of an over inflated ego, do not take that as my only point. It may just be to make people realize BEYOND that ego, if they can, how mankind himself holds his position to be quite seperate than that of his ancestors. He does't just exalt the idea, he LIVES it. that doesn't just make him egotistical. It's so much more than that, but if you can't see it.... then I'm afraid you can see a step beyond what is being said even when it is spelled out. What it is, in itself, is not ego... ego just prevents you from seeing it.

It is the ability to create freely and independently outside of one's own rigid anatomical means.

Don't you understand what that means? I don't see how it is so hard for a person to grasp. mankind literally has chaos and chance within his own hands, whereas the animals are firmly attached to their natures. We could blow the whole freaking planet up and beyond if we had a mind too. Don't you understand that difference as being very real and very apparent regardless of what i think really happened because that isn't the point.

the point is what you asked for since i guess now you even need to be reminded of that.

You asked what was enough of a change to be so different than the mere evolutionary adaptations of animals to their physical environment. I gave you a very detailed answer... and then some. if those differences are not so painfully obvious to you, I cannot discuss this with you any further. it is a profound difference.

now I am only speaking about that fact and that fact alone right now... but to "it"... to that point, it doesn't matter how it happened. It still presents the idea.... now take this in slowly, ok... it still presents the idea that our future is rooted in coming closer to pure unrestrained chaos where our wills we be literally unbound by any previously held nature... or we will understand that it is a gift that we must regard and humble ourselves in light of... or maybe we will not see it as a gift but an earned right by way of our own evolution so we uphold the principle of betterment even if we don't believe it was given to us or that we have any reason to humble ourselves yet we will still grow more and more in that control, that evolved nature that makes us different than animals.

do you see?

it doesn't matter why to the point I am making.

what matters is that evolution evolves. It will go on and on to a new end result regardless of the question why.

...but no matter which scenario plays out, there will still be a higher evolution, there will still be a species who is in more control than man is, there will be actual deeds that more and more involve the very controlling of life itself. gene play is just an example. it will go well beyond this

BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT EVOLUTION DOES.


It doesn't just stop when we say "ok, that's as far as we want to go"

creator or no creator.... we will become more and more and more of what a creator fancies himself. either way... mankind's end WILL be met with a higher species. unless it is wiped off the earth and out of existence entirely, mankind will meet his end on the evolutionary scale by way of a higher evolved species... or he will simply find out god is real and be changed anyway.

either way..

creationist way presents us with meeting something higher

evolution presents us with meeting and being eliminated by something higher eventually, but something that is still a totally different species within millions of years time.

eventually or now, it doesn't matter the end result still presents the same idea that something out there could have more of an ability to create independently and without restraint... a lot like us. a lot like what separates us from animals.

by definition, to us, it would still be the same as a god... a master. a higher creator.

maybe an ultimate geneticist, maybe an ultimate terraformer (it's what we WANT to be)...anything that excels at life beyond what we can do.

Evolutionists still say it is impossible that anything like that could have put us here.

Why? It LOVES the idea of an evolved being. it's EVOLUTION.

sillies

reply to post by MrXYZ


To believe in evolutionism you must believe in the following...

Things that cannot be recreated, thus it never became a scientific theory.

Things that cannot be observed, out of 5 million species here we have yet to see one starting to evolve, or evolving or evolved.

Things that leave no verifiable trace behind proving to us that it even happened.

Random acts of speciation that change species with no force or reason or verfiable truth.

Changes obscure enough and that rarley happens but still is happening to everyone and everything.

Subtle changes that take long periods of time, yet leave no trace of there origon.

A genius level bug that not only knows how to change our DNA, but also has the ability to do it without ever being seen.

Evolution is a myth, its not even a scientific theory. When will you wake up and realize that this goes beyond something you can touch and feel, its not even something that can be recreated.

I keep getting told its a random act and thats why. So its random enough to create all of the life as we know it on earth, but smart enough to hide and leave with no trace.

I couldn't resist:

Things that cannot be recreated, thus it never became a scientific theory.

Such as? Genetics and the fossil record recreates the history of our planet.

Things that cannot be observed, out of 5 million species here we have yet to see one starting to evolve, or evolving or evolved.

Worst argument ever made, and already been debunked.

Things that leave no verifiable trace behind proving to us that it even happened.

You mean like aliens bringing us to earth from another planet?

Random acts of speciation that change species with no force or reason or verfiable truth.

Random acts of speciation???? You keep making stuff up. Species don't change overnight. You're not going to have a pig wake up one day as an ape. Why are you still having trouble grasping that very basic concept?

Changes obscure enough and that rarley happens but still is happening to everyone and everything.

please read a book. Wowzers, nothing you say makes any logical sense.

Subtle changes that take long periods of time, yet leave no trace of there origon.

That is exactly what the fossil record shows. Microevolution is proven, macroevolution is micoevolution on a long term scale. Nothing more.

A genius level bug that not only knows how to change our DNA, but also has the ability to do it without ever being seen.

Proof? Oh wait, you don't do that kind of thing. You just spout nonsense.

Evolution is a myth, its not even a scientific theory. When will you wake up and realize that this goes beyond something you can touch and feel, its not even something that can be recreated.

Outright lie.

I keep getting told its a random act and thats why. So its random enough to create all of the life as we know it on earth, but smart enough to hide and leave with no trace.

Let me guess, your disney channel documentary told you so. Evolution isn't conscious, it's just a fact of nature. Certain events cause genetic mutations, and sometimes the traits caused are more favorable.

www.talkorigins.org...

Just to remind you about the link you've dodged about 10 times now, while still spouting the same old nonsensical arguments about evolution. EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANCIENT ALIENS. Leave it out of the discussion, or show how diversity got here using evidence.. we know that's not happening.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

To believe in evolutionism you must believe in the following...

Things that cannot be recreated, thus it never became a scientific theory.

Things that cannot be observed, out of 5 million species here we have yet to see one starting to evolve, or evolving or evolved.

Things that leave no verifiable trace behind proving to us that it even happened.

Random acts of speciation that change species with no force or reason or verfiable truth.

Changes obscure enough and that rarley happens but still is happening to everyone and everything.

Subtle changes that take long periods of time, yet leave no trace of there origon.

A genius level bug that not only knows how to change our DNA, but also has the ability to do it without ever being seen.

Evolution is a myth, its not even a scientific theory. When will you wake up and realize that this goes beyond something you can touch and feel, its not even something that can be recreated.

I keep getting told its a random act and thats why. So its random enough to create all of the life as we know it on earth, but smart enough to hide and leave with no trace.

Tooth...you have a TAIL BONE. You have WISDOM TEETH which some children are now evolved to the point that they are being born without them as they are teeth that were used by our ancient ansestors to grind heavy plant matter.

In the womb a developing fetus goes through a process where by which it shows various forms of our development...at one point it has reptilian traits...it has amphibian traits...it shows traits of Aquadic ancestors as we all breath liquid like a fish for 9 plus months before we finally breath air...so we have a type of gill system.

You cannot deny Evolution because it has become a provable fact....all Humans originated from the African continent....we were all black in skin pigment. As Humanity in it's various stages of development spread to colder climates where the Sun was not as strong...those in the Northern areas became white in skin tone....those in eqatorial zones stayed black and those in the inbetween zones took on a medium dark tones.

You really must abandon the idea that Evolution is a myth as it reflects poorly on your ability to see reason and logic. Split Infinity

Several times I have stated that The Theory of Evolution is evolving or adapting to survive.
It has come to me that this can be proven, all one needs to do is go back through 160 pages of Evolutionary drivel contained in this thread.
I dare say that Darwin would not even recognize the theory if he could see it now.
It has become the alternative to ID and is clung to and defended just as much as any religion.
It will be said " That is because it can be Proven through science" but in all actuality the goal post keep moving in order for the theory to adapt.
Evolution is no longer a true scientific Theory (as if it ever were), it has become a definition to explain everything and anything scientific therefore making it unfalsifiable.
A good scientific theory should be able to explain and predict what occurs in the world around us.
Many of the original predictions were false.
In many cases the theory of evolution has been expanded to envelop other scientific finds and discoveries and has become no more than a String Theory, grasping at each of the sciences to try and cling to life.

reply to post by flyingfish
SHHHHhhh The Padwan is thinking

Originally posted by Quadrivium
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

Thank you for your comment on the flys eye

.
I know was not meant to encourage me but it did.
The human eye gene became a flys eye because it was injected into a fly..................did they really expect a human eye to form?
The fly's genetics adapted the gene so that it could be used.

They didn't know what would happen, but it seemed a good way to find out. This was back in the early days and they had no idea what to expect.

What's very clear is that any organism can use any other organism's genes and genetic code. What that implies in turn is that there is a universal common ancestor. There are genes that every multicellular organism has, and the same genes does the same thing no matter what species it is. In humans, it's pretty easy to see what precipitated the split with the chimps: the fusion of two chromosomes into one so that we had 23 chromosome pairs while chimps have 24.

Originally posted by BlackSatinDancer
like I am all of the sudden making demands...

... too much.

i was answering the question... How much is A LOT of change. well, I'd say that WHAT I SPELLED OUT... is a lot MORE change then a dog growing flippers for an alternative.

i think that was pretty clear.

YOU are the one who wanted an answer!

demands

They've pinpointed the Hox gene that was responsible for turning fins into hands. See here:

www.sccs.swarthmore.edu...

Originally posted by Quadrivium
Several times I have stated that The Theory of Evolution is evolving or adapting to survive.
It has come to me that this can be proven, all one needs to do is go back through 160 pages of Evolutionary drivel contained in this thread.
I dare say that Darwin would not even recognize the theory if he could see it now.
It has become the alternative to ID and is clung to and defended just as much as any religion.
It will be said " That is because it can be Proven through science" but in all actuality the goal post keep moving in order for the theory to adapt.
Evolution is no longer a true scientific Theory (as if it ever were), it has become a definition to explain everything and anything scientific therefore making it unfalsifiable.
A good scientific theory should be able to explain and predict what occurs in the world around us.
Many of the original predictions were false.
In many cases the theory of evolution has been expanded to envelop other scientific finds and discoveries and has become no more than a String Theory, grasping at each of the sciences to try and cling to life.

What original predictions?

Modern biologists adhere to the Modern Synthesis, not 19th century Darwinism. They're not the same thing. Darwin didn't know about Mendelian inheritance, although not long after he wrote On the Origin of Species, DNA was isolated. But because it was relatively inert and made of only 4 nucleic acids, nobody thought it did anything, although one scientist ventured the opinion even then that it could be the agent behind heredity. It would be another 50 years before the importance of DNA was seriously guessed at and almost 100 years before Watson and Crick.

But if you can disprove evolution, by all means do so. We're listening.

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Quadrivium
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Of course he is, I understand completely...............................I truly feel for you. I am done. (knew better to begin with)
Some people just refuse to open their minds, anything that does not fit their world view is beneath them.

YOU GOT OWNED, caught by your own words and are too childish to admit it. Grow up, nobody like a spoiled brat.
later,
Quad

What do you mean "I got owned"? Are we in high school?

I asked for objective evidence disproving evolution. You posted claims made by a guy who's claims were COMPLETELY DEBUNKED in scientific peer review. You might not like this as it goes against your BELIEF, but the reality is, the facts and objective evidence don't match what that clown claims. So your post didn't disprove evolution given that the claims made in them are demonstrably false.

Some people just refuse to open their minds, anything that does not fit their world view is beneath them.

I take it you're describing yourself? In your case, you're closing your mind to objective evidence, logic, rationality, and facts.

Sometimes reality can be harsh...but I'll let it settle in for you, because your ad hominem attacks make it clear you're way to emotional to have a rational debate

edit on 2-1-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

Careful, Mr. X. You're going to have to explain what peer review is in a second.

reply to post by HappyBunny

ok Happy,
let's see how far we can move the goal post today.
Not sure what you were going on about with the DNA thing, but here is one for ya....
The DNA code was discovered around fifty years ago, do you have a compelling explanation of how the code evolved?

Originally posted by Quadrivium
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

ok Happy,
let's see how far we can move the goal post today.
Not sure what you were going on about with the DNA thing, but here is one for ya....
The DNA code was discovered around fifty years ago, do you have a compelling explanation of how the code evolved?

From RNA. DNA and proteins most likely evolved together. RNA isn't the stablest of molecules, which would have limited the size of the organisms. The evolution of DNA would have enabled multicellular organisms to evolve and survive at higher temperatures.

How am I moving the goalposts, by the way? I gave you a simple, factual answer and you accuse me of moving the posts. Nice. If you don't want to accept it, that's up to you. But don't you dare accuse me of being intellectually dishonest.

Again, what original predictions?

Originally posted by SplitInfinity

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

To believe in evolutionism you must believe in the following...

Things that cannot be recreated, thus it never became a scientific theory.

Things that cannot be observed, out of 5 million species here we have yet to see one starting to evolve, or evolving or evolved.

Things that leave no verifiable trace behind proving to us that it even happened.

Random acts of speciation that change species with no force or reason or verfiable truth.

Changes obscure enough and that rarley happens but still is happening to everyone and everything.

Subtle changes that take long periods of time, yet leave no trace of there origon.

A genius level bug that not only knows how to change our DNA, but also has the ability to do it without ever being seen.

Evolution is a myth, its not even a scientific theory. When will you wake up and realize that this goes beyond something you can touch and feel, its not even something that can be recreated.

I keep getting told its a random act and thats why. So its random enough to create all of the life as we know it on earth, but smart enough to hide and leave with no trace.

In the womb a developing fetus goes through a process where by which it shows various forms of our development...at one point it has reptilian traits...it has amphibian traits...it shows traits of Aquadic ancestors as we all breath liquid like a fish for 9 plus months before we finally breath air...so we have a type of gill system.

You do realize that this above statement is based off of 19th century forgeries and modern evolutionists don't believe in this?

reply to post by Quadrivium

Several times I have stated that The Theory of Evolution is evolving or adapting to survive.

All scientific theories change as new information comes to light. Scientific theories seek to explain all of the facts associated with a particular phenomenon. Modern evolutionary synthesis seeks to explain the facts associated with the observable phenomenon of evolution. As new facts come to light, a theory has to be expanded and modified. Modern evolutionary synthesis is no different than any other scientific theory in this respect.

It has come to me that this can be proven, all one needs to do is go back through 160 pages of Evolutionary drivel contained in this thread.

I think the only thing I would disagree with is your mischaracterization of it as somehow being different from all other scientific theories.

I dare say that Darwin would not even recognize the theory if he could see it now.

Given that Darwinian evolution is only one part of the modern theory, why would he? Science didn’t stop in the 1850's.

It has become the alternative to ID and is clung to and defended just as much as any religion.

It has become the alternative to something that it predates by decades? That doesn't even make any sense.

It will be said " That is because it can be Proven through science" but in all actuality the goal post keep moving in order for the theory to adapt.

No scientific theory is ever proven, so there's nothing to move the goalposts for.

Evolution is no longer a true scientific Theory (as if it ever were), it has become a definition to explain everything and anything scientific therefore making it unfalsifiable.

It's as much of a scientific theory as the theory of gravity, heliocentric theory, circuit theory, germ theory, cell theory, atomic theory, and the rest of the scientific theories out there.

I provided you with an example of how evolution could be falsified in an earlier reply in this thread. There are more out there. It saddens me that you're being dishonest about information that has been provided to you.

A good scientific theory should be able to explain and predict what occurs in the world around us.

If you're claiming that the theory hasn't done so, then I'd direct you to this page, which features close to thirty predictions made by modern evolution which are supported by empirical evidence. Being intellectually honest people, the authors even go so far as to provide potential falsifications for each of the predictions.

Now that you've been provided with this information, which I'm sure you'll read, I hope that you'll refrain from making the ludicrous claims that evolution can't be falsified and that evolution makes no predictions.

Many of the original predictions were false.

Indeed. Darwin's hypothesized carrier for hereditary information that could be passed down from generation to generation was incorrect, mostly because no one knew about DNA at the time. Does that somehow falsify his prediction that trait differences are heritable?

In many cases the theory of evolution has been expanded to envelop other scientific finds and discoveries and has become no more than a String Theory, grasping at each of the sciences to try and cling to life.

Again, this is no different from any other scientific theory. You're just paying special attention the one particular scientific theory that offends your religious sensibilities. Hardly an honest approach.

reply to post by HappyBunnywww.abovetopsecret.com...

Bunny,
On RNA/DNA.... what you stated is just another grasp the evolutionary scientist make to try to bring evolution back into the scientific arena. It was stated best by Leslie Orgel
“The prebiotic synthesis of nucleotides in a sufficiently pure state to support RNA synthesis cannot be achieved using presently known chemistry.”

I do apologize, just frustrated. Evolution has become much more than just a scientific theory, it has become swollen and bloated and is constantly being changed to fit the parameters. As I said, at this point is nothing but an over grown string theory.

You can fine the failed predictions all over the web.......
but this is my favorite paper on the subject: www.darwinspredictions.com...

Originally posted by Quadrivium
reply to post by HappyBunnywww.abovetopsecret.com...

 

Bunny,
On RNA/DNA.... what you stated is just another grasp the evolutionary scientist make to try to bring evolution back into the scientific arena. It was stated best by Leslie Orgel
“The prebiotic synthesis of nucleotides in a sufficiently pure state to support RNA synthesis cannot be achieved using presently known chemistry.”

Orgel was the biggest RNA proponent out there, so I don't know what you think you're trying to prove. He also showed that PNA is a possibility. That's peptide nucleic acid...it's simpler than RNA and can self replicate in the lab.

What he showed is this: The evolution of a more complex, self-replicating molecule from a simpler precursor is at least possible.

As he put it, "Evolution is cleverer than you are."

I do apologize, just frustrated. Evolution has become much more than just a scientific theory, it has become swollen and bloated and is constantly being changed to fit the parameters. As I said, at this point is nothing but an over grown string theory.

With new information comes refinement. And yet, overall, you cannot disprove evolution. That's the hallmark of a scientific theory--its falsifiability. And keep in mind that just because something is falsifiable doesn't mean it's false.

You can fine the failed predictions all over the web.......
but this is my favorite paper on the subject: www.darwinspredictions.com...

And as someone pointed out, the theory gets it right far more than it gets it wrong.