Can you prove evolution wrong

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by idmonster

 

You are not up to speed on this thread obviously.

I started at the begining, read the first 15 or 20 pages, jumped to the back then rewound to the last 3 days.

Itsthespoof maintains that we do not 'fit' on this planet because we were brought here by aliens. His proof is we have hands and that we do not have one food source which means our real source of energy is not on this planet.

A lot of animals have hands, well the same bones in more or less the same config, maybe different lengths, one of the side effects of sharing common ancestors.

I dont really understand the "one food source" bit. Does Itstheproof belive we should only have a single food source or not. As I mentioned in a previous post, all of our cells "power" is supplied by the mitochondria that dwell within each of our cells. And mitochondria ONLY use glucose, a single food source. Our Bodies, indeed all bodies a just factories for converting food stuffs into usable glucose.

I agree that if humans disapeared life would go on just the same as if any other species became extinct. It would have an impact both positive and negative on the remaining animals. Itsthespoof maintains it would have none other than the domesticated animals which we also need because we are not from here.

The disappearence of any single species from the top of the food chain would have less impact than any single species from lower down the food chain. I think Itstheproof fails to understand that the biggest contributor of our socio-evolutionary success was in the domestication of various plants and animals which freed us from the hunter gather lifestyle allowing us to spend time pursuing more intellectual activities. An when you have evolved a brain as powerful as homo-sapiens, time to think is when revolution happens.

Maybe itstheproof would like to comment?

reply to post by colin42

Thinking is why mankind is where he is today. That has had a pretty big impact on this planet wouldnt you say.

Thoughts do not change anything, acting on them will.

If you did not blink your eyes would dry up and you would go blind. A big affect on you, your family and an easy meal if you lived as a hunter gatherer.

I covered looking. I covered breathing. I covered dreaming. You again choose to reject the answers. I could care less.

From a general point of view, those things have no lasting effect on the earth.

I understand why you will not consider the examples I have given you including the house sparrow.

Simply because man was not there in the begining of that birds life. There was a period where the bird did fine without humans, and he still can. That bird would not die if man left this planet.

If you believe you have convinced me in any way that we are not from earth then you are more deluded than I thought.

I know I have, there is no way you could answer in the silly goose fashion that you have without it being obvious that you are just being incredulous.

Your determination to be the 'see no evidence monkey' means you are desperate to cling on to your frankly stupid position that we do not fit

Cant be all that stupid, you sure couldn't answer them honestly.

reply to post by idmonster

A lot of animals have hands, well the same bones in more or less the same config, maybe different lengths, one of the side effects of sharing common ancestors.

I dont really understand the "one food source" bit. Does Itstheproof belive we should only have a single food source or not. As I mentioned in a previous post, all of our cells "power" is supplied by the mitochondria that dwell within each of our cells. And mitochondria ONLY use glucose, a single food source. Our Bodies, indeed all bodies a just factories for converting food stuffs into usable glucose.

No its not that, its real complicated. According to the bible we were fitted with a plethora of different food. In other words god actually moved more than just humans here from other planets. He made it clear that while this food is for us to use, it is NOT from our home and none of it even close to our intended diet. In other words its just food for us to get by.

The disappearence of any single species from the top of the food chain would have less impact than any single species from lower down the food chain. I think Itstheproof fails to understand that the biggest contributor of our socio-evolutionary success was in the domestication of various plants and animals which freed us from the hunter gather lifestyle allowing us to spend time pursuing more intellectual activities. An when you have evolved a brain as powerful as homo-sapiens, time to think is when revolution happens.

Maybe itstheproof would like to comment?

Thats a good angle. However there seems to have never been anything that relied on a diet of humans. So we must have been born at the top of the food chain. Something is still not right.

Can you please produce ONE thing that benefits from humans being here, not including cleaning up our own mess and not including things we made dependant on us.

reply to post by itsthetooth
To be frank. That ranks up there with one of the dumbest replies from you yet and is not worth the time to address

reply to post by colin42

reply to post by itsthetooth

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be frank. That ranks up there with one of the dumbest replies from you yet and is not worth the time to address

You need to tell me what part your referring to.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Thats a good angle. However there seems to have never been anything that relied on a diet of humans. So we must have been born at the top of the food chain. Something is still not right.

Your right! No human has ever been eaten by a omnivore or carnivorous animal.

I must say this thread has provided me with some very good entertainment.

reply to post by Connector

Thats a good angle. However there seems to have never been anything that relied on a diet of humans. So we must have been born at the top of the food chain. Something is still not right.



Your right! No human has ever been eaten by a omnivore or carnivorous animal.

I must say this thread has provided me with some very good entertainment.

That wasn't the question. None of those are dependant on eathing humans are they? Would any of them suffer from the lack of human in there diet? Hell no.

In other words, if we just dissapeared, nothing here would miss us.

Here is another hint...
Mother nature is not OUR mother nature, look at how she rejects us. Thats all we deal with here is rejection from this planet.
Nothing on this planet goes through what we go through simply to eat a meal, think about it.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Connector

 

Thats a good angle. However there seems to have never been anything that relied on a diet of humans. So we must have been born at the top of the food chain. Something is still not right.



Your right! No human has ever been eaten by a omnivore or carnivorous animal.

I must say this thread has provided me with some very good entertainment.

That wasn't the question. None of those are dependant on eathing humans are they? Would any of them suffer from the lack of human in there diet? Hell no.

LOL.....you mean just like we aren't dependent on eating one specific animal or plant? Isn't that part of your premise we're not from here and proof of that is we have varied diet?

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster

 

No its not that, its real complicated. According to the bible we were fitted with a plethora of different food. In other words god actually moved more than just humans here from other planets. He made it clear that while this food is for us to use, it is NOT from our home and none of it even close to our intended diet. In other words its just food for us to get by.

Thats a good angle. However there seems to have never been anything that relied on a diet of humans. So we must have been born at the top of the food chain. Something is still not right.

Not strictly accurate. Its only intelligence and our communal, pack mentality that prevents us being much lower down the food chain.

Placed naked and alone on almost any continent on the planet and we would soon find ourselve out competed by much larger, more powerful carnivors. Remember, being top of the food chain doesnt just mean eating everything below you, it also means being able to feed when as an example, a lion or bear or pack of wolves want what you have.

Alone and naked doesnt necessarily mean you'll be eaten on day one, but you will be running and scaveging right up to the point where your intelligence kicks in and you create weapons to match those of the other carnivore.

I'm not sure where the bible states that god brought us from another planet, although there is clearly a list of things that are to be considered food and not food.

I think the feeling of not fitting into the planet, and that of the planet rejecting you may be yours alone as I feel comfortable and at home. I can understand the christian feeling that this planet and everything on it were created for us because it just feels so right. I also understand that the reason it feels so right is downt to billions of years of evolution making sure that the organism that is me fits perfectly into the niche that he current environment has shaped for me.

P.S. I am aware of the lack of mitochondria in blood which is why I refered to them being present in nucleic cells, Red blood cells have no nucleus either.

reply to post by colin42


Let me express a thought. I do not believe in God or the bible. I have no interest or use for organized religion at all. However, I do not have any issues with it either. I say to each there own.

Now, my point being that what if both sides of the theories are correct in some fashion and some how meet up in the middle or along those lines. Let's say that 200 years from now we as a species have come to understand that science and creator come to be one int he same. Just right now we have different definitions for the two theories and one holds more merit because the other is less confirmed and rejected by the status quo. Not like religion didn't have a hand up on science for hundreds of years itself.

I just think that if there was ever to be evidence that a creator in whatever manner existed that maybe that creator could have possibly used methods to create life in very long scientific methods as evolution understands it now.

I have no clue and don't claim either to be fact or myth. I just want to know that more people on both sides of this issue are more open to the possibilities even remotely.

It's just food for thought and that is all it is but it's one possibility among many. I find much of science to be true based on it's limits of knowledge the same as religion. Both seem to redefine themselves the hard way over the course of time.

What if everyone is right and everyone is wrong.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Nothing on this planet goes through what we go through simply to eat a meal, think about it.

Dude....this "edit in", is simply foolish. I would have edited to take this out. Guess you've never been survival camping or have seen starving wild life.......

reply to post by Connector

LOL.....you mean just like we aren't dependent on eating one specific animal or plant? Isn't that part of your premise we're not from here and proof of that is we have varied diet?

Ok lets take a close look at this for a second.

A lot of the food we eat is processed, in other words its food we manufacture.
Now it doesn't have to be that way, we can try to eat healty, but most choose not to because it doesn't fit our lifestyle which is another angle. Anyhow, you can choose to eat food here that you might think was meant for us, but the bottom line is you never get enough of everything that you need. Your diet will always suffer in one way or another. In part because different things you need are on different parts of the globe and you cant be everywhere at the same time.

Example....
Behold, the COW.
We depend on this critter for calcium, it is one of the most readily available for such. Ever take a look at what we go though to get that milk into our home?
First we pasturize, homogenize, fortifye, and sometimes lactose process it. Why in the hell are we going through all this trouble. Its complicated but in a nutshell its because something that was intended in our natural diet is missing.
According to medical standards, we actually grow in our need for calcium as we get older, I always thought just as a kid but wrong.
Processed cheese ranks the highest for calcium with sardines right under that. When you start getting into fruits and veggies, you will not be able to reach your RDA without suppliments.
Every walked into a suppliment store? Why on earth would we need so much help? Again, its because your intended diet is not here on earth.
No one is ever going to convince me that drinking cows mucous is normal. People argue with me and say we could be getting it from moms teat, which is a fine way of thinking, but where is she suppose to get it from. She can't just pull it out of her @$$, she needs calcium too.

Sardines ranked right under processed cheese but how the hell were we suppose to eat them each day, live on a boat? Orange juice, not even just oranges, but juice, which means processed, gives a fair amount but what if you don't live in florida.
This type of dilemma even follows us with water. We don't have to have pure water to drink, we can drink stream water and take a chance on getting sick, and there are actually a few places on earth where the water is safe, but does that mean we were all suppose to only live near there water sources?

We aren't from here, plain and simple.

Originally posted by Flint2011
reply to post by colin42

 

Let me express a thought. I do not believe in God or the bible. I have no interest or use for organized religion at all. However, I do not have any issues with it either. I say to each there own.

Now, my point being that what if both sides of the theories are correct in some fashion and some how meet up in the middle or along those lines. Let's say that 200 years from now we as a species have come to understand that science and creator come to be one int he same. Just right now we have different definitions for the two theories and one holds more merit because the other is less confirmed and rejected by the status quo. Not like religion didn't have a hand up on science for hundreds of years itself.

I just think that if there was ever to be evidence that a creator in whatever manner existed that maybe that creator could have possibly used methods to create life in very long scientific methods as evolution understands it now.

I have no clue and don't claim either to be fact or myth. I just want to know that more people on both sides of this issue are more open to the possibilities even remotely.

It's just food for thought and that is all it is but it's one possibility among many. I find much of science to be true based on it's limits of knowledge the same as religion. Both seem to redefine themselves the hard way over the course of time.

What if everyone is right and everyone is wrong.

I know you weren't talking to me, but I feel a need to respond.

That's the funny thing....evolution isn't exclusive of a creator....whatever that creator is to you. And some Xtians believe that as well, but there is still the group that believes the bible is the word and won't entertain any deviation.

reply to post by Connector

Dude....this "edit in", is simply foolish. I would have edited to take this out. Guess you've never been survival camping or have seen starving wild life.......

of course it happnes. You have to rule out the ones that we caused to happen, usually inadvertantly. Like starving polar bears because of global warming.

reply to post by Connector

Dude....this "edit in", is simply foolish. I would have edited to take this out. Guess you've never been survival camping or have seen starving wild life.......

Ok look, follow me a second here.
You think, as most of us are taught, this is our home, and earth is our home planet right?
Then why would you need to take classes on how to survive out in the wild? I mean after all it is our wild right? No, its not. And I'm not throwing you a curve ball, you ask yourself this same question related to ANYTHING, and you will see I'm correct. We aren't from here.

reply to post by Connector


My post was not directed ate on side or the other but both. I am fairly familiar with the stances from both side actually. I find more current merit towards the theory of evolution than creationism but bring that word up or the other around the opposition and both reject each other more times than not. It's quite counter productive.

I think we have along way to go before anyone can truly define a creator. I don't believe in a creator. But I am open to science explaining it in a way that both sides may one day conclude and formulate a better understanding. It's all theory.

It's Evolution Baby! ~ Pearl Jam

reply to post by itsthetooth


There is just so much in this statement that is absurdly wrong. I could actualy laugh at any paragraph that started with "behold the COW" if it werent patently obvious that you really REALLY believe these delusions.

I can see, having had short discourse with you that even if god herself stood in front of you and told you that you were wrong, and that you'd always been here, you would seek a way to rationalise why god would be wrong.

I can no longer be part of this discussion, so for that reason.......I'm out"

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Connector

 

LOL.....you mean just like we aren't dependent on eating one specific animal or plant? Isn't that part of your premise we're not from here and proof of that is we have varied diet?

Ok lets take a close look at this for a second.

A lot of the food we eat is processed, in other words its food we manufacture.
Now it doesn't have to be that way, we can try to eat healty, but most choose not to because it doesn't fit our lifestyle which is another angle. Anyhow, you can choose to eat food here that you might think was meant for us, but the bottom line is you never get enough of everything that you need. Your diet will always suffer in one way or another. In part because different things you need are on different parts of the globe and you cant be everywhere at the same time.

Example....
Behold, the COW.
We depend on this critter for calcium, it is one of the most readily available for such. Ever take a look at what we go though to get that milk into our home?
First we pasturize, homogenize, fortifye, and sometimes lactose process it. Why in the hell are we going through all this trouble. Its complicated but in a nutshell its because something that was intended in our natural diet is missing.
According to medical standards, we actually grow in our need for calcium as we get older, I always thought just as a kid but wrong.
Processed cheese ranks the highest for calcium with sardines right under that. When you start getting into fruits and veggies, you will not be able to reach your RDA without suppliments.
Every walked into a suppliment store? Why on earth would we need so much help? Again, its because your intended diet is not here on earth.
No one is ever going to convince me that drinking cows mucous is normal. People argue with me and say we could be getting it from moms teat, which is a fine way of thinking, but where is she suppose to get it from. She can't just pull it out of her @$$, she needs calcium too.

Sardines ranked right under processed cheese but how the hell were we suppose to eat them each day, live on a boat? Orange juice, not even just oranges, but juice, which means processed, gives a fair amount but what if you don't live in florida.
This type of dilemma even follows us with water. We don't have to have pure water to drink, we can drink stream water and take a chance on getting sick, and there are actually a few places on earth where the water is safe, but does that mean we were all suppose to only live near there water sources?

We aren't from here, plain and simple.

I don't even know how to reply to this.......your right, before mass consumption and processing, humans never thrived

BTW your examples of processing for lactose and dirty drinking water making some of us sick........is an example of evolution.....different physical responses to external stimuli to weed out the weak.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Connector

 

Dude....this "edit in", is simply foolish. I would have edited to take this out. Guess you've never been survival camping or have seen starving wild life.......

Ok look, follow me a second here.
You think, as most of us are taught, this is our home, and earth is our home planet right?
Then why would you need to take classes on how to survive out in the wild? I mean after all it is our wild right? No, its not. And I'm not throwing you a curve ball, you ask yourself this same question related to ANYTHING, and you will see I'm correct. We aren't from here.

I didn't take any classes....did you? Food, fire, shelter......I sort of knew that on my own. Were you raised in a metro aera and never had the chance to enjoy the wild and feel at home?

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by BlackSatinDancer
Here... I got something for others to think about.


Do you remember the day when cell phones were something that only guys with red sports cars had? i do.

First cave paintings thirty something thousand years ago... First written languages appearing approx3000BC.

Actually, it's 4000 give or take, but that doesn't mean we won't uncover something older. Don't forget, most of the off the coasts. That was dry land 15,000 years ago, but when the ice caps melted they were drowned by a 300 foot increase in sea level.

You try advancing when you're busy staying alive through an Ice Age and a volcanic eruption that almost wiped us out 74,000 years ago, and then trying to stay afloat when the climate keeps yo-yoing back and forth for a few thousand years.

We couldn't get going until the climate warmed up and stabilized.

We are talking less than 6000 years ago that man was so NOT evolved that his ass didn't even have

You're confusing a sophisticated culture with gadgets and assume that all progress is linear. Don't make that mistake.

OH BUT THERE IS MUCH EVIDENCE.... yeah, that there were GREAT ancient works.... GREAT ONES...masterful ones, like the pyramids.

mkkkay. firstly you have to prove they were even built by humans before you could ever use that example when history shows that the people who lived in them often died very early in life because their medical care sucked. NO technology to save lives... just sharp knives and stuff....WHAT?... but they made great art...ok, fine but there is not much before that to show that mankind was very evolved even just a few thousand years before THAT stuff started appearing.

Actually, they didn't kick off that early. They probably lived as long as we do. They were bigger and stronger than us, and probably MORE healthy, no less.

To have been evolving for so long, mankind sure did evolve his brain LAST, aye?

Um, no.

Even if you do believe mankind has been around a very long time (i don't think it's impossible) his history....not to mention his earlier NON EXISTENT history shows that you CAN see him changing. changing very fast actually.
As a matter of fact, his nature seems to be CONSTANTLY changing.

Animals, not so much, right?

Technological advances are exponential, not linear.

i'm looking at definitions here to make sure I'm getting this right.

so you are saying that technological advances are not "in a line" but they are "representative of something else"

I have NO idea how that is supposed to be relevant.

alright, let me try this again. Archeological studies show that a lot of mummies found in tombs died of really stupid treatable diseases. ok?... that means poor health care. the survival instinct is very strong. If they could have dreamt it up, they would have done what it took to preserve their own lives. Trouble is, they simply did not seem to have the background.

furthermore, the inclination to be aggressive is shown by science to be mostly of anatomical and hormonal causes on top of lack of teaching restraint from such activities and is a dominant inclination among man and beast (survival of the fittest)

The fact that we are smarter might be what makes us loose that inclination towards a lot of warring. even wars these days are the lazy mans wars where instead of a lot of strenuous headlopping, he pushes a button and a missile comes out.

so, mankind develops his brain LAST.

Ummm.... YES.

thirdly, the last ice age was a long time ago and they put a nice big gap in the approximation.... conveniently for you. this way you only have tens of thousands of years time frame for which to come up with an excuse as to why they didn't get their crap together in EVEN MORE time than what mankind has achieved in just a few thousand years.

I guess you'd say those tens of thousands of years were spent teeth chattering.... and of course hunting/gathering... else they'd all be dead anyway.

and in those tens of thousands of years they never once thought of... oh, let's say... a heater? a car to drive somewhere warmer? an alphabet for which to write "#, it's COLD"

I'm not saying there were no "carry overs" from the last age... but it looks to me like they didn't hang out too much with the chimps.... maybe flew by once in a while, maybe left some clues for them to figure out, hell... maybe even made them some monuments for inspiration.... but direct ancestors of man who were intelligent directly carrying over to the next generations and handing down ANY SLIVER of remaining knowledge?

Not buying it.

I simply think that any remaining knowledge from any past races would not have been absorbed by early man. I think he simply did not have the capacity.