Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by vjr1113


yes that would indeed throw adam and eve ..unless ? lol ..... i am sure someone would find another way of explaining that .. who knows though God could have been different back then . maybe it took him many many moons to create Adam and Eve , .. i am just sayin

Originally posted by vjr1113
no one knows where the universe came from. id say it always was.

the universe can grow indefinitely and die off, or it could collapse on itself. there is no evidence for other universes

yes it's the best we can do

You are wrong in at least one point.

Yes there is evidence of multiverses/parallel universes existing.







If you are impatient and just want to get to the point of it start watching the fourht part of the M-theory videos, which is the next video, and btw be patient, listen to at least the first 5 minutes. Or at least start listening from about 2 minutes into video# 4.

Originally posted by byeluvolk
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

 

Actually in the case of viral and bacterial infections it is exactly evolution in it most prominent form. The individual virus or bacterium do not suddenly change to become immune to the vaccine. What happens is there are a few strains of the organism that are and have been immune to it all along. Once the vaccine is applied it kills of those that are not immune to the vaccine. The result is those that have mutated in the past for some reason, and because of this accidentally became immune, are now the only ones left alive. Thus they are the only ones left breeding, and the next generations of the organism are that much more likely to be immune to the vaccine, as this mutation gets passed form the parents to the offspring. This is not a reaction to an encounter with the vaccine causing the virus to change, but rather a random change in the virus made it immune, and therefore it survives to pass this immunity on to its offspring. This is indeed the very definition of evolution.

1. Bacteria multiplies quickly.
2. Read my posts about adaptation of body to the environment in this thread.
3. So in a few generations bacteria will adapt to its new environment.
4. Bacterium is a special case (being a very simple organism), and can combine with other bacterium. Closely related species can mix to produce offspring like white man with chinese woman.
5. Your red blood cell and white blood cell are also bacterium.
6. This theory does not apply to complex organisms.

The bacterium does not transform into a mouse in a million years.
Your argument is invalid.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Can we stay on topic. Please. This thread is already quite daunting. Thanks.

reply to post by outerlimits


As I mentioned in my previous post this is the very definition of evolution. In response to your comment on the virus is not alive; they are very much alive. You question the validity as they do not “live” until they encounter the host. Well to this I have to ask; when does a fetus begin to live? Is it the creation of the physical body or the “injection” of the “holy spirit”? The physical body of the fetus is not life as they can obviously die, and in the same fashion the physical body of a virus, may not be alive until it’s “life force” is injected. But even with a virus out of the question look at bacterial and fungal infections. This exact same process happens with these types of organisms as well. This is why people who over use anti biotics soon develop an immunity to them. The person is not developing the immunity per se, but rather the bacteria in their body do, and thus the anti biotic no longer works.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by vjr1113
no one knows where the universe came from. id say it always was.

the universe can grow indefinitely and die off, or it could collapse on itself. there is no evidence for other universes

yes it's the best we can do

You are wrong in at least one point.

Yes there is evidence of multiverses/parallel universes existing.



If you are impatient and just want to get to the point of it start watching the fourht part of the M-theory videos, which is the next video, and btw be patient, listen to at least the first 5 minutes. Or at least start listening from about 2 minutes into video# 4.

not much evidence just speculation right now. it's not like we can measure other planes. throw out what i said about the universe. evolution still holds its ground

reply to post by vedatruth


Right it does not “HAVE” to become a new species such as a mouse, but it could. That is the point. Evolution does not imply that all species “MUST” evolve and the old species “MUST” die off. If simply states that a species “MAY” undergo change over time to an extent that a new species is formed.

Compare a horse from thousands of years ago to a horse of today. They go from a knee high animal to what you see today. Now without having one of these older examples here in the flesh to experiment with there is no way to say 100%, but I would bet their DNA is different enough that they would not be able to mate. Or at least not any better than a zebra or donkey can mate with a horse today. This would mean the prehistoric horse is indeed a different species and not just a dwarf variety. And to back this, there are no records of a modern sized horse to be found. So they had to come from somewhere. Or were the prehistoric horses “created” and then millions of years later god came back to “create” modern horses?

Does this prove “Big Bang” over “Creation” no. But it certainly tosses a wrench in modern religions interpretation of “creation.” What is does seem to prove is that the evolution process does happen. It does nothing to explain what the original starting point is. It is extrapolated that it could go as far back as a single cell organism, and further to random chemical events etc. However the “Theory of Evolution” as laid out by Darwin does not even attempt to explain the “Theory of Origin.” In fact I have mentioned this before in this post. He specifically stated this in his writings. He flat out said his theory was not intended to show origin, just evolution.

Originally posted by vjr1113

did your "friend" talk to you?
its embarrassing that i have to talk to an adult like this but this is what is comes down to.

.... My friend?... What in the world are you babbling about?...

Originally posted by vjr1113
why are we immoral? who sets the standard for immorality if human nature IS ALL WE KNOW!
this is the only life you could ever know to have.

So, you don't think it is immoral to take a life for selfish reasons? Such as how some murderers kill just for pleasure? or to steal because some person, or kid might envy what another person has?

I have always lived with the idea that if I don't like what someone else might do to me then I shouldn't do it to anyone else.

I treat people as they treat me. If they treat me with respect, and without sarcasm I do the same.

Granted, morality is defined in part by a person's culture, and beliefs, but there are some moral beliefs that are universal, such as killing just for the pleasure of it.

Originally posted by vedatruth

Can we stay on topic. Please. This thread is already quite daunting. Thanks.

How exactly was I not on topic?

You think that whether or not multiple universes exist has nothing to do with which theory might be correct?

I can prove evolution isnt true in one sentance......


If all humans evolved from monkeys.......why are there still monkeys?


Peace and love all

reply to post by Jademonkey2k


Wow, read the thread before posting. This has been answered many times over in this thread alone. Before you start using this sort of thing as “PROOF,” you really need to do a bit a research.

Originally posted by byeluvolk
reply to post by vedatruth

 

Right it does not “HAVE” to become a new species such as a mouse, but it could. That is the point. Evolution does not imply that all species “MUST” evolve and the old species “MUST” die off. If simply states that a species “MAY” undergo change over time to an extent that a new species is formed.

Compare a horse from thousands of years ago to a horse of today. They go from a knee high animal to what you see today. Now without having one of these older examples here in the flesh to experiment with there is no way to say 100%, but I would bet their DNA is different enough that they would not be able to mate. Or at least not any better than a zebra or donkey can mate with a horse today. This would mean the prehistoric horse is indeed a different species and not just a dwarf variety. And to back this, there are no records of a modern sized horse to be found. So they had to come from somewhere. Or were the prehistoric horses “created” and then millions of years later god came back to “create” modern horses?

Does this prove “Big Bang” over “Creation” no. But it certainly tosses a wrench in modern religions interpretation of “creation.” What is does seem to prove is that the evolution process does happen. It does nothing to explain what the original starting point is. It is extrapolated that it could go as far back as a single cell organism, and further to random chemical events etc. However the “Theory of Evolution” as laid out by Darwin does not even attempt to explain the “Theory of Origin.” In fact I have mentioned this before in this post. He specifically stated this in his writings. He flat out said his theory was not intended to show origin, just evolution.

"Big bang" is a separate topic. Universe/multiverse is a separate topic. I am focussing only evolution vs creation as it applies to life on earth.

1. There is no scientific proof that any bacteria or a group of bacteria ever transformed into a mouse.

2. knee high horse - why don't you believe that it is just a variety of horse that does not exist today.
There are myths of giant humans that no longer exist today. Species do die out, due to their incompatibility with the planet's environment.

When you say 'there is no record of modern size of horse to be found' : did you look in all possible places?
I have already explained that existence of very old fossils happen in very rare circumstances. So existence of something does not disprove existence of something else.

3. Religious interpretation of creation - you are only aware of Christianity account of creation. The vedic account of creation is quite different.

4. All I am debunking here is that evolution in the sense of change to body to adapt to environment is possible, or due to genetic mixing of very closely related species.

But this does not and cannot yield a totally different species.

So far nobody has a convincing argument against what I am saying.

Thanks and love ya all.

I shall start a new thread someday about vedic account of creation.

reply to post by Sephiroth1550

Really, Genetic Evidence huh. Like we have never heard of that one

The most persuasive evidence for evolution is in the form of genetics, and in the field of genetics, ERVs (endogenous retroviruses) are the most compelling. I'd consider anyone who rejects ERVs without reviewing them, or common descent once they are exposed to the evidence of ERVs to be either purposefully ignorant or just slightly moronic. Consider one or both of the following videos or do some investigating yourself.

ERVs (endogenous retroviruses) demonstrate common descent. Once you understand that evidence, there's no valid response to ERVs beyond agreeing that common descent and thus evolution is a fact.

Evolution: Genetic Evidence - Endogenous Retroviruses

Evidence of common ancestry: ERV's

Can you prove evolution wrong?

No, nor do I feel compelled to even try.

I confess that I fail in understanding why there is this great rift between belief systems. Those who believe in creation - in all its many forms - do so mainly from a point of faith and are therefore not required to prove anything. Those who believe the theory of evolution do so from evidence gathered over the years from fossils that suggest an evolution from a more primitive creature and apply said evidence as a foundation for their own belief.

It should end right there. It should be allowed that there are these two schools of belief that coexist in the same global society... and for quite a long time, it did.

However, there are those from both beliefs that are indeed extremists who take their opposites as being a threat. Both sides feel compelled, for numerous reasons only they can claim, to forcefully inject their beliefs upon the other.

As it stands today, the extremists have taken control of the subject landscape and are attempting to eradicate the other. Coexistence is no longer even considered even though neither can tender an absolute that is beyond doubt.

*sigh*

A step back to gather a wider view and we see this dulling mentality spreading across the broad expanse of civilization, where extremism is taking control of the mainstream and moderation is being forcefully displaced by politicization.

I have no wish to prove you right or wrong. We can discuss our reasons for our beliefs and, upon mutual agreement, perhaps even offer reasons why we believe the other wrong... but if this steps beyond the rail of civil discourse, then we fail our own tests of either being created of a higher being, or evolved into one.

Cheers

Originally posted by byeluvolk
reply to post by Jademonkey2k

 

Wow, read the thread before posting. This has been answered many times over in this thread alone. Before you start using this sort of thing as “PROOF,” you really need to do a bit a research.

My appologies my friend, it wasnt ment as a serious point, it was intended as a joke. My bad chap

reply to post by vedatruth


Again Darwin’s theory of evolution does not even hint at origin. You are mixing several ideas into one, and trying to prove one is wrong by using the short coming of another. Darwin’s theory of evolution does not state all creatures come form inorganic slime that magically springs to life. It does not even state that a mouse and a zebra have a common ancestor. These are other people’s interpretations of evolution to fit into their theory or origin. Darwin’s theory has just as much merit with a big bang, a multi verse, a god creator, or any other theory of origin you chose to subscribe to. Evolution is a fact; the part people get hung up on is “Origin.” No matter how it was created, or who did the creating, since that time it has been evolving. Perhaps the initial “Creation Event” included one species of bird, one reptile, one amphibian, one dog, one cat, and so an. And these then split to form what we have today. Evolution does not rely on a single root organism for all living things. It just shows how similar things could come from a common parent species. In fact Darwin does not even try to prove man and apes had a common ancestor. He very specifically stated he was not talking about Origin, but only the evolution of a species. In reality man and chimps could have different root species, and this does not disprove evolution in any way. But the similarities in their DNA are a very strong argument against this.

Just like in modern horses, their DNA is so similar to a donkey and a zebra that they can all inter breed. There is also another beast known as the “Quagga” this is now extinct, but was basically a cross between a Zebra and a Donkey. After its extinction scientists have started a breeding program with donkeys and zebras to try and re establish this species. But this is another very compelling argument that horses, zebras, donkeys, and Quagga all had a common ancestor.

reply to post by Jademonkey2k


Ah my bad. I had just seen this exact same “proof” so many times in the last 21 pages I was about to pull my hair out.

If you read all of my comments you would know that I believe in a new earth, creationism, and about 1/2 the story of evolution. The half that can and has been proven by scientific method. Not the part about a bacteria changing into anything other than a different version of the same bacteria based on its environment. It is still a bacteria. Never has a bacteria changed into a more complex organism and science keeps trying. I guess I should have said that the origin of life and the universe cannot be tested by scientific method, including the claims from evolutionist.

reply to post by sacgamer25

This is an example of argument from incredulity, because irreducible complexity can evolve naturally. Many of the proteins in the bacterial flagellum or eukaryotic cilium are similar to each other or to proteins for other functions. Their origins can easily be explained by a series of gene duplication events followed by modification and/or co-option, proceeding gradually through intermediate systems different from and simpler than the final flagellum.

reply to post by byeluvolk


I hear you. As I said earlier, the definition of 'evolution' is important.

You have at least made your point clear.

My point is that a horse, a donkey, and a zebra could be created by God in different places. Due to an interplay of factors like continental drift, they come in cotact and interbreed, and a hybrid is created.

If we take a common ancestor, we have to go in reverse gear. We start from a single animal, and then somehow genetically change a part of it into horse, another into donkey, and remaining into zebra.

The first argument is seen clearly in everyday life, while second argument is assumed.

That is all I have to say.

DNA closeness is not a solid argument. God is perfectly capable of creating the same human on two planets a million light years apart.

As I understand it, The Theory of Evolution works from two causal premises. One is random mutation, the other is "natural" selection.

Natural selection is like one of those multi-layered coin separators with the different sized holes on each layer. A coin (living organism) must be adapted to at least one of the size holes or it just doesn't survive even long enough to procreate. In any species one could think of on the planet today, one can imagine and sometimes see first hand, examples of such unfortunates, "naturally" selected not to survive.

The other causal premise is random mutation, which is believed to be the engine of change in evolution, producing "differences" leading to the existence of more and more complex organisms able to survive the natural selection process.

Criticisms of the theory of evolution often cast doubt on the efficacy of such a route to complexification of organisms, citing the process of entropy as the prevailing paradigm for energetic systems in the universe, but this idea is challenged on the most fundamental level by a mathematically expressed theory of morphogenisis first put forward by Alan Turing.

Computer programs have been written to emulate Turing's equations in the form of animation programs in which animated figures "evolve" to survive in an environment populated with obstacles they must overcome, analogous to the process of "natural" selection. Turing's fundamental point is that chaos has a "natural" tendancy to generate form. This takes a heavy burden off the back of random mutation in the evolutionary process if it could be proven that things naturally get formal.

Turing's ideas, and the mathematical facts that underly them are remarkable but I'm not sure they close the door on causal factors leading to complexification or adaptation of living organisms to their environment, and hence "evolution".

But Turing's work does suggest that a theory of evolution relying on random mutation as the primary engine of complexification is undoubtedly wrong. The critics of the theory of evolution, who have made it clear that random mutation doesn't satisfy them as sufficient to account for evolutionary change are usually reviled by the the large vocal community of science parrots, but they may actually have had Alan Turing, one of the greatest mathematicians of the twentieth century, among their number.

I would say that one could legitimately claim that the classical theory of evolution has likely been disproven by Turing's work on morphogenisis, which is not to say that species don't evolve. The question is how do they evolve.

It seems clear that the evolutionary process must involve efforts made by individuals to cope with their environment, also, which lead to personal adaptation which then leads to procreational adaptation naturally acquired by the next generation.

Bottom line. I think the jury is still out on what are mechanisms of adaptation and complexification. Does it happen? Yes. Is it evolution, as described by Darwin? That has never stopped being a moot point.

Did I mention God/aliens?