Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by colin42

There would never be an embryo in the first place as the mother provides oxygen from conception.

And I get that, but the reason why these types of things aren't happening is because it either has some limitations of selection, or its not random at all. Either way, the control present proves there is more going on than led to believe.

Is it possible that intelligence was behind these options, when they were frist made?

reply to post by MrXYZ



Crocoduck would only be possible if there was no gametic isolation between ducks and crocodiles.

Aside, mixed breeding like this still has nothing to do with evolution so I fail to understand the point.

reply to post by colin42

All tooth has done here is exchange a cat giving birth to a rat

I never made any such claim, however the birth of a new species seems to always be the starting point, unless we are changing in our own skin.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

There would never be an embryo in the first place as the mother provides oxygen from conception.

And I get that, but the reason why these types of things aren't happening is because it either has some limitations of selection, or its not random at all. Either way, the control present proves there is more going on than led to believe.

Is it possible that intelligence was behind these options, when they were frist made?

Or could it be possible that the ever changing environments cause change in those environments conditions forcing change within the species.

When that change occurs in isolated areas which forces change within species, these species move away from the norm of the main herd towards speciation.

Oh look what we see on islands, isolated valleys, mountain ranges, seas lakes, lagoons and caves. Again not an exhaustive list.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

All tooth has done here is exchange a cat giving birth to a rat

I never made any such claim, however the birth of a new species seems to always be the starting point, unless we are changing in our own skin.

You not only have made that claim but repeated it and similar often, so why you believe you can apply the Pinocchio version of truth and get away with it is astounding.

Changing in our own skin is exactly what all species do Small changes over time, selected for by the environment.

A new species evolves from the old it is not born in one go but over many births, selected for by the environment.

reply to post by itsthetooth
You did not supply the source of your Ex-text. Your whole post is dismissed

reply to post by colin42

Or could it be possible that the ever changing environments cause change in those environments conditions forcing change within the species.

If the conditions were set this way, we would see a lot more odd things like the ones I have been coming up with. disfigurement would be the norm.

When that change occurs in isolated areas which forces change within species, these species move away from the norm of the main herd towards speciation

Which is fine, but just two major problems, the first is that if specieation occurs, they wouldn't be able to multiply, second is even if they could, you can't start a race from one person.

Oh look what we see on islands, isolated valleys, mountain ranges, seas lakes, lagoons and caves. Again not an exhaustive list.

I totally missed your point on this, aside from there being diversity.

IMO it looks like another attempt to find a way to replace the old religion theories. All of the steps in evoltuion seem to be set up to do just that, replace the need for any god. Not that either one are perfect but my only problem is I'm not able to see how any of this could be possible without some serious intelligence behind it. I don't get any coverage from that in evolution. Even odder is that I don't think evolution would be possible without some type of intelligence behind it either. Someone had to set the perimeters.

reply to post by colin42

You not only have made that claim but repeated it and similar often, so why you believe you can apply the Pinocchio version of truth and get away with it is astounding.

Again you only see it that way because the birth point is always the start of a new possible species.

reply to post by itsthetooth

If the conditions were set this way, we would see a lot more odd things like the ones I have been coming up with. disfigurement would be the norm.

1. Explain what you mean by 'If the conditions were set this way,'
2. Explain what part 'disfigurement' plays?

Which is fine, but just two major problems, the first is that if specieation occurs, they wouldn't be able to multiply,

1. Explain why they would not be able to multiply

second is even if they could, you can't start a race from one person.

2. Explain why, after all the explanations you have been given you can still make that ignorant statement

I totally missed your point on this, aside from there being diversity.

No doubt you did but coming from a guy that claims he has studied evolution. Who claims Darwin was wrong.Not understanding the part Darwin said isolation plays is pretty telling.

What a shame you start a whole rant with IMO. Not interested in your opinion. Heard it all before. I now am only interested in your explanations

Please try to add supporting evidence

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

You not only have made that claim but repeated it and similar often, so why you believe you can apply the Pinocchio version of truth and get away with it is astounding.

Again you only see it that way because the birth point is always the start of a new possible species.

Total ignorance. Still we have only reached page 463.

A new species evolves it is not given birth too. It does not happen to one organism; it is fed back within its group until that advantage becomes ingrained in the whole group.

That means the whole group evolves and is why it needs time to be a factor. That is why they do not wake up to find they have no food. That is why they can multiply.

This is such a simple concept at its most basic and even if your religious views will not allow you to accept it you should by now be able to understand it. Please don’t tell me you do as ALL your posts showcase that you do not.

reply to post by colin42

If the conditions were set this way, we would see a lot more odd things like the ones I have been coming up with. disfigurement would be the norm.

1. Explain what you mean by 'If the conditions were set this way,' Well it appears, that someone has set conditions to allow certain changes, and not allow others.
2. Explain what part 'disfigurement' plays?

It would be everywhere if evolution were actually random, so its not.

1. Explain why they would not be able to multiply

Because inbreeding would kill the group.

2. Explain why, after all the explanations you have been given you can still make that ignorant statement

Scientists have always known that it takes more than two to start a healthy progressive race.

No doubt you did but coming from a guy that claims he has studied evolution. Who claims Darwin was wrong.Not understanding the part Darwin said isolation plays is pretty telling.

What a shame you start a whole rant with IMO. Not interested in your opinion. Heard it all before. I now am only interested in your explanations

Please try to add supporting evidence

The supporting evidence is common sense. You can't start a race with one mutation, much less two of them, there is just no way. As I recall you stated they could still mate, so what happened to speciation. Your willing to claim that they changed, enough to speciate but not enough to speciate.

If there was a change, and they speciated, they would no longer be able to breed, and it takes more than one. If they didn't speciate, they could still breed but the change would be thinned out as one partner would be prior genes. Unless the new genes had priority, and again its all looking again like there is some sort of intelligence behind all this.

reply to post by colin42

Total ignorance. Still we have only reached page 463.

A new species evolves it is not given birth too. It does not happen to one organism; it is fed back within its group until that advantage becomes ingrained in the whole group.

Ok so your claiming that the changes aren't all happening at the time of birth. So species are changing within themselves slowly over time. Your also claiming by some unknown mechanism that these changes all happen uniformly to groups at a time. Now let me get this straight, we don't know what drives these changes, or what all causes them to happen, or why the choices that get made are chosen, but we do know that it happens in groups.

We know this because of speciation, and a species will no longer be able to breed with the original group. Thus they have changes in that species. My neighbor isn't able to produce children with the original group but I'm pretty sure he is still human.

And what do you mean by fed back into the group, its as though your saying that food determins these changes. Your also making a claim that only the advantages succeed in this process. So I wonder what or who determines exactly what is considered an advantage. Because a lot of the time this can really be a matter of opinion.

For example, I'm going to go off the deep end here and say we developed wings. You could say they are an advantage based on the fact that we can now fly, but you can also say they could be a disadvantage as they are a pain in the ass to deal with, and always in the way.

That means the whole group evolves and is why it needs time to be a factor. That is why they do not wake up to find they have no food. That is why they can multiply.

And what determins a group to be a group. As an example my sons girlfriend comes over sometimes so is she part of my group, and what about her mother, she comes over half of that time, is she part of the group. How does this effect the fact that they may have started there own groups as well. Can you be a part of two groups? What if your not in a group, do you just not evovle and get left behind? The twaddle in all this is that it is a fact that you need two to breed, however that doesn't mean that all species live side by side, now the majority do, but there are some off ones that don't. Do they just not get the chance to evolve, or not evolve as quickly? What if a member of one group leaves and joins another group mid change? And what determins that your part of a group, is it the fact that you eat the same food, or breath the same air, or watch the same television programs, is it that you use the same bathroom or is it your exposure to everything around you, in other words you don't know.

I find this to be what you call complete twaddle, it again looks to be like a well though out series of theories that don't have any proof. As an example, its a very rare situation but humans aren't able to breed. The problem is that it's never listed as a groupiing problem, or speciation problem, its ALWAYS either low sperm count or poly cystic ovaries or some other crap. My point is they are always able to pin the problem on the individual with the problem. Now its universal and if they have sex with someone from another group, they still have the problem, so we know hand over fist it sure in the hell isn't evolution. So my question is why have we never seen this happen in humans? And you can't say because its to slow or to takes to long to witness, we are witnessing it in bacteria, viruses, and some aquatic life..

This is such a simple concept at its most basic and even if your religious views will not allow you to accept it you should by now be able to understand it. Please don’t tell me you do as ALL your posts showcase that you do not.

Well getting some answers to these questions would surly help, provided you have them.

reply to post by itsthetooth

It would be everywhere if evolution were actually random, so its not.

That is nowhere near an answer to the two points I asked you to explain. Do that.

Because inbreeding would kill the group.

You have been told many times why that is just plain ignorance. See my post above this and refer back.

Scientists have always known that it takes more than two to start a healthy progressive race.

And the scientists that formed the theory of evolution have never claimed that any interbreeding has to take place. That is the story the bible tells you.

The supporting evidence is common sense.

That is not a trait you demonstrate to have.

You can't start a race with one mutation, much less two of them, there is just no way.

Who said you can? Evolution states: Small changes over time, selected for by the environment.

As I recall you stated they could still mate, so what happened to speciation.

What? Who are they?

Your willing to claim that they changed, enough to speciate but not enough to speciate.

Now I am pretty sure I never made any such claim.

If there was a change, and they speciated, they would no longer be able to breed, and it takes more than one.

Again you showcase you have no idea of what evolution explains.

If they didn't speciate, they could still breed but the change would be thinned out as one partner would be prior genes.

Now mix your last two statements together and you have your answer.

We have a tank full of reddish brown fish. We play the part of the environment and select the reddest fish put them in another tank and allow them to breed. We reject any fish that is not red but also select the reddest ones, separate them out and repeat until we get mostly bright red fish, red fish and an odd brown fish

At the same time we could have also selected for long tails and certain body shapes and a multitude of other displayed traits.

The random mutations of DNA do not wait their turn they happen constantly and a herd/group may have many small changes which is what we see in every species. We call it diversity within the species.

When a change is a disadvantage the environment becomes too challenging to survive long enough to breed.

When change is advantageous it makes the environment less challenging and they survive at least long enough to breed. This advantage is then spread throughout the group.

Breeding causes variation of the change that gives advantage to all. So eventually you get a spread from, enough to allow the organism to breed through the most advantaged and most likely to breed. Slowly these changes accumulate and if isolated move away from the original group genetically to a point where they can no longer breed. We call it speciation.

Never at any time was there one individual, isolated new species member. Never once did their food source disappear because of speciation. Never once did they go to sleep a cat and wake up a rat.

reply to post by itsthetooth
Read what I wrote. Your welcome to discuss what I wrote. When you try to tell me what I claimed the discussion is over.

Now let me get this straight, we don't know what drives these changes, or what all causes them to happen,

Random change in the DNA

or why the choices that get made are chosen, but we do know that it happens in groups.

Selected for by the environment.

What we know is you will do anything to deny it.

We know this because of speciation ..........(.repeated and debunked)

And what do you mean by fed back into the group, its as though your saying that food determins these changes.

Daddy has a superior beard. Mummy likes men with beards. They turn out the lights, do what mums and Dads do in the dark and nine months later a baby pops out. That type of feedback. Jeeze

Your also making a claim that only the advantages succeed in this process. So I wonder what or who determines exactly what is considered an advantage.

(Yawns and getting bored) The environment selects for any advantage that allows the individual to live long enough to breed and pass on that advantage.

Because a lot of the time this can really be a matter of opinion.

Nope. You stay at the bottom of the class.

For example, I'm going to go off the deep end here. .................... boring

And what determins a group to be a group ........... twaddle ............

Your kidding

Well getting some answers to these questions would surly help, provided you have them.

You have been given the answers. I can lead a tooth to knowledge but I can’t make him think.

For reasons only known to you, be that a low level of intelligence or a wilful denial you refuse to take the time to consider what you have been shown.

Look at my face

Am I bothered

I'm not bothered

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Ok so your claiming that the changes aren't all happening at the time of birth. So species are changing within themselves slowly over time. Your also claiming by some unknown mechanism that these changes all happen uniformly to groups at a time. Now let me get this straight, we don't know what drives these changes, or what all causes them to happen, or why the choices that get made are chosen, but we do know that it happens in groups.

We know this because of speciation, and a species will no longer be able to breed with the original group. Thus they have changes in that species. My neighbor isn't able to produce children with the original group but I'm pretty sure he is still human.

And what do you mean by fed back into the group, its as though your saying that food determins these changes. Your also making a claim that only the advantages succeed in this process. So I wonder what or who determines exactly what is considered an advantage. Because a lot of the time this can really be a matter of opinion.

This is the most absurd collection of thoughts ever devised by human.

reply to post by colin42

It would be everywhere if evolution were actually random, so its not.

That is nowhere near an answer to the two points I asked you to explain. Do that.

That is my explanation, not knowing the correct answer but knowing something that its not.

Because inbreeding would kill the group.

You have been told many times why that is just plain ignorance. See my post above this and refer back.

If your trying to say the changes affect a group, your still short tens of thousands of people to start a new race.

Scientists have always known that it takes more than two to start a healthy progressive race.

And the scientists that formed the theory of evolution have never claimed that any interbreeding has to take place. That is the story the bible tells you.

I didn't know that and I'm not thinking of the bible, I'm thinking of a few select people that evolve, and how thats supposedly going to start a new race.

The supporting evidence is common sense.

That is not a trait you demonstrate to have.

Obviously your wrong.

Who said you can? Evolution states: Small changes over time, selected for by the environment

But those changes would have to happen in mass groups, not just small groups.

What? Who are they?

Any species that speciated.

Your willing to claim that they changed, enough to speciate but not enough to speciate.

Now I am pretty sure I never made any such claim.

They either speciate or they don't right?

If there was a change, and they speciated, they would no longer be able to breed, and it takes more than one.

Again you showcase you have no idea of what evolution explains.

You don't have to know anything about evolution to know that it takes two to make an offspring.

If they didn't speciate, they could still breed but the change would be thinned out as one partner would be prior genes.

Now mix your last two statements together and you have your answer.

I don't get what your saying, for purpose of evolution the rules can be broken? I don't know.

When change is advantageous it makes the environment less challenging and they survive at least long enough to breed. This advantage is then spread throughout the group.

Which is why I said survival of the fittest.

Never at any time was there one individual, isolated new species member. Never once did their food source disappear because of speciation. Never once did they go to sleep a cat and wake up a rat.

In other words evolution cant explain diversity.. If there food source never once disappeared or changed then how can you explain the fact that most species don't eat the same food and never the same diet.

reply to post by colin42

Now let me get this straight, we don't know what drives these changes, or what all causes them to happen,
Random change in the DNA

How can you indicate that after I was throwing random examples of species breathing a different athmosphere, and you indicating that it's not possible. Doesn't sound random to me. If it knows we need air to breath, its assisted in some means. I understand you see it as stupid as its not an advantage but even at that, it cant be random. If only the advantage sticks, its not random. If only the advantage survives, that is different and why I presented the example of something being born out of athmosphere.

or why the choices that get made are chosen, but we do know that it happens in groups.

Selected for by the environment.

What exactly determines enviroment, everything?

And what do you mean by fed back into the group, its as though your saying that food determins these changes.

Daddy has a superior beard. Mummy likes men with beards. They turn out the lights, do what mums and Dads do in the dark and nine months later a baby pops out. That type of feedback. Jeeze

Your trying to tell me that peopls decisions on who they choose or choose not to procriate with determines evolution?

Your also making a claim that only the advantages succeed in this process. So I wonder what or who determines exactly what is considered an advantage.

(Yawns and getting bored) The environment selects for any advantage that allows the individual to live long enough to breed and pass on that advantage

The only advantage I'm getting from that is if somone is selected to procriate.

And what determins a group to be a group ........... twaddle ............

Your kidding

No I'm not kidding, are you avoiding ansswering from emberrasment? Is it based on geographical location, by what they eat, by who lives in the same city, what?

Well getting some answers to these questions would surly help, provided you have them.

You have been given the answers. I can lead a tooth to knowledge but I can’t make him think.

For reasons only known to you, be that a low level of intelligence or a wilful denial you refuse to take the time to consider what you have been shown.

Look at my face

Am I bothered

I'm not bothered

From what little you have managed to share, I can see that this is nothing more than an absurd amount of theories that have nothing to back them. Complete nonesense.

reply to post by uva3021

This is the most absurd collection of thoughts ever devised by human.

Agreed, evolution is not all there.

reply to post by itsthetooth
Way to go Pinocchio. You never addressed one point I made.

reply to post by itsthetooth
Again you never considered one point I made just replied with your usual ignorance. You get the same reply as last time.

Looks like you cannot even learn that if you answer to avoid and use dishonesty to do it that means end of conversation.