Science against evolution

reply to post by itsthetooth


You reply is based upon faulty logic and faulty information.

Look...there is one specific piece of evidence that PROVES beyond a shadow of a doubt that EVOLUTION is a FACT. This proof cannot be denied and is so specific that there is NO POSSIBLE WAY for anyone to state it is not proof or that it is not enough proof.

Although there was two different types of Evolutionary processes that are responsible for Life being on Earth...the process known as QUANTUM EVOLUTION was responsible for GENESIS or the spontanious evolution of Life from Non-Living Molecular Structure. The secondary process afterwards is Biological Evolution which is continuing as I type.

The PROOF of Biological Evolution comes from the comparison of the Thousands of Species we have mapped the Genomes of and this includes Homo Sapiens. When all Genomes are compared we found ONE SPECIFIC VIRAL DNA encoded in every species.

THE ONLY WAY this could be is that all life EVOLVED from a Single Celled Organism that passed on the Viral DNA encoding which was created when that organism was infected with a Virus...and thus ALL SPECIES have this original Viral infection DNA encoding passed to them through the process of Biological Evolution.

This PROOF is IRREFUTABLE and evn the VATICAN as well as various other Christian sects have admitted so and when the Pope John Paul II spoke of this the Italian Press ran the Headline....POPE SAY'S WE COME FROM MONKEYS! THis of course is incorrect as Humans evolved from a common ancestor of which Great Apes and Humans came from.

Point is...you have no arguement as there is IRREFUTABLE PROOF of EVOLUTION being the process of Human Development as well as all species on Earth.

If one is to look at Quantum Evolution...which a part of is how non-living Molecular Structure will Evolve through a Quantum Process into Living Molecular Structure. Sometimes Non-Living Molecular Structure will obtain through the Quantum Process vast Complexity such as the development of DNA...but not become LIFE.

An example of this is a VIRUS whci has DNA but is NOT ALIVE. It is a very complex Quantum Evolved Molecular Structure that is DNA...but although it has DNA it is not a life form. This shows how a Non-Living Complex Quantum Evolved Molecular Structure has developed just a small step below a Life Form and in a way is a LINK between the Non-Living and the Living.

Your going to have to step up a whole lot more steps and to a much higher degree of Logic before you can comment on these statements because if you respond in the manner you have responded before...that being...stating something isn't true without providing PROOF of why it is not...then you will show not only to me but to all that you are not interested in the FACTS....but only interested in your BELIEFS.

Split Infinity

reply to post by Grimpachi


But there are just a few problems with that mindset.

First is that patterns have been witnessed in ALL diets that prove intelligence was present to instinctively program the species.

All species appear to know what food they are looking for as they never go through an experimental stage. In other words we never see them trying things to come to the conclusion of what it is that they want to eat. Even odder is that all units of a species choose the exact same foods. So you can't even say that its personal choice unless you remove the personal out from it.


So it's clear that they are driven specifically to a food.

If I'm wrong, and I know I'm not, you would be able to explain why species never go through an experimental stage, while seeming to know exactly what food they are searching for. You would also be able to explain how all units of a species would be able to share the same diet without teaching each other and without holding meetings or news conferences to accomplish this.

So I'm all ears, I'd like to hear what you got.

reply to post by SplitInfinity


Again the fossil records don't prove diversity anymore than creation can.

No one has ever witnessed a species changing into another species, and anyone that claims otherwise should have their credentials revoked.

Alopathic speciation isn't proof that a species has changed, just that they are no longer able to breed. It's a common assumption made by evolutionists, and its a sad one. There are perhaps hundreds of other reasons that could explain why a species is no longer able to breed with its group, but evolutionists jump to the conclusion that it must have changed species.

There is also no proof that all changes are always part of the larger network known as evolution. It's only assumed to be. LIke I explained over and over, ADHD has shown that victims have altered genes. This is a new find which means that prior to this people would have assumed that those with ADHD have evolved. They now know that the introduction of lead into somones system can cause the genetic changes, which is also possible from smoking ciggeretts.

So unless you agree that smoking causes evolution, your wrong.

reply to post by SplitInfinity


If there was plentiful proof that evolution exists, you would be laying that information on me rather than trying to convince me with there is simply tons of proof. What seems to be obvious is there is speculation, and assumptions.

It's only speculated that a species can evolve, its never been witnessed, and all you need to do is prove me wrong and show me where a species has changed into another species. Where is the proof ??? Your just a little short in this.

There is no proof that speciation is a species changing, again its only speculation based on the fact that they are no longer able to breed, which in itself is not proof. Again assujmptions were made that relationship isolation proves speciation, and its false. My neighbor is unable to breed with her husband and I don't think its because she evolved.

reply to post by itsthetooth


Actually...SMOKING has the result of Natural Selection...Mutation...and Survival of the Fittest.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at your Smoking statment as it shows me...and everyone else just how little you either know or understand about a process that created YOU.

Fossil records...although not complete for every species...are more than enough complete as far as Humanity is concerned. For example...we can look at Homo Sapiens skeletons now and Homo Sapien Mummy's that are thousands of years old and see how the older ones have traits that are much closer in structure to Cro Magnon as we were Cro Magnon tens of thousands of years ago and as I have stated...if you were to have one Cro Magnon in a Police Lineup with 6 other Homo Sapiens...you would not be able to tell the difference. They looked just like us but were a bit taller on average and even had a larger BRAIN.

You need to step it up if you want to compete here.

Split Infinity

reply to post by itsthetooth


Again...you are stating mistruths. There is ABSOLUTE PROOF of one species...I will use Cro Magnon....EVOLVING into another species....Homo Sapien. There is your proof right there.

We see a species of Bacteria evolve into another species right before our eyes when we introduce a toxin and grow the surviving bacteria then repete this many times and thus a NEW SPECIES of Bacteria has EVOLVED from the old species.

Again...you need to step it up.

Split Infinity

reply to post by itsthetooth
Target food????

Debate. Date & time. We know the place.

reply to post by itsthetooth


You are wrong and you know it or else you wouldnt be afraid to debate it. You cant back up your fantasy. If you can then prove it take it to the debate forum.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
I think Tooth is not trying to argue evolution. I think he is anti-Christian and trying to further discredit Christians because he is breaking the ninth commandment. No Christian would push such false diatribe. Tooth is misrepresenting Christians that is why he is pushing this so far.

Many Christians acknowledge evolution and understand it is the philosophy to follow they wouldn’t push such false claims.

Grim I feel I have not given your answer the attention it deserves. The points you make are spot on.

I would also like to explain to you and others that when I point out the failings of tooth’s claims based on the bible I am talking about tooth’s version of the bible which is a very different book.

That is not to say the bible has any meaning for me, it does not but I do try to respect the meaning it has for others. Tooth has consistently abused that respect so receives none.

Tooth, target food fails because:

Domestic animals don't have target food. Your premise fails.

And there are, of course, a whole bunch of holes in your theory, but this one will do it.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Alopathic speciation isn't proof that a species has changed,

Did you mean Allopatric speciation? If you did then again not only have you got your spelling wrong you display you do not understand the words you are using.

If you really do mean 'Alopathic speciation' then you need to cut and paste from a better source or explain another made up term.

Allopatric speciation describes speciation by geographic isolation. It is not proof of, does not create, It describes a process. Isolation might occur because of great distance or a physical barrier, such as a desert or river as examples.

You have had this explained to you many times that the inability to breed is just one of many indicators used when deciding one group is different enough from another to be classed as separate species or sub species.

If you have not grasped this then you need to go away and take time to educate yourself

If you cannot grasp this then you just need to go away. This subject even at its most basic is beyond you.

reply to post by SplitInfinity


Similarity in DNA or fossil records don't prove diversity. I want to see something that proves I shared a common ancestor with apes, and where are the fossils for that one .

Your killing me smalls.

There is no proof that I ever shared a common ancestor with apes, none, but I'm sure you believe strongly in it.
In addition to this, no one has ever witnessed evolution either. So your seriously barking up a fantasy tree here.

As in the example I gave you about ADHD being responsible for changes in DNA, could explain that all changes have a solid reason behind them.

The ADHD finding is new which means that prior to that, people were assuming they were from evolution, as you can see that is false. ADHD is not a motivator for evolution. I would figure that all of any changes could eventually traced back to soemthing with reason disproving the idea of evolution.

reply to post by SplitInfinity

Again...you are stating mistruths. There is ABSOLUTE PROOF of one species...I will use Cro Magnon....EVOLVING into another species....Homo Sapien. There is your proof right there.

We see a species of Bacteria evolve into another species right before our eyes when we introduce a toxin and grow the surviving bacteria then repete this many times and thus a NEW SPECIES of Bacteria has EVOLVED from the old species.

Again...you need to step it up.

If you can watch changes right before your eyes, thats not evolution thats adaptation.

Humans interbred with another species long ago, so this is all possible. It was even in the bible and god was angry from this happening.

reply to post by Grimpachi

You are wrong and you know it or else you wouldnt be afraid to debate it. You cant back up your fantasy. If you can then prove it take it to the debate forum.

The only thing that concearns me is how some biased mod will ruin it.

reply to post by JameSimon

Tooth, target food fails because:

Domestic animals don't have target food. Your premise fails.

And there are, of course, a whole bunch of holes in your theory, but this one will do it.

No, Target Food doesn't apply to domesticated animals as we predict what they will and can eat.

reply to post by colin42


The source is wiki.

speciation

But then again, you have always had a problem with definitions.

Allopatric, and your definition is in line with exactly what I though it was. Seperation of the species forcing evolution. It's total bunk.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

You are wrong and you know it or else you wouldnt be afraid to debate it. You cant back up your fantasy. If you can then prove it take it to the debate forum.

The only thing that concearns me is how some biased mod will ruin it.

Darwin risked persecution and you are worried about a mod. Sorry you have zero credibility if that is your excuse. How is anyone supposed to believe a person who hides behind such a pitiful excuse?

You will not debate is the same as admitting you have nothing to bring to the table.

reply to post by Grimpachi


So Grim, I gave you the strongholds of the theory of Target Food. I told you that if I was wrong, you should have no problem explaining why species are never found in a documented experiemntal stage, and you gave no answer. I also told you that you should also be able to explain why all units of a species choose the same food, again, you give no answer.

Species all choose the same food as a unit, so you can't say they are using personal choice, still you can't explain why. It's because they are instilled with an instinct to a specific food. Evolution never made any claims about where this instinct came from, why is it there? I have been told by evolutionists that our food evolves right along side with us as well. If thats true, the instinct would have to evolve with it but evolution made no claims about this.

Animals clearly are directed to a specific food as they pass over the option of trying food to their liking, and pass over personal choice as a unit. If you seriously feel that Target Food doesn't exist, then you should have no problem proving it wrong. All you have to do is explain why animals are making the choices that they are making.

reply to post by itsthetooth
To reply like that to splits post just futher exposes you as nothing more than a troll.

reply to post by itsthetooth


If you are sure then take it to the debate forum. If your theory has any merit then you should have no problem doing so but if can’t do that small task then you must not believe in yourself or your theory. Darwin had faith in his theory and himself to where he put himself out there and stood behind his work and faced persecution and ridicule but you are afraid of a mod. If you do not have faith in yourself or your own work you shouldn’t expect others to either. I can’t take you serious if you do not take yourself serious.

I am not sure I can even call what you have a theory it is more of a lose idea.

If you wish to debate I will do so in the debate forum if you decline to do so then you have nothing worth debating.