How to prove evolution is FAKE!!!

reply to post by Buehler


We didn't evolve from monkeys, I don't think anyone is saying that and if they are they are wrong. Monkeys and humans share a common ancestor, meaning at some point "monkeyhuman" split in totwo separate species, one being monkeys and the other humans.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


that still doesn't explain what I was talking about. There had to be intelligent intervention.

reply to post by Buehler


The intelligent intervention came from us adapting to the environment, there's no need for an outside influence in my opinion, unless it's the environment itself.

adapted to our environment by losing our most valuable traits? I've never once heard of an animal losing its hair to adapt, no matter what weather conditions.

Originally posted by Buehler
reply to post by SpearMint

 

I'm sorry, but what is your version of independent scientific examination? You obviously haven't been examining very closely. If we evolved from monkeys then why are we so much different than them? I mean if we're always evolving and stuff why aren't they somewhat close to us in the evolutionary chain? They don't understand consciousness, they can't ponder the universe, our DNA that gives us the ability of language isn't found in any other living organism on earth.

if you're all about "scientific examination" why haven't you wondered why we would loose all of our hair and opposable thumbs on our feet? Why in the world would we go from being in the freezing wilderness with a natural fur coat to having to wear buffalo skins and hides anyways? And wouldn't having hands on your feet be pretty helpful in every day life? I mean damn, if evolution lets us adapt to our environment then we sure have de-evolved. ha, evolved from monkeys, you should be able to survive out in the wild pretty easily then right? Yeah go to an African savannah and camp out for a couple days, since we're so evolved you shouldn't be scared of anything. Just be careful cause male lions have adapted the ability to literally taste the air, you're a sitting duck, slow, completely less balanced on two legs you would be on four. And dang you can't climb up the tree fast enough wish you still had hands on your feet right? I don't know what scientific examination you've been doing but it's not very logical.

I don't know if there's any point in explaining since you obviously don't understand the basic concepts of evolution. First of all we did not evolve from monkeys, we evolved from a common ancestor that we share with modern apes. A basic understanding of evolution and human history will answer your questions, your reasoning is very flawed (but then I haven't seen a single argument against evolution that isn't flawed and/or down to a complete lack of knowledge). If you really want to argue against evolution then research it, understand it and make a reasoned argument. If you do the first two correctly you won't be able to do the last.

By the way, picking out things we don't know in human evolution isn't an argument against evolution, science fills in the gaps with facts and it's no secret that we don't know everything, creationism basically says "god did it", and that's meant to win the argument.

reply to post by Buehler


If having hair is somehow superior or having opposable thumbs on our feet more useful, then why did god create us inferior and less useful? Kinda goes against your argument doesn't it?

Did you know that being hairless allows us to cool off and release heat more efficiently than other hairy mammals? I'd hate to have to pant like a dog for 20 minutes just to cool off a little, kinda makes me glad we have the ability to sweat, especially if I lived near a desert or something similar.


Please correct me if I'm wrong in assuming that you're a creationist.

okay well giving that they've already scientifically proved that our DNA had to have been genetically engineered, Natural evolution could not possibly create a completely The more advanced our technology gets on DNA the more and more evolution is proved wrong. You're saying my logic is flawed? how is thinking that humans are descendants of monkeys even somewhat logical? yeah maybe our DNA was crossed with a common ancestor but evolution can simply not produce certain parts of our DNA its physically impossible and if your're arguing with that then you are blatantly denying the truth because your mind is stuck so inside the box that it hasn't evolved to think out side of the box and beyond.

reply to post by Buehler


Didn't I just say I don't believe we descended from monkeys? Didn't we just talk about this like 2 or 3 posts ago? Stop running yourself in circles, you're not getting anywhere doing it.

Who exactly genetically engineered us? If you say aliens then I would say that it's a possibility, but to say evolution doesn't exist is going a little too far. Just because we were possibly genetically engineered doesn't mean evolution doesn't happen, the variety of life on Earth pretty much proves evolution exists in some form or another.

no no evolution completely exists, all I was saying is that we didn't evolve to this point with nature alone. Aliens is the greatest possibility.

reply to post by Buehler


Oohhh okay, gotcha.

That's definitely a possibility I'm open to. Sorry for the mistake.

no worries! yeah I guess we'll find out sooner or later

Here is proof that evolution is real and that it occurs at the same time and same rate in all parts of the multiverse at the same time.

reply to post by Buehler

okay well giving that they've already scientifically proved that our DNA had to have been genetically engineered,

Who is "they" and what "proof" did "they" present?

Natural evolution could not possibly create a completely

A completely what?

The more advanced our technology gets on DNA the more and more evolution is proved wrong.

In what way?

You're saying my logic is flawed? how is thinking that humans are descendants of monkeys even somewhat logical?

It has nothing to do with logic, it has to do with you constructing a strawman argument to argue against. The facts of evolution and the theory used to explain those facts do not claim that humans are the descendants of monkeys.

yeah maybe our DNA was crossed with a common ancestor but evolution can simply not produce certain parts of our DNA its physically impossible

How is it physically impossible?

and if your're arguing with that then you are blatantly denying the truth because your mind is stuck so inside the box that it hasn't evolved to think out side of the box and beyond.

Thinking outside the box is good. Thinking outside the box is fun. But you're making claims based on what you're imagining while outside of the cardboard cube, and therefore you need to provide some kind of evidence for those claims if they are to be taken seriously.

reply to post by iterationzero


Hey, I'm not saying evolution isn't fact. For I know that evolution brought us pretty much to where we are now physically, but something along the line helped us obtain where we are mentally, think about it.

reply to post by Buehler

Hey, I'm not saying evolution isn't fact.

That's good, because evolution is an observable phenomenon.

For I know that evolution brought us pretty much to where we are now physically, but something along the line helped us obtain where we are mentally, think about it.

I have thought about it, multiple times and at different points in my life where I had different levels of understanding and education. I still don't subscribe to the hypothesis of interventionism.

Can you answer any of the questions I put to you in the last post, or are we just going with "think about it" as an answer?

How can you not see the interventionism? Our DNA is the most precisely built complex arrangement of building instructions known to man. How could such a complex mathamatical sequence with so much meaning be a result of an accident? Again, I understand how evouluion could have brought us where we are physically, this does not explain how our DNA and biological SETI formed out of nowhere? yeah we may have had human bodies like now but brains of animals, we had no language, nothing in nature could have constructed the genome of language. Think logically man? Ill believe it when a tornado passes through and makes a perfectly running super computer with debri. That's basically what your saying if you can't accept that there was intervention.

reply to post by Buehler


This just looks like an argument from incredulity. That you don't believe or possibly don't understand something, doesn't necessarily discredit it, or bolster your own counter claims. Do you have any reliable evidence to directly indicate such intervention did happen, other than your personal belief?

Though it's possibly more plausible than the "god of the gaps" fallacy (due to the probability of the biblical god existing being so extremely low and claims so heavily contradicted by facts/knowledge).

It seems that latest morphological, genetic, neurological and cultural studies related to the Homo lineage point to a gradual change in physical and mental characteristics that allow for modern speech (among many other things), consistent with the theory of evolution.

We do have the brains of animals, because that is obviously what we are. We are mammals, more specifically apes. How would ability to speak change that?

Complex communication looks like being not as uncommon within the animal kingdom as previously thought. Our knowledge is certainly incomplete, yet claiming intervention without supporting it, simply amounts to "intervention of the gaps".

An example...

While this has yet to be definitively proven, the results resemble a linguistic feat known as "referential communication with learned signals," which has always been thought to be a hallmark of humanity.

www.natureworldnews.com...

An excerpt from some of the many articles/papers on the subject.

Some other species can also have quite complicated languages, including dolphins, humpback whales, and various types of songbirds. Because these animals are obviously far more distantly related to humans than apes are, it is almost certain that the languages these species exhibit are cases of convergent evolution; this goes to show that animals besides humans have found the ability to communicate with their fellows helpful to their survival.

The Lieberman and Crelin (1971) Neanderthal study is often cited to support claims that speech evolved abruptly at a recent date. Boe et al. (Boe, Maeda, and Heims 1999; Boe et al. 2002) claim that we concluded that Neanderthals were a “speechless species.” However, this was not our conclusion. What we wrote was that Neanderthals represent “an intermediate stage in the evolution of language. This indicates that the evolution of language was gradual, that it was not an abrupt phenomenon. The reason that human linguistic ability appears to be so distinct and unique is that the intermediate stages in its evolution are represented by extinct species” (Lieberman and Crelin 1971, 221). Some form of speech must have been in place in the archaic hominids ancestral to both humans and Neanderthals. There would have been no selective advantage for retention of the mutations that yielded the species-specific human supralaryngeal vocal tract at the cost of increased morbidity from choking unless speech was already present. The question is when.

www.cog.brown.edu...

atheism.about.com...

suite101.com...

www.newsroom.ucla.edu...

www.redorbit.com...

Posts like this are biased. Yes the video is dumb. Yes the script of the video is dumb. Yes their claims are idiotic. But it doesn't discount intelligent design.

Did you know the skeletons Charles Darwin himself personally used to construct the famous Ape to Man chart have been scientifically proven to be flawed?

The skeletons of the hunch-backed humans in that chart have been proven to have severe spinal diseases, proving all of the human skeletons in that chart could have easily been all fully upright skeletons.

Which means?

There is more than 1 missing link folks, there are up to 4 missing links.

Speaking of nuts, there are so many missing links that it drives the Darwin crowd nuts.

you still haven't explained how we are adapt to th wild at all?

Originally posted by malchir
Posts like this are biased. Yes the video is dumb. Yes the script of the video is dumb. Yes their claims are idiotic. But it doesn't discount intelligent design.

True, what discounts it is a complete lack of anything resembling evidence (ie. not logical fallacy or wishful thinking, able to be backed up, could withstand scientific scrutiny peer review etc). Though it doesn't so much discount it, as make it about as relevant as the possible existence of Unicorns.

Did you know the skeletons Charles Darwin himself personally used to construct the famous Ape to Man chart have been scientifically proven to be flawed?

The skeletons of the hunch-backed humans in that chart have been proven to have severe spinal diseases, proving all of the human skeletons in that chart could have easily been all fully upright skeletons.

Which means?

Undoubtedly, that means god must have done it! Did this tidbit come from somewhere like "creation ministries.com" or the like?

Ever looked into modern ideas regarding Homonin evolution, the fossil record, what molecular biology says etc? It's fascinating. Do you know who our closest morphological relative is? There seems plenty of details that scientists can't find agreement on as yet, though the theory of evolution itself is overwhelmingly accepted. Why would that be?

Rather than provide negative arguments to try and disprove evolution, can you provide anything positive for creation that might withstand critical scrutiny?

There is more than 1 missing link folks, there are up to 4 missing links.

Out of curiosity, how did you possibly arrive at that figure?

Speaking of nuts, there are so many missing links that it drives the Darwin crowd nuts.

Yes, possibly up to 4?