Evolution

[Pie]

Compleatly and totally imposible.

to proove somthing you must assume somthing is real by somthing as simple as feel.. touch.. smell.. witch can be proven by that you CAN do them,you can smell an apple pie.. witch can be proven by sight..smell..fell.. and tast. so essentially.. you need two things that are bothe things.. and can be proven by bias that the other one is real(Example.. julias Ceaser can be proven by that there are writings of him.. and that he is on coins. and those can be proven by that you can touch.. feell.. tast.. maby even smell them.)

[The Industriallist]

So, by proof, you mean proof based on the evidence of the senses, and some so called 'common sense'. (assuming that the evidence is not a hoax, and for that matter that it even exists since you've probably never seen it directly. And assuming it's not all being badly misinterpreted. All of which are probably correct, but...)

Just a note, though I can't speak from experience, I'm informed that the evidence of the senses can be rendered entirely unrelated to reality as others see it by the use of certain chemicals.

Well, then...why doesn't the appearance of pollen in the fossil record long after the rise of life on land prove that either evolution or ongoing creation was in action? And ongoing creation doesn't agree too well with what you see around you, does it? So...flowers evolved.

Of course, there are some 'common sense' assumptions in that arguement, too, but they seem pretty good ones.

[formerly known as hf]

flowers are a very complex and innovative technology developed by the CIA to spy on us - and all scientists are in on the conspiracy too

thay're not flowers - they're hidden cameras, and microphones

and bees - they're... er... highly complex nano mechanics...

yep...

[Antichrist_Online]

See, Hallucinatingfarmer is what you get when you take those chemicals.

I can't prove anything exsists, but I can disprove certain things exsisting.

[The Industriallist]

I can't prove anything exsists, but I can disprove certain things exsisting.

Indeed? Disproof is usually harder than proof...what can you prove doesn't exist?

[Pie]

well.. i can prove that bees EXIST.. but i might not be able to prove that it isn't a nanotechnolagy thing.. becous i don't have the right evedance.... like.. the univers. you can nither prove or disaprove the existance of alians becous you don't have all of the evedance.. but with Evolution.. you have all of the proof.. the so called fossle evedance. but i will continue to say that anamals can adapt becouse of changing enviroments and eating habbits... like.. dinousourse. lets say that one or two servived. they would have gotten smaller becouse of the lack of food. and lets take butterflys... when(and yes.. i say when) the green house effect of all of the vapor in the upper atmosfere rained doun for forty days and forty nights.. it coused a colder climat and coused them to create a habbat of migration.

and so far.. i like the change of what you are saying. before you were just calling me names and saying that i was stuped.. but not even trying to defend yourselvs of my constant barrage of questions you compleatly ignored. but now.. it is alot better.

[The Industriallist]

I'm still waiting for you to show me a live dire wolf...produced, of course, by feeding a wolf very well, or confronting it with elephants for prey, or whatever it is your theory supports...or any equivalent experimental result...

Are you claiming the ability to disprove evolution as a principle? Please state this proof. Don't bother stating the alternative explanation you prefer...just show, in a logical manner from reasonable assumptions, that evolution is impossible.

Also, you could address the flowering plant point. Plants are at least as important as animals, and this is a pretty strong example.

[Pie]

I'm still waiting for you to show me a live dire wolf...produced, of course, by feeding a wolf very well, or confronting it with elephants for prey, or whatever it is your theory supports...or any equivalent experimental result...

well.. how about Nuclear whepons? the cold war? Gorrila attackes? i think we have ADAPTED good enough to stop the Gorrila's in iraq.. and i think we have adapted good enough to know to were more clothes in the mountains.. and i think we have adapted good enough to servive a nomber of natures horrors(huracanes.. tornadoes.. earthquakes.. volcanoes....)+

and also.. have you ever took sertain soils into a jar.. and shook up the jar.. and have you ever noticed that the sand seperates so it is with only sand.. and the pottery soil seperates frome the sand? so aperantly.. your levels of soil for determaning age are rong in some way.

and also.. have you ever left armymen inside of a sand box.. and in a month its under the sand about one inch? so if earth is 13 billian years old.. then all of the dinosour bones would be a mile doun in the crust. but they arn't arn't they?

[The Industriallist]

I'm still waiting for you to show me a live dire wolf...produced, of course, by feeding a wolf very well, or confronting it with elephants for prey, or whatever it is your theory supports...or any equivalent experimental result...

well.. how about Nuclear whepons? the cold war? Gorrila attackes? i think we have ADAPTED good enough to stop the Gorrila's in iraq.. and i think we have adapted good enough to know to were more clothes in the mountains.. and i think we have adapted good enough to servive a nomber of natures horrors(huracanes.. tornadoes.. earthquakes.. volcanoes....)+

Well, talking about humans is a bit different...for one, you're claiming animals undergo drastic physical adaptations...whereas humans have undergone very little such adaptation in all of recorded history. Your examples have nothing at all to do with your claims about the development of life.

And natural disasters aren't so bad, really. Only really colossal ones, like a huge meteor impact or your proposed global flood, would have any chance of driving a species to extinction if it wasn't already close.

and also.. have you ever took sertain soils into a jar.. and shook up the jar.. and have you ever noticed that the sand seperates so it is with only sand.. and the pottery soil seperates frome the sand? so aperantly.. your levels of soil for determaning age are rong in some way.

Well, first of all I'm inclined to think that geologists know a little more about their field than anyone with a jar of dirt could determine...and they don't think everything settles out that way.

Secondly, as a rule the earth is not shaken up in any way like your jar. Deep layers of soil, or what was once soil, do not get broken loose and tossed all over to sort things out.

Third, soil depth is not a dating mechanism, except relatively. Usually, if the layers are good, one will say that deeper is older...but that's as far as it goes. To put a number on it you usually use some type of isotopic dating method.

The theory as to why deeper is usually older in undisturbed strata is essentially that new earth can only be added at the top. Barring a dramatic disruption, deep earth has no way to move up. To a limited extent material can percolate down, but this is mostly limited to extremely small particles.

and also.. have you ever left armymen inside of a sand box.. and in a month its under the sand about one inch? so if earth is 13 billian years old.. then all of the dinosour bones would be a mile doun in the crust. but they arn't arn't they?

That might indeed be a point, if the earth were made of loose sand, and regularly injected (at every depth) with copious amounts of water. Remarkably enough, it isn't.

I would observe that gravel does not tend to disappear into the ground at a rapid rate. I would also note that dinosaur skeletons are sometimes found significantly intact, rather than scattered across a huge area as you would expect if they were sinking through the ground. Look around for other examples.

Also note that dinosaur bones are certainly not dated at 13 Billion years old. Not by a long shot.

[Pie]

cockroaches. have you ever noticed that they only have to servive a fumagation once.. then you have to change the chemecle that you are using. a perfict example of an immune system adapting.

and of course.. how about chiken pox? your immune system then knows how to fight the pox once youv had it. and ovcourse.. small pox. if you are givin the cow pox.. then your immun system knows how to fight the pox.

clear examples of adaptation over evolving.

I have somthing to ask you. we all know that the single celld organism is the most least complex thing on the face of this earth. NOT TRUE! i want to here your saying that i am a total and compleat idiot before i give my resonse for saying this, so i can shove it in your face.

[BadMonkey]

cockroaches. have you ever noticed that they only have to servive a fumagation once.. then you have to change the chemecle that you are using. a perfict example of an immune system adapting.

and of course.. how about chiken pox? your immune system then knows how to fight the pox once youv had it. and ovcourse.. small pox. if you are givin the cow pox.. then your immun system knows how to fight the pox.

clear examples of adaptation over evolving.

I have somthing to ask you. we all know that the single celld organism is the most least complex thing on the face of this earth. NOT TRUE! i want to here your saying that i am a total and compleat idiot before i give my resonse for saying this, so i can shove it in your face.

Are you trying to state that because organisms can adapt, they can't evolve? If so, it makes no sense. If not, it has no point.

And single celled organisms are not the least complex thing on earth. The leasr complex thing would probably be the latest piece of goop they've found. Something inside quarks was the latest I had it.

If you meant organisms, then yes they are, assuming you discount viruses, as most people do.

[Pie]

well.. what i ment was that animals can adapt within there oun species.. but cannot adapt into a different species.

HA! HA HAHAHAHAH!

well.. they might be the least complex(besides the goop) thing on the earth.. but it is alot more complex than you think.

have you ever seen a single celled organism through a microscope? it has a tail. but that tail is really a roder. it is 20 different proteins propelling it through the world it lives in.

[The Industriallist]

cockroaches. have you ever noticed that they only have to servive a fumagation once.. then you have to change the chemecle that you are using. a perfict example of an immune system adapting.

Actually, a perfect example of evolution. Any given roach either dies, or survives by virtue of latant genetic resistance to the poison (or luck). After the fumigation, essentially every survivor is resistant to some degree, because the vulnerable died...so the next generation, spawned days or weeks later, is all resistant.

and of course.. how about chiken pox? your immune system then knows how to fight the pox once youv had it. and ovcourse.. small pox. if you are givin the cow pox.. then your immun system knows how to fight the pox.

True, but totally unrelated, and I say again, to drastic physical changes like you seem to believe can occur.

I have somthing to ask you. we all know that the single celld organism is the most least complex thing on the face of this earth. NOT TRUE! i want to here your saying that i am a total and compleat idiot before i give my resonse for saying this, so i can shove it in your face.

well.. they might be the least complex(besides the goop) thing on the earth.. but it is alot more complex than you think.

have you ever seen a single celled organism through a microscope? it has a tail. but that tail is really a roder. it is 20 different proteins propelling it through the world it lives in.

Trying to trump with basic microbiology would be more effective if you weren't debating with a biologist in training ...Flagella are hardly the most impressive features bacteria have to offer. Consider the chemical complexity of bacteria that can successfully attain and live in their preferred habitat of the interior of human cells. At the same time, they have nothing to do with the fragmented campaign you're running, so far as I can see.

And yes, I would say that some species of bacteria would have to be the simplest form of uncontestable life on earth. Though I prefer accounting viruses as life, usually...given the right environment they can reproduce, which is the only abstract property of life I can see.

well.. what i ment was that animals can adapt within there oun species.. but cannot adapt into a different species.

Please clarify the following:
-animals can adapt: individual animals, or populations?
-species: how do you tell whether something is a given species?

And for advanced thinking...what happens if you take tow populations of a species and put them in different, separate environments for an extended period?

[Pie]

I think you are clearly missing my point. a cocoroch can ADAPT! ADAPT! THEIR EMMUNE SYSTEM NOW KNOWS HOW TO FIGHT THAT POISN! NOTHING CHANGED ABOUT THE COCOROCH,EXEPT HOW MUCH ITS IMMUNE SYSTEM KNOWS!

the chiken pox ISN'T irrelevant in any manner. it is just another existing proof of Adaptation VS Evolving.The chiken pox clearly comes apon everybody at some time.. but when it leavs.. the emmune system now knows how to fight it. there is no change with the structure of the human body (exept for age.. and blemeshes.. and obvious stuff like that) but the DNA of the body remains compleatly the same AND in tact. A perfict example of a body adapting to different Enviromental changes.

[The Industriallist]

I think you are clearly missing my point. a cocoroch can ADAPT! ADAPT! THEIR EMMUNE SYSTEM NOW KNOWS HOW TO FIGHT THAT POISN! NOTHING CHANGED ABOUT THE COCOROCH,EXEPT HOW MUCH ITS IMMUNE SYSTEM KNOWS!

I think you are clearly missing the point that your 'facts' are not true. Individual roaches may possibly improve their resistance by exposure, but the major cause of resistance developing is the non-resistant roaches being killed so that they don't reproduce. Roaches show genetic resistance to poisons.

Nothing important at all changed about any individual roach, but the percentage resistant roaches in the population is driven up sharply.

If your interpretation were correct, fumigating again a couple weeks later would be nearly as effective as the first time, because the resistant roaches would have died without passing on their resistance to the new generation. (roaches aren't long-lived creatures)

the chiken pox ISN'T irrelevant in any manner. it is just another existing proof of Adaptation VS Evolving.The chiken pox clearly comes apon everybody at some time.. but when it leavs.. the emmune system now knows how to fight it. there is no change with the structure of the human body (exept for age.. and blemeshes.. and obvious stuff like that) but the DNA of the body remains compleatly the same AND in tact. A perfict example of a body adapting to different Enviromental changes.

Yes, it is that. And thus it's a prfect example of why your theory makes no sense. According to your theory, as I understand it, 'the body adapting to different environmental changes' explains why mammals shifted from small rodent-forms to an immense diversity of large forms after the dinosaur extinction, for instance (or do you not believe that that happened? I can't tell since you never answer questions like this one).

You you actually think that a human immune system developing an antibody response to a disease is equivalent to a rat becoming a wolf?

Also...you do understand that the mechanism of evolution is not an animal suddenly undergoing a genetic adaptation to a 'higher form' or to fit it's environment. Evolution works by killing off the randomly less fit before they breed, so that the next generation gets more high-fitness genes.