Author

Topic: Evolution is a hoax - page 158. (Read 108046 times)

hero member
Activity: 574
Merit: 500
September 04, 2017, 09:10:34 AM
If you think evolution is not real and believe in some fairy tale book that has been used to manipulate people for thousands of years then I'm sorry you really just are not that intelligent (In the most respectful way possible)

Thank you mister genius. I might be non intelligent(no seriously, there are a lot more intelligent people than me. I know my limitations), but at least I'm not mad like some of users of this forum.

How could you not call it madness when they have three options

1. have eternal life
2. not believe it because of reasons they check out, or
3. they could choose not to believe, but instead believe, that they do not have to check, why they do not believe.

They all choose option 3. That's pure madness.

Quote
Where is the evidence? They are just claiming his findings are wrong, why? Who realized this?

I guess anyone can find that actually, by reading his work. You believe in what is written there, so I guess you were not bothered to look. Such a statements could make those people end in jail. They are not in jail, and they had not deleted this from their page hence - they had read his work and are sure that his experiments have self contradictory evidence.

What are you waiting for? Sue them. Or mail the guy that wrote your materials that you quoted. He would be glad to have his work promoted by winning such a trial in which people, that called him fraud would lose.

Quote
All that Darwin proved was that he didn't know enough to prove much of anything else.

Cool

Darwin was a theologian. His book "the origin of species" was written by someone else. Actually an evolution is a religious dogma "invented" by arabic scholars in 13th century. Later adopted by catholic theologians and masonry. Evolution is a religious dogma.

No matter how hard you try you are still a hypocrite. As I said, extremely skeptic about anything that has to do with science but so easily willing to believe what an old book tells you. You are just gullible. Your logic makes no sense.

Im extremely skeptical about things that completly contradicts itself like evolution. Its really dumb idea... and very very toxic and foolled a lot of people.
Vod
legendary
Activity: 3668
Merit: 3010
Licking my boob since 1970
September 04, 2017, 07:59:01 AM
Thank you mister genius. I might be non intelligent(no seriously, there are a lot more intelligent people than me. I know my limitations), but at least I'm not mad like some of users of this forum.

You believe fairy tales are real.  That makes you mad.

Cool
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
September 04, 2017, 06:19:49 AM
If you think evolution is not real and believe in some fairy tale book that has been used to manipulate people for thousands of years then I'm sorry you really just are not that intelligent (In the most respectful way possible)

Thank you mister genius. I might be non intelligent(no seriously, there are a lot more intelligent people than me. I know my limitations), but at least I'm not mad like some of users of this forum.

How could you not call it madness when they have three options

1. have eternal life
2. not believe it because of reasons they check out, or
3. they could choose not to believe, but instead believe, that they do not have to check, why they do not believe.

They all choose option 3. That's pure madness.

Quote
Where is the evidence? They are just claiming his findings are wrong, why? Who realized this?

I guess anyone can find that actually, by reading his work. You believe in what is written there, so I guess you were not bothered to look. Such a statements could make those people end in jail. They are not in jail, and they had not deleted this from their page hence - they had read his work and are sure that his experiments have self contradictory evidence.

What are you waiting for? Sue them. Or mail the guy that wrote your materials that you quoted. He would be glad to have his work promoted by winning such a trial in which people, that called him fraud would lose.

Quote
All that Darwin proved was that he didn't know enough to prove much of anything else.

Cool

Darwin was a theologian. His book "the origin of species" was written by someone else. Actually an evolution is a religious dogma "invented" by arabic scholars in 13th century. Later adopted by catholic theologians and masonry. Evolution is a religious dogma.

No matter how hard you try you are still a hypocrite. As I said, extremely skeptic about anything that has to do with science but so easily willing to believe what an old book tells you. You are just gullible. Your logic makes no sense.
hero member
Activity: 574
Merit: 500
September 04, 2017, 01:18:19 AM
If you think evolution is not real and believe in some fairy tale book that has been used to manipulate people for thousands of years then I'm sorry you really just are not that intelligent (In the most respectful way possible)

Thank you mister genius. I might be non intelligent(no seriously, there are a lot more intelligent people than me. I know my limitations), but at least I'm not mad like some of users of this forum.

How could you not call it madness when they have three options

1. have eternal life
2. not believe it because of reasons they check out, or
3. they could choose not to believe, but instead believe, that they do not have to check, why they do not believe.

They all choose option 3. That's pure madness.

Quote
Where is the evidence? They are just claiming his findings are wrong, why? Who realized this?

I guess anyone can find that actually, by reading his work. You believe in what is written there, so I guess you were not bothered to look. Such a statements could make those people end in jail. They are not in jail, and they had not deleted this from their page hence - they had read his work and are sure that his experiments have self contradictory evidence.

What are you waiting for? Sue them. Or mail the guy that wrote your materials that you quoted. He would be glad to have his work promoted by winning such a trial in which people, that called him fraud would lose.

Quote
All that Darwin proved was that he didn't know enough to prove much of anything else.

Cool

Darwin was a theologian. His book "the origin of species" was written by someone else. Actually an evolution is a religious dogma "invented" by arabic scholars in 13th century. Later adopted by catholic theologians and masonry. Evolution is a religious dogma.
sr. member
Activity: 728
Merit: 255
September 04, 2017, 12:28:06 AM
If you think evolution is not real and believe in some fairy tale book that has been used to manipulate people for thousands of years then I'm sorry you really just are not that intelligent (In the most respectful way possible)
Vod
legendary
Activity: 3668
Merit: 3010
Licking my boob since 1970
September 03, 2017, 10:15:24 PM
All that Darwin proved was that he didn't know enough to prove much of anything else.

Darwin isn't one of your fairy tales.  He proved evolution.

Cool
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
September 03, 2017, 09:49:19 PM
I recently found out Darwin barley obtained his Degree in Liberal Arts. He wasn't even a bondafide scientist. Not that you can't be great with out a degree it's just a detail that everyone should let sink in.

It's not who Darwin is, but what he proved. 

Cool

All that Darwin proved was that he didn't know enough to prove much of anything else.

Cool
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
September 03, 2017, 06:36:04 PM
Vod
legendary
Activity: 3668
Merit: 3010
Licking my boob since 1970
September 03, 2017, 04:43:04 PM
I recently found out Darwin barley obtained his Degree in Liberal Arts. He wasn't even a bondafide scientist. Not that you can't be great with out a degree it's just a detail that everyone should let sink in.

It's not who Darwin is, but what he proved. 

Cool
hero member
Activity: 682
Merit: 540
September 03, 2017, 04:40:30 PM
I recently found out Darwin barley obtained his Degree in Liberal Arts. He wasn't even a bondafide scientist. Not that you can't be great with out a degree it's just a detail that everyone should let sink in.
Vod
legendary
Activity: 3668
Merit: 3010
Licking my boob since 1970
September 03, 2017, 02:47:17 PM
Face palm... Really guys.... No comment here.

I'll agree with that.

Even when the library comes to you, your brainwashing does not allow you to understand.

Cool
hero member
Activity: 574
Merit: 500
September 03, 2017, 11:24:24 AM
legendary
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1027
September 03, 2017, 01:23:01 AM
And you are sure that people have descended from monkeys, we have been told this theory since childhood, and who really knows who we were before. There are no facts or evidence, but the fact that we have evolved and become even more developed over time is a fact.
No facts or evidence..

Do you have any friends around you?..
Well get your both hands and with your 2 hands scratch your armpits and say to a friend or family member what do i look like and if they say a monkey
then what more proof do you need Wink..
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
September 02, 2017, 06:34:45 PM
Since you aren't talking species to species changes, we won't know what you are talking about until you tell us.

I'm talking about dogs proving evolution - species to species change.

Cool

Actually, there isn't even one recorded instance of such. There might be a few assumptions, but no proof.

Cool

Actually...

5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)
While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.

5.1.1.2 Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis)
Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was named P. kewensis. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous hybrids of P. verticillata and P. floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926.

5.1.1.3 Tragopogon
Owenby (1950) demonstrated that two species in this genus were produced by polyploidization from hybrids. He showed that Tragopogon miscellus found in a colony in Moscow, Idaho was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. pratensis. He also showed that T. mirus found in a colony near Pullman, Washington was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. porrifolius. Evidence from chloroplast DNA suggests that T. mirus has originated independently by hybridization in eastern Washington and western Idaho at least three times (Soltis and Soltis 1989). The same study also shows multiple origins for T. micellus.

5.1.1.4 Raphanobrassica
The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Despite the fact that the plants were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid. Some unreduced gametes were formed in the hybrids. This allowed for the production of seed. Plants grown from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They were not interfertile with either parental species. Unfortunately the new plant (genus Raphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage.

5.1.1.5 Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit)
A species of hemp nettle, Galeopsis tetrahit, was hypothesized to be the result of a natural hybridization of two other species, G. pubescens and G. speciosa (Muntzing 1932). The two species were crossed. The hybrids matched G. tetrahit in both visible features and chromosome morphology.

5.1.1.6 Madia citrigracilis
Along similar lines, Clausen et al. (1945) hypothesized that Madia citrigracilis was a hexaploid hybrid of M. gracilis and M. citriodora As evidence they noted that the species have gametic chromosome numbers of n = 24, 16 and 8 respectively. Crossing M. gracilis and M. citriodora resulted in a highly sterile triploid with n = 24. The chromosomes formed almost no bivalents during meiosis. Artificially doubling the chromosome number using colchecine produced a hexaploid hybrid which closely resembled M. citrigracilis and was fertile.

5.1.1.7 Brassica
Frandsen (1943, 1947) was able to do this same sort of recreation of species in the genus Brassica (cabbage, etc.). His experiments showed that B. carinata (n = 17) may be recreated by hybridizing B. nigra (n = Cool and B. oleracea, B. juncea (n = 18) may be recreated by hybridizing B. nigra and B. campestris (n = 10), and B. napus (n = 19) may be recreated by hybridizing B. oleracea and B. campestris.

5.1.1.8 Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum)
Rabe and Haufler (1992) found a naturally occurring diploid sporophyte of maidenhair fern which produced unreduced (2N) spores. These spores resulted from a failure of the paired chromosomes to dissociate during the first division of meiosis. The spores germinated normally and grew into diploid gametophytes. These did not appear to produce antheridia. Nonetheless, a subsequent generation of tetraploid sporophytes was produced. When grown in the lab, the tetraploid sporophytes appear to be less vigorous than the normal diploid sporophytes. The 4N individuals were found near Baldwin City, Kansas.

5.1.1.9 Woodsia Fern (Woodsia abbeae)
Woodsia abbeae was described as a hybrid of W. cathcariana and W. ilvensis (Butters 1941). Plants of this hybrid normally produce abortive sporangia containing inviable spores. In 1944 Butters found a W. abbeae plant near Grand Portage, Minn. that had one fertile frond (Butters and Tryon 1948). The apical portion of this frond had fertile sporangia. Spores from this frond germinated and grew into prothallia. About six months after germination sporophytes were produced. They survived for about one year. Based on cytological evidence, Butters and Tryon concluded that the frond that produced the viable spores had gone tetraploid. They made no statement as to whether the sporophytes grown produced viable spores.

5.1.2 Animals
Speciation through hybridization and/or polyploidy has long been considered much less important in animals than in plants [[[refs.]]]. A number of reviews suggest that this view may be mistaken. (Lokki and Saura 1980; Bullini and Nascetti 1990; Vrijenhoek 1994). Bullini and Nasceti (1990) review chromosomal and genetic evidence that suggest that speciation through hybridization may occur in a number of insect species, including walking sticks, grasshoppers, blackflies and cucurlionid beetles. Lokki and Saura (1980) discuss the role of polyploidy in insect evolution. Vrijenhoek (1994) reviews the literature on parthenogenesis and hybridogenesis in fish. I will tackle this topic in greater depth in the next version of this document.

5.2 Speciations in Plant Species not Involving Hybridization or Polyploidy

5.2.1 Stephanomeira malheurensis
Gottlieb (1973) documented the speciation of Stephanomeira malheurensis. He found a single small population (< 250 plants) among a much larger population (> 25,000 plants) of S. exigua in Harney Co., Oregon. Both species are diploid and have the same number of chromosomes (N = Cool. S. exigua is an obligate outcrosser exhibiting sporophytic self-incompatibility. S. malheurensis exhibits no self-incompatibility and self-pollinates. Though the two species look very similar, Gottlieb was able to document morphological differences in five characters plus chromosomal differences. F1 hybrids between the species produces only 50% of the seeds and 24% of the pollen that conspecific crosses produced. F2 hybrids showed various developmental abnormalities.

5.2.2 Maize (Zea mays)
Pasterniani (1969) produced almost complete reproductive isolation between two varieties of maize. The varieties were distinguishable by seed color, white versus yellow. Other genetic markers allowed him to identify hybrids. The two varieties were planted in a common field. Any plant's nearest neighbors were always plants of the other strain. Selection was applied against hybridization by using only those ears of corn that showed a low degree of hybridization as the source of the next years seed. Only parental type kernels from these ears were planted. The strength of selection was increased each year. In the first year, only ears with less than 30% intercrossed seed were used. In the fifth year, only ears with less than 1% intercrossed seed were used. After five years the average percentage of intercrossed matings dropped from 35.8% to 4.9% in the white strain and from 46.7% to 3.4% in the yellow strain.

5.2.3 Speciation as a Result of Selection for Tolerance to a Toxin: Yellow Monkey Flower (Mimulus guttatus)
At reasonably low concentrations, copper is toxic to many plant species. Several plants have been seen to develop a tolerance to this metal (Macnair 1981). Macnair and Christie (1983) used this to examine the genetic basis of a postmating isolating mechanism in yellow monkey flower. When they crossed plants from the copper tolerant "Copperopolis" population with plants from the nontolerant "Cerig" population, they found that many of the hybrids were inviable. During early growth, just after the four leaf stage, the leaves of many of the hybrids turned yellow and became necrotic. Death followed this. This was seen only in hybrids between the two populations. Through mapping studies, the authors were able to show that the copper tolerance gene and the gene responsible for hybrid inviability were either the same gene or were very tightly linked. These results suggest that reproductive isolation may require changes in only a small number of genes.

5.3 The Fruit Fly Literature

5.3.1 Drosophila paulistorum
Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).

5.3.2 Disruptive Selection on Drosophila melanogaster
Thoday and Gibson (1962) established a population of Drosophila melanogaster from four gravid females. They applied selection on this population for flies with the highest and lowest numbers of sternoplural chaetae (hairs). In each generation, eight flies with high numbers of chaetae were allowed to interbreed and eight flies with low numbers of chaetae were allowed to interbreed. Periodically they performed mate choice experiments on the two lines. They found that they had produced a high degree of positive assortative mating between the two groups. In the decade or so following this, eighteen labs attempted unsuccessfully to reproduce these results. References are given in Thoday and Gibson 1970.

5.3.3 Selection on Courtship Behavior in Drosophila melanogaster
Crossley (1974) was able to produce changes in mating behavior in two mutant strains of D. melanogaster. Four treatments were used. In each treatment, 55 virgin males and 55 virgin females of both ebony body mutant flies and vestigial wing mutant flies (220 flies total) were put into a jar and allowed to mate for 20 hours. The females were collected and each was put into a separate vial. The phenotypes of the offspring were recorded. Wild type offspring were hybrids between the mutants. In two of the four treatments, mating was carried out in the light. In one of these treatments all hybrid offspring were destroyed. This was repeated for 40 generations. Mating was carried out in the dark in the other two treatments. Again, in one of these all hybrids were destroyed. This was repeated for 49 generations. Crossley ran mate choice tests and observed mating behavior. Positive assortative mating was found in the treatment which had mated in the light and had been subject to strong selection against hybridization. The basis of this was changes in the courtship behaviors of both sexes. Similar experiments, without observation of mating behavior, were performed by Knight, et al. (1956).
full member
Activity: 322
Merit: 100
September 02, 2017, 04:20:02 PM
And you are sure that people have descended from monkeys, we have been told this theory since childhood, and who really knows who we were before. There are no facts or evidence, but the fact that we have evolved and become even more developed over time is a fact.
Vod
legendary
Activity: 3668
Merit: 3010
Licking my boob since 1970
September 02, 2017, 04:03:19 PM
What good are your invisible millions of pages where you can't even provide one instance of species to species evolution. You have turned evolution into a religion for yourself.

Go to a funded library and ask the librarian.  They will give you all the proof you need.

Cool
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
September 02, 2017, 04:02:26 PM
Since you don't have proof, you have a religion going for yourself when you believe that which might as well be science fiction as far as you are concerned.

I have millions of pages of proof documented by millions of dog breeder who have seen evolution first hand.

Let's talk about proof of your fairy tale.

Cool

What good are your invisible millions of pages where you can't even provide one instance of species to species evolution. You have turned evolution into a religion for yourself.

Cool
Vod
legendary
Activity: 3668
Merit: 3010
Licking my boob since 1970
September 02, 2017, 03:59:51 PM
Since you don't have proof, you have a religion going for yourself when you believe that which might as well be science fiction as far as you are concerned.

I have millions of pages of proof documented by millions of dog breeder who have seen evolution first hand.

Let's talk about proof of your fairy tale.

Cool
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
September 02, 2017, 03:59:01 PM
Not really. Without proof, there is no reason to stop playing in the sand.

Then you are doomed to believe in your fairy tale until you die.

Cool

Since you don't have proof, you have a religion going for yourself when you believe that which might as well be science fiction as far as you are concerned.

Cool
Vod
legendary
Activity: 3668
Merit: 3010
Licking my boob since 1970
September 02, 2017, 03:55:33 PM
Not really. Without proof, there is no reason to stop playing in the sand.

Then you are doomed to believe in your fairy tale until you die.

Cool
Jump to: