Topic: Evolution is a hoax - page 16. (Read 108173 times)

"It doesn't change one kind of animal to another" ok then. Tell us exactly what it constitutes an animal changing into another. What does it mean when an animal changes into another in your opinion???

There is an evolution of dogs in dog breeding. But most people don't call it evolution. They simply call it breeding. It doesn't change one kind of animal to another.

There is talked about, an evolution that changes one kind of animal to another. It is the kind that many say turned a single cell creature in the waters, into a succession of different animals resulting in mankind and the other animals we have today... something that happened over hundreds of thousands or millions of years.

Dog breeding evolution is obviously true, as is the evolution of the Model T to the many models of Fords we have today.

There is no proof of evolution of the kind where single cell creatures changed into other kinds of animals, and finally into humans, over hundreds of thousands or millions of years. All of the so-called evidence of this, can be attributed to something else that does not work like that evolution would.

We don't know from that evidence that such was the way that things happened, or if it happened another way. And we won't know until we can at least build a precise time viewer, to photograph the DNA of strings of ancestor/descendant animals in the past.

So far, all the proof you offer could be proof of several things, some of them not evolution theory evolution. You can guess all you want. But we don't have proof for evolution.

Evolution is a hoax.

Btw, thanks for helping me to say it in different ways, so that people who read my posts can start to understand that evolution is a hoax.

It really is like talking to a wall.
All the proof in the world wouldn't be enough for him, he keeps arguing in bad faith and engaging in sophistry.
Half-convinced he's trolling, to be honest.

I literally reference it in the next sentence.


For someone so willing to pull out a dictionary, you sure struggle with reading.
Could spend all day finding and quoting all the other points and links presented to you by other people, but you'd just resort to sophistry again.

He is a denier, first asks for proof of species changing into other species, proof is shown, he denies it, then he simply goes back to his old roots, thats not evolution, he says, ask him what is the definition of evolution, he doesnt know

You forgot to look at the dictionary, which has examples way more radical than I used.


You really need to get your head up out of the trance you are in, and see that there is no proof for ETE... and, that the dictionary definition of evolution doesn't really point at evolution theory. Or do you have some proof for ETE after all?

Evolution is a hoax.

You think evolution is something that you turn off and on? It happens every day as well, but for complex organisms -- it is a slow process.
And there you go again, denying that any proof was presented to you when it clearly was, multiple times by multiple people.
On my end, there's the guppy experiment, dog breeds. Someone has mentioned cancer cells also showing an ability to evolve, viruses and bacteria are evolving just as any living creature is, we're just about to enter a post-antibiotic age because of that.
The "examples" you used are nonsensical, whether you believe in it or not, evolution will keep happening.

^^^ Except that everybody uses gravity every day, but doesn't think about it because we all are familiar with it. But nobody knows that evolution theory evolution (ETE) exists, except that he might think that it does from being told by someone else.

The Model T evolved into a large variety of cars and trucks. But not by ETE.

A child evolves into an adult. But not by ETE.

All kinds of changes in breeding are made to happen, but not by ETE.

All the talk about ETE happening is just talk. There is no proof. We don't even know if it is possible...

... Or do you have some proof. If you do, please spend 2 or 3 brief sentences telling us if it is by DNA examination or what, and how it can tell us what happened over the last supposed 400,000 years of Earth history.

Remember that I have asked you for this in other posts in other ways. But you haven't shown the proof or really even talked about it. If evolution is so definite as you seem to think, you should be able to provide us with definite examination processes, so that we all can examine the past, to see how the processes work together. Not just stories about how it must have happened. Real proof of how it did happen. Not guesswork that could be attributed to things other than ETE.

Evolution is a hoax.

"Evolution is there in hoax form" doesn't really make any sense. It is there, and you've been provided with a lot of evidence of it happening in a way that's observable for us.
By multiple posters, at that.
Are you saying that a chihuahua is an identical animal to a great dane? The only thing tying those two together is that they're both mammals and share ancestry.
Most dog "breeds" only came into existance in a century or so, no magical gene splicing, just selective breeding and proper diets.
My point about science not magically providing answers is simply comparing it to dogma, it's not a religion, it doesn't preach -- it's a method of learning about the world.
"Science" won't prove things to you, the scientists doing the research will. The whole point of the scientific method is to arrive at a logical, and factually backed up, conclusion.
What you're looking for clearly isn't proof since all your replies to proof tend to be "haha that's not proof, show me proof".
If it's the word that's bugging you, just call it a theory. Would remind you that gravity is also a theory, doesn't make either of them any less real though.

^^^ Denying evolution doesn't have anything to do with it. Evolution is there in hoax form. We don't have to deny it.

Dog breeds don't have anything to do with changing animals from one kind to another... except if they are breed changes, which isn't changing one kind of animal to another. Humans are not a breed of some kind of single cell animal that lived in the ponds 400,000 years ago.

If you find DNA in one animal, so what? Proving evolution would take tracking the DNA of thousands or millions of animals over periods of hundreds of thousands of years in the past. As it is, we can't even agree on the ages of some of the fossils. We haven't even started to do what it takes to prove evolution theory evolution (ETE).

You still aren't showing any proof for ETE, which includes many thousands of years. In fact, you are more or less agreeing that there isn't any proof when you say that science dosn't magically provide facts and answers. So, since science hasn't provided ETE facts and answers, maybe science is trying to tell us that they don't exist.

There are only a tiny few facts and answers that might suggest evolution, while not suggesting something else at the same time. They don't prove evolution. They might only suggest that there might be something like evolution. So far, they also show that evolution probably doesn't exist, or that abiogenesis of every "kind" of creature might have been the way.

Since they show this, why say that evolution is fact? We don't know that evolution is fact. When we say that it is, without knowing that it is, we are simply furthering the point that...

Evolution is a hoax.

From what you wrote there, you aren't exactly denying evolution, rather, you don't seem to understand how ancestry works.
I'll go back to dog breeds here -- both golden retrievers and rottweilers are dogs, would you say that they're completely different animals as well? Pretty much all dog breeds are "artificial" in a way, where we only let them breed with specific partners to let certain attributes become more dominant. They are still "dogs", as different as the breed might be, they all share the same ancestry.
I haven't worked at a lab, so I can't get too specific there, but fossils can and do hold DNA for a lot longer than 20y, they recently found an 800,000 years old one in Greenland, still had preserved genetic material. It's not so much a matter of a skilled individual, but more so how good our tools are. DNA is not the only "resource" used to link species.
Science doesn't magically provide facts and answers, it's a method to get to them.
Astargath's been explaining things pretty well, and less long-winded than myself, you're just dismissing things a priori instead of trying to understand the evidence logically.

^^^ The problem with your so-called examples is this. If someone wanted (and probably some have), they could make a story that shows how all the different creatures came about individually.

You have been saying here and there that abiogenesis isn't part of evolution. A logical guesswork story of a way that all the different kinds of plants and animals came about, each from its own individual abiogenesis, could be developed with at least as much logic to it as any logic in evolution.

The formulation of both of these stories doesn't have any proof in them. The only way we have proof for either of them, is to go back in time and track the DNA of countless generations of all kinds of life. If we are close to doing this in some way, it isn't public knowledge.

Since we can see that there isn't any proof in evolution, and since we know that we can see this, the knowing person who states that we have evolution proof is a liar. When he states that evolution is fact, he is perpetrating a hoax.

Now, it is true that many people who promote evolution as fact are doing so out of ignorance of the truth that evolution is fiction. Such people aren't really doing the hoaxing. It's the people like you, who have been shown that evolution is not proven, but continue with the evolution charade, who are the hoaxers.

Evolution is a hoax.

I just showed you we do:
https://www.islandconservation.org/galapagos-finch-speciation/
https://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-speciation.html

You are unwilling to look at the dozens of examples we have RIGHT NOW of evolution happening, literally species changing into other species, what more do you want?

If you went out into the woods, and dug up the skeletons of a couple of raccoons that had been dead for 20 years, there might be some DNA left in their bone marrow or in their teeth. If you were a very good geneticist, you might be able to tell if these two raccoons were related from their DNA, and maybe even if one of them was the parent of the other. But you would have to be very good to tell this with certainty.

If you know of a way that you can show that some fossils were the literal parents of other fossils, how does it work without any guesswork? DNA is long gone.

How about if there was an ancestor/descendant relationship between a couple of fossils of completely different animals? How does anybody know it for sure? DNA is long gone.

How do you know if the two fossils that you say are ancestor/descendant, are not really two completely different animals that came about completely separately with no ancestor/descendant relationship at all? Saying that there had to be a relationship - THERE JUST HAD TO BE - doesn't cut it scientifically. Why not suggest that ALL the different animals came about separately, with absolutely NO ancestor/descendant relationship?

So, how do you determine it? If you don't have a really factual way, then nobody knows if there even is any kind of the evolution that evolution theory suggests exists. What is the way that tells us factually. Even Astargath hasn't been able to explain this. But maybe you are a better explainer than he is. So print it out right here in simple, brief language so we all know.

And don't go about copying and pasting some gibberish that some orator who doesn't know anything about evolution proof just spouted out. We want the proof principle in simple language that shows us the proof for evolution over the multiple thousands of years of ancient prehistory times.

Yeah, after reading your interactions with other people, it's very obvious that you have no desire to argue in good faith.
What I'm not sure about is whether you're a troll, or if you suffer from some cognitive deficit.
How about a thought experiment? What if I put the burden of proof on you, how would you prove that evolution is a hoax?
I'm very interested in what the crux of your argument is, if you have an argument to begin with.

Troll bait not taken.

^^^ However, you are assuming that your assumptions have something to do with evolution. They are too generally stated to know for sure if they do.

The thing that they don't prove is evolution theory evolution. Have you found anyone who has examined the DNA of descendants of descendants over thousands of years of history, just to see if there are really any changes? Until you do, evolution is a fun story. But if you claim it is fact...

Evolution is a hoax.

LOL!

Cancer proves adaptation. It proves devolution to the people it forms in. Cancer has nothing to do with the idea of beneficial mutation, except possibly to the cancer itself. Of course, when the host dies, the cancer dies, as well. Nothing beneficial there.

Cancer has absolutely nothing to do with proving evolution theory evolution over many thousands of years.

I don't really think you are an idiot. So why do you keep trying to prove that you are? Are you evolving?

Evolution is a hoax.

Consider a simple change to a dog, for example. The dog loses one of its hind legs in an accident. It still live and survives. Minor detrimental mutations might not adversely affect any creature so that it doesn't live out its normal life span.

Beneficial mutations might make the creature live better as the creature it is. But the idea that beneficial mutations cause a creature to change into a completely different creature (over time and through its decendent line) has no foundation, anywhere.

The big evolution picture is that nobody has spent the thousands of years observing past nature to see if such a thing ever happened. There are no records that say it - the fossil record might be the same if all the similar creatures had been created as distinct creatures, or if they had somehow evolved. We don't have the DNA from the fossils. We don't have the ability to track the DNA if we had it.

The whole evolution idea is speculation. Even the little bit of lab work that we do that points in the evolution direction a little, is nothing compared with what we would need to logically suggest that evolution might have happened.

We know this. Yet we advertise that evolution really happened. This is what makes evolution into a hoax. If we said something like, The evolution idea is a nice idea, and we think we see a little evidence that it happened, but we don't really have any proof of it... then it might not be a hoax. But saying that evolution exists when we don't know (like we have been doing), only turns us into hoaxers, and the evolution idea into a hoax.

Cancer cell populations are mutations, and continue to mutate, for example forming resistance to drugs and chemo used to attack them.

Cancer proves evolution....