Topic: Evolution is a hoax - page 17. (Read 108165 times)

^^^ The definition of creatures changing into other creatures is all over the whole evolution network.

The point is evolution theory evolution in nature... the hundreds of thousands of years changes. We don't know that it happened. When we say that we do, while we know logically that we don't know, that's when we are turning the evolution idea into a hoax.

Evolution is a hoax.

''Beneficial mutations don't change one creature into another. Rather, beneficial mutations make the creature into a stronger version of what the creature already is. They make it more of what it already is. Detrimental mutations do the opposite, and place an organism more into the position of death of the most unfit.''

What's your definition of a creature changing into another creature? If dogs started evolving and had 5 legs instead of 4, lost their ears, got 2 tails, you would still think they are the same species of dog? Why do you consider a monkey a different creature than a dog, then? What's the difference? Is it because they can't reproduce with each other?

If so, there are also plenty of examples of speciation:
https://www.islandconservation.org/galapagos-finch-speciation/
https://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-speciation.html

^^^ You pretty much seem to misunderstand what a beneficial mutation is. A beneficial mutation maintains and improves the status quo. A detrimental mutation tends toward the destruction of the organism.

For example. In the simple evolution of the piston engine to the Wankel rotary, the shape of the engine would have to change in ways that would be entirely destructive to its operation. Mutations that would make this change are detrimental. Beneficial mutations would be those that strengthen the material of the piston engine, so that there would be less wear.

In other words, beneficial mutations make the organism more like itself. Making an organism different than itself is detrimental mutation, and maybe a downright destructive mutation.

Beneficial mutations don't change one creature into another. Rather, beneficial mutations make the creature into a stronger version of what the creature already is. They make it more of what it already is. Detrimental mutations do the opposite, and place an organism more into the position of death of the most unfit.

Evolution theory evolution is entirely backwards and opposite of what really happens, and the most prominent evolution theorists completely know this. Evolution is a hoax.

Darwin had a rough understanding of evolution since he was the first one to notice it, I don't know what you mean it doesn't match Darwin, doesn't match what in what way exactly? That's the definition of evolution today, read above, you have been proven wrong, admit it.

''In fact, because detrimental mutations are far greater in number than any mutations that might be considered beneficial'' I already debunked this several times.

''Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).

The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.

Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:
Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).

Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly (Elena et al. 1996).

High mutation rates are advantageous in some environments. Hypermutable strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa are found more commonly in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, where antibiotics and other stresses increase selection pressure and variability, than in patients without cystic fibrosis (Oliver et al. 2000).

Note that the existence of any beneficial mutations is a falsification of the young-earth creationism model (Morris 1985, 13).''

That's nice sophistry, but shows that you didn't actually inform yourself on either of the 2 things I've mentioned.
The thing with guppies is that it only took a change in diet and environment to create a subspecies (in the most famous studies, they separated them into 4 groups which all evolved to match their environments), guppies are good for such experiments due to their high breeding capacity and short life-spans, so you can see genetic changes of multiple generations in an observable time-frame.
There's no "scientific magic" involved, just observations. Obviously it happens outside of labs, but it's not something you can easily just show, especially on more complicated organisms such as mammals.

If people actually change guppies or any other animal into a different animal, its a people creation. This doesn't have anything to do with nature doing it by accident.

If nature did it, but not by accident, then nature is sentient.

What way other than DNA tracking of many kinds of animals and plants, over hundreds of thousands of years, gives us a positive for evolution theory evolution? Anybody can guess evolution when a skeleton of some animal is similar to that of another. But we are talking about proof in nature, not guesswork about what might have happened.

So far we aren't even close to proof. We have all kinds of guesses, and all kinds of stories to suggest how those guesses might have worked, and maybe some genetic manipulation that shows that WE can do it... but where is the proof in nature?

So far, evolution in nature is a big fat hoax.

Please what kind of question is this? Of course its a hoax or do you have a new discovery

Seen/read about any of the experiments with guppies? Know how dog breeds are created?
There's plenty of easy-to-understand examples around that are, yes, short term -- but how isn't it logical to assume that in the long-term a lot of the same processes would occur naturally regardless of our involvement?
Are you really interested in the truth of the world, or are you just seeking confirmation bias?

^^^ But that^ definition doesn't match Darwin. You can say that a gradual change in the manufacture of a car engine is evolution. And it is. But that isn't the kind of evolution that we are talking about in evolution theory evolution (ETE).

Look at the car engine example. You can take the standard car engine and make it all different sizes and shapes. These changes might be called evolution after a fashion. But try evolving any one of them into the Wankel rotary, or the standard turbine, and you don't even have an idea of how to do this kind of a conversion... which is what ETE is trying to do in nature.

Mankind can't imagine an evolution of the standard piston engine into a Wankel engine. What are the steps? This piston changes its shape a little and still works to run the engine? So why would anyone think that dumb nature is going to be able to convert a marine animal into humans after hundreds of thousands of years, when nobody can even envision the kinds of changes at the cellular level that would have to take place?

In fact, because detrimental mutations are far greater in number than any mutations that might be considered beneficial, length of time would logically only serve to drown out beneficial mutations more with longer length of time. ETE is simply reversed logic that has been sci-fi-wise built up in the minds of low IQ people to look like it is logical.

''The peppered moth was adaptation, without evolution theory evolution. It's the same moth with different coloring.'' That's evolution though. It's literally the definition of it: ''Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] These characteristics are the expressions of genes that are passed on from parent to offspring during reproduction.'' The color (characteristics) changed and are passed over successive generations.

^^^ You really don't get it, do you. Evolution doesn't happen to one animal. It doesn't happen to any animal. The evolution story happens to people, and the results of it in the minds of people happen to animals at times. But no evolution happens.

The peppered moth was adaptation, without evolution theory evolution. It's the same moth with different coloring. It isn't a whole different kind of moth, or some other kind of bug. This isn't evolution theory evolution. It's adaptation evolution. There isn't any evolution theory evolution.

I don't think you have been listening to what all the evolution scientists say. They say that animals change into other animals in evolution. They even say that some form of monkey/chimpanzee/gorilla changed into humans. How in the world dense are you that you support evolution but don't think that evolution has to do with changing of one animal or plant into another?

All you are talking about is like when you changed from a child into an adult. Your evolution is simply stages in the life of a human. Humans don't change into other creatures. They are always humans. As humans they adapt to all kinds of human changes. Call the process of adaptation evolution if you want. But it is never evolution theory evolution, where humans change into some other kind of creature.

Evolution is a hoax.

one animal changing to another, or simply an animal adapting to its surroundings.

Yep, you clearly don't understand it, no wonder you think it's a hoax. Evolution doesn't happen to 1 animal in particular, it happens to a whole species of animals. It's as simple as the example of the peppered moth. ''The evolution of the peppered moth is an evolutionary instance of directional colour change in the moth population as a consequence of air pollution during the Industrial Revolution. The frequency of dark-coloured moths increased at that time, an example of industrial melanism. Later, when pollution was reduced, the light-coloured form again predominated.''

Now if the pollution wasn't reduced, eventually all the light coloured moths would have died and only the dark ones would live, that's what we call evolution, again, it's clear you simply don't understand what evolution is. I think you think evolution is one animal randomly changing into another lol.

^^^ Don't you see that the major difference and similarity (at the same time) between adaptation and evolution is the random mutation change? I talk about pure random. Why? Because random in the standard sense means that the reason for the mutation is not understood.

Since the mutation isn't understood, there is no factual evolution. Why not? Because the mutation is said, right in the understanding of evolution, that it is not understood.

Since it is not understood, how can anyone say that it is a changing of one animal into another? "Evolution," by its own self-description, destroys any understanding that for-a-fact it is a change from one animal to another. How? Through the use of the word "random."

Random mutations are mutations, the understanding of which, is not known. This is what makes evolution like adaptation. Nobody knows if unknown mutations are causing one animal changing to another, or simply an animal adapting to its surroundings.

Since it is not known that one animal is changing into another, evolution is a nice idea. But by its own description is unknown to exist. All the experimentation and digging for fossils, is a looking for something that hasn't, yet, been proven to exist. The explanation that evolution has random involved, says so.

When folks say that evolution exists, knowing that they haven't found any such thing for sure, they are simply propagating a hoax.

If, someday, people can prove that it isn't a hoax by finding a definite changing of one animal to another, through some means like actually DNA change observation, they might have some evidence that evolution can exist. But then they would have to track the same kind of changes through all time to see if evolution was the fact regarding life. This is essentially impossible regarding any science that we are even close to having.

Evolution might be something that is hoped for. It certainly is something that is looked for. But as it stands, to say that evolution is factual is entirely wrong. Evolution is a hoax.

Do you know the difference between adaption and evolution though? Evolution IS adaption that is passed through generations, you are, again, really confused about this whole thing. I also don't need to show changes over thousands of years when I can show changes over decades.

''As more brown owls survive, more brown genes get passed down through generations.'' See, through generations which is evolution. Of course evolution has to start with adaption, that's the point of it, I don't think you even know the definition of either one.

Evolution is simple, you have a group of animals, something bad usually happens and they are forced to adapt quickly, most of them die, the ones who adapted survive and pass their genes to the next generations and voila! Evolution.

^^^ Anybody who puts his mind to it can think up science fiction stories like these, that don't have any real substance in fact.

Evolution is a hoax.



EDIT: All you are showing is evidence of adaptation that doesn't cover thousands of years. Or if it did, have you or anyone gone back and watched the changes over the thousands of years... or at least tracked the DNA to ascertain that evolution really happened?

https://brightside.me/wonder-animals/how-11-animals-have-changed-over-time-665560/
http://mentalfloss.com/article/64300/6-animals-are-rapidly-evolving
http://www.ba-bamail.com/content.aspx?emailid=31994

I mean, I can continue, do you need more? I'm now waiting for the next excuse which eventually will turn into the classic made up cause and effect ''law'' and ''outside the universe''.

^^^ You showed things like
- evolution = adaptation
- evolution = simple change
- evolution = like begets like.

The thing you didn't show was one animal changing into another over hundreds of thousands of years. Since this is the biggest part of evolution, and since you didn't show this, you didn't show evolution. You might have repeated the fiction story that this is what happened, but you didn't show that it happened.

Since the hundreds-of-thousands-of-years thing is the BIGGEST part of evolution, and since you didn't show that it happened, you didn't show evolution. But if you claim you showed evolution because you showed that evolution was in adaptation, simple change, and like-begets-like, you are really turning the word "evolution" into semantics through being vague. When you do this, you are simply and essentially saying that...

Evolution is a hoax.

I showed dozens of different proofs of evolution and it all came down to you inventing cause and effect as an 100% fact and 'outside the universe' to try and debunk the evidence presented. That's why we are discussing about it and you keep ignoring it because you have no evidence of it. Admit you lost.

^^^ Further attempted distractions from the fact that evolution is a hoax.

Nobody has proof that evolution is real. All they have is the science fiction that Darwin put forth, with a bunch of additions over the years to fill out the missing parts. The fact is that the filling was necessary to make the story seem real, because since the time of Darwin, loads of discoveries have been made that entirely disprove Darwin.

Got any proof that evolution factually exists? If not, why not say it like it is?... that evolution is a cute idea thought up by some jokers who were looking for other ideas than creation.

Since you present unproven evolution as fact, especially when you know that it can't be prove by any means that we have available, you are perpetrating a lie.

Evolution is a hoax, and you are one of the hoaxers.

Well, since you keep claiming stupid shit without any kind of evidence to back it up, as many as it takes, we are still waiting for that evidence of ''outside the universe'' yet you keep talking about irrelevant shit because there is no evidence for ''outside the universe''. You are a paid liar, perhaps by the church.