Topic: Evolution is a hoax - page 18. (Read 108046 times)

"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.

Do you do realize that comparative analysis of DNA from living organisms was done to establish the evolutionary relationship between the living species?

Or are you ignorant or completely unaware of the fact?

Put down that Bronze Age classic, pick up some science books.

PS. The discovery of DNA really put a nail in the coffin of your creation story, didn't it?

^^^ 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.

Again, you are assuming that everyone (that dog in your example) is perfect, to begin with.  

You might be a carrier for genetic disorders you have never heard about.
Your mate will have a completely different genetic makeup and your children might have hereditary mutations and predispositions for acquiring somatic mutations that can be very detrimental to their survival.

I think you are conflating somatic and hereditary genetic mutations.  Both can shorten your lifespan in a heartbeat.

I guess you never heard of genetic disorders, food allergies, cancer in babies.  
Food allergies, for example, can lead to other life-threatening, life-shortening immune disorders.

Have you ever heard of c-KIT D816V mutation?

Keep learning.

Hopefully, one day. you'll get there.

PS. We are the byproduct of evolution.  Evolution is happening right now.  The genes in your own body might be mutating right now and you'll not know about it until you experience some symptoms.  The genes that you have inherited are a collection of mostly beneficial mutations.

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....

Beneficial mutations increase the chances of lifeform's survival to the reproduction age. Over time, given enough mutations, speciation is observed where animals cannot reproduce with their 'genetic ancestors' and produce a viable offspring.

I think you cannot comprehend evolution because you think that the world is 10,000 years old.  Speciation of apes took millions of years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution

Both types of mutations produce change by definition.

^^^ 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.