Topic: Evolution is a hoax - page 214. (Read 108046 times)

Saying a single common ancestor could have spawned all life on Earth, what do you consider an ancestor? At what point do we come from something that is not an ancestor such as the atoms. Are we considering plants being our possible ancestors? What about dolphins?

If we cannot disagree with what we know about science now, what about the science that existed in the past that does not today; such as, the building of the pyramids or finding the creation for beer?

The theory of evolution is very controversial, but we can't deny obvious things. I do not believe that man evolved from apes, but there are other aspects. More close to our reality. Look for example at women. The bulk of them takes the forms of which are fashionable at this time. Isn't this evolution? Viruses adapting to antibiotics. I believe in evolution, but I don't believe in Darwin's theory.

Evolution IS a belief system because it has been proven impossible by probability math, Irreducible Complexity, no missing links ever having been found, and loads of other reasons. Google "proofs against evolution" to see many more.

You will see that all the proofs in favor of evolution, and all the evolutionist rebuttals against creationist anti-evolution proofs, are filled with circular ideas and many words, but no proof, rather than things that have a solid foundation with points in simple, short paragraphs, like anti-evolution points.



EDIT: Notice the language in the post by Astargath. It isn't designed so much to bring out evolution points. Rather, it is designed to humiliate the ridery99. Look at the language. Astargath has to resort to this language, because evolution doesn't have any proof. If he didn't, he would be in danger of being shown to support a false religion, just like all the evolutionists are doing.

Are you shitting me? The evolution theory is a belief system? You obviously are trolling or very ignorant. The evidence for the evolution is overwhelming, in fact scientists have been able to apply evolution to numerous things including computer science. Anyone who says evolution is a hoax or not true, clearly does not understand evolution, is trolling or is delusional.

Exactly. Rational scientific thinking is not present in the evolution theory, because it's a belief system rather than any scientific theory and is basically defended with arguments like 'I want it to be true so that I can do what ever I want' and 'I'm more intelligent than you because I believe in evolution', which doesn't mean anything.

Yes, Charles Darwin's theory is a hoax. Monkeys are still in our planet because they are part of the ecosystem. As we all know, the theory of evolution of Charles Darwin was not totally proven. Just come to think of it, if humans evolved from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys? It's just a manifestation that there's a supreme God who created all things.

Yeah, it's absurd how dumbed down people are these days.
Complete lies like evolution being defended with pseudo-science and many people calling it a real science.
I think it's very dangerous because it undermines the credibility of all the real scientific research.

"Evolution is a hoax" thread got to 14 pages.....There are trolls in our midst

All of your claims have been debunked badecker.

Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms:

deletion of parts
addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system (Pennisi 2001)
change of function
addition of a second function to a part (Aharoni et al. 2004)
gradual modification of parts

All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common (Dujon et al. 2004; Hooper and Berg 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000), and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible but expected. In fact, it was predicted by Nobel-prize-winning geneticist Hermann Muller almost a century ago (Muller 1918, 463-464). Muller referred to it as interlocking complexity (Muller 1939).

Evolutionary origins of some irreducibly complex systems have been described in some detail. For example, the evolution of the Krebs citric acid cycle has been well studied (Meléndez-Hevia et al. 1996), and the evolution of an "irreducible" system of a hormone-receptor system has been elucidated (Bridgham et al. 2006). Irreducibility is no obstacle to their formation.

Even if irreducible complexity did prohibit Darwinian evolution, the conclusion of design does not follow. Other processes might have produced it. Irreducible complexity is an example of a failed argument from incredulity.

Irreducible complexity is poorly defined. It is defined in terms of parts, but it is far from obvious what a "part" is. Logically, the parts should be individual atoms, because they are the level of organization that does not get subdivided further in biochemistry, and they are the smallest level that biochemists consider in their analysis. Behe, however, considered sets of molecules to be individual parts, and he gave no indication of how he made his determinations.

Systems that have been considered irreducibly complex might not be. For example:
The mousetrap that Behe used as an example of irreducible complexity can be simplified by bending the holding arm slightly and removing the latch.
The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex because it can lose many parts and still function, either as a simpler flagellum or a secretion system. Many proteins of the eukaryotic flagellum (also called a cilium or undulipodium) are known to be dispensable, because functional swimming flagella that lack these proteins are known to exist.
In spite of the complexity of Behe's protein transport example, there are other proteins for which no transport is necessary (see Ussery 1999 for references).
The immune system example that Behe includes is not irreducibly complex because the antibodies that mark invading cells for destruction might themselves hinder the function of those cells, allowing the system to function (albeit not as well) without the destroyer molecules of the complement system.


http://experimentalmath.info/blog/2009/08/misuse-of-probability-by-creation-scientists-and-others/

Stop spreading your lies badecker.