Topic: Evolution is a hoax - page 218. (Read 108173 times)

Who cares what religion? Religion isn't anything until it gets into a person. And when it does, it is different than the religion of everyone else on the planet. Why? Because everyone thinks a little different than everyone else.

Make your religion the one that really works. Find out what the truth is, and live it. Evolution certainly isn't the truth.

And which of the 4200 religions would that be?

No doubt its yours cause all the others got it wrong no doubt.

Are you trolling? No matter how hard I try, I cannot take people like you seriously.
People need to read about evolution before they start arguing about it, because you get most of your "facts" wrong.

- No, people didn't evolve from monkeys, they share the common ancestry.
- New specie can evolve from only one organism of some specie, and just because that one organism changed, it doesn't mean that the others die out or change as well.
- Evolution doesn't provide the answer to the question how the first organism came to be, nor is that it's job.
- All changes in evolution started happening from the first mutation in some organism, they are happening right now and they will continue to happen. The reason why you don't notice it now is because the changes we know now, happened across very long period of time.

These are just some common misconceptions that people have about evolution.

I agree with you friend. It does not matter from what we descended. We are what we are, and that is only what is important. Future is what we need to be concerned about, and this moment even more than future. I do not know why, but to some people it is really important to know how we came to this world, maybe it is too me a bit too. But i am ok with not knowing too.

There is no proof of that. hoax or not, it's not important.

You know that just saying that doesn't prove anything?
If you want to say things give real argument. That's not what you're doing.
See for yourself, that's what you're doing:

"Evolution is the only possible explanation and here are 3 proofs:
-Lamas
-Eggs in boiling water
-The size of my penis"

You're saying the same thing.

Do you really think that you can discover another, spiritual dimension of existence, spiritual world, with classic scientific tools?
No way.
Spiritual reality we can see only with our spiritual senses, not physical.
Before creation of the Universe, time and space didn't exist.
Physical world and physical laws didn't exist.
So, it's obvious that science can't answer, or discovers and validates theories about creation of the universe.
Only religion can do it.
Science can research only visible universe, after creation.

All the things you talk about here are nice additions to the evolution fiction. But there isn't any basic evidence supporting evolution at all, that can't be ascribed to creation even better. And there are many reasons why evolution is impossible. Three of them are, again:
1. probability math;
2. Irreducible Complexity;
3. no missing links in the fossils.

There are many more.

To much bible bashing closes your brains from actually thinking..
God is doing it for you..I.E your manual..

Evolution is real 100% ..So please stop only religious freaks would ever claim evolution is a hoax ..

I will prove evolution is real..

We all come from a single point I.E the big bang so we are all made of the same stuff..

why does a deer look like an antelope

water hog look like a rat without a tail

Human looks like a gorilla especially if your from north Africa  
where all humans first started AFRICA..

We humans all started our lives in Africa..

So if you ever hear the bongos and you start tapping your feet your going back to your roots..AFRICA..


More proof of evolution ..

Evolution sped up even though you think it's not it is..

Sperm cell turns into a human
a egg turns into a bird
a caterpillar turns into a butterfly ..All evolution at work but SPED UP..And it is evolution..

Evolution in Action - YouTube
Video for evolution in action▶ 3:45
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIGXLNYV9kc


Frogs is the best documentary movies you will see..

They freeze up they get you stoned they poison you     Frogs are so amazing ..

But you change because of the weather or the need to eat or the need to not be eaten
all will make you change if needed to make you live..

Life is strong but deadly..Look around the ones that have survived the longest are the predators..


Strangest Weather on Earth: Frogs Frozen Solid - YouTube
Video for Strangest Weather on Earth: Frogs Frozen Solid▶ 1:06
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSvspDZOVV0

FROGS have smooth, moist skin and long, stripy legs and are likely to be found in damp habitats in the garden. TOADS have warty skin, golden eyes and prefer to crawl rather than hop; if threatened a toad can puff itself up to appear bigger. Toads can tolerate drier habitats than frogs and spend less time in water.

ape human   frog toad  ..Can a frog understand what a toad says?.Same with a human and a ape..

Same specie^..Like a deer and a antelope ..

Just look at all the animals you can see what animals look like each other..

Human embryos have a tail that measures about one-sixth of the size of the embryo itself. As the embryo develops into a fetus, the tail is absorbed by the growing body.

So the possible evolution change ^^ you have a tail before you turn into a human..

Evolution is REAL i rest my case..

case over and out i win ..NEXT CASE.. ..And before i leave the court DARWIN IS THE DADDY..

Can we agree on the fact that "natural selection" is abused in all evolution talk, because nature doesn't have a brain  and consciousness?

Wahou great thanks for this precision.
Can we agree on the fact that "decision" is here abused as to refer to the natural selection process?

Nature can't select anything because it doesn't have ability to make decisions. It does't have brains or consciousness.

Oh ok I see your point. Well the answer is rather simple: while your interbreeding is viable, one of the two evolutionnary paths will developp a mutation that will no longer be compatible with the other evolutionnary path.

In fact I don't really understand what's bothering you. If you have 2 evolutionnary paths viable, you will reach a point from which the 2 paths will be too far from one another to be able to breed. That's neither surprising or new or shocking.
Sorry but here is your mistake. Chimps and us come from the same great great great etc ancestor. Those ancestors developped in two different direction: one using hands and endurance (us) and one using agility and velocity of movement (them). Those two paths are simply not compatible because you can't have both agility and endurance, those are not compatible so why is it surprising that we got 2 separated paths?
a) wrong, nature alone selected brain enlargement as it gave a huge advantage: the abbility to resolve more complex problems and adapt to changes. You'll ask me then why isn't this brain enlargement something that is spread in nature? Well as far as I know it's only because we were the ones needing it. Few creatures are actually changing of environment in their life and all those that change of environment (migration for example) do it in a cyclic way and always have the same paths. Humans had to change their location in order to survive and without having a cycle to conform to. That means they had to adapt to new environments constantly. That's where brain enlargement is an advantage.

b) This is a more interesting question. The answer lies in neutral mutation.

Ok we've already done a lots of work here and I understand a bit better your problems. I suggest you read this excellent article: http://theconversation.com/when-humans-split-from-the-apes-55104
It will answer in a very simple way to most of your interrogations.

well its quite believable that we actually came from apes. not all specie evolved the same way and probably we came from a certain ape specie that is not here anymore because of us. evolution has proofs compared to other theories of how we came to be so for me its more believable

First let me say - thank you. I was getting sceptical that this thread will turn into another shouting match, you proved me wrong.

To elaborate. you mentioned  thousand years of adaptation (perhaps accelerated through bottleneck aka founder effect), however this all still needs atleast one thing for it to work - isolation of selected population. If both adapting groups stay in contact, they will either develop together or stagnate.

This is something we can actually observe in human population. Ie. blond hair and light eyes being recessive trait, so they would only get widespread through founder effect. But this is where this shit gets confusing - you can still take Scandinavian interbreed him with an African and thus the offspring will lose recessive traits of his ancestor. Thus this still only side effect of adaptation, both are still members of single species.

If evolution is true, at what point would both groups separate into different species? Youve got all the ingredients, enviromental pressure, founder effect and thousands (perhaps tens of thousands) of years of separate development. But all we got is still merely adaptation with interbreeding fully viable, not an actual evolution resulting in new species.

If you look at it critically and see say chimps as our distant cousins, who have developed IN THE SAME AREA as we did, it simply stops working.

Therefore, I cannot discount possiblity of convergent theory (aka genetics boosted by intelligent design). There is a) Zero reason why would nature alone select brain enlargement in human beings (in nature, larger brain mass is actually not an advantage given how energy demanding brain tissue is) b) Very few arguments, while we and other great apes would completely disengage from each other. Remember, there was contact all the time in eastern Africa (unless, you are partial to regional theory of development) stumping mutations, that would significantly differentiate the two.

Evolution is not a hoax. All living creatures on this planet started from a single cell organism which for millions of years have evolved and took many forms during the different phases. But possibly the only hoax there is the theory of Darwin that we came from apes. Of course even if the theory of evolution is true monkeys will be monkeys and man will be man since we do not came from monkeys.

I actually took the time to answer you and to ask you precisions on your questions so stop with the bullshit sir.
I DID ASK YOU TO PRECISE YOUR QUESTION BECAUSE IT WAS NOT UNDERSTANDABLE!
So stop taking the high ground here. In this whole thread YOU are the ONLY ONE asking questions. The others are simply saying evolution is a hoax.

To answer your question:
1/ Do you have an example of such development? It would help to discuss on a precise example.
2/ Sharing the same geographic area doesn't mean sharing the same environment. For example in the same geographic area of center of France, you can have bears living in pine forest, bears living in classical forests, bears living alongside small rivers, bears living near the huge torrents, bears living in mountains... All those could lead to specific pressure points from the environment so different evolution paths.
3/ Even if you take a species living in the same place, like really the same coordinates so same environment and all, it makes sense to have 2 different evolution paths. Evolution doesn't mean selecting the best path possible, it means keeping the positive mutation and getting rid of the negative mutations.

Let's take an (imaginary because I don't have in mind an example of species which developped into 2 different species while sharing the same environment) example:
Our bears living in the classical forest of center of France.
You can have a mutation of one of them which will make their fur green. Easier to hide in the forest so positive effect mutation so this gene should be selected for evolution. But it will take time, it's not in a year that brown bears will be replaced by green bears. During this thousands of years process of a better mutation replacing the old one, you can perfectly have a second positive mutation developping. For example a mutation making bears smaller and smaller, thus easier to feed because requiring less energy.

Most of the time the 2 evolution paths will simply fuse into one small green bear ^^
But sometimes as the replacement takes time, you can have spontaneus mutations that will prevent cross breading. In our example, if the small bears are really smaller, they won't be able to bread with the big green bears.

This whole example is of course a bit silly but you get the idea, as replacement takes time, other evolution paths can developp and co exist with the others.

Sorry man but you don't need million years to see evolution, you need thousands of lifecycle. And for bacterias or small flies for example, thousands of life cycles are easy to process in a few weeks/months.

SO yeah, we can witness evolution in smaller organisms.

I did not reject it, you would know, if youve read this thread before reacting. I do question it and the miserables around here, who cant even make difference between Flynn effect and Darwinian theory of evolution (thought out by christian, no less) proves me right. How many here actually did read his book? I did.

People here take evolution theory even with its numerous shortcomings as undisputable fact, when some of them even have problem describing the process.

Absolutely no one here, dared to explain how one species develops into two others, who cant interbreed even though they share same geographic area. No one. Legitimate question, sir.

What we got instead are insults and attacks in the style of: "Oh, if you dont take this theory of english protestant guy for granted, then you believe Earth is flat!"

What the fuck?

I don't think that religion and science are in conflict.
After all, when you read first book in Bible, Genesis, you see perfectly scientific explanation about the beginning of universe and planet earth.
From day 1 to 7 God created sky, earth, water, land, animals...
How people 5000 or 6000 years ago could know such facts?
You can think that God couldn't create everything in just 6 days but do you really think that we are talking here about literal 6 days with 24 hours?
In other place in the bible, Peter said: Don't you know that for God one day is like 1000 years and 1000 years as one day?
So, if we change term 6 days with 6 periods of development of the universe, than God's creation and evolution have no difference.
Just, evolution can't answer question about the beginning of universe.
Religion can answer it. It's only difference between evolution and religion.