Topic: Evolution is a hoax - page 224. (Read 108046 times)

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

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?

You are right.  Religion provides answers.  Science discovers and validates answers.

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.

Fossils are just as patchy and diverse records as the Bible . Actually even less coherent.

There are no experimental evidence for evolution. There are evidence for adaptation, but not for evolution. What you referenced isn't evolution but cross breading different variants of the same species, and no new genes will be developed.
Evolution is a long process to make a series of genetic changes, and quite difficult to prove. For some reason most scientists reluctant to spend a couple of million years with watching every day how the dotted fruit fly turns to striped fruit fly with two new legs (for better traction) during long lasting icy conditions .

I just did man!
And there is no problem with evolution and religion as long as you're not dumb enough to think that god created all species. You can believe that god created the world AND the evolution process.

And we're offended by the fact that you reject this scientifically proved theory without giving any argument :/

That scientist who told about the that theory was so smart and in the end became crazy then develop is own vague theory(much worst for that scientist who has a fish theory). We are mammals and thats it but we are humans and didnt evolve from those other mammal from the mindset i think is a clear evidence

Go back to school  ..
We all come from a single point the big bang..

All living organisms store genetic information using the same molecules — DNA and RNA. Written in the genetic code of these molecules is compelling evidence of the shared ancestry of all living things..

Just stop with the BULLSHIT..

I forgive you because you are barely a year here.

We've got all this already more then once here.
Do you think people not beliving in evolution but rather 6000 year earth is something new?
Oh boy... you are still a young padawan.

Let that sink for a moment.

Luls

Let me repeat it for you, "Criptix".

You and your science guys all over this thread arent addressing actual questions, you are merely offended by the fact, that somebody even has audicity to question Mr. Darwins theory. Darwin was anglican christian by the way.

Let that sink in for a moment.

You are getting trolled mainpmf.
It is a lose lose situation when you try to explain some 6000 year earth believers how evolution works.


Okurkabinladin: good example. You and ridery99 would make great muslims.
They too think mohammed split the moon and of course that evolution is a bigly conspiracy

By the way I didn't understand that either.
First: we're not insecure, we're tired of pointing at you something completely obvious and proven by thousands of different scientists and studies. That's not insecuirty that's simply despair and loss of faith in humanity.
Second: Wtf are you talking about when claiming concentration camps are the fruits of atheists beliefs?
Third: What's the link between Muslims and atheists?

Yes that is right, there are almost endless possibilities. Even a small difference in DNA can make a big difference. To evolve in something i think there is need for precise DNA match. But there are still a lot of things that we do not know. Maybe in future people will have all the knowledge about humans and other things.