Evolution is a hoax - page 79. | Bitcointalksearch.org

Astargath

hero member

Activity: 1624

Merit: 645

Quote from: BADecker on February 28, 2018, 03:56:34 PM

Quote from: Astargath on February 28, 2018, 02:30:55 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 28, 2018, 01:07:42 PM

My point exactly, Astargath. Since Neanderthal brain size having to do with greater motor controls, and not with greater thinking ability, is simply talk, how do we really know about Neanderthals? We base this reasoning on the fact that Neanderthals didn't have a written or spoken language that we know of. But what if Neanderthals used ESP?

When you investigate ESP, you find that there are many (not a large percentage) scientists who have done experiments that seem to prove that some forms of ESP exists. Perhaps the lack of finding proof for evolution is really the beginning of accepting devolution. Neanderthals were simply advanced in such a way that they had ESP, and didn't have any need for language.

(Oops! Perhaps I should wait for Astargath's post before I start replying to it. )

Cool

It's always funny when you use examples like those because Neanderthals (UK: /niˈændərˌtɑːl/, also US: /neɪ-, -ˈɑːn-, -ˌtɔːl, -ˌθɔːl/),[3][4] more rarely known as Neandertals,[a] were archaic humans that became extinct about 40,000 years ago.

You believe the earth and the universe are 6 to 10k years old. You don't believe that anymore?

Except for the FACT that distant past dating is like evolution... not proven to exist as stated. About prehistory dating, nobody comes out and says, "We know these dates for a fact." In fact, they say that they don't really know when they use the same kinds of limiting words and sentence structures as they do for evolution.

Neanderthals were simply an early form of human... early in the 6,000 year period of universe existence. What does the time period of Neanderthals have to do with evolution really being devolution? We aren't advancing. We are declining.

Cool

An early form of human, you saying they... evolved? Huh

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3990

Merit: 1385

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on February 28, 2018, 04:17:46 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 28, 2018, 04:11:27 PM

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on February 28, 2018, 04:08:29 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 28, 2018, 04:02:25 PM

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on February 28, 2018, 02:04:23 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 28, 2018, 11:30:15 AM

Go on and find some more evolution evidence. Go and build a stronger case against evolution with it. After all, you need to have a goal in life. Why not strengthen the proof that evolution doesn't exist, by going out and finding more evolution evidence that proves it?

So all the proof for evolution disproves evolution? This is the worst argument I've ever read on the topic, on this thread or anywhere else. The level of proof available for evolution is on par with level of proof we have for gravitational theory or the germ theory of disease i.e. unequivocal. Why not choose any one of the papers I've linked and offer a sound scientific rebuttal? If "more proof = less proof" is best argument you can come up with, I will continue to ignore your child-like posts.

Er... what proof? I'm still waiting for somebody to show us a point of proof for evolution.

List one simple evolution proof that is stated to be absolute proof by the evolution scientific community. And don't do like Astargath, copying and pasting a whole bunch of nonsense from some website, while barely being able to grasp what is being said. Rather, express a proof point in simple language, and then back it up with scientists and referrences that show evolution is absolutely proven by that point.

Cool

That's literally exactly what I've been doing for the last 50 posts that you chose to ignore.

Actually, no you haven't. You have presented points that somebody says are proof, but that nobody in the scientific community will acknowledge as proof. Just one, please... and its references where some scinetist(s) proved that it was evolution.

Cool

Actually, yes I have. It doesn't matter whether or not you like them. That's the good thing about science - it's true whether or not you believe in it.

You remember what makes up scientific proof, don't you? Among the requirements for proof is that experiment or operation it can be duplicated. So, duplicate just one, teensy, eensy, little, simple evolution proof and its references that say it is proof. If you can't do this, then you can't even prove that you have ever offered proof for evolution in the first place.

Cool

o_e_l_e_o

legendary

Activity: 2268

Merit: 18775

Quote from: BADecker on February 28, 2018, 04:11:27 PM

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on February 28, 2018, 04:08:29 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 28, 2018, 04:02:25 PM

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on February 28, 2018, 02:04:23 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 28, 2018, 11:30:15 AM

Go on and find some more evolution evidence. Go and build a stronger case against evolution with it. After all, you need to have a goal in life. Why not strengthen the proof that evolution doesn't exist, by going out and finding more evolution evidence that proves it?

So all the proof for evolution disproves evolution? This is the worst argument I've ever read on the topic, on this thread or anywhere else. The level of proof available for evolution is on par with level of proof we have for gravitational theory or the germ theory of disease i.e. unequivocal. Why not choose any one of the papers I've linked and offer a sound scientific rebuttal? If "more proof = less proof" is best argument you can come up with, I will continue to ignore your child-like posts.

Er... what proof? I'm still waiting for somebody to show us a point of proof for evolution.

List one simple evolution proof that is stated to be absolute proof by the evolution scientific community. And don't do like Astargath, copying and pasting a whole bunch of nonsense from some website, while barely being able to grasp what is being said. Rather, express a proof point in simple language, and then back it up with scientists and referrences that show evolution is absolutely proven by that point.

Cool

That's literally exactly what I've been doing for the last 50 posts that you chose to ignore.

Actually, no you haven't. You have presented points that somebody says are proof, but that nobody in the scientific community will acknowledge as proof. Just one, please... and its references where some scinetist(s) proved that it was evolution.

Cool

Actually, yes I have. It doesn't matter whether or not you like them. That's the good thing about science - it's true whether or not you believe in it.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3990

Merit: 1385

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on February 28, 2018, 04:08:29 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 28, 2018, 04:02:25 PM

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on February 28, 2018, 02:04:23 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 28, 2018, 11:30:15 AM

Go on and find some more evolution evidence. Go and build a stronger case against evolution with it. After all, you need to have a goal in life. Why not strengthen the proof that evolution doesn't exist, by going out and finding more evolution evidence that proves it?

So all the proof for evolution disproves evolution? This is the worst argument I've ever read on the topic, on this thread or anywhere else. The level of proof available for evolution is on par with level of proof we have for gravitational theory or the germ theory of disease i.e. unequivocal. Why not choose any one of the papers I've linked and offer a sound scientific rebuttal? If "more proof = less proof" is best argument you can come up with, I will continue to ignore your child-like posts.

Er... what proof? I'm still waiting for somebody to show us a point of proof for evolution.

List one simple evolution proof that is stated to be absolute proof by the evolution scientific community. And don't do like Astargath, copying and pasting a whole bunch of nonsense from some website, while barely being able to grasp what is being said. Rather, express a proof point in simple language, and then back it up with scientists and referrences that show evolution is absolutely proven by that point.

Cool

That's literally exactly what I've been doing for the last 50 posts that you chose to ignore.

Actually, no you haven't. You have presented points that somebody says are proof, but that nobody in the scientific community will acknowledge as proof. Just one, please... and its references where some scientist(s) proved that it was evolution.

Cool

o_e_l_e_o

legendary

Activity: 2268

Merit: 18775

Quote from: BADecker on February 28, 2018, 04:02:25 PM

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on February 28, 2018, 02:04:23 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 28, 2018, 11:30:15 AM

Go on and find some more evolution evidence. Go and build a stronger case against evolution with it. After all, you need to have a goal in life. Why not strengthen the proof that evolution doesn't exist, by going out and finding more evolution evidence that proves it?

So all the proof for evolution disproves evolution? This is the worst argument I've ever read on the topic, on this thread or anywhere else. The level of proof available for evolution is on par with level of proof we have for gravitational theory or the germ theory of disease i.e. unequivocal. Why not choose any one of the papers I've linked and offer a sound scientific rebuttal? If "more proof = less proof" is best argument you can come up with, I will continue to ignore your child-like posts.

Er... what proof? I'm still waiting for somebody to show us a point of proof for evolution.

List one simple evolution proof that is stated to be absolute proof by the evolution scientific community. And don't do like Astargath, copying and pasting a whole bunch of nonsense from some website, while barely being able to grasp what is being said. Rather, express a proof point in simple language, and then back it up with scientists and referrences that show evolution is absolutely proven by that point.

Cool

That's literally exactly what I've been doing for the last 50 posts that you chose to ignore.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3990

Merit: 1385

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on February 28, 2018, 03:10:33 PM

Quote from: Przemax on February 28, 2018, 02:34:05 PM

Give me articles that are unbiased that shows a new informations are coming from mutations. I just warn you - do not give me the rats that are naturally somewhat resistant to pesticides so that and bacterias that are already somewhat although limited resistance to antibiotics. The mutations are not giving more informations it just makes the informations more readily available by making other information less neccesary so to speak.

Do not give me articles about the resistance to anemia. I know all about 3 of those seemingly new informations that are not new informations but decrease in genetic information.

Do not give me these proven examples of evolution because I don't like them? Lol?

Anyway, haemoglobin (the compound in your blood that carries oxygen) evolved from a duplication mutation.

Storz JF, Opazo JC, Hoffmann FG. Gene duplication, genome duplication, and the functional diversification of vertebrate globins. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2013 Feb; 66(2): 469–478.

Except that nobody knows that haemoglobin evolved. Cool

o_e_l_e_o

legendary

Activity: 2268

Merit: 18775

Quote from: Przemax on February 28, 2018, 03:39:22 PM

Quote

I did just give you some "actual mutation" (emphasis added):

Hemoglobine already existed - it is the reason you can breath.... So well.... If it's mutated it would be faaaaar away in time, and to prove that one would need to prove the theory of evolution was true...

That is a circular logic. You can not be serious to give me such logical fallacies and be happy with it.......

Im fairly sure it is a fascinating reading..... but come on.... Just because someone that is aproved by the group think wrote that means absolutely and completly nothing if it is a pure example of classical group biases.

If scientist would wrote that your head should be chopped off and he would be peer-reviewed. Would you believe it?

That could be true that your head should be chopped off - but its highly unlikely.

First, it didn't. The paper describes how it evolved. You clearly didn't even read it.

Secondly, haemoglobin binds oxygen. To say it is the "reason you can breath" is a gross oversimplification that suggest you do not understand biology in addition to evolution.

Thirldy, it is not circular logic whatsoever. It is clear evidence of evolution, regardless of how hard you pretend it isnt'.

Fourthly, you dismiss it without even reading it. Hilarious.

Honestly, I thought we were about to make progess. Shame that your creationism indoctrination won't even allow you to consider the evidence. Seriously, you didn't even read it before deciding it was wrong. You are a lost cause.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3990

Merit: 1385

Quote from: Astargath on February 28, 2018, 02:42:14 PM

Quote from: Przemax on February 28, 2018, 02:34:05 PM

Quote

Again not true. There are up to 15 different genes controlling eye colour, and the colour in different species can come from a variety of pigments (of which melanin is one): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_color

Yes sure. That does not make my statement not true. Does it? Blue eye colour is the lack of melanine. I never stated that it is dependant on one gene.

Quote

You are arguing against a strawman. Maybe if you spent more time reading about evolution from scientific, unbiased sources to find out what it really is (i.e. not AnswersInGenesis or similar nonsense sites), you might find you start to understand it more.

Give me articles that are unbiased that shows a new informations are coming from mutations. I just warn you - do not give me the rats that are naturally somewhat resistant to pesticides so that and bacterias that are already somewhat although limited resistance to antibiotics. The mutations are not giving more informations it just makes the informations more readily available by making other information less neccesary so to speak.

Do not give me articles about the resistance to anemia. I know all about 3 of those simingly new informations that are not new informations but decrease in genetic information.

First give us your definition of information.

You do very well for somebody who doesn't have English as his first language. Check out the dictionary for the definition of information. Or are you trying to turn this thread into a semantics thread?

Cool

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3990

Merit: 1385

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on February 28, 2018, 02:04:23 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 28, 2018, 11:30:15 AM

Go on and find some more evolution evidence. Go and build a stronger case against evolution with it. After all, you need to have a goal in life. Why not strengthen the proof that evolution doesn't exist, by going out and finding more evolution evidence that proves it?

So all the proof for evolution disproves evolution? This is the worst argument I've ever read on the topic, on this thread or anywhere else. The level of proof available for evolution is on par with level of proof we have for gravitational theory or the germ theory of disease i.e. unequivocal. Why not choose any one of the papers I've linked and offer a sound scientific rebuttal? If "more proof = less proof" is best argument you can come up with, I will continue to ignore your child-like posts.

Er... what proof? I'm still waiting for somebody to show us a point of proof for evolution.

List one simple evolution proof that is stated to be absolute proof by the evolution scientific community. And don't do like Astargath, copying and pasting a whole bunch of nonsense from some website, while barely being able to grasp what is being said. Rather, express a proof point in simple language, and then back it up with scientists and referrences that show evolution is absolutely proven by that point.

Cool

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3990

Merit: 1385

Quote from: Astargath on February 28, 2018, 02:30:55 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 28, 2018, 01:07:42 PM

My point exactly, Astargath. Since Neanderthal brain size having to do with greater motor controls, and not with greater thinking ability, is simply talk, how do we really know about Neanderthals? We base this reasoning on the fact that Neanderthals didn't have a written or spoken language that we know of. But what if Neanderthals used ESP?

When you investigate ESP, you find that there are many (not a large percentage) scientists who have done experiments that seem to prove that some forms of ESP exists. Perhaps the lack of finding proof for evolution is really the beginning of accepting devolution. Neanderthals were simply advanced in such a way that they had ESP, and didn't have any need for language.

(Oops! Perhaps I should wait for Astargath's post before I start replying to it. )

Cool

It's always funny when you use examples like those because Neanderthals (UK: /niˈændərˌtɑːl/, also US: /neɪ-, -ˈɑːn-, -ˌtɔːl, -ˌθɔːl/),[3][4] more rarely known as Neandertals,[a] were archaic humans that became extinct about 40,000 years ago.

You believe the earth and the universe are 6 to 10k years old. You don't believe that anymore?

Except for the FACT that distant past dating is like evolution... not proven to exist as stated. About prehistory dating, nobody comes out and says, "We know these dates for a fact." In fact, they say that they don't really know when they use the same kinds of limiting words and sentence structures as they do for evolution.

Neanderthals were simply an early form of human... early in the 6,000 year period of universe existence. What does the time period of Neanderthals have to do with evolution really being devolution? We aren't advancing. We are declining.

Cool

Przemax

hero member

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

Quote

I did just give you some "actual mutation" (emphasis added):

Hemoglobine already existed - it is the reason you can breath.... So well.... If it's mutated it would be faaaaar away in time, and to prove that one would need to prove the theory of evolution was true...

That is a circular logic. You can not be serious to give me such logical fallacies and be happy with it.......

Im fairly sure it is a fascinating reading..... but come on.... Just because someone that is aproved by the group think wrote that means absolutely and completly nothing if it is a pure example of classical group biases.

If scientist would wrote that your head should be chopped off and he would be peer-reviewed. Would you believe it?

That could be true that your head should be chopped off - but its highly unlikely.

o_e_l_e_o

legendary

Activity: 2268

Merit: 18775

Quote from: Przemax on February 28, 2018, 03:18:35 PM

I thought you would give me some actual mutation not just a guess what comes from what... Im disappointed.

I did just give you some "actual mutation" (emphasis added):

Quote

The functional diversification of the vertebrate globin gene superfamily provides an especially vivid illustration of the role of gene duplication and whole-genome duplication in promoting evolutionary innovation. For example, key globin proteins that evolved specialized functions in various aspects of oxidative metabolism and oxygen signaling pathways (hemoglobin [Hb], myoglobin [Mb], and cytoglobin [Cygb]) trace their origins to two whole-genome duplication events in the stem lineage of vertebrates.

Quote

Whereas the Ngb, Adgb, and GbX genes originated prior to the divergence between deuterostomes and protostomes, the remaining members of the vertebrate globin gene repertoire are all products of vertebrate-specific duplication events

Quote

In the Hb gene lineage, a subsequent tandem gene duplication gave rise to the proto α- and β-globin genes. This duplication event appears to have occured roughly 450–500 million years ago in the Ordovician, before the ancestor of cartilaginous fish split from the lineage leading to the common ancestor of ray-finned fishes and tetrapods.

Quote

During the course of vertebrate evolution, the duplication event that gave rise to the progenitors of the Hb, Mb, and Cygb proteins opened up new opportunities for the evolution of aerobic energy metabolism in both jawed and jawless vertebrates. Moreover, the capacity to synthesize functionally distinct Hbs at different stages of development was made possible by repeated rounds of gene duplication in which newly created paralogs evolved new biochemical properties in conjunction with changes in the ontogenetic timing of expression.

Przemax

hero member

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on February 28, 2018, 03:10:33 PM

Quote from: Przemax on February 28, 2018, 02:34:05 PM

Give me articles that are unbiased that shows a new informations are coming from mutations. I just warn you - do not give me the rats that are naturally somewhat resistant to pesticides so that and bacterias that are already somewhat although limited resistance to antibiotics. The mutations are not giving more informations it just makes the informations more readily available by making other information less neccesary so to speak.

Do not give me articles about the resistance to anemia. I know all about 3 of those seemingly new informations that are not new informations but decrease in genetic information.

Do not give me these proven examples of evolution because I don't like them? Lol?

Anyway, haemoglobin (the compound in your blood that carries oxygen) evolved from a duplication mutation.

Storz JF, Opazo JC, Hoffmann FG. Gene duplication, genome duplication, and the functional diversification of vertebrate globins. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2013 Feb; 66(2): 469–478.

No... Because it was proven to prove nothing or rather disprove evolution. I am sincerly and honestly curious - I do not want to learn something I already know. Maybe you are not interested in truth and finding of another side - I am.

I just said about those findings to tell you - I know about them. If you would tell me about that - I would learn nothing - would I not? Use logic from time to time.

I thought you would give me some actual mutation not just a guess what comes from what... Im disappointed.

So ok you only have those 3 examples that I know of right? So you have nothing that I am not aware of. So you can not say I am ignorant about evolution if I anticipate your reaction fully.

o_e_l_e_o

legendary

Activity: 2268

Merit: 18775

Quote from: Przemax on February 28, 2018, 02:34:05 PM

Give me articles that are unbiased that shows a new informations are coming from mutations. I just warn you - do not give me the rats that are naturally somewhat resistant to pesticides so that and bacterias that are already somewhat although limited resistance to antibiotics. The mutations are not giving more informations it just makes the informations more readily available by making other information less neccesary so to speak.

Do not give me articles about the resistance to anemia. I know all about 3 of those seemingly new informations that are not new informations but decrease in genetic information.

Do not give me these proven examples of evolution because I don't like them? Lol?

Anyway, haemoglobin (the compound in your blood that carries oxygen) evolved from a duplication mutation.

Storz JF, Opazo JC, Hoffmann FG. Gene duplication, genome duplication, and the functional diversification of vertebrate globins. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2013 Feb; 66(2): 469–478.

Przemax

hero member

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

Quote

Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of:

increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

Are those worthwhile to read? I hate people giving the books they had not read themselves? Is there an added information mutation that makes person more adapted or not? If so... name one. It should be easy if one would read it.

Quote

A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:

Ok... there could be added information... maybe. But what is the example of this? What is the added information that is useful - because that should be defined as information. A noise is just a noise. Do you know any example?

Because the example you copy pasted could as well be a reverse engineering. Lets look at the car for example. If you would take all of the unnecessary weight of a car you could say - hey... The car is faster. Yeah ok it is faster but only because you had left an engine and a wheels so it weights less. Do you understand?

You can easily mock the engineering process by reverse engineering.

Quote

First give us your definition of information.

Something that everyone would be convinced - hey yeah - That is the new possitive information. Basicly. More specificly - a new possitive information is something that was not there and is not just a noise but is possitive to the existance of the pull of informations of the object.

Astargath

hero member

Activity: 1624

Merit: 645

Quote from: Przemax on February 28, 2018, 02:34:05 PM

Quote

Again not true. There are up to 15 different genes controlling eye colour, and the colour in different species can come from a variety of pigments (of which melanin is one): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_color

Yes sure. That does not make my statement not true. Does it? Blue eye colour is the lack of melanine. I never stated that it is dependant on one gene.

Quote

You are arguing against a strawman. Maybe if you spent more time reading about evolution from scientific, unbiased sources to find out what it really is (i.e. not AnswersInGenesis or similar nonsense sites), you might find you start to understand it more.

Give me articles that are unbiased that shows a new informations are coming from mutations. I just warn you - do not give me the rats that are naturally somewhat resistant to pesticides so that and bacterias that are already somewhat although limited resistance to antibiotics. The mutations are not giving more informations it just makes the informations more readily available by making other information less neccesary so to speak.

Do not give me articles about the resistance to anemia. I know all about 3 of those simingly new informations that are not new informations but decrease in genetic information.

First give us your definition of information.

Przemax

hero member

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

Quote

Again not true. There are up to 15 different genes controlling eye colour, and the colour in different species can come from a variety of pigments (of which melanin is one): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_color

Yes sure. That does not make my statement not true. Does it? Blue eye colour is the lack of melanine. I never stated that it is dependant on one gene.

Logically there should be some pigments for some animals to have yellow eyes and for them to glow. And the fact that the eye is blue must imply there is some other pigment in it. Sure. But still. That does not mean my statements were wrong.

Quote

You are arguing against a strawman. Maybe if you spent more time reading about evolution from scientific, unbiased sources to find out what it really is (i.e. not AnswersInGenesis or similar nonsense sites), you might find you start to understand it more.

Give me articles that are unbiased that shows a new informations are coming from mutations. I just warn you - do not give me the rats that are naturally somewhat resistant to pesticides so that and bacterias that are already somewhat although limited resistance to antibiotics. The mutations are not giving more informations it just makes the informations more readily available by making other information less neccesary so to speak.

Do not give me articles about the resistance to anemia. I know all about 3 of those seemingly new informations that are not new informations but decrease in genetic information.

Astargath

hero member

Activity: 1624

Merit: 645

Quote from: BADecker on February 28, 2018, 01:07:42 PM

My point exactly, Astargath. Since Neanderthal brain size having to do with greater motor controls, and not with greater thinking ability, is simply talk, how do we really know about Neanderthals? We base this reasoning on the fact that Neanderthals didn't have a written or spoken language that we know of. But what if Neanderthals used ESP?

When you investigate ESP, you find that there are many (not a large percentage) scientists who have done experiments that seem to prove that some forms of ESP exists. Perhaps the lack of finding proof for evolution is really the beginning of accepting devolution. Neanderthals were simply advanced in such a way that they had ESP, and didn't have any need for language.

(Oops! Perhaps I should wait for Astargath's post before I start replying to it. )

Cool

It's always funny when you use examples like those because Neanderthals (UK: /niˈændərˌtɑːl/, also US: /neɪ-, -ˈɑːn-, -ˌtɔːl, -ˌθɔːl/),[3][4] more rarely known as Neandertals,[a] were archaic humans that became extinct about 40,000 years ago.

You believe the earth and the universe are 6 to 10k years old. You don't believe that anymore?

o_e_l_e_o

legendary

Activity: 2268

Merit: 18775

Quote from: BADecker on February 28, 2018, 11:30:15 AM

Go on and find some more evolution evidence. Go and build a stronger case against evolution with it. After all, you need to have a goal in life. Why not strengthen the proof that evolution doesn't exist, by going out and finding more evolution evidence that proves it?

So all the proof for evolution disproves evolution? This is the worst argument I've ever read on the topic, on this thread or anywhere else. The level of proof available for evolution is on par with level of proof we have for gravitational theory or the germ theory of disease i.e. unequivocal. Why not choose any one of the papers I've linked and offer a sound scientific rebuttal? If "more proof = less proof" is best argument you can come up with, I will continue to ignore your child-like posts.

Quote from: Przemax on February 28, 2018, 12:27:27 PM

Because everything I know of suggest mutations take away information.

Not true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_duplication.

Quote from: Przemax on February 28, 2018, 12:27:27 PM

For example a blue eyes is not a special gene - it is a mutation of lacking enough melanine in the eye. It took away information and not make something new.

Again not true. There are up to 15 different genes controlling eye colour, and the colour in different species can come from a variety of pigments (of which melanin is one): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_color

You are arguing against a strawman. Maybe if you spent more time reading about evolution from scientific, unbiased sources to find out what it really is (i.e. not AnswersInGenesis or similar nonsense sites), you might find you start to understand it more.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3990

Merit: 1385

My point exactly, Astargath. Since Neanderthal brain size having to do with greater motor controls, and not with greater thinking ability, is simply talk, how do we really know about Neanderthals? We base this reasoning on the fact that Neanderthals didn't have a written or spoken language that we know of. But what if Neanderthals used ESP?

When you investigate ESP, you find that there are many (not a large percentage) scientists who have done experiments that seem to prove that some forms of ESP exists. Perhaps the lack of finding proof for evolution is really the beginning of accepting devolution. Neanderthals were simply advanced in such a way that they had ESP, and didn't have any need for language.

(Oops! Perhaps I should wait for Astargath's post before I start replying to it. )

Cool

Topic: Evolution is a hoax - page 79. (Read 108165 times)