Topic: Evolution is a hoax - page 80. (Read 108165 times)

Furthermore, consider the brain size of the Neanderthal. It was reasonably larger than that of average humans today. But Einstein's brain was 25% smaller than average brain size.

The point? Everything that has been determined by evolutionists might be backward. I mean, it isn't necessarily brain size that plays an important part in thinking. This means that all kinds of other things that are considered evolution evidence, might really be evidence against evolution in some not-easily-determined way.

Evolutionists don't really know that anything they say is correct. Evolution is a hoax.

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)

If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.

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:
Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).
RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)
Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)
The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search (at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) on "gene duplication" gives more than 3000 references.

According to Shannon-Weaver information theory, random noise maximizes information. This is not just playing word games. The random variation that mutations add to populations is the variation on which selection acts. Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution, but by eliminating nonadaptive variation, natural selection communicates information about the environment to the organism so that the organism becomes better adapted to it. Natural selection is the process by which information about the environment is transferred to an organism's genome and thus to the organism (Adami et al. 2000).

The process of mutation and selection is observed to increase information and complexity in simulations (Adami et al. 2000; Schneider 2000)

Yeah. Its highely unlikely that mutations had made new species. Because everything I know of suggest mutations take away information. 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. That is the same with white skin colour that lacks a colouring agent and not being a white colour agent.

The variation of the colour of the skin in humans is only based on one colour - brown. The same with eyes and hair. The hair are naturally white, unless they are browny coloured by melanine. The same with the eye without a melanine it is blue with a little melanine it is green and with a lot of melanine it is brown.

Darwin was calling white race superiourly evolved, but in some case - in this case melanine they degenerated by mutations. Thats all that happened. Maybe blacks have mutated in some other way but, none got better we all got worse it seems. The size of the brain suggest that compared to some old skulls.

Unless there is a stupidity gene or unglyness gene or rudeness gene we will not mutate for the better it all suggests.

Or call it "change."

I'm not saying that evolution has been proven to NOT exist. All I am saying is that standard evolutionists ARE proving that it doesn't. I mean... all these mountains of evidences for, and yet no proof of.

Evolution is a hoax.

Well... You do not accept the theory of evolution then. Everybody accepts as you called it - microevolution because that is fact. There are no single creationist that I know of that does not accept as you have called it microevolution.

Microevolution is not based on mutations. Well it could be based on mutations on some level, some of the case, but most of time it is only based on selection - either by purposeful breeding or natural selection of existing sets of traits within the genome pool, because mutations carrying new informations have not been yet observed - there were only mutations that deleted the existing barriers.

Microevolution should not be called evolution because it is an adaption. Why not call it adaptation?

Well, I agree that some Christians accept evolution. I, for one, accept evolution, but it's not the evolution that you accept. Knowledgeable Christians accept microevolution and not macro. Let me explain. Microevolution tells us that some changes, small to be exact, happen to species. These are also called genetic mutations. But it's not what the theory of evolution claims to be. The one that school teaches is macroevolution which has never been proven by observable science. Have you ever observed a frog becoming a bird? Or a chicken becoming a dinosaur? Or at least some species that move into that direction?

No, no. Evolution is NOT a fact. Evolution TALK is a fact.

Believing in evolution as many Christians do, is simply part of a religious following. In other words, in its simple sense, evolution is religion.

In the strict sense evolution is a hoax, because evolution scientists understand that the evidences for evolution have been proving to them for a long time, now, that evolution does not exist.

Evolution is a hoax.

Well evolution is a fact, scientifically speaking it is considered a fact. A scientific theory will never become a law. Most Christians actually accept evolution.

Evolution has never become a law like the Law of Gravity and the Law of Thermodynamics, which were discovered by great men of science who strongly believed in a Creator. Evolution cannot claim that science supports it because Christians who are deeply involved in the different fields of science also use the same evidence that evolutionists have. Christians just explain the evidence in light of a Creator. I had a Japanese student who told me that evolution was taught in Japan as if it was a fact (mind you, evolution is a theory and not a fact), so she was surprised when I explained to her the other side of the story that wasn't explained to them.

If you read the books of Richard Dawkins, a notable atheist, you could read his fairy tale stories as he explains how everything came into being. Telling the story is one thing. Giving the evidence or proof is another. When it comes to this topic, people forget that science uses a lot of evidence (like historical, scientific, geographic, philosophical arguments, forensic, etc.) and all these areas have evidence against evolution. Take for example observable science. We make scientific conclusions because of what we observe. It was how the Law of Gravity began. I just wonder what kind of evidence the believers of evolution would like to see or hear to be convinced that evolution is really a hoax. If you believe in evolution, I would like to know what kind of evidence you would consider as acceptable to believe that there is a Creator.

You are mistaken. BADecker is examining ALL the evidence better than the evolutionists. Here's how.

There are hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of evolutionists all over the world. They are looking and digging and postulating for some proof that evolution exists. They have found all kinds of evidence for evolution, and all kinds of evidence that might be evidence for evolution. They have been doing this for almost 2 centuries, finding many, many, evidences and supposed evidences... all in favor of evolution.

What have all these evolutionists NOT found? In all this time, with all these hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of searchers, they have not found one, single, unequivocal proof for evolution. In all this time they have not found even one piece of evidence that unequivocally becomes proof for evolution.

What does this tell you? This tells you that all these evidences for evolution are showing us that evolution doesn't exist. If evolution existed, some of this vast "mound" of evidence would prove it. But since none proves it, the evidences are showing us that evolution doesn't exist. And the more the evidence without proof, the more the evidence against.

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?

Silly evolutionists. Silly because you think that nature is so much smarter than people, by being able to produce the vastly complex system of life, and then being able to hide it so completely from scientists, that they can't find even one proof for it.

Get ready for a link to a creationist religious website lol

An original argument! Oh my god! I've waited so long. Now, give me some proof of these claims and we'll talk further.

Since BADecker is choosing just to ignore all the evidence presented to him, I'm just going to keep on ignoring his child-like posts.

No offense but i disagree.
I watched the Documentary Series called The Cosmos and i remembered The host Neil Degrasse Tyson said that all species on this earth including trees and us have DNA similarities and it looks like we came from one species to another.
I chose to believe in this theory about evolution because it made sense to me, we are all made up of carbons and i think some part of our dna just started to evolve or change in a drastic effect due to the sudden changes in our environment and for almost millions of years ago something just changed. Maybe that is why we dont look the same like other animals. Why there are monkeys still left? Probably,because we are the last line of evolved monkeys from the past..Why the bear in the north pole is colored white and the other bears are brown ? How a wolf got domesticated and turned into dogs? Evolution is a process where a species adapt to changes in the environment and nature has its peculiar ways to thrive and species living on it are affected every time.

Yeah, see, when it comes to evolution you act as a skeptic but with god you seem to have no problem to believe in all the bullshit.

''If that would be proven hoax i would cease to believe it.'' So you are saying that you believe in anything until it's proven wrong? I'm god then and you should worship me, prove I'm not or worship me, you would right? Until someone proves I'm not god you would believe I am, that's how it works for you, doesn't it?

LOL! You mean there might be more than one Astargath? Oh, Heaven forbid. Which one is the real one? LOL.

You don't seem to realize, that whether or not the real God says He is the real God, if He is the real God, He still is the real God. LOL.

Evolution is a hoax.

No, no, no. We aren't talking about those other religions in this thread. In this thread we are talking about the evolution religion.

Evolution is a hoax. Got any proof for it?

I have been watching Coincube's posts. He has all kinds of information that seems to be good logical info. But he hasn't found any proof for evolution, either.

The question isn't really about proof for evolution. The real question is why evolution theory is so widespread, and believed to be truth, without any proof whatsoever. The only real answer is...

Evolution is a hoax, and a shrewdly perpetrated one at that.

Im very sceptical about that... If that would be proven hoax i would cease to believe it. Would you?

If evolutionists would prove what the say - I would be shocked - for the moment the God rocks their boat and plays with them.

God will never allow this to happen in my opinion for us the people to be fully convinced about evolution. Ok he will test people, but there would be enough of embarassements on the evolution part that it would show the world - who they really are. My favourite moment was when scientist were following some trait and they thought that DNA could prove their claims - the closest specie in comparison with DNA is pig that they eat constantly.... Or when they compared chromosomes of human to apes it was proven to be completly random after all - to show a complete embarassement to all who do not rely strictly on the evolutionists dosing of information matrix of alternative reality.

My question to evolutionists? Aren't you embarassed enough? If not I guess there will be a lot more embarassements to go.

If I would be so much embarassed in my believes I would be just as nervous and aggresive as you are. It must hurt your ego a little...

And why is that? Why is the real one the one that says he is the only one? You don't seem very skeptical about that, huh?

Tricky question? Tricky answer - the real one.

The God that says he is the only one. And there is only on such God that says so. Called a One God or tetragrammaton.


But.... but I thought we are smart evolutionists. Aren't we? Aren't we smart? I think you are very smart. Teach me.