Topic: Evolution is a hoax - page 88. (Read 108046 times)
If evolution really happened, to the present time in the annals of fossils we would find abundant evidence of changes of one species into another. But, despite the fact that "in museums around the world is stored about a hundred million fossils, carefully catalogued and identified", porter Kier (Porter Kier), "New Scientist", January 15, 1981, p. 129
I will just present you their findings if you would like to know the arguments of the other side.
YES. It only took me asking you thirteen times. I eagerly look forward to you presenting some evidence.
Ok.... So I will just do one specie at a time from your rich mountain of knowledge ok?
Quote
5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)
Quote
de Vries had presumptuously proclaimed tetraploid Oenotheras to be a new species, but this was in spite of direct evidence to the contrary, including from his own breeding efforts. The idea that these plants constituted an example of speciation is wrong, and this was realized at least as long ago as 1943,7 more than six decades ago.
Quote
That O. gigas is still presented as an evidence for evolution8,9 reflects very poorly on evolutionists. The situation is similar with many other evolution evidences, such as Haeckel’s notorious embryo diagrams, which continue to be used as evidences for evolution generations after they have been discredited.10
Quote
Davis, B.M., An amphidiploid in the F1 generation from the cross Oenothera franciscana x Oenothera biennis, and its progeny, Genetics 28(4):275–285, July 1943, genetics.org/cgi/reprint/28/4/275. On page 278 Davis writes:
In summary it should be emphasized that this amphidiploid did not present a settled behaviour of all pairing on the part of the chromosomes at diakinesis. On the contrary, there was much irregularity in the process of chromosome segregation during meiosis. Accounts of amphidiploids have frequently assumed that these plants even from hybrids would breed true because the double set of chromosomes would permit a regular pairing between homologues. It will be noted that here is an amphidiploid Oenothera hybrid in which the pairing is far from regular with the result that the plant does not breed true, as will appear in the accounts of later generations.
Thats just an example In summary it should be emphasized that this amphidiploid did not present a settled behaviour of all pairing on the part of the chromosomes at diakinesis. On the contrary, there was much irregularity in the process of chromosome segregation during meiosis. Accounts of amphidiploids have frequently assumed that these plants even from hybrids would breed true because the double set of chromosomes would permit a regular pairing between homologues. It will be noted that here is an amphidiploid Oenothera hybrid in which the pairing is far from regular with the result that the plant does not breed true, as will appear in the accounts of later generations.
More? There are all 50 debunked on the internet - just use google......
I will just present you their findings if you would like to know the arguments of the other side.
YES. It only took me asking you thirteen times. I eagerly look forward to you presenting some evidence.
I have - none of it is true. But it would take an awfull lot of time to explain it to you the falsehood of all 50.
I see. You have some knowledge that all the world's best scientists don't, but you can't be bothered to explain it. Makes sense.
For the twelfth time, give me a single piece of evidence that evolution is a hoax, or you have lost the argument.
No not just me... all creationists know its a hoax I will just present you their findings if you would like to know the arguments of the other side.
You seem to not understand the importance of definition. It is very important how someone define what. If you define specie because some organisms differ from one another there is no reason why not to call asians not human. They were when people took evolution a lot more serious than now. Now everybody knows asians are as much humans as we are. Why they say that? Because we produce offspring.
And when it comes to lion and tiger - they both produce offspring they change their minds.... and call it hybrydisation with telling a lies that they are infertile. They are fertile it was proven true that they are fertile when some of them is south america or asia had run away.
I have - none of it is true. But it would take an awfull lot of time to explain it to you the falsehood of all 50.
I see. You have some knowledge that all the world's best scientists don't, but you can't be bothered to explain it. Makes sense.
For the twelfth time, give me a single piece of evidence that evolution is a hoax, or you have lost the argument.
So you are not even going to read the mountains of evidence I give you, but just assume that it is wrong. How very scientific and logical of you
For the eleventh time, give me a single piece of evidence that evolution is a hoax, or you have lost the argument.
For the eleventh time, give me a single piece of evidence that evolution is a hoax, or you have lost the argument.
I have - none of it is true. But it would take an awfull lot of time to explain it to you the falsehood of all 50.
You must understand that the definition of classical sense - separation as a lost of abiity to reproduce inside the specie is not the same as the definition that evolutionists use. You dont seem to understand that.... Im not surprised you dont. You seem to dont understand a lot of things I wrote to you.
If you see it as a not a big deal than ok... It is just your opinion. It is a barrier that evolution have not penetretated and is safe to assume - it never will. But if that thing have not happened that a specie had lost the ability to breed in the specie they previously could - that is very safe to assume it is impossible like God have said the genesis.
It is not because God have said so - it is because reality say so. Just because God said so makes the God word credible.
Why not use google instead of saying the stupidest shit ?
But you haven't provided even one concretely factual piece of evidence for evolution. Not even one! Sll evolution evidence fits something else (like adaptation) better than it fits evolution.
So unlike Przemax, who tries and spectacularly fails to discredit the evidence, you choose just to completely ignore it even exists. I suppose that's almost a smarter way of approaching it, since you know your factless arguments will get utterly destroyed if you engage with the evidence.
Actually, it sounds like you are ignoring that evolution doesn't exist.
Evolution theory exists. All kinds of (mostly) contradictory ideas exist about evolution. But since there isn't any proof for evolution - nobody has ever seen something evolving that they can prove is evolution and not something else - everything that you hear or read about evolution is hearsay or the like.
Evolution is a hoax... or do you have some proof that you can show us?
Evolution is proven, do you have any evidence suggesting is a hoax?
So you are not even going to read the mountains of evidence I give you, but just assume that it is wrong. How very scientific and logical of you
For the eleventh time, give me a single piece of evidence that evolution is a hoax, or you have lost the argument.
For the eleventh time, give me a single piece of evidence that evolution is a hoax, or you have lost the argument.
Quote
So, what you are saying is there is just too much evidence for evolution. At least we agree on something.
Im saying there are 50 or so misunderstandings based on language tricks and deception. Here... Let me explain. Give me your world of warcraft speciments. Or are you scared?
You can give me the troll or a dwarf. The trolls are proven to have a lot of stamina. There are a lot of evidences that trolls can beat the dwarfs 1vs1 mountains of evidences.
No sorry... Im serious give me 5 of examples from you pile 50 from your mountain of evidences.
Quote
Apart from Shaposhnikov over 70 years ago, which was where I started this discussion, and the countless other examples I have provided you with.
Countless? This 50? That you won't randomly select 5? I Actually answered to 5 of them myself in this topic. Now you search it... I have done all the works searching your clues.
I give you options to not blame me that 45 of your other speciation is right with the definition or contradict creationism so that it proves evolution. Pick them randomly.
Quote
deep ignorance about science
What is worse? Deep ignorance of science, or a deep ignorance of logic? I would say the latter, because science involves logic.
Quote
I'll consider this argument won.
Ok you won. Anything that makes you happy. You basicly say - I have won - therefore I ran away and I won't choose 5 species. It is like Mao Tsetung with his victory when he was retreating.
I agree - you and evolution are ment to be together. You have absolutely convinced me about that.
Listen.... Just pick 5 of them ok? You seriously want to me to write about 50 of them?
So, what you are saying is there is just too much evidence for evolution. At least we agree on something.
nobody has ever seen something evolving that they can prove is evolution and not something else
Apart from Shaposhnikov over 70 years ago, which was where I started this discussion, and the countless other examples I have provided you with.
I'm done with this argument. I have provided mountains and mountains of evidence which you have both failed to counter even once. The very fact you use words like "accident" and "random" shows that you have a deep, deep ignorance about science and evolution, and zero willingness to learn. You can play your word games and make stupid points about World of Warcraft and students as long as you like, but until I see a single piece of evidence that evolution is a hoax, I'll consider this argument won.
Quote
There is zero point exactly repeating an experiment that has already been proved
Yeah.... It has been proved to have produced 5 amino acids........................ And yet..... yet you said they did redo the experiment. Man.... I guess you do not know what are we even talking about.... Do you?
Quote
Again, my mistake for assuming you understood this.
WTF MAN.... You do not even understand the scientific theory and you constantly harass me..... That I don't know it. You are annoying......
IM DONE..... Your constant ill treating your debater and not understanding the principles of what we are talking about makes IT POINTLESS.
So you admit it did produce amino acids? We are done, then. Now we are waiting for your evidence.
It took a while of going in increasingly moronic circles, but we got there in the end. He finally accept the facts.
Also, if the past 30-ish posts taught us anything, it is that you will be waiting a loooong time for any creationist evidence whatsoever.
The thing that this thread is teaching us is, there isn't even one piece of proof for evolution. Do you have one? Show us.
Evolution is a hoax.
Quote
There is zero point exactly repeating an experiment that has already been proved
Yeah.... It has been proved to have produced 5 amino acids........................ And yet..... yet you said they did redo the experiment. Man.... I guess you do not know what are we even talking about.... Do you?
Quote
Again, my mistake for assuming you understood this.
WTF MAN.... You do not even understand the scientific theory and you constantly harass me..... That I don't know it. You are annoying......
IM DONE..... Your constant ill treating your debater and not understanding the principles of what we are talking about makes IT POINTLESS.
So you admit it did produce amino acids? We are done, then. Now we are waiting for your evidence.
Standard troll practices. Twist the topic around so that the fact of evolution never having been prove in even one instance is hidden. Then make it look like the failure lies in something else that is anti-evolution.
I like how you go on and troll all around. Your trolling failures roll off your back like water off a duck. Yet you simply keep on going with more trolling. They must be paying you an awful lot so it doesn't even bother you to destroy any dignity you might have had.
But you haven't provided even one concretely factual piece of evidence for evolution. Not even one! Sll evolution evidence fits something else (like adaptation) better than it fits evolution.
So unlike Przemax, who tries and spectacularly fails to discredit the evidence, you choose just to completely ignore it even exists. I suppose that's almost a smarter way of approaching it, since you know your factless arguments will get utterly destroyed if you engage with the evidence.
Actually, it sounds like you are ignoring that evolution doesn't exist.
Evolution theory exists. All kinds of (mostly) contradictory ideas exist about evolution. But since there isn't any proof for evolution - nobody has ever seen something evolving that they can prove is evolution and not something else - everything that you hear or read about evolution is hearsay or the like.
Evolution is a hoax... or do you have some proof that you can show us?
One cannot prove that something does not exist. You cannot prove God does not exist.
All I can say is that you lie some of the time, and sometimes you misguide, and sometimes you change the subject, and sometimes you do not understand something.
Theory of evolution exist.... ok.... That only mean of their craftiness because they bring no fruits thereof. There are no fruits of evolution. And being fruitless means falseness.
Yeah I know what they say - it was proven in software LOL (that is the most laughable I cannot even grasp the level of depravaty of the person having such an argument), in drugs... Well drugs proves to be false many times as well based on false statistics, and based on DNA studies... But Dna studies does not require evolution to even exist. So its all false hot air.
Quite correct. So far, evolution is one of the big hoaxes that has been foisted onto unsuspecting people. But it makes a lot of money for the universities, and for the people who are the leaders among those who go digging and grubbing in the dirt around the world.
Did you ever notice that a lot of the digging is done by students, who work for free, just so that they get a better grade at the university? But the treasures they find are kept by the university, or the team leader.
All you achieved is me wanting to puke how insencere a human being can be. I get the goose bumps once I see such a people that does not know the importance of honesty, critical thinking if it comes to science, having the importance to define the matters what they speak - the core values of a good scientist and others non scientific because they have that values.
I am just discouraged heavily to even want to show you how many logical error you had made. It would take a loooooong time and would achieve nothing, because people in this forum might be ignorant, so you appealing to their ignorance might have worked. Sadly. Know one thing... Every dirty tricks and every lie is seen by the almighty..... You will be really shocked in the end.....
And yes sadly - that might be called scientific if one makes experiment until finally they get the right result - the most recent is being thought to be the truth, so people ignore the others. I know. You can fake the results of the last experiment - that is from 2008. And if everyone would be discouraged from redoing the experiment - it sadly will be called a science. It would have nothing to do with honesty, truth and critical thinking, but it will sadly be called science...
You are right... It is scientific on paper. It defies and corrupts everything that science stands for, but if someone would be judged in court he could defend the case - that yes it is scientific on paper.
And every little evolutionist would call themselves scientist because they are only quoting the "scientific work" they had not lied themselves. Such a white washing resembles me of Nazi's that were just saying - I was only following orders... I didnt knew it was a fraud - I was only quoting orders.... I mean papers, without checking their vailidty. They wouldnt lie to me would they? Like nazis would say - they would not want any bad things would they?
If you are not disgusted by that...... What can I say.......
I am just discouraged heavily to even want to show you how many logical error you had made. It would take a loooooong time and would achieve nothing, because people in this forum might be ignorant, so you appealing to their ignorance might have worked. Sadly. Know one thing... Every dirty tricks and every lie is seen by the almighty..... You will be really shocked in the end.....
And yes sadly - that might be called scientific if one makes experiment until finally they get the right result - the most recent is being thought to be the truth, so people ignore the others. I know. You can fake the results of the last experiment - that is from 2008. And if everyone would be discouraged from redoing the experiment - it sadly will be called a science. It would have nothing to do with honesty, truth and critical thinking, but it will sadly be called science...
You are right... It is scientific on paper. It defies and corrupts everything that science stands for, but if someone would be judged in court he could defend the case - that yes it is scientific on paper.
And every little evolutionist would call themselves scientist because they are only quoting the "scientific work" they had not lied themselves. Such a white washing resembles me of Nazi's that were just saying - I was only following orders... I didnt knew it was a fraud - I was only quoting orders.... I mean papers, without checking their vailidty. They wouldnt lie to me would they? Like nazis would say - they would not want any bad things would they?
If you are not disgusted by that...... What can I say.......
Incoherent rambling. Invoking Godwin's Law is widely accepted to mean you have lost the argument.
I would ask for maybe the tenth time (I've lost count) for you to provide a single shred of evidence for your position, but I know that you have none. Unless you can provide some new evidence, rather than just rambling nonsensically about the Nazis, this argument is over.
But since this is the evolution thread, and since evolution is the thing that has to be proven, show us some proof that is distinctly proof for evolution, and isn't potential proof for anything else. Amino acid talk for evolution is just that, a whole bunch of malarky talk. There isn't any proof that a bunch of amino acids could ever form life all by themselves. Scientists barely come close to making amino acids into life with all their best efforts. So, how could it ever happen by accident?
But you haven't provided even one concretely factual piece of evidence for evolution. Not even one! Sll evolution evidence fits something else (like adaptation) better than it fits evolution.
So unlike Przemax, who tries and spectacularly fails to discredit the evidence, you choose just to completely ignore it even exists. I suppose that's almost a smarter way of approaching it, since you know your factless arguments will get utterly destroyed if you engage with the evidence.
Actually, it sounds like you are ignoring that evolution doesn't exist.
Evolution theory exists. All kinds of (mostly) contradictory ideas exist about evolution. But since there isn't any proof for evolution - nobody has ever seen something evolving that they can prove is evolution and not something else - everything that you hear or read about evolution is hearsay or the like.
Evolution is a hoax... or do you have some proof that you can show us?
One cannot prove that something does not exist. You cannot prove God does not exist.
All I can say is that you lie some of the time, and sometimes you misguide, and sometimes you change the subject, and sometimes you do not understand something.
Theory of evolution exist.... ok.... That only mean of their craftiness because they bring no fruits thereof. There are no fruits of evolution. And being fruitless means falseness.
Yeah I know what they say - it was proven in software LOL (that is the most laughable I cannot even grasp the level of depravaty of the person having such an argument), in drugs... Well drugs proves to be false many times as well based on false statistics, and based on DNA studies... But Dna studies does not require evolution to even exist. So its all false hot air. And that it is basis to some "sciences" with the evolution or evolutionary in it.
You know? One can make a studies based on world of warcraft you know? It could be made science if one would really want that. The science of economy of the world or warcraft based on the Micheal Jackson.
And one can even make the argument that the world of warcraft is true because people are playing it. Yeah... it is somewhat real... So what?
It have its uses because someone had made the research that the increase of mana of the character could increase the happiness of the player.
No... It is not me who fail to discredit. It was you failed to provide it and you called redoing the experiment when you showed just different experiments. You failed to stay on track and you manipulated the reader - of my credibility when it was you who was ought to be thought what is to redo the experiment.
It is you who fails to recognize what is science and what is experiment and what is the need of critical inquiry when it comes to science.
You told me you had the proves they had redone the experiments when the scientific experiment are ought to have the repeatability. You seem to don't know what that is.
You seem to be fine with the antiscientific premise that it is ok for an experiment to give the different result each time. It is not the same experiment if it gives the different results. If the results are somehow different one as a scientist should be extremely cautious why. And you just bash me for being cautious - when that is what scientific premise is all about - being critical and cautious.
It is you who fails to recognize what is science and what is experiment and what is the need of critical inquiry when it comes to science.
You told me you had the proves they had redone the experiments when the scientific experiment are ought to have the repeatability. You seem to don't know what that is.
You seem to be fine with the antiscientific premise that it is ok for an experiment to give the different result each time. It is not the same experiment if it gives the different results. If the results are somehow different one as a scientist should be extremely cautious why. And you just bash me for being cautious - when that is what scientific premise is all about - being critical and cautious.
Again, I assumed you understood that experiments that are repeated and redone are generally modified in some small ways to prove some new points. There is zero point exactly repeating an experiment that has already been proved. This is basic science 101. Again, my mistake for assuming you understood this.
My original points still stand, however. There are literally hundreds of experiments of different early Earth conditions, all producing amino acids. You have failed to discredit this in any way shape or form.
Not one of the experiments produces amino acids in the way necessary for life. In fact, while some of the experiments produce amino acids necessary for life, they destroy some of the other amino acids necessary for life, at the same time, in the process of their making. This shows that life couldn't come about by random amino acid formation. Or do you have proof by actually making life from a bunch of amino acids?
Why there are still monkeys around if they were part of our evolutionary beginnings ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz0gFarCfBE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz0gFarCfBE
Actually they're still monkeys because they could still survive their environment with the genetic mutation they still have. Much like the crocodile, it's design is from the basic dinosaur's but still they didn't become birds at all. Much like how we breed toy dogs but there are still wolves. The reason a species survives because they could still adapt to their environment. Evolution actually explains all these. I just hope we don't put creationism into this.
Actually, nothing became anything else. We don't have any proof for it... at least not in the way that evolutionists suggest.
When are you providing proof of creationism?
The start of the proof for creationism is showing the fact that evolution is a hoax. The rest of the proof is for a different topic.
It's really not and you never proved that evolution is a hoax. You are like notbatman, you think somehow evolution is a global conspiracy for some unknown reason.
Like the post above this one, the need for proof is in the finding of something. Since there is no proof for evolution, and since all the evidence can fit things other than evolution (adaption), so far...
Evolution is a hoax.
But you haven't provided even one concretely factual piece of evidence for evolution. Not even one! Sll evolution evidence fits something else (like adaptation) better than it fits evolution.
So unlike Przemax, who tries and spectacularly fails to discredit the evidence, you choose just to completely ignore it even exists. I suppose that's almost a smarter way of approaching it, since you know your factless arguments will get utterly destroyed if you engage with the evidence.
Actually, it sounds like you are ignoring that evolution doesn't exist.
Evolution theory exists. All kinds of (mostly) contradictory ideas exist about evolution. But since there isn't any proof for evolution - nobody has ever seen something evolving that they can prove is evolution and not something else - everything that you hear or read about evolution is hearsay or the like.
Evolution is a hoax... or do you have some proof that you can show us?
Jump to: