Topic: Evolution is a hoax - page 92. (Read 108046 times)

Shaposhnikov G.Ch. Evolution of some aphid groups in relation to evolution of Rosadeae. Moscow/Leningrad: Akademia Nauk SSSR, 1951.

Shaposhnikov G.Ch. Phylogenetic background of the system of the short tailed aphids (Anuraphidina) with reference to their host plants relationships. Moscow/Leningrad: Akademia Nauk SSSR, 1956.

Shaposhnikov G.Ch. The aphides (Aphidinea) infesting cherry plum and cherry. Entomologicheskoe Obozrenie 43, 1964.

Shaposhnikov G.Ch. Interrelations of living systems and natural selection. Zhurnal Obshchei Biologii 35, 1974.

Shaposhnikov G.Ch. Dynamics of clones, populations and species, and evolution. Zhurnal Obshchei Biologii 39, 1978.

Shaposhnikov G.Ch. Evolution of morphological structures in aphids (Homoptera, Aphidinea) and habits of the recent and Mesozoic representatives of the group. Entomologicheskoe Obozrenie 59, 1980.

Shaposhnikov G.Ch. The main features of the evolution of aphids. In: Evolution and Biosystematics of Aphids. Ossolineum, Wrocław, 1985.


So, let me get this straight. Your arguments against evolution are "A Russian scientist published papers in Russian and not in English", and "I'm going to ignore the results of a widely repeated and confirmed experiment because they don't fit with my narrative".

You have lost the argument. Just stop.

Wikipedia:

https://prnt.sc/ijhm5s

I have made a printsceen out of it.

What are yours sources? I will look them up.

If that extremely famous guy would have any work in english I would have read those... Sadly he is not so significant I guess.

I found about the "spark"

https://web.archive.org/web/20081017231050/http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/10/old_scientists_never_clean_out.php

They found after so many years a vials and I am suppose to believe that is a science and not vials was placed there to fit the missing amino acids..............

Are you taking people for idiots?

You are such a frauds all of you.................

Hahahaha, oh wow. Quoting Answer in Genesis. Argument over. You have lost.


Shaposhnikov published over 50 papers. Your inability to find and read academic papers is not an argument against evolution.

Source: https://answersingenesis.org/origin-of-life/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis/

I have no idea who was Goerge Shaposhnikov - neither do google. That is weak if he had proven the evolution right. He should be very famous. All I can find is some scammy article on wikipedia, but it is like the man had not existed outside of that article.

It actually created 25 different amino acids. All life as we know it uses only 20 amino acids.

Might want to learn the facts before screaming "WRONG".

In time, trace amounts of several of the simplest biologically useful amino acids were formed—mostly glycine and alanine.30 The yield of glycine was a mere 1.05%, of alanine only 0.75% and the next most common amino acid produced amounted to only 0.026% of the total—so small as to be largely insignificant. In Miller’s words, ‘The total yield was small for the energy expended.’31 The side group for glycine is a lone hydrogen and for alanine, a simple methyl (-CH3) group. After hundreds of replications and modifications using techniques similar to those employed in the original Miller-Urey experiments, scientists were able to produce only small amounts of less than half of the 20 amino acids required for life. The rest require much more complex synthesis conditions.

WRONG! Thats simply wrong. Yeah he created some aminoacids but not even half of them to make a simplest of all organism...

The Miller-Urey experiment, which showed the chemical origin of life occuring spontaneously in the conditions of an early Earth, was conducted in 1952.



So you are only about 70 years out-of-date with your baseless, factless ramblings.

In this particular segment of posts, we are talking about the fact that science has found that life can't exist. Since evolution has to do with life, evolution can't exist, simply because life can't exist.

Evolution, on the other hand, is a bunch of stories. If there happens to be some solid fact for evolution, we don't know it. All we really have in evolution theory is stories. We have not been able to create it in the lab.

I can't believe this is even a thread on this forum

Ring species show the process of speciation in action. In ring species, the species is distributed more or less in a line, such as around the base of a mountain range. Each population is able to breed with its neighboring population, but the populations at the two ends are not able to interbreed. (In a true ring species, those two end populations are adjacent to each other, completing the ring.) Examples of ring species are

Proven false but not finding anything that the theory claimed it should be abundant - like transitional fossils of for example human. Proven false by abiogenesis, and proven false by not observing what it claims - mainly the seperation of species.

I would guess they say millions of years. There are several problems with that.

1. You can speed up the process in the lab by thousands and thousands of times, by accelerating breeding, accelerating mutation and accelerating everything many many many times than it is in a nataural enviroment, by radioactive izotopes, changing the enviroment rapidly etc etc etc.
2. The process of evolution is constant - so it should occur everywhere from time to time. You say - it takes millions of years. Why cant you assume that the process had taken millions of years untill now minus one day. Why cant you assume that one of your ring specie is just enough ready for a one more step? Why cant you assume a million of years have passed minus one day? So you see? One time they say that a ring specie is a step in the evolution. And on the other hand they say it isn't. So is it or not? Your stupid theory all the times contradicts itself. That looks like playing a soccer for a time to pass and not seriously trying to score.
3. Just get one of your ring specie that breeds like mad, stuff it with radioactive isotopes if you are so sure about your outcome. Why not do that? Becuase its fake!


Im sorry but there is no excuse for a failure here.