Topic: Evolution is a hoax - page 93. (Read 108046 times)

The blockchain transaction cannot be speed up? Hahhaha pay a higher miners fee and you will have a faster transaction.... WTF MAN...

The blockchain in itself cannot be speed up. Ok... but we are not talking about speeding the evolution in its natural state as we are not talking about speeding up blockchain in its entirety. We are talking about generating more mutation by increasing the random chances of it to occur, by simply increasing the chances of its occurance and preserving the occurances of them, to be able to be stacked more easily, compared to a natural state of being.

Answer my 4 questions hotshot and then make claims mmmk?


Yes. Natural selection is not random. But there is no link in natural selection and appearance of life - as it would have to imply logically that natural selection had selected life to exist what is in itself absurd. So your trying to link natural selection in a sittuation where the natural selection is not even an option yet, what is a logical fallacy unable to be connected honestly.

You know... Anywhere in the known universe there is NO TRACE OF LIFE, except earth. That does not imply that the life there has not been selected properly. It does not imply either that life there was selected to terminate itself. You understand that right?

The natural selection part is not even viable because selecting between none and none is no selection at all.

I think evolution is a hoax because. As we observed their is a big differences between monkey and human. The monkey are still exist until now leaving in the trees. While humans are in the house replying this conversation.

No you can't.

Like the blockchain, your entire argument became invalid.

How? Just try a simple logic, or answer me why that does not work:

Expose the speciment to the DNA damaging effects - like UV light as your article says. Pick a small speciment - as your article says. Make it grow more rapidly than in normal enviroment without constrains. Because normally animals and plants have constraints. For example - if an organism breeds 10 times faster in a lab than it is in nature because of lack of food  the chances for mutation is 10 times faster to occur. It is just a simple probability as mutation - I assume is random based. And if mutation is random based just increase its chances to occur like expose it to UV light by 10 or 100 more than it would be exposed in a natural enviroment. That would increase the chances of mutation to occur by another 10. So that would be 100 times faster process in total 10x10=100. Im making an example with the numbers just for the argument sake. Naturally there the mutated species die more often so if you keep the sick speciments alive the chances of cumulated mutations are higher, than in the natural enviroment many times over.

So as you see - the ability to make mutation happen, compared to a natural enviroment is quite staggeringly more potent. If ... evolution is to be understood logically like everything else in the world.

Do not belittle me please. I was just using logic and argument of comparing the two enviroments - natural and artificial and how the latter could potentially make the sick organisms to stack more mutations, than in nature. Therefore speeding the "evolution", because the evolution as far as I understand is the "pack of mutations" that if an organism with it survive eventualy makes a new specie.

But it is better to belittle someone and call him ignorant because he uses logic. Well... It does not sound convincing. Does it?

If you would want to belittle me again, first anwer me this simple questions?

1. Why do you think that the simple logic - the more speciments the more chances for mutation to occur is wrong?
2. Why are we being scared about the mutagenic properties of certain chemicals, rays, and radiation when it does not world from an evolution point of view?
3. Why do you think that artificialy keeping alive mutated animals, would not increase the chances of mutation to occur in the general population?
4. If previous 3 questions are not answered - Why do you think therefore that a lab enviroment is not a quickening factor in speeding up the evolution by mutation?

I have many more questions but I would be satisfied with those.

Evolution is not a hoax at my opinion because world wasn't the same in past and people too. The easiest example is atmosphere pressure that always chaning im many places and people are not losing their head because can adopt.

Because horses eat grass and other plants...the ancient plants from which coal and oil were made underground...so that we have fuel for the cars.

Why are cars still around?

You are confusing the process of evolution with a comic book.



Let me know when you figure out how to accelerate the natural mutagenic rate "thousands and thousands" of times.


Despite hopes that the processes of molecular evolution would be simple, clock-like and essentially universal, variation in the rate of molecular evolution is manifest at all levels of biological organization. Furthermore, it has become clear that rate variation has a systematic component: rate of molecular evolution can vary consistently with species body size, population dynamics, lifestyle and location. This suggests that the rate of molecular evolution should be considered part of life-history variation between species, which must be taken into account when interpreting DNA sequence differences between lineages.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2679939/

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.

Hey, we have cars.  Why are horses still around?   

I strongly agree with your brilliant idea. If we really are from monkeys, then why other monkeys are not evolving to human? But there are also some evidences that would somehow show us that human structures yesterday are different from us today. But these are still not enough to prove that the theory of evolution is true.

An organism does not need to evolve if it has a safe environment and a stable food supply.

Near the bottom of the oceans, where nothing much changes, one celled organisms still exist from billions of years ago.  

well TS, in order to evolve, many aspects are considered and not all have to adapt in order to survive. those only who needs to change to be fit must change so theres also other species that dont need to evolve in order to survive

Nothing needs to be created.  Evolution proves that. 

If we follow the original post's logic. Then all of us would just be single celled organisms. We all started from one species if a single celled organism and lo and behold we still have single celled organisms. Evolution explains the relationship of an environment to the specific species living in it. A weaker species will die if they could not adapt. What happened to apes, monkeys and humans is that these three species branched out from it's ancestors but could still adapt to it's environment

Proven false by what? Do you know how long it takes for number 2 to occur?

Can your thoughts preexist the action? That is how God can preexist the world. Who created your thoughts? Does your thoughts need to be created? Not quite, sometimes they just happen. That is why God may just happen to be. Can you live all your life again just before you die? Yes in a one second pr even less. It is the experience just before death.

As you say - you had 8 year old. Your conception of time was childish. It still is .

Laws can exist by their own if their outcome is logically implied from randomness. Some of the laws of nature defies that premise.


That was a sarcasm......... But what ever man.

That's not a question.  There doesn't have to be a "maker".

I remember being around eight years old when I asked my mother who created her god.  She said he had always existed.  I understood right then if god didn't need to be created then nothing else did.



Science?  Unlike your messiah, ours sticks around and has repeatable and verifiable outcomes.