Evolution is a hoax

[Okurkabinladin]

You are getting trolled mainpmf.
It is a lose lose situation when you try to explain some 6000 year earth believers how evolution works.


Okurkabinladin: good example. You and ridery99 would make great muslims.
They too think mohammed split the moon and of course that evolution is a bigly conspiracy

Let me repeat it for you, "Criptix".

You and your science guys all over this thread arent addressing actual questions, you are merely offended by the fact, that somebody even has audicity to question Mr. Darwins theory. Darwin was anglican christian by the way.

Let that sink in for a moment.

[criptix]

You are getting trolled mainpmf.
It is a lose lose situation when you try to explain some 6000 year earth believers how evolution works.


Okurkabinladin: good example. You and ridery99 would make great muslims.
They too think mohammed split the moon and of course that evolution is a bigly conspiracy

Let me repeat it for you, "Criptix".

You and your science guys all over this thread arent addressing actual questions, you are merely offended by the fact, that somebody even has audicity to question Mr. Darwins theory. Darwin was anglican christian by the way.

Let that sink in for a moment.

I forgive you because you are barely a year here.

We've got all this already more then once here.
Do you think people not beliving in evolution but rather 6000 year earth is something new?
Oh boy... you are still a young padawan.

Let that sink for a moment.

Luls

[popcorn1]

Does anyone have any written records in the history and religious holy books about the estimated time of which Adam and Eve were living on earth?

Because recently they have found some remaining bones of a female human like creature going back 3.5M years ago.

I once heard that Adam and Eve's graves are on the same mountain temple where Jesus was supposedly murdered and they are 12 meters long their grave stone shows that and the sight is forbidden to visit by Israeli forces.

Some say we were living on earth even 200 million years ago.

I know one thing that we all share almost %99.7 identical DNA, all the living things share the same DNA with only a few genome different.

For all the religiou part I don't know what you're talking about.

But no all living things don't share the same DNA with only a few different genomes.
All living things have DNA and DNA is always made of the same 4 elements. But the number of possibilities is infinite and we don't share much of our DNA with a plant for example.

Go back to school  ..
We all come from a single point the big bang..

All living organisms store genetic information using the same molecules — DNA and RNA. Written in the genetic code of these molecules is compelling evidence of the shared ancestry of all living things..

Just stop with the BULLSHIT..

[darklus123]

That scientist who told about the that theory was so smart and in the end became crazy then develop is own vague theory(much worst for that scientist who has a fish theory). We are mammals and thats it but we are humans and didnt evolve from those other mammal from the mindset i think is a clear evidence

[mainpmf]

You and your science guys all over this thread arent addressing actual questions, you are merely offended by the fact, that somebody even has audicity to question Mr. Darwins theory. Darwin was anglican christian by the way.

I just did man!
And there is no problem with evolution and religion as long as you're not dumb enough to think that god created all species. You can believe that god created the world AND the evolution process.

And we're offended by the fact that you reject this scientifically proved theory without giving any argument :/

[Snail2]

It's not a good explanation because there's no evidence.

Soooooooo...
The numerous fossils we found retracing the evolution theory aren't any proof?
The Darwin theories actually supported by numerous experiments made both on animals and plants aren't evidence?

The fact that YOU can ACTUALLY SEE evolution within a few months simply with normal garden plants isn't a proof?

What do you expect as proofs? xD

Fossils are just as patchy and diverse records as the Bible . Actually even less coherent.

There are no experimental evidence for evolution. There are evidence for adaptation, but not for evolution. What you referenced isn't evolution but cross breading different variants of the same species, and no new genes will be developed.
Evolution is a long process to make a series of genetic changes, and quite difficult to prove. For some reason most scientists reluctant to spend a couple of million years with watching every day how the dotted fruit fly turns to striped fruit fly with two new legs (for better traction) during long lasting icy conditions .

[Daniel91]

You and your science guys all over this thread arent addressing actual questions, you are merely offended by the fact, that somebody even has audicity to question Mr. Darwins theory. Darwin was anglican christian by the way.

I just did man!
And there is no problem with evolution and religion as long as you're not dumb enough to think that god created all species. You can believe that god created the world AND the evolution process.

And we're offended by the fact that you reject this scientifically proved theory without giving any argument :/

I don't think that religion and science are in conflict.
After all, when you read first book in Bible, Genesis, you see perfectly scientific explanation about the beginning of universe and planet earth.
From day 1 to 7 God created sky, earth, water, land, animals...
How people 5000 or 6000 years ago could know such facts?
You can think that God couldn't create everything in just 6 days but do you really think that we are talking here about literal 6 days with 24 hours?
In other place in the bible, Peter said: Don't you know that for God one day is like 1000 years and 1000 years as one day?
So, if we change term 6 days with 6 periods of development of the universe, than God's creation and evolution have no difference.
Just, evolution can't answer question about the beginning of universe.
Religion can answer it. It's only difference between evolution and religion.

[Okurkabinladin]

You and your science guys all over this thread arent addressing actual questions, you are merely offended by the fact, that somebody even has audicity to question Mr. Darwins theory. Darwin was anglican christian by the way.

I just did man!
And there is no problem with evolution and religion as long as you're not dumb enough to think that god created all species. You can believe that god created the world AND the evolution process.

And we're offended by the fact that you reject this scientifically proved theory without giving any argument :/

I did not reject it, you would know, if youve read this thread before reacting. I do question it and the miserables around here, who cant even make difference between Flynn effect and Darwinian theory of evolution (thought out by christian, no less) proves me right. How many here actually did read his book? I did.

People here take evolution theory even with its numerous shortcomings as undisputable fact, when some of them even have problem describing the process.

Absolutely no one here, dared to explain how one species develops into two others, who cant interbreed even though they share same geographic area. No one. Legitimate question, sir.

What we got instead are insults and attacks in the style of: "Oh, if you dont take this theory of english protestant guy for granted, then you believe Earth is flat!"

What the fuck?

[mainpmf]

It's not a good explanation because there's no evidence.

Soooooooo...
The numerous fossils we found retracing the evolution theory aren't any proof?
The Darwin theories actually supported by numerous experiments made both on animals and plants aren't evidence?

The fact that YOU can ACTUALLY SEE evolution within a few months simply with normal garden plants isn't a proof?

What do you expect as proofs? xD

Fossils are just as patchy and diverse records as the Bible . Actually even less coherent.

There are no experimental evidence for evolution. There are evidence for adaptation, but not for evolution. What you referenced isn't evolution but cross breading different variants of the same species, and no new genes will be developed.
Evolution is a long process to make a series of genetic changes, and quite difficult to prove. For some reason most scientists reluctant to spend a couple of million years with watching every day how the dotted fruit fly turns to striped fruit fly with two new legs (for better traction) during long lasting icy conditions .

Sorry man but you don't need million years to see evolution, you need thousands of lifecycle. And for bacterias or small flies for example, thousands of life cycles are easy to process in a few weeks/months.

SO yeah, we can witness evolution in smaller organisms.

[mainpmf]

You and your science guys all over this thread arent addressing actual questions, you are merely offended by the fact, that somebody even has audicity to question Mr. Darwins theory. Darwin was anglican christian by the way.

I just did man!
And there is no problem with evolution and religion as long as you're not dumb enough to think that god created all species. You can believe that god created the world AND the evolution process.

And we're offended by the fact that you reject this scientifically proved theory without giving any argument :/

I did not reject it, you would know, if youve read this thread before reacting. I do question it and the miserables around here, who cant even make difference between Flynn effect and Darwinian theory of evolution (thought out by christian, no less) proves me right. How many here actually did read his book? I did.

People here take evolution theory even with its numerous shortcomings as undisputable fact, when some of them even have problem describing the process.

I actually took the time to answer you and to ask you precisions on your questions so stop with the bullshit sir.

Absolutely no one here, dared to explain how one species develops into two others, who cant interbreed even though they share same geographic area. No one. Legitimate question, sir.

I DID ASK YOU TO PRECISE YOUR QUESTION BECAUSE IT WAS NOT UNDERSTANDABLE!
So stop taking the high ground here. In this whole thread YOU are the ONLY ONE asking questions. The others are simply saying evolution is a hoax.

To answer your question:
1/ Do you have an example of such development? It would help to discuss on a precise example.
2/ Sharing the same geographic area doesn't mean sharing the same environment. For example in the same geographic area of center of France, you can have bears living in pine forest, bears living in classical forests, bears living alongside small rivers, bears living near the huge torrents, bears living in mountains... All those could lead to specific pressure points from the environment so different evolution paths.
3/ Even if you take a species living in the same place, like really the same coordinates so same environment and all, it makes sense to have 2 different evolution paths. Evolution doesn't mean selecting the best path possible, it means keeping the positive mutation and getting rid of the negative mutations.

Let's take an (imaginary because I don't have in mind an example of species which developped into 2 different species while sharing the same environment) example:
Our bears living in the classical forest of center of France.
You can have a mutation of one of them which will make their fur green. Easier to hide in the forest so positive effect mutation so this gene should be selected for evolution. But it will take time, it's not in a year that brown bears will be replaced by green bears. During this thousands of years process of a better mutation replacing the old one, you can perfectly have a second positive mutation developping. For example a mutation making bears smaller and smaller, thus easier to feed because requiring less energy.

Most of the time the 2 evolution paths will simply fuse into one small green bear ^^
But sometimes as the replacement takes time, you can have spontaneus mutations that will prevent cross breading. In our example, if the small bears are really smaller, they won't be able to bread with the big green bears.

This whole example is of course a bit silly but you get the idea, as replacement takes time, other evolution paths can developp and co exist with the others.

[Xester]

Why there are still monkeys around if they were part of our evolutionary beginnings ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz0gFarCfBE

Evolution is not a hoax. All living creatures on this planet started from a single cell organism which for millions of years have evolved and took many forms during the different phases. But possibly the only hoax there is the theory of Darwin that we came from apes. Of course even if the theory of evolution is true monkeys will be monkeys and man will be man since we do not came from monkeys.

[Okurkabinladin]

You and your science guys all over this thread arent addressing actual questions, you are merely offended by the fact, that somebody even has audicity to question Mr. Darwins theory. Darwin was anglican christian by the way.

I just did man!
And there is no problem with evolution and religion as long as you're not dumb enough to think that god created all species. You can believe that god created the world AND the evolution process.

And we're offended by the fact that you reject this scientifically proved theory without giving any argument :/

I did not reject it, you would know, if youve read this thread before reacting. I do question it and the miserables around here, who cant even make difference between Flynn effect and Darwinian theory of evolution (thought out by christian, no less) proves me right. How many here actually did read his book? I did.

People here take evolution theory even with its numerous shortcomings as undisputable fact, when some of them even have problem describing the process.

I actually took the time to answer you and to ask you precisions on your questions so stop with the bullshit sir.

Absolutely no one here, dared to explain how one species develops into two others, who cant interbreed even though they share same geographic area. No one. Legitimate question, sir.

I DID ASK YOU TO PRECISE YOUR QUESTION BECAUSE IT WAS NOT UNDERSTANDABLE!
So stop taking the high ground here. In this whole thread YOU are the ONLY ONE asking questions. The others are simply saying evolution is a hoax.

To answer your question:
1/ Do you have an example of such development? It would help to discuss on a precise example.
2/ Sharing the same geographic area doesn't mean sharing the same environment. For example in the same geographic area of center of France, you can have bears living in pine forest, bears living in classical forests, bears living alongside small rivers, bears living near the huge torrents, bears living in mountains... All those could lead to specific pressure points from the environment so different evolution paths.
3/ Even if you take a species living in the same place, like really the same coordinates so same environment and all, it makes sense to have 2 different evolution paths. Evolution doesn't mean selecting the best path possible, it means keeping the positive mutation and getting rid of the negative mutations.

Let's take an (imaginary because I don't have in mind an example of species which developped into 2 different species while sharing the same environment) example:
Our bears living in the classical forest of center of France.
You can have a mutation of one of them which will make their fur green. Easier to hide in the forest so positive effect mutation so this gene should be selected for evolution. But it will take time, it's not in a year that brown bears will be replaced by green bears. During this thousands of years process of a better mutation replacing the old one, you can perfectly have a second positive mutation developping. For example a mutation making bears smaller and smaller, thus easier to feed because requiring less energy.

Most of the time the 2 evolution paths will simply fuse into one small green bear ^^
But sometimes as the replacement takes time, you can have spontaneus mutations that will prevent cross breading. In our example, if the small bears are really smaller, they won't be able to bread with the big green bears.

This whole example is of course a bit silly but you get the idea, as replacement takes time, other evolution paths can developp and co exist with the others.

First let me say - thank you. I was getting sceptical that this thread will turn into another shouting match, you proved me wrong.

To elaborate. you mentioned  thousand years of adaptation (perhaps accelerated through bottleneck aka founder effect), however this all still needs atleast one thing for it to work - isolation of selected population. If both adapting groups stay in contact, they will either develop together or stagnate.

This is something we can actually observe in human population. Ie. blond hair and light eyes being recessive trait, so they would only get widespread through founder effect. But this is where this shit gets confusing - you can still take Scandinavian interbreed him with an African and thus the offspring will lose recessive traits of his ancestor. Thus this still only side effect of adaptation, both are still members of single species.

If evolution is true, at what point would both groups separate into different species? Youve got all the ingredients, enviromental pressure, founder effect and thousands (perhaps tens of thousands) of years of separate development. But all we got is still merely adaptation with interbreeding fully viable, not an actual evolution resulting in new species.

If you look at it critically and see say chimps as our distant cousins, who have developed IN THE SAME AREA as we did, it simply stops working.

Therefore, I cannot discount possiblity of convergent theory (aka genetics boosted by intelligent design). There is a) Zero reason why would nature alone select brain enlargement in human beings (in nature, larger brain mass is actually not an advantage given how energy demanding brain tissue is) b) Very few arguments, while we and other great apes would completely disengage from each other. Remember, there was contact all the time in eastern Africa (unless, you are partial to regional theory of development) stumping mutations, that would significantly differentiate the two.

[gabmen]

Why there are still monkeys around if they were part of our evolutionary beginnings ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz0gFarCfBE

Evolution is not a hoax. All living creatures on this planet started from a single cell organism which for millions of years have evolved and took many forms during the different phases. But possibly the only hoax there is the theory of Darwin that we came from apes. Of course even if the theory of evolution is true monkeys will be monkeys and man will be man since we do not came from monkeys.

well its quite believable that we actually came from apes. not all specie evolved the same way and probably we came from a certain ape specie that is not here anymore because of us. evolution has proofs compared to other theories of how we came to be so for me its more believable

[mainpmf]

First let me say - thank you. I was getting sceptical that this thread will turn into another shouting match, you proved me wrong.

To elaborate. you mentioned  thousand years of adaptation (perhaps accelerated through bottleneck aka founder effect), however this all still needs atleast one thing for it to work - isolation of selected population. If both adapting groups stay in contact, they will either develop together or stagnate.

This is something we can actually observe in human population. Ie. blond hair and light eyes being recessive trait, so they would only get widespread through founder effect. But this is where this shit gets confusing - you can still take Scandinavian interbreed him with an African and thus the offspring will lose recessive traits of his ancestor. Thus this still only side effect of adaptation, both are still members of single species.

If evolution is true, at what point would both groups separate into different species? Youve got all the ingredients, enviromental pressure, founder effect and thousands (perhaps tens of thousands) of years of separate development. But all we got is still merely adaptation with interbreeding fully viable, not an actual evolution resulting in new species.

Oh ok I see your point. Well the answer is rather simple: while your interbreeding is viable, one of the two evolutionnary paths will developp a mutation that will no longer be compatible with the other evolutionnary path.

In fact I don't really understand what's bothering you. If you have 2 evolutionnary paths viable, you will reach a point from which the 2 paths will be too far from one another to be able to breed. That's neither surprising or new or shocking.

If you look at it critically and see say chimps as our distant cousins, who have developed IN THE SAME AREA as we did, it simply stops working.

Sorry but here is your mistake. Chimps and us come from the same great great great etc ancestor. Those ancestors developped in two different direction: one using hands and endurance (us) and one using agility and velocity of movement (them). Those two paths are simply not compatible because you can't have both agility and endurance, those are not compatible so why is it surprising that we got 2 separated paths?

Therefore, I cannot discount possiblity of convergent theory (aka genetics boosted by intelligent design). There is a) Zero reason why would nature alone select brain enlargement in human beings (in nature, larger brain mass is actually not an advantage given how energy demanding brain tissue is) b) Very few arguments, while we and other great apes would completely disengage from each other. Remember, there was contact all the time in eastern Africa (unless, you are partial to regional theory of development) stumping mutations, that would significantly differentiate the two.

a) wrong, nature alone selected brain enlargement as it gave a huge advantage: the abbility to resolve more complex problems and adapt to changes. You'll ask me then why isn't this brain enlargement something that is spread in nature? Well as far as I know it's only because we were the ones needing it. Few creatures are actually changing of environment in their life and all those that change of environment (migration for example) do it in a cyclic way and always have the same paths. Humans had to change their location in order to survive and without having a cycle to conform to. That means they had to adapt to new environments constantly. That's where brain enlargement is an advantage.

b) This is a more interesting question. The answer lies in neutral mutation.

Ok we've already done a lots of work here and I understand a bit better your problems. I suggest you read this excellent article: http://theconversation.com/when-humans-split-from-the-apes-55104
It will answer in a very simple way to most of your interrogations.

[ridery99]

a) wrong, nature alone selected brain enlargement as it gave a huge advantage

Nature can't select anything because it doesn't have ability to make decisions. It does't have brains or consciousness.

[mainpmf]

a) wrong, nature alone selected brain enlargement as it gave a huge advantage

Nature can't select anything because it doesn't have ability to make decisions. It does't have brains or consciousness.

Wahou great thanks for this precision.
Can we agree on the fact that "decision" is here abused as to refer to the natural selection process?

[BADecker]

a) wrong, nature alone selected brain enlargement as it gave a huge advantage

Nature can't select anything because it doesn't have ability to make decisions. It does't have brains or consciousness.

Wahou great thanks for this precision.
Can we agree on the fact that "decision" is here abused as to refer to the natural selection process?

Can we agree on the fact that "natural selection" is abused in all evolution talk, because nature doesn't have a brain  and consciousness?

[popcorn1]

To much bible bashing closes your brains from actually thinking..
God is doing it for you..I.E your manual..

Evolution is real 100% ..So please stop only religious freaks would ever claim evolution is a hoax ..

I will prove evolution is real..

We all come from a single point I.E the big bang so we are all made of the same stuff..

why does a deer look like an antelope

water hog look like a rat without a tail

Human looks like a gorilla especially if your from north Africa  
where all humans first started AFRICA..

We humans all started our lives in Africa..

So if you ever hear the bongos and you start tapping your feet your going back to your roots..AFRICA..


More proof of evolution ..

Evolution sped up even though you think it's not it is..

Sperm cell turns into a human
a egg turns into a bird
a caterpillar turns into a butterfly ..All evolution at work but SPED UP..And it is evolution..

Evolution in Action - YouTube
Video for evolution in action▶ 3:45
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIGXLNYV9kc


Frogs is the best documentary movies you will see..

They freeze up they get you stoned they poison you     Frogs are so amazing ..

But you change because of the weather or the need to eat or the need to not be eaten
all will make you change if needed to make you live..

Life is strong but deadly..Look around the ones that have survived the longest are the predators..


Strangest Weather on Earth: Frogs Frozen Solid - YouTube
Video for Strangest Weather on Earth: Frogs Frozen Solid▶ 1:06
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSvspDZOVV0

FROGS have smooth, moist skin and long, stripy legs and are likely to be found in damp habitats in the garden. TOADS have warty skin, golden eyes and prefer to crawl rather than hop; if threatened a toad can puff itself up to appear bigger. Toads can tolerate drier habitats than frogs and spend less time in water.

ape human   frog toad  ..Can a frog understand what a toad says?.Same with a human and a ape..

Same specie^..Like a deer and a antelope ..

Just look at all the animals you can see what animals look like each other..

Human embryos have a tail that measures about one-sixth of the size of the embryo itself. As the embryo develops into a fetus, the tail is absorbed by the growing body.

So the possible evolution change ^^ you have a tail before you turn into a human..

Evolution is REAL i rest my case..

case over and out i win ..NEXT CASE.. ..And before i leave the court DARWIN IS THE DADDY..

[BADecker]

To much bible bashing closes your brains from actually thinking..
God is doing it for you..I.E your manual..

Evolution is real 100% ..So please stop only religious freaks would ever claim evolution is a hoax ..

I will prove evolution is real..

We all come from a single point I.E the big bang so we are all made of the same stuff..

why does a deer look like an antelope

water hog look like a rat without a tail

Human looks like a gorilla especially if your from north Africa  
where all humans first started AFRICA..

We humans all started our lives in Africa..

So if you ever hear the bongos and you start tapping your feet your going back to your roots..AFRICA..


More proof of evolution ..

Evolution sped up even though you think it's not it is..

Sperm cell turns into a human
a egg turns into a bird
a caterpillar turns into a butterfly ..All evolution at work but SPED UP..And it is evolution..

Evolution in Action - YouTube
Video for evolution in action▶ 3:45
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIGXLNYV9kc


Frogs is the best documentary movies you will see..

They freeze up they get you stoned they poison you     Frogs are so amazing ..

But you change because of the weather or the need to eat or the need to not be eaten
all will make you change if needed to make you live..

Life is strong but deadly..Look around the ones that have survived the longest are the predators..


Strangest Weather on Earth: Frogs Frozen Solid - YouTube
Video for Strangest Weather on Earth: Frogs Frozen Solid▶ 1:06
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSvspDZOVV0

FROGS have smooth, moist skin and long, stripy legs and are likely to be found in damp habitats in the garden. TOADS have warty skin, golden eyes and prefer to crawl rather than hop; if threatened a toad can puff itself up to appear bigger. Toads can tolerate drier habitats than frogs and spend less time in water.

ape human   frog toad  ..Can a frog understand what a toad says?.Same with a human and a ape..

Same specie^..Like a deer and a antelope ..

Just look at all the animals you can see what animals look like each other..

Human embryos have a tail that measures about one-sixth of the size of the embryo itself. As the embryo develops into a fetus, the tail is absorbed by the growing body.

So the possible evolution change ^^ you have a tail before you turn into a human..

Evolution is REAL i rest my case..

case over and out i win ..NEXT CASE.. ..And before i leave the court DARWIN IS THE DADDY..

All the things you talk about here are nice additions to the evolution fiction. But there isn't any basic evidence supporting evolution at all, that can't be ascribed to creation even better. And there are many reasons why evolution is impossible. Three of them are, again:
1. probability math;
2. Irreducible Complexity;
3. no missing links in the fossils.

There are many more.

[Daniel91]

You and your science guys all over this thread arent addressing actual questions, you are merely offended by the fact, that somebody even has audicity to question Mr. Darwins theory. Darwin was anglican christian by the way.

I just did man!
And there is no problem with evolution and religion as long as you're not dumb enough to think that god created all species. You can believe that god created the world AND the evolution process.

And we're offended by the fact that you reject this scientifically proved theory without giving any argument :/

I don't think that religion and science are in conflict.
After all, when you read first book in Bible, Genesis, you see perfectly scientific explanation about the beginning of universe and planet earth.
From day 1 to 7 God created sky, earth, water, land, animals...
How people 5000 or 6000 years ago could know such facts?
You can think that God couldn't create everything in just 6 days but do you really think that we are talking here about literal 6 days with 24 hours?
In other place in the bible, Peter said: Don't you know that for God one day is like 1000 years and 1000 years as one day?
So, if we change term 6 days with 6 periods of development of the universe, than God's creation and evolution have no difference.
Just, evolution can't answer question about the beginning of universe.
Religion can answer it. It's only difference between evolution and religion.

You are right.  Religion provides answers.  Science discovers and validates answers.

Do you really think that you can discover another, spiritual dimension of existence, spiritual world, with classic scientific tools?
No way.
Spiritual reality we can see only with our spiritual senses, not physical.
Before creation of the Universe, time and space didn't exist.
Physical world and physical laws didn't exist.
So, it's obvious that science can't answer, or discovers and validates theories about creation of the universe.
Only religion can do it.
Science can research only visible universe, after creation.