Evolution is a hoax

[tapercha]

Evolutionists often express irritation when Piltdown Man and other fakes are raised by their opponents.  A common attempt to put a ‘positive spin’ on the whole affair is to portray it as a ‘plus’ for science, demonstrating its allegedly ‘self-correcting nature’.  After all, we are told, it was evolutionary scientists themselves who discovered the fraud. 

[1714172748]

1714172748

[1714172748]

1714172748

[1714172748]

1714172748

[o_e_l_e_o]

Ok I believe you... 50 years later they made 25 amino acids. I have only your words.... I believe your words... Because you are so awesome..... Please. Give me the proof....

Once again:

Parker ET, et al. Primordial synthesis of amines and amino acids in a 1958 Miller H2S-rich spark discharge experiment. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108(14), 2011.

And you have failed to show me the paper in which it is proven to isolate the specie. So just do of one of those things.

Also, once again:

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

You keep shouing for evidence, I keep providing it, and you keep ignoring it. I would like to, for the fourth time, invite you to provide any evidence whatsoever that your back up your claims.

[Przemax]

Parker ET, et al. Primordial synthesis of amines and amino acids in a 1958 Miller H2S-rich spark discharge experiment. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108(14), 2011.

LEARN HOW TO READ! It is written there - they use the vials that the Miller produced.... Its embarassing.

Also, once again:

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on Today at 01:26:08 PM
Shaposhnikov G.Ch. Evolution of some aphid groups in relation to evolution of Rosadeae. Moscow/Leningrad: Akademia Nauk SSSR, 1951.

Not again... You had gave me more than 10 papers. I wanted you to pick one. Have you read it yourself? It is a rare material that is not on the internet. You cant assume you won because you had gave me something to read, that I have no access to.

You keep shouing for evidence, I keep providing it, and you keep ignoring it. I would like to, for the fourth time, invite you to provide any evidence whatsoever that your back up your claims.

It is an evolution is a hoax topic. You see? We are talking about evolution and not what I think.

[Fenakar]

Scientists don't debate evolution because there isn't really anything to debate, it's a facts from several different sciences leading to an obvious conclusion

[o_e_l_e_o]

LEARN HOW TO READ! It is written there - they use the vials that the Miller produced.... Its embarassing.

Cleaves HJ, Chalmers JH, Lazcano A, Miller SL, Bada JL. A Reassessment of Prebiotic Organic Synthesis in Neutral Planetary Atmospheres. Orig Life Evol Biosph 38, 2008.

A paper from 2008 where they started from scratch. Same results.

Not again... You had gave me more than 10 papers. I wanted you to pick one. I will go and read it. Have you read it yourself? It is a rare material that is not on the internet. You cant assume you won because you had gave me something to read, that I have no access to.

If you can't access that paper, I would refer you to this handy list of approximately 50 more examples of new species being created in a lab.



I would also repeat this:

Your inability to find and read academic papers is not an argument against evolution.

It is an evolution is a hoax topic. You see? We are talking about evolution and not what I think.

You are putting forward baseless opinions. I have asked you, now 5 times, for a single shred of evidence to support your opinions, and you have provided nothing.

I assumed you had a basic knowledge of how science works and how debating works, that you are expected to back up your claims and not just make wild accusations. I realise now I was wrong. My mistake. I am getting bored of leading you by the hand through an elementary education in both the scientific process and evolution. You seem content being wilfully ignorant, and seem eager to stay that way.

[Przemax]

Cleaves HJ, Chalmers JH, Lazcano A, Miller SL, Bada JL. A Reassessment of Prebiotic Organic Synthesis in Neutral Planetary Atmospheres. Orig Life Evol Biosph 38, 2008.

A paper from 2008 where they started from scratch. Same results.

Abstract
The action of an electric discharge on reduced gas mixtures such as H(2)O, CH(4) and NH(3) (or N(2)) results in the production of several biologically important organic compounds including amino acids. However, it is now generally held that the early Earth's atmosphere was likely not reducing, but was dominated by N(2) and CO(2). The synthesis of organic compounds by the action of electric discharges on neutral gas mixtures has been shown to be much less efficient. We show here that contrary to previous reports, significant amounts of amino acids are produced from neutral gas mixtures. The low yields previously reported appear to be the outcome of oxidation of the organic compounds during hydrolytic workup by nitrite and nitrate produced in the reactions. The yield of amino acids is greatly increased when oxidation inhibitors, such as ferrous iron, are added prior to hydrolysis. Organic synthesis from neutral atmospheres may have depended on the oceanic availability of oxidation inhibitors as well as on the nature of the primitive atmosphere itself. The results reported here suggest that endogenous synthesis from neutral atmospheres may be more important than previously thought.

Have I missed something or they had not mentioned how many variety of amino acids they produce? I might have not found it - but show me... quote it ctr c and ctr v and give link.

Oh look what I have found: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-Reassessment-of-Prebiotic-Organic-Synthesis-in-N-Cleaves-Chalmers/089877438f38da992b56ea97e04da18365adb134

Look at their graph. Graph Figure 2. You see? Only 5 amino acids plus others meaning some other 3. So thats max 8 but probably the last 3 are not used for life. The table 2 enumerates the amino acids to a total 8 of them.

Same results? Indeed... Not even close to 20 amino acids.

If you can't access that paper, I would refer you to this handy list of approximately 50 more examples of new species being created in a lab.

Ok I will... Thank you.

I would also repeat this:

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on Today at 12:55:16 PM
Your inability to find and read academic papers is not an argument against evolution.

I never claimed it had. Do I?

You are putting forward baseless opinions. I have asked you, now 5 times, for a single shred of evidence to support your opinions, and you have provided nothing.

The topic is evolution is a hoax - you have stand in the apologetic terms. So I ask for evidence on the defence that it is not a hoax. How can you say thats offtopic??

I assumed you had a basic knowledge of how science works and how debating works, that you are expected to back up your claims and not just make wild accusations.

You act like a typical evolutionist. If he is nervous he is making ad hominem attacks. You have not presented the evidence of your claims of initial experiment producing 25 amino acids and neither presenting the claims that 2008 research is valid because the experiment havnt been redone, and you failed to present verbating word to word statement from your papers that assures the reader that the experiment they have made done what you say they did - making 24 amino acids.

Its just that........

I realise now I was wrong. My mistake. I am getting bored of leading you by the hand through an elementary education in both the scientific process and evolution. You seem content being wilfully ignorant, and seem eager to stay that way.

Yes I am content that the research you have pointed me to leads to the conclusions of making only 8 amino acids at best.

[o_e_l_e_o]

It is always the same with creationists. "Show me the transitional fossils!" Here they are. "Aha, but where are the transitional fossils between the transitional fossils you just showed me? Now there are two gaps instead of just one!"

First you said, "he created some aminoacids but not even half of them to make a simplest of all organism". I proved that wrong.

Then you said, "Why not repeat the experiments". I proved that they did.

Then, for reasons entirely unclear to anyone except yourself, it had to be an experiment from 2008. I proved that one as well.

Now it's a problem with the type of amino acids created? Utterly hilarious.

Given barn door evidence that the building blocks of life formed in the early earth environment, you react by imposing arbitrary new constraints on the evidence that you will accept. Here's the issue though: No amount of evidence will ever be good enough for you. You don't understand science or the scientific process. You don't accept logic and reason. Therefore, there is nothing I can say and no evidence I can present that will change your mind.

The very fact that you use the word "evolutionist" as an insult is a perfect metaphor for this entire argument. An evolutionist is simply someone who understands science and accepts facts. Something you clearly are not.

[Astargath]

It is always the same with creationists. "Show me the transitional fossils!" Here they are. "Aha, but where are the transitional fossils between the transitional fossils you just showed me? Now there are two gaps instead of just one!"

First you said, "he created some aminoacids but not even half of them to make a simplest of all organism". I proved that wrong.

Then you said, "Why not repeat the experiments". I proved that they did.

Then, for reasons entirely unclear to anyone except yourself, it had to be an experiment from 2008. I proved that one as well.

Now it's a problem with the type of amino acids created? Utterly hilarious.

Given barn door evidence that the building blocks of life formed in the early earth environment, you react by imposing arbitrary new constraints on the evidence that you will accept. Here's the issue though: No amount of evidence will ever be good enough for you. You don't understand science or the scientific process. You don't accept logic and reason. Therefore, there is nothing I can say and no evidence I can present that will change your mind.

The very fact that you use the word "evolutionist" as an insult is a perfect metaphor for this entire argument. An evolutionist is simply someone who understands science and accepts facts. Something you clearly are not.

I appreciate your effort but it is indeed close to impossible to convince a creationist. The only few times him and badecker came up with some examples why evolution is impossible were:

''Evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics'' Which is simply wrong
''The mathematical impossibility of evolution'' Which was also just wrong
Also 99% of their links are from a few religious websites. They also never provide a single piece of evidence that supports creationism other than hur durr god did it.

[Przemax]

It is always the same with creationists. "Show me the transitional fossils!" Here they are. "Aha, but where are the transitional fossils between the transitional fossils you just showed me? Now there are two gaps instead of just one!"

First you said, "he created some aminoacids but not even half of them to make a simplest of all organism". I proved that wrong.

Then you said, "Why not repeat the experiments". I proved that they did.

Then, for reasons entirely unclear to anyone except yourself, it had to be an experiment from 2008. I proved that one as well.

Now it's a problem with the type of amino acids created? Utterly hilarious.

Given barn door evidence that the building blocks of life formed in the early earth environment, you react by imposing arbitrary new constraints on the evidence that you will accept. Here's the issue though: No amount of evidence will ever be good enough for you. You don't understand science or the scientific process. You don't accept logic and reason. Therefore, there is nothing I can say and no evidence I can present that will change your mind.

The very fact that you use the word "evolutionist" as an insult is a perfect metaphor for this entire argument. An evolutionist is simply someone who understands science and accepts facts. Something you clearly are not.

I have proven your research that you had gave produced only 8 amino acids in the year of 2008  . The other research produced 25 amino acids in 2008. Yet you claim it is the same experiment just redone. If you do not find that problematic I dont know what is wrong with your intelligence or honesty.

8 is not 25. How stupid one should be not to see that? Yet you see that is not a problem. That is beyond me. I rest my case. Good luck with your "research". Bye. I cannot reason with people challenged mathematicly and logically.

You don't understand science or the scientific process. You don't accept logic and reason.

Said a person seeing no problem in calling 8 being 25......... Awesome bro.

Utterly hilarious.

Indeed my dear science monger... Indeed. Utterly hilarious.

Good luck in your scientific explorations . You will need it. You will need it a lot.

[Astargath]

It is always the same with creationists. "Show me the transitional fossils!" Here they are. "Aha, but where are the transitional fossils between the transitional fossils you just showed me? Now there are two gaps instead of just one!"

First you said, "he created some aminoacids but not even half of them to make a simplest of all organism". I proved that wrong.

Then you said, "Why not repeat the experiments". I proved that they did.

Then, for reasons entirely unclear to anyone except yourself, it had to be an experiment from 2008. I proved that one as well.

Now it's a problem with the type of amino acids created? Utterly hilarious.

Given barn door evidence that the building blocks of life formed in the early earth environment, you react by imposing arbitrary new constraints on the evidence that you will accept. Here's the issue though: No amount of evidence will ever be good enough for you. You don't understand science or the scientific process. You don't accept logic and reason. Therefore, there is nothing I can say and no evidence I can present that will change your mind.

The very fact that you use the word "evolutionist" as an insult is a perfect metaphor for this entire argument. An evolutionist is simply someone who understands science and accepts facts. Something you clearly are not.

I have proven your own research you had gave produced only 8 amino acids in the year of 2008  . The other research produced 25 amino acids in 2008. Yet you claim it is the same experiment just redone. If you do not find that problematic I dont know what is wrong with your intelligence or honesty.

8 is not 25. How stupid one should be not to see that? Yet you see that is not a problem. That is beyond me. I rest my case. Good luck with your "research". Bye. I cannot reason with people challenged mathematicly and logically.

You don't understand science or the scientific process. You don't accept logic and reason.

Said a person seeing no problem in calling 8 being 25......... Awesome bro.

Utterly hilarious.

Indeed my dear science monger... Indeed. Utterly hilarious.

Good luck in your scientific explorations . You will need it. You will need it a lot.

When are you providing proof of creationism?

[Przemax]

It is always the same with creationists. "Show me the transitional fossils!" Here they are. "Aha, but where are the transitional fossils between the transitional fossils you just showed me? Now there are two gaps instead of just one!"

First you said, "he created some aminoacids but not even half of them to make a simplest of all organism". I proved that wrong.

Then you said, "Why not repeat the experiments". I proved that they did.

Then, for reasons entirely unclear to anyone except yourself, it had to be an experiment from 2008. I proved that one as well.

Now it's a problem with the type of amino acids created? Utterly hilarious.

Given barn door evidence that the building blocks of life formed in the early earth environment, you react by imposing arbitrary new constraints on the evidence that you will accept. Here's the issue though: No amount of evidence will ever be good enough for you. You don't understand science or the scientific process. You don't accept logic and reason. Therefore, there is nothing I can say and no evidence I can present that will change your mind.

The very fact that you use the word "evolutionist" as an insult is a perfect metaphor for this entire argument. An evolutionist is simply someone who understands science and accepts facts. Something you clearly are not.

I have proven your own research you had gave produced only 8 amino acids in the year of 2008  . The other research produced 25 amino acids in 2008. Yet you claim it is the same experiment just redone. If you do not find that problematic I dont know what is wrong with your intelligence or honesty.

8 is not 25. How stupid one should be not to see that? Yet you see that is not a problem. That is beyond me. I rest my case. Good luck with your "research". Bye. I cannot reason with people challenged mathematicly and logically.

You don't understand science or the scientific process. You don't accept logic and reason.

Said a person seeing no problem in calling 8 being 25......... Awesome bro.

Utterly hilarious.

Indeed my dear science monger... Indeed. Utterly hilarious.

Good luck in your scientific explorations . You will need it. You will need it a lot.

When are you providing proof of creationism?

It takes a little more time because we cannot just make stuff up. For us 25 is 25 and not from 0 to 100.

It takes courage and wisdom to say - I don't know. Do you have guts to say that?

[o_e_l_e_o]

I have proven your research that you had gave produced only 8 amino acids in the year of 2008  . The other research produced 25 amino acids in 2008. Yet you claim it is the same experiment just redone. If you do not find that problematic I dont know what is wrong with your intelligence or honesty.

8 is not 25. How stupid one should be not to see that? Yet you see that is not a problem. That is beyond me. I rest my case. Good luck with your "research". Bye. I cannot reason with people challenged mathematicly and logically.

That's your issue? That despite me linking 10 papers (and there being hundreds more available) that show amino acids being produced in early earth conditions, one study made 8 and another made 25? You REALLY don't understand science, do you?

Anyway, here's a paper that shows the production of 33 amino acids:

Miller SL. The atmosphere of the primitive Earth and the prebiotic synthesis of amino acids. Origins of Life 5, 1974.

Can't wait to hear what you decide is wrong with this one.

[botija]

There has been no definite evidence to prove these theories at all. Shouldn't all monkeys have evolved to being man by now.

Is this a serious question?

[Przemax]

I have proven your research that you had gave produced only 8 amino acids in the year of 2008  . The other research produced 25 amino acids in 2008. Yet you claim it is the same experiment just redone. If you do not find that problematic I dont know what is wrong with your intelligence or honesty.

8 is not 25. How stupid one should be not to see that? Yet you see that is not a problem. That is beyond me. I rest my case. Good luck with your "research". Bye. I cannot reason with people challenged mathematicly and logically.

That's your issue? That despite me linking 10 papers (and there being hundreds more available) that show amino acids being produced in early earth conditions, one study made 8 and another made 25? You REALLY don't understand science, do you?

Anyway, here's a paper that shows the production of 33 amino acids:

Miller SL. The atmosphere of the primitive Earth and the prebiotic synthesis of amino acids. Origins of Life 5, 1974.

Can't wait to hear what you decide is wrong with this one.

You should start with that. I have no idea what is wrong with this one. It could be as well right. They changed the parameters and they added CH4 and NH3, N2 and hydrogen, as far as I am aware and maybe something else as well... Maybe that had make things the way it went. For the moment I have no idea if that is an ok things to add to the atmosphere. I was just commenting on the original Miller-Uriel experiment. It is not the original one ok?

My doubts were definatly not unreasonable because previous experiments and most of them have not been qualified to make enough amino acids. And 2008 one is fishy. This 1974 seems legit.... I don't have any idea... Maybe it is because of some additional assumptions.

Additionally - it is not a redo of a Miller-Uriel experiment because they alterated it. So I was not wrong and Im not qualified to say if this experiment you made is done properly. Neither do you I presume.

Its still fishy but at least some scientists have put their names and careere to risk in that 1974 study.

[Astargath]

It is always the same with creationists. "Show me the transitional fossils!" Here they are. "Aha, but where are the transitional fossils between the transitional fossils you just showed me? Now there are two gaps instead of just one!"

First you said, "he created some aminoacids but not even half of them to make a simplest of all organism". I proved that wrong.

Then you said, "Why not repeat the experiments". I proved that they did.

Then, for reasons entirely unclear to anyone except yourself, it had to be an experiment from 2008. I proved that one as well.

Now it's a problem with the type of amino acids created? Utterly hilarious.

Given barn door evidence that the building blocks of life formed in the early earth environment, you react by imposing arbitrary new constraints on the evidence that you will accept. Here's the issue though: No amount of evidence will ever be good enough for you. You don't understand science or the scientific process. You don't accept logic and reason. Therefore, there is nothing I can say and no evidence I can present that will change your mind.

The very fact that you use the word "evolutionist" as an insult is a perfect metaphor for this entire argument. An evolutionist is simply someone who understands science and accepts facts. Something you clearly are not.

I have proven your own research you had gave produced only 8 amino acids in the year of 2008  . The other research produced 25 amino acids in 2008. Yet you claim it is the same experiment just redone. If you do not find that problematic I dont know what is wrong with your intelligence or honesty.

8 is not 25. How stupid one should be not to see that? Yet you see that is not a problem. That is beyond me. I rest my case. Good luck with your "research". Bye. I cannot reason with people challenged mathematicly and logically.

You don't understand science or the scientific process. You don't accept logic and reason.

Said a person seeing no problem in calling 8 being 25......... Awesome bro.

Utterly hilarious.

Indeed my dear science monger... Indeed. Utterly hilarious.

Good luck in your scientific explorations . You will need it. You will need it a lot.

When are you providing proof of creationism?

It takes a little more time because we cannot just make stuff up. For us 25 is 25 and not from 0 to 100.

It takes courage and wisdom to say - I don't know. Do you have guts to say that?

Yeah but, you still haven't provided a single piece of evidence yet. That's the problem with people like you, extremely skeptical about evolution but you believe a supernatural being created everything in 7 days, what a world we live in.

[Przemax]

I think I know what might be wrong with the 1974 experiment - It might involve meteorite as it is mentioned in the abstract.

So yeah if you throw a piece of rock that you imagine what it might have - you eventually imagine the result.

The level of aggresiveness on the level of evolutionist part is staggering. Could you guys chill out? It is really unpleasant to read that unjust things about me. You are really agressive.

[o_e_l_e_o]

I think I know what might be wrong with the 1974 experiment - It might involve meteorite as it is mentioned in the abstract.

So yeah if you throw a piece of rock that you imagine what it might have - you eventually imagine the result.

The reference to the meteorite was to explain that the amino acids created by the experiment were also found on samples taken from the meteorite, suggesting the process of spontaneous amino acid formation is not localised to Earth. The meteorite was in no way involved in the experiment.

You don't even understand the papers you are attempting to discredit.

[BADecker]

It takes a little more time because we cannot just make stuff up. For us 25 is 25 and not from 0 to 100.

It takes courage and wisdom to say - I don't know. Do you have guts to say that?

Yeah but, you still haven't provided a single piece of evidence yet. That's the problem with people like you, extremely skeptical about evolution but you believe a supernatural being created everything in 7 days, what a world we live in.

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.

Go make up another story. We're getting tired of this one. Why? 'Cause evolution is a hoax, just like any other story you make up.

[BADecker]

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.

[BADecker]

And I have already debunked your argument, it's right here, in this quote. ''In this particular segment of posts, we are talking about the fact that science has found that life can't exist.'' This specifically is a lie, again it's right here you just have to look up. The 200 component stuff that you posted is not correct. I'm sorry.

Right at the moment I don't have anything better to do than to say that it's not a lie except in one way. That's old info. Its way beyond 200 at present.

https://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/teaching/astr380f09/slides13.pdf

''As far as we can tell, carbon chemistry and
liquid water are really good for life
• We are indeed in a good place for this, but
it is not clear how strong the requirements
are
• Moon, Mercury, moons of Mars not great
for life''

That's what your link says, I don't see anything about life not being possible in the universe.

'' That's old info. Its way beyond 200 at present.'' And as I mentioned already, they failed to take in count that each of those components have different percentages. Don't get too stuck on this, we don't know exactly how life originated but evolution is still a fact, even if your god existed, evolution would still be a fact. Actually most religious groups already accept evolution as a fact. Almost 100% of Jews, buddhists and hindus already accept evolution. Even 60% of catholics accept evolution and that was a poll made in 2007 and in the United States which is known for being extremely religious and usually against evolution. So why don't you take a step back and think about this badecker.

Of course you are going to bring religion into it. You have to. The whole of evolution that is not hoax is simply religion.

This topic is the hoax part. Start proving evolution with something that is more than political science. You can't. Evolution scientists have been trying for a couple hundred years (almost), with failure after failure. Forget it.

Evolution is a hoax.