Evolution is a hoax

[angelinakorenovskaya]

Why not use google instead of saying the stupidest shit ?

[Przemax]

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.

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.

[o_e_l_e_o]

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.

[Przemax]

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.

[o_e_l_e_o]

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.

[Przemax]

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?

5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)

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.

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

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

More? There are all 50 debunked on the internet - just use google......

[Lemayilleur]

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

[o_e_l_e_o]

Sigh. I thought, for a second, we were going to get an original argument or an actual piece of evidence. Instead you have gone back to copy-pasting from some nonsensical, pseudo-scientific creationist website.

[Przemax]

Sigh. I thought, for a second, we were going to get an original argument or an actual piece of evidence. Instead you have gone back to copy-pasting from some nonsensical, pseudo-scientific creationist website.

You dismiss the sources just because they are creationist when I told you their are creationist sources......... Only because the creationist say something is your reason to dismiss it? No wonder that you believe in evolution as you dismiss any evidence on the contrary...

All you people do is referring to ad hominem. Thats all you do.

I knew it would be pointless you would dismiss everything without arguing with it. If you would want other debunks just ask me... I see you just does not want to hear the other side of the story don't you?

49 still to go - if you would only wish to know... Mountain of evidences awaits...

[Astargath]

Sigh. I thought, for a second, we were going to get an original argument or an actual piece of evidence. Instead you have gone back to copy-pasting from some nonsensical, pseudo-scientific creationist website.

You dismiss the sources just because they are creationist when I told you their are creationist sources......... Only because the creationist say something is your reason to dismiss it? No wonder that you believe in evolution as you dismiss any evidence on the contrary...

All you people do is referring to ad hominem. Thats all you do.

I knew it would be pointless you would dismiss everything without arguing with it. If you would want other debunks just ask me... I see you just does not want to hear the other side of the story don't you?

49 still to go - if you would only wish to know... Mountain of evidences awaits...

''Cichlids provide scientists with a unique perspective of speciation, having become extremely diverse in the more recent geological past.''
''Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago.
(Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.)

Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348''

''Three species of wildflowers, dramatically called goatsbeards, were introduced from Europe to America in the early 1900s. After a few decades, their populations expanded and they began encroaching on one another’s turf. Whenever these mixed populations appeared, the species interbred (called hybridizing) and produced sterile hybrid offspring (like the mules produced from donkeys and horses).

That was until the late forties, when two brand new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species looked very similar to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. Evolution had created a new species that could reproduce, but that could not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it evolved.

Evolution naysayers aren’t keen on this example, because, rather than genetic changes occurring to create a new organism, this particular change relied on polyploidy – a doubling up of the current DNA. Therefore, because no new genetic information was created, evolution deniers will not count this as a “win” for evolution.

However, a new species that can not mate with the original species was indeed created. So it is what it is. A new species was born, thanks to evolution.''

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

[o_e_l_e_o]

You dismiss the sources just because they are creationist when I told you their are creationist sources.........

Yes. I provided original scientific research, peer-reviewed, and published in reputable independent journals. I expect a similar quality of evidence in return. Incoherent ramblings from a completely biased creationist site do not qualify.

I am now realising, having typed that, that maybe once again this is my mistake for assuming you understood what constitutes "evidence".

[Przemax]

You dismiss the sources just because they are creationist when I told you their are creationist sources.........

Yes. I provided original scientific research, peer-reviewed, and published in reputable independent journals. I expect a similar quality of evidence in return. Incoherent ramblings from a completely biased creationist site do not qualify.

I am now realising, having typed that, that maybe once again this is my mistake for assuming you understood what constitutes "evidence".

So just say you dont wish to talk just read what is per-reviewed and what is not..... You fake wanting to talk. So no need to talk to you. Maybe it is peer-reviewed what you say but it probably not say what you say it think it says.

This is peer-reviewed this is not. So much of a constructive debate.... And I thought you actually wanted to know the truth. You are just interested what is per-reviewed. So be it.

'Three species of wildflowers, dramatically called goatsbeards, were introduced from Europe to America in the early 1900s. After a few decades, their populations expanded and they began encroaching on one another’s turf. Whenever these mixed populations appeared, the species interbred (called hybridizing) and produced sterile hybrid offspring (like the mules produced from donkeys and horses).

I have debunked your wildflower plants a long time ago. I will not repeat myself. If you had anything to add - find my debunking of you.

Chichibichi and Chiuwawa and other nonsenses explained here:

http://www.icr.org/article/cichlid-coloration-corroborates-creation/

Guys.... Know the other side arguments because right now it seems like you are not into debate, and does not want to know the other side arguments. That is sad, because I know the other side - yours arguments that I showed not once, not twice, but many times.

[Blackmet]

Every monkey who was walking around is human already. And evolution is also already happen to our species. This question is very strange and obvious to answer.

[o_e_l_e_o]

So just say you dont wish to talk just read what is per-reviewed and what is not..... You fake wanting to talk. So no need to talk to you.

This is per-reviewed this is not. So much of a constructive debate.... And I thought you actually wanted to know the truth. You are just interested what is per-reviewed. So be it.

I realise now you don't understand science at all, but this is particularly hilarious. Peer reviewed research is the highest quality of evidence that exists.

You are accusing me of only being interested in facts.

While this is true, it is hilarious that you would destroy your own argument by admitting that I am interested in the facts while you are not.

[Przemax]

So just say you dont wish to talk just read what is per-reviewed and what is not..... You fake wanting to talk. So no need to talk to you.

This is per-reviewed this is not. So much of a constructive debate.... And I thought you actually wanted to know the truth. You are just interested what is per-reviewed. So be it.

I realise now you don't understand science at all, but this is particularly hilarious. Peer reviewed research is the highest quality of evidence that exists.

You are accusing me of only being interested in facts.

While this is true, it is hilarious that you would destroy your own argument by admitting that I am interested in the facts while you are not.

So in other words... one have to be in the league with the big fishes otherwise you do not want to listen to him. Learn more about the peer-review and you will know it is not easy to have if your ideas is not inline with someone who might not like what you say. It is a political tool most of the time.

Im interested in arguments - you are interested in a bureucracy that you call facts. If you call only bureucracy being a fact, than good luck - im not a bureucrat. Wrong address.

[Astargath]

You dismiss the sources just because they are creationist when I told you their are creationist sources.........

Yes. I provided original scientific research, peer-reviewed, and published in reputable independent journals. I expect a similar quality of evidence in return. Incoherent ramblings from a completely biased creationist site do not qualify.

I am now realising, having typed that, that maybe once again this is my mistake for assuming you understood what constitutes "evidence".

So just say you dont wish to talk just read what is per-reviewed and what is not..... You fake wanting to talk. So no need to talk to you. Maybe it is peer-reviewed what you say but it probably not say what you say it think it says.

This is peer-reviewed this is not. So much of a constructive debate.... And I thought you actually wanted to know the truth. You are just interested what is per-reviewed. So be it.

'Three species of wildflowers, dramatically called goatsbeards, were introduced from Europe to America in the early 1900s. After a few decades, their populations expanded and they began encroaching on one another’s turf. Whenever these mixed populations appeared, the species interbred (called hybridizing) and produced sterile hybrid offspring (like the mules produced from donkeys and horses).

I have debunked your wildflower plants a long time ago. I will not repeat myself. If you had anything to add - find my debunking of you.

Chichibichi and Chiuwawa and other nonsenses explained here:

http://www.icr.org/article/cichlid-coloration-corroborates-creation/

Guys.... Know the other side arguments because right now it seems like you are not into debate, and does not want to know the other side arguments. That is sad, because I know the other side - yours arguments that I showed not once, not twice, but many times.

''However, they also found that the bluish and reddish cichlids interbreed''  As I said in my original post ''While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.'' So you are wrong. They are indeed different species, it's proven, sorry.

Also do you have any website that is not a bunch of religious fallacies?

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/090301_cichlidspeciation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cichlid#Speciation

[Przemax]

You dismiss the sources just because they are creationist when I told you their are creationist sources.........

Yes. I provided original scientific research, peer-reviewed, and published in reputable independent journals. I expect a similar quality of evidence in return. Incoherent ramblings from a completely biased creationist site do not qualify.

I am now realising, having typed that, that maybe once again this is my mistake for assuming you understood what constitutes "evidence".

So just say you dont wish to talk just read what is per-reviewed and what is not..... You fake wanting to talk. So no need to talk to you. Maybe it is peer-reviewed what you say but it probably not say what you say it think it says.

This is peer-reviewed this is not. So much of a constructive debate.... And I thought you actually wanted to know the truth. You are just interested what is per-reviewed. So be it.

'Three species of wildflowers, dramatically called goatsbeards, were introduced from Europe to America in the early 1900s. After a few decades, their populations expanded and they began encroaching on one another’s turf. Whenever these mixed populations appeared, the species interbred (called hybridizing) and produced sterile hybrid offspring (like the mules produced from donkeys and horses).

I have debunked your wildflower plants a long time ago. I will not repeat myself. If you had anything to add - find my debunking of you.

Chichibichi and Chiuwawa and other nonsenses explained here:

http://www.icr.org/article/cichlid-coloration-corroborates-creation/

Guys.... Know the other side arguments because right now it seems like you are not into debate, and does not want to know the other side arguments. That is sad, because I know the other side - yours arguments that I showed not once, not twice, but many times.

''However, they also found that the bluish and reddish cichlids interbreed''  As I said in my original post ''While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.'' So you are wrong. They are indeed different species, it's proven, sorry.

Also do you have any website that is not a bunch of religious fallacies?

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/090301_cichlidspeciation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cichlid#Speciation

Cannot be convinced to mate? Yeah well... lion and tiger is not easily convinced to mate. What argument is that? They can make offspring. Does Jackal would want to mate the dog? Not likely. They would rather bite their heads off for eachother yet - they can make offsprings.

About the website not religious. Im sorry no. I have non. The odds are against the truth in todays world so you have to be filled with Holy Spirit to even want the truth...

[Astargath]

You dismiss the sources just because they are creationist when I told you their are creationist sources.........

Yes. I provided original scientific research, peer-reviewed, and published in reputable independent journals. I expect a similar quality of evidence in return. Incoherent ramblings from a completely biased creationist site do not qualify.

I am now realising, having typed that, that maybe once again this is my mistake for assuming you understood what constitutes "evidence".

So just say you dont wish to talk just read what is per-reviewed and what is not..... You fake wanting to talk. So no need to talk to you. Maybe it is peer-reviewed what you say but it probably not say what you say it think it says.

This is peer-reviewed this is not. So much of a constructive debate.... And I thought you actually wanted to know the truth. You are just interested what is per-reviewed. So be it.

'Three species of wildflowers, dramatically called goatsbeards, were introduced from Europe to America in the early 1900s. After a few decades, their populations expanded and they began encroaching on one another’s turf. Whenever these mixed populations appeared, the species interbred (called hybridizing) and produced sterile hybrid offspring (like the mules produced from donkeys and horses).

I have debunked your wildflower plants a long time ago. I will not repeat myself. If you had anything to add - find my debunking of you.

Chichibichi and Chiuwawa and other nonsenses explained here:

http://www.icr.org/article/cichlid-coloration-corroborates-creation/

Guys.... Know the other side arguments because right now it seems like you are not into debate, and does not want to know the other side arguments. That is sad, because I know the other side - yours arguments that I showed not once, not twice, but many times.

''However, they also found that the bluish and reddish cichlids interbreed''  As I said in my original post ''While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.'' So you are wrong. They are indeed different species, it's proven, sorry.

Also do you have any website that is not a bunch of religious fallacies?

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/090301_cichlidspeciation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cichlid#Speciation

Cannot be convinced to mate? Yeah well... lion and tiger is not easily convinced to mate. What argument is that? They can make offspring. Does Jackal would want to mate the dog? Not likely. They would rather bite their heads off for eachother yet - they can make offsprings.

About the website not religious. Im sorry no. I have non. The odds are against the truth in todays world so you have to be filled with Holy Spirit to even want the truth...

So what? Are you saying a lion and a tiger are the same species? The point is that they are different species, that's the argument. Different species may naturally interbreed (called hybridization) but they are still different species.

Saying that they also found that the bluish and reddish cichlids interbreed is saying nothing, that's not an argument against my evidence.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Saying that they also found that the bluish and reddish cichlids interbreed is saying nothing, that's not an argument against my evidence.

There is no point trying. He does not understand and refuses to learn.

[Przemax]

So what? Are you saying a lion and a tiger are the same species?

Yes. Only specialised and adapted to different type of enviroment I would say more - they are all cats or felines or how ever you want to call all of those organism that can produce offsprings. Ofcourse you can call them different species. Why not? But what usefulness in that? It just complicates the matter. If two organism produce the offspring like caucasian human male and aborigin human female - altough looks a lot differently in many respects it is still a human. I have no reason to believe a human will cease to be human - ever.

 That is what the Bible says as well. I know you can say OMG he is talking about the Bible again. Im just saying that it is in line with reality that the organisms that can bring forth from themselves life - are the same kind.

And as long as reality is proven otherwise I have no reason to believe God has lied here. It is very much in line with reality.

Ofcourse it is not the reason I believe creationism. I believe it is true because it is a reality. Just because God have said so just make it super awesome that its true. Ofcourse you can say you do not have to believe in science. Actually yes you do have to believe they play fair.