Evolution is a hoax

[o_e_l_e_o]

My favourite moment was when scientist were following some trait and they thought that DNA could prove their claims - the closest specie in comparison with DNA is pig that they eat constantly.... Or when they compared chromosomes of human to apes it was proven to be completly random after all - to show a complete embarassement to all who do not rely strictly on the evolutionists dosing of information matrix of alternative reality.

An original argument! Oh my god! I've waited so long. Now, give me some proof of these claims and we'll talk further.

Since BADecker is choosing just to ignore all the evidence presented to him, I'm just going to keep on ignoring his child-like posts.

[1714956763]

1714956763

[1714956763]

1714956763

[1714956763]

1714956763

[1714956763]

1714956763

[Astargath]

My favourite moment was when scientist were following some trait and they thought that DNA could prove their claims - the closest specie in comparison with DNA is pig that they eat constantly.... Or when they compared chromosomes of human to apes it was proven to be completly random after all - to show a complete embarassement to all who do not rely strictly on the evolutionists dosing of information matrix of alternative reality.

An original argument! Oh my god! I've waited so long. Now, give me some proof of these claims and we'll talk further.

Since BADecker is choosing just to ignore all the evidence presented to him, I'm just going to keep on ignoring his child-like posts.

Get ready for a link to a creationist religious website lol

[BADecker]

My favourite moment was when scientist were following some trait and they thought that DNA could prove their claims - the closest specie in comparison with DNA is pig that they eat constantly.... Or when they compared chromosomes of human to apes it was proven to be completly random after all - to show a complete embarassement to all who do not rely strictly on the evolutionists dosing of information matrix of alternative reality.

An original argument! Oh my god! I've waited so long. Now, give me some proof of these claims and we'll talk further.

Since BADecker is choosing just to ignore all the evidence presented to him, I'm just going to keep on ignoring his child-like posts.

You are mistaken. BADecker is examining ALL the evidence better than the evolutionists. Here's how.

There are hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of evolutionists all over the world. They are looking and digging and postulating for some proof that evolution exists. They have found all kinds of evidence for evolution, and all kinds of evidence that might be evidence for evolution. They have been doing this for almost 2 centuries, finding many, many, evidences and supposed evidences... all in favor of evolution.

What have all these evolutionists NOT found? In all this time, with all these hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of searchers, they have not found one, single, unequivocal proof for evolution. In all this time they have not found even one piece of evidence that unequivocally becomes proof for evolution.

What does this tell you? This tells you that all these evidences for evolution are showing us that evolution doesn't exist. If evolution existed, some of this vast "mound" of evidence would prove it. But since none proves it, the evidences are showing us that evolution doesn't exist. And the more the evidence without proof, the more the evidence against.

Go on and find some more evolution evidence. Go and build a stronger case against evolution with it. After all, you need to have a goal in life. Why not strengthen the proof that evolution doesn't exist, by going out and finding more evolution evidence that proves it?

Silly evolutionists. Silly because you think that nature is so much smarter than people, by being able to produce the vastly complex system of life, and then being able to hide it so completely from scientists, that they can't find even one proof for it.

[gemajai]

Evolution has never become a law like the Law of Gravity and the Law of Thermodynamics, which were discovered by great men of science who strongly believed in a Creator. Evolution cannot claim that science supports it because Christians who are deeply involved in the different fields of science also use the same evidence that evolutionists have. Christians just explain the evidence in light of a Creator. I had a Japanese student who told me that evolution was taught in Japan as if it was a fact (mind you, evolution is a theory and not a fact), so she was surprised when I explained to her the other side of the story that wasn't explained to them.

If you read the books of Richard Dawkins, a notable atheist, you could read his fairy tale stories as he explains how everything came into being. Telling the story is one thing. Giving the evidence or proof is another. When it comes to this topic, people forget that science uses a lot of evidence (like historical, scientific, geographic, philosophical arguments, forensic, etc.) and all these areas have evidence against evolution. Take for example observable science. We make scientific conclusions because of what we observe. It was how the Law of Gravity began. I just wonder what kind of evidence the believers of evolution would like to see or hear to be convinced that evolution is really a hoax. If you believe in evolution, I would like to know what kind of evidence you would consider as acceptable to believe that there is a Creator.

[Astargath]

Evolution has never become a law like the Law of Gravity and the Law of Thermodynamics, which were discovered by great men of science who strongly believed in a Creator. Evolution cannot claim that science supports it because Christians who are deeply involved in the different fields of science also use the same evidence that they have. Christians just explain the evidence in light of a Creator. I had a Japanese student who told me that evolution was taught in Japan as if it was a fact, so she was surprised when I explained to her the other side of the story that wasn't explained to them.

Well evolution is a fact, scientifically speaking it is considered a fact. A scientific theory will never become a law. Most Christians actually accept evolution.

[BADecker]

Evolution has never become a law like the Law of Gravity and the Law of Thermodynamics, which were discovered by great men of science who strongly believed in a Creator. Evolution cannot claim that science supports it because Christians who are deeply involved in the different fields of science also use the same evidence that they have. Christians just explain the evidence in light of a Creator. I had a Japanese student who told me that evolution was taught in Japan as if it was a fact, so she was surprised when I explained to her the other side of the story that wasn't explained to them.

Well evolution is a fact, scientifically speaking it is considered a fact. A scientific theory will never become a law. Most Christians actually accept evolution.

No, no. Evolution is NOT a fact. Evolution TALK is a fact.

Believing in evolution as many Christians do, is simply part of a religious following. In other words, in its simple sense, evolution is religion.

In the strict sense evolution is a hoax, because evolution scientists understand that the evidences for evolution have been proving to them for a long time, now, that evolution does not exist.

Evolution is a hoax.

[gemajai]

Evolution has never become a law like the Law of Gravity and the Law of Thermodynamics, which were discovered by great men of science who strongly believed in a Creator. Evolution cannot claim that science supports it because Christians who are deeply involved in the different fields of science also use the same evidence that they have. Christians just explain the evidence in light of a Creator. I had a Japanese student who told me that evolution was taught in Japan as if it was a fact, so she was surprised when I explained to her the other side of the story that wasn't explained to them.

Well, evolution is a fact, scientifically speaking it is considered a fact. A scientific theory will never become a law. Most Christians actually accept evolution.

Well, I agree that some Christians accept evolution. I, for one, accept evolution, but it's not the evolution that you accept. Knowledgeable Christians accept microevolution and not macro. Let me explain. Microevolution tells us that some changes, small to be exact, happen to species. These are also called genetic mutations. But it's not what the theory of evolution claims to be. The one that school teaches is macroevolution which has never been proven by observable science. Have you ever observed a frog becoming a bird? Or a chicken becoming a dinosaur? Or at least some species that move into that direction?

[Przemax]

Evolution has never become a law like the Law of Gravity and the Law of Thermodynamics, which were discovered by great men of science who strongly believed in a Creator. Evolution cannot claim that science supports it because Christians who are deeply involved in the different fields of science also use the same evidence that they have. Christians just explain the evidence in light of a Creator. I had a Japanese student who told me that evolution was taught in Japan as if it was a fact, so she was surprised when I explained to her the other side of the story that wasn't explained to them.

Well, evolution is a fact, scientifically speaking it is considered a fact. A scientific theory will never become a law. Most Christians actually accept evolution.

Well, I agree that some Christians accept evolution. I, for one, accept evolution, but it's not the evolution that you accept. Knowledgeable Christians accept microevolution and not macro. Let me explain. Microevolution tells us that some changes, small to be exact, happen to species. These are also called genetic mutations. But it's not what the theory of evolution claims to be. The one that school teaches is macroevolution which has never been proven by observable science. Have you ever observed a frog becoming a bird? Or a chicken becoming a dinosaur? Or at least some species that move into that direction?

Well... You do not accept the theory of evolution then. Everybody accepts as you called it - microevolution because that is fact. There are no single creationist that I know of that does not accept as you have called it microevolution.

Microevolution is not based on mutations. Well it could be based on mutations on some level, some of the case, but most of time it is only based on selection - either by purposeful breeding or natural selection of existing sets of traits within the genome pool, because mutations carrying new informations have not been yet observed - there were only mutations that deleted the existing barriers.

Microevolution should not be called evolution because it is an adaption. Why not call it adaptation?

[BADecker]

Evolution has never become a law like the Law of Gravity and the Law of Thermodynamics, which were discovered by great men of science who strongly believed in a Creator. Evolution cannot claim that science supports it because Christians who are deeply involved in the different fields of science also use the same evidence that they have. Christians just explain the evidence in light of a Creator. I had a Japanese student who told me that evolution was taught in Japan as if it was a fact, so she was surprised when I explained to her the other side of the story that wasn't explained to them.

Well, evolution is a fact, scientifically speaking it is considered a fact. A scientific theory will never become a law. Most Christians actually accept evolution.

Well, I agree that some Christians accept evolution. I, for one, accept evolution, but it's not the evolution that you accept. Knowledgeable Christians accept microevolution and not macro. Let me explain. Microevolution tells us that some changes, small to be exact, happen to species. These are also called genetic mutations. But it's not what the theory of evolution claims to be. The one that school teaches is macroevolution which has never been proven by observable science. Have you ever observed a frog becoming a bird? Or a chicken becoming a dinosaur? Or at least some species that move into that direction?

Well... You do not accept the theory of evolution then. Everybody accepts as you called it - microevolution because that is fact. There are no single creationist that I know of that does not accept as you have called it microevolution.

Microevolution is not based on mutations. Well it could be based on mutations on some level, some of the case, but most of time it is only based on selection - either by purposeful breeding or natural selection of existing sets of traits within the genome pool, because mutations carrying new informations have not been yet observed - there were only mutations that deleted the existing barriers.

Microevolution should not be called evolution because it is an adaption. Why not call it adaptation?

Or call it "change."

I'm not saying that evolution has been proven to NOT exist. All I am saying is that standard evolutionists ARE proving that it doesn't. I mean... all these mountains of evidences for, and yet no proof of.

Evolution is a hoax.

[Przemax]

Evolution has never become a law like the Law of Gravity and the Law of Thermodynamics, which were discovered by great men of science who strongly believed in a Creator. Evolution cannot claim that science supports it because Christians who are deeply involved in the different fields of science also use the same evidence that they have. Christians just explain the evidence in light of a Creator. I had a Japanese student who told me that evolution was taught in Japan as if it was a fact, so she was surprised when I explained to her the other side of the story that wasn't explained to them.

Well, evolution is a fact, scientifically speaking it is considered a fact. A scientific theory will never become a law. Most Christians actually accept evolution.

Well, I agree that some Christians accept evolution. I, for one, accept evolution, but it's not the evolution that you accept. Knowledgeable Christians accept microevolution and not macro. Let me explain. Microevolution tells us that some changes, small to be exact, happen to species. These are also called genetic mutations. But it's not what the theory of evolution claims to be. The one that school teaches is macroevolution which has never been proven by observable science. Have you ever observed a frog becoming a bird? Or a chicken becoming a dinosaur? Or at least some species that move into that direction?

Well... You do not accept the theory of evolution then. Everybody accepts as you called it - microevolution because that is fact. There are no single creationist that I know of that does not accept as you have called it microevolution.

Microevolution is not based on mutations. Well it could be based on mutations on some level, some of the case, but most of time it is only based on selection - either by purposeful breeding or natural selection of existing sets of traits within the genome pool, because mutations carrying new informations have not been yet observed - there were only mutations that deleted the existing barriers.

Microevolution should not be called evolution because it is an adaption. Why not call it adaptation?

Or call it "change."

I'm not saying that evolution has been proven to NOT exist. All I am saying is that standard evolutionists ARE proving that it doesn't. I mean... all these mountains of evidences for, and yet no proof of.

Evolution is a hoax.

Yeah. Its highely unlikely that mutations had made new species. Because everything I know of suggest mutations take away information. For example a blue eyes is not a special gene - it is a mutation of lacking enough melanine in the eye. It took away information and not make something new. That is the same with white skin colour that lacks a colouring agent and not being a white colour agent.

The variation of the colour of the skin in humans is only based on one colour - brown. The same with eyes and hair. The hair are naturally white, unless they are browny coloured by melanine. The same with the eye without a melanine it is blue with a little melanine it is green and with a lot of melanine it is brown.

Darwin was calling white race superiourly evolved, but in some case - in this case melanine they degenerated by mutations. Thats all that happened. Maybe blacks have mutated in some other way but, none got better we all got worse it seems. The size of the brain suggest that compared to some old skulls.

Unless there is a stupidity gene or unglyness gene or rudeness gene we will not mutate for the better it all suggests.

[Astargath]

Evolution has never become a law like the Law of Gravity and the Law of Thermodynamics, which were discovered by great men of science who strongly believed in a Creator. Evolution cannot claim that science supports it because Christians who are deeply involved in the different fields of science also use the same evidence that they have. Christians just explain the evidence in light of a Creator. I had a Japanese student who told me that evolution was taught in Japan as if it was a fact, so she was surprised when I explained to her the other side of the story that wasn't explained to them.

Well, evolution is a fact, scientifically speaking it is considered a fact. A scientific theory will never become a law. Most Christians actually accept evolution.

Well, I agree that some Christians accept evolution. I, for one, accept evolution, but it's not the evolution that you accept. Knowledgeable Christians accept microevolution and not macro. Let me explain. Microevolution tells us that some changes, small to be exact, happen to species. These are also called genetic mutations. But it's not what the theory of evolution claims to be. The one that school teaches is macroevolution which has never been proven by observable science. Have you ever observed a frog becoming a bird? Or a chicken becoming a dinosaur? Or at least some species that move into that direction?

Well... You do not accept the theory of evolution then. Everybody accepts as you called it - microevolution because that is fact. There are no single creationist that I know of that does not accept as you have called it microevolution.

Microevolution is not based on mutations. Well it could be based on mutations on some level, some of the case, but most of time it is only based on selection - either by purposeful breeding or natural selection of existing sets of traits within the genome pool, because mutations carrying new informations have not been yet observed - there were only mutations that deleted the existing barriers.

Microevolution should not be called evolution because it is an adaption. Why not call it adaptation?

Or call it "change."

I'm not saying that evolution has been proven to NOT exist. All I am saying is that standard evolutionists ARE proving that it doesn't. I mean... all these mountains of evidences for, and yet no proof of.

Evolution is a hoax.

Yeah. Its highely unlikely that mutations had made new species. Because everything I know of suggest mutations take away information. For example a blue eyes is not a special gene - it is a mutation of lacking enough melanine in the eye. It took away information and not make something new. That is the same with white skin colour that lacks a colouring agent and not being a white colour agent.

The variation of the colour of the skin in humans is only based on one colour - brown. The same with eyes and hair. The hair are naturally white, unless they are browny coloured by melanine. The same with the eye without a melanine it is blue with a little melanine it is green and with a lot of melanine it is brown.

Darwin was calling white race superiourly evolved, but in some case - in this case melanine they degenerated by mutations. Thats all that happened. Maybe blacks have mutated in some other way but, none got better we all got worse it seems. The size of the brain suggest that compared to some old skulls.

Unless there is a stupidity gene or unglyness gene or rudeness gene we will not mutate for the better it all suggests.

Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of:

increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.

A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:
Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).
RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)
Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)
The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search (at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) on "gene duplication" gives more than 3000 references.

According to Shannon-Weaver information theory, random noise maximizes information. This is not just playing word games. The random variation that mutations add to populations is the variation on which selection acts. Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution, but by eliminating nonadaptive variation, natural selection communicates information about the environment to the organism so that the organism becomes better adapted to it. Natural selection is the process by which information about the environment is transferred to an organism's genome and thus to the organism (Adami et al. 2000).

The process of mutation and selection is observed to increase information and complexity in simulations (Adami et al. 2000; Schneider 2000)

[BADecker]

Evolution has never become a law like the Law of Gravity and the Law of Thermodynamics, which were discovered by great men of science who strongly believed in a Creator. Evolution cannot claim that science supports it because Christians who are deeply involved in the different fields of science also use the same evidence that they have. Christians just explain the evidence in light of a Creator. I had a Japanese student who told me that evolution was taught in Japan as if it was a fact, so she was surprised when I explained to her the other side of the story that wasn't explained to them.

Well, evolution is a fact, scientifically speaking it is considered a fact. A scientific theory will never become a law. Most Christians actually accept evolution.

Well, I agree that some Christians accept evolution. I, for one, accept evolution, but it's not the evolution that you accept. Knowledgeable Christians accept microevolution and not macro. Let me explain. Microevolution tells us that some changes, small to be exact, happen to species. These are also called genetic mutations. But it's not what the theory of evolution claims to be. The one that school teaches is macroevolution which has never been proven by observable science. Have you ever observed a frog becoming a bird? Or a chicken becoming a dinosaur? Or at least some species that move into that direction?

Well... You do not accept the theory of evolution then. Everybody accepts as you called it - microevolution because that is fact. There are no single creationist that I know of that does not accept as you have called it microevolution.

Microevolution is not based on mutations. Well it could be based on mutations on some level, some of the case, but most of time it is only based on selection - either by purposeful breeding or natural selection of existing sets of traits within the genome pool, because mutations carrying new informations have not been yet observed - there were only mutations that deleted the existing barriers.

Microevolution should not be called evolution because it is an adaption. Why not call it adaptation?

Or call it "change."

I'm not saying that evolution has been proven to NOT exist. All I am saying is that standard evolutionists ARE proving that it doesn't. I mean... all these mountains of evidences for, and yet no proof of.

Evolution is a hoax.

Yeah. Its highely unlikely that mutations had made new species. Because everything I know of suggest mutations take away information. For example a blue eyes is not a special gene - it is a mutation of lacking enough melanine in the eye. It took away information and not make something new. That is the same with white skin colour that lacks a colouring agent and not being a white colour agent.

The variation of the colour of the skin in humans is only based on one colour - brown. The same with eyes and hair. The hair are naturally white, unless they are browny coloured by melanine. The same with the eye without a melanine it is blue with a little melanine it is green and with a lot of melanine it is brown.

Darwin was calling white race superiourly evolved, but in some case - in this case melanine they degenerated by mutations. Thats all that happened. Maybe blacks have mutated in some other way but, none got better we all got worse it seems. The size of the brain suggest that compared to some old skulls.

Unless there is a stupidity gene or unglyness gene or rudeness gene we will not mutate for the better it all suggests.

Furthermore, consider the brain size of the Neanderthal. It was reasonably larger than that of average humans today. But Einstein's brain was 25% smaller than average brain size.

The point? Everything that has been determined by evolutionists might be backward. I mean, it isn't necessarily brain size that plays an important part in thinking. This means that all kinds of other things that are considered evolution evidence, might really be evidence against evolution in some not-easily-determined way.

Evolutionists don't really know that anything they say is correct. Evolution is a hoax.

[BADecker]

My point exactly, Astargath. Since Neanderthal brain size having to do with greater motor controls, and not with greater thinking ability, is simply talk, how do we really know about Neanderthals? We base this reasoning on the fact that Neanderthals didn't have a written or spoken language that we know of. But what if Neanderthals used ESP?

When you investigate ESP, you find that there are many (not a large percentage) scientists who have done experiments that seem to prove that some forms of ESP exists. Perhaps the lack of finding proof for evolution is really the beginning of accepting devolution. Neanderthals were simply advanced in such a way that they had ESP, and didn't have any need for language.

(Oops! Perhaps I should wait for Astargath's post before I start replying to it. )

[o_e_l_e_o]

Go on and find some more evolution evidence. Go and build a stronger case against evolution with it. After all, you need to have a goal in life. Why not strengthen the proof that evolution doesn't exist, by going out and finding more evolution evidence that proves it?

So all the proof for evolution disproves evolution? This is the worst argument I've ever read on the topic, on this thread or anywhere else. The level of proof available for evolution is on par with level of proof we have for gravitational theory or the germ theory of disease i.e. unequivocal. Why not choose any one of the papers I've linked and offer a sound scientific rebuttal? If "more proof = less proof" is best argument you can come up with, I will continue to ignore your child-like posts.

Because everything I know of suggest mutations take away information.

Not true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_duplication.

For example a blue eyes is not a special gene - it is a mutation of lacking enough melanine in the eye. It took away information and not make something new.

Again not true. There are up to 15 different genes controlling eye colour, and the colour in different species can come from a variety of pigments (of which melanin is one): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_color



You are arguing against a strawman. Maybe if you spent more time reading about evolution from scientific, unbiased sources to find out what it really is (i.e. not AnswersInGenesis or similar nonsense sites), you might find you start to understand it more.

[Astargath]

My point exactly, Astargath. Since Neanderthal brain size having to do with greater motor controls, and not with greater thinking ability, is simply talk, how do we really know about Neanderthals? We base this reasoning on the fact that Neanderthals didn't have a written or spoken language that we know of. But what if Neanderthals used ESP?

When you investigate ESP, you find that there are many (not a large percentage) scientists who have done experiments that seem to prove that some forms of ESP exists. Perhaps the lack of finding proof for evolution is really the beginning of accepting devolution. Neanderthals were simply advanced in such a way that they had ESP, and didn't have any need for language.

(Oops! Perhaps I should wait for Astargath's post before I start replying to it. )

It's always funny when you use examples like those because Neanderthals (UK: /niˈændərˌtɑːl/, also US: /neɪ-, -ˈɑːn-, -ˌtɔːl, -ˌθɔːl/),[3][4] more rarely known as Neandertals,[a] were archaic humans that became extinct about 40,000 years ago.

You believe the earth and the universe are 6 to 10k years old. You don't believe that anymore?

[Przemax]

Again not true. There are up to 15 different genes controlling eye colour, and the colour in different species can come from a variety of pigments (of which melanin is one): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_color

Yes sure. That does not make my statement not true. Does it? Blue eye colour is the lack of melanine. I never stated that it is dependant on one gene.

Logically there should be some pigments for some animals to have yellow eyes and for them to glow. And the fact that the eye is blue must imply there is some other pigment in it. Sure. But still. That does not mean my statements were wrong.

You are arguing against a strawman. Maybe if you spent more time reading about evolution from scientific, unbiased sources to find out what it really is (i.e. not AnswersInGenesis or similar nonsense sites), you might find you start to understand it more.

Give me articles that are unbiased that shows a new informations are coming from mutations. I just warn you - do not give me the rats that are naturally somewhat resistant to pesticides so that and bacterias that are already somewhat although limited resistance to antibiotics. The mutations are not giving more informations it just makes the informations more readily available by making other information less neccesary so to speak.

Do not give me articles about the resistance to anemia. I know all about 3 of those seemingly new informations that are not new informations but decrease in genetic information.

[Astargath]

Again not true. There are up to 15 different genes controlling eye colour, and the colour in different species can come from a variety of pigments (of which melanin is one): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_color

Yes sure. That does not make my statement not true. Does it? Blue eye colour is the lack of melanine. I never stated that it is dependant on one gene.

You are arguing against a strawman. Maybe if you spent more time reading about evolution from scientific, unbiased sources to find out what it really is (i.e. not AnswersInGenesis or similar nonsense sites), you might find you start to understand it more.

Give me articles that are unbiased that shows a new informations are coming from mutations. I just warn you - do not give me the rats that are naturally somewhat resistant to pesticides so that and bacterias that are already somewhat although limited resistance to antibiotics. The mutations are not giving more informations it just makes the informations more readily available by making other information less neccesary so to speak.

Do not give me articles about the resistance to anemia. I know all about 3 of those simingly new informations that are not new informations but decrease in genetic information.

First give us your definition of information.

[Przemax]

Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of:

increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

Are those worthwhile to read? I hate people giving the books they had not read themselves? Is there an added information mutation that makes person more adapted or not? If so... name one. It should be easy if one would read it.

A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:

Ok... there could be added information... maybe. But what is the example of this? What is the added information that is useful - because that should be defined as information. A noise is just a noise. Do you know any example?

Because the example you copy pasted could as well be a reverse engineering. Lets look at the car for example. If you would take all of the unnecessary weight of a car you could say - hey... The car is faster. Yeah ok it is faster but only because you had left an engine and a wheels so it weights less. Do you understand?

You can easily mock the engineering process by reverse engineering.

First give us your definition of information.

Something that everyone would be convinced - hey yeah - That is the new possitive information. Basicly. More specificly - a new possitive information is something that was not there and is not just a noise but is possitive to the existance of the pull of informations of the object.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Give me articles that are unbiased that shows a new informations are coming from mutations. I just warn you - do not give me the rats that are naturally somewhat resistant to pesticides so that and bacterias that are already somewhat although limited resistance to antibiotics. The mutations are not giving more informations it just makes the informations more readily available by making other information less neccesary so to speak.

Do not give me articles about the resistance to anemia. I know all about 3 of those seemingly new informations that are not new informations but decrease in genetic information.

Do not give me these proven examples of evolution because I don't like them? Lol?

Anyway, haemoglobin (the compound in your blood that carries oxygen) evolved from a duplication mutation.

Storz JF, Opazo JC, Hoffmann FG. Gene duplication, genome duplication, and the functional diversification of vertebrate globins. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2013 Feb; 66(2): 469–478.

[Przemax]

Give me articles that are unbiased that shows a new informations are coming from mutations. I just warn you - do not give me the rats that are naturally somewhat resistant to pesticides so that and bacterias that are already somewhat although limited resistance to antibiotics. The mutations are not giving more informations it just makes the informations more readily available by making other information less neccesary so to speak.

Do not give me articles about the resistance to anemia. I know all about 3 of those seemingly new informations that are not new informations but decrease in genetic information.

Do not give me these proven examples of evolution because I don't like them? Lol?

Anyway, haemoglobin (the compound in your blood that carries oxygen) evolved from a duplication mutation.

Storz JF, Opazo JC, Hoffmann FG. Gene duplication, genome duplication, and the functional diversification of vertebrate globins. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2013 Feb; 66(2): 469–478.

No... Because it was proven to prove nothing or rather disprove evolution. I am sincerly and honestly curious - I do not want to learn something I already know. Maybe you are not interested in truth and finding of another side - I am.

I just said about those findings to tell you - I know about them. If you would tell me about that - I would learn nothing - would I not? Use logic from time to time.

I thought you would give me some actual mutation not just a guess what comes from what... Im disappointed.

So ok you only have those 3 examples that I know of right? So you have nothing that I am not aware of. So you can not say I am ignorant about evolution if I anticipate your reaction fully.