Evolution is a hoax

[o_e_l_e_o]

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

I did just give you some "actual mutation" (emphasis added):

The functional diversification of the vertebrate globin gene superfamily provides an especially vivid illustration of the role of gene duplication and whole-genome duplication in promoting evolutionary innovation. For example, key globin proteins that evolved specialized functions in various aspects of oxidative metabolism and oxygen signaling pathways (hemoglobin [Hb], myoglobin [Mb], and cytoglobin [Cygb]) trace their origins to two whole-genome duplication events in the stem lineage of vertebrates.

Whereas the Ngb, Adgb, and GbX genes originated prior to the divergence between deuterostomes and protostomes, the remaining members of the vertebrate globin gene repertoire are all products of vertebrate-specific duplication events

In the Hb gene lineage, a subsequent tandem gene duplication gave rise to the proto α- and β-globin genes. This duplication event appears to have occured roughly 450–500 million years ago in the Ordovician, before the ancestor of cartilaginous fish split from the lineage leading to the common ancestor of ray-finned fishes and tetrapods.

During the course of vertebrate evolution, the duplication event that gave rise to the progenitors of the Hb, Mb, and Cygb proteins opened up new opportunities for the evolution of aerobic energy metabolism in both jawed and jawless vertebrates. Moreover, the capacity to synthesize functionally distinct Hbs at different stages of development was made possible by repeated rounds of gene duplication in which newly created paralogs evolved new biochemical properties in conjunction with changes in the ontogenetic timing of expression.

[1714011952]

1714011952

[Przemax]

I did just give you some "actual mutation" (emphasis added):

Hemoglobine already existed - it is the reason you can breath.... So well.... If it's mutated it would be faaaaar away in time, and to prove that one would need to prove the theory of evolution was true...

That is a circular logic. You can not be serious to give me such logical fallacies and be happy with it.......

Im fairly sure it is a fascinating reading..... but come on.... Just because someone that is aproved by the group think wrote that means absolutely and completly nothing if it is a pure example of classical group biases.

If scientist would wrote that your head should be chopped off and he would be peer-reviewed. Would you believe it?

That could be true that your head should be chopped off - but its highly unlikely.

[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. )

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?

Except for the FACT that distant past dating is like evolution... not proven to exist as stated. About prehistory dating, nobody comes out and says, "We know these dates for a fact." In fact, they say that they don't really know when they use the same kinds of limiting words and sentence structures as they do for evolution.

Neanderthals were simply an early form of human... early in the 6,000 year period of universe existence. What does the time period of Neanderthals have to do with evolution really being devolution? We aren't advancing. We are declining.

[BADecker]

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.

Er... what proof? I'm still waiting for somebody to show us a point of proof for evolution.

List one simple evolution proof that is stated to be absolute proof by the evolution scientific community. And don't do like Astargath, copying and pasting a whole bunch of nonsense from some website, while barely being able to grasp what is being said. Rather, express a proof point in simple language, and then back it up with scientists and referrences that show evolution is absolutely proven by that point.

 

[BADecker]

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.

You do very well for somebody who doesn't have English as his first language. Check out the dictionary for the definition of information. Or are you trying to turn this thread into a semantics thread?

[o_e_l_e_o]

I did just give you some "actual mutation" (emphasis added):

Hemoglobine already existed - it is the reason you can breath.... So well.... If it's mutated it would be faaaaar away in time, and to prove that one would need to prove the theory of evolution was true...

That is a circular logic. You can not be serious to give me such logical fallacies and be happy with it.......

Im fairly sure it is a fascinating reading..... but come on.... Just because someone that is aproved by the group think wrote that means absolutely and completly nothing if it is a pure example of classical group biases.

If scientist would wrote that your head should be chopped off and he would be peer-reviewed. Would you believe it?

That could be true that your head should be chopped off - but its highly unlikely.

First, it didn't. The paper describes how it evolved. You clearly didn't even read it.

Secondly, haemoglobin binds oxygen. To say it is the "reason you can breath" is a gross oversimplification that suggest you do not understand biology in addition to evolution.

Thirldy, it is not circular logic whatsoever. It is clear evidence of evolution, regardless of how hard you pretend it isnt'.

Fourthly, you dismiss it without even reading it. Hilarious.

Honestly, I thought we were about to make progess. Shame that your creationism indoctrination won't even allow you to consider the evidence. Seriously, you didn't even read it before deciding it was wrong. You are a lost cause.

[BADecker]

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.

Except that nobody knows that haemoglobin evolved.    

[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.

Er... what proof? I'm still waiting for somebody to show us a point of proof for evolution.

List one simple evolution proof that is stated to be absolute proof by the evolution scientific community. And don't do like Astargath, copying and pasting a whole bunch of nonsense from some website, while barely being able to grasp what is being said. Rather, express a proof point in simple language, and then back it up with scientists and referrences that show evolution is absolutely proven by that point.

 

That's literally exactly what I've been doing for the last 50 posts that you chose to ignore.

[BADecker]

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.

Er... what proof? I'm still waiting for somebody to show us a point of proof for evolution.

List one simple evolution proof that is stated to be absolute proof by the evolution scientific community. And don't do like Astargath, copying and pasting a whole bunch of nonsense from some website, while barely being able to grasp what is being said. Rather, express a proof point in simple language, and then back it up with scientists and referrences that show evolution is absolutely proven by that point.

  

That's literally exactly what I've been doing for the last 50 posts that you chose to ignore.

Actually, no you haven't. You have presented points that somebody says are proof, but that nobody in the scientific community will acknowledge as proof. Just one, please... and its references where some scientist(s) proved that it was evolution.

[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.

Er... what proof? I'm still waiting for somebody to show us a point of proof for evolution.

List one simple evolution proof that is stated to be absolute proof by the evolution scientific community. And don't do like Astargath, copying and pasting a whole bunch of nonsense from some website, while barely being able to grasp what is being said. Rather, express a proof point in simple language, and then back it up with scientists and referrences that show evolution is absolutely proven by that point.

 

That's literally exactly what I've been doing for the last 50 posts that you chose to ignore.

Actually, no you haven't. You have presented points that somebody says are proof, but that nobody in the scientific community will acknowledge as proof. Just one, please... and its references where some scinetist(s) proved that it was evolution.

Actually, yes I have. It doesn't matter whether or not you like them. That's the good thing about science - it's true whether or not you believe in it.

[BADecker]

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.

Er... what proof? I'm still waiting for somebody to show us a point of proof for evolution.

List one simple evolution proof that is stated to be absolute proof by the evolution scientific community. And don't do like Astargath, copying and pasting a whole bunch of nonsense from some website, while barely being able to grasp what is being said. Rather, express a proof point in simple language, and then back it up with scientists and referrences that show evolution is absolutely proven by that point.

  

That's literally exactly what I've been doing for the last 50 posts that you chose to ignore.

Actually, no you haven't. You have presented points that somebody says are proof, but that nobody in the scientific community will acknowledge as proof. Just one, please... and its references where some scinetist(s) proved that it was evolution.

Actually, yes I have. It doesn't matter whether or not you like them. That's the good thing about science - it's true whether or not you believe in it.

You remember what makes up scientific proof, don't you? Among the requirements for proof is that experiment or operation it can be duplicated. So, duplicate just one, teensy, eensy, little, simple evolution proof and its references that say it is proof. If you can't do this, then you can't even prove that you have ever offered proof for evolution in the first place.

[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?

Except for the FACT that distant past dating is like evolution... not proven to exist as stated. About prehistory dating, nobody comes out and says, "We know these dates for a fact." In fact, they say that they don't really know when they use the same kinds of limiting words and sentence structures as they do for evolution.

Neanderthals were simply an early form of human... early in the 6,000 year period of universe existence. What does the time period of Neanderthals have to do with evolution really being devolution? We aren't advancing. We are declining.

An early form of human, you saying they... evolved?

[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. )

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?

Except for the FACT that distant past dating is like evolution... not proven to exist as stated. About prehistory dating, nobody comes out and says, "We know these dates for a fact." In fact, they say that they don't really know when they use the same kinds of limiting words and sentence structures as they do for evolution.

Neanderthals were simply an early form of human... early in the 6,000 year period of universe existence. What does the time period of Neanderthals have to do with evolution really being devolution? We aren't advancing. We are declining.

An early form of human, you saying they... evolved?

I know, I know. I don't have my picture posted in my preferences. So I can't very well say "read my lips."

Then again. It probably wouldn't do any good, considering how many times you have read my posts that state, "Evolution is a hoax."

[Przemax]

I did just give you some "actual mutation" (emphasis added):

Hemoglobine already existed - it is the reason you can breath.... So well.... If it's mutated it would be faaaaar away in time, and to prove that one would need to prove the theory of evolution was true...

That is a circular logic. You can not be serious to give me such logical fallacies and be happy with it.......

Im fairly sure it is a fascinating reading..... but come on.... Just because someone that is aproved by the group think wrote that means absolutely and completly nothing if it is a pure example of classical group biases.

If scientist would wrote that your head should be chopped off and he would be peer-reviewed. Would you believe it?

That could be true that your head should be chopped off - but its highly unlikely.

First, it didn't. The paper describes how it evolved. You clearly didn't even read it.

Secondly, haemoglobin binds oxygen. To say it is the "reason you can breath" is a gross oversimplification that suggest you do not understand biology in addition to evolution.

Thirldy, it is not circular logic whatsoever. It is clear evidence of evolution, regardless of how hard you pretend it isnt'.

Fourthly, you dismiss it without even reading it. Hilarious.

Honestly, I thought we were about to make progess. Shame that your creationism indoctrination won't even allow you to consider the evidence. Seriously, you didn't even read it before deciding it was wrong. You are a lost cause.

1. Ok. Paper says it evolved - and it probably says - maybe, if that and this is true, and if something else is truth it might be like that or maybe not. Do you know what is a self-evident truth? It is not what you gave me to read. It is not a self-evident. You can not touch it hold it, feel it, or anyhow experience it, it is just a thought process and abstraction - it is not a fact how ever you would demand it to be. You need a very good dictionary before you even come close to anything that suppose to be science.
2. Oh... Now you just pick on words I use..... Ok I should say - the reason you can breath as long as you are having a spine and not be one of that rare fish that have not haemoglobine.... Maybe you do not have a spine... So maybe I should reconsider my assumption I was talking to mammal and a human.
3. Evidence of evolution? Can I see it? Can I in any case experience it or is it self-evident? No ofcourse it is not. To the contrary you should prove the haemoglobin HAVE NOT been created otherwise to prove evolution - that is a way harder task. Have your research stated that it is the only way to have haemoglobin is by mutation? I highly doubt it.
4. Have you read everything in the world? People can read finite things in the world I doubt you had even read it and you say that I have not. And you do not even want to comment a short sentence because it was from the website you do not like, and then you say I have not read the whole publication. You are a hipocrite to the highest degree.

Honestly, I thought you will not make any progress, since I saw you ignore anything that does not suit you presupposition. And so far - I am right about that.

[Astargath]

I did just give you some "actual mutation" (emphasis added):

Hemoglobine already existed - it is the reason you can breath.... So well.... If it's mutated it would be faaaaar away in time, and to prove that one would need to prove the theory of evolution was true...

That is a circular logic. You can not be serious to give me such logical fallacies and be happy with it.......

Im fairly sure it is a fascinating reading..... but come on.... Just because someone that is aproved by the group think wrote that means absolutely and completly nothing if it is a pure example of classical group biases.

If scientist would wrote that your head should be chopped off and he would be peer-reviewed. Would you believe it?

That could be true that your head should be chopped off - but its highly unlikely.

First, it didn't. The paper describes how it evolved. You clearly didn't even read it.

Secondly, haemoglobin binds oxygen. To say it is the "reason you can breath" is a gross oversimplification that suggest you do not understand biology in addition to evolution.

Thirldy, it is not circular logic whatsoever. It is clear evidence of evolution, regardless of how hard you pretend it isnt'.

Fourthly, you dismiss it without even reading it. Hilarious.

Honestly, I thought we were about to make progess. Shame that your creationism indoctrination won't even allow you to consider the evidence. Seriously, you didn't even read it before deciding it was wrong. You are a lost cause.

1. Ok. Paper says it evolved - and it probably says - maybe, if that and this is true, and if something else is truth it might be like that or maybe not. Do you know what is a self-evident truth aka fact? It is not what you gave me to read. It is not a self-evident. You can not touch it hold it, feel it, or anyhow experience it, it is just a thought process and abstraction - it is not a fact how ever you would demand it to be. You need a very good dictionary before you even come close to anything that suppose to be science.
2. Oh... Now you just pick on words I use..... Ok I should say - the reason you can breath as long as you are having a spine and not be one of that rare fish that have not haemoglobine.... Maybe you do not have a spine... So maybe I should reconsider my assumption I was talking to mammal and a human.
3. Evidence of evolution? Can I see it? Can I in any case experience it or is it self-evident? No ofcourse it is not. To the contrary you should prove the haemoglobin HAVE NOT been created otherwise to prove evolution - that is a way harder task. Have your research stated that it is the only way to have haemoglobin is by mutation? I highly doubt it.
4. Have you read everything in the world? People can read finite things in the world I doubt you had even read it and you say that I have not. And you do not even want to comment a short sentence because it was from the website you do not like, and then you say I have not read the whole publication. You are a hipocrite to the highest degree.

Honestly, I thought you will not make any progress, since I saw you ignore anything that does not suit you presupposition. And so far - I am right about that.

Evolution is true because my god told me and I believe him until you can prove me wrong.

[Przemax]

I did just give you some "actual mutation" (emphasis added):

Hemoglobine already existed - it is the reason you can breath.... So well.... If it's mutated it would be faaaaar away in time, and to prove that one would need to prove the theory of evolution was true...

That is a circular logic. You can not be serious to give me such logical fallacies and be happy with it.......

Im fairly sure it is a fascinating reading..... but come on.... Just because someone that is aproved by the group think wrote that means absolutely and completly nothing if it is a pure example of classical group biases.

If scientist would wrote that your head should be chopped off and he would be peer-reviewed. Would you believe it?

That could be true that your head should be chopped off - but its highly unlikely.

First, it didn't. The paper describes how it evolved. You clearly didn't even read it.

Secondly, haemoglobin binds oxygen. To say it is the "reason you can breath" is a gross oversimplification that suggest you do not understand biology in addition to evolution.

Thirldy, it is not circular logic whatsoever. It is clear evidence of evolution, regardless of how hard you pretend it isnt'.

Fourthly, you dismiss it without even reading it. Hilarious.

Honestly, I thought we were about to make progess. Shame that your creationism indoctrination won't even allow you to consider the evidence. Seriously, you didn't even read it before deciding it was wrong. You are a lost cause.

1. Ok. Paper says it evolved - and it probably says - maybe, if that and this is true, and if something else is truth it might be like that or maybe not. Do you know what is a self-evident truth aka fact? It is not what you gave me to read. It is not a self-evident. You can not touch it hold it, feel it, or anyhow experience it, it is just a thought process and abstraction - it is not a fact how ever you would demand it to be. You need a very good dictionary before you even come close to anything that suppose to be science.
2. Oh... Now you just pick on words I use..... Ok I should say - the reason you can breath as long as you are having a spine and not be one of that rare fish that have not haemoglobine.... Maybe you do not have a spine... So maybe I should reconsider my assumption I was talking to mammal and a human.
3. Evidence of evolution? Can I see it? Can I in any case experience it or is it self-evident? No ofcourse it is not. To the contrary you should prove the haemoglobin HAVE NOT been created otherwise to prove evolution - that is a way harder task. Have your research stated that it is the only way to have haemoglobin is by mutation? I highly doubt it.
4. Have you read everything in the world? People can read finite things in the world I doubt you had even read it and you say that I have not. And you do not even want to comment a short sentence because it was from the website you do not like, and then you say I have not read the whole publication. You are a hipocrite to the highest degree.

Honestly, I thought you will not make any progress, since I saw you ignore anything that does not suit you presupposition. And so far - I am right about that.

Evolution is true because my god told me and I believe him until you can prove me wrong.

And now you told the truth - it is your religion. Bravo. I knew you could do it.

You now need to pick the true God and not Satan who is not a God at all, althouh he is sure about that like you all about evolution.

[o_e_l_e_o]

1. Ok. Paper says it evolved - and it probably says - maybe, if that and this is true, and if something else is truth it might be like that or maybe not. Do you know what is a self-evident truth? It is not what you gave me to read. It is not a self-evident. You can not touch it hold it, feel it, or anyhow experience it, it is just a thought process and abstraction

Evolution isn't true because you cannot hold it. Dear lord.

So when faced with overwhelming evidence for evolution the responses we have had include:
1 - completely ignoring it
2 - writing it off without reading it
3 - imposing arbitrary constraints as to why it is not good enough
4 - more proof is somehow less proof
5 - nonsense statements like "You can not touch it"

The responses I had hoped for, asked for about twenty times, but received zero of:
1 - any considered response to the evidence whatsoever
2 - any valid criticism whatsoever
3 - any counter evidence whatsoever

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. I'm done here. This is a complete lost cause. You are wilfully ignorant and seem keen to stay that way. Creationism indoctrination rates are falling. Even the Vatican has accepted evolution since the 1950s. You are fighting a losing battle.

Astargath, I'm afraid you are on your own from here.

[Astargath]

I did just give you some "actual mutation" (emphasis added):

Hemoglobine already existed - it is the reason you can breath.... So well.... If it's mutated it would be faaaaar away in time, and to prove that one would need to prove the theory of evolution was true...

That is a circular logic. You can not be serious to give me such logical fallacies and be happy with it.......

Im fairly sure it is a fascinating reading..... but come on.... Just because someone that is aproved by the group think wrote that means absolutely and completly nothing if it is a pure example of classical group biases.

If scientist would wrote that your head should be chopped off and he would be peer-reviewed. Would you believe it?

That could be true that your head should be chopped off - but its highly unlikely.

First, it didn't. The paper describes how it evolved. You clearly didn't even read it.

Secondly, haemoglobin binds oxygen. To say it is the "reason you can breath" is a gross oversimplification that suggest you do not understand biology in addition to evolution.

Thirldy, it is not circular logic whatsoever. It is clear evidence of evolution, regardless of how hard you pretend it isnt'.

Fourthly, you dismiss it without even reading it. Hilarious.

Honestly, I thought we were about to make progess. Shame that your creationism indoctrination won't even allow you to consider the evidence. Seriously, you didn't even read it before deciding it was wrong. You are a lost cause.

1. Ok. Paper says it evolved - and it probably says - maybe, if that and this is true, and if something else is truth it might be like that or maybe not. Do you know what is a self-evident truth aka fact? It is not what you gave me to read. It is not a self-evident. You can not touch it hold it, feel it, or anyhow experience it, it is just a thought process and abstraction - it is not a fact how ever you would demand it to be. You need a very good dictionary before you even come close to anything that suppose to be science.
2. Oh... Now you just pick on words I use..... Ok I should say - the reason you can breath as long as you are having a spine and not be one of that rare fish that have not haemoglobine.... Maybe you do not have a spine... So maybe I should reconsider my assumption I was talking to mammal and a human.
3. Evidence of evolution? Can I see it? Can I in any case experience it or is it self-evident? No ofcourse it is not. To the contrary you should prove the haemoglobin HAVE NOT been created otherwise to prove evolution - that is a way harder task. Have your research stated that it is the only way to have haemoglobin is by mutation? I highly doubt it.
4. Have you read everything in the world? People can read finite things in the world I doubt you had even read it and you say that I have not. And you do not even want to comment a short sentence because it was from the website you do not like, and then you say I have not read the whole publication. You are a hipocrite to the highest degree.

Honestly, I thought you will not make any progress, since I saw you ignore anything that does not suit you presupposition. And so far - I am right about that.

Evolution is true because my god told me and I believe him until you can prove me wrong.

And now you told the truth - it is your religion. Bravo. I knew you could do it.

You now need to pick the true God and not Satan who is not a God at all, althouh he is sure about that like you all about evolution.

Actually the true god is Zeus, yours is actually Satan trying to deceive you.

[Przemax]

Evolution isn't true because you cannot hold it. Dear lord.

As an example of a fact. You know what example is right? Empiricism is the foundation of science mr. Science guy.

5 - nonsense statements like "You can not touch it"

As an example. Have I said about empiricism? Oh yeah I had.

No amount of evidence will ever be good enough for you.

Zero amount is not an amount.

You don't understand science or the scientific process.

Why do you say that? Some amount of reasoning that is not zero?

You don't accept logic and reason.

What kind of logic? That if it is written in the peer-review it is a fact as you have stated? Well... It might be a fact about something, but it is not a fact of what you make it to be. It might be a conditional fact like any sentence is. For example an x stated that evolution is true - that is a conditional fact that x had said that sentence. It does not say if what he stated is true. It must be self-evident to state that his statement was true.

Therefore, there is nothing I can say and no evidence I can present that will change your mind.

I asked for one and not even to prove evolution - to find a possitive mutation that bring new set of information to the table. The pre-requisite to make evolution even viable.

Even the Vatican has accepted evolution since the 1950s.

What kind of argument is that? Even a pope wears a hat. Why wouldnt you?

[idekai]

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

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

If the evolution teory is really true, it means the monkeys now have failure gen.
But i do agree with you, because monkeys are different with human and there's no way evolution teory is true from my oppinion