Evolution is a hoax

[Astargath]

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?

It's an argument to show that only the most extremist religious nutjobs still deny evolution.

[1714219492]

1714219492

[1714219492]

1714219492

[1714219492]

1714219492

[1714219492]

1714219492

[dediombeee]

duping for evolution. we are perfect creation, from the beginning we are born already have the mind and the mind. if man is a monkey, how does it fit the story of the book, that we are the first creatures to occupy the earth. I do not agree that apes are the beginning of humans

[BADecker]

It's an argument to show that only the most extremist religious nutjobs still deny evolution.

That's quite a profound religious statement you made there.

[Przemax]

It's an argument to show that only the most extremist religious nutjobs still deny evolution.

That's quite a profound religious statement you made there.

Yup. They make a "science" out of insulting the other people.

Ofcourse it is not science per se. It is an "art of being right" It should be double quotation mark there, as it is deeply duplicite language devised by Shoppenhauer. It is like the modus operandi of every evolutionist. I guess they use all of the intructions written there in our little dialogue.

This list is a list of a proffesional winner in dialogue by dirty dirty tricks:

The following lists the 38 stratagems described by Schopenhauer, in the order of their appearance in the book:

The Extension (Dana's Law)
The Homonymy
Generalize Your Opponent's Specific Statements
Conceal Your Game
False Propositions
Postulate What Has to Be Proved
Yield Admissions Through Questions
Make Your Opponent Angry
Questions in Detouring Order
Take Advantage of the Nay-Sayer
Generalize Admissions of Specific Cases
Choose Metaphors Favourable to Your Proposition
Agree to Reject the Counter-Proposition
Claim Victory Despite Defeat
Use Seemingly Absurd Propositions
Arguments Ad Hominem
Defense Through Subtle Distinction
Interrupt, Break, Divert the Dispute
Generalize the Matter, Then Argue Against it
Draw Conclusions Yourself
Meet Him With a Counter-Argument as Bad as His
Petitio principii
Make Him Exaggerate His Statement
State a False Syllogism
Find One Instance to the Contrary
Turn the Tables
Anger Indicates a Weak Point
Persuade the Audience, Not the Opponent
Diversion
This Is Beyond Me
Put His Thesis into Some Odious Category
Don't Let Him Off the Hook
Will Is More Effective Than Insight
Bewilder Your opponent by Mere Bombast
A Faulty Proof Refutes His Whole Position
Become Personal, Insulting, Rude (argumentum ad personam)

Defense Through Subtle Distinction - It is not one gene it is 15. It could be 100000. It does not matter at all. It is all to make other people and the audience more aggresive because saying things that might be true but are irrelevant to the talk is just rude.
 Or thet say - Hemoglobine is a part of breathing, and not breathing in stand alone. Yes the essential part in it - so it could not be without most of the case. Such a behaviour makes no sense but to derail your opponents by dirty tricks and to make him angry.

Put His Thesis into Some Odious Category - They use it allllll the time they lose the argument. They laugh out of God. I could be as well an atheist denying evolution- it would not change anything. It is dirty and foul trick.

Make Him Exaggerate His Statement - like - you deny all science.... Ofcourse noone can deny irrefutable statements if they are irrefutable - thats so dirty and foul what they do...

Draw Conclusions Yourself - You see - they say? You do not know science - they say. And do not describe why you draw that conclusion. Those conclusions are not based on the dialogue it is just foul.... Just a trickery of language of applying to audience to slander people. You cannot argue with conclusion being your argument it is just a foul trickery language.

Or they say - it is not a circular logic - and does not argue why had he concluded that. That was his conclusion - it is not the conclusion of out the definition of the word or his reasoning behind it. While if one is dependant on each other to prove itself is a circular logic - he should have explain one can stand alone and would still be true.

Arguments Ad Hominem - self explanatory

Will is More Effective Than Insight - describtion of it:

"There is another trick which, as soon as it is practicable, makes all others unnecessary. Instead of working on your opponent's intellect by argument, work on his will by motive; and he, and also the audience if they have similar interests, will at once be won over to your opinion, even though you got it out of a lunatic asylum; for, as a general rule, half an ounce of will is more effective than a hundred-weight of insight and intelligence."

It is like they read their manual and apply it... They say you just want this that or other thing. You just want this or that is why you do not agree with me. What? How do you know what do I want?

Those snakey people know people will to be in the winning club. So they appeal to their emotions saying - everyone thinks like we do... That is just satanic you know?

Claim Victory Despite Defeat - Not just dirty and foul. It is weird thing to do as well.

Those are their favourite.

[black indofod]

if evolution is a hoax .. then you will not grow up and there will be no such thing as this world

[Astargath]

It's an argument to show that only the most extremist religious nutjobs still deny evolution.

That's quite a profound religious statement you made there.

Yup. They make a "science" out of insulting the other people.

Ofcourse it is not science per se. It is an "art of being right" It should be double quotation mark there, as it is deeply duplicite language devised by Shoppenhauer. It is like the modus operandi of every evolutionist. I guess they use all of the intructions written there in our little dialogue.

This list is a list of a proffesional winner in dialogue by dirty dirty tricks:

The following lists the 38 stratagems described by Schopenhauer, in the order of their appearance in the book:

The Extension (Dana's Law)
The Homonymy
Generalize Your Opponent's Specific Statements
Conceal Your Game
False Propositions
Postulate What Has to Be Proved
Yield Admissions Through Questions
Make Your Opponent Angry
Questions in Detouring Order
Take Advantage of the Nay-Sayer
Generalize Admissions of Specific Cases
Choose Metaphors Favourable to Your Proposition
Agree to Reject the Counter-Proposition
Claim Victory Despite Defeat
Use Seemingly Absurd Propositions
Arguments Ad Hominem
Defense Through Subtle Distinction
Interrupt, Break, Divert the Dispute
Generalize the Matter, Then Argue Against it
Draw Conclusions Yourself
Meet Him With a Counter-Argument as Bad as His
Petitio principii
Make Him Exaggerate His Statement
State a False Syllogism
Find One Instance to the Contrary
Turn the Tables
Anger Indicates a Weak Point
Persuade the Audience, Not the Opponent
Diversion
This Is Beyond Me
Put His Thesis into Some Odious Category
Don't Let Him Off the Hook
Will Is More Effective Than Insight
Bewilder Your opponent by Mere Bombast
A Faulty Proof Refutes His Whole Position
Become Personal, Insulting, Rude (argumentum ad personam)

Defense Through Subtle Distinction - It is not one gene it is 15. It could be 100000. It does not matter at all. It is all to make other people and the audience more aggresive because saying things that might be true but are irrelevant to the talk is just rude.
 Or thet say - Hemoglobine is a part of breathing, and not breathing in stand alone. Yes the essential part in it - so it could not be without most of the case. Such a behaviour makes no sense but to derail your opponents by dirty tricks and to make him angry.

Put His Thesis into Some Odious Category - They use it allllll the time they lose the argument. They laugh out of God. I could be as well an atheist denying evolution- it would not change anything. It is dirty and foul trick.

Make Him Exaggerate His Statement - like - you deny all science.... Ofcourse noone can deny irrefutable statements if they are irrefutable - thats so dirty and foul what they do...

Draw Conclusions Yourself - You see - they say? You do not know science - they say. And do not describe why you draw that conclusion. Those conclusions are not based on the dialogue it is just foul.... Just a trickery of language of applying to audience to slander people. You cannot argue with conclusion being your argument it is just a foul trickery language.

Or they say - it is not a circular logic - and does not argue why had he concluded that. That was his conclusion - it is not the conclusion of out the definition of the word or his reasoning behind it. While if one is dependant on each other to prove itself is a circular logic - he should have explain one can stand alone and would still be true.

Arguments Ad Hominem - self explanatory

Will is More Effective Than Insight - describtion of it:

"There is another trick which, as soon as it is practicable, makes all others unnecessary. Instead of working on your opponent's intellect by argument, work on his will by motive; and he, and also the audience if they have similar interests, will at once be won over to your opinion, even though you got it out of a lunatic asylum; for, as a general rule, half an ounce of will is more effective than a hundred-weight of insight and intelligence."

It is like they read their manual and apply it... They say you just want this that or other thing. You just want this or that is why you do not agree with me. What? How do you know what do I want?

Those snakey people know people will to be in the winning club. So they appeal to their emotions saying - everyone thinks like we do... That is just satanic you know?

Claim Victory Despite Defeat - Not just dirty and foul. It is weird thing to do as well.

Those are their favourite.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1917510.msg31280206#msg31280206

get rekt.

[Przemax]

It's an argument to show that only the most extremist religious nutjobs still deny evolution.

That's quite a profound religious statement you made there.

Yup. They make a "science" out of insulting the other people.

Ofcourse it is not science per se. It is an "art of being right" It should be double quotation mark there, as it is deeply duplicite language devised by Shoppenhauer. It is like the modus operandi of every evolutionist. I guess they use all of the intructions written there in our little dialogue.

This list is a list of a proffesional winner in dialogue by dirty dirty tricks:

The following lists the 38 stratagems described by Schopenhauer, in the order of their appearance in the book:

The Extension (Dana's Law)
The Homonymy
Generalize Your Opponent's Specific Statements
Conceal Your Game
False Propositions
Postulate What Has to Be Proved
Yield Admissions Through Questions
Make Your Opponent Angry
Questions in Detouring Order
Take Advantage of the Nay-Sayer
Generalize Admissions of Specific Cases
Choose Metaphors Favourable to Your Proposition
Agree to Reject the Counter-Proposition
Claim Victory Despite Defeat
Use Seemingly Absurd Propositions
Arguments Ad Hominem
Defense Through Subtle Distinction
Interrupt, Break, Divert the Dispute
Generalize the Matter, Then Argue Against it
Draw Conclusions Yourself
Meet Him With a Counter-Argument as Bad as His
Petitio principii
Make Him Exaggerate His Statement
State a False Syllogism
Find One Instance to the Contrary
Turn the Tables
Anger Indicates a Weak Point
Persuade the Audience, Not the Opponent
Diversion
This Is Beyond Me
Put His Thesis into Some Odious Category
Don't Let Him Off the Hook
Will Is More Effective Than Insight
Bewilder Your opponent by Mere Bombast
A Faulty Proof Refutes His Whole Position
Become Personal, Insulting, Rude (argumentum ad personam)

Defense Through Subtle Distinction - It is not one gene it is 15. It could be 100000. It does not matter at all. It is all to make other people and the audience more aggresive because saying things that might be true but are irrelevant to the talk is just rude.
 Or thet say - Hemoglobine is a part of breathing, and not breathing in stand alone. Yes the essential part in it - so it could not be without most of the case. Such a behaviour makes no sense but to derail your opponents by dirty tricks and to make him angry.

Put His Thesis into Some Odious Category - They use it allllll the time they lose the argument. They laugh out of God. I could be as well an atheist denying evolution- it would not change anything. It is dirty and foul trick.

Make Him Exaggerate His Statement - like - you deny all science.... Ofcourse noone can deny irrefutable statements if they are irrefutable - thats so dirty and foul what they do...

Draw Conclusions Yourself - You see - they say? You do not know science - they say. And do not describe why you draw that conclusion. Those conclusions are not based on the dialogue it is just foul.... Just a trickery of language of applying to audience to slander people. You cannot argue with conclusion being your argument it is just a foul trickery language.

Or they say - it is not a circular logic - and does not argue why had he concluded that. That was his conclusion - it is not the conclusion of out the definition of the word or his reasoning behind it. While if one is dependant on each other to prove itself is a circular logic - he should have explain one can stand alone and would still be true.

Arguments Ad Hominem - self explanatory

Will is More Effective Than Insight - describtion of it:

"There is another trick which, as soon as it is practicable, makes all others unnecessary. Instead of working on your opponent's intellect by argument, work on his will by motive; and he, and also the audience if they have similar interests, will at once be won over to your opinion, even though you got it out of a lunatic asylum; for, as a general rule, half an ounce of will is more effective than a hundred-weight of insight and intelligence."

It is like they read their manual and apply it... They say you just want this that or other thing. You just want this or that is why you do not agree with me. What? How do you know what do I want?

Those snakey people know people will to be in the winning club. So they appeal to their emotions saying - everyone thinks like we do... That is just satanic you know?

Claim Victory Despite Defeat - Not just dirty and foul. It is weird thing to do as well.

Those are their favourite.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1917510.msg31280206#msg31280206

get rekt.

Generalize Your Opponent's Specific Statements
 - now you have made that. Some another tricks from sleeve?

I was asking for specifical example of a new information and not a general ability - of it could happen. You just basicly said - it could be probable, maybe, that organism will create something useful. It never stated specificly - that something useful would be made by substracting from other thing useful. It is just completly vague.

I was very specific - and you just make it awfully and confusingly generalised. BTW I had rebuked you generalisation that it is unjust.

You just generalise when I asked for an example - that is a trick on your part.

I suggest to everybody talking with Astargath to have that list of tricks prepared to know what he had just done - for your own self defence.

[Astargath]

It's an argument to show that only the most extremist religious nutjobs still deny evolution.

That's quite a profound religious statement you made there.

Yup. They make a "science" out of insulting the other people.

Ofcourse it is not science per se. It is an "art of being right" It should be double quotation mark there, as it is deeply duplicite language devised by Shoppenhauer. It is like the modus operandi of every evolutionist. I guess they use all of the intructions written there in our little dialogue.

This list is a list of a proffesional winner in dialogue by dirty dirty tricks:

The following lists the 38 stratagems described by Schopenhauer, in the order of their appearance in the book:

The Extension (Dana's Law)
The Homonymy
Generalize Your Opponent's Specific Statements
Conceal Your Game
False Propositions
Postulate What Has to Be Proved
Yield Admissions Through Questions
Make Your Opponent Angry
Questions in Detouring Order
Take Advantage of the Nay-Sayer
Generalize Admissions of Specific Cases
Choose Metaphors Favourable to Your Proposition
Agree to Reject the Counter-Proposition
Claim Victory Despite Defeat
Use Seemingly Absurd Propositions
Arguments Ad Hominem
Defense Through Subtle Distinction
Interrupt, Break, Divert the Dispute
Generalize the Matter, Then Argue Against it
Draw Conclusions Yourself
Meet Him With a Counter-Argument as Bad as His
Petitio principii
Make Him Exaggerate His Statement
State a False Syllogism
Find One Instance to the Contrary
Turn the Tables
Anger Indicates a Weak Point
Persuade the Audience, Not the Opponent
Diversion
This Is Beyond Me
Put His Thesis into Some Odious Category
Don't Let Him Off the Hook
Will Is More Effective Than Insight
Bewilder Your opponent by Mere Bombast
A Faulty Proof Refutes His Whole Position
Become Personal, Insulting, Rude (argumentum ad personam)

Defense Through Subtle Distinction - It is not one gene it is 15. It could be 100000. It does not matter at all. It is all to make other people and the audience more aggresive because saying things that might be true but are irrelevant to the talk is just rude.
 Or thet say - Hemoglobine is a part of breathing, and not breathing in stand alone. Yes the essential part in it - so it could not be without most of the case. Such a behaviour makes no sense but to derail your opponents by dirty tricks and to make him angry.

Put His Thesis into Some Odious Category - They use it allllll the time they lose the argument. They laugh out of God. I could be as well an atheist denying evolution- it would not change anything. It is dirty and foul trick.

Make Him Exaggerate His Statement - like - you deny all science.... Ofcourse noone can deny irrefutable statements if they are irrefutable - thats so dirty and foul what they do...

Draw Conclusions Yourself - You see - they say? You do not know science - they say. And do not describe why you draw that conclusion. Those conclusions are not based on the dialogue it is just foul.... Just a trickery of language of applying to audience to slander people. You cannot argue with conclusion being your argument it is just a foul trickery language.

Or they say - it is not a circular logic - and does not argue why had he concluded that. That was his conclusion - it is not the conclusion of out the definition of the word or his reasoning behind it. While if one is dependant on each other to prove itself is a circular logic - he should have explain one can stand alone and would still be true.

Arguments Ad Hominem - self explanatory

Will is More Effective Than Insight - describtion of it:

"There is another trick which, as soon as it is practicable, makes all others unnecessary. Instead of working on your opponent's intellect by argument, work on his will by motive; and he, and also the audience if they have similar interests, will at once be won over to your opinion, even though you got it out of a lunatic asylum; for, as a general rule, half an ounce of will is more effective than a hundred-weight of insight and intelligence."

It is like they read their manual and apply it... They say you just want this that or other thing. You just want this or that is why you do not agree with me. What? How do you know what do I want?

Those snakey people know people will to be in the winning club. So they appeal to their emotions saying - everyone thinks like we do... That is just satanic you know?

Claim Victory Despite Defeat - Not just dirty and foul. It is weird thing to do as well.

Those are their favourite.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1917510.msg31280206#msg31280206

get rekt.

Generalize Your Opponent's Specific Statements
 - now you have made that. Some another tricks from sleeve?

I was asking for specifical example of a new information and not a general ability - of it could happen. You just basicly said - it could be probable, maybe, that organism will create something useful. It never stated specificly - that something useful would be made by substracting from other thing useful. It is just completly vague.

I was very specific - and you just make it awfully and confusingly generalised. BTW I had rebuked you generalisation that it is unjust.

You just generalise when I asked for an example - that is a trick on your part.

I suggest to everybody talking with Astargath to have that list of tricks prepared to know what he had just done - for your own self defence.

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.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information/

[Paul23]

evolution is a hoax?,,no i dont believe that human came from apes couse until now the missing link does not exist to prove that human came from apes,, so that im only believe in god that human create by god using a dust,,GENESIS;1;26 god said let us make man in our image after are likeness ,,adam and eve is the first men and woman created by god,,,

[Crazygreek]

evolution is a hoax?,,no i dont believe that human came from apes couse until now the missing link does not exist to prove that human came from apes,, so that im only believe in god that human create by god using a dust,,GENESIS;1;26 god said let us make man in our image after are likeness ,,adam and eve is the first men and woman created by god,,,

Same, people was never apes. We just lost our hair on body because it wasn't necessary for living. I think that many stuff will happen to us in future.

[BADecker]

It's an argument to show that only the most extremist religious nutjobs still deny evolution.

That's quite a profound religious statement you made there.

Yup. They make a "science" out of insulting the other people.

Ofcourse it is not science per se. It is an "art of being right" It should be double quotation mark there, as it is deeply duplicite language devised by Shoppenhauer. It is like the modus operandi of every evolutionist. I guess they use all of the intructions written there in our little dialogue.

This list is a list of a proffesional winner in dialogue by dirty dirty tricks:

The following lists the 38 stratagems described by Schopenhauer, in the order of their appearance in the book:

The Extension (Dana's Law)
The Homonymy
Generalize Your Opponent's Specific Statements
Conceal Your Game
False Propositions
Postulate What Has to Be Proved
Yield Admissions Through Questions
Make Your Opponent Angry
Questions in Detouring Order
Take Advantage of the Nay-Sayer
Generalize Admissions of Specific Cases
Choose Metaphors Favourable to Your Proposition
Agree to Reject the Counter-Proposition
Claim Victory Despite Defeat
Use Seemingly Absurd Propositions
Arguments Ad Hominem
Defense Through Subtle Distinction
Interrupt, Break, Divert the Dispute
Generalize the Matter, Then Argue Against it
Draw Conclusions Yourself
Meet Him With a Counter-Argument as Bad as His
Petitio principii
Make Him Exaggerate His Statement
State a False Syllogism
Find One Instance to the Contrary
Turn the Tables
Anger Indicates a Weak Point
Persuade the Audience, Not the Opponent
Diversion
This Is Beyond Me
Put His Thesis into Some Odious Category
Don't Let Him Off the Hook
Will Is More Effective Than Insight
Bewilder Your opponent by Mere Bombast
A Faulty Proof Refutes His Whole Position
Become Personal, Insulting, Rude (argumentum ad personam)

Defense Through Subtle Distinction - It is not one gene it is 15. It could be 100000. It does not matter at all. It is all to make other people and the audience more aggresive because saying things that might be true but are irrelevant to the talk is just rude.
 Or thet say - Hemoglobine is a part of breathing, and not breathing in stand alone. Yes the essential part in it - so it could not be without most of the case. Such a behaviour makes no sense but to derail your opponents by dirty tricks and to make him angry.

Put His Thesis into Some Odious Category - They use it allllll the time they lose the argument. They laugh out of God. I could be as well an atheist denying evolution- it would not change anything. It is dirty and foul trick.

Make Him Exaggerate His Statement - like - you deny all science.... Ofcourse noone can deny irrefutable statements if they are irrefutable - thats so dirty and foul what they do...

Draw Conclusions Yourself - You see - they say? You do not know science - they say. And do not describe why you draw that conclusion. Those conclusions are not based on the dialogue it is just foul.... Just a trickery of language of applying to audience to slander people. You cannot argue with conclusion being your argument it is just a foul trickery language.

Or they say - it is not a circular logic - and does not argue why had he concluded that. That was his conclusion - it is not the conclusion of out the definition of the word or his reasoning behind it. While if one is dependant on each other to prove itself is a circular logic - he should have explain one can stand alone and would still be true.

Arguments Ad Hominem - self explanatory

Will is More Effective Than Insight - describtion of it:

"There is another trick which, as soon as it is practicable, makes all others unnecessary. Instead of working on your opponent's intellect by argument, work on his will by motive; and he, and also the audience if they have similar interests, will at once be won over to your opinion, even though you got it out of a lunatic asylum; for, as a general rule, half an ounce of will is more effective than a hundred-weight of insight and intelligence."

It is like they read their manual and apply it... They say you just want this that or other thing. You just want this or that is why you do not agree with me. What? How do you know what do I want?

Those snakey people know people will to be in the winning club. So they appeal to their emotions saying - everyone thinks like we do... That is just satanic you know?

Claim Victory Despite Defeat - Not just dirty and foul. It is weird thing to do as well.

Those are their favourite.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1917510.msg31280206#msg31280206

get rekt.

Generalize Your Opponent's Specific Statements
 - now you have made that. Some another tricks from sleeve?

I was asking for specifical example of a new information and not a general ability - of it could happen. You just basicly said - it could be probable, maybe, that organism will create something useful. It never stated specificly - that something useful would be made by substracting from other thing useful. It is just completly vague.

I was very specific - and you just make it awfully and confusingly generalised. BTW I had rebuked you generalisation that it is unjust.

You just generalise when I asked for an example - that is a trick on your part.

I suggest to everybody talking with Astargath to have that list of tricks prepared to know what he had just done - for your own self defence.

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.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information/

Still lacking that one little word, "proof."   

[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.

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)

That's the process of adaptation and simple change-in-a-controlled-environment. It's not evolution-theory evolution. Notice that it is not proof for evolution. Somebody would have said so if it were.

Evolution is a hoax.

[Przemax]

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)

Ok. Thanks. But how would you prove it is not the way I have told you that it could be? It could be a reverse engineering like with the car. You could make a car faster if you would scrap everything and leave only engine and the wheels.

Why are you so sure that the yeast living in the lower sugar enviroment gives any new information? Maybe it is just a decrease of information making some function of life weaker in order for the other to be stronger? It is like saying - we have created a man so full of energy and vigour, because we had cut off half of his brain. No wonder - you made his brain half dependend on energy that he could spend elsewhere.

Do not get me wrong. I do not want to be picky at all costs. It leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Ofcourse you can always argue with that, that it does not leave the room to argue. Go ahead.

Ok you give me materials to read I will give you them as well and lets comment them ok? Why should I waste my time if you are not wasting yours?

Genetic Entropy and The Mystery of the Genome by Dr. John Sanford,
In the Beginning Was Information by Dr. Werner Gitt
The Biotic Message by Walter ReMine

hexose transport genes had duplicated several times

Ooookkk..... You duplicated the amount of existing genes... How had that make any new information? It just made more of the same. I do not see what are you implying more of the same is something new?

Do not get shy. Im just asking questions.

For instance, it has been shown a simple change in gene activity in sea squirts can turn their one-chambered heart into a working two-chambered one. Surely this counts as increasing information?

But that one is interesting but if understand it right - the mutation just stops some enzymes to form the heart. So forming the heart is information that is blocked by some enzyme.

Is it increase in information? According to their sources ummm rather not as they say that formation of the heart is stopped by some process, so one should just stop the stopping and you have made what you want.

You would think I am picky maybe...... well...... no. I actually want to know the truth and the truth is sad to you. It is not a new information since it need to be stopped. It is like a guy that wants to run and the other is holding him up. If you would make one guy that is holding up not to hold you decrease the number of people and not give any more people.

Explain it to me. Maybe I had read that wrongly - it was highly technical language in the link they had given.

The result is a hybrid protein called TRIM5-CypA,

A cluster protein is like a cluster of LDL cholesterol. Technicly for the sake of the lab purposes you can name it something else, but it is still the same thing, but it for some reason - probably oxidation - had clustered. If one would say to me that making sick animal with increased oxidation is a good thing I would think he is probably mad. I am assuming those scientists are not mad.

The list of examples could go on and on, but consider this. Most mutations can be reversed by subsequent mutations – a DNA base can be turned from an A to a G and then back to an A again, for instance. In fact, reverse mutation or “reversion” is common.

Theory of evolution claims that the changes cannot go backward. So did the "evolution" sciences had just disproven the evolution claims? Seems like they did. It destroyed almost the whole premise of evolution being vaild.

Those evolutionists must stick to one version. In the law, if many witnesses would say different version of the same story, that would mean their stories:

you know what.

It does not mean it is impossible I could understand where are you coming from and I agree. Evolution might be possible, but well... Seems like it is not true. I might be wrong tho.

[MJK_Anfaenger]

you are right... only GOD is the real explanation...
.
.
.
Ironic Mode OFF
.
.
.
COME ON! your comment is a joke, isn't?

Since evolution is a hoax, God is the natural other choice. Somebody should develop an alternative to God that makes sense. Evolution doesn't.

Evolution is a hoax... or do you have even one proven fact for evolution?

Sooo... which one? Brahma? Jehova? Zeus? One of the other thousands of deities that mankind have made up? Err, I mean, believed in...

Tricky question? Tricky answer - the real one.

The God that says he is the only one. And there is only on such God that says so. Called a One God or tetragrammaton.

I take it back. You are equally clueless.

But.... but I thought we are smart evolutionists. Aren't we? Aren't we smart? I think you are very smart. Teach me.

Oh hey, didn't see your reply. So, let me get this straight. Scripture, according to which a god says it is the only god, is evidence enough for you to decide whether a god is the God? Because this deity of yours says it is the only one, it is? Did I get this right? Because if so, I wonder what you think of Allah. In the Quran it's frequently stated that Allah is the only god and that there is no god other than him. Muslims consider the Quran to be the word of God. So, from your point of view, could it also have been Allah that created everything? Really curious to read your answer.

[wieseno]

Definitely evolution is a hoax. I have no doubt whatsoever. The world is not 6000 yrs old (has to be billions) . The "let there be light " is the 6000yrs ago.

[ranz1123]

Evolution is a fact and the theory of evolution is what explains the fact.
Religious beliefs contradicts the theory of evolution.

[Przemax]

you are right... only GOD is the real explanation...
.
.
.
Ironic Mode OFF
.
.
.
COME ON! your comment is a joke, isn't?

Since evolution is a hoax, God is the natural other choice. Somebody should develop an alternative to God that makes sense. Evolution doesn't.

Evolution is a hoax... or do you have even one proven fact for evolution?

Sooo... which one? Brahma? Jehova? Zeus? One of the other thousands of deities that mankind have made up? Err, I mean, believed in...

Tricky question? Tricky answer - the real one.

The God that says he is the only one. And there is only on such God that says so. Called a One God or tetragrammaton.

I take it back. You are equally clueless.

But.... but I thought we are smart evolutionists. Aren't we? Aren't we smart? I think you are very smart. Teach me.

Oh hey, didn't see your reply. So, let me get this straight. Scripture, according to which a god says it is the only god, is evidence enough for you to decide whether a god is the God? Because this deity of yours says it is the only one, it is? Did I get this right? Because if so, I wonder what you think of Allah. In the Quran it's frequently stated that Allah is the only god and that there is no god other than him. Muslims consider the Quran to be the word of God. So, from your point of view, could it also have been Allah that created everything? Really curious to read your answer.

Ofcourse it is not the only reason. I believe it because the theism is the most proven theory in the history of the world. Not a single thing contradicts it. The most briliant people around the world were absolutely sure theism is flawless. I think almost all of them.

You just asked what God? I told - you the special and the Only one that makes him distinct.

You asked a tricky question and you had tricky answer.

Later on you say something that I have not said. Wow. How sincere is that?

What I think of Allah? It is a false zaratrustrian moon god. You can find it if you search a bit. Do you even know what most of the Quran is? It is just a Bible that was gutted out and rewritten to fit the needs of their people... How Godly is that? The other part is some silly ought to have and history of the arab nation. It is not just my opinion - find out about it.

What I think about muslims? Children of the error just as much as every religious nutjobs.

Speaking about muslim - do you know it is a muslim who first had the idea about evolution? It was XIII century or so If I am not mistaken. They - Im speaking about muslims were 100% fine with it.

Almost no religion. Actually I think none says anything wrong about evolution. So do not construct a strawmen ok? They love this additional mythology.

Christ requires no religion.

You are deeply confused by this neo-ateistic ignorant pop-culture in your terms you are using.

[Astargath]

you are right... only GOD is the real explanation...
.
.
.
Ironic Mode OFF
.
.
.
COME ON! your comment is a joke, isn't?

Since evolution is a hoax, God is the natural other choice. Somebody should develop an alternative to God that makes sense. Evolution doesn't.

Evolution is a hoax... or do you have even one proven fact for evolution?

Sooo... which one? Brahma? Jehova? Zeus? One of the other thousands of deities that mankind have made up? Err, I mean, believed in...

Tricky question? Tricky answer - the real one.

The God that says he is the only one. And there is only on such God that says so. Called a One God or tetragrammaton.

I take it back. You are equally clueless.

But.... but I thought we are smart evolutionists. Aren't we? Aren't we smart? I think you are very smart. Teach me.

Oh hey, didn't see your reply. So, let me get this straight. Scripture, according to which a god says it is the only god, is evidence enough for you to decide whether a god is the God? Because this deity of yours says it is the only one, it is? Did I get this right? Because if so, I wonder what you think of Allah. In the Quran it's frequently stated that Allah is the only god and that there is no god other than him. Muslims consider the Quran to be the word of God. So, from your point of view, could it also have been Allah that created everything? Really curious to read your answer.

Ofcourse it is not the only reason. I believe it because the theism is the most proven theory in the history of the world. Not a single thing contradicts it. The most briliant people around the world were absolutely sure theism is flawless. I think almost all of them.

You just asked what God? I told - you the special and the Only one that makes him distinct.

You asked a tricky question and you had tricky answer.

Later on you say something that I have not said. Wow. How sincere is that?

What I think of Allah? It is a false zaratrustrian moon god. You can find it if you search a bit. Do you even know what most of the Quran is? It is just a Bible that was gutted out and rewritten to fit the needs of their people... How Godly is that? The other part is some silly ought to have and history of the arab nation. It is not just my opinion - find out about it.

What I think about muslims? Children of the error just as much as every religious nutjobs.

Speaking about muslim - do you know it is a muslim who first had the idea about evolution? It was XIII century or so If I am not mistaken. They - Im speaking about muslims were 100% fine with it.

Almost no religion. Actually I think none says anything wrong about evolution. So do not construct a strawmen ok? They love this additional mythology.

Christ requires no religion.

You are deeply confused by this neo-ateistic ignorant pop-culture in your terms you are using.

Rofl, you are funny. ''most proven theory'' definitely not a scientific theory first of all. ''Theism is broadly defined as the belief in the existence of the Supreme Being or deities.'' Belief =/= proven.

''Not a single thing contradicts it'' Not a single thing proves it you mean? I can find plenty of flaws in the bible and god's logic, all the rape and death is also contradictory of the description of god then again I'm not going to go into detail, you already made your position clear, you are obviously delusional and nothing can be done about that unfortunately.

[Przemax]

you are right... only GOD is the real explanation...
.
.
.
Ironic Mode OFF
.
.
.
COME ON! your comment is a joke, isn't?

Since evolution is a hoax, God is the natural other choice. Somebody should develop an alternative to God that makes sense. Evolution doesn't.

Evolution is a hoax... or do you have even one proven fact for evolution?

Sooo... which one? Brahma? Jehova? Zeus? One of the other thousands of deities that mankind have made up? Err, I mean, believed in...

Tricky question? Tricky answer - the real one.

The God that says he is the only one. And there is only on such God that says so. Called a One God or tetragrammaton.

I take it back. You are equally clueless.

But.... but I thought we are smart evolutionists. Aren't we? Aren't we smart? I think you are very smart. Teach me.

Oh hey, didn't see your reply. So, let me get this straight. Scripture, according to which a god says it is the only god, is evidence enough for you to decide whether a god is the God? Because this deity of yours says it is the only one, it is? Did I get this right? Because if so, I wonder what you think of Allah. In the Quran it's frequently stated that Allah is the only god and that there is no god other than him. Muslims consider the Quran to be the word of God. So, from your point of view, could it also have been Allah that created everything? Really curious to read your answer.

Ofcourse it is not the only reason. I believe it because the theism is the most proven theory in the history of the world. Not a single thing contradicts it. The most briliant people around the world were absolutely sure theism is flawless. I think almost all of them.

You just asked what God? I told - you the special and the Only one that makes him distinct.

You asked a tricky question and you had tricky answer.

Later on you say something that I have not said. Wow. How sincere is that?

What I think of Allah? It is a false zaratrustrian moon god. You can find it if you search a bit. Do you even know what most of the Quran is? It is just a Bible that was gutted out and rewritten to fit the needs of their people... How Godly is that? The other part is some silly ought to have and history of the arab nation. It is not just my opinion - find out about it.

What I think about muslims? Children of the error just as much as every religious nutjobs.

Speaking about muslim - do you know it is a muslim who first had the idea about evolution? It was XIII century or so If I am not mistaken. They - Im speaking about muslims were 100% fine with it.

Almost no religion. Actually I think none says anything wrong about evolution. So do not construct a strawmen ok? They love this additional mythology.

Christ requires no religion.

You are deeply confused by this neo-ateistic ignorant pop-culture in your terms you are using.

Rofl, you are funny. ''most proven theory'' definitely not a scientific theory first of all. ''Theism is broadly defined as the belief in the existence of the Supreme Being or deities.'' Belief =/= proven.

''Not a single thing contradicts it'' Not a single thing proves it you mean? I can find plenty of flaws in the bible and god's logic, all the rape and death is also contradictory of the description of god then again I'm not going to go into detail, you already made your position clear, you are obviously delusional and nothing can be done about that unfortunately.

You would not know what is scientific even if I would flash it over your face. Mmmk? All you neo-atheist pop-cultural teens know is to throw science here and there and have absolutely no idea what are their principles ok?

In science nothing is written in stone. You can only disprove things. Ofcourse something can be repeatable. That is one of the principles of science. Im sorry... noone else is God and could repeat the work of creation. So you ask impossible. But hey - if noone had done the assumed impossible - doesn't that prove God? Yeah it does. It proves that only him can do it. By elimination that is a BIIIIIG prove.

But noone in their right mind could say - God have not done it. Why do you try? Are you not out of touch with reality? Why do you even try to do things that noone in the world can do? To disprove God? What is your gain in that insane task?

[BADecker]

The Fraud of Evolution

...

Another example worth mentioning is that of the peppered moths. “Most peppered moths were light-colored in the early part of the 19th century, but during the Industrial Revolution in Britain the moth populations near heavily polluted cities became predominantly ‘melanic,’ or dark-colored. … [E]xperiments suggested that predatory birds ate light-colored moths when they became more conspicuous on pollution-darkened tree trunks, leaving the dark-colored variety to survive and reproduce” (Wells, op. cit.).

To demonstrate the camouflage of the dark moths, many books, when explaining evolution, have pictures of peppered moths on tree trunks. The dark moths blend in and the light moths stand out clearly. This is supposed to prove the theory of “natural selection.” But fraud and lies permeate this deception as well.

As ridiculous as it may seem, the pictures are themselves faked. Peppered moths do not land on tree trunks in nature; they light on the undersurface of small horizontal branches higher in the trees. One researcher (Cyril Clarke) noted that in 25 years of observation he had only seen one peppered moth on a tree trunk. So where did the pictures of peppered moths on tree trunks come from? Dead moths were glued or pinned to the tree trunks. This fact has been known since about 1980, and still the faked pictures are being published in textbooks as proof of evolution.

...

Read more at https://www.thetrumpet.com/594-the-fraud-of-evolution.